April 13, 2022
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. L No. 45
The
House met at 10 a.m.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
Government
Business
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Motion 6.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay, that notwithstanding Standing
Order 63, this House shall not proceed with Private Members' Day on Wednesday,
April 13, 2022, which so happens to be today, but shall instead meet at 2 p.m.
today for Routine Proceedings to conduct government business.
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.'
The
motion is carried.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I call from the
Order Paper, Motion 1.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Lake
Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
It is
always an honour to stand, as so many of my colleagues have said, whenever we do
get a chance to speak to represent our district. I am very proud to say I
represent the District of Lake Melville in Central Labrador. It is a great
honour and I look forward to continuing to represent those good people.
There
are so many issues to speak about when we're talking about a budget today. I
felt it most important, frankly, really to deal with life itself and the health
care system, some of the challenges that we're having, some of the hopes that we
have for the future. In particular, I wanted to focus on a couple aspects of it,
one of which is the Medical Transportation Assistance Program.
This is
one that I have spoken about several times, my colleagues standing here beside
me from Labrador, we've also spoken about it; we've asked questions. There have
been some improvements, but, frankly, Speaker, it has been and remains
incredibly challenging for our district to deal with.
When you
think about the provision of health care in any jurisdiction in our country,
we're very proud of the fact that we have universal health care and if someone
is sick, the state, the government, is there to support you and that you won't
be left out in the cold, you'll actually be supported. But when it comes to
living in the far-flung districts of our great province, such as in Lake
Melville, Labrador, I can tell you it is incredibly frustrating, though, to see
how this is actually implemented.
So the
Medical Transportation Assistance Program is designed to support those who need
to travel for medical services that they cannot procure, they cannot access in
their own home community. And for Labrador, which is a three-day drive away or
an extremely expensive airplane ticket, it is very frustrating to see the
situations that we encounter on a day-to-day basis.
I can
tell you, it is really a day-to-day basis. I need to again thank my constituency
assistant Bonnie Learning, a very experienced CA – I call her the SACA, the
super awesome CA – because she is, I would say, almost predominantly preoccupied
with trying to find ways to get residents who need services here to St. John's
or on occasion to Corner Brook or less frequently to St. Anthony.
What I
wanted to do was talk about some examples just by way of why this is such a
frustration and why, myself and my colleagues from Torngat Mountains and
Labrador West, we continue to get on our feet to speak to it. I'm just going to
give a few examples.
First of
all, I'm just going to outline some aspects of the program. So as a result of
some improvement last year, constituents now who need to travel – if it's their
first flight out, the first $1,000 is covered and then 50 per cent of the
expenses thereafter. If they choose to drive out, the first 500 kilometres now
are deductible and thereafter there is government support for all those
kilometres.
Remember, I said it's a three-day drive and/or an expensive airplane ticket and
that also includes, of course, the situations where you may need to have an
escort, depending on your medical condition and what kind of condition you're
going to be in when you return from whatever treatment you're procuring.
I'm
going to talk about a couple of examples just so I can underline what we are
dealing with. I had Bonnie sketch some of these out for me. So I am going to
read a little bit at verbatim.
Here's
an example. We had a constituent who had a specialist appointment earlier this
month. They did not have any private insurance so they had changed the
appointment – get this, they had an appointment last year, so they had to change
the appointment so they would have a 12-month gap since they last used the
program to when they could avail of it again, because government will only
provide you with your first trip out, that $1,000 plus the 50 per cent.
So for
them to be able to afford what it would cost them, they had to push their
appointment out. Unfortunately, they informed Bonnie yesterday, informed our
office yesterday, that even with the pushing this appointment out so that they
could avail of it now, they find themselves still unable to pay the difference.
Can you imagine?
So guess
what they have done? They've cancelled the appointment. They are not coming from
Lake Melville to St. John's for medical treatment because they can't even afford
the difference.
Now this
is where I could really get mad because – and I don't want any anger or sarcasm
or cynicism to be levelled at any of the people that we deal with. I can tell
you the folks in the Medical Transportation Assistance Program are fantastic.
They have gone above and beyond the call of duty so often.
For
example, some of the issues that we encounter sometimes when you're making an
application is you need 10 business days. Well, guess what? People often
encounter a medical condition that doesn't tell you 10 days from now you're
going to need to be seeking financial support. This particular situation is such
that they couldn't even avail of the trip so they have pushed this out and
they've had to cancel the specialist appointment. They just let us know that.
Another
senior constituent was medevaced to St. John's last year for cardiac care.
I've
learned so much about the health care system and I have often mentioned that I
feel all of us in this room, frankly, need to have a primer, probably as
important as any orientation in this Legislature, for how the health care system
works; how we make decisions; how things are keyed up; how the regional health
authorities all work together, by the way.
Because
as many of us know – and I bet I can look around the room now – if you have
represented anybody with a cardiac condition, with the exception of the urban
MHAs, but if you represented anyone with a cardiac condition, you know there is
a daily triage that involves – you might have had a heart attack, for example,
but guess what? You may not be in serious enough condition that you need to be
medevaced immediately down here to St. John's for that treatment. So you could
be stacked up, just much like coming into Heathrow, with a bunch of planes
circling around the end location, sitting in a bed in Happy Valley-Goose Bay at
the Labrador Health Centre for up to four weeks, I think, are some of the
records that I've encountered. Somebody with a cardiac condition waiting to get
up into the queue. It is a strange twist of fate when you often see a situation
where you're sick, but not sick enough to jump to the front of the queue. Talk
about frustrating.
So here
is an example; this person was a cardiac patient and they actually had a very
serious situation. They were medevaced here to St. John's. When they were
released they were actually in pretty good shape, but guess what? They did not
have the financial means to return back to Happy Valley-Goose Bay. So they find
themselves stranded.
Now, we
can still avail of the MTAP system, but this is where I was going with my
thought earlier. You require 10 business days to apply. So you wake up in the
morning and you're in a hospital bed. They great folks here at the Health
Sciences Centre say: Okay, you can be discharged today. You're good to go. Well,
guess what? We are not going to help them get back to Labrador. The MTAP is
there, but to apply for the financial support for them to go back they need to
wait 10 business days. It just defies the logic in some of the policy aspects.
We do
have air ambulances, when they're working, with a crew, a pilot and a plan that
is available that could go back. It is just some coordination here could save so
much heartache, so much financial struggle that so many of us deal with.
This is
another one that I'll speak about. A constituent who has myriad health issues
that requires visits with multiple specialists, including oncologists; no
private insurance; has used MTAP several times since 2021 to get to specialists
appointments; struggles to pay copay amounts at expense of going without other
necessary things, such a delaying bills. It is literally a matter of life or
death to get to the appointments.
I do not
know how this woman keeps a smile on her face. She is from Labrador. She is
trying to remain in Labrador. She requires attention here in St. John's. We are
constantly helping her with her expense claims, her applications. She is
literally scraping cash together, and she's fighting for her life. This is the
kind of stuff that pulls us down right into the personal connection with our
constituents. And while we feel we can help them, we can't solve these amazing
problems. Again, I know the minister well. I know he's doing his best, but I've
got to say there's just so much more that needs to be done.
Here's
another example of another senior constituent, medevaced out to St. John's for
cardiac care. He was able to get back on his own, but the fact that three of the
four constituents outlined here were left to essentially their own devices once
discharged speaks to this great flaw in the medical and MTAP system.
You
know, I'm going to point out, because I've heard the Leader of the Official
Opposition say this on many occasions and I've heard that party say on many
occasions – I've been tinkering and lobbying hard, can we get some additional
dollars for this, can we do some things like that – I've heard the Opposition
say this should be 100 per cent covered. And I'm with you. I am so with you now.
It is time –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P. TRIMPER:
What are we doing here? I get
it. I know that after I sit down, others will speak – and I watched the news
last night. We are dominated now with doctors, medical professionals leaving our
rural parts of our province. One way that we can solve this is, again, if we
can't get the services delivered in our districts, let's get the people who need
those services to where they are. We shouldn't have to pay for that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P. TRIMPER:
We are paying for it.
One more
I want to mention, just to lay it on. And it's the emotional connection that we
feel. There's a woman and I've spoken about her in the past; it was on a
petition last year. She was fighting cancer. Because of her condition, it wasn't
appropriate for her to fly. It was better for her to drive. Her MTAP claim, when
she drove from Happy Valley-Goose Bay to Forteau, stayed in a hotel, crossed
with the ferry, drove again a good chunk of the day, another seven or eight
hours, stopped for a hotel before she and her husband got to St. John's – guess
what?
That
hotel room in Forteau was clawed back. The thinking is that somehow we are able
to drive from Happy Valley-Goose Bay – and I look to my colleague from Labrador
West, which is another day's drive, so it's the better part of a four-day trip
for constituents from his area. Somehow we're going to have people that are in a
very compromised health condition be able to drive such that they can stay in a
hotel one night and then get to St. John's.
Anyway,
I just found this such a slap in the face. She and her husband came to my
office. I know them both quite well. We inquired and, unfortunately, the claim
was denied for that other hotel room, that other hundred-and-a-few dollars. And
I'm just thinking how tragic it is.
Unfortunately, she died. She died just a few months ago. I know her husband very
well. I just watch him grieving. I see this guy a couple of times a week and
every time I do, I see that same response back, that we were not able to at
least cover that additional hotel room, that somehow they were going to drive
through the night to be able to make their appointment.
Air
ambulance ties closely to this. I see some reference to some announcements, some
moves on the air ambulance system. That's why I asked the question yesterday. I
think, according to the minister's response, he is still waiting to hear from
the Health Accord. So many of us are speaking about this Health Accord that
Sister Elizabeth and Dr. Pat Parfrey have been co-chairing. I think everyone in
this room remains hopeful that we will see a new and imagined health care
system.
One of
the items that myself and my colleagues have been speaking about, and we even
had a press release last December, was the need for a close examination of the
air ambulance system. Some of the aspects of it, I'm seeing reference to in the
budget. I look forward to Estimates when, hopefully, we'll learn more, and/or
more will roll out as a result of the Health Accord.
We came
up with four clear recommendations last year. I wanted to table them again here
on the floor to remind everybody what we are looking for in Labrador and rural
parts of Newfoundland. And that is to very much simplify this system. We've got
three government entities right now running the program.
The
first recommendation was to establish a single entity of government to oversee
and operate the entire organization, staff coordination and budget. Appoint a
single authority for air and ground ambulance within the same entity of
government. I see reference to that in the budget and I applaud the government
for listening on that. That's a great thing.
We have
a situation where the air ambulance is based in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. We
provide coverage but only for half of the day. So what happens is, if we have a
call-out – again, these medical emergencies are not scheduled, we don't know
when they're coming, but if they happen to occur late in the day of a shift, the
pilots are not able to respond because they will be duty timed out. So that
means that we then have to avail of the private sector – glad they're there.
However, we now have to bring – because we don't have the government run,
government operated response team, we are now availing of a third party to
respond. So we're paying for pilots, medical flight crew, planes that are on the
ground at Goose Bay and now we're also having to pay for a third party.
This is
why the budget, for example, just a year or so ago, was some $6 million for the
government run operation, but another, $4 million to avail of a third party. So
yours truly and others have been arguing: Lets get another crew, another plane
leased, we don't have to own it, established in Gosse Bay so we have 24-7
coverage from which we can respond back down.
I can
remember former MHA John Hickey, this was one of his pet peeves and he pushed
hard to actually get some presence on the ground in Labrador. Unfortunately,
what happened was he could only get it half done and what it has meant is
additional expense. I'm suggesting we could probably spend, I don't know, $1
million to save another $3 million. This is some of the orchestra conducting I'm
often speaking about.
Finally
– and I can tell you and I know my colleagues are going to speak to this as well
today – we have real-life experiences, one here this morning – and I'll let him
speak to it – he's been waiting for a medevac since Sunday. They've just gotten
on a plane this morning to come here to St. John's. The doctors have deemed it
urgent, that plane is only getting in – and I'm not confident as to what the
exact cause is, but I'm aware that the plane and the pilots have been sitting in
Happy Valley-Goose Bay, I can only surmise that, again, the medical flight team
from St. John's was not available until this morning.
I wish
this patient the best. But, again, I just see so many flaws in the system. I'm
hoping that we can find some way forward.
I want
to take my last two minutes to speak to another matter that is a little bit
beyond the control of government but I have heard reference to it and I feel we
all need to apply pressure.
I often
joke, but I am telling you I'm only joking sarcastically, when I fly down to St.
John's, I've got a one-out-of-three chance – I'm kind of keeping track because I
always like to talk to the taxi drivers – that driver is going to be an
engineering student, or an engineer, for example, from Libya, driving a taxi
because the professional association does not recognize his engineering
credentials.
Guess
what? I see the same thing in the medical system. There's a woman, she's a
nurse, she's got a nursing degree; she's worked in two other countries as a
professional nurse. The only work she can get now in Labrador is as a personal
care attendant. We do not recognize her nursing credentials.
Her only
option to become a nurse, as she is doing in her career, is she's been told to
go back to school. Well, as I sit and listen to so many of my colleagues talk
about the loss of medical professionals, I look at the complete frustration of
and lack of support from our professional organizations, I just have to ask you:
What are we thinking?
Ontario
has recently come up with a strategy to actually provide a mentoring program for
positions such as nurses and new Canadians. I've been asking government to see
if we can make some progress on that. I'd really like to see it. The solution is
before us, let's stand back and look. I can only say a little prayer that the
Health Accord is going to bring us some better direction. The unfortunate thing
is they're talking about 10 years from now they'll have it in place – we need it
now.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to speak today and to represent the people of Labrador West. It's very
interesting, my colleague behind me mentioning issues that are almost mirrored
to a lot of what we face in Labrador West. If you ever break down Labrador into
its four districts, all four districts are unique in their own individual way,
but for the most part, a lot of the stuff when it comes to health care and
medical travel and air ambulance are almost identical.
It's
interesting to talk to people from different parts of the province and we have
to explain to them, well, health care is not free in Labrador. It costs an arm
and a leg to fly out of Labrador and a lot of people don't have the money in
their back pocket to go out, especially if something is unexpected.
And it's
interesting that the Member from Lake Melville actually mentioned the exact
situation that happened to me when my first daughter was born. I was just
starting out as a tradesperson and we were expecting our first child. We were
only young. My wife goes to see her OB/GYN and she looked at her and said, oh,
there are issues. We're calling the air ambulance for you right now. Let your
family know. So I was at work and I got a call. I had to get on a plane. My wife
was on her way out to St. John's – future wife – because there were
complications with the pregnancy.
We'd
just bought a house and I didn't have two cents to rub together, and now we had
this unexpected bill. I had to get on a plane and spend $1,000 on a flight, a
last-minute flight out to St. John's. My wife was air ambulanced out. When we
got to St. John's they told us, yeah, we corrected it for now, but you're going
to have to spend the rest of your term in St. John's. We can't send you back to
Labrador, there's no one there to look after you.
We had
to spend two weeks – I didn't have two cents to rub together, I'd just bought a
house – to wait for the birth of our first child. There were no supports at the
time. MTAP was non-existent then. That was 2009-2010. It was basically a
non-existent program. All fine and dandy, so we had to find a place to stay.
Luckily enough I had an uncle that lived out here and we waited two weeks for
the birth of our daughter.
Then,
when we were discharged, there was nothing, they just said, well, good luck,
back to Labrador for you. Thankfully my parents looked after our flights back to
Labrador. Honestly, I think they did it for their granddaughter not for me. But
at the end of the day that's what happens to Labradorians when they're
discharged from a hospital here in St. John's. Good luck to you. All the best.
MTAP is
a failed program. There's no doubt about it. It only covers basically one trip.
If you have cancer, well, you know you get one trip from MTAP; everything else
is on you. If you're sent out on an air ambulance and you're discharged from the
hospital here, there's a waiting period for MTAP, 50 per cent recovery. You
could be discharged at any day, so you're stuck in St. John's even longer
waiting to get the money to pay for 50 per cent of your flight back to Labrador.
And with the increasing and increasing cost of flights because of inflation and
the cost of living, that's $600 or $700, it's 50 per cent of a flight right now,
potentially a last-minute flight.
So, in
reality, health care is not free, it's not universal and it's not equal or
equitable. It costs money and it comes out of the pockets of people in this
province right now. It's embarrassing. It's absolutely embarrassing how we are
being treated as Labradorians.
We
understand we're not going to get a PET machine or we're not going to get all
this gear that they have in St. John's. We understand that. We know that, in
Labrador, there's a limit to what we can have. We understand. There are only
30,000 of us. But, every year, less and less and less services are being
provided for Labrador and the stuff that we've had since Grenfell, we've lost.
And now we're being forced more to fly to St. John's to get health coverage.
And, in some cases, things are basic.
So more
and more people are required to fly and, therefore, more and more people are
having to pay out of their own pocket to receive what would normally be a drive
for most people in this province, a drive to their local health care centre. At
some point, it's going to drain people, and it has drained people. I have known
people who have mortgaged their house so their child can get cancer treatment.
I've known people who ate up their entire retirement savings because a loved one
had a heart attack.
Those
are the kind of realities that we're facing where we are. We talk about the
economic prosperity of mining and how much we've contributed to the province
that way, but we haven't gotten back anything in return. We're only asking to be
treated equally in this province; we're only asking for what everyone else has.
We're not asking for the moon; we're just asking to be treated equally. We
deserve the same type of health care that anyone else in this province receives
and that's all. That's all we're asking for, but we haven't received it. We
haven't even gotten close to it, especially in the last, I'd say, 10 years.
I'll
give you a good example. My sister, right now, is here in St. John's. She was
told to wait a month because of her child – because of complications with
pregnancy. So she has to take a month of her life. She had to find an apartment.
She's out here now waiting, going back and forth to the Health Sciences Centre.
She will not be reimbursed, other than her flight out here, through MTAP,
basically. If she can get through the paperwork, because that's another
embarrassing thing in itself. But now my brother-in-law is flying back and forth
between working in the mine in Labrador and out here to look after his wife.
This is embarrassing that this is what we've come to. We're just asking for fair
and equal treatment when it comes to being where we are.
I know
in the past some Members on the government side said, well, you choose where you
live. Well, I have the right to choose where I live and I live in my homeland,
which is Labrador. My family has been there. My daughter is the fourth
generation to live there now. On the other side of it, my wife's family has been
there forever and a day, as an Indigenous woman. But we're Labradorian, this is
where we live and we're not going anywhere. Most Labradorians have the same
sentiment. This is home; this is where we live. We're supposed to be a part of
this province. It is supposed to be Newfoundland and Labrador, so if we just
have that tad bit of respect to be equal in this union.
The
economic outlook for Labrador, on the other side of it, is great. We're one of
the only regions in Canada that was not affected economically by the pandemic.
We actually grew significantly during the pandemic. They did a census. Labrador
West, for the first time in many years, has actually grown its population. We're
actually cracking the 10,000 mark now. So we're growing, expanding but our
services are diminishing. We have less health care services, we have less other
government services, we can't keep teachers, we can't keep doctors and we can't
keep nurses. It is not keeping pace with the economic development.
We all
know we can never keep up with the wages in the trades and mining and all that
but at least try. At least try to accommodate, at least try to make it viable
for these people and these professionals to even bother to look at Labrador as a
place to come live. The biggest hurdle right now is housing. We don't have
enough houses to house anybody. We don't have enough opportunities for
developers to even put in a subdivision because they have no confidence in doing
so. At this day, the government does even seem to be interested in providing
that confidence to developers.
It is
funny that most people think mining, eventually this town is going to go. There
is 200 years of ore left in the ground to be mined – 200 hundred years. Iron is
the base metal for all construction right now. What more confidence do you need?
We've never waivered. We've been mining – we've been digging ore out of the
ground for 365 since 1954. The government should understand that we're not going
anywhere. We're not a temporary place. We exist, we'll always exist and without
the confidence Treasury of this province. And not one ounce of respect has been
ever given to the people of Labrador West and the seniors that live there – not
one bit of respect. And this is absolutely embarrassing.
It's
shocking and embarrassing that, right now, seniors are living in conditions that
they can no longer live in. They are living with no care – they can't get home
care, there's no personal care home and there's a wait-list for long-term care.
By the time they get to long-term care, it's too late. If they had the care
beforehand, they could have more meaningful lives, they could enjoy their golden
days and they could enjoy everything that they got. But they got nothing. And if
they want it, guess what? You're shipped 1,000 kilometres to the Island to a
community you don't know and you get to see your family once a year because it
costs a grand each for your family to fly out and see you. So it's absolutely
embarrassing where we're to right now.
And this
is not a new ask. MHAs before me have asked for this. MHAs after me will
probably, unfortunately, have to ask this but it shouldn't be this way. You can
correct it now and you should correct it now.
This is
not how we should be treating people. We should not be forcing them to go
through massive amounts of bureaucracy to get a couple of dollars back for
medical travel. We shouldn't have to beg for something for our seniors – the
people who have put billions and billions and billions of dollars into the
Treasury of this province. We shouldn't have to ask for it like this.
It
should be at least a gesture of goodwill for all the hard work that these people
have done. Trust me, people have paid with their lives to dig that ore out of
the ground. Many of these people who are widows now, looking for this care, the
majority of their spouses have died of industrial disease, from asbestosis, from
silicosis and from workplace accidents. These people – some of them – gave their
lives to put billions and billions of dollars into the coffers of this province
and the least you could do is have a place for their widows to actually live in
dignity and that's what it's (inaudible), Sir.
Now, the
Member for Lake Melville mentioned air ambulance. That's another gripe that
Labradorians have faced. We've actually had some recommendations; we actually
gave the government ideas on something to correct a lot of the situation.
The
first one is we need a third King Air. There needs to be a third plane for this
province that actually is ready and available when one is down.
P. TRIMPER:
With a crew.
J. BROWN:
With a crew, with a full
complement of everything it needs to go with it. That was a recommendation from
a report to government about our ambulances. This is not just something that
myself and my colleagues from Labrador pulled out of thin air. This is from a
government report that told them that this is what you need to do. That's the
thing.
And the
service out of Goose needs to be 24 hours. It's most logical to put it in Goose
Bay. It's an Air Force Base. It was purposely put there because of the weather
and the conditions to service over the North Atlantic.
Well,
guess what? Because of that, it's great for servicing the rest of Labrador and
the thing is if you're not going to actually put the services in Labrador to
treat people, at least have an air ambulance for us to get out when we need to
get out instead of waiting sometimes weeks to try to get out because there's no
crew available. There are no pilots available. The plane is down for
maintenance. The list goes on and on. This is an emergency service and it needs
to be available when called upon.
Now, I
understand there are times with beds and stuff like that, too, but, at the same
time, you shouldn't have to wait a week. That's embarrassing people; wait a week
for an air ambulance to come get somebody. Absolutely embarrassing to say the
least.
