October 19, 2021
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. L No. 23
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
Before
we start today's session, I'd like to just introduce our Pages here today.
Returning this year is Olivia Pendergast. Olivia is from St. John's and she's
studying political science at Memorial University.
Our new
Page today is Andrew Dogurga. Andrew is originally from Turkey and moved to St.
John's when he was the age of 11. He is also studying political science at
Memorial University.
Welcome.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
SPEAKER:
Today, we will hear Members'
statements from the hon. Members for the Districts of Cape St. Francis, Baie
Verte - Green Bay, Exploits, Labrador West and Harbour Main.
The hon.
the Member for Cape St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, throughout Canada, October marks Autism Awareness Month; a time to
celebrate difference and reflect on the importance of awareness, acceptance and
understanding in all aspects of our community. We have the opportunity to share
the importance of learning about autism and for everyone to take their own
measures to raise awareness of those with Autism Spectrum Disorder.
In our
province, one in 57 people are diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder,
annually, the highest incidence in the country.
In my
former career, I had 27 years of experience working with individuals with autism
and have always admired their strengths, supported their challenges and praised
their accomplishments.
On a
personal level, my godson, Kip Chalker, was recently diagnosed with autism. A
smart, happy boy in kindergarten who has a positive future ahead of him, thanks
to a loving, supportive and inclusive family to help guide Kip along his way.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in recognizing October as Autism
Awareness Month, to advocate for those living with autism and applaud the family
members who provide the care, safety and security to their loved ones.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Baie
Verte - Green Bay.
B. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, today, I
recognize the late Diane Noble of Baie Verte.
On June
27, 2021, the communities of Baie Verte and Nipper's Harbour said goodbye to one
of its dearly loved and respected residents, Diane Noble, at the tender age of
57.
Diane
had a keen sense for politics and always looked forward to the broadcast from
this hon. House of Assembly as well as the broadcast from the Nation's capital.
Like her
mother, Greta, regardless of where you saw Diane, at home, in a vehicle, or at a
convention, the knitting needles and a ball of wool would be not too far away.
Whenever you were in the company of Diane you knew she would have you smiling; a
very warm-hearted and fun-loving lady.
Our
thoughts are with her twin sister, Debbie; her parents, Warrick and Greta
Osborne; brother, Dennis Noble; and all who knew her, including a large circle
of extended family and many, many friends.
I ask
hon. Members to join me in offering condolences to the Noble and Osborne family.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Exploits.
P. FORSEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, on Friday, October 15, I attended the funeral of an icon and community
leader in the Town of Bishop's Falls, Mr. Oliver Rose.
Oliver
started his teaching career of 30 years in Bishop's Falls and during this time,
he also served both as councillor and mayor for the town. Oliver also dedicated
45 years volunteering his time in many capacities, including president of the
Bishop's Falls Lions Club and chair of the board of directors of the Lion Max
Simms camp. He was a dedicated Lion who worked tirelessly to ensure that the
Lions Club remained successful.
Following Oliver's retirement, he suffered a devastating stroke. Lo and behold,
Oliver adapted to his limitations and continued to serve his community in any
way he could.
The Town
of Bishop's Falls would not be where it is today without the contributions of
Oliver Rose.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in saying farewell to my teacher,
councillor, fellow Lion and friend, Mr. Oliver Rose.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I rise
today to acknowledge Marty Byrne from Labrador West. Marty is a Labrador West
ceramic pottery artist who opened up an exhibit called Labrador Erratics at the
Craft Council of Newfoundland and Labrador gallery this year.
Marty's
work reflects Labrador and the beauty of the land and the northern lights. Marty
has also a small pottery business based out of his garage called Byrne'n Mud. We
all tune into Marty's social media to watch his kiln openings to see the
beautiful ceramics he's created and to see the ceramics painted by people from
the community who have attended one of his many events.
Marty is
a major supporter of many local artists, encouraging them to exhibit their
works. In July, Marty held the third annual Art Wander show, where artists in
the community exhibit their works along the Tanya Lake Trail. This show has
grown to be a community favourite and a platform for artists in the community to
showcase all their works.
I ask
all Members to join me in thanking Marty Byrne for showing us his beautiful
works and encouraging many other artists to do the same as him.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today in
this hon. House, I would like to congratulate the winners and nominees at the
recently held Premier's Athletic Awards ceremony here in St. John's.
These
athletes are recognized for their outstanding accomplishments in sport and I am
extremely proud of the fact that two athletes from the Harbour Main District
were honoured and recognized for their success and achievement.
I would
like to congratulate Halle Joy of Harbour Main for her dedication, hard work and
excellence in the sport of softball, and Drew Sheppard of Seal Cove for his
commitment and endurance in the sport of ball hockey.
It takes
a lot of passion and commitment to excel in any sport, but it also demands
perseverance and stamina. These athletes and all athletes have certainly done us
proud as a province.
I ask
all hon. Members of this House of Assembly to join with me in congratulating
Halle and Drew and all the award winners and nominees of the Premier's Athletic
Awards on their invaluable achievements in sport.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
provincial government's Seniors of Distinction Awards celebrate the
contributions, achievements and diversity of older persons and seniors in the
province.
I had
the pleasure of announcing the 2021 Seniors of Distinction on October 1 as part
of marking National Seniors' Day and the United Nations International Day of
Older Persons, and today I am pleased to recognize these five remarkable
individuals in this House.
This
year's award recipients are Rose Andrews of Carbonear, Patrick Moore of Corner
Brook, Clyde Russell of Stephenville, Dorothy Mary Senior of Paradise and Paul
Smith of Conception Bay South.
Each of
these individuals has demonstrated extraordinary commitment in the service of
others and each is making a positive difference in the province and beyond.
Rose
Andrews is an advocate for inclusion and accessibility. Rose's work has
supported accessibility initiatives in her own community as well as for youth in
Africa.
Patrick
Moore is a long-serving search and rescue volunteer who has contributed to many
community service events and is known for his compassion and generosity.
Clyde
Russell is a retired Canadian Forces colonel who has dedicated much of his
career to counter-terrorism and special operations, and continues to serve his
community through various initiatives.
Dorothy
Mary Senior is a dedicated patient advocate who maintains an ongoing role in
improving patient services.
And
last, but certainly not least, Paul F. Smith is a long-time community volunteer
and dedicated builder, coach and executive in the sport of softball.
Speaker,
I invite all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and all Members of this House to
join me in congratulating the 2021 Seniors of Distinction.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I
would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
Friday,
October 1 is recognized as National Seniors Day and the United Nations'
International Day for Older Persons. Days like these are important because we
get an opportunity to recognize our seniors who have helped grow and shape
families and communities all across our great province.
I join
the minister in acknowledging and congratulating this year's recipients of the
provincial government's Seniors of Distinction awards. A special thank you to
this year's recipients – Rose Andrews, Patrick W. Moore, Clyde Russell, Dorothy
Mary Senior and Paul F. Smith – for all their contributions to their communities
and our province.
It's
important we continue to recognize community leaders like this year's
recipients, but we should also consider obtaining better support systems for
seniors that live in poverty or suffer from elder abuse. It's important that we
continue to recognize the value of seniors in all communities while ensuring
they continue to live happy and healthy lifestyles. No senior should have to
struggle in making a decision on whether to heat their home or put food on the
table.
Congratulations to all the recipients of the 2021 Seniors of Distinction and
thank you for all that you continue to do for our province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker, and I,
too, thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
The
Third Party would also like to take this opportunity to recognize the
achievements of Ms. Andrews, Mr. Moore, Mr. Russell, Ms. Senior and Mr. Smith.
These exemplary individuals are pillars of their communities and have
demonstrated an extraordinary commitment to this province through their selfless
work and tireless dedication.
More
broadly, National Seniors Day is an opportunity to reflect on the contributions
that our elders have made to secure the quality of our life and the society that
we enjoy today. In return, we call upon government to repay the debt and make
sure that they continue to work to ensure that seniors across this province can
afford the necessities of life. We also call upon government to improve the
quality of publicly funded seniors care so that those who raised us can age in
peace and dignity.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today
The Telegram published the story of a
man with complex health care needs who, between him and his spouse, made 500
phone calls to try and find a family doctor. Mr. Speaker, 500 calls.
I ask
the Premier: Is this story, which is the experience of countless others,
acceptable in Newfoundland and Labrador?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
certainly empathetic and sympathetic to that gentleman and his family. We all
know that there is a problem in health care, and that is why we have taken this
opportunity to launch, a year ago, the Health Accord. We know that there are
also short-term solutions while we're reinventing the health care system for the
future and for a sustainable future for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That
is why the minister yesterday announced some short-term solutions.
We
recognize that this isn't going to solve all the woes. But if you look across
the country, every single jurisdiction is having a problem with health care.
We're ahead of the curve by recognizing that this is a paradigm shift and we
need to elevate ourselves to recognize the debate and discourse that is
happening in the public because they want change for the future – a sustainable
future for health care in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
realize we recognize it now and the government has – six years too late, for a
lot of people who are having to make 500 calls to try to get access to a family
physician.
Mr.
Speaker, imagine how many thousands of people are facing the same situation in
our province today. Without a family physician, continuity of care is
impossible. It means issues go unchecked and symptoms linger for longer without
treatment. It is a snowball effect that cost lives, not to mention adding
pressure to our health care crisis.
I ask
the Premier: How many family doctors are taking new patients today in
Newfoundland and Labrador?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again,
we know that there is a problem with family medicine in the province; I have
seen it first-hand. I know, from the experience of some of the family doctors
themselves, the problems in the system itself. But I challenge everybody in this
House that this is an opportunity, every sitting of this House – this noble
House, has a rendezvous with history. Ours happens to be pivoted firmly in
health care.
I ask
everyone to have the courage and the imagination to come with solutions, not
just single off-the-hand complaints that we all know exist. We are all tasked to
be bold, be imaginative and recreate this system for the future of our province,
Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, when we have
loved ones who need access to health care, we expect our health care system to
be able to provide it for them. They can't do that if they don't have the
adequate resources, and that's up to the government to be able to find it. We'll
work with anybody to find those solutions to make it better for people in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, the people in my
home District of Conception Bay East - Bell Island, as well as communities all
across this province, are desperately trying to find a family doctor. These
people need a family doctor, while the Health Minister issues an RFP for health
care recruitment six years too late. A clear admission this government had no
plan to address the crisis.
How can
someone in Newfoundland and Labrador find a family doctor today, Premier?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Again, Mr. Speaker, we've
recognized that this was a problem. One of the first things I did after becoming
Premier was to announce the Health Accord NL, involving all stakeholders – it
doesn't matter about political stripe or where they are coming from. We want all
options on the table so that we can create solutions, not just one-off
solutions.
I
understand and appreciate and am completely empathetic to Bell Island and people
in the district who can't find a family doctor, but this is bigger. We need to
think bigger about how to create solutions for the entire province so that we're
not back in this Legislature next year or the year after, five years from now,
having one-off issues with particular jurisdictions and areas across the
province. That's what we've been tasked with, that's what we're set out to do
and that's what we will accomplish, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Premier finally acknowledged yesterday that for the 100,000 Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians without a family doctor it is a crisis. But the health care crisis
runs deep. Right now, there are hundreds of empty long-term care beds in our
province due to government's failure to recruit nurses.
I ask
the Premier: Do you recognize the long-term care crisis unfolding in
Newfoundland and Labrador?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and
thank you for the opportunity to answer that question.
Certainly, we do and that's why it was part of the Health Accord to look at how
we – we recognize that not only is it a problem now, frankly, and we could come
up with a quick solution to make the Opposition's questions go away; we realize
that with the aging demographics that there will be significant pressure on the
system well into the future.
So we
need to make sure that we're looking at systems and structures in place to
accommodate our aging population. That's why the Minister of Health has been
working with the stakeholders to ensure that we're increasing enrolment and
graduation throughout nursing schools so that we can provide those much-needed
resources to our aging demographic, Mr. Speaker.
That's
not just a problem for today; it's a problem for generations and years to come.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do not have access to long-term
care beds.
So I ask
the Premier: How many long-term care beds are sitting empty in this province due
to the failure of this government to recruit and train enough nurses?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
issue of access to long-term care is as much about the challenges of acute care
as it is long-term care. I do not have a precise number, but I'll certainly get
that for the Member opposite and bring that back to him.
The
issue is fundamentally around recruitment and retention. I think one of the
things we really need to do here is collectively work together to sell this
province as a good place to work and a great place to live. Yesterday was the
day we changed the dial on that channel, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can
say, honestly, that myself and the minister finally agree that recruitment and
retention is the key objective here. It's unfortunate for the last six years it
hasn't been done. That's why we're in the state we are right now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL:
This government has two
long-term care facilities in Central Newfoundland that can't even open their
doors because of a shortage of nursing staff.
I ask
the Premier: Will these facilities be open by January 1, 2022?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Those
facilities are fully staffed. They cannot open because of issues that have not
yet been resolved between the contractor and TI. It is a matter of taking
possession of the building before we can occupy it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, our family medicine
physicians are the lowest paid in the country.
I ask
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board: How are we going to
recruit family physicians with the lowest pay in the country?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I
appreciate the question. We have been negotiating and discussing these very
issues with the NLMA for a number of months now. As a matter of fact, on
September 29 of this year, a little less than a month ago, we had presented a
full proposal, full package to the NLMA regarding payment schedule review, leave
benefits, rural retention bonuses, all retention and recruitment issues so that
we could really get to the heart of what the Member opposite is talking about.
We do
spend over half a billion dollars a year for about 1,332 doctors. We are very
anxious to have NLMA return to the table so that we can continue to discuss
these very important issues.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Mr. Speaker, the Newfoundland
and Labrador Medical Association thought so much of that offer on September 29
that they walked away from the table. While our family doctors continue to be
paid the lowest in the country, the cost of all physicians in our province is
actually 8 per cent below the national average per person.
I ask
the minister: How do we attract family physicians if our compensation packages
are not competitive?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
issue of compensation is as much about the way the association chooses to divide
the money that government provides for physician services as it is about
anything else, Mr. Speaker. The door is open for negotiations.
My
understanding is the NLMA have stepped away to consult with their membership,
and that will not happen, at the earliest, before tonight. So I would suggest
the Member opposite has kind of mischaracterized the situation a little bit.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Mr. Speaker, I don't think
I've mischaracterized it at all. The fact of matter is our physicians are paid
less. Our family physicians make less than anywhere else in the country. Our
total compensation package for physicians is 8 per cent lower per capita than
the entire country. And, at the same time, the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical
Association were told by the Minister of Finance that there will be zero – zero
– new investment in the Physician Services budget to improve the province's
recruitment and retention.
So I ask
the minister: Is this the first step in implementing the Greene report's 25 per
cent cut in health care spending?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
While I
appreciate the question concerning the negotiations that are happening between
the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the NLMA, I can certainly say
that we are working very hard at the table to discuss the issues that are being
raised.
As I
said, we are discussing, for example, family practice renewal funding, blended
payment models. We are discussing the issues – the issues – that make up the
concerns around retention and recruitment, Mr. Speaker.
So I
would say to the Member opposite the best we can do right now is await the
consultations that NLMA wish to have with their members, and hopefully very
quickly they'll come back to the table for further discussions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
So, Mr. Speaker, the minister
acknowledges that there's zero new investment in the Physician Services budget.
I'm not sure if that's what I heard. That sounded like what I heard, which
causes grave concern when you think about the fact that our family physicians,
as I said, are the lowest paid in the country.
Mr.
Speaker, with the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association walking away
from the table due to the strong-arm negotiating tactics, I ask the minister:
What is government's plan if physicians decide to take strike action?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
I think it's important at
this point, Mr. Speaker, to point out, yesterday, we announced packages that
total $30 million.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
J. HAGGIE:
That is slightly over 4 per
cent, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
great to hear the minister talk to the $30 million in the package, because
collaborative care clinics are an excellent model for addressing this. And I
have to commend the minister on reading our Blue Book.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P. DINN:
However, they are only good if there are enough family physicians in the
province.
So I ask
the minister: How many new physicians will be added to the staff for these four
clinics?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'd like
to congratulate the Progressive Conservative Party for reading the Canadian
Medical Association's discussion on this subject back in 2011.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
J. HAGGIE:
In the question, Mr. Speaker,
is a flaw. The resources, from a human resource point of view, are magnified by
teams. It is not the question that a family physician or a nurse practitioner or
a community nurse has to work in isolation and carry the entire load. The work
can be distributed.
We have
spent time, over the last six years, enhancing the scopes of practice of every
one of those people there. We're looking at RN prescribing, we have freed nurse
practitioners to work autonomously and, by putting them together in teams, each
of them works to their best scope and shares the load in a way that makes it
better for all.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Recruiting doctors for these new clinics have to come from the local pool of
doctors. So it means taking these doctors away from their practices. It will
replace one group of orphaned patients with another.
I ask
the minister: Where will these new family doctors come from?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Family
physicians graduating from residency programs lately have chosen to spend
significant portions of their time not doing family medicine. We presented them
with an opportunity, through the new, collaborative team clinics, to return to
that.
And,
certainly, in metro, there is absolutely no shortage of physicians who want to
go back to what they trained to do, which was good, high-level primary care. By
supporting them properly, we can use them to their best efficiency and we make
the best of our nurse practitioners, our midwives, our social workers, our
mental health and addictions counsellors, our diabetic educators and our
community nurses.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
assume, if the minister knows where the graduating doctors are not going, he
should know why they're not going there and should be dealing with that issue.
It's not just about doctors. Collaborative care clinics will be staffed with
family doctors but, as well, nurse practitioners and registered nurses.
Where
will these new nursing staff come from?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
An excellent question, Mr.
Speaker. The family medicine residents want to work in these environments. We
employ pretty well every nurse practitioner graduate that we make in this
province, and I'm looking to try and expand that. So, to feed that pool of nurse
practitioners, we will be expanding the Bachelor of Nursing program with seats
in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Gander and Grand Falls-Windsor, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
L. PARROTT:
I have nurse practitioners in my district that aren't working as nurse
practitioners.
In the
last sitting, I spoke of a doctor who immigrated to my district and is unable to
practice medicine because of the lengthy runaround to have his credentials
recognized in our province.
I ask
the minister: What is being done to address multiple hurdles and lengthy delays
faced by newcomers who are qualified and just want to practice medicine here in
Newfoundland?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
That's an excellent question, Mr. Speaker.
The
paperwork that people have to do to become licensed in this province is
generated by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Newfoundland and
Labrador. If I have spoken to them once on this issue, I have talked until I'm
blue in the face. They are an independent group set up by legislation to control
the standards of practice and, rightly or wrongly, I cannot interfere in that.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
L. PARROTT:
I'm sure the minister can introduce legislation to control it.
Mr.
Speaker, in the last 10 months in my district, and specifically the Bonavista
Peninsula and Clarenville area, we have had seven doctors leave in 10 months.
Not one – not one – new doctor has been recruited to come back in the last 10
months.
I ask
the minister: How long can the people of Clarenville and the Bonavista Peninsula
expect to wait before this situation is – not resolved, before you even begin to
address it?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
The last
part of the question is already answered. We began to address that years ago and
yesterday you saw some more steps around recruitment and retention.
Retention in rural areas has always been a challenge, Mr. Speaker. It really has
and will continue to be. It is not something any one group can fix by itself:
the association, the college, government. When you're attracting a physician,
you are attracting a family. It needs to be a community-based effort. It needs
to be a university-involved effort. It needs all parties to work together and we
need to get this sorted out. That is why we have set up a provincial
office of recruitment and retention that will address this issue, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last
October in the House of Assembly, the Minister of Transportation responded to my
concerns about the inability to medevac services after dark in Nain by saying:
“… there cannot be a fixed wing that will come in after dark, but the sources of
search and rescue would come into assistance, should we ever need them ….”
I ask
the Minister of Health: Is it acceptable that a heart-attack patient in Nain was
forced to wait until daylight recently to be medevacked and are others at risk?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I can't
speak to the technical issues around aviation and why Nain has no lights at
night.
What I
can say, very clearly, is that decisions about timing of medevacs are clinical;
they are based on the discussion between the referring practitioner and the
receiving practitioner. Should those discussions indicate that a nighttime
evacuation is necessary; that will be provided, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
From 3
a.m. until daylight being told that the chopper was coming, then to be told: No,
we're waiting on a fixed-wing. Am I going to have to wait another year to get
the same answer again? In the process, somebody will die with a heart attack,
Mr. Speaker.
A
77-year-old woman in Hopedale fell and broke her hip and was not medevacked,
although the weather was clear; the medevac could have come in. She was told she
had to stay at home and would fly out on the regular-scheduled patient flight
the next day. When the patient finally arrived in Goose Bay, three days later,
she had to be medevacked to St. John's for surgery.