We don't
have the medical services in Labrador that the majority of the province actually
has. So there is only so much that these professionals in Labrador can do. They
need the backup of the Health Sciences Centre. That is unfortunately the
situation we're in, having them, for the most part, stuck for a week waiting.
And do
you know what? It is going to cost more down the road because the longer you're
waiting for specialty treatment – we all know – the longer you wait, the more
damage is done. This is the unfortunate part about it. The reason why we
actually have the air ambulance in Labrador is because someone died waiting for
the air ambulance – that needlessly died of an industrial accident. Labrador is
an industrial areas, it happens. These things happen and people shouldn't have
to pay with their lives. That's what's happening.
We could
do better, we should do better and we have the ability to do better, so do
better. At the end of the day, I shouldn't have to get up here and talk about
this stuff. This is just stuff that should be happening, should be in the minds
of all.
It's
about choices. We all have to make choices, we understand that, but the choices
that should come first are the choices about people. Everybody in this province
should live in safety and comfort because that is what a society does; we look
after each other. But at this point in time, with the cost of living and things
have just been absolutely spiraling out of control, people are worried. People
are not getting their medications. People are not going to the dentists. People
are not going to their regular appointments. What it is going to do is we're
going to create a system where there is going to be so much medical need that it
is just going to be like when the dam bursts, because we are putting way too
much stuff off.
Right
now, it's starting with the seniors. Those who actually can't afford their
drugs, can't afford to get dentures, can't afford to get their prescriptions for
their eyeglasses, things like that. These people are not living in comfort.
These people are not living in safety and security. These people can barely keep
a roof over their heads right now. They're all on fixed incomes. And this is the
problem. We need to be looking after people a lot better than what we are now.
You
know, it's great, the federal government is going to bring out working on
pharmacare, working on dental care and stuff like that. But where are we?
Shouldn't we be up in Ottawa right now saying we want to sign on to these
pilots, we want to be the first ones to do it? No, I don't see that. This House,
on our PMR, voted unanimously about a basic income or a pilot project that's
about reducing poverty.
PEI did
it after us. They saw what we did and they went after us. Well, guess what?
They're already up in Ottawa with a letter asking for a pilot to be done there.
They beat us to the punch. It was our idea, but they beat us to it. That's
another embarrassing moment for us right now. We should have been the ones up in
Ottawa right now negotiating a pilot to end poverty in this province.
Do you
know what the sad part about it is? Poverty is actually increasing. There's more
and more and more people falling behind right now.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
Member's time is expired.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
Thank you, Speaker.
One of
the things I just wanted to mention first that I wasn't going to speak about – I
always include things that I didn't plan to talk about – was the announcement
for the three schools. One of the communities that was identified as needing a
new school was Cartwright.
I grew
up going to sports tournaments, I've got relatives that live in Cartwright, and
I've got to say how tremendous that news was, not only to the people of
Cartwright but for people that know residents in Cartwright – badly needed.
The
school was built in the 1960s. I think that school is older than me, and I got
to tell you, Speaker, I'm ancient. I'm nearing 60. I actually think I'm 57, I'm
not quite sure; I may be turning 58 or I might be turning 57, I'm not sure. The
way I deal with it is I don't keep track. I rely on my brother because –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
L. EVANS:
– my brother gets more
alarmed about how old I am because he's older than I am.
But,
Speaker, built in the 1960s, I hate to say it, but it's shameful. It's shameful
that people in this day with all the needs being put on students, all the
demands being put on students that we actually have a community of Cartwright
that has a school that was built before a lot of us were even born.
Just
hearing people talk on the radio this morning about how excited they were
because of the safety issues. Can you imagine the wiring and the infrastructure
that was put in place in the 1960s? Very, very dated. Also, accessibility for
students and people being able to participate. A grandmother not being able to
go to her granddaughter's high school graduation because she doesn't have the
mobility to be able to get into the school.
So the
Cartwright school was badly needed. As pleased as everyone is about this, I
think it's time that we step back and say why did it take this long. Now the
concern is we hope this doesn't get dragged out for the next eight to 10 years.
We hope we can have our school built in a timely fashion. Why would residents be
thinking that?
Because
that it is the pattern. Things get announced and then there's delay after delay.
We just look at the $200,000 that was announced three budgets ago for the
prefeasibility study to have the North Coast be tied into the Trans-Labrador –
delay after delay. We look at the Health Accord; is this going to be another
delay? Are there going to be issues with that? It is very, very concerning.
When you
look at Labrador, one of the things – you talk to anyone who's been born and
raised in Labrador and they'll say we're out of sight, out of mind. It doesn't
matter if you're from Lab West, from Torngat Mountains, Lake Melville region, or
even the South Coast. When my fellow MHA from Lab West was speaking, and he was
talking about seniors needing nursing homes, seniors needing houses, he speaks
on those issues every chance he gets in this House of Assembly.
But if
you look at his district: iron ore, lifespan of another 200 years. When you look
at all the monies that Lab West has contributed to provincial revenue. When you
look at Voisey's Bay, in my district, the mining – nickel, cobalt, copper, all
in demand; it's going to be in demand for many years. What saved the province
financially when there was a downturn in oil? It was mining. Where are the
mines? Up in Labrador.
So why
should we have to actually draw attention to these problems that we face every
day, that impact our quality of life? My fellow MHAs talk about that. Talk about
the need for Labrador to have a voice. Most people who message me talk about
separation. Now, I'm trying to not engage on that level, but I have to say when
we've been treated as poorly as we've been treated.
The
North Coast, my district, we have the most children in care. Look at our
incarceration rates into prisons and the correctional facilities. When you look
at that, that's a product of intergenerational trauma. Our people weren't born
like that. Our people were born happy, little children. What happened? What
happened is cycle after cycle after cycle where we were harmed, initially, back
in the day and it was never addressed. And even now when people know the issues,
they don't want to hear about it because of the way our provincial government is
set up. It is set up to be self-serving.
Every
MHA here has a vested interest in getting elected. Every MHA here has a vested
interest of when they go into their communities, when they go into a store, they
want their residents to pat them on the back and say thank you for that. Thank
you for talking to Dr. Haggie, individually, in the House of Assembly and
bringing forth my medical issue. As MHAs, we should be looking at a bigger
picture. We should be looking at the greater good of the province and that's not
happening.
The way
we're set up is to be self-serving. You know that. Everybody knows that here and
that's a big problem. In Labrador – I keep saying we have three MHAs – we have
four MHAs out of 40. But when you look at our need for services, our need for
infrastructure, we don't get our fair share. On the North Coast, we don't get
anything. I can have the MP get on
Labrador Morning and say what I said was incorrect about the Internet and
they spent a couple of million of dollars, so I'm wrong. But you want to know
something? I'm not wrong. When you look at how much money was spent on the
Internet services and maintenance for the District of Torngat Mountains compared
to the rest of Labrador it is very, very small.
The
reason why this government is not set up properly is even for the region of
Labrador, there's a tendency to put MHA against MHA, and that's the failure. The
only way we can get ahead is if we unite and work together. Do you know
something? The way this is working out, that's not going to happen because there
are too many self-serving people getting elected and re-elected and elected and
elected and elected.
The joke
was, to me, oh, you got off on the eighth floor – I got off accidentally. The
joke was about all the media there. Why would there be a joke in the House of
Assembly about the eighth floor and media? Because this government governs by
controlling what people think. As long as people think they're doing a good job,
they're going to get re-elected. They're going to have the public support.
Social justice is gone out the window. It has not gone out the window; it was
never in the House. It was never here. I don't think it was from the Joey days
up to the Peckford days, continuing on government to government, I don't think
there has been any social justice here.
Why
should I take my budget time to talk about that? Because my people have been
harmed the most with this political system. That is why I have to agree with
most people that message me and say: You know something, Lela, is there any way
we could separate? I'm pretty interested in that, seriously.
Looking
at the Health Accord now, I am really, really concerned. I could stand up here
and complain about the process of the Health Accord and the lack of consultation
but, at the end of the day, if I want my district to benefit from improvements
in health, I cannot. What I have to do is I have to support what is in the
Health Accord. What I have to do is I have to fight to try and protect the unity
of the Health Accord, because the Health Accord is basically a plan, a program
and a system that calls for the components to be all implemented. Not to allow
this government to – and I use the word cherry-pick pieces that goes in line
with Moya Greene's recommendations. Because what will happen then is we're going
to have the same old, same old.
We're
going to have people dying in Labrador, waiting to be medevaced out. We're going
to have people on the North Coast dying, being diagnosed too late or being
incorrectly diagnosed. For us, as Labradorians – South Coast, how many crisis
did we have where people have actually been delayed? How many crisis did we have
in Labrador West where medical assistance was delayed? In Lake Melville? And on
the North Coast it happens practically all the time because on the North Coast
we are dependent on weather.
I have
to say that the road that would connect us to the Trans-Labrador Highway helps
us with access to medical care; helps us to access to quality of food,
reasonable prices for food; building materials; infrastructure – everything.
Right now – I was talking to the Minister of CSSD this summer about Newfoundland
and Labrador Housing units need to be repaired. The biggest burden we faced was
timelines. They never got the inspections done in time. They never got the
contracts in time, so they never got the building materials up there.
We have
a housing crisis but also we have, at the root of it all, a transportation
crisis. That is something that this government could be helping us with. And
they're not. In 2019, they took away the freight boat that actually came from
the Island that keep our prices reasonable for our communities. But no one
cares.
Actually, the person who is talking over me right now spent over $11 million in
transportation when he was minister in one year. And I can't get a
prefeasibility study done. I don't even know if they have the –
AN HON. MEMBER:
$200,000.
L. EVANS:
Right, $200,000. Correct me
because I get so mad, I get the numbers confused.
Talking
about the Health Accord now. This morning on the radio people were talking about
health care being in crisis. What was said, and I quote: What shocks one
community is normal to another. That was said regarding health care. One
community dealing in crisis out in rural Newfoundland, on the Island.
Talked
about the shortage of doctors. Where the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical
Association calls on the provincial government, and I am quoting, “… to
immediately implement a plan to rescue rural health care centres that are in
crisis.” That is the president talking. That is their press release I am quoting
from, “… rescue rural health care centres that are in crisis.”
I heard
my fellow MHA for Harbour Main on the radio this morning talking from a past
interview and she was very upset and concerned, not only for her district but
for all of rural Newfoundland and Labrador and I compliment her on that. She is
a very passionate MHA. I wrote down what she said: People are dying because they
are not getting a proper diagnosis. They are not being able to get diagnosed and
therefore the proper treatment is delayed. So do you know what happens? People
die.
We on
this side of the House know that. We understand the value of that Health Accord.
Saying that there is a delay in rollout of 10 years, but that doesn't give you
an excuse just to cherry-pick and save money at the expense of us all.
Looking
at access to timely medical care. I've been talking about that since I got
elected in 2019. Not only can we not see the doctors – actually, this winter,
during the election, my second election within two years, people in Makkovik,
the issue that they brought up is that there hadn't been a doctor to Makkovik,
to the community of Makkovik, in over two years. They hadn't seen a doctor. If I
talk about health care on the North Coast, people will talk about people who've
died. I've had people that died. I've had relatives, close personal friends that
died, and we can look and see that they weren't diagnosed quickly enough, the
treatment they had was too late.
Most
people on the North Coast is diagnosed with stage 4 cancer or glaucoma – blind,
partially blind. One of the greatest leaders out of the community of Makkovik
actually was blinded by glaucoma. And do you know something? The problem with
being diagnosed too late with glaucoma is the damage is permanent.
The
problem with me trying to get up and speak without having notes in front of me
is I go off on tangents, because I'm talking about glaucoma. Now, let's talk
about cataracts.
So
that's a big thing, cataracts. Well, do you know something? On the North Coast,
we didn't have to live with people being blinded from cataracts; we were living
with people who were blinded because of failure to deliver proper surgeries. My
grandmother was one of them. Luckily, she only had her cataract removed in one
eye in St. Anthony, and they blinded her.
Everybody knows Burt Winters in Makkovik. He passed away recently, he was in his
90s; he used to go out hunting and fishing. He was a very strong, physically fit
man. But everybody knew he had a damaged eye. Where did that happen? St.
Anthony. I could go around the community and find the people that were blinded.
I think what they knew is that doctor was incompetent and that's the reason the
surgery was only done in one eye. Because you'd only be blind in one eye.
There
was a lady there, a few months older than my grandmother, she wasn't blind in
one eye because her family actually paid for her to go to St. John's and get the
surgery.
The
thing about it is, in Canada, when we look at the provinces in Canada, we think
that everyone has equal access. We don't have equal access.
Now,
what about access to health care on the North Coast? If you can get an
appointment at the clinic, and if the clinic agrees that your condition is
serious enough to be sent out – and a lot of the time the delay happens there,
where you have a serious medical condition that could damage your organs, or
lead to your untimely death – there's a delay in getting you out. If you're
lucky enough to actually get that appointment in Goose Bay, you're still not
free and clear to actually have access to health care – adequate health care.
You have to get there.
Now,
even if the weather is good – we have no roads connecting us – so we have to
fly. Even if the weather is good and you can fly, there might not be room on the
flight. Seriously. I have had people now – so who gets bumped off? Eye
appointments, glaucoma, cataracts – early detection. Everybody talks about early
detection now for eye care and what happens if you loses your vision or your
vision is impacted? It affects your quality of life and especially of our elders
we see, they lose their independence.
Physiotherapy from a major surgery. You've got your hip replaced, your knee
replaced or you might have had a huge surgery and you need physio. You don't
actually get the physio after the surgery. You're basically sent home and then
they'll make an appointment for you. Then usually that appointment is
rescheduled, rescheduled, rescheduled so that people, when they actually access
physiotherapy, it's not to help them recover from the surgery, it's basically to
help them overcome the scar tissue and damage that's been done in the wait. A
lot of people don't actually even get that physiotherapy. So you look at our
elders going around and you even look at a lot of our young people, you can tell
that they have a disability and the disability is caused by the failure of them
to have access to physiotherapy.
Dental:
Don't get me started on dental. It's not about dentures. It's about people being
able to access good quality health care by actually being able to see a dentist
in a timely fashion. Right? That doesn't happen.
Access
to air ambulance: that's what we talk about in Labrador. We need to be able to –
if somebody's life depends on it – fly from Labrador to St. John's to be saved.
And what happens is – both my fellow MHAs here can attest – we usually find out
that the air ambulance is not available when somebody, who's an advocate for
somebody who's really sick and their life is at stake or they're overall health
care and their quality of life in the future is at stake and they can't actually
get transportation. We've witnessed that because we have access to the tracking
of the air ambulance flying all around the Island, flying back and forth the
Island, but not going to Labrador.
One of
my friends was over in Lab West, supposed to be medevaced out, ended up on
life-support. Why was he over in Lab West? There were no beds in Goose Bay and
none in St. Johns, originally, when they tried to transport him. So now he ends
up on life-support. He's in Lab West and they're trying to get him to St.
John's.
The MHA
got involved; that's me –
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
Member's time is expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
It's an
honour to stand in this House again and speak to the budget. Ironically, I've
been reflecting on budget processes and I went back and found one from 1986 that
I still had, that I had some relevance and connection to. This is my 40th budget
as somebody either directly or indirectly connected. And I know somebody who
looks like they're in their 30s –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
D. BRAZIL:
– could have had 40 budgets
underneath their belt, but it is true. I had the privilege in my late teens to
work as part of a Crown corporation and one of the issues were to be cognizant
of budgets and be in this House – it wasn't even here at that time; it wasn't in
this design at the time – and every year to go through every budget.
And I've
seen them from every genre. I've seen them from every administration. I've seen
ones that we were in awe that there were so many good things coming out and it
hit the mark, and there were ones that you shook your head in disbelief to say
what's happened here, did they totally miss the mark, were they not listening,
as part of that process. I'm not going to label this one as either one of those.
What I will label it is $8 billion being spent – and I give credit; a budget is
never an easy thing to do. I don't care what administration, I don't care who's
the minister of Finance, I don't care who's in Cabinet, it's never an easy thing
to do. Because it's a balance.
But
normally, you have to prioritize. You have to prioritize what you think the
balance will meet the needs of the people and still be able to meet your fiscal
responsibilities. So I'm going to try in the next hour to be hopefully not
cynical. Hopefully, not even overly critical. But I do want to talk in fact, in
situation and impact on people. And the best way that I've learned from my days
as a civil servant, my days in not-for-profits, but particularly my days in
coaching, the better way you can find the best plan for it, and the best way to
be successful, is to listen to the people around you. Listen to what they're
saying; listen to the impact things have on them.
When we
do that, we have a better understanding of exactly what our priority should be.
Because five people say it, or 15 people say it, it may not be the priority that
everybody would need, or should be implemented. But if the masses keep saying
continuously these are the issues, these are the challenges, here are the things
that we need to improve on, I think that should become your start for your
priority list.
So I
want to talk to a few things relevant to the budget, and generally the economy
and the needs of people of this province, what I've heard and our caucus have
heard, and the discussions we've had with a multitude of agencies who represent
people from low-income earners to the business community to health professionals
to every industry out there. From the mining industry, the oil and gas industry,
the trades unions. So all have come with a specific view on how things will
affect them, how the economy affects them, how government spending affects them.
But to get a true understanding, if you start seeing consistent messages, then
that should be the continuum. You want to make the line go in a straight flow,
you connect the dots then and you realize that should be the approach that you
take.
I
commend the Premier and Cabinet for putting together a budget and trying to
identify the needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. And, no doubt, in
this budget there are things that address that. The issue around the civil
service still being intact and not massive layoffs obviously speaks volumes to
the programs and services that these valued people of this province provide to
people from all over Newfoundland and Labrador. Rural, remote areas in Labrador;
rural, remote areas in the Island part of it; to the urban centres: so it is
valuable on that.
Investments in other programs and services that have been continuums that we
have seen. The issue becomes – and the key labelling that I put here – about
priorities. Prioritizing how you're going to address the particular needs of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. This was a unique budget. I'll acknowledge
that. It was unique because we're coming off very challenging times when it came
to COVID and the impact it had on our economy, the impact it had on changing how
people operate and the impact on businesses.
But
we're also coming at a time when factors beyond anybody's control,
unfortunately, are dictating that the cost of living is going to hit
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians more, in my opinion, than anybody else in this
country. So to realize that and to effectively address it, you must look at a
new, creative way to say that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians shouldn't be left
behind. That we should get our fair share and we would find a mechanism that
works after we prioritize what has to be done.
The days
of being able to do everything for everybody, they probably were never here. But
it is less an opportunity to do that now with the economy being what it is and
challenges outside of Newfoundland and Labrador that we have to face when you're
acknowledging what needs to be done and coming up with prioritizing.
So you
have to pick what your prioritized approach should be and who and how, you do
two things. I'll state something, and I have had disagreements with people on
that side, I have had them with people in the business community and I have had
them with my own colleagues. I don't live by the premise in Newfoundland and
Labrador that we have a spending problem. I live by the premise that we have so
much potential in the province that our spending is relevant to the fact that we
have so many needs here geographically, our age population, or demographics, the
fact that we're out in the middle of the North Atlantic, or the fact that we're
up North – part of our province in Labrador – that there are ultimate challenges
here.
So just
to say we're spending a lot of money is one thing. My challenge has been that
we're not spending it in the right areas, in a lot of cases, and that's not
everything. That's in a number of cases that we could be spending better. A way
to find that happy medium is listening to the people out there. Again, and I'll
reiterate as I go through my speech, this is about the consistent messages
coming from every sector of our society. My two colleagues here who represent
Labrador talked about the same things: health care – a consistent message. So
it's from Nain, Labrador to Conception Bay South to Burin Peninsula to the
Connaigre Peninsula to the Baie Verte Peninsula to the West Coast of this
province and the Northern Peninsula. It's everywhere.
It is an
issue that we face. I'm going to get in to talking about some of the challenges,
and I know we're all aware of them because we've heard them. But some of the
things that needed to be addressed or should be addressed and I would think
still can be addressed. There is money in departments here. It's a matter when
it's allocated, how it can be maneuvered in the right directions. I mean, people
forget, while budget allocations – if they're in salary areas or program areas,
those programs are based on policy or regulations so they can be adjusted very
easily to address specific needs.
So I
just want to talk about some of these things. I do want to acknowledge – I mean,
the Premier recognized a solid plan was needed when he became leader. That was
part of his platform and we all welcomed it. Whoever becomes the premier, we
know, is at the helm of moving Newfoundland and Labrador forward. We have a role
as the Official Opposition to ensure that government lives up to that
responsibility and we'll make suggestions. We may even criticize. We may even
chastise if we think they have gone beyond what their roles and responsibilities
would have been. But I will guarantee you the Official Opposition, and I would
say all Members on this side, have the same mindset to do things that improve
the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and that's what we all aspire to
do here.
He
started by appointing the PERT report and the Greene report that came out to
give him a plan. And while the plan was very detailed and I will acknowledge it
went, I would suspect, much further than people would have thought in some of
its recommendations, I will say I'm not a big fan of the report for a number of
reasons. One, I think it took a line where it's easier to cut a lot of things or
get rid of things without really analyzing the benefits or the fallout or the
shortfalls in not doing certain things.
Now, are
there things in that report that could be implemented that could be a benefit
financially? Are there things that maybe another sector outside of government
might be better or more efficiently could operate that and still provide the
service for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? Are there things that
conjure up a discussion that we need to have – a serious discussion in this
province – about how we provide services and the process we use and the
expectations?
My
colleague, my Finance critic, has noted many times, and has said, we need to
find a happy medium where we give people what they need, not necessarily what
they want. We all aspire to want more than probably, or (inaudible) what people
need. You give people what they need; they'll succeed. They'll be able to get
what they want, that will work. You set the environment.
So we've
looked at that. I think he's already committed, the last couple of days in
Question Period, talking about some of the challenges, that we need a better
plan. This province needs a better plan to address the shortfalls, economically;
to also address the issues we have around the challenges of health care; some of
the challenges in our education system; some of our challenges in
infrastructure; some of our challenges in immigration; and all the things that
are relevant to and are important to providing the services to Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians.
We're
always here. If nothing else, I should get credit for showing that this side of
the House wanted to be more collaborative. In the last year since the last
election, we've acknowledged that. We're open for discussion, we're open to give
some suggestions, we're even open for any Member on that side, or any member of
society to explain to us why what we're proposing isn't workable, or isn't in
the right direction that Newfoundland and Labrador should go.
You'll
find one thing over here, we're very open minded. We may actually overemphasize
sometimes from your perspective a certain particular issue. But, at the end of
the day, if any Member over there gets up and outlines why their perspective or
their approach or their program would be more beneficial to the people of this
province than what we suggested, it won't take very long for us to back off and
acknowledge it. And we've done that in the past, and we do acknowledge that.