I ask
the minister: Is this an acceptable level of health care for service in my
District of Torngat Mountains?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
That
certainly is a concerning issue. I'm not sure if that's been raised with my
department, but I would be happy, if it hasn't, to look into it. But, certainly,
Labrador-Grenfell Health will have a role around that.
I can't
comment any further because I have insufficient details and insufficient
background about which to do so. So with appropriate consent and documentation,
I'd be happy to do that and get back to the Member opposite.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In
actual fact, there's an investigation going on now.
Yesterday, I received a call from a dialysis patient in Goose Bay who was told
that all treatment was cancelled for the day just because there wasn't a
registered nurse available. No registered nurse available, so no dialysis for
the day. Later, she went in for blood work and was told, depending on the
results, she may have to go to Lab City or St. Anthony for dialysis. This is
exactly what she told me.
I ask
the minister: Why are we forcing dialysis patients to miss their scheduled
treatments and why are they exposed to the additional stress of maybe having to
travel elsewhere to receive critical health care?
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Of my
time in the department, the Kidney Program is moving towards home dialysis. It
is much safer for patients than people would have you believe. It is also much
more convenient, and we do have examples of this in rural Labrador where
patients receive home dialysis.
In terms
of the specifics of this case, staffing challenges, particularly in
Labrador-Grenfell, are more acute in some respects than in other areas, and
particularly on the North Coast. I would loop back to my comments about
recruitment and retention; that is the longer-term fix.
In the
meantime, we have limited number of dialysis centres and in the event that one
cannot perform dialysis, others cover. That is an unfortunate situation but, at
the moment, is the only recourse we have.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Trepassey recently lost its second ambulance and we already know incidents where
the region was in red alert.
I ask
the minister: Will he commit to consulting with the people of Trepassey to
ensure that they are not left behind?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
There
were three ambulances between two communities run by one operator. The number of
people in the Trepassey area has dropped by around 60 per cent in the last 10
years and the number of calls in the other end of the district had increased by
at least 20 per cent.
What we
have done is allowed the request of the operator to reposition one of the
furthest line rigs into the busier area. We have also committed to what we call
dynamic dispatching, so in the event that one ambulance leaves Trepassey another
one will be moved into a more convenient position to cover and we will monitor
dispatch and arrival times.
That is
the standard that we now use and we'll work with the operator to make sure
they're met, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you. Mr. Speaker.
This is
not about cost. This is about distance and geography. That is the issue in the
area, so the minister should have his department look at that and get back to
the people of Trepassey.
Yesterday, the Premier acknowledged that people who cannot find an ambulance are
in a health care crisis. It is time for this government to step up and address
the ambulance crisis in Trepassey.
I ask
the minister yet again: Will he reposition a second ambulance at the Trepassey
base? If so, when does he plan to do it?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I think
it's really important, given the load on our health care system, particularly
our front-line operators, that we use our resources wisely and effectively. This
was at the request of the operator, we will reposition ambulances if required
and, at that point, we will certainly have some –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
J. HAGGIE:
We will keep an eye on the
information around dispatch times.
This has
hardly got off the ground yet so I am not aware of any challenges, as yet, with
meeting the standard dispatch time.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
We know
the thoughtful, consultative, comprehensive work being carried out by Health
Accord NL. The Minister of Health and Community Services has said, “The
long-term plan is essentially going to be the Health Accord …. That will be our
road map ….”
I ask
the minister: Will he commit to implementing the recommendations of the report
when it is released in the new year?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
What I
actually said was that our long-term plan will be heavily informed by the Health
Accord NL. Certainly, we will be delighted to see what has been a really
significant body of work that's already been done, and we will look at that and
we will see the recommendations in the light of the realities of the day.
But I am
really optimistic that this is going to produce the transformative change that
myself and the Premier want.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Actually, what I quoted was from a news report in CBC. Either way, the answer
doesn't sound very committal.
Now, the
Premier had no problem endorsing the PERT report sight unseen. In his September
2020 mandate letter to the Minister of Finance, he asked her to – and I quote –
“work with me to oversee and implement recommendations of the Premier's Economic
Recovery Team.” Long before the report was released or he knew what the
recommendations would be.
Considering the fact that infinitely more thought and consultation has gone into
drafting the Health Accord NL than his PERT report, I ask the Premier: Will he
commit to implementing the recommendations of the Health Accord NL?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and
thank you for the question.
Certainly, what we said was – there was no “all” in that mandate letter, first
of all. We said recommendations and we did commit to a consultation process,
which I'm happy to say has been undertaken over the summer and is being
formulated now and in analysis.
With
respect to the Health Accord, this is a large body of work that is shifting the
paradigm of how we deliver health care in this province. I think we'll be
national leaders on this. We're recognizing that we are the first jurisdiction
to really undergo a transformational change within health care because we know
we need to.
It will
be informed by evidence, which we gathered, collected, and opinions based on and
delivered through the Health Accord, Mr. Speaker. We look forward to working
with them to see how we can best implement. Perhaps there's something in there
that we're unaware of that we may not be able to implement, but it certainly
will be a working road map.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
SPEAKER:
Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
He's not that lucky.
Mr.
Speaker, a few months after the onset of the pandemic, government held a weekly
conference call with elected representatives of both Opposition parties, as well
as a representative of the independent Members, in order to provide updates on
matters related to the management of the pandemic, as well as to provide an
opportunity for Members to provide feedback and to ask questions to the minister
on behalf of their constituents.
These
meetings were very cordial and served as a very useful tool for information
sharing between all Members. Unfortunately, since the provincial general
election and the government's subsequent change in status from minority to
majority, these meetings have ceased to occur.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
P. LANE:
I ask the minister: In the
spirit of co-operation, will he reconvene these weekly discussions and, if not,
why not?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Those
meetings did go on and I think, if memory serves me beyond the election and the
change of minority status, quite frankly they stopped because nobody turned up
again. From our point of view, if the Member opposite has some issues about
COVID-19, which he did earlier on, he can do what he does: Come over here and
I'm happy to chat with him any time, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure who
didn't show up; I certainly did every time.
Mr.
Speaker, despite the minister's assertion that all is well at motor vehicle
registration, speak to the average citizen, particularly our seniors, and they
will tell a very different story. Unanswered phone calls, no return phone calls,
long lines outside in all kinds of weather, unacceptable wait times for
appointments is the order of the day.
While
nobody in this Legislature is averse to the concept of maximizing the
utilization of technology, where appropriate, through government, its end goal
should be service improvement, not the creation of chaos and frustration.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
P. LANE:
I ask the Minister of Digital
Government and Service NL: Will she finally admit that what she has created at
motor vehicle registration amounts to an experiment gone wrong and, more
importantly, will she open the doors to motor vehicle registration and Service
NL offices across the province?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Our
offices at Motor Registration across the province are open. As for before the
pandemic, there's a system where, in more than half of our offices, you can make
an appointment that week. Members of the public reach out to me telling me how
happy they are with the appointment system. They can get in and out really
quickly.
I've
also said that if you have a need that's urgent or you can't wait for an
appointment, you can walk in. Across the province, Mr. Speaker, we have an
average walk-in rate of 26 per cent. So 26 per cent of our attention to clients,
Mr. Speaker, is walk-in.
I
believe, at the moment, we kind of have a hybrid system, and we're always
monitoring to see how we can make improvements for the people of the province.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The time for Question Period
has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, I give notice of
the following motion:
WHEREAS
the Commissioner for Legislative Standards presented a report,
The Joyce Report, October 18, 2018;
WHEREAS
the report was presented in the House of Assembly and concurred by the majority
of the House of Assembly;
WHEREAS
the findings were that I violated Principle 10 of the Code of Conduct;
WHEREAS
the complainant was the MHA for Placentia - St. Mary's, an elected official;
WHEREAS
Principle 10 states, “Relationships between Members and government employees
should be professional and based upon mutual respect and should have regard to
the duty of these employees to remain politically impartial when carrying out
their duties.”
WHEREAS
the Commissioner for Legislative Standards stated in the report: “In the manner
in which he dealt with the Complainant, and particularly during the call on
April 8th …. Relationships between Members and government employees should be
professional and based upon mutual respect and should have regard to the duty of
those employees ….
“I find
that the conduct of MHA Joyce is a violation of principle 10 of the Code of
Conduct…. I find that the manner in which he addressed this issue was
unprofessional and showed a lack of mutual respect towards members of the public
service ….”
WHEREAS
it is very obvious that the Commissioner for Legislative Standards defined the
complainant, an MHA, as a public sector government employee, contrary to
Principle 10. This was a deliberate and malicious attempt to mislead the House
of Assembly by the Commissioner for Legislative Standards, Mr. Bruce Chaulk;
WHEREAS
former MHA, Dale Kirby, appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner in
December 2018 for a copy of the Rubin Thomlinson report;
WHEREAS
testimony in the report by the Information and Privacy Commissioner is as
follows:
The
Commissioner for Legislative Standards reversed his position and gave testimony
that Members are not government employees, less than two months after he
presented The Joyce Report to the
House of Assembly;
The
Clerk of the House of Assembly gave testimony that Members are not government
employees;
The
Information and Privacy Commissioner's ruling states Members are not government
employees, Report A-2019-004.
WHEREAS
other evidence to support the position that MHAs are not government employees
are:
The
letter from the Law Clerk who stated Members are not government employees;
On
November 2, 2018, former Speaker and Member of Lake Melville, in his letter
stated: Members of the House of Assembly are elected officials. They are not
employees;
The
former Speaker's statement was before the debated occurred in the House of
Assembly on November 6, 2018, and he was Chair of the Management Commission;
The
Commissioner for Legislative Standards reversed his position again, contrary to
what he presented in the House of Assembly, in a letter dated November 27, 2020,
to the hon. David B. Orsborn – and I quote – “… members of the House of Assembly
are not employees ….”
Supreme
Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Justice Francis J. Knickle stated in a ruling
on June 10, 2021: The appellant, Mr. Dale Kirby, MHA, is neither an employee in
the traditional sense;
WHEREAS
the Executive Council of the Liberal government mandated public sector employees
to be fully vaccinated;
WHEREAS
Members of the House of Assembly are not government employees, the government
introduced a resolution on October 18, 2021, in the House of Assembly that all
MHAs must be fully vaccinated;
WHEREAS
the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador distinguished by mandating public
sector employees to be vaccinated, and the motion of October 18, 2021, that
Members of the House of Assembly are not government employees of the public
sector and must be vaccinated by bringing for the motion. This is an admission
by Premier Furey and the government that MHAs are not government employees,
contrary to the findings of The
Joyce Report of 2018;
WHEREAS
the House of Assembly, by concurring with
The Joyce Report of 2018, has established that Members of the House of
Assembly are government employees, which now the government is admitting was a
wrong conclusion;
WHEREAS
former Premier Dwight Ball stated on August 23, 2018, to the media in a public
statement: There's no room for political interference in the reports, said Ball,
I've not received any information from the Commissioner neither have I went
looking for any;
WHEREAS
the Commissioner for Legislative Standards stated on many occasions: I am an
independent officer of the House and these reports are independent;
WHEREAS
in a letter dated May 31, 2019, Dwight Ball stated: I can confirm there were
limited occasions whereby my office contacted the Office of the Commissioner for
Legislative Standards;
WHEREAS
the Commissioner for Legislative Standards made false and misleading findings in
The Joyce Report;
WHEREAS
the Commissioner for Legislative Standards was not independent and had political
influence, which he did not declare in the House of Assembly.
I call
upon the House of Assembly to rescind The
Kirby Report of October 3, 2018, and
The Joyce Report of October 18, 2018;
FURTHERMORE, I call upon the House of Assembly to ask for an independent review
of the process and make recommendations on how to strengthen the
House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act
to ensure that all Members will have confidence in the process.
SPEAKER:
Any other notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
WHEREAS
there are many hopeful mothers and couples in this province dealing with
infertility issues and require medical assistance to conceive; and
WHEREAS
the costs associated with out-of-province fertility treatments, specifically in
vitro fertilization, is extremely cost prohibitive; and
WHEREAS
there are doctors in the province trained in in vitro fertilization and have the
desire to set-up an in vitro fertilization clinic in the province; and
WHEREAS
the province is dealing with an aging population and serious population growth
challenges.
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 establish a fertility treatment clinic within the
province providing full fertility services, including in vitro fertilization for
hopeful mothers and families, and, in the interim, provide financial assistance
to access out-of-province fertility treatment and services.
Mr.
Speaker, this has been an issue that has been ongoing for quite a long time. The
Premier actually committed to enabling IVF treatments in the province during
this past election, eight months ago. The Minister of Health months ago had
indicated there would be a travel package within weeks, and people are still
waiting. There's nothing done. There are hundreds of young mothers or women in
this province and couples who want to have a family, but the barriers that are
created here are preventing that. That's only the ones we know of, there are
many that just gave up hope and we're not aware of.
We have
doctors here that are willing to take up a clinic and start it here. The
minister will say: Well, there's not enough demand and they won't keep up their
skills. They beg to differ. We have to be looking at the residents in this
province, the young women and the young couples that want to have a family. We
need to do this as soon as possible because time is ticking for them.
I look
at the mandate letter from the Premier to the Minister of Health and I quote:
“Together, we will deliver on our promises to the people of this province.” This
was a promise made and should be a promise kept.
Further
on in the letter, they want to ensure “that the voice of lived experience is
heard ….” I hear it loud and clear every day from the young women and the young
couples who want to start a family here in this province and want to stay here
in this province, but to this point in time they've heard nothing. They have the
clock ticking against them, literally. The time is to act now.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.
P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I
thank the hon. Member, of course, for raising this very important issue.
I want
to state on the record, Mr. Speaker, our government supports people who want to
have children. I'm happy to say we know that commitment has been made and I'm
happy to say that there's work under way. Currently, there is a subsidization
program being developed to provide funding for eligible residents who will
travel out of province for fertility services.
Also,
our government will certainly commit to a full review of the fertility services
here in our province. It is certainly a very important commitment. I myself, as
an MHA, and I'm sure many of us have heard from constituents about this very
issue. But let it be known – and I can't emphasize enough, it is certainly a
commitment and I am happy to work with my colleague, the Minister of Health and
Community Services as the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.
Again, I will be happy to report some updates and good news when that becomes
available.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
reasons for this petition:
WHEREAS
individual residents have spoken to the serious concern about the shortage of
doctors in the District of Harbour Main;
WHEREAS
many of the residents are without a family doctor or have a family doctor where
they have to travel more than 30 kilometres to see. For some residents to get an
appointment to see their family doctor at times can take up to three to four
weeks.
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 implement a
plan to have more family doctors in the province so that people can have access
to the care that they need.
Mr.
Speaker, this is affecting real people. This is a crisis that is affecting
people; it is hurting people. Yes, we've heard that there are over 100,000
people in the province without a family doctor and the Harbour Main District is
no exception. Constituents in the district have been reaching out desperately to
get help with securing a family doctor.
I'll
give you two real-life examples. One couple in South River recently retired home
here from Ontario. They have been trying ever since to get a family doctor,
which includes calling over 30 doctor clinics. Mr. Speaker, they have reached
out and said that it has taken – they live in the Avalon area and there are no
doctors – the office that they call will not even put them on a waiting list
because they say the waiting list is up to 800 people on a waiting list – 800
people.
Mr.
Speaker, this is an example of a couple who have spoke – and I'll quote, they
have sent email to me, I've met with them, they sent an email to the Premier as
well in early October; two weeks later there was a response – a generic response
I might add.
The
couple had said – they're in their late 60s and they said: We have since spoken
to many, and I mean many medical people and citizens. Medical people want to
leave the province and so do citizens.
Mr.
Speaker, we need to understand and be mindful of the serious problem that exists
here. After 20 years living away, they hope to retire. They said: We cannot find
a doctor close by. When calling around to numerous medical facilities for over a
month, they either don't answer the phone or the message states their mailbox is
full.
I have
another couple from Clarke's Beach – I can go on and on. I'll give these two
examples. Clarke's Beach, another couple in the district have to travel – they
are seniors from Clarke's Beach – all the way out to CBS at least 40 minutes to
a clinic to see a doctor because they cannot find one locally. They are senior
citizens. These are people who are hurting, Mr. Speaker. We need action now –
not rhetoric, action.
SPEAKER:
Your time has expired.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Lake
Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm very
pleased to present this petition. I'll read it and then make a few comments.
While
there has been substantial progress in providing mental health support in recent
years, there is a financial hurdle for longer term counselling in Newfoundland
and Labrador.
Federal
tax credits are available for people with physical and mental impairments
seeking psychological support; however, upfront financial support for those in a
lower income are lacking.
The
counselling programs available through our health care system are short-term
solutions, for example, Bridge the gapp, DoorWays, CHANNAL. Financial support
for residents seeking counselling therapists is desperately needed. Please note
that New Brunswick and Nova Scotia both provide long-term assistance.
Therefore we, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to include mental health counselling as
a medical expense for those who can pay privately, and cover it entirely for
those who require extended assistance but cannot afford to participate. We
cannot afford as a province to not provide this critical support.
Each
person, each MHA in this House, will have received an email from Ms. Kristi
Allan back in the spring outlining her own personal challenges with her
situation as she has sought longer term counselling. She articulated in an
amazing email – I know we all receive a lot of correspondence and so on. I
started reading this and I said, wow, we have to reach out to her, and I'm very
glad that our office has done that. We continue to talk and learn much from
someone who is really struggling with the system and offering great suggestions.
So that
petition is based on so much of what she's been very concerned about. I'm
pleased to present it here. For those of you watching, activists like Ms. Allan,
she's been in front of this House of Assembly now for getting close to a year.
She's here, usually by herself, but she's a silent, consistent, persistent voice
and hopefully conscience for us to suddenly do something.
I would
like to quote from her in that email that we all received, because, of course,
people watching and Hansard will not have had the benefit of the email that we
received as MHAs.
Here are
some of the words she said: “I had the credit to access therapy in 2020. This
saved my life that year. I understand we have Doorways, Same Day Walk-in, and
perhaps the most accessible– Wellness Together. However, all of these are
short-term and not permanent options. Trauma and chronic mental illness can't be
fixed in one, two or even six sessions– treatment needs to be regular and
continuous. Preventative and continuous care needs to be an option. I felt
privileged to access therapy via increasing my debt.”
She also
goes on to talk about how we, as a government now, are supporting people with
physical health support, but we do not do this for mental health support. So I'd
ask government to please consider this long-term counselling therapy on behalf
of so many people who are asking for it.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
These
are the reasons for this petition:
Eastern
Health has recently repositioned one of the ambulances from the Trepassey area
to the Cape Broyle area. This has left one ambulance in the Trepassey area.
Residents of Trepassey and the surrounding area are at least two hours from the
nearest hospital.
Therefore, we petition the House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned,
call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador to ensure the residents of Trepassey area have accessibility to an
ambulance in a time of an emergency by repositioning a second ambulance back
into the Trepassey area to ensure the safety and the well-being of local
residents and to meet the national standard for response times.
Mr.
Speaker, I've spoken on this on many occasions. The ambulance in Trepassey was
taken away on June 19. I saw a Facebook message while driving back across the
province. I called the minister; his reason was that the numbers of calls are
down in the area and less population. But there's more to that than just the
number of calls and population; it's geography. There are 70 kilometres of
barren land in that country. If you live in that area and you have to drive to
St. John's – so when you get a call for an ambulance, by the time the ambulance
gets there, it takes two hours to drive to St. John's.
You
could come out here like happened last week or the week before or recently.
There was a person on the ambulance that went to the hospital and due to COVID
precautions – they weren't sure if she had COVID or not, which she didn't – but
in all they had to stay in the ambulance until they determined that she didn't
have COVID. Besides the two hours' drive, they're sitting in an ambulance for
three to four hours and then two or three hours to get back. So the ambulance is
out of the area with no ambulance from eight to 10 hours, and that's not
acceptable.
If you
call an ambulance and you get into a red alert in that area and he said dynamic
dispatching – when I asked, they couldn't tell me where that next ambulance was
situated, which I know it was probably in Cape Broyle. If you make a call to get
an ambulance, you're now an hour and a bit, maybe an hour and 10, 15 minutes
away for that ambulance to get to Trepassey, let alone come back to town again.
It's not acceptable that they just look at the cost.
Listen,
I know there's a cost involved in all this and they're trying to save money, but
that is wrong in every sense of the word. They are 200 kilometres away and it's
probably the longest drive in the province, on the Island, away from a hospital.
It's not acceptable that they not go back and look at this for the residents in
that area.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
present this petition again today on behalf of the people who contacted our
office and signed the petition about Motor Registration and the closing of the
offices for regular hours for people.