We all
should listen. That's going to be one of the themes of what we do as an
Opposition. You need to listen to what the people are saying. I want to
overemphasize the fact: if the consistent message is coming from every sector of
our society, every part geographically, every demographic in this province, then
that should become our priorities. And that's what we have to aspire to, to meet
those particular needs.
I said I
wouldn't be cynical, and I tried not to be too critical, but I will be a little
more critical and cynical of one particular sector here, politically. It's not
the official party that's governing here in Newfoundland and Labrador. I'm
talking about the federal government. I, personally, and I think the people of
this province, feel we don't get our fair share and that's not because of the
Liberal relationship with the federal government, the provincial government,
it's gone back many administrations. We don't get our fair share.
How do
we get that fair share? I know every now and then we get some extra handouts,
some extra supports because we either pull in some political mileage, or we go
for a one-time shot. That shouldn't be how a confederation works. Keeping in
mind some of the formulas are based on the demographic of population, that's not
fair to a province that demographically is massive, geographically it's massive.
The demographic makeups are so dramatically different here from age categories
to some of the health concerns, to the infrastructure, the climate, all the
things there. It should be taken, if you're part of a confederation and you're
only going to be given support based on the number of citizens you have, without
taking into account all the other factors that need to be there to provide basic
services and quality services. In this country, we should be able to get equal
services across the board, if you're in Victoria, BC or you're in Victoria, CBN.
It should be the same across the board.
These
are some of the things that we think we all should champion. We've made that
offer to the Premier, that if there is championing that needs to be done, we do
it as collective House. We, in the Official Opposition, are willing to do that,
to make sure the federal government understands where we are, not because there
are only seven MPs here and if it's not a minority government than it's probably
not that significant of what they can do. We know where we are right now when it
comes to collaboration in Ottawa, between two particular parties, and that's not
a slight at them, but it's a reality for us here.
The
influence we may have may be minimized now by the fact that the prime minister
knows he has – at least for the next three or four years, what can we draw down
on as part of that. So we need to start looking at prioritizing what's important
here. Part of that may have to be looking at what's necessary here.
My
criticism of some of the things that have happened from this administration
recently is about spending money in the right areas and understanding the
benefits down the road. The Rothschild report, I'm still baffled, bewildered
that – I understand looking at the value of our asset. I was a minister
responsible for most of the infrastructure assets so I understood that, and I
know there are two or three reports that are there when I was there. I know what
the costing of certain things are. I know we have hundreds of very competent
people who have a background specifically in that area, if it's an MBA, if it's
somebody who does assessment as a consultant, hundreds of them in our own civil
service that we're already paying.
I know
there are dozens of reports that are already tabled somewhere, on a shelf in
some line department, that could be taken, assessed and looked at what it could
be. So the spending there caught me off guard. I didn't see the real value. I
see the value of the concept of what wanted to be done, but I thought that could
be done in-house or at minimum, somebody else in Newfoundland and Labrador,
could have taken it for a tenth of that and formulated all the information that
was necessary
Looking
at getting consultants, international and national consultants to look at our
health care system and how we make cuts there. We've got an extreme number of
health professionals who've helped bring programs from their infancy to some of
the best programs in the world. We're asking somebody else to look at ways that
we change and modify or can be more efficient at it. Again, I think that's
narrow minded in thinking. We're not giving credit to the people we have here,
and, in my case, spending money that wasn't necessary as part of that.
Also,
looking at how we invest money in areas here; I think it needs to be invested in
the right areas here. Invest in corporations that are going to generate
employment for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, who are going to give back to
Newfoundland and Labrador and who are going to ensure that we, the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador, are the major benefactors of what is happening here.
So there
are things like that, that have been my criticisms of this administration and
we've said that in Question Period, asking for clarification. Because, again –
and I'll reiterate – if there's a rational argument, or a rational approach that
has a long-term benefit that we don't see now, and it's explained, it won't take
long for us here to acknowledge that and say, okay, we see the rationale, we see
where you're going with it, and then we'll pivot to something else. We'll move
on to something else that we think the people of Newfoundland and Labrador would
want us to talk about.
So we
all know what the greatest need is right now in Newfoundland and Labrador, it's
the cost of living. The impact that that's going to have on the people of this
province. We know the dramatic effect, the mental health issues that are going
to be increased because of the stress on people. The quality of life, the
dignity of life, that is going be impacted by people if we don't find a way to
address it.
I'm not
blaming the Liberals – this is not something you created, but you have the
ability here to try and lessen the impact on people by identifying programs and
services and implementing things that would be beneficial to the people in the
immediate future, get them over this until we can change what's happening in
this province. A lot of that has to do with what's happening nationally and
internationally. So we need to focus solely, right now, on how we address the
needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and ensure they get through
this crisis that we're in.
And
that's what it is, it's a financial crisis; we talked about a health care
crisis, and that's one that I'll get into before my time is up. But we also have
a financial crisis, particularly for a number of people. Some may be able to
weather the storm, no doubt, but there are businesses, there are individuals
living on fixed incomes, there are middle-income people who are feeling the
crunch of what's happening right now with the increase of the cost of living,
fuel, all the other services that are connected to transportation and that here,
and even basic services, from getting something delivered here and then put in
by a professional. All those costs that they incur have to be passed on to the
consumer itself.
I want
to go back to the federal perspective, because I think there's a joint approach
here over the next number of years. We know we're here until the next provincial
and, now we know, federal election which is probably going to be three years
down the road, so let's collectively talk about where it is that we can get our
fair share when it comes to the federal supports for this province.
We
didn't get enough of the health care funding from Ottawa; we know that.
Twenty-seven million dollars out of a billion based on, again, per capita. I'm
going to give full credit that somebody did go up and argue that Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians have many other challenges around health care. Again, I keep
reiterating, the demographics of where we're located with our health facilities
and one tertiary care, our clinics and the remoteness and trying to travel
various areas to get these types of things; recruitment around our health
professionals, what that meant. To get $27 million, to me, was an insult,
knowing what we needed and knowing, like I said, the demographics of our age
categories in this province as part of that. So that's one that I thought we
were shortchanged on, and we all need collectively to fight for that.
We were
shortchanged billions of dollars. We should have been entitled to equalization
for the last number of years, based on a multitude of formula things. I know the
formula got changed and pushed out. But it hasn't gotten changed in the last
number of decades to benefit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. So I'm not
just blaming one administration in Ottawa; I'm saying this is a reality. My
priority and our caucus priority is the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. No
doubt, we're all proud Canadians, but right now you can be a lot prouder when
you know your people are being taken care of and are getting a fair shake when
it comes to being part of this great country.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL:
We needed to implement the
Health Accord quicker. We need to get to it right away, around particularly
hiring doctors and nurses, scope of work for paramedics, pharmacists, all the
things that can do – the community health teams. We need to immediately start
moving those. The Health Accord, seven times we met with them, and every time I
was more enlightened about their vision and what was being proposed.
I know
there was an immediate proposed vision of what needed to be done. There's a
mid-term part of it and then there's a long-term strategy. But we need to get at
what the immediate thing is. They've admitted it – very diligent, very competent
individuals – that our immediate thing has to be around health care
professionals. Recruiting them, identifying them and then providing the process
to be able to let them use their expertise to get services to the people of this
province.
So we
commend that. We commend the Health Accord for being called. We commend exactly
the work they've done. Now the issue becomes putting it in play. Not five years
down the road, not five months down the road even – immediately. This budget
needs to reflect the needs of recruiting health professionals and putting the
mechanism in play that can actually make the Health Accord recommendations fall
in play as quick as possible.
Ottawa
forgot a couple of things here. It forgot its health funding promises, just like
they forgot equalization. The last two federal elections all parties made the
same commitments. They made the commitments around changing the equalization
formula to ensure that provinces with smaller populations would still get their
equal share so that it could address some of their particular issues. It also
forgot about its health-funding end. Just because your population is low doesn't
mean your needs are not at a higher level. So there are things there that it is
surprising that more noise hasn't been made by the provinces to say you didn't
live up – particularly the smaller provinces and part of that would be Atlantic
Canada about we're not getting our fair share as it comes to that.
Ottawa
has done very little, from my perspective and our perspective here, to help the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador from an average living wage and being able
to address the cost of living. I know, I applauded it, the rate mitigation. It
is great to see that we will have what we had proposed a number of years ago,
14.7 cents a kilowatt, which is affordable to the people. It is still an
increase but it is affordable, particularly as it will put us in one of the
lowest costing of hydroelectric power. It does our part, particularly for the
environment, and it also does our part to be the cornerstone for the Atlantic
Loop.
The one
thing I will say, it didn't get as much emphasis as I thought it should. The
federal government did put $250 million and part of that can be accessed for the
Atlantic Loop, so they did acknowledge it. I'm glad to see that because one
election it was one primary thing about hydroelectric power and the benefits
that were going to be here. This one they put some money into it but didn't make
a big hoopla about it as part of what it should be. So I see the economic
viability of that.
My issue
is that most of this money is our own money. It is our Hibernia money. It is a
loan guarantee. It is changing the payment scheme. So Ottawa might pat itself –
and I will give credit to the government; we needed this in play because it
needed to eliminate the apprehension people had about the soaring price of
hydroelectricity for people and their light bills. It needed to ensure the
business community would know that they could also have affordable expansion of
their business.
But when
I looked at it and while the amount meets the needs, it's really not a lot that
came from the federal government. There is nothing. They gave us part of our
money – they loaned us part of our money. They gave us a nod and a wink and say:
Well, you go to the banks and we'll get them to give you a good rate. By the
way, to get all of that, you now have got to push how long it's going to take
you to pay all the bills out a little bit longer.
So
that's a bit disappointing. But I will acknowledge, and I've done this publicly,
that at least this has got the right momentum to say we're at least addressing
that for the people. So we can hold off; I'm not worrying about our light bills
getting to a point where it's adding again to the challenges that we have here
in Newfoundland and Labrador.
We need
collectively to be telling the story to the Trudeau administration and to
Ottawa. Because we know what happened; we know the rumours – and these were not
rumours, the Bay du Nord. I know they weren't rumours because I had calls. I had
discussions with MPs and federal ministers about the dissension, the split and
the fear that the Bay du Nord Project would not happen.
You
know, we brought it to the forefront. Not because we wanted to fear monger; as a
matter of fact, we didn't even try to make it that big a political thing. We
wanted clarification in the House. This wasn't even an attack on the Liberal
administration here. This was about Newfoundlanders and Labradorians coming
together to ensure we got something that was valuable to the people here, and
valuable to the workers in Newfoundland and Labrador, and sent a message that
the oil and gas industry is still vibrant here, and that we're open for
business, as long as the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the businesses
here and the communities are the benefactors.
I'm glad
to see it worked out; I'm glad to see that, and I give credit to the minister,
to the Premier and to everybody. I give credit to our people for keeping it
front and centre; I give credit to the industry people who wanted to ensure that
this needed to be out there. So this was one of those where collectively we all
did our part; we may not have come together probably the way we could have, that
might have made it a little better. But I understand everybody has got their
approaches to it, and the end result, it worked out.
But my
fear is, how close did we come in sending the wrong message to the world that
Newfoundland and Labrador is not open for business? We are saying to our oil and
gas industry that has helped us, sustained our quality of life, has helped us
put business in place to transition to other things – nobody is beyond the
concept of transitioning, when the transitioning is ready to happen, and when we
have the resources and the training and all the things in play to make that
happen.
So we
need to ensure we never get to the edge of the cliff again when it comes to the
federal government dictating to us in Newfoundland and Labrador what our
viability should be and what our economics should be. So if that means we
collaborate together, let's get to that point. Let's share that information with
everybody in this House, so that we can all collectively get together and find a
way to move things forward.
We did a
PMR last Wednesday – for those who don't know a private Member's resolution –
that talked about addressing the cost of living and finding ways to,
collectively, as a House, address those needs. I was so happy to see that all
Members supported it on both sides of the House. All Members supported it
because, again, I will say, I have no doubt that every Member in this House of
Assembly wants to do what's best for their constituents and for all in this
province and no doubt that was the plan.
Now, I
did hear a lot of acknowledgement that just wait the budget is coming tomorrow.
There was nobody more than us on this side who were waiting in anticipation for
a lot of good things to address the issues that we had talked about and that my
colleagues on the opposite side had talked about, also, that was important to
the people addressing those issues.
While
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I give credit for the effort in this
budget by the Liberal administration, it fell short in a lot of areas,
unfortunately. Now, am I critical of what was announced? Not at all. A lot of
the programs there, the cuts, some of the incentives and all that, will serve a
purpose and do help in its own right, but it didn't go far enough. It didn't go
in the right directions of what needed to be done, particularly for our most
vulnerable, middle class, benefits to businesses to ensure that they can hire
more people, keeping the cost of living down, food and fuel. There's a multitude
of things that could have been done.
I'm not
dismissing what was done, that's not – very few of the things that were
announced would I say we wouldn't do. My issue is we can't do everything right
now. What we would have done is prioritize what should have been the first ones
and that was directly about the cost of living.
We saw
that yesterday in Question Period here, when we talked about the graph that was
put out. The Premier admitted, and I think we all admitted it, and I'm not going
to emphasize it too much that it really doesn't reflect what people would say.
The reality is here, people are still going to struggle, even with what was
implemented because some of those may have been better used, not that they
wouldn't have been a benefit and not that they're not going to help some people,
but to prioritize what would have been an immediate response to helping those in
need.
We know
where that comes across the board with cost of fuel, which in turn keeps money
in everybody's pocket, because people need to be able to move, if it's mass
transportation, if it's the taxi industry – another one of the industries I
personally feel are being left out, are not getting the support that they need.
I know that they didn't get it during COVID, it wasn't there and that's not a
criticism of the provincial government. That's more of a criticism of the
federal government, but I know there wasn't enough lobbying for them to be able
to sustain their quality of life. Now we're in a quandary where they can't
recruit drivers and we're coming upon a Come Home Year.
This is
going to be devastating, particularly, in the Northeast Avalon. I know when you
get out – tourism in not just about that, but this is the point where most are
going to enter. You want to be able to make sure that their first experience,
when they land, is that they get transportation going and they're not waiting
hours. That's not counting the fact that our own residents who need cabs for all
kinds of reasons don't have it. So I say that around cuts or supports that were
needed across the board.
The cost
of fuel, which has an impact then on the freight, which means the cost of goods
and services, particularly food. What we could have done to help some of the
other people of this province keep the cost of food down. We already know in the
wintertime it's a struggle for us to be able to maintain good quality food, just
by the nature of geography, where we live and how far we are from stuff as part
of that.
One of
the things – and I did have a number of city councillors reach out to me – was
about the low-income bus passes. I thought – as a matter of fact, I even stood
here and complimented the government – that was a good process to implement.
As you
know, one of the biggest criticisms that we have had of this administration for
the last seven years has been getting rid of things that worked; things that had
been proven to be beneficial. It makes no difference who takes credit for it,
but we had a poverty reduction strategy that took us from here – down here where
we were scrambling to be able to keep people engaged; find out how we get people
to be able to be productive citizens; how we could make them employable; deal
with some of their social issues; make sure that the next generation wasn't
reliant on Income Support or government programs; and we elevated to here. We
were the envy, not only of this country but North America.
I had a
small part in one of the segments of that and I know my colleague, the Member
for Topsail - Paradise, was directly involved, also. And we know what it meant
around immigration. We know what it meant around youth at risk. We know what it
meant around single parents. We know what it meant around seniors and middle age
for retraining. We know what it meant around businesses being able to recruit
people and training the supports we did.
So that
got dismissed, unfortunately. It got left by the wayside. It went away. There
was versions that it was going to be added to. I remember going to a briefing
one time and I thought they were revisiting and they were going to add something
to it. Anyway, it got lost. It's done and gone, but what I would have hoped in
this budget is they could have resurrected some parts of that that were very
successful, that were already documented. You didn't have to spend a lot of time
on it. You didn't have to spend a lot of consulting money on it, I guarantee
you. You didn't have to bring in people from outside of this Confederation
Building to actually look at how it works, or you could reach out to one of the
agencies who were the stewards of this or the architects of it and get that to
work.
So that
was a bit disappointing around not being able to go that route. We didn't have
to reinvent the wheel, all we had to do was pick the wheel up again because it
was there and we knew it was proven to work. So that was disappointing of where
we are right here.
When the
city took that down, I mean, we saw the difference here with low-income people
within the city. Again, this is not just about an urban issue. This is a bigger
picture about putting supports in play for people. The city themselves – when we
can get a municipality to partner with the provincial government in a program,
b'y we'd better keep that as close as possible. We should foster that.
You
know, we're talking about regionalization, I would hope what we're trying to do
here is take all municipalities, non-incorporated areas, Local Service
Districts, to come together to provide the best services possible in the most
equitable way possible and expand them with the monies that we can save by doing
joint projects.
So there
are some things here that I thought we missed and I know there are people from
the city who are upset. I know those who service low-income people who need this
access for public transportation and I know what this would mean to places like
Paradise and Conception Bay South and Portugal Cove-St. Philip's and Torbay, all
surrounding areas who would like to be able to access public transportation. We
thought this would be the next step to moving forward. It's a step backward,
unfortunately, to look at that.
I also
want to talk a little bit about what we identified or what was discussed in the
Health Accord. I say this tongue-in-cheek but I say it with pure sincerity. It
was good to have the Health Accord senior people admit that we're in a health
crisis. I say tongue-in-cheek because the one thing you don't want to be able to
say is you're not in crisis in Newfoundland and Labrador.
You're
never going to solve your issue, particularly if it's a crisis, if you don't
first admit that it exists. So having people at that level who do this on a
daily basis, who've been talking to thousands of people, citizens, health
professionals, about what the issues are in Newfoundland and Labrador, then you
can better address how you do that. So issues that were identified, that we're
all facing, we talk about it here in the House every day, the lack of family
doctors. One in five Newfoundlanders and Labradorians don't have access to a
family doctor.
I know,
Mr. Speaker, I spent five nights in emergency with a family member with a health
issue. I spoke to people who were sat there and they were almost apologetic
because they know they weren't coming in for a life-saving procedure. But there
was something that they needed, something that was detrimental to their health
that they couldn't wait until the next day, because they didn't have anywhere
else to go the next day either. The only opportunity they had was to go there.
And they
felt guilty because they saw somebody coming in who probably just had a heart
attack, or a stroke, or somebody who was bleeding extremely, or had a broken
bone, or some other major serious ailment that needed to be addressed and they
felt guilty that they were taking chairs up, that there were gurneys in the
hallway. They almost felt they shouldn't be there.
And they
shouldn't be, because we should have a system in play that they shouldn't have
to go for day-to-day issues or interventions that a family doctor can do.
So that
is one of the key things that we are missing here in this province is our
approach to really getting at the root of why our doctors are not staying, how
we get them to stay, how we get them to be committed to rural and remote
communities and how we work to meet their needs and not burn them out. How do we
use the scope of work when it comes to nurses and nurse practitioners and
registered nurses and LPNs? How do we make paramedics have a bigger role in the
delivery of health care? How do we get pharmacists and all the other health
professionals we have here? Our change should be around how we deliver health
care, not minimize it or segregate certain people from not having access to it.
That is not what this should be about.
We
needed to talk about –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Thank
you.
D. BRAZIL:
There is a reality here;
there is a COVID backlog in surgeries. We need to know that. That is a reality
and that is not a blame on anybody; COVID did that. We need a plan to be able to
actually address that immediately. Not a long-term, 10-year plan, an immediate
plan that actually addresses it. If it means investing more money – we've said
this here before, if we saw dramatic increases in funding for health care and it
addressed the needs, I guarantee you our Opposition would be supporting that and
acknowledging the benefits here. Because we have heard it from our constituents
and we've heard it from constituents from our colleagues over there who also
reach out to us about challenges they have in their district.
So there
are some of the things that we felt should be a better priority in this budget
itself. Mental health funding, we all know there is nobody in this House not
supportive of understanding that there is a big gap in mental health. We've come
a long way, I know, from the infancy days of the All-Party Committee on Mental
Health and Addictions. I think that was the big cornerstone of everybody
understanding in this province, but particularly the elected officials, that we
do have a major challenge and a crisis in mental health and we needed to
implement a number of things.
Have we
done great work? Of course we have. I have seen it in my own district. I have
seen it with people I have talked to. I have seen what we have done. Are there a
number of other things just from that report that need to be implemented and
should be prioritized? Exactly. We need to go back to that report and start
picking out what needs to be prioritized and implementing those and putting our
money where our mouth is. If we're going to solve the issues of people, make
them more productive citizens, give them a quality of life, we need to find ways
to do that and invest the monies that need to go there.
If it
means we change where our priorities are, that has to be. Do we need, now, to be
more creative when it comes to mental health? Sure we do. Is it welcomed when
the federal government sends us some money for mental health? Without a doubt.
Do we like some of the issues around addictions investments? Of course we do.
But I want to make it clear: If you are prioritizing issues and they're relevant
to the people of the province, have no illusion, we're over here to support
those. We hear the same things. So we're here to do that.
So don't
think we're all in this House and we work in silos. That has been one of the
criticisms of some of the decisions being made around health care: working in
silos. Senior managers who are at the department's level work in silos. You need
to work collectively so people can find the best solutions.
Health
care professionals – I know when we got in to get the intervention that were
needed for my family member, health care was second to none. The compassion, the
skillset, the understanding, being at your beckon call for all the patients was
second to none. The issue becomes – I know and I saw it – some of these people
were overworked. They were burnt out. They were giving you still 110 per cent,
but you knew eventually it was going to break. We knew emergency is a pure mess.
That's not because of the people that work there; the system has to be improved.
There has to be an improvement for emergency.
One of
the systems that need to be improved is having more doctors in advance of that
in family practice so that they can address some of the issues that don't have
to be addressed at emergency at 3 in the morning, or at 7 the next morning.
These are things that have to be done and can be done.
I talked
to a number of physicians. I'm going to sit there 10 hours one day, 17 hours
another day, 14 another day, I'm going to talk to the health professionals. I'm
going to ask questions. Particularly when they know who I am, they're a little
bit more apt to open up and say what their concerns are. I found it a very good
process for me to understand what's happening, stuff I had no idea how to health
care system, simple things that could be improved upon.
We need
to find the mechanism for those people, not the Rothschilds, not some other
collaborative consultants from New York City or somebody else to do it. The
people who are front liners, the people who are middle management, they're the
ones who would know that. They then pass it on up the line to the senior
management who then can implement these programs and use their budget lines in
the right manner.
We need
to start looking at exactly what's happening. We know it's a reality. We've had
the Medical Association say they're not pleased with this budget. It doesn't go
where it needs to go to address their particular needs of recruitment,
enhancement, retention and preventing burnout for physicians of all levels here.
We know the Nurses' Union have said the same thing. This has to be about
recruitment. It has to be about offering more opportunities. It has to be about
changing the approach to health care.
I know
there has been a lot of talk about it, but unfortunately we didn't see a lot of
substance in this budget of how that was going to be done. We seen a fair bit
about consultants who, again, I'm not quite sure that they've sat in the
emergency room with people for 15 hours, or they've had a procedure in
Newfoundland and Labrador, or they live in a remote area where they're waiting
two days to get a medevac out of their community. That worries me there when the
solutions can be homegrown. We talked about the carbon tax here was to be
homegrown. We plotted that if you can get something here that works for the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador and is less burdening on them, or addresses
their particular needs, that's the route we should be going. But we didn't see
that in what's happening now in addressing our health care challenges here.
You
know, we wanted to look at things that show this province is standing up for
what's right for the people of this province. That means challenging how we
deliver programs and services. But particularly challenging the federal
government to be fair to the people of this province here. So we need a better
approach to what's being done here.
The
people in this province haven't seen the things that they were hoping for. They
haven't seen a decrease in the cost of food. They haven't seen a decrease at the
pumps. They haven't seen a reassurance that their quality of life has to
improve. Most have said to me now, if we can just sustain, if I don't go further
and further in debt, if I don't continually fall behind, if I don't continually
have to make decisions between heat, food, my medication – forget social things,
I mean there's a group of people now who've given up totally on that. We have
one lady yesterday said, on Open Line,
who had noted you know what seniors need to do now? Is just sit in their chair
and not move, because that's all their going to be able to do – those on fixed
income.
So
that's pitiful when we should be acknowledging the rewards, what they've
contributed, that they're still very viable contributors to our society, and
have them engage in every part of our society and every facet of educating our
young people, of talking about our traditions, as part of what we're doing. We
talk about the industries here. We have so many viable industries. I said that
at the beginning here; I don't see it as much about a spending issue we have in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
I do
think we can be very much more effective and frugal on how we spend our money,
but I would think we could sustain $8-billion budgets if we had a better handle
on getting a return on our investments. Our investments being the resources we
have in Newfoundland and Labrador, our part of Confederation, getting our fair
share from Ottawa. And then finding the most effective way to spend that $8
billion to meet the needs. Sometimes the $8 billion might be more than $8
billion, because we're generating more revenue.
I'm a
real believer that government and this province need to set the environment for
businesses to flourish here and invest here. I mean, Verafin, what an example of
what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can do with government support. I give
credit. Government supported this; I know the minister for a number of times
went down and supported them, spoke highly of them, showed that Newfoundland and
Labrador was open for business, showed that the expertise here is second to
none, and showed that Verafin was open to bring experts in from other provinces
to work here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I got to
meet a couple of them over the last number of years who have settled here. This
is their home now. They're contributing here.
Now,
we're hopeful that Verafin, since the sale, will only expand and take us to a
global market where other companies or other people in the same sector, would
say: let's check out this Newfoundland and Labrador. They've got some good
things happening down there. But to do that they need to know that we're open
for business, the environments is here. But we need to know, as citizens, that
the benefactors are going to be the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and
that's across the board when it comes to any industry in this province.
So there
are a number of things there that we could be doing better, that we need to put
upfront. This is who we are. This is who we represent. This is what we stand for
and this is what we want to do if you want to come to Newfoundland and Labrador
and do business.
That
would generate the revenues that we need in this province to be able to provide
the services. But we need to, also, say to the federal government: Look, we're
part of this Confederation, but you don't dictate whether or not Newfoundland
and Labrador thrives, economically. We'll work collaboratively. There's no
reason why the federal government should arbitrarily be controlling what is
happening in our fishing industry. No reason whatsoever. We've been at this a
lot longer than this Confederation has been a country in Newfoundland and
Labrador. So we should have input into what happens in the fishing industry.
Our
offshore oil and gas industry: no different, same way. When they can bring in
regulatory issues or there are some MPs from Quebec or Ontario or BC who dictate
that they don't like something that we're doing here or they heard something
about something in the oil industry here that might be detrimental somewhere
down the road. Yet, they get to dictate, potentially, what could happen in our
industries. That's not good enough, not good enough at all.
You
know, we're an equal partner here. We came in accepting Confederation and I
would hope we continue to be accepted in this Confederation, and you know where
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are in this country because we're everywhere.
We're succeeding everywhere and we're needed everywhere in this country and
that's why we need to show, again, that we get our fair share.
On the
many occasions that we've lobbied in the House of Assembly here – and I know the
colleagues across there and I know the Premier's done it and the ministers, they
have pulled in whatever political mileage they could to ensure that Newfoundland
and Labrador got theirs, but we shouldn't have to be doing that. We should be
able to go up and state our case and our case would be based on fact. Our case
would be based on the merits of who we are, what we have, what we contribute. We
know the hundreds of billions of dollars that we've contributed to this
federation in our 73 years. And I say hundreds of billions, I'd say even beyond
that if you look at the resources that have been taken from us without us really
getting any real benefit from the secondary processing now.
Now,
we're starting to get a bit better. You know, I give credit, the Inco plant is a
great example of where we're starting to get some of the secondary processing.
The
fishing industry, at times we do well and other times we get a sort of slap in
the face, not being able to control what we want to do. I get that.
Mining,
we've already set the example that we can do our own secondary processing here
in any industry. There is no reason why we couldn't.
The oil
and gas industry, the refineries trying to get back. I give credit, again, we
know that was teetering on whether or not that would survive. We have got it
back to at least it is now going to be still viable. It is going to create a
number of jobs for people, it is great for that region, but there is no reason
why we can't expand those things.
The oil
and gas industry and the reliance on fossil fuels is going to be here for
decades, and anybody who tells you that's not the fact, they're living in an
illusion that is not reality. Do we all want to protect the environment? One
hundred per cent. Do we all see a time and an effort for transitioning? That
time will come, as we all now are cognizant of it.
The
conversations around green energy and the environment: The last two decades has
been more than it has been since the world was created. So I suspect over the
next number of years it will ramp up even more and more. More people will be
cognizant of what we need to do. More industries will do whatever they can to
keep the environment clean.
I know
the oil and gas industry have done everything that is possible to make things
move in the right direction to show that they're environmentally friendly, that
they minimize the impact on the environment by the products that they produce.
So does it across factories in Ontario or out West or in Quebec or anywhere in
this country of ours. So we need to be cognizant of where we are as part of
that.
A couple
of the other things that I wanted to talk about here. People would say – and I
know it's been said here: Well, what would you do differently? Well, I'll tell
you what we would do.
One is
we would prioritize, and prioritize based on what we've heard across the board,
the common denominators in Newfoundland and Labrador. The common denominators in
Newfoundland and Labrador were about the economy, were about quality of life and
were about health care. Then it was about the other things that are important,
too. Infrastructure, we need those things. But these were the key things that
would do it.
How do
you do these things? Well, do you know what? Your income, the crisis people are
facing financially. One of the big income issues here is about taxation, the
impact on people. The cost of taxation on everything, from gasoline and home
heating fuel. That's one of the immediate things.
I
remember my mother used to tell me: David, the first priority you should have in
life is to pay off your home. Because if you own your home you won't have to
worry about much more after that. Because if you own your home you should be
able to – she knew me, I had no qualms in driving a $100 car, if I had to, if it
got me from A to B and I'd find a job doing something somewhere. It may not be a
lucrative job but you would do that. But if you own your home, you had that.
That's
no longer the issue because the issue is not only about owning your home; to
heat your home now is as costly as the mortgage on your home for a lot of
people. I know that, I filled up an oil tank at my house in Portugal Cove-St.
Philip's the other day and it was 32 per cent more than it was this time last
year – 32 per cent. Even that had an impact on me, and that might be fine for me
who has a decent income, but for those on fixed incomes, for those seniors.
I've had
one senior, God rest her soul, she passed away and her spouse is now – look at
the difference there. When you have two incomes coming in and now it's
dramatically down and now all these added increases.
I know
there are some incentives there and I know the government tried to do something
for the seniors and that, but it didn't go far enough. It becomes,
unfortunately, a small proportion of what they need and what the impact is. We
moved them up one step. Unfortunately, the cost moved up 10 steps, and how you
make that gap is not there. It's not there if you're 78 years old and you're
living by yourself and you don't have other supports from family members or if
you just lost your spouse or your house is 65 years old. I know we have programs
to help do that, but then there's a whole encompassing process. It's not as
simple as people think.
That's
one of things we would have talked about, charging the taxation on gasoline and
home heat.
One
thing – and I've asked for that, I know my colleagues have asked for and we're
still baffled at it, I get at the time why it was there – is the five cent
additional per litre costing that would offset the transition from the refinery
while it was down to keep it warm idling to ensure that it was still going to be
viable. I know the arguments have been the PUB. I've been asking for it. My
colleagues here have been asking for at least the last 14 months, 13 months to
do that. If it is a five or six month process with the PUB, that could have all
been done, put through and hearings could have been had and the review and the
whole process. That would have at least been another break at the pumps.
We do
know and our understanding is the companies that it was meant to be for. Fair
enough, but every other company is taking advantage of this, at the expense of
the consumer here. That's not fair. That would have been another five cents
there.
Home
heating rebate: I mean we had a great program a number of years ago. The uptake
was dramatic, but it was necessary for people. It did its part there. It got
people through the hard months of the winter and that. So a home heat rebate
would have been an easy thing to implement, minimal administrative costs and it
would have actually addressed the needs, particularly for those most vulnerable.
The
sugar tax: I was so pleased to see the other day – I picked up a litre of milk
and it had on it 25 per cent less sugar. So that tells me the industry are doing
their part. We don't have to force things down people's throats, particularly
when we dispute that there's going to be any benefit whatsoever – any benefit
whatsoever in this world.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL:
So it is a taxation, call it
what you may. I know in principle at the beginning, because even we talked about
it, it sounded like it was something that would be really beneficial from a
health perspective. We've talked to people in the industry and, fair enough, if
we can minimize or eliminate sugar in people's diet and this type of thing,
particularly those who are more vulnerable to it, then that would be a benefit
health-wise.
But in
this case, we analyzed it from every angle, we talked to health professionals
and we talked to people who are advocates for it who now realize that it's
probably not going to achieve the goal that we wanted. We talked to the industry
and we said perhaps co-operating with the industry for them to find ways to
eliminate sugar in their products, as part of that, versus taxing, particularly
low-income people – because some of the consumers here are going to be those who
can't rely, can't afford, some of the more expensive drinks out there.
So
putting a tax on that is only going to take more money out of the people who are
most vulnerable, which means there's less opportunity they're going to have to
buy fruit or vegetables that they're going to need to keep them healthy. So
things like that were a bit baffling, and we had an argument and we thought we
had a discussion around what would work, and of course, obviously, it didn't go
anywhere. So I'm still hopeful that when it's thought about, you look at the
merits of doing that, it's not in the best interest, it doesn't serve what you
would think and it's going to probably do more damage than it would do good.
Is there
a plan, or should there be a plan that we would support, about working how we
reduce sugars in particular food items, drinks, whatever it may be? If we could
also find ways to reduce sugar in other areas, to educate people around it and
get people to understand that, that would be something that we would welcome and
we would 100 per cent support.
Commit
not to increase taxation. We saw in the Greene report some of the worrisome
recommendations there, about selling off our valuable assets, for one-time
shots. These are assets that continue to fund programs on a continuous basis. In
some cases, we know, will be much more lucrative particularly when the economy
increases again, and becomes more viable, and these products are what people are
going to have a demand for. So why would we get rid of something that's viable,
it's profitable? If you've got a multitude of private sector people wanting it,
that speaks volumes. That tells me that's the one you should hold onto.
Are
there assets that are no value to us right now, or not as valuable, or probably
costing us that maybe the private sector could take and run more efficiently and
make profitable? Sure there are. They are the ones I would sit down continuously
and have that discussion, and I think collectively as a House we could have a
discussion on some of those, once we know the logistics of what's there.
That's
where the Greene report fell short. It didn't have the analysis of what was
valuable, what wasn't, what would be an asset that the private sector could be
better fitted to operate or provide, what would be something that is a loss
leader for us now that we're losing on, that we could get rid of even if we
didn't gain anything financially from it, but in the long run that we would gain
money forever and a day.
So as I
get closer to concluding, I want to talk about some of the things that we talk
about, the positive things in this province. Let's talk about our ocean
technology. It's flourishing here; it's booming. There are a lot of good things
happening in this province. I mean, supports have come across the board here.
Industry people are coming here. The industries are looking at what's happening
here.
Offshore
oil: We dodged a bullet last week, but I'm very confident and the industry is
confident that this will continue to flourish in Newfoundland and Labrador.
There are a number of other projects there that should be sanctioned, that
should move forward. Be cognizant of what we're doing with our environment, and
there are ways that could be supported very easily, make it more efficient from
an environment point of view.
Our
mining industry, we know what's happening there. That is booming. You go out in
Central Newfoundland and you go up in Labrador, it is booming. Let's continue
that. Let's show we're open for business. Let's show we can be cognizant of our
environment, make sure that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are the benefactors
and that we understand these companies are here to make money. We have no
problem with that. Let's flourish that.
We had
the opportunity as a caucus to meet with a couple of these mining companies, and
they're enthused. They're not here to grab and run. They're here for the long
haul. They're here to do what's for the benefit of their shareholders, while
making sure that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are also benefactors.
Aquaculture and fisheries: We just talked about it. The thing is they're all
flourishing. But we need to make sure, Minister, that Ottawa doesn't dictate
what we do in Newfoundland and Labrador. That has to be the key thing. That has
to be the key thing here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL:
Our tourism industry, the
minister yesterday was under the misconception that I don't support the tourism
industry. We don't on this side. My first job in government, almost 40 years
ago, was in the tourism industry. I'm a bigger supporter and I'm on different
committees here – very supportive. But we need to prioritize when we can invest
in certain parts of the tourism industry and when we need to prioritize where we
spend some of our money.
Very
enthused about what's happening in the tourism industry. I come from Bell
Island. Right now, tourism is what's going to save Bell Island in the near
future. That's a reality. We came from a mining community; that's one part of
it. There's a big strategy to do that. Tourism is very important in this
province.
Agriculture again – the agricultural industry in Newfoundland, you can see it,
the last number of years, picking up. Younger people are getting into it. I got
to speak to a group of young farmers; very enthused about it. So very, very
cognizant of what's going to happen there.
The
forest industry again – the forest industry was on a downward swing for a period
of time, but it's stabilized now. We've got people into it. We've got companies
out there doing things. The mill is still working on the West Coast, and we know
there's stuff there that's starting to flourish. They weathered the storm when
every other mill across North America and in the world was shutting down. They
have a great future out there. We just need to be able to support it to move it
to the next level.
International education: People are coming flocking from all over the world to
come to Newfoundland and Labrador because what we offer them. The aerospace
industry, second to none here. The investments are happening here as we go.
We're attracting investments from all sectors.
We've
got the hedge funds want to come here. There are pension plans that want to come
here to invest in Newfoundland and Labrador, and there's a reason for that,
because they see we're open for business. They see that we have the environment.
They see we have the skill set to do what needs to be done for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
What we
ask and we implore every Member of the House of Assembly to ensure that the
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are the benefactors of whatever industry
flourishes in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
In my
capacity as assistant deputy Deputy Government House Leader, I move, seconded by
the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, that this House do now recess.
SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
This
House stands recessed until 2 p.m.
Recess
The
House resumed at 2 p.m.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
Before
we begin, I'd like to welcome a new Page; it's a face that we've seen here a
couple of times, who I'd like to officially introduce. His name is Yeshwin
Ayappa; he's from South India and studying economics and statistics at Memorial
University of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Welcome.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
In the public gallery today,
and I had the honour to meet these ladies, I would like to welcome members of
the Bonavista Mission Team: Lora Swyers, Sandra Durdle, Betty Lou Genge, Ivy
Harnett and Susan Heath. They will be joining us today for a Member's statement.
Welcome.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Also in the public gallery, I
would like to recognize members of the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of
Public Planners: Julia Schwarz, President; Lindsay Lyghtle-Brushett,
Vice-President; Stephen Jewczyk, Legislation Committee; Christopher Hardy,
Treasurer; Ken O'Brien, member. They will be joining us for a Ministerial
Statement.
Welcome.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
SPEAKER:
Today we will hear Members'
statements from the hon. Members for the Districts of Placentia West - Bellevue,
Bonavista, Terra Nova, Conception Bay South and Burin - Grand Bank.
The hon.
the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I stand
in this hon. Chamber today to recognize and celebrate the life of the late Mr.
J. William (Bill) Kenway of Baine Harbour who passed away on March 25, 2022, at
the age of 74.
Bill was
the definition of a true gentleman. I had the pleasure of knowing Bill through
his time as mayor of Baine Harbour. His pride for his community and his
eagerness to help his neighbour was certainly on display in every conversation I
had with this gentleman.
Bill was
also a family man, leaving to mourn his wonderful wife Barbara, son Brad,
daughter Bonita, four grandchildren, two great-grandchildren, five brothers and
sisters, along with a number of nieces, nephews and close friends.
I invite
all my hon. colleagues in joining myself and the beautiful District of Placentia
West - Bellevue in sending our sincere thoughts and condolences to the Kenway
family as they mourn the loss of such a great gentleman, Mr. Bill Kenway.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Commencing in 2009, several residents of the Bonavista and area conducted
humanitarian trips to Uganda to help make a difference in the lives of many.
Cathy Harris, leader of the initial three missions, named then Prodigal
Ministries, Sandra Durdle, Eileen Faulkner, Joan Marsh, Pauline Fleming,
Courtney Street, Betty Lou Genge, Ivy Harnett, Lora Swyers and Eliza Swyers,
after a year's preparation work, travelled to Uganda to assist locals and
provide aid.
Referred
to as the Bonavista Mission Team, this group has helped build a schoolhouse,
churches, houses and assist financially when and where deemed worthy. In one
case, a motorcycle was arranged for a family to assist a business opportunity
for taxi services. The group provided food, clothes, footwear, solar lights and
treats for children and families.
This
dedicated group is active in the District of Bonavista as well, by helping to
build better lives and enhancing wellness. The mission group looks forward to
returning to Uganda in February 2023, and continuing to make a difference in our
own Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I aske
the Members of the 50th House of Assembly to join me in celebrating the
outstanding humanitarian contribution of the Bonavista Mission Team.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
L. PARROTT:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
the last two years have been extremely challenging for all competitive athletes
in the province to train. Through dedication, hard work, determination, and
support of their family, coaches and Clarenville Nordic Ski Club, two
outstanding athletes have represented not only Clarenville, but the entire
province.
Jillian
and Jocelyn Coates – also known as Two Coates of Wax – had their sights set on
the nationals in Whistler, BC, and thankfully, when COVID restrictions changed
last minute, they were able to attend the national Cross-Country Ski
Championships, March 17 to 26, 2022.
This
Canadian ski race hosted racers from all provinces, ranging in ages from 14 to
30. The highlight for the girls of this event was watching their mentor, Olympic
medallist Jessie Diggins, one of the fastest skiers in North America.
In a
normal year, there are a series of 10 races provincially. As recent as the past
weekend, they travelled to Corner Brook for provincials, won medals and made
their mark in their retro outfits. Having fun is a big contributor to their love
of this sport.
They are
active ambassadors and coaches with the Clarenville Nordic junior program, and
mentors for every skier of all ages across the entire province. The dynamic duo
now have Canada Games on their radar, and I wish them great success.
Success
is always doing your best.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
the Town of Conception Bay South is home to many of the provinces finest
athletes. On March 24, I had the pleasure of attending the 2021 CBS Sports
Awards and Sports Hall of Fame Ceremony at the Manuels River Hibernia
Interpretation Centre.
During
the evening, their achievements and perseverance were highlighted and the
challenges they encountered during the pandemic. It was evident the important
role sport has played in the development of youth and adults alike within our
great town.
All
nominees were honoured and the following athletes were the recipients of the
2021 awards: Junior Female Athlete of the Year, Adele Martin; Junior Male
Athlete of the Year, Daniel Martin; Senior Female Athlete of the Year, Lauren
Rowe; Senior Male Athlete of the Year, Drew Sheppard; Executive of the Year,
Calvin Randell; Coach of the Year, Robert Nugent; and Team of the Year, Baymen
Senior Men's Rugby team.
I would
also like to congratulate the Sports Hall of Fame inductees: Mr. Thomas Kieley,
Michelle Porter, Steve Batten, John Baldwin and Jack Mercer who contributed
tremendously to our sporting community.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the 2021 Conception Bay South
Sports Award recipients.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Burin
- Grand Bank.
P. PIKE:
Speaker, the great Province
of Newfoundland and Labrador is so fortunate to have CYN, Canada Youth Network,
consisting of 27 main hubs and six satellite sites that engage youth and young
adults through the provision of meaningful programs and services that support
their inclusion, skills development and civic engagement.
The
District of Burin - Grand Bank is fortunate to have two of these organizations,
one in the town of St. Lawrence and the other in Grand Bank.
CYN
provides the youth with opportunities for participation in social and economic
development by focusing on learning, employment, community capacity building and
recreation.
Our CYNs
offer after-school programs that encourage inclusion and provide opportunities
for children aged eight to eleven and drop-ins from Grade 7 to 12, which
includes recreation and homework activities.
Other
activities and programs include youth leadership and employment, mental health
and healthy living and programs that provide intergenerational and community
communication to reduce the isolation of seniors and other vulnerable groups.
The
major part of the program focuses on training for first aid, leadership,
linkages and summer programming for children.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in showing our appreciation to the CYN boards,
coordinators, staff and volunteers. They are committed to maintaining
opportunities for the youth of the District of Burin - Grand Bank and this
beautiful province.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Speaker.
On
behalf of government, I would like to recognize an important day in the history
of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was on April 13, 1925, that the first woman
gained the right to vote and hold public office in this province. This was made
possible after years of advocacy and through the efforts of the suffragettes who
campaigned tirelessly to make their voices heard and their voices count.
In
October 1928, 52,343 women cast ballots in their first general election
representing a remarkable 90 per cent voter turnout rate.
Speaker,
I am pleased to say that today, all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians aged 18 and
older have the right to vote and run for public office. In 2021, a record number
of women put their names forward for election at all levels of government in our
province.
As we
look to the future, I encourage all women and gender-diverse people to continue
exercising their right to vote and to consider serving as elected
representatives of the people.
Speaker,
I ask all hon. Members to join me in recognizing the anniversary of the first
woman getting the right to vote in our province. May we all continue to advance
towards true gender equality and honour the rights of all people in Newfoundland
and Labrador.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
I thank the minister for
an advance copy of her statement.
Today is
an important day. It is the anniversary of when women gained the right to vote
and hold public office in this province 97 years ago. This day is a chance to
reflect and acknowledge the trailblazer women in Newfoundland and Labrador like
Grace Sparkes and Hazel Newhook. But it is also a day to reflect on how much
work is left to be done in advancing gender equity in politics.