Mr.
Speaker, I'll just read something that was sent to a person and he sent me a
copy of it. For the minister saying that the office doors are open, but it says
here: by appointment only. That's what's being sent out to people: by
appointment only. Here's his note: If you have any accommodation and require
communication supports, please let us know. They can't even get to speak to
anybody – they can't even get to speak to anybody.
The
minister yesterday in the response to the petition – and this is just
mindboggling. She stated: 34 per cent of the people who register cancels. There
are 34 per cent of the people who calls in for an appointment cancels; doesn't
that tell you something? That there's 34 per cent of who is phoning that could
be fitted in.
I hear
the minister on a regular basis – and I don't mean to be harping on the
minister, but I'm standing up for the people of the District of Humber - Bay of
Islands, Corner Brook and out towards Baie Verte, Stephenville that way also.
AN HON. MEMBER:
The whole province.
E. JOYCE:
The whole province – yes, a
few people are saying the whole province. But here's the point: The minister is
saying the doors are open. Here's someone from Cox's Cove or from Lark Harbour –
I'll just use my own district here now – drives one hour to go up to that
building to get in the little corner, hopefully somebody is going to cancel out
so they can get in – hopefully.
I have
yet to hear the minister or anybody in this government stand up and explain why
it was changed. Speak to the staff. They have no problem putting it back to the
normal procedures. Every person in this province is not a computer whiz; every
person in this province doesn't have a computer. Every person in this province
will have complex issues about registering their vehicle. We had one who tried
to get a vehicle from Alberta, couldn't get in.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
E. JOYCE:
I hear someone over there
chirping, you want to chirp, stand up and say something. Stand up if someone
wants to chirp, stand up.
Mr.
Speaker, I can tell you the reason why this was changed: It was ill advised, it
was never thought through. I can tell you with the pandemic going on with COVID,
and for a minister to say, well, it worked well during COVID, when everything
else the government is doing, they're blaming it on COVID.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the minister to change this back. Put it back the way it was
because you're causing so much stress and havoc and what happens if someone
drives in an hour or an hour-and-a-half and they can't get in. They'd be sitting
in a corner, waiting all day to register a vehicle. They have to drive back home
and come back in.
I urge
the government to reconsider this ill-thought-out decision.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Member's time has expired.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Background to this petition is as follows: In the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador, there are over 75 patients who live with cystic fibrosis. CF is a
genetic disease that causes severe damage to the lungs, digestive system and
other organs in the body. Unfortunately, as of now, only the symptoms of CF are
being treated.
In June
2021, Health Canada approved Trikafta, a triple combination precision medicine
that targets the basic gene defect that causes CF. Trikafta has been proven to
result in life-changing health improvements. And there are a number of examples
here in the petition of those improvements, which I did read yesterday, Mr.
Speaker.
I guess
the bottom line here, Mr. Speaker, what it comes down to is that as of Friday –
I do believe, so I was told at least – every single province in the country have
either already added Trikafta to the drug formulary or in the case of, I think,
Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and PEI, last week the Premiers or health ministers
of those provinces all publicly came out, committed and said that it was going
to be added. Newfoundland and Labrador, to my understanding, is now the only
province in the entire country that is not providing this life-altering drug for
an absolute deadly disease.
We all
know the statistics as it relates to cystic fibrosis, the life expectancy. I'm
sure everybody in this House of Assembly probably has a constituent or someone
they know who's impacted. I know that I do. It's one of the most heartbreaking
diseases that you can think of when you think of young people and what they have
to go through and the shortness of their lifespans as a result of this. If there
is a drug that has been approved by Health Canada, which it has, and has now
been approved by all the provinces, then I cannot see for the life of me why
Newfoundland and Labrador would be any different.
I
certainly encourage the Minister of Health and Community Services and the
government to please, on behalf of the families that are impacted here in
Newfoundland and Labrador, I urge you to please have this drug added to the
formulary.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Orders of the Day, Mr.
Speaker.
Orders of the Day
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, for leave to introduce a bill
entitled, An Act To Amend The Coat Of Arms Act, Bill 20, and I further move that
the said bill be now read a first time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill, An Act To
Amend The Coat Of Arms Act, Bill 20, and that the said bill now be read a first
time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to introduce a bill,
“An Act To Amend The Coat Of Arms Act,” carried. (Bill 20)
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Coat Of Arms Act. (Bill 20)
SPEAKER:
The bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the bill be read a second time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 20 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL, for leave to
introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Off-Road Vehicles, Bill 22, and I
further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that the Government House Leader shall have leave to
introduce a bill, An Act Respecting Off-Road Vehicles, Bill 22, and that the
said bill should now be read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL to introduce a bill,
“An Act Respecting Off-Road Vehicles,” carried. (Bill 22)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act Respecting
Off-Road Vehicles. (Bill 22)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 22 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL, for leave to introduce a bill
entitled, An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act, Bill 23, and I further
move that the said bill be now read a first time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce the bill, An Act To
Amend The Automobile Insurance Act, Bill 23, and that said bill be now read a
first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL to introduce a bill,
“An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act,” carried. (Bill 23)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act. (Bill 23)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the bill be read a second time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 23 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL, for leave to introduce a bill
entitled, An Act To Amend The Corporations Act, Bill 24, and I further move that
the said bill be now read a first time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill, An Act To
Amend The Corporations Act, Bill 24, and that said bill be now read a first
time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL to introduce a bill,
“An Act To Amend The Corporations Act,” carried. (Bill 24)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Corporations Act. (Bill 24)
SPEAKER:
The bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 24 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Deputy Government House Leader, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An
Act To Amend The Management Of Information Act, Bill 25, and I further move that
the said bill be now read a first time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill, An Act To
Amend The Management Of Information Act, Bill 25, and that the said bill be read
a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL to introduce a bill,
“An Act To Amend The Management Of Information Act” carried. (Bill 25)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act to Amend the
Management of Information Act. (Bill 25)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 25 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, for
leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Licensed Practical
Nurses Act, 2005, Bill 26, and I further move that the said bill be now read a
first time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill, An Act To
Amend The Licensed Practical Nurses Act, Bill 26, and the said bill be now read
a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a bill, “An
Act To Amend The Licensed Practical Nurses Act, 2005,” carried. (Bill 26)
CLERK:
A bill, “An Act To Amend The
Licensed Practical Nurses Act, 2005.” (Bill 26)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the bill be read a second time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 26 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology, for leave to introduce a
bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Pharmacy Act, 2012, Bill 27, and I further
move that the said bill be now read a first time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill, An Act To
Amend The Pharmacy Act, 2012, Bill 27, and that the said bill be now read a
first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a bill, “An
Act To Amend The Pharmacy Act, 2012,” carried. (Bill 27)
CLERK:
A bill, “An Act To Amend The
Pharmacy Act, 2012.” (Bill 27)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 27 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Deputy Government House Leader, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend Various Acts Of The Province Respecting The Publication Of A
Summary Of A Decision Or Order Of An Adjudication Tribunal, Bill 28, and I
further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill, An Act To
Amend Various Acts Of The Province Respecting The Publication Of A Summary Of A
Decision Or Order Of An Adjudication Tribunal, Bill 28.
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.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a bill, “An
Act To Amend Various Acts Of The Province Respecting The Publication Of A
Summary Of A Decision Or Order Of An Adjudication Tribunal,” carried. (Bill 28)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Various Acts Of The Province Respecting The Publication Of A Summary Of A
Decision Or Order Of An Adjudication Tribunal. (Bill 28)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 28 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Finance, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act
Respecting The Requirement For A Balanced Budget, Bill 30, and I further move
that the said bill be now read a first time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill, An Act
Respecting The Requirement For A Balanced Budget, Bill 30, and that the said
bill be now read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a
bill, “An Act Respecting The Requirement For A Balanced Budget,” carried. (Bill
30)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act Respecting The
Requirement For A Balanced Budget. (Bill 30)
SPEAKER:
The said bill has been read a
first time.
When
shall the bill be read a second time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 30 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Finance for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act
Respecting A Future Fund For The Province, Bill 31, and I further move that the
said bill be now read a first time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill, An Act
Respecting A Future Fund For The Province, Bill 31, and that the said bill be
read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a
bill, “An Act Respecting A Future Fund For The Province,” carried. (Bill 31)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act Respecting A
Future Fund For The Province. (Bill 31)
SPEAKER:
The said bill has been read a
first time.
When
shall the bill be read a second time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 31 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Minister of Finance, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend
The Liquor Corporation Act, Bill 32, and I further move that the said bill be
now read a first time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill,
An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act, Bill 32,
and that said bill be now read a first time.
Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a
bill, “An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act,”
carried. (Bill 32)
CLERK:
A bill,
An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act.
(Bill 32)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 32 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Minister of Finance, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act, Bill
33, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill,
An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act, Bill 33, and
that said bill be now read a first time.
Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a
bill, “An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act,”
carried. (Bill 33)
CLERK:
A bill,
An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act. (Bill
33)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 33 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Minister of Education, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997, Bill 34,
and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill,
An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997, Bill 34, and
that said bill be now read a first time.
Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Education to introduce a bill, “An
Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997,” carried. (Bill 34)
CLERK:
A bill,
An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997. (Bill
34)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 34 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Minister of Education, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Memorial University Act,
Bill 35, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill,
An Act To Amend The Memorial University Act, Bill 35,
and that said bill be now read a first time.
Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Education to introduce a bill, “An
Act To Amend The Memorial University Act,” carried. (Bill 35)
CLERK:
A bill,
An Act To Amend The Memorial University Act.