We all
have a duty to empower women, non-binary and gender-diverse individuals in the
political arena. So let's all work together to create a gender-diverse
representation in this hon. House of Assembly.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker, and thank
you to the minister for an advance copy of her statement.
Equal
access to democracy is something that we should all be proud of and protect
dearly. We encourage this government to listen to the research from Equal Voice
and not call snap elections to ensure that women can prepare for elections so
that more women can be successful in their campaigns and hold public office in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Thank you, Speaker.
I
recently had the pleasure of joining members of the Professional Planners
Association of Newfoundland and Labrador for a virtual event focusing on the
important contribution that planners make to the growth and vitality of
communities.
Over
half of the municipalities in the province have municipal plans and
developmental regulations. Other municipalities are working on preparing their
very first plans. Municipalities understand the importance of establishing goals
for sustainable development and improving the quality of life for their
residents.
Planning
is an essential tool to attract industry, residents and professionals, which are
all vital to achieving sustainable, local communities. Through land-use
planning, municipalities have a consistent set of rules that will apply to
everyone and can help meet community goals.
Speaker,
as we review the Joint Working Group report on Recommendations for
Regionalization it is clear that land-use planning is a critical component to
guide our communities into the future.
With
that in mind, the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs will begin work
towards preparing Professional Planners legislation. This is a very important
step in the process of developing professional self-regulating legislation for
the association.
I look
forward to working with the association as we begin this very important work.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you, Speaker, and I'd
like to think the hon. minister for an advance copy of her statement.
Speaker,
as a former mayor myself of my beautiful hometown of Pouch Cove, I know
first-hand the importance of professional land-use planning. Professional
planners are an integral role in shaping the future of communities and regions.
Municipalities would simply not be able to function without the important role
that ensures consistency and transparency in the application of development
regulations, amongst others.
Speaker,
I would be remiss not to note that the minister's department also has a
municipal legislation review underway, city acts and the Northeast Avalon
Regional Plan, which has been ongoing for quite some time.
I do
hope that the Professional Planners legislation the minister references includes
service standards and time frames with accountability so that municipalities
will not be left waiting on approvals from government.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker, and I
thank the minister for a copy of her statement.
A
province cannot be properly managed without a robust plan crafted with
transparency and respectful public engagement. We encourage the government's
recognition of how vital it is for plans and the intentions to be disclosed to
the people we represent across all municipalities, across all communities in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Any further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
Taxi
operators in our province have received very little support, especially during
COVID. Taxi operators are facing challenges in recruiting drivers and face
significant administrative burden and red tape.
Come
Home Year means more visitors will be using taxis.
I ask
the Premier: What is he going to do to make it easier for taxi operators to
recruit drivers?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
And of
course we're sympathetic to the plight of the taxi drivers. They provide an
incredible service, not just to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador but to
the people who come to Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.
We
understand that these are challenging times for the taxi industry and we're here
to support them in any way we can, like providing support for motor vehicle
registration, Mr. Speaker. We'll continue to work with them. If they have
innovative solutions, we're interested to sit with them at the table to ensure
that they are able to meet their full professional capacity, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
Well, I
can inform the Premier that the taxi operators association have presented ways
that they could reduce red tape so that they could enhance other drivers, so
that we are ready for Come Home Year and it's not an embarrassment when people
land at this airport, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL:
Speaker, a doctor in Central
Newfoundland and Labrador has taken to social media to outline the challenges
facing health care centres in the region. Stories of full emergency rooms,
patients from multiple rural sites having to wait for virtual care and stories
of the demoralized staff. She calls – and I quote – the system that is
consistently close to collapse.
I ask
the Premier: Why do you keep talking about long-term plans when the immediate
need in our province is staring you straight in the face?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Of
course, I'm aware of Dr. Powell's comments. I've chatted with her in the past.
We understand the pressure that the front-line health care workers are under,
and we've been sympathetic towards it and we're trying to be creative with them
to not just meet their acute needs immediately but, more importantly, to them
and to their patients, but also to create medium- and long-term solutions for
the people of this province, Mr. Speaker. During this time of disruption, as
you've heard me say many times before, is the time to get creative about
long-term, sustainable solutions.
I take
Dr. Powell's point – I take it, I understand it and I'm sympathetic towards it.
We are working towards acute solutions for her, her colleagues and, most
importantly, the patients in Central Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
doctor goes on to describe a woman who recently lost her family doctor,
questioning how she can get a Pap test. The doctor warns of cervical cancer
screening rates of Newfoundland and Labrador are – quote – horrendously low due
to a lack of access. Here's another quote: Even one death from a preventable
cancer is one too many.
I ask
the Premier: How can patients without a family doctor be confident their illness
will be properly monitored without a family doctor?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We, of
course, understand the pressures that are on the health care system now,
particularly with primary care. We appreciate that. We think right now is the
time to disrupt the paradigm and create a new one, based on evidence. That's why
we launched the Health Accord NL, which, of course, the Opposition was involved
in, had a seat at the table on.
We
understand that we need to recreate the paradigm for family doctors so not only
are they providing care for their patients, but they're meeting their full
professional capacity. They're fully respected by this government, Mr. Speaker.
We want to be there with them, working with them. In fact, I'm meeting with the
NLMA tomorrow to see if there is anything else we can do in terms of an acute
strategy to help fill the gap, Mr. Speaker.
Unfortunately, some of these situations are long standing, they're chronic and
they will take some time to fill, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
health care workers throughout the Central region and, in fact, throughout our
province are overworked and gone well beyond the breaking point. Speaker, these
issues did not develop overnight and, after seven years, have reached a breaking
point.
I ask
the Premier: Does this sound like a health care system well handled by your
minister?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Of
course, as I've said in this House and outside this House many times, I
recognize that the system is broken. I've worked in it; I understand it. I've
seen the nurses at their end. I've seen doctors at their end. I've seen
colleagues at their end. We understand that.
That is
a narrative that is right now across not even just our country, it's across the
North – it's across the world, actually, in terms of the stress and strain on
the health care system because of the pandemic. That said, when I came in it was
one of the first things that we did, Mr. Speaker, as a government. We launched
Health Accord NL to seek input from all stakeholders so that we recognize this
time of challenge equally is the time and opportunity to harness the new,
innovative ways to provide health care during the pandemic to make sure that
we're providing sustainable health care to all people of the province well into
the future, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
Well,
Premier, after seven years these plans are not working. A hundred thousand
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians without a family physician; 6,000 to 8,000
backlogged surgeries here; 20 per cent of rural physicians leaving Newfoundland
and Labrador, burnt-out health professionals – Mr. Speaker, this plan is not
working. Something has to be done to do the right thing for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
We have
heard on numerous occasions that health care workers in our province do not feel
they are being listened to by this government nor by the Minister of Health. The
result: a health care system in crisis. The Newfoundland and Labrador Medical
Association, the Nurses' Union, NAPE, CUPE, paramedics, pharmacists, allied
health professionals and pretty much every resident in Newfoundland and Labrador
feels that the health care system is ready to collapse.
I ask
the Premier: Will you do the right thing and replace your Minister of Health to
get health care on the right track?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I've
already said, we recognize the problems that exist in health care. We recognize
that there are challenges. We recognize the stress and strain that every
physician, every nurse, every allied health professional is under, Mr. Speaker.
I can
tell you from talking to every single premier – I talked to Premier Horgan
yesterday about the CHT. He's feeling it in British Columbia. They're feeling it
across the Maritimes. They're feeling it in every province, Mr. Speaker. It's
not unique to us.
I
understand by the way that that is cold comfort for patients waiting, and that's
why we launched the Health Accord NL and we're also looking to work on acute,
immediate solutions for the people of the province, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Grand
Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
C. TIBBS:
The time shouldn't be now to
get creative; you've had seven years to get creative. The time should have been
led up to this now.
Speaker,
my office is in contact, and myself, with a man currently sitting in a hallway
at the hospital in Grand Falls-Windsor, with nine other patients in the hallway.
Here is a quote from this patient: There are no physicians in a lot of rural
communities in Central, so all patients are being admitted to the regional
hospital in Grand Falls-Windsor. This creates triple the workload for the same
number of staff.
I ask
the Premier: Do you see the effects your inactions in health care recruitment
have had in our hospitals, and what are we going to do to help these nine
patients today?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much for the
question, Speaker.
We
recognize the strains and stresses that have been put on acute care over the
course of COVID, and indeed, as recently as recent weeks, I spoke with the
president of the RNU about the issue of hallways. I was speaking with the CEO of
Central Health today; she has a stabilization plan. Her first priority is to
clear the corridors in the emergency department, and she and her senior team
have put together a credible plan to achieve this within the next couple of
weeks.
They
also provide extensive support virtually and in person to those areas that are
currently experiencing challenges in recruitment. Central Health have recruited
36 physicians in the last two years, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Grand
Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
C. TIBBS:
Thank you.
Premier,
I can respect if you don't want to answer my questions, but at least have the
courage to stand up and answer the people of Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans
today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
C. TIBBS:
Lead.
Speaker,
we are beyond a crisis in the Central region – beyond. But we know so many other
parts of this province are feeling the same strain within their health care
centres as well. The minister has had seven years with this government to listen
to the warnings from health care professionals across this province, yet the
crisis persists.
I ask
the Premier, please: How can you lead health care when you're so out of touch
and what are we going to do today?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Mr. Speaker, never let it be
said that I ignored a question from the Member opposite. So I'll answer this
one, and happy to.
The
actions I've taken since being here, Mr. Speaker, are recognizing the challenges
that are at hand and looking at opportunities to recreate a sustainable health
care system. We recognize the old system does not work, frankly. We spend the
most per person per year on health care out of any province – any province – and
we have the worst health outcomes. So to continue to invest in old paradigms is
simply not the evidence that we're going to use to drive the new system.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER A. FUREY:
We're going to continue to
recognize the opportunity to create a new system for sustainable health care
delivery to the people of our province, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Speaker, I'm glad to see the
Premier reference the Health Accord, because the Health Accord talks about a
need and a time for change in health care. I'd suggest to the Premier that it's
a time for a change in Health ministers.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
T. WAKEHAM:
I have been contacted by a
senior in my district who will be better off by the changes that are announced
in the budget by $377 for the entire year. That's $30 a month. In the meantime,
they're filling up their oil tank at a rate of an extra $300 a month.
So I ask
the minister: Why are you continuing to let seniors fall further and further
behind with a budget that is out of touch and has missed the mark?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education.
T. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
we've talked about, in this Legislature over the last couple of days, the
benefits that have been put in place by the Finance Minister and by our
government in this year's budget. The heat rebate has been rolled into the
Seniors' Benefit and the Income Supplement in previous years by this government
to ensure that it has been stabilized, has been permanent in those supplements
for those individuals.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the Member again on the other side: Is it the rebate on tax
insurance that he'd eliminate; the Metrobus passes that he'd eliminate; the
Income Supplement increases or the Seniors' Benefit increases that he'd
eliminate? What would he eliminate that we have put in place?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Speaker, the minister's own
Premier and Minister of Finance have said in the House that their plan was not
enough.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
They have said that their plan is not enough. So there was nothing new in the
budget for seniors. So I ask again – the seniors are spending more and more
money per month on home heat. They are falling further and further behind. The
Premier says he won't apologize for trying to help our seniors.
Will the
Premier apologize for failing them, to address their needs, and missing the
mark?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education.
T. OSBORNE:
Thank you again, Speaker.
What we
have done in our government, Speaker, is ensured that rate mitigation prevents
home heating from doubling.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
T. OSBORNE:
The gift that was left by the
party opposite, Speaker, was a doubling of people's home heating. We've
prevented that, Speaker, by ensuring that rate mitigation at $500 million – I
believe it was about $2,400 a year for these individuals has not happened. It
would have happened under that plan on the other side.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Just to
be clear, on record, the Minister of Education voted for Muskrat Falls.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
B. PETTEN:
That's not theatre, Mr.
Speaker, that's fact.
If you
want to find some savings, we've spent $600,000 yesterday. The Premier might
lose his ride, but it will be a few more dollars for the home heat rebate to
seniors. You're looking for savings; we can find more. We'll tell you later on.
Speaker,
our offices have heard from parents of students at Leary's Brook Junior High in
St. John's who feel betrayed by government over ballooning class sizes in Grade
7, late French immersion.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
B. PETTEN:
Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader is chirpy today.
AN HON. MEMBER:
He is.
B. PETTEN:
Yeah, he is.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Get on
with the question, please.
B. PETTEN:
Speaker, in September, the
class size in Grade 6 will go from 22 to 34 in Grade 7 and still have a
wait-list.
How does
the minister believe this is a suitable learning environment for 12-year-olds
learning an entirely new language?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education.
T. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will
address the preamble by the Member opposite. Yes, I was duped by that party into
thinking that Muskrat Falls was a good deal, as were a number of other people.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
T. OSBORNE:
There are a number of reasons
I left that party, Mr. Speaker, and that was one of them. They'd had everybody
convinced that it was a good deal when in fact it wasn't.
But I
would suggest that he check the record, because there were two bills. I said I
was going to vote for one and against the other. Tell you how upfront they are,
Mr. Speaker. They actually called the vote while I was gone for supper, so I
actually didn't vote for it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
T. OSBORNE:
In terms of French immersion
students, Mr. Speaker, I know that the English School District look at the need,
look at the number of students within a school and determine the needs for
French immersion –
SPEAKER:
The minister's time has
expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Mr. Speaker, I'll sum that up
really quickly. I have a great friendship in CBS. Do you know what he says, a
job to fool you – doesn't take much to fool you. The Minister of Education just
proved it. If he got duped by a crowd in this House, it doesn't take much to
fool you, Minister.
AN HON. MEMBER:
That's true.
B. PETTEN:
No, he's living proof; he
admitted it.
Speaker,
this has been an issue for several years, and pleas from the local MHA and
government have fallen on deaf ears. Speaker, even more frustrating is the fact
that those on the wait-list are not eligible to apply in subsequent years, and
parents of Grade 5's now making their choice to enrol have no idea how the class
size will balloon and you're not even guaranteed a seat.
So,
Speaker, again, why is the cap size of 34 acceptable to the minister?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education.
T. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm not
sure I understood the Member's question in terms of the class size of 34, or the
cap of 34. I believe he was talking about French immersion. I know again the
English School District look at the enrolment in a school to determine whether
or not it is a viable program within that school.
But I do
also know that it's a priority of this government and of the English School
District to offer French immersion where the numbers warrant.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
federal Fisheries minister this past winter came under fire when she suggested
harvesters leave as many fish in the water as possible and grow vegetation in
the ocean to combat climate change. Speaker, to insist harvesters – quote –
would have to accept this sacrifice is ridiculous.
Last
week the federal Fisheries minister blindsided the minister and industry by
putting a moratorium on the mackerel fishery in this province.
I ask
the minister: Why are you letting your federal cousin decide the future of our
fisheries?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.
D. BRAGG:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I feel
privileged and honoured to stand and answer this one today. I have not so much a
prop, but I'll table this for the Member if he wants to. Is sinking carbon the
best, or carbon to sink? It's all about kelp. So let's talk about that, but
let's talk about the fishery most importantly. Last Monday, there was a protest
on the steps out here. I stood in front of these people. I didn't see anybody
from your side of the House stand up and represent the fishery.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAGG:
I stood there with those
people. I stood by their side, because I know these people. So I wouldn't mind
if you like to answer some questions, and ask me some great questions. Let's
talk about outside buyers. Let's put it out there. I ask you, where do you stand
on outside buyers? Where does your party stand on outside buyers?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
Mr. Speaker, I was in the
health care system at that time, which I'll speak to in a future – not at this
point in time, so I could not attend. But I assure that if any other gathering
that do attend outside, I will surely make that at that time.
The
minister didn't answer the question, Mr. Speaker. No answer. He had met after
she had made the comment with the Premier, and then he disclosed that he had
confidence in what the federal Fisheries minister had said. Maybe he can share
with what the minister said for him to instill confidence in for the fishery in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
What
exactly did the minister say to instill confidence?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.
D. BRAGG:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Once
again, it's a privilege to talk about the staple of our economy, the fishery. A
billion-dollar enterprise last year alone – a billion dollars, Mr. Speaker. One
of the biggest mega work programs in this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAGG:
The hon. minister is like any
minister in any Cabinet. With a great staff and with good science, they make
good decisions. Will it always be favoured? Maybe not, but they make their
decisions based on the science. And because we have to trust their judgment on
the science, that's their job.
As
everybody knows the federal government, they control our quotas. We control the
fishery when it comes onshore. So the processing side, talk to us every day of
the week. On the quota side, I will defend the minister in her decisions,
because her decisions are based on the science of the fishery, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
Mr. Speaker, we don't catch
enough groundfish to operate one plant in Newfoundland and Labrador for
year-round. So I'm saying I don't know where the confidence would come in the
fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador, and luckily, we're getting a good return
in price for our shellfish. Other than that, we would be in a sad state.
I ask
the minister: Instead of making apologies for his federal Liberal cousin from
British Columbia, why is our minister sitting quietly by while she forges ahead
with her plan to cover 50 per cent of our oceans with marine protected areas by
2050 that would destroy the fishery as we know it?
I ask
the minister: Why are you supporting Minister Murray's decision? And maybe
that's what you're tabling to the House, the prop you had just displayed.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.
D. BRAGG:
Mr. Speaker, again, talk
about the fish, I do it all day long. I am so proud of the fisher people in this
province.
The
Member opposite asked several questions. Let's talk about plant operations. In
the history of this province, I don't know if we have ever had a plant that was
running 52 weeks of the year. But let's talk about Alberto Wareham's plant in
Arnolds Cove, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAGG:
One of the most profitable
and prosperous fish plants in this province.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Oh, oh!
D. BRAGG:
Talk about chirping, Mr.
Speaker. A little protection here, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
D. BRAGG:
A little protection, please.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
D. BRAGG:
I had the privilege to go
through these fish plants, Mr. Speaker. I've seen the technology, I've seen the
investment and I stand behind what we're doing in our fishery. I stand behind
the harvesters and I stand behind the producers because this is an industry that
we need to protect, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you, Speaker.
I look
forward to a little bit more clarification from the hon. minister on that.
Speaker,
Budget 2022 allocates $1.88 million
for new fire trucks for the province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
J. WALL:
Last year – don't go cheering
yet.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
J. WALL:
Last year's budget was $2.7
million, the year before that was $3 million and the year before that was $2.9
million. Yet, in Estimates, the minister said – and I quote – I don't think it's
an increase – end of quote. Speaker, that is indeed a reduction of almost $1
million.
I ask
the minister: Can he please justify why there was a reduction for funding for
new fire trucks? There will be so many communities in need of a new fire truck.
Can you tell me which ones are going to do without?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you.
I am so
pleased that Budget 2022 had millions
and millions and millions and millions of dollars for public safety in this
province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
J. HOGAN:
Certainly, things within the
responsibility of the provincial government like the RCMP and a brand new
provincial radio system that will allow all first responders to communicate so
that every Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in this province is safer today than
they were last week.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
J. HOGAN:
I understand that the
responsibilities of the municipalities of this province to deal with their own
fire issues can be tight sometimes with regard to money. That's why the
provincial government helps them and assists them with funding that they are
required to do to fulfill their duties to their municipalities and that's what
that $1.8 million is for. We're working with our partners in the municipalities
to help them when needed so that they can live up to there obligations in their
communities.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Speaker, we all know where
the money came for the radios. We heard about that in the House last week.
The
other thing is with respect to a decrease in fire department funding for trucks,
it does hurt the municipalities and it does affect the safety of all residents.
A reduction of funding means a reduction in coverage.
The
minister said it was not the responsibility of the department, but only to
assist municipalities to doing so. There are more municipalities who need
support than what will be received.
So how
many municipalities this year, Minister, are going to be turned down for a new
vehicle?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I can
tell you that the $1.8 million that is given out to municipalities, I don't
think they'll turn down one cent of that. So we're very happy to contribute $1.8
million towards funding for municipalities to ensure fire services are moving
forward in this province and that people are safe. And that's on top of the tens
of millions of dollars in Budget 2022
for public safety in this province.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
L. PARROTT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In
Estimates, the minister said that the seismic program was cancelled this year,
in part because of fiscal reasons.
A. PARSONS:
Paused.
L. PARROTT:
I'll say paused.
However,
in '18 when Nalcor tried to cut seismic to save money, the Liberal Cabinet
directed it to go on.
I ask
the minister: If there's no data collected this year, what will we use to
support next year's bids?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Industry, Energy, and Technology.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
apologize to my colleague for interrupting him to make sure we had a
clarification on the right word, because cancelled indicates something other
than paused and what we do have is a pause right now.
The
reality is that there's been a lot of tremendous work done over a number of
years when it comes to seismic work in our offshore, both 2-D and 3-D. There's
been a decision made this year, given the inventory that's been built up and the
analysis that's currently ongoing, that we could afford to take a pause this
year.
Now, I
know that it's caused concern from Members opposite, but what I can say is that
we've had the same reaction from our offshore companies and our operators as
well as some people in the industry who've reached out to me in meetings to say
that they absolutely understand.
So,
again, we all want to continue this, hopefully, in the future; right now, again,
is just a pause. But we had to make a proper fiscal decision based on the
information we have in front of us.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
MTAP
continues to fail as a program. Instead of ensuring equal access to medical
services, over the last seven years this government added more paperwork and
more requirements to access funding. This is discrimination to Labradorians and
a tiered health care for those with serious health issues making multiple trips
to the Island.
I ask
the minister: Which cuts to health care from the Greene report will finally
create a program that meets the needs and realities of Labradorians living with
health issues?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
The
department operates two programs, one is for income support clients and that's a
full payment plan. The other is a Medical Transportation Assistance Program,
which is meant to assist with the cost of travel. We have made significant
changes to enhance access to funds upfront, flights, mileage, hotel
accommodation, per diems, principally for Labradorians but also for
Newfoundlanders as well.
We
continue to evaluate the program on a year-by-year basis and look to see if we
can make a really good program even better. But, again, we operate within the
fiscal constraints left to us by the problems of 2014 and before.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
This
government had seven years, but attempts to retain doctors in Labrador continue
to fail. There is less services available now than ever before in Labrador. More
people are forced to spend thousands of dollars they don't have to get medical
treatment on the Island.
I ask
the Premier: Is this the transformation he wants for Labradorians of this
province or for the health care system for Labradorians?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
I
appreciate the Member's passion on this subject and I understand some of the
frustrations. Rural, remote and isolated medicine and health care is a challenge
in this province and it's a major challenge across similar areas in the entire
country. We are not alone. I would argue we have managed the situation as well,
if not better, than most.
Health
Accord NL gives us and will give us an operational blueprint in the coming weeks
to help us see what changes, what new examples, what paradigm shifts – to quote
the Premier's words – we can employ to make life easier for those people in
remote areas who need health care.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
This
government's reduction on the debt was thanks in large part to miners in
Labrador West and miners generations before us, but this budget ignores our
seniors who want to age with dignity in a place they call home. The minister
stated he was working with them. I have been told otherwise by the group that
represents seniors in our regions.
I ask
again: When will Labrador be treated with the dignity and respect for the
billions of dollars we put into this province's Treasury?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Speaker, thank you for the
opportunity to respond.
We
certainly are – where we can and how we can – supporting seniors throughout the
province. I appreciate in Labrador West there are particular challenges right
now with housing. We're working with the coalition there. We've invested money
in housing in Labrador West and we want to work with private developers and
others to meet the current and emerging needs.
The
community is changing. We recognize that the seniors who have built the
community want to stay and we want to support them in staying.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, there are
thousands of residents in the Corner Brook and Bay of Islands area without a
family doctor. They are tired of waiting up to eight to 10 hours at the
emergency department. They can't get their prescriptions filled, referrals for
tests, driver's licence renewed and many other medical appointments.
Three
nurse practitioners, Lacey Sparks, Laurence McCarthy and Travis Sheppard, have
set up office in Corner Brook. They are providing a much-needed service to the
people in need. They have no provincial funding and seeking to be able to bill
MCP instead of having the patients to pay a fee. They have huge overhead
equipment costs.
I ask
the Minister of Health and Community Services: Will you work with these three
individuals to ensure that they can bill MCP to keep these vital services viable
for the Corner Brook-Bay of Islands area?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
I'm
aware of the matter, which is raised by the unaffiliated Member opposite. In
actual fact, as recently as this lunchtime, I had communication from the
Registered Nurses' Union, who is the bargaining agent for nurse practitioners,
to open or resume discussions that were suspended because of COVID around how to
compensate nurse practitioners. She and I are agreed that we need to integrate
them fully into a primary care service that makes sense and serves the people
well.
For the
reference of the Member opposite, Patient Connect NL will open to residents of
Western Newfoundland before the summer starts and a Collaborative Team Clinic
will be established on the West Coast early in the fall at the latest, Mr.
Speaker.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, this is a very
innovative solution: to work with Western Health and the Department of Health
and Community Services to provide much-needed services. We need these services
now on the West Coast. I ask the minister if he can provide a short-term
arrangement until a long-term solution is found.
This
government has asked and is willing to help with new innovative solutions. Mr.
Minister, this is a very much-needed service, so I'm asking: Instead of saying
it can't be done now, find a way to make it happen to help the people in the
Corner Brook and Bay of Islands area with their most precious asset: their
health.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
Back in
2019, I believe it was, myself and the then president of the Registered Nurses'
Union, Debbie Forward, had a discussion about nurse practitioner-lead clinics,
which is what the Member opposite describes. We had those discussions. We
started down a road of looking at models that we could employ. COVID kind of got
in the way a little bit there.
In terms
of primary care, the key is integration. The key from the Health Accord, it's
quite obvious at the moment, is all around making sure there's a seamless single
point of entry for the health care system. Certainly happy to work with any
group. We've engaged the RNU again to renew these discussions and we will work
with them at the pace they set.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The time for Question Period
has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
SPEAKER:
I do have one.
In
accordance with subsection 41(1) of the
House of Assembly Act and subsection 38(1) of the
House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity, and Administration Act,
I am tabling the report of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards entitled:
Joyce Report, April 12, 2022.
Any
other tabling of documents?
Notices
of Motion.
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
reasons for this petition are:
WHEREAS
individual residents and municipal leaders have spoken to the deplorable road
conditions in the District of Harbour Main; and
WHEREAS
the district is made up of many smaller communities and towns like Holyrood,
Upper Gullies, Seal Cove, Cupids, Colliers, South River, North River, Roaches
Line, Makinsons and other roads in desperate need of repair and paving; and
WHEREAS
these roads see high-volume traffic flows every day, and drivers can expect
potholes, severe rutting, limited shoulders and many washed out areas along the
way;
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 steps to repair and
repave these important roadways to ensure the safety of the driving public who
use them on a regular basis.
Speaker,
today I speak of a very extreme case that has happened in the District of
Harbour Main. They are facing a hazardous road condition; in particular, Point
Road in Chapel's Cove has been washed out again. The guardrails are hanging in
the air from erosion. It borders on the ocean. There's a serious concern that
vehicles may end up driving over the bank. This is not a new phenomenon. This
issue has been ongoing for several years and it occurs after every heavy
rainfall, the road washes out.
Speaker,
the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure is aware of this serious
condition. They've made superficial fixes over the years but to no avail. The
problem keeps reoccurring. The main concern here, Speaker, is the public safety.
When residents are going out to put up pylons and barricades themselves, that
surely demonstrates that government is failing in its responsibility to keep
these roadways safe for residents who drive over them.
This is
unacceptable. I can advise that our office in Harbour Main has made numerous
inquires. February 11, we submitted an inquiry to the department with pictures.
We sent it to the depot. We sent it to the superintendent of operations, to the
ADM, the DM; we advised them of the seriousness of the washout. We asked, why is
this road not being closed? There are school buses travelling over this road. We
asked when the issue would be addressed and repaired; no response. Again we
followed up on the 15th of February, another email to the same recipients. Depot
advised – what is happening? They are waiting for engineering to come back to
look into this issue.
We then
went further to the EA. We were told that this is an executive-level decision,
and yet nothing has happened. They are aware of it. If anything happens –
SPEAKER:
The hon. Member's time has
expired.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
– they'll be responsible.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
J. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm
presenting a petition to defer the decision to allow logging in the Gander area
watershed.
The
reason for the petition: Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited has applied to
harvest timber in Charlie's Place, a 63-square-kilometre piece of land in the
catchment area for the Northwest and Southwest Gander Rivers. The area is a
hunting ground for the local Indigenous population. Residents are concerned that
logging activity will –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
We can't
hear the petition.
J. DINN:
I'm using my teacher voice,
Sir.
Residents are concerned that logging activity will devastate the local ecology
and compromise the drinking water supply; and.
WHEREAS
the unique conditions of Charlie's Place provide an ideal habitat for thousands
of plant species as well as fish and waterfowl. The local population will be
increasingly reliant on hunting on this land to offset the increasing cost of
living in the province; and
WHEREAS
removal of the old-growth forest in the area would destroy these conditions and
destabilize the soil, causing silt deposits to infiltrate the river system,
causing further damage;
WHEREAS
over 15,000 residents between Glenwood, Appleton, Gander Bay and Gander rely on
this watershed for its water supply, and only a small amount of fuel, hydraulic
oil, or other particles could contaminate the system;
WHEREUPON the undersigned – some 148 petitioners – your petitioners call upon
the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to
defer the decision to allow Corner Brook Pulp and Paper past the deadline of
April 15 to allow for a more fulsome discussion, to make it a protected area
under WERAC and ban commercial cutting.
Speaker,
the key thing here is the people wouldn't have contacted me except that they
felt that the department did not perform due diligence, did not give a fair
hearing, and ignored the people who are most directly affected in this, and that
they did not consult all the pertinent stakeholders.
So what
they're asking for now is that the Department of Environment and Climate Change
look at pausing this and giving the people an opportunity to air their concerns.
As I
understand it, an application has been made to the department and there is going
to be a meeting. I hope that the minister will sit in on that and hear the
concerns that they have. They do have solutions and they just want this area
preserved for the people in that area, the people who are most affected by this.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Environment and Climate Change for a response.
B. DAVIS:
Thank you, Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for the petition but more importantly, I thank the people for
coming forward with a petition about this important issue to them.
Obviously, we have heard some concerns from stakeholders regarding Zone 3. The
proponent of this was released from the EA process with conditions on October
22, 2021, one in which Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, as the hon Member has
identified, had to engage with stakeholders that submitted to the EA process to
submit stakeholder engagement report to the process for approval to the
minister. That is in process right now.
I know
that they have met on at least two occasions with the proponent that is being
discussed in the petition and there is another meeting scheduled for this month,
I think, or in the early part of May.
I do
take the petition under advisement for sure. I look forward to hearing the
results of the stakeholder engagement report, which is a condition of release of
the process anyway.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
L. PARROTT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the reasons for this petition are as follows:
The
resident of the Town of Terra Nova are troubled with the unsafe conditions of
the roads and the lack of maintenance on the roads that are maintained by
Transportation and Infrastructure.
Therefore we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to repair and maintain these roads to a standard that
is safe to travel by all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, the road to Terra Nova last year was voted the worse road in Atlantic
Canada. In my opinion, it probably shouldn't have achieved that standard because
there is no road there to vote on. It is absolutely terrible.
Sometime
ago I reached out to the department and I asked how they measured whether or not
a road is suitable and they said from the centre line to the curb, based on the
amount of asphalt that is left. Well, if you want to go in to Terra Nova you
will quickly see the only thing left to the road is the centre line. That is it.
There is nothing else.
The road
drops off in places 20 inches. It is incredibly unsafe. There are school buses
that travel it and multiple vehicles on a daily basis. But what's more
troublesome is the amount of quarry activity that's in there, which pays
royalties back to the government; the amount of logging that's in there that
pays royalties back to the government; and Nalcor is in there on a daily basis
with all the heavy big rigs and it's tearing the roads up even worse than they
are.
This
road needs to be fixed. It's not a road that can be patched or maintained, it
needs to be redone. The road is entirely gone and somebody will die on this
road.
Every
single day we're getting reports of windshields broke out, flat tires, people
actually having to drive off the road to avoid oncoming traffic because of the
state of the road. At some point, government needs to take some responsibility
and make a commitment to fix this road.
I see
the minister over there shaking his head, so I guess that means he may do that.
At the end of the day, if he wants to meet with me out there, I'm more than
willing to go there and meet with him, much the same as he did in Baie Verte. We
can see if we can get this road done. I look forward to that time.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
J. DWYER:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
background of this petition is as follows:
Whereas
there are very little operations currently at the Bull Arm Fabrication Site and
there was just an announcement on Bay du Nord. I'm presenting this petition
again on the Bull Arm site to the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology to
give the people of, not only my district because it's very important obviously
to my district having the facility in my district, but to give an update to the
province of what the initial plans are to get Bay du Nord moving and hopefully
that will include the Kiewit facility in Marystown.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
Oh,
sorry, a response by the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Speaker.
I
appreciate the Member opposite's petition. What I can say at this time is very
similar to what I've said in the past. I will point out – and I appreciate that
I've had an opportunity to speak to the Member, his colleague and various
community leaders in that area about this issue, which I think is important that
we have ongoing communication with our municipal leaders. As well, I have to
give the MP credit; he was also a part of that.
The long
story short is that right now we are still early on. Obviously, this project has
not reached sanction per se. We still have some time to figure this out. We have
to work on impacts, benefit agreements, how exactly is this going to go.
So even
though we had good news, there is still a significant amount of work left to be
done. But we are extremely happy to have something like Bull Arm, an asset of
the province that even though underused, underutilized over the last couple of
years, it's an asset that we were not prepared to give away, even though people
came in and wanted to avail of it. We do have some things undergoing work there
now. We know the Terra Nova put some work there and we have some things that we
are currently working on.
So the
best I can advise the Member at this time is that it is top of mind with our
department. We'd always like to see it busier than it is, but I do have a good
feeling about the future of the site as well as our industry going forward.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Whereas
avid hunters are prevented from using the calibre .22 centre firearm in hunting
coyotes during the fall moose season, the success of the hunt is severely
compromised. It appears that law-abiding hunters keeping the coyote population
in check are being labelled as potential moose poachers, which led to this
restriction being put in place.
We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to allow the calibre .22 centre firearm to be used
regardless of whether it's moose season or not, in order to more humanely and
effectively hunt and control the coyote population in rural Newfoundland.
I am no
hunter, Mr. Speaker, and I know that this is a domain that I'm not totally
familiar with, but after speaking with a couple of hunters, I've come to realize
that during the moose hunting season, they are left with shooting and trying to
get a coyote with a 12 gauge. And all the avid hunters and those who've got
experience in hunting would be the first to tell you that it is not humane, it
doesn't have the distance to be able to reach the coyote, which is a job to get
close to. They automatically default that the government has them labelled as
potential poachers and therefore the calibre of their hunt is greatly
diminished.
The only
thing on the humane side, Mr. Speaker, that we would look at is if the scattered
shot of the 12 gauge injures the animal, then I would think it's unjust that
that animal be able to go and suffer in the wilderness in rural Newfoundland. So
the only thing I would ask, if there's another condition other than them being
labelled as potential moose hunters that would restrict them from using the .22
calibre gun, then I would say it would be nice to hear that here in the House.
And if
there isn't, then I would say let's let them humanely and effectively hunt and
control the coyote population by allowing them to use the .22 calibre centre
firearm.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fishery, Forestry and Agriculture for response.
D. BRAGG:
For the record, about 80 per
cent of the coyotes are trapped and not shot. So, for the record, just keep that
in mind: 80 per cent of the coyotes that are harvested each year are trapped.
The shooting of the .223s and .22-250s are not paying a big factor at all in the
harvest of the coyote.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise for a petition.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
the province's population has aged much more rapidly than any other province in
the country over the last 50 years.
The
number of persons over 65 years of age has more than doubled over the past 30
years.
Many
aging couples have been assessed and deemed eligible for a placement in a
long-term care facility and require different levels of care and are separated
into different facilities in order to get the care they require in a timely
manner.
Having
support and assistance as close to their home and community as possible should
be a key objective in developing and providing services to our seniors. As well,
individuals want choice in living in a place that maximizes their independence.
Couples
who have supported each other should not have to face being separated when they
enter long-term care. Keeping them together ensures a better quality of life.
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 enact legislation that allows couples stay
together, even as they age, at the highest level of care.
Mr.
Speaker, we all recognize that our population is aging. We have all seen cases
and instances where couples have been separated, who have been married for many,
many years and die alone. We need to do better. In the House today we heard the
Premier and we heard the Minister of Health and Community Services applaud the
Health Accord, and we applaud it too – a great piece of work.
In that
Health Accord, it talks about strengthening provincial legislation, regulation
and policy to provide the care and protection for older people. We just had this
piece of work done, a very credible piece of work done. We have an aging
population. We should have legislation in place, like other provinces, that
allow our seniors the dignity, the respect and the ability to make choices and
die together – be together when they pass on. That's what we're asking for. Our
seniors matter.
SPEAKER:
The deputy to the Deputy
Government House Leader.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Speaker.
Sorry
about the confusion but I'm wearing several hats today, and currently I'm deputy
Deputy Government House Leader.
I call
Orders of the Day. From that, I call Motion 1, that this House approve in
general the budgetary policy of the government.
Orders of the Day
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
it's always a pleasure to stand in this House, stand in our place, which we've
been doing all this week, as response to the budget. We, as Members of the House
of Assembly, have that privilege, I guess, when we stand here to speak about the
issues that – not only what's in the budget but the issues in our own districts,
and issues that are facing the people in the province. I've always said it that
every one of us here are very honoured to have that privilege to represent our
districts. We probably don't say it enough. I think about it often. It's quite
an honour.
I guess
sometimes when you get caught into the day to day of politics, it becomes a
lifestyle and it becomes what you do every day – it's not only a Monday to
Friday, as we all know; it's Saturday, Sunday and most every holiday and
weeknight and weekend. I guess that sometimes you step back. I try to do that on
times. I probably don't do enough of it, but sometimes you step back and you
realize what the responsibility you've been given. We're entrusted with a lot of
responsibility. As a Legislature, you have a government there that's sitting
with a majority right now, but you're responsible for over $9 billion in
spending.
The end
of the day, if you have a majority government, they'll vote whichever way
they're choosing. I mean they're going to vote for their budgets; we know that.
But that doesn't mean that we don't have a role to play. That doesn't mean that
people don't listen. That don't mean government are going to listen, but the
people of the province hear us speak out, loud and clear.
My
colleague from Stephenville - Port au Port, our shadow minister of Finance, has
been doing a great job on highlighting the cost-of-living problems in the
province – cost-of-living problems in his district, in my district, in every
Member in this House, their districts. In government, you can't speak on that.
You'd like to; I know they would, but they can't and it's the nature. No matter
what, that comes with party politics and you support your government. I'm sure,
behind the scenes, they may have the same conversations we have in this public
Chamber. But ultimately, our role is to look out for the people that put us in
these places, in these seats. I know every one of us, the 40 of us in here do
that, and we do it with pride. But that doesn't absolve you, no matter where you
are in this House, of the issues facing our province.
In my
own district, I'd like to touch on that for a minute before I move on to many
other things I have to talk about, or want to talk about. I have a district
that's just outside the City of St. John's. It's almost 30,000 people; it's a
beautiful town. We all call our districts beautiful, and they are; every part of
the province is beautiful. But it's a district that has no medical services. Not
only a family doctor shortage – and it's been recognized by the Newfoundland and
Labrador Medical Association as being one of the highest percentage of people
without a family doctor. We have no medical services. I challenge you to go to
many other parts of the province and find an area encompassing that many people
with no medical services.
We're in
Corner Brook building a hospital that's well over billion dollars, in excess of
billion dollars, with nowhere near the same population of Conception Bay South.
Even their area, even their broader areas, they're the service area for the
larger region. I'd hazard to guess it would be a challenge to get up to the
numbers where we're dealing to in CBS.
You
can't get a test done. The only thing you'd get done in CBS is blood work. You
pay for it. It's a private blood work collection company. They're great. They
are on the bottom of my street and I support them. They're good people. But not
everyone can do that. Not everyone can afford that. Why do you have to pay for
that when it's offered free in our public health facilities? But they have no
choice; you have to drive out to the Health Sciences Centre, Major's Path or St.
Clare's. They don't have access to it, and a lot of times you can't get there.
At the end of the day, it's just as well to spend $20 on your blood work up
there, instead of driving to St. John's, especially at $2 a litre.
I mean,
it's good for their business. That's all I have – and I've said this publicly.
I've written the minister. I've questioned it in the House here. I've put out
news releases. We did meet with the Health Accord and over and over and over
again emphasized the needs of Conception Bay South.
I don't
expect to have an acute care hospital built in Kelligrews or Long Pond; that's
not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for some access to services, because it's
kind of a mental block, I think, in a lot of officials' minds where CBS is
located; we're the metro area. But if you have no public transit, the only way
you get there is by a vehicle whether it's a taxi or a private vehicle, no other
way. We're cut off from everything else. There's nothing else there.
I mean
if you haven't got those means to get there – a taxi ride is well over $100. Not
everyone can afford that. If you don't meet the requirement for MTAP, which the
criteria for that needs to be changed – and that's another letter I've got gone
into the minister.
That's
the real issues. We can look at a lot of other things that we talk about day to
day here in the House or whatever. I'm speaking in my spot now for Conception
Bay South. My colleague, our leader, talked about his District of Conception Bay
East - Bell Island. Our shadow minister for Finance will talk about his District
of Stephenville - Port au Port. My colleague, Deputy Opposition House Leader,
will talk about her District of Harbour Main. We have the same issues. They're
just different contexts. They may be, you know, different – some may have some
services. Ultimately, when you go out and talk to people, what do you hear?
Health care, cost of living – every one of us in this House.
Not
about NASCAR, and I'm not going to beat up on NASCAR; I could go down rabbit
holes on almost any topic. I think, Speaker, you're well aware of that, that I'm
capable of doing that, but I try my best to stay out of them rabbit holes. On
the NASCAR, Come Home Year, I'm not against those things, not a bit. I never
have been. I've said, and I've said this publicly as well, especially Come Home
Year, not a bad idea, just not now – timing.
NASCAR's
not a bad idea. Timing, though, is bad. There's no one here in this House of
Assembly – I'm not into NASCAR, but no one in this House of Assembly thinks it's
a bad thing. But not now. When the former PC administration were in government
and times were good, there were a lot of good things that came here, that were
funded through Tourism, that I had the pleasure of being in that department for
a number of years. I know a lot of people still there – a lot have retired but a
lot of them are still there. They do great work; I have nothing but good things
to say about Tourism.
A lot of
great things happened over the years, but it was different times. There were
surpluses. The Juno Awards came here; everyone applauded it. It was a huge
success. We had Atlantic Canada House. We were a participant in the Olympics and
we were ground zero, so to speak, with the Olympic Games. There was an
investment; sure it was. No one questioned it. Because we were in surplus.
Things were good. The economy was hot. The oil industry was booming. People were
working. You're not going to get people complaining when the price of gas was 50
or 60 cents a litre, home heating fuel was probably 30, 40, 50, 60 cents a
litre, probably less.
Times
were good. Nobody questioned that. I don't even know if the current Liberals of
the day and the Opposition really questioned that. I think most people
understood it's not a bad investment. It's an economic spin-off that's a driver.
It's promoting our province. It's who we were. We promoted the province. I mean
at the Olympic Games, Newfoundland stood proud up there in Atlantic Canada
House. It was largely seen as one of the most successful visited houses in
Olympic Village at the time for Canada, and this was Atlantic Canada.
And a
lot of it, and I'm not being biased, is they wanted to come to see the
Newfoundland people – the bands, the music, the personalities of
Newfoundlanders. We're not just unique to here, everywhere. People tend to like
our company and they visited that house. It was record numbers and it was a huge
success. I didn't hear many people complain about that. And why would you? There
was no reason to complain.
But when
you fast-forward to 2022 – and we've seen this for the last number of years;
we've been told this since 2016, the sky was falling. So you get to 2022 and
we're pushing $2 a litre for furnace oil, $2 a litre for gasoline, a lot of
seniors cannot afford to eat food, they can't afford to heat their homes and
they cannot afford to drive their vehicles. Let's be honest. My colleague here,
the Leader of the Opposition, said yesterday a senior would rather stay in their
seat, not move. A senior will say, I got to decide if I eat less food or I turn
the heat up.
That
sounds nice when you're trying to emphasize your point, but I think we all hear
that. I think every one of us hear that. If we don't – there may be a few
districts in the province or around the city area have a higher income level and
base income. I know some of those districts, and good on them, but my district
feels it. There are pockets in CBS – it's all over the place, but a lot of my
district is the rural side. People struggle.
One of
the biggest issues I have in my district now in 2022 is affordable housing. The
biggest issue I get coming to my door now is people looking for affordable
housing. Does that sound like a district that's flush with money? No, but I can
go around the turn and I can find people that can well afford to pay $1,500 to
fill up their oil barrel – not everyone and not every district in this province.
I'm sure my district is comparable, probably even a little bit better than a lot
of others. But these are real issues.
When you
turn on the news and you have the Minister of Tourism and the Premier announcing
NASCAR, at the right time, I'd be applauding it too. Why not? It's good stuff.
The Minister of Tourism said yesterday to my colleague from Harbour Main, you
don't want to see 10,000 people come to your district. No, I don't think that's
factual at all. That could be no further from the truth. She'd love to see as
many come to her district as possible, probably next summer. Right now, she'd
like to see the roads fixed in her district so people can drive there without
beating their car to pieces to get to see the race. And when the road gets
fixed, they're going to have to put gas in their vehicle to get there. That's
what people are concerned about now.