(Bill 35)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 35 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Deputy Government House Leader, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An
Act Respecting The Office Of The Auditor General And The Auditing Of The Public
Accounts Of The Province, Bill 36, and I further move that the said bill be now
read a first time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill, An Act
Respecting The Office Of The Auditor General And The Auditing Of The Public
Accounts Of The Province, Bill 36, and that the said bill now be read a first
time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a bill, “An Act Respecting The
Office Of The Auditor General And The Auditing Of The Public Accounts Of The
Province,” carried. (Bill 36)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act Respecting The
Office Of The Auditor General And The Auditing Of The Public Accounts Of The
Province. (Bill 36)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 36 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, for leave to introduce a bill
entitled, An Act Respecting The Conduct Of Municipal Officials, Bill 37, and I
further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill, An
Act Respecting The Conduct Of Municipal Officials, Bill 37, and that the said
bill be read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to introduce a bill,
“An Act Respecting The Conduct Of Municipal Officials,” carried. (Bill 37)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act Respecting The
Conduct Of Municipal Officials. (Bill 37)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 37 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development, for leave to introduce
a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Accessibility In The Province, Bill 38, and I
further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill, An Act
Respecting Accessibility In The Province, Bill 38, and that the said bill be now
read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development to introduce a
bill, “An Act Respecting Accessibility In The Province,” carried. (Bill 38)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act Respecting
Accessibility In The Province. (Bill 38)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 38 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development, for leave
to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Adoption Act, 2013, Bill 39,
and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend
The Adoption Act, 2013, Bill 39, and that the said bill be read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development to introduce a
bill, “An Act To Amend The Adoption Act, 2013,” carried. (Bill 39)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Adoption Act, 2013. (Bill 39)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 39 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development, for leave to
introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Protection Of Adults, Bill 40,
and I further move that the said bill be read a first time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill, An Act
Respecting The Protection Of Adults, Bill 40, and that the said bill be now read
a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development to introduce a
bill, “An Act Respecting The Protection Of Adults,” carried. (Bill 40)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act Respecting The
Protection Of Adults. (Bill 40)
SPEAKER:
The said bill has now been
read a first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 40 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Deputy Government House Leader, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An
Act Respecting A Province-Wide Service For The Reporting Of Emergencies, Bill
41, and I further move that the said bill be read a first time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce An Act Respecting A
Province-Wide 911 Service For The Reporting Of Emergencies, Bill 41, and the
said bill be now read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety to introduce a bill, “An Act
Respecting A Province-Wide 911 Service For The Reporting Of Emergencies,”
carried. (Bill 41)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act Respecting A
Province-Wide 911 Service For The Reporting Of Emergencies. (Bill 41)
SPEAKER:
The said bill has now been
read a first time.
When
shall the bill be read a second time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 41 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, for leave to introduce a bill
entitled, An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, Bill 42, and I further move that
the said bill be read a first time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce An Act To Amend
The Law Society Act, Bill 42, and that said bill be now read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety to introduce a bill, “An Act
To Amend The Law Society Act,” carried. (Bill 42)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Law Society Act. (Bill 42)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 42 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
We have a lot of work to do
tomorrow.
The hon.
Deputy Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Order 2, Bill 6.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL
S. STOODLEY:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that Bill 6, An Act
Respecting The Protection Of The Health Of Persons Exposed To Radiation And
Respecting The Safety Of Persons In Connection With The Operation And Use Of The
Electrical And Mechanical Components Of Radiation Producing Equipment And
Associated Apparatus, be now read a second time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 6 be read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act Respecting The Protection Of The Health Of
Persons Exposed To Radiation And Respecting The Safety Of Persons In Connection
With The Operation And Use Of The Electrical And Mechanical Components Of
Radiation Producing Equipment And Associated Apparatus.” (Bill 6)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
pleased today to speak to amendments to Bill 6, An Act Respecting The Protection
Of The Health Of Persons Exposed To Radiation And Respecting The Safety Of
Persons In Connection With The Operation And Use Of The Electrical And
Mechanical Components Of Radiation Producing Equipment And Associated Apparatus.
In this act, Mr. Speaker, we are enacting the
Radiation Health and Safety Act, 2021 and repealing the
Radiation Health and Safety Act that
exists today.
This was
a commitment from my mandate letter. We're striving to further improve the
safety of workers and residents in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. It is
also a recommendation outlined in Advancing a Strong Safety Culture in
Newfoundland and Labrador: A Workplace Injury Prevention Strategy document.
Our
department – we inspect food premises; we respond to environmental incidents. We
enforce occupational health and safety requirements. We do school bus
inspections. No matter what we do, health and safety is the forefront of what
we're concerned about, particularly for residents and workers in our province,
Mr. Speaker.
The
Radiation Health and Safety Act
governs the protection of health safety of those exposed to radiation and those
who operate equipment which produces ionizing radiation. I'm not an expert,
honestly, in ionizing radiation. I know we have some experts here in the
province. But really, what we're talking about are kind of X-ray machines. We
have X-ray machines everywhere. If you break your arm, you go and you get an
X-ray. If you are visitor in the Confederation Building here or you have a
visitor, they go through an X-ray machine when they come in the building
downstairs. If you're flying, your devices go through an X-ray machine and,
depending on the security option you go through, you can go through a human
being X-ray machine.
These
are the types of machines and equipment that we're talking about, Mr. Speaker.
In the province, as of two days ago, we have 875 pieces of radiation equipment
that this act would apply to. They're mainly held by the university, hospitals,
the airports and a lot of kind of commercial manufacturing organizations.
The act
and associated regulations were developed in 1977 and we have made some
amendments over time, but the legislation has not been reviewed in its entirety
since it was first created, so we are doing that today, Mr. Speaker.
We did
hold consultations in 2018 on the owners, users, sellers and maintainers of this
equipment that produces the ionizing radiation. Their feedback was considered as
a part of the review of the act and the changes we're introducing today will
help both modernize the legislation and address stakeholder input.
A lot of
what we are bringing in today, Mr. Speaker, aligns with the practice of the
industry. So we're kind of catching the legislation up from the safety
perspective to match the practice. We don't anticipate significant changes for
the industry, Mr. Speaker.
Changes
will help clarify the roles and responsibilities regarding its sections, focus
on the safety of individuals exposed to ionizing radiation, change the current
appeals process and change the requirement for a radiation health and safety
committee.
According to the standard occupational health and safety practices, it is the
responsibility of the employer to ensure testing, monitoring and assessment of
equipment used in a workplace. So specific sections of the regulations set out
the responsibilities for suppliers and owners to have radiation surveys
performed on X-ray equipment. This has been owners' and suppliers'
responsibility since the act initially came into force in 1977.
What
we're bringing in today introduces clarifying regulatory roles and
responsibilities and also helps ensure residents of the province understand
these requirements. So the amendments bring the act in line with current
practices surrounding radiation equipment.
We've
also added language that clarifies the roles and responsibilities of inspectors
to ensure that there is a clear understanding of the safety regime moving
forward. In previous years, Mr. Speaker, the
Radiation Health and Safety Act fell
under the mandate under the former Department of Health. It now falls under the
Occupational Health and Safety Division of Digital Government and Service NL.
Our
occupational health and safety team will continue to work with Health and
Community Services as it develops new radiation health and safety regulations to
ensure that workers, patients and the public are protected, and most of the
radiation equipment used in the province is kind of used in a health setting. So
it's important that we work with the Department of Health on that, but also
we're protecting the health of the workers and residents of the province when
they encounter radiation equipment, whether in their health or their work or
their day-to-day lives.
A high
level of expertise is required to determine appropriate radiation and diagnostic
procedures in clinical settings. As such, amendments to the legislation of
regulations will now focus on all of those who work near such equipment and its
safe operation.
So I
want to thank my colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services, and
his teams and their staff as well as the occupational health and safety staff in
my department for their valuable contributions regarding patient safety
components and the overall development of the amendments that we have brought
forward today.
The act,
currently today, has the requirement for the establishment of a standing
radiation health and safety committee. In our work in radiation health and
safety, Mr. Speaker, this committee has not been active since 2002. We haven't
needed to engage them. So, as such, we have amended the act to provide the
Minister of Digital Government and Service NL the authority to establish a
radiation health and safety committee, if and when required. A Standing
Committee is not deemed necessary, and we also have radiation expertise on our
Occupational Health and Safety Committee, which kind of oversees this as well,
so that's also important to keep in mind.
If the
Occupational Health and Safety Division requires professional or technical
advice, our proposed approach would be to consult experts in the radiation
field. We would bring together a committee of experts to advise on a specific
issue, if we needed to, Mr. Speaker.
On
routine matters, the proposed amendments will allow advice to be sought through
the mandate of the larger Occupational Health and Safety Committee, which I
mentioned who does have expertise in radiation health and safety. When advice is
needed on technical matters, advice would be sought from Health Canada Radiation
Protection Bureau. We follow all of the federal Health Canada standards and
guidelines for working with radiation. Then, if local technical advice is
needed, a radiation health and safety committee could still be formed.
We're
proposing a new appeals process that has been added to the act to deal with
inspector decisions. This aligns with the same processes we currently have under
the Occupational Health and Safety Act
for complaints and inspections for occupational health and safety.
Appeals,
we're proposing will go the assistant deputy minister rather than to the
minister of the department. This will translate to more effective and efficient
appeals mechanisms for any complaints or appeals that may arise.
Mr.
Speaker, public safety is at the forefront of our government's priorities. This
was in my mandate letter so I'm very pleased to bring forward this today.
The
radiation and the protection of the public from radiation, Mr. Speaker, falls
within federal legislation, specifically the Radiation Protection Regulations
with the Government of Canada. I just wanted to be clear that this does not
include anything nuclear. Anything nuclear falls under the
Nuclear Safety and Control Act, which is mandated by the federal
government.
These
changes clarify the regulatory roles and responsibilities related to the act,
help ensure a common understanding of the mandate and help bring current
practice in line with the act.
I'm
looking forward to discussing these with my colleagues and I'm happy to answer
any questions in Committee.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Speaker.
First of
all, let me start off by thanking the department for the briefing, I'm going to
say in our last session that we had. This is the third attempt, I think, to push
this through and get the legislation done, so it's been pushed back far enough.
I thank them, again, for their information.
First of
all, Bill 6 will enact the new Radiation
Health and Safety Act, 2021, and repeal the current
Radiation Health and Safety Act. The
Radiation Health and Safety Act and regulations are under the
purview of the Digital Government and Service NL.
As the
name suggests, the act and regulations set out requirements regarding radiation
emitting equipment such as X-ray machines, CT scanners, mammography machines,
security baggage scanning devices, scientific analysis equipment and various
other industrial testing devices such as hand-held equipment used by welders.
According to department officials – and the minister just acknowledged – there
was 875 pieces that are currently radiation-emitting equipment currently
registered with Occupational Health and Safety. As expected, the majority of
this equipment is owned by dental clinics, veterinarian clinics and health
authorities, but also by those using equipment for industrial materials and
analysis and testing. Owners include agencies performing baggage screening, the
police for explosive devices, as well as educational facilities including
Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic.
The
Radiation Health and Safety Act and
regulations govern the installation, use, maintenance, inspection and the
registration of this equipment. Owners, sellers, service companies and the users
of this equipment are governed by this legislation to ensure the safety of
workers, patients and others where the equipment is used.
The act
came into force in 1977 and that is over 40 years ago, so I think it is high
time that we certainly look at it and go through some of those changes.
In April
2018, following a commitment made in a joint five-year injury prevention
strategy in WorkplaceNL, government announced it was reviewing the
Radiation Health and Safety Act and
holding public consultations to modernize the act to reflect regulator practice
and make it consistent with Occupational
Health and Safety Act and regulations.
Typically, changes to this legislation are made through amendments to an act.
Rather than proposing amendments, Bill 6 will repeal the current
Radiation Health and Safety Act and enact a new
Radiation Health and Safety Act, 2021.
Department officials explained that the proposed changes are being made because
the current act is dated, lacks detail and contains sections that are often
misunderstood, particularly regarding owners responsibilities. Safety codes are
explicitly stated and the appeals process required revision.
Officials also noted that many of the items now outlined in the new act are
being safely addressed through the Occupation Health and Safety Regulations, but
the new Radiation Health and Safety Act will now capture it all in one piece of
legislation rather than two.
Under
the registration process – there is different categories, I think there are 12
categories and I will just go through them briefly and some of the points on
them – owners have to register equipment with the OHS Division of the Department
of Digital Government and Service NL and be issued a certificate of
registration. New owners have to register the equipment within 30 days upon
receipt and registration must be renewed on an annual basis, typically every
September.
Owners
are also expected to notify the director of the Occupation Health and Safety
Division of the department within 30 days when the equipment is taken out of
service or they cease ownership. The registration can be revoked for
non-compliance, officials note that while this has not been an issue it was not
specified in the current act and they wanted the ability to revoke a
registration should an issue arise.
Under
the owners' responsibilities, officials noted that there was a high level of
co-operation from owners and employers as people are aware of the potential
hazard associated with this equipment. The section outlining owners'
responsibilities, however, have been commonly misunderstood and officials stated
it now provides clarity.
There's
an added detail on how the owner will have to install, maintain, modify, operate
and dispose of their equipment. This includes detail of ensuring low exposures
to people in the room with the equipment but also in the adjacent rooms. There's
a requirement that the radiation protection surveys be provided to the
department every two years. Owners are also expected to notify the director of
the Occupational Health and Safety Division of the department of any incidents
when the equipment is taken out of service.
Under
deviation from the regulations, a deviation refers to a request by owners to act
outside the legislative requirements. Officials noted that such requests have
been infrequent and the current director stated that he hadn't had such a
request in six years in that position.
Under
the proposed amendments, a deviation request would be granted if it was
demonstrated that an equal or a greater level of safety would be maintained and
it could be revoked at any time or amended at any time.
Under
the inspections and inspectors section, the proposed amendments will make
investigation powers consistent with those outline in the OHS Act. Inspectors
have the power to enter any workplace, unannounced, and can inspect radiation
equipment, take photographs, copy documents, conduct tests and interview
radiation workers, et cetera, whatever it takes. Again, officials noted there
was very good co-operation from the owners, employers and workers related to
these inspections.
Under
orders, when an issue of non-compliance is detected an inspector can issue an
order to address the issue and specify a time frame to do so. Officials noted
that while inspectors also have the authority to issue stop-work orders, they
have been infrequent and, again, they could recall any being issued in the last
six years. So doing those briefings there was a lot of information that the
departments certainly passed on and it was good information.
Under
search warrants, officials noted that powers relating to obtaining search
warrants will now parallel these outlined in the
Occupational Health and Safety Act and other legislation, and the
search warrant will be required if an inspector believes a charge could be laid.
Telewarrants will also be permissible under the new act. In the briefing, the
director noted that while officers are trained regarding search warrants, none
has been used in the terms for the last six years.
Under
protection from liability, the ADM, director or OHS inspectors are not liable
for anything done or omitted to be in good faith while performing these duties.
Again, the amendments regarding the protection of officers from liability are
consistent with those outlined in the OHS Act and other legislation. Officials
noted that inspections are carried out by officers with a high level of training
and there have not been any issues.
Under
the Appeal section, this section establishes the process for people to appeal
orders or directives issued by either inspectors or the director of OHS Division
of that department. If owners disagree with an order or directive, they have
seven days to appeal in writing to the assistant deputy minister of the
department and the ADM must begin a review of this section within 24 hours. The
ADM can decide whether to confirm, revoke or vary the decision or order of the
director or inspector.
The
person can appeal the decision of the ADM to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland
and Labrador within 30 days of getting their decision. Again, officials know
that these amendments are consistent with those outlined in the current OHS Act
and stated there are no appeals to date.
Under
the ministerial advice and recommendation, the minister can refer matters that
are of general nature regarding safety of radiation to the Occupational Health
and Safety Advisory Council. Officials stated that this council consists of a
balance of employer and labour representation, and that currently the labour
representative is actually a radiation equipment technician.
A
radiation health and safety advisory committee, comprised of experts on a
specific topic, can be formed to provide advice and recommendations on
particular technical matters. Under regulations, section 25 specifies a lengthy
list of topics on which Cabinet can make regulations. On section 26, it outlines
the minister's authority to make regulations regarding the establishment of the
radiation health and safety advisory committee.
Under
the Offences and penalties, section 28, the penalties have increased
significantly in the new act. The current act states that a fine cannot exceed
$5,000. The new act states a fine will not be less than $500 and not more than
$250,000. In addition, the court may impose an additional fine of $25,000 for
each day the offence continues.
Under
section 12, there are other major and minor amendments relating to the
transition from the old act to the new one and also to ensure that the wording
in the legislation is updated to reflect the enactment of a new act.
I'm
going to say some of the key messages. Changes to the
Radiation Health and Safety Act and associated regulations will help
modernize and address the stakeholder input. The changes will help the roles and
responsibilities regarding inspections and focus the act on the safety of
individuals exposed to ionizing radiation, change the current appeals process
and change the requirement for a radiation health and safety committee.
In 2018,
consultations were launched to gather information and recommendations on issues
of priority from owners, users, sellers and maintainers of equipment that
produce ionizing radiation. The feedback gathered during these consultations
with professional stakeholders in the medical, dental and veterinary fields who
use X-ray equipment were included as part of the review of the legislation.
The act
also was amended to provide the authority of the Minister of Digital Government
and Service NL to establish a radiation health and safety committee, if and when
required. A new appeals process has been added to the act to deal with the
inspector decisions and aligns with the same processes under the
Occupational Health and Safety Act.
The OHS Division will continue to work with the Department of Health and
Community Services, as it develops new radiation and health safety regulations
to ensure workers, patients and the general public are protected.
That's
just our outline on that. Hopefully, when we get to the general part, we have
some questions that we need answered and we'll certainly go from there.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER (Warr):
The hon. the Member for
Exploits.
P. FORSEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, it's great to speak on this bill about radiation health and safety.
Today's industry, of course, safety is paramount. I know the Member for
Ferryland mentioned a lot of things there so if I can take a quote from the
Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, I won't take up much time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
P. FORSEY:
Anyway, this act was enforced
in 1977. Any bill that goes back to 1977, of course, needs some changes. It
needs review because health and safety is now paramount. I'm sure, since 1977,
the technology and the usage has become more and more important and more
advanced so yes, changes definitely need to be made in that.
Workplace is priority today, especially using radiation and the way it's used.
Getting rid of the wastage of radiation certainly needs a lot more attention and
needs a lot more changes to be done.
There
are a lot of things in this act – those changes in this act – that I do agree
with. I think, at the end of it, I will certainly be in agreement with the
changes that are going to be made to this act.
There
are many uses. It's used for the radiation equipment. The Member for Ferryland
did mention a few. I'll just reiterate a bit. Those radiation units are X-ray
machines, CT scanners, security baggage scanning devices and other industrial
uses. Welding equipment also is another usage for the radiation. It shows in the
industry that radiation has really advanced and certainly changes need to be
made to the act.
In some
of the changes – registration of equipment, that's very important. Every piece
of equipment, of course, needs to be registered so that we know where it's
placed, we know the whereabouts and know how it's disposed of and the radiation
equipment can be traced and know where it's to at all times so that it don't end
up in the wrong areas that it's supposed to be. So those changes definitely need
to be made.
Other
things – there's non-compliance implications there. There can be licences
revoked. There could be hefty fines. I'm sure all the stakeholders involved, all
the industry would be in favour. I'm sure they are of those safety aspects, Mr.
Speaker. Safety is the paramount issue here and it certainly needs to be
addressed. The compliance to the act is another great thing because the
exposures to radiation, it's dangerous; we all know that. So the usage of it
needs to be addressed and changed. I'm sure, again, all the stakeholders
involved would be in favour of all the compliances that's placed on there.
Inspectors are another great addition to enforce the operation and provide
additional safety, to enforce that everything is registered, everything is
working the way it should, everything should be in place where it's to, know
where it's to at all times, do inspections when they can, surprise visits
probably – which is there in the act – to the areas that have the radiation
equipment. That would be, again, great for a safety aspect and that would be
acknowledged by all stakeholders, I'm sure, all uses of it.
Again,
the fines and penalties have increased since 1977. I'm sure all the fines would
be increased since then, and it needs to be done so that everybody adheres to
the radiation equipment that's been in use. Plus, an advisory committee put in
place that's comprised of experts and they're able to address specific topics
and particular technical matters because I'm sure there's not only changes in
the regulations, but there's been changes in the systems, changes in the
technology itself over the years since 1977.
So the
changes in this act are really needed, especially on the safety aspect of
workers. The safety aspect is paramount and we need to acknowledge all that.
I do
agree with a lot of changes that are being made there. Other than dragging it
out too long, Mr. Speaker, I would say that I will be in favour of those
changes, and thank you for your time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER (Trimper):
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
good thing to see that the changes are now coming down from this. I can relate
to a story from when I still worked in industry. Actually, it was one of my
first days on the job as an apprentice welder. I was doing a work stint with IOC
and we were in a facility called a pellet plant, one of the last stages of the
iron processing process in Labrador.
During
one of our on-the-job safety orientation to show my area and stuff like that, we
walked by an area that was barricaded off with chain and only authorized
personnel. In there were actually two radiation devices attached to a conveyor
belt that monitored the ore and stuff coming in through a processing thing
called flotation. My supervisor at the time said: This is a radiation area, you
have to be trained to go in here. It kind of just stuck to me today speaking
about the importance of radiation safety and stuff like that. It is everywhere
in our work sites, industrially, too.