By the
time they do that, to get the gas in their vehicle and buy some groceries, they
can't afford to buy admission tickets to the NASCAR race. It's so backwards. I'm
not saying this because I'm over here, I'm a Tory and I can get up and beat off,
flash my mouth, and say what I want, because that's not true. If anyone in this
House had the free will to speak, you'd do the same thing, but I know everyone
can't. It's because the way governments are set up; it's the way the
Legislatures are. If we were on the other side and we put in some things in the
budget that was critical and my colleague from Stephenville - Port au Port was
the minister of Finance, we'd be hard pressed to stand up and be critical of
something we didn't like in that budget; I get that.
So
that's why I qualify it by saying that it's not directed at any Members
opposite. I get the way politics works in the province. But I don't think the
general public fully understands. My colleague this morning, when he spoke, and
done a great job of speaking and one thing he said – and we all forget sometimes
and a lot of Members were here when we went to a minority government. People
wanted us to collaborate. We had a loud and clear message back then. People in
this province were happy to see a minority government. Finally, you have to work
together. People got tired of this us against them. It is tiring.
I've
been around politics for a long, long time, back to my teenage years. I was part
of MUN YPC when no one even understood what it stood for, but we just decided
that was where we'd go. I know no other. And I did another career before I ever
went to politics but politics was always near and dear to me.
We
sometimes forget the point that the public doesn't get the inner workings. They
don't understand. I don't even know if the public votes PC and Liberal as much
anymore. I say that with all sincerity because someone said to me the other day,
but your district is Tory. I said, yeah, right now. But if I leave, it could go
any colour. I don't know if the NDP would get there, with all due respect, but
it could go red. I don't know. I know it was red before. Not that it's going to
stay blue. I really believe it depends on the individual. It depends on the
message coming from the party. It may not be every decision every single day of
the week that you're hanging your hopes on.
But it
comes from the overall messaging. But, ultimately, it comes from the individual
that's on the other side of that door and what message they're selling. It's no
fluke anyone in this House gets where they're to. I don't think so much as it is
about being Tory or Liberal anymore. I got pockets in my district they don't
care. They're voting one way or the other and there's nothing I can do to either
make them not vote for me or make them to vote for me. That's the way it is and
I think we can all attest to that.
I think
sometimes and I've said this in the House – I said it last week, actually, and
it bears repeating. I remember a time because I was around – I'm reflecting a
lot today; I don't know if that's a sign. Before I was ever elected, I spent a
lot of years in the galleries of this place and in the backrooms, so to speak,
and I know a couple here would probably be around back then – I remember. And
you learn a lot watching. You know you learn a lot really watching out how it
all works.
But,
ultimately, people don't get it. They don't get it. And I don't think they
really care. They care about what's here and now; what's happening in front of
them today; what's affecting them when they go to the store to buy the
groceries; when they go to get the gas; when they go to fill up their oil
barrel; when they go to pay the property taxes. That's what people find, that's
the pinch people are in.
In our
economy, the people are not flush with money. That is the reality. But I guess a
word of advice to anyone – I guess I'm talking to government when I say: just
tell the people the cold hard facts. That's not a bad thing. I know when you're
in government that's challenging. That's a real challenge when you're in
government to come out and tell people the truth. I don't mean that you're going
to mislead them. It's hard sometimes to tell people that cold hard facts.
It's
hard sometimes for me as an MHA in the district and you're trying to help
someone and you can't help them. You're doing everything possible. You probably
reached out to the ministers. You might have even talked to the Premier if it
was bad enough, and you couldn't get there. They are the tough ones and you
don't want to pick up the phone and call them and tell them the reality is that
there is nothing you can do for them. None of us do. But sometimes you have to
and it is hard when we do it.
No
difference in governing. Tell the people, they might not like it. I know they
won't like it, but I think that the new age of governing, what people expect,
not only are they not voting for PC or Liberal or an NDP or a person, but they
want you to give them the cold hard facts.
Probably
the best way for me to qualify this is the budget came down last week. No one in
this room wanted to see anything drastic more than me. I didn't want to see
layoffs. I didn't want to see cuts. I don't want to see it. I don't want to see
people down on their luck. I think the province is struggling enough as it is. I
didn't want to see it.
But
there was a part of me thinking, you know, government is going to be hard
pressed not to. So it was really strange actually, the budget was announced and
there was part of you that was almost bittersweet. Part of you was like, okay,
well at least people can go home this evening and take a sigh of relief. Because
I talk to people leading into every budget about reality, like I've said, I've
been around here a long time, budgets have that ability the day before and the
night before and the morning of, people are nervous, especially civil servants
or anyone who depends on government.
When I
went home, I said that was a good thing. But then was it a good thing? I don't
think it was but it is what it is and it's here. This brings us to today and
we're here going to debate it. But can I tell people in this province that we
just had was a great budget? Again, not right now. Maybe next year it might have
been all right, but here and now, it's not. Because we have been led to believe
and prepared for the worst. The sky has been falling for years but for some
magical way, every time the budget comes around the sky stays in place. That's
politics. That's not doing what needs to be done for the province. Like I just
said, I'm no different than anyone else; nobody struggles with that more than
me. I don't want to see it.
I was
here for 2016 and some Members opposite were obviously here the same. That was
rough. Did it have to be done? Maybe it could have been done better. We thought
there were a lot of decisions made that we didn't agree with. But that's where
it stopped.
The
proverbial shot was across the bow in 2016: get ready. Everyone had been waiting
in dread ever since that time for the next shoe to drop. But for some reason
it's never dropped.
Again,
I'm not advocating for the shoe to drop, trust me I'm not. But I'm trying to be
as realistic as possible, because I think sometimes that's what's lacking in
this House, and it's lacking in a lot of places: be realistic. I've talked to a
lot of you Members opposite and we chat. I think you're all just as realistic as
me. You probably can't express it, you don't get the same opportunity as me to
express, but I have a lot of respect for a lot of Members in this House, we all
feel the same. We're all struggling. We have the same struggles. We all have
roads that have to be paved, as my colleague, the Speaker, would understand
fully. We all have that. We all have health issues. We all have the same issues.
I think
we all have the same common goal. We just have a different way of how to get
there. That's, I guess, why, at the end of the day, you have one party on that
side of the House and one party on the Opposition side. They buy your story
better; they buy your message better. But we all feel the same way. We all
believe in our province but we believe there's a better way to get there.
Speaker,
in my last seconds, I want to move the following amendment. I move an amendment,
seconded by the Member for Harbour Main, that all the words after the word
“That” be deleted in the motion before the House, Motion 1, and the following
words be substituted: “this House faults the government for its failure to do
enough to help Newfoundlanders and Labradorians struggling with the rising cost
of living.”
I table
that amendment.
Thank
you very much.
SPEAKER (Warr):
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
We will
recess the House so we can take a closer look at the amendment.
Recess
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
amendment is said to be in order.
I
recognized the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess
when I finished up on my main motion or debate there, I was alluding to the fact
of the difficulties faced of every Member in here having to, I suppose, play a
role, but ultimately everyone believing in the same message but we're all
separated by sides of the House and I guess people in the general public not
fully understanding, I think, what we all do on a day-to-day basis. The want and
the need and the desire for the general public for wanting us to collaborate,
and as a result in 2019, I refer to that as the minority parliament, and a lot
of people were happy about having a minority parliament. They thought we'd
collaborate.
And
actually, looking back, we probably did do some collaboration. There was some
legislation that came through this Legislature. There was some debate back and
forth. There was some agreement. Would I say it was a lot of agreement? No, but
there was some agreement, and we found happy mediums in certain other places,
and a few changes here and there. But ultimately, we come back to 2021, and
we're back in a situation where we have majority government facing the
Opposition. It's a close majority, but they have majority.
There
comes back this problem again: We know better than you. Because we have more
votes, we can control what happens in the Legislature. And that's the way our
Legislature is made up and, unfortunately, I don't know if we always get the
best decisions. I am sure we don't. There are a lot of good things happen here.
We'll applaud it.
One
thing comes to mind was the most recent announcement: the Bay du Nord Project.
We all in this House thought that was a great thing. The Minister of Industry,
Energy and Technology walked in on budget day and I shook his hand; good job. Do
we agree on everything? No, not at all. But it was good. I complimented him;
good job. Premier, good work.
Also, my
colleague, the Leader of the Official Opposition, I commend him. I commend our
critic, our shadow minister for Industry, Energy and Technology. I commend our
shadow minister for Finance. I commend everyone that spoke out. A lot of Members
on that side of the House felt the same as we all felt. We all felt the same
way.
That was
for the betterment of the province. Not for the Liberal Party of Newfoundland
and Labrador or the Liberal Party of Canada or the oil industry, but for
everybody. Everybody benefits by that. I'll be kind but I guess being who I am
and most the Members themselves probably understand me, I won't let it totally
go. Some people in the House want to have a $15-an-hour minimum wage up to
probably $20 an hour, but you've got to pay for that. But they didn't support
Bay du Nord. We did. Government, obviously, did. Federal government, obviously,
at the end of the day did after some debate. Some people never.
That's
unfortunate. But those individuals felt strongly in their belief that we needed
to shut things down; we needed to go in another direction. We wrote a letter
and, actually, it was offered by me, as Opposition House Leader, to have a
debate in the Legislature on Bay du Nord. It wasn't so much about theatrics. I
think we all, kind of, were on the same page but I think we felt it was worthy
to come in here and show a united front – not to each other; to the public, to
the federal government, to our federal MPs, to environmentalists, to the oil and
gas industry. This was a huge issue – huge, huge issue.
We were
getting emails from all over. From our districts, from people we knew, from
friends and former colleagues, you name it, everybody felt very strongly about
Bay du Nord. So, again, there were some that didn't agree with it and that's
fine; that's their prerogative, but I caution sometimes that – and I'll be kind,
like I said; I won't go too hard. But I found that troubling. Because you can't
have it all.
I might
digress for one second; I can't resist. Some Members of this House remember –
and I see the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology grinning. His former
colleague, a former Member of this House – actually used to be in my place –
used to have a big calculator. It was a big calculator; he could hardly get it
under this desk. He'd take it out every time the Third Party would ask for their
request and he'd be punching in the numbers, but they were on government side
adding up the figures. Finally, the Speaker of the day had to tell him he
couldn't bring it in anymore.
It just
flashed to me when that was going on, and we wanted to have a debate in the
House, and the Third Party decided no, they didn't want the debate, because they
didn't agree with Bay du Nord. Me, being me, I'll leave it at that, Mr. Speaker,
but I just wanted it to be on record. I got to get if off my chest, so anyway
here I go.
So I'll
move on from that. But Bay du Nord is great for the province. The Member for
Corner Brook – because the departments kind of change a bit, the advance
education – put a tweet out a few days after the Bay du Nord deal was done. We
were all applauding it. He basically told us, as Opposition, to go with our cap
in hand, go to the Premier and the minister, go on bended knees, and thank him.
We owe apologies, basically.
I read
it first and you get this phone and you want to start responding, you lay the
phone down – I've gotten better at that, too: I lay the phone down and I don't
respond. Then I listen and I read some responses. So when I start reading
responses, I went: B'y, I don't have to respond; the public just responded. They
were telling him they're sick of this foolishness – us and them. This is good
for the province, who cares? Like, why are you trying to draw that line down the
centre? I just spent the first part of my debate talking about that imaginary
line. We sit here and it's like warfare. This is a good thing. I shook the
minister's hand and I commend him. I commend everybody who was involved. It's a
good thing.
It comes
back, I guess, to why the cynicism is in politics, why we hear so much cynicism
on a day-to-day basis. We all hear that too, and it bothers me a bit. Earlier
today, the Minister of Digital Government read the minister's statement on the
elections and it was saying back in the day there was 90 per cent turnout. I
mean, I quickly looked at our Leader of the Opposition and I whispered to him:
You'll never see it again. There's a reason for that. I don't miss the
opportunity to say why, because I think we're all responsible – me included.
But
that's something we could go on and debate forever and a day, the improvements
we could make. But when we, as a group in this House – like I said, it is
warfare sometimes, it shouldn't be but that's the nature of the beast. We
celebrate our victories. We're all in here for the right reason; I think we are,
it's for the people of this province. It's for the province that we love. So
when we come out and we get something that's good for the people of the
province, for the economy, for the government of the province, we should all
stand and applaud. If it means everyone pat each other on the back, so be it.
We're
all united, when you leave this Island, Newfoundlanders are one. You know, we
will be in here in warfare, but if you leave this Island, if you walk into a
restaurant or bar, the first person you'll gravitate to will be a Newfoundlander
if you know they're there. And that's where we're to, no matter where you're to,
Canada or the United States or anywhere in this world, if there's a
Newfoundlander around, you're next to him. It's just a natural gravity effect;
we gravitate to each other.
And it's
no harm to celebrate with each other when the good things happen. Actually, I
think, as a matter of fact, we don't do enough of that. I think the general
public would rather see that any day of the week than partisan tweets and
comments from ministers, from MHAs, from any Member, anyone in politics. A lot
of political staffers tend to do it, ours included; we've had it over the years.
I've never liked it. Comb my Facebook page, you'll never find any of that, or
very, very little, unless I'm really strong on something, then it won't be too
critical. I tend to stay away from it as much as possible. I don't like it.
Because,
again, why we're not at 90 per cent turnout at elections is because of that. Why
we're down around the 50s is because of a lot of that. That's the reality,
that's acceptance you know.
I had a
family member as recently as last week – my mother, who is going through a hard
time right now and she said to her, she called her up – my mom has been in the
hospital now over a month, she's going into surgery again tomorrow. I go over
every day. She said she called her and said she was fuming. She was after
calling, she was saying that crowd in the House of Assembly all they does is
they likes to listen to themselves talk. They like to listen to themselves.
So I was
there trying to smile. I said, you know, Mom, don't mind that. Oh no, she said.
So anyway, even though she's sick and whatever else, she spoke her mind to this
lady who happened to be her sister. She clearly told her what she thought or
what she said and she didn't appreciate it. She said my son is over there, and
the rest of them can't be that bad, you've got no business saying what you've
said. I said if I could find another couple of hundred thousand like you, we
might get back up to 90 per cent showing at the polls.
It's
lighthearted but it's true. It's so true that this is my own family making that
– that's the general consensus. Now, you know, it's not that I don't visit her
every day, but it's family. They don't understand, they think sometimes, oh
yeah, here this person goes again or that person goes. But we've all got a
common goal.
As
recently as a few weeks ago, the Premier actually reached out to me about my
mom. We were back and forth and I appreciated that. I asked a few questions, and
to his credit, he was very kind to me and I thanked him. He said, you know, it's
never bad to lean on each other. It's a different group, the 40 of us, we come
in here and fight and whatever else, but we all have the same common goal.
I say to
the Premier, I couldn't agree with you more. We have a different way of getting
there. We have a different vehicle to get there. Our vehicle is a different
colour and runs differently from your vehicle but we're all on the same road.
That is the reality; we're all on the same road, different colour rigs. Ours
burn more gas than yours, obviously, because if not it would have been something
more in the budget. Our homes are more expensive to heat than yours because
there would have been something in the budget.
I'm
going to try not to go down that path, Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to get better.
I've been at this for years and I said last year, and there is a common joke
among caucus now that the little man is on my shoulder, right. I try to keep him
in check when I start digressing; I try to pull myself back. I always keep that
in mind, but there are a lot of angles that I could go on the roads and the
vehicles and gas and all that but I'm going to leave that for now.
Last
year, I stood in the House and I spoke on this amendment and much to the chagrin
of the Minister of Finance again – there were no hard feelings over it but there
was a bit of banter back and forth. My theme was: They don't know. They don't
know. Everything I said was they don't know. Every question we asked no one knew
nothing that was in the budget so I came to the conclusion – it was after an
election and whatnot – nobody knew, the budget was put together but they didn't
know. I don't think they honestly did know then. They figured it out eventually
but at that time, they didn't know.
So we're
getting into this year and it's a full year in. Just recently, today or
yesterday, it was a year since we got sworn in since the last election. Fourth
year under us now to come out with a budget, so they know more details this
year, no doubt about it; much more detailed reading the budget, we're not
guessing at stuff anymore, which is good.
But my
theme this year is: They don't get it. When we say over here you're out of
touch, that is not meant to be – it may be taken as being nasty or condescending
or direct. That's the frustration we hear from our people we speak to in our
districts. The stories I hear my colleagues say, I haven't told you, I have lots
of stories, too. I have been back and forth to the hospital with my mom for four
months now and I've seen a lot of things that are not so good. But I hear a lot
of stories in the House from colleagues around here: they're not making them up.
They're real life stories.
So when
you see a budget like we just seen, it's hard to say government is getting it;
hard not to say you're out of touch.
One of
the comments yesterday, the Minister of Tourism did a great job coming back at
us over the commentary on NASCAR. Fair game, that's what we're here for. But
it's not for now, that's not meant for now. That's being out of touch. We said
that's fine next year.
Yeah, he
came back at us good, and I give him credit for that, but ultimately we're not
knocking NASCAR, we're knocking the timing of NASCAR. That's the part of being
out of touch. I've said to him several times, it's not about that, it's about
the timing of it, not about Come Home Year.
You're
promoting Come Home Year. This one here is one I can go a long ways on but I'll
try to tie this one tight, too. It's Come Home Year. It's a wonderful thing. But
what are you coming home to? No rental cars. If you find a rental car, you can't
afford to put gas in it. Then if you find enough money for gas in the rental
car, a lot of the roads, especially what I hear out around Baie Verte and that,
are not that good to drive on. I know Harbour Main roads and Roddickton roads
and there are a lot of other roads that have been brought to our attention –
Colinet and Witless Bay.
We still
have COVID. You're going into places now – and I'm so COVIDed out. I'm so done
with COVID but it's still here, it's still with us. So we're going to go and
we're going to have Come Home Year. As the minister said, there will be singing
and dancing, parties and festivals. I'm not so sure it will be. It remains to be
seen.
I'm
going to things in my district, not a lot but some things. There's still a fair
level of concern.
Today, I
did a Member's statement on sports awards at the Hibernia Centre. It's a pretty
big event up in CBS. There are a lot of people up there who attend these awards.
Well, I'd say this year we probably had half-empty tables. This person couldn't
be there for their award because of COVID. This person was out because of COVID.
This person's husband has COVID, true story.
This is
April now, we're a couple of weeks away from May, Easter, and we're hearing
there's another wave coming. Again, it's not about Come Home Year, it's about
when you're trying to do this.
I guess
the bigger thing is: Why are you trying to do it? What's this really ultimately
about? I've stood here many times and I've said: It's smoke and mirrors. I think
it was yesterday I said: Are we in an alternate universe? This is not adding up,
what I'm hearing coming across, some of the commentaries. Something is not right
here. It's not what we're hearing and if we stop listening, and not only me –
I'm not talking about me – I'm talking about everyone. If we stop listening to
what the people are telling us, it's pretty sad.
And
that's what I find a lot of the time. When I say you're out of touch, not one
individual, I think generally, there are a lot of people out of touch. I think
the federal government, a lot of MPs across the board; people are not really
tuned in to the big issues.
The cost
of living, people struggling; that will never go away. There's no cure that's
going to fix that forever and a day. No government will ever be able to cure
all. But this government was widely regarded as having the best poverty
reduction strategy in the country. At the time, it was said one of the best
poverty reduction strategies in North America, I remember back in the day. But
when this current administration took over – the Liberal Party under a different
leader – no, get rid of that because it was done by the Tories. Not that it was
good. No one cared about that. They don't want that. That was highly regarded as
being a very successful, well-applauded program. It met a lot of measures. But
what's been put in place of that? Nothing.
The
Minister of Education, today, said about the home oil rebate and something else
is gone into this subsidy. It already existed. There are no new measures. So you
go to license your vehicle, you save $60 or $90 or something. Home insurance,
you save a few dollars. But on the home insurance policy – I was talking to
someone there recently on that, actually, it's regressive because the higher the
value of your home, the higher the insurance policy. So really the ones who
benefit the most are the ones with the more expensive homes.
A lot of
low-income people are not living in their own home. They don't worry about home
insurance; maybe content insurance on an apartment. Is that really benefitting
them? No. You see that graphic that was debated there in the House and the
Premier, which I commend; he acknowledged that wasn't the best use of time and
energy. I hope they never paid much for the graphic because it just missed the
mark. That's the line: yeah, it missed the mark.
Why did
it miss the mark? Maybe because people that are around that deciding and
approving that are out of touch with what is really needed. If you would have
showed me that six months ago, or even six days, or six hours before the budget,
you didn't have to give me much time to look at that. Wow, why would you ever
put that out?
The
night after the budget, I think, I seen it on Twitter and I went, oh, my God. I
was on my phone and I screenshot it, I said this is unbelievable. I couldn't
believe that this was actually trying to be sold as an answer.
And this
past weekend, I was again looking through Twitter, I might have been at the
hospital, I don't know, and it was Liberal outreach day, selling the budget. Do
you know what? I always look at certain things and if it's good enough, it
should sell itself. You don't have to do Liberal outreach; don't have to do PC
outreach. If you have a good budget, people applaud it. There's not a lot of
applause.
Now,
they're not on the steps because it's not a lot of austerity like it was in
2016. So that's the bittersweet part of it. People are: Okay, well, fair enough,
we can still survive. We're not getting the legs cut out from under us. But is
it a great budget? No. It misses the mark on seniors and low-income people. I
can't say that enough because the stories we're hearing are just frightening.
And then
you flip over into the health care issues, they're just off the charts. You've
got a doctor or you've got a physician crying on the television because they
can't get surgeries done. Really? That's a big, big, big statement. I mean, I've
never seen a surgeon worried about getting surgeries. They're crying because
they're doing too many, not crying because they can't get in to do them. That's
totally backwards of what we're thinking. Imagine. Does that mean we've got a
good health care system? A functioning health care system?
You
know, you go over to emergency – my heart goes out to those people working in
emergency rooms, it's incredible. It's absolutely incredible. We speak about it
and repeat it and repeat it, not only just family doctors and other services, we
repeat ourselves over and over again, but it seems to fall on deaf ears.
You
know, the Premier says it's broken; our health care system is broken. I know
first-hand he says, I work in the system, I'm a doctor, I get it. I understand
it. And that's nice, they're all words, but words have got to have more meaning
than just words. The words are empty sometimes.
The
Minister of Health and Community Services stood in this place for seven years,
over seven years now, and it's the same thing over and over again, in a very
confident and sometimes borderline on the: I know better than you. I've heard
that said before, too. I think sometimes he feels that way, and maybe he does.
He knows more about medical than I'll ever know and a lot of us in this House,
no question of that.
But a
lot of people in this House and a lot of people on this side of the House know
what people are going through. They talk to people in their communities. You can
be confident and feel like you're doing everything right and all of our concerns
don't mean nothing, not to the people that we talk to. The minister can make
those comments, and I've heard it said before, the minister seems so
(inaudible), he brushed that off. He seemed so confident. Sure, he should be,
he's a doctor. Does that mean he has it figured out? No.
You can
go to a garage and the mechanic can tell you all the things you want to hear.
Does he fix your car properly? Does he give you the right diagnosis? Not
necessarily. There are doctors like that. It's fine to have people that are
qualified there, that know their stuff. The Premier is another doctor, my God,
fix it; fix our health care system. I'd be the first one to applaud you, no
different than Bay du Nord.
If I
wake up one day and our health care system is much better functioning than what
it is now – and that will take time – there will be no one happier than me. We
have a Health Accord that came out. It's a futurist document. It's not going to
fix our problems now; it's not. I commend Dr. Parfrey and Sister Davis,
wonderful people, done a great job, no question asked. It's a good document. But
it's a starting document. It's not going to fix it.
I
already spoke about my own district. I'm not going to get a family doctor any
faster tomorrow because of the Health Accord, not even next year, maybe the year
after. Who knows, I may be long out of politics before it ever comes into being.
AN HON. MEMBER:
If any of it's implemented.
B. PETTEN:
If any of it's implemented.
We don't even know if it's going to be implemented.
That's
just a document now. We know a lot of documents kicking around – lots of
documents. They get shelved. They collect dust. They fade in the window. I've
seen them over the years; the sun is shining in on them and the colours of the
coat of arms fade away. You have to look close to read the words on them. There
was a lot of money spent on a lot of these reports. They stand on the window
ledge and they fade. We had the Moya Greene report, the McIntosh report, the
McKinsey report, the Gilroy report and the ambulance review. We stand in the
House, we ask those questions, but nothing changes.
Am I
cynical? Probably. I have good reason to be cynical; a lot of good reasons to be
cynical, that's facts. That's not me concocting something.
As
someone that worked in mental health for a long time, along with my colleague
from Cape St. Francis, actually we go back a long ways. Being a member of the
All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions, it's something I took great
pride in. I was late joining it, but I took great pride in. I had a lot of
belief in that report, when the report was put together and we released it, a
lot of hope.
I've
asked that question in the House here many times and the Minister of Health and
Community Services, again, stood in his place very confidently and gave me
answers. If you're out on the street listening to what he is said, you'd never
question a word. I'm the one that seems like I don't have a clue what I'm
talking about. He's listing off, he has this one and this one and that
recommendation and that one. I only got two left and they're clapping and
everyone is saying woo-hoo and I'm over there saying: Wow, everyone must be
lying to me. That's not what I'm hearing. That's not what everyone else is
hearing in their districts.
I had
four messages on my phone last night and, only for confidentiality, I'd like to
let you listen to them. Do you know what four of them were about? Waiting to get
in to The Recovery Centre. Now, we're several years into this so-called access
to services and improvements in mental health and addictions. The road map is
supposed to be well in place for that now. There are a lot of great people in
that department – a lot of great people. I know a lot of them and they're
wonderful people. But the captain of that ship got to steer it in the right
direction. This government has to give the proper funding to be able to make
that happen. There has to be a willingness. It is not there. I'm sorry, it is
not there.
When I
can get up tomorrow and ask another question or next time we're in this House
and can ask another question and the minister can show me up to make me seem
like I have no idea what I am talking about – and maybe that is a credit to him,
but one thing that he shouldn't take credit in or any pride in is the mental
health and addictions report, Towards
Recovery. Right now, it is getting a failing grade. The report itself is
great, but it is only as good as the government that wants to implement the
report and it is not happening.
The
people in this province that are suffering with mental health and addictions –
and trust me, I know many and we all know many, all of us, it is not helping
them. Just to emphasize and it hits me, I suppose, personally because there are
lot of mental health issues in my own family. When I was on that Committee,
there was a lady who tried three times, maybe four, to commit suicide. She
finally succeeded. But along the way, we heard the stories. She cried out for
help each time. Her own doctor told us the story, in consulting with us. The
system failed her.
The
minister was there in that room when we heard those stories. The Minister of
Environment and Climate Change was also there. We heard that story; she
eventually succeeded. But you know what? I felt we're going to prevent this
stuff from happening anymore. It is happening every single day of the week, all
over the place; I am hearing it. I had a young man in my district, great guy, 25
years old. By all reports, he was crying out for help. I read a Facebook post
hours before it happened. It is a sad story and I knew him. He used to reach out
to me on a lot of things trying to help me. He was helping his buddies all the
time. He was going: Barry, I need to help me buddy. I need to try to get a
permit for me buddy. And I took a liking to him because everyone was his buddy.
But he
needed a buddy, and they weren't there, Mr. Speaker. And the ultimate blame on
that comes down to mental health and addictions. The help has to be there. It's
no good to send you off to a navigator, and the navigator tells you we'll get
back to you in two weeks' time. And this navigator is a great person, too.
They're not magicians. They're not Houdini; they're not Copperfield; they can't
create something that's not there. So while all this is happening, and it's
happening every day in front of us, do we hear these good-news stories, the
happiness, the ultimate photo op?
We're
here the first day back in the House and the Premier doesn't show up. He's up
watching the televised address by Zelenskyy, the president of Ukraine – sad
story. We watched it in the caucus room and then came in the House. No photo
ops. We watched it, came in the House and debated paying government's bills,
doing Interim Supply. But I seen it all over Twitter; he was up getting photo
ops.
You
didn't have to go to Ottawa to watch it on television. There are more important
things to do here. We're faced with the biggest cyberattack in Canadian history
– biggest cyberattack ever. That's a fact; that's not my words. He was in
Scotland for a photo op – a photo shoot, really, because there were pictures
coming from every angle. It was him and staff, there were pictures and it was a
beautiful backdrop of the environment conference, the sea – whatever the name,
this big thing, and the prime minister was there.
Like,
really? We're on our knees here. He was nowhere to be found. Does that instill
confidence? Does that sound like out of touch? Is that going to help the
confidence of the people to get from 50 to 90 per cent in voter turnout? Not
likely. It's pretty sad, actually. You know when you go home – and I remember
that time, we were there in the House and someone said: Is the House open today?
I said: Yeah. The Premier wasn't there? No, b'y. I can't answer for the Premier.
Again, it comes down to my much-used term here in the House: talking to the
people.
And I'm
not lined up and down on the doorstep to Tim Hortons or in the drive-through
every day or in the supermarket lined up, sitting down waiting for someone to
come in and talk to me. That's not what I'm doing. But I talk to people. I know
it's not a shock to anyone in this House, but I'll go around, I'll have a yarn
with all the crowd in there, and that's just who I am. I like to do that.
They say
those things, and what can I say? Believe it or not, actually, out of my respect
for the House of Assembly and elected officials, there are actually times that
I'd probably defend them, to try to soften the blow. I'm not that bad. I guess
it was something important they had to go do.
But
realistically, that's not accurate. That's not really accurate. You had a
cyberattack – and even to this day, we got an update about a week or two ago, if
I'm not mistaken, and our leader spoke out on it and that. My wife got a letter
last week. Her personal information was hacked. A lot of people in this House
here were all hacked. That's new to her. We asked several months ago.
This is
not political. This is people's lives. This is people's privacy. This is
people's personal health information. Sweet God, nothing is meant to political
about this. It doesn't mean we hope more Tories get hacked than the Liberals.
That's not what this is about. But you know that's what is created here. That's
what we've created in this House. And that's what continues on day after day
after day. There is no one here who can be more political than me – nobody. But
I tell you, I try to be as realistic as possible, though, and call it for what
it is. It's politics. A lot of times this stuff is politics.
I tend
to find, again, being reflective – I don't know if this means I am coming to an
end of my career but (inaudible). I had to tell the qualifying people that I'm
telling them, not because I'm a Tory – no offence to the Liberals; there are a
lot of good people over there. I find I am always qualifying a lot of the things
I say with that statement because that's truly and honestly the way I feel.
Now,
I've gotten in this House some times and I've had pretty good roundabouts in
this House with the Government House Leader over there. Me and him have had
many, many a good debate – healthy debate. At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker,
he knew like I knew, we all knew, it was fighting for what you believed. You had
to fight. You have to fight.
I came
into this Legislature pretty green. I remember the first time I stood – I think
it was a Member's statement and I was nothing but marbles. Everything that come
out of my mouth – my mouth was stuck together. I couldn't get a word out. I
said: Wow, how am I ever going to get through this? And then I realized – and I
remember the former premier of the day, one time I said the wrong word – nothing
too serious. He gave me a lesson. He was a lot more seasoned and the Minister of
Industry, Energy and Technology had a few good goes. I went home a few days and
I said I've got to soon toughen up. I said if I'm going to go in there, if I'm
going to represent my district and do what I'm supposed to do, what people
elected me to do, I've got to toughen up.
So I
guess I did. But, at the end of the day, though, I had to represent my district.
If I never spoke up for my district and for the people I represented, and even
in my critic roles for the people I represent in those roles, whether it be
students now and people all over the province with the roads, I wasn't going to
do my job. I think every one of us here all do the same thing. Every minister on
that side of the House, they take their oath and they do the same thing. Once
again, it's a common goal.
But we
have to stop missing the mark. I say out of touch and not getting it. That's
where you're missing the mark. People are struggling. The Minister of Finance
said a couple of weeks ago: My five-point plan for cost of living probably fell
short. We're going to do more in the budget. That's where the disappointment
kicked in. Because when the budget came out it was like, really, that's what
you're doing? That's your plan for seniors and that's your plan for the cost of
living and low-income people? That's where the problem lies.
Speaker,
I'm looking at the clock and there are a few things – and this is my pet peeve,
my pet project for this last year. The Minister of Transportation and
Infrastructure tells me I'm obsessed with Liberal friends. Maybe I am, I don't
know. What I'm obsessed with is $150 million on just the penitentiary roughly
that we're looking at on a sole-source bidder. I don't think it's right. I think
it's wrong. If we have to wait three years to get it right, I could care less.
But that's enough money to make you rethink the project.
Everyone
says we need a new penitentiary; we've needed it for years. When we were in
government, we were trying to get it. But this sole-source bidder is a problem.
I don't care if you're a Liberal friend or not, that's wrong. To push ahead with
something like that, I will not support it. I will not stop talking about it
every opportunity I get – and I've done that and I'll continue to do it. I know
there are a lot of people around in that industry that are probably not too
pleased with me saying it, involved with the penitentiary, and I'm not going to
stop talking about it. Because that's outrageous for a government of any colour
to sit down and tell me and tell the people of this province that spending an
extra $100 million with one bidder on a $300-million project is right; it is
absolutely wrong.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
B. PETTEN:
You can do fairness,
(inaudible) it's not going to work. It's wrong. That's not political; it's
wrong.
Now,
maybe it's because of the colour of politics that played there, I don't know,
but I could care less. Mental health hospital there, that's fine. Actually, that
was one of the recommendations from our report. It's $39 million over. The
winning bid was $39 million extra and a year longer to get it built. But –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
B. PETTEN:
Oh, they all felt that they
met the criteria and checked the boxes.
We seen
after with the documents and the fairness monitor. I mean, you can make it work.
You can pretty well subject it and you can make that fit into any box. But
ultimately, another $40 million, that's $200 million. I don't think it needed to
go to any company when you had a bidder that was cheaper. But again, the
minister of the day – not the current minister, the former minister corrected me
and told me no, it wasn't $40 million, because I used the word “forty” for
simplicity. No, he said, it was $39 million. Was he wrong? No. Was it making a
slight of an important matter? Absolutely.
If he
was sitting on this side of the House, and we reversed roles, would he not be
telling me the same thing? Absolutely. But what I would respond back to him –
unless I was told I can't say it, then I'd have to say the truth, I can't say it
– I'd say I agree with you. It shouldn't have happened. But it comes down to
you're selling a message, because you have no other choice. You're told I guess
by Cabinet this is the decision and we're going to go with it. So you have to
defend it. I've seen that in this House and long before I ever came here and
when I leave, you defend many decisions to protect government.
But it's
not right. It's still not right. So we're up to $200 million there now. Hearing
all kinds of stories from the Corner Brook hospital out there, all kinds out
there. So we don't know where that's gone. We have a long-term care in Grand
Falls and Gander. That was an interesting one, because that went over by a year,
or roughly a year. Officials were at wit's end trying to deal with the
department and couldn't get any answers. Families, people moved out there,
bought homes. They ended up having to sell them, at a loss. Who covers the cost
for that? No, no answers.
Minister
asked for a comment; no answer. Officials were asked for response; no response,
no comment – $120 million, $140 million and people are still not in the beds.
There was a ribbon cutting a couple of weeks ago and everything is wonderful.
It's going to happen; stay tuned. But why? Why does it have to be that way? Why
does the local MHA have to plead for a response on when this is going to open?
Why? Because he's not on that side of the House, is that why?
But no,
they're going to put a Premier's office out there now. They don't feel they can
get enough activity; can't get enough answers. We have two MHAs out there, and
two good MHAs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
B. PETTEN:
Two solid MHAs representing
that area. We don't need a Premier's office out there. We don't need an office
out there wasting I don't know how much money we're looking at $200,000,
$300,000, or whatever it's going to cost. Why, because you haven't got two MHAs
with constituency offices and two capable MHAs out there with their staff? It's
insulting.
That
doesn't help that senior today who is trying to fill up their oil barrel. That
don't help all them people out in the District of Exploits that are looking for
a family doctor, people out in Grand Falls-Windsor who are struggling with
emergency services. They're all struggling to fill their oil barrels, too – same
people.
But no,
we'll spend $200,000 or $300,000 to look after a few friends and put them out
there and we want to be representing the Central Newfoundland region. Oh, we
have to be there. Well, if you're at that, then put a Premier's office right
across – if you have that much money floating around, put one everywhere.
It
doesn't matter. If people have a problem in CBS, they come to me. If they have a
problem in Stephenville - Port au Port, they go to the Member. That is what
you're put there for. It is an insult to our Legislature. If the Premier stood
in this House and said that, you don't feel like they have representation out
there. No, you don't have a Liberal out there but there is an MHA from this
Legislature out there. It is two of 40. That should be enough.
It
doesn't have to be your own people in an office out there taking calls. What
calls are you taking? What calls are you taking, really? They don't even have a
phone hooked up. I don't think they even have a phone number yet. Sure, what
calls are you taking? I mean, really, come on. Arranging combinations when they
come through the drive- through out there. Maybe one of the Liberal outreach
days or something they're going to arrange lunch for them or something. Really,
what are they at?
If you
had a problem trying to get a family doctor, you got a problem with the roads,
you got a problem with seniors getting a personal care home, you're calling the
local MHA's office. You know that's who you're calling. They'll answer your
call. They have phone numbers set up. They have staff. They're capable of doing
it.
That
irritates me, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is wrong. I've been speaking for quite
a while now and it flies right in the face with what I started off with. We're
on both sides of the House, we are different colours, party stripes, but at the
end of the day, I go back to all the things I've said, Bay du Nord and
everything else, you got people wanting collaboration. That's what this is
about. Do they really, truly want collaboration? It is a word. Actions, no
words. Because if you really wanted collaboration and to do things right, you'd
be supportive of your MHAs in all of these rural districts right through the
province.
Next
time around, game on, and you put a candidate out there and you try to win that
seat, fair enough, based on your policies, your leadership, you as the
individual – fair game. But right now, the voters have spoken; this is the way
the Legislature is laid out until the next election when it is dissolved. We
have to live with what we have. Right now, there are 40 qualified Members in
this House and trying to do their job, and I think it is incumbent on everyone
in this House to be respectful of that.
If a
Member of this House is calling a minister and is asking for help in their
district, they should get a response. I think it is offensive. You're emailing
and you're calling various ministers – I'm not going to name any ministers; they
individually may know who they are. It is not right. I never said the ones who
do or don't; I'm not going to name them. I'm going to be kind, but there are
several here that will not do it: not one, not two, more. That's not cool.
That's not what we're elected for. That's not what the people of the province
expect. People of the province think that we can talk to a minister any time we
want. But do you know what? That's the way our Legislature is really supposed to
be designed. This is the Legislative Branch. They are the elected officials.
They've got the most seats. They form the government.
Fair
enough, we all know that. But we have a role to play, too. You know, it is 18
Members on this side of the House. That takes up a fair bit of the population.
They got a lot of issues, too. So, imagine, look at that now, so you're not
going to respond – certain parts are not going to respond to this number – look
at the population of the province, a big chunk over here. So are you the Liberal
minister or are you the Minister of the Crown?
And,
again, that's not every minister – not every minister. There are lot of
ministers in this House, I'll flick them an email and they'll be very kind and
generous and no issues. The crux of the matter of what I'm trying to get to is
some ministers do that and it's offensive. You know, it's offensive and you call
them out, you go at them – you try to publicly go at them and you're penalized
for that. There's a punishment for that. It's retribution. Don't cross that
line. That's sad.
It's a
sad statement where we are now as a province if that's the way we're governing.
That's the way this is. But that's the feeling I've gotten over the last couple
of years, especially. It's never been worse. I've been around this place, either
here or there, for a nice while now and I can pass a relatively educated guess
on it. I don't know if it has ever been so bad. It may have been worse but not
to my knowledge.
Could it
have been improved at different times, back at certain things? I agree, some
things were not done right. But, as a whole, I think, right now, it's worse than
we've ever seen it. So when you're looking for help – and when I say out of
touch and not getting it, the photo ops are not going to solve your problems,
Mr. Speaker. That's not helping nobody. It looks nice. It's so superficial. I
find everything is just on the surface. It's nothing bored down into. You feel
sometimes it's all just window dressing. It's all just to make things look good.
There's nothing really structurally changing. These reports that are fading on
the window ledges, they're still fading. And if we get a nice summer, we might
not be able to read most of them. I guess we'll just go on and we'll spend
another $10 million or $20 million next year on another round of reports because
that's what happens.
So it
buys you time. It used to be a forum and they always love to do a consultant.
We'll have a consultant look into it. Then that got mocked to the degree that
you don't hear that as much now. Now you'll get expert analyses when you get
these reports done. That's buying some time. That soon is going to lose its
legs, too. These reports can only go so long. You're elected to make decisions.
The government of the day is there to make decisions. Do what people elect you
to do – govern.
But
listen, remember, there are 40 of us here. Not 22, 40. We represent a lot of the
population and we expect to be respected. There's nothing wrong with us to
demand respect. You don't have to like us, but respect the position; respect the
office that we operate out of. Our faces may change, but these seats won't.
There'll be someone else at this desk one day, and every desk in this House. On
that side or this side or whatever side of the House, but you should always
respect the person that's in that seat because they are speaking for the people
that put them there, no matter what district they're in.
I find
it irritates me to no end because I always find – and I've been here long enough
now and I'll be here for a while yet – that's one of the most irritating things
in this House of Assembly, in this government, what you listen to on a
day-to-day basis, on a year-to-year basis, and some things never change. Why you
have to do what you have to do to get the littlest thing done is unbelievable –
unbelievable.
I look
at the other side and I see some announcements and monies that flow so easy and
you feel like you're going in – like I said, like the Member for Corner Brook
said when they got the Bay du Nord – cap in hand and crawl over and bow for them
to do such a deal. Well, I feel like that if you want a pothole fixed. You know,
go with your cap, beg, be right nice, or you won't get it done. If you don't be
nice, you're not getting it done. Mr. Speaker, that's pretty distasteful and I
think it's time for it to end.
As for
this budget, the public don't appreciate it, I don't think. We don't appreciate
it. It doesn't address the issues that are out there today. Again, it's a
government in my opinion that are out of touch, they don't get it and they're
not going to get it until they listen to the people and listen to debate and
answer some questions. Do you know what? Tell people the truth. People want the
facts. Tell them the facts. Health care is broken. Tell them health care is
broken.
Tell
them, yeah, the cost of living is out of control. Absolutely. If you're not
going to reduce the provincial tax on gas, tell them why. Tell them why you
didn't come in with a home oil rebate. Tell the people that. Don't just tell
them you've done something else. Sure, we don't understand half of what's being
said from them responses. How can you tell the people? Tell the people the cold
hard facts, tell them why you can't do it, but don't try to window dress.
On the
face of not telling people why you can't help them out, when we find they're
spending money on some things that could be spent in another year, one being the
NASCAR, it's really distasteful. Seniors of the province and low income don't
appreciate it. I don't and I don't think any of us should.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER (Bennett):
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to rise and I will try and be relevant because this is speaking to the
amendment. The amendment as worded is: This House faults the government for its
failure to do enough to help with the cost of living.
I really
struggle sometimes because it's ironic that the problems that we inherited get
thrown back on us because we find a solution and we have to bring these back.
There is
a cost of living that we have mitigated and it relates to the cost of
electricity. The cost of electricity without those measures would add about
$2,400 a year to the average household expenses. The challenge we have is that
we, as government, to avoid that going directly out of people's pockets, have
had to divert money from revenues to do that each year.
Each
year we divert from revenues, and will have to for the foreseeable long term,
approximately the same amount of money that would build 360 long-term care beds
every year for as long as it's paid.
We've
been told about choices, and that's a choice we had to make because without it,
$2,400 would come out of every household every year in perpetuity. That's a
choice, we made it and it addresses the cost of living for a fairly typical,
stereotypical Newfoundland and Labrador family.
There is
a lot in this budget that we could talk about. My own department, I think, has
done a stellar job managing its finances, yet meeting the requirements of a
variety of projects going back over seven years. The All-Party Committee on
Mental Health and Addictions recommended, as one of its recommendations, that we
increase the proportion of the health care budget each year that's spent on
mental health and addictions. We have done that.
The
Member opposite presents pictures of doom and gloom. We have taken low-barrier,
walk-in mental health services in this country to a new level. Whilst COVID has
stressed mental health and addictions – people are uneasy, they're anxious and
that is perfectly understandable. Through those clinics and other mechanisms, we
have seen a 40 per cent increase in demand for mental health and addictions
services. Yet, at the same time, those individuals, the number of those
individuals requiring that service who have had to wait has dropped by 41 per
cent, despite that increase. That I regard as an investment; that I regard as
something tangible for those people who need it.
I am
conscious of the time of day, Mr. Speaker, and because of that, bearing in mind
other pressures on the Members of the House, I would move, seconded by the
Member for Virginia Waters - Pleasantville, to adjourn debate.
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 Minister of Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Wearing my other hat as deputy Deputy Government House Leader, I move, seconded
by the Member for
Virginia Waters - Pleasantville, that this House do now adjourn until May 2 at
1:30 p.m.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that this
House do now stand adjourned.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion carried.
This House do stand adjourned until 1:30 o'clock tomorrow.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, May 2,
2022, at 1:30 p.m.