Like I
said, I was trained as a welder and one of the aspects of welding is also
welding inspection, which uses hand-held radiation devices to inspect your welds
on high-pressure pipe welding. Actually, when my grandfather was a welder,
towards the end of his career, that was just a new thing coming out then. That
was in the '80s, so even then we started seeing radiation devices coming into
the industrial world and into the workplace.
Now, if
you look at it, we have different types of medical devices, more than just the
common X-ray. Now, we have a lot more medical devices that use ionizing
radiation in our workplaces and so we obviously have to be mindful of the safety
of it, mindful of the equipment and the processes and the maintenance and stuff
like that.
Remember, we have this equipment there for people to use in their day-to-day
workplaces, but there is also people who have to repair this equipment as well
and we have to make sure that there is adequate protection and guidance for
those people who have to actually take these things apart and work on them.
There are different layers of it, too, that we have to be absolutely mindful and
we have to make sure that these individuals have to be protected as well.
You
think about it, every time we – especially myself, flying back and forth from
Labrador, every other day you walk through a metal detector and they also have
the full-body scanner and then your bags are scanned by X-rays. It's everywhere
present in our day-to-day lives and we have to be extremely mindful of that. We
have to make sure that everything we do, we protect the individuals who use the
equipment, individuals that repair the equipment and individuals who are
operating the equipment.
So this
is really important that we have everything we can possibly do when it comes to
legislation and enforcement, everything like that, that these people are
protected. Because it's very dangerous. It is radiation. It's very dangerous. We
have to be mindful of that.
Another
thing is – and I always find this interesting as well – not that long ago I had
to go and have a scan done. I'm there getting a scan, but the person who is
operating the scanner is putting the vest on and putting on the stuff. This
person is in that room every day for long periods of time, so we have to make
sure that that person there, every opportunity for that person who operates
this, they have their operation – the equipment is there, the equipment is
maintained and everything that we can possibly do for those individuals in the
workplace, they are safe.
It
starts with legislation and it goes on to regulation and also to make sure that
the employers are living up to the commitments in the legislation and in the
regulation that they are protected.
I'm
happy to see that we are updating a bill that is quite considerably old and
we're going to follow modern standards and try to move on. But I'd also like to
suggestion this to the minister that we should be reviewing this very frequently
because the world around us, especially in the world of radiation and stuff like
that and equipment, is changing so rapidly that I feel this is something that
should be reviewed almost on a biannual basis, at a minimum. Because the world
around us is changing so fast when it comes to technology and even in technology
radiation and stuff like that. We need to make sure that we are on top of
everything because it's such a dangerous thing to be working with, but, also, if
it doesn't impact your life today, it's one of those things that down the road
it'll impact your life.
Anyway,
thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I won't
go on too much. Like I said, this change is long overdue. I guess what we're
looking at is why are we changing, why are we repealing the act and brining in
another act? It's all about protection. It's protection from exposure to
radiation and to ensure the safe operating and handling of the equipment. It's
very, very important.
Just in
my former life, basically I worked in health and safety in the environment for
so many years that we were always kind of surprised at how outdated the
regulations were for the Radiation Health and Safety Act compared to Occupational Health and Safety.
It talks
about this bill now actually being repealed rather than being amended. I
believe, personally, that's a really good thing because the act that came into
force in 1977 has not been updated very much, only a few amendments. I think the
last significant amendment was in 1997, which is a long time ago as my fellow
MHA said. I think the point is safety isn't static nor should the legislation
be.
I agree
with my fellow MHA from Lab West when he says about radiation is dangerous.
There's a huge need for safety and the review of the act and the regulations is
needed to be updated.
Just
looking at the act; the old act lacked clarity, very little direction was given
and a lot of times the sections were misunderstood. I think that created a gap
in the legislation where companies could say they didn't understand. Ignorance
should never be a defence for safety.
I'm glad
to see that this new act has a lot of concise direction given and it actually
provides a lot more clarity, which is very, very important. Because as the MHA
for Lab West said, this is a huge safety issue.
Of
course, because it can be unsafe when there's a lack of clarity and a lack of
direction, what happens is companies and owners then can actually have a sense
of not being responsible; actually not taking responsibility to ensure health
and safety.
What I
see with this act is it actually restores that. It brings it more in line with
the Occupational Health and Safety Act,
which is much more modern, which is much more elastic and moves with the
changing of the times, which brings me to my next thing.
You look
at outdated legislation regarding safety and the changes in technology for
radiation, like all the gauges and the equipment that's used now in the
workplace; a lot of it is portable. So the handling and the transportation and
the use, if people don't really understand what their responsibilities are and
there's not a lot of direction given, it could be misused, it could be
mishandled, it could be damaged and put people at risk. Not just the workers who
are actually exposed to the gauges and the equipment, but also bystanders.
The one
thing I must say, in my former life, is the
Occupational Health and Safety Act
actually provided really clear direction to the owners, to the companies and
what their responsibility were for making sure the workplace was safe, whether
equipment was being used, transported or being modified. So it's very, very
important.
Another
thing with the old legislation, it didn't actually have a correlation with the
safety codes. Of course, when you don't have clear direction and a clear
prescription that you actually have to follow the safety codes, then there's
basically a gap there where a lot of companies, to save money, they're not
making sure that they're having best practices in place. So all these things are
very, very important. Like I said, safety is really at the forefront now in this
day and age.
What we
found with the old act there was always a huge reliance, a heavy reliance on
safety programs. I worked with huge companies. I work with Aurora, which is a
uranium company; I worked with Inco back in the day, big mining company. We had
the money and the expertise to actually develop safety programs that ensured
people were safe and that we were following the legislation.
Smaller
companies and contractors don't have that ability. If it's not prescribed in the
act and the supporting regulations then that creates a gap. A lot of times
companies fall victim to it and workers suffer. So it's very, very important.
What I
found, in my former life, looking at the old act is that we had to rely on the
Occupational Health and Safety Act and
the regulations. It was the same thing with the inspectors. Something as
specific as radiation that's not directly covered in the
Occupational Health and Safety Act and regulations created
additional gaps.
So I do
commend updating the act because now the Radiation Health and Safety Act and the
Occupational Health and Safety Act and
regulations, they're more in line. As I was going through the changes I was
saying, well, that brings it more in line with the
Occupational Health and Safety Act. I could continue on down
through.
I know a
lot of people don't know what I'm talking about, but it's so important because
safety is everywhere now. The thing about it is the need for procedures, the
need for direction, the need for training and all of these things. An
Occupational Health and Safety Act and
Occupational Health and Safety Regulations prescribe the training, the
orientation, the responsibility.
This act
is just catching up now where they actually are assigning clear language, what
the responsibility of the owner of the company is. The company can't say, well,
I told them. I told them they weren't allowed to do that or that was somewhere –
you got to actually make sure that your workers are safe. There's also required
training for supervisors to make sure that they are ensuring a safe workplace,
not only for their workers but for just the general public.
The one
thing I did like that I saw in the early sections of the revised act is that an
inspector can ensure that the owner is actually following the act. If not, they
can actually revoke the registration, which actually removes the hazard from the
workplace. So there are consequences for non-compliance.
I've got
to say, it's ridiculous that the gap existed for so long. I come from a
different world, I'm sorry, but it's just ridiculous. In this new age of safety,
that's a given. I think now putting in the ability to revoke a registration for
equipment or gauges really actually puts the emphasis back on the owner now to
make sure that any equipment they have is being used safely, is being handled
safely, is being inspected properly. So it's very, very important.
Just
going on now to owner responsibilities. I just kind of laugh at the gap that
existed before and misinformation, but now the owner is actually in the
regulations. The owner is actually directed on ensuring safe installation,
maintenance, modification, operation and disposal of equipment because all of
this impacts the workplace. You've got to make sure that everything is done, you
know, to a level of safety. There's a lot of clarity there that's more in line
with the Occupational Health and Safety
Act, talking about exposures not only for the workplace but for the general
public. It's very, very important.
Like I
said, everything that I read is more in line with the
Occupational Health and Safety Act. There is a responsibility for
the owner to ensure the workplace is safe. I keep saying very, very important
but when it comes to safety – and it's not only about the workplace, it's about
educating and making sure people are aware of the hazards especially when it
comes to radiation, safe signage, monitoring, equipment, PPE and training.
Also,
there is reporting requirements and these are more in line with
Occupational Health and Safety Act. What I really like, too, is
there is a reporting requirement for incidents that has to be followed and
there's consequence as well; this is in line with
Occupational Health and Safety Act as well. The
Occupational Health and Safety Act is
very prescriptive in what has to be reported. It takes the onus off then of the
supervisors and the managers.
I like
the flexibility for companies to be able to deviate from some of the
regulations. Of course, the request for a deviation would be actually granted,
but they have to demonstrate an equal or greater level of safety. That's the
common language that's used. It allows companies who have a much different work
environment to be able to actually modify but still be compliant with the intent
of the act.
Looking
at the amendments here talking about what the inspectors have the right to do,
it's very, very important for them to be able to have the powers that are very
similar to occupational health and safety. The occupational health and safety
officer can go in and do an inspection. They can actually demand to see
workplaces. They can document and they can actually investigate and record
information that can be used in court. That's something that's very, very
important. That was sort of lacking in the last act.
Looking
at the orders, too, if non-compliance is there they can issue orders, a
stop-work order or they can actually issue directives where the unsafe work
conditions have to be corrected. It gives a lot of, I guess, authority to the
inspectors to make sure the workplace is actually safe and compliant.
I'm not
going to go on much longer. Another thing that caught my eye was the ability to
do telewarrants. This is something that's used elsewhere. It's very, very
important. The biggest thing for me, I think, is just making sure that safety in
Newfoundland and Labrador is consistent. You had this old, archaic dinosaur of
the old act and then you had this modern, flexible
Occupational Health and Safety Act.
I must
say, Mr. Speaker, it's really good to see that this act is actually being
brought up to the same level that the
Occupational Health and Safety Act is.
There
was one thing I was just going to mention here as well – anyway I can't get into
it, it will take too long. Anyway, I'm just going to end there.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Okay, thank you very much.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm just
going to take a couple of minutes here now, I won't be too long; a few comments
about this bill.
Mr.
Speaker, the previous speaker there, the Member for Torngat, talked about her
former life so I'll just sort of talk about mine a little bit as well before I
got into politics. This is something I would be very familiar with.
Prior to
becoming an MHA, I actually worked as an occupational health and safety
practitioner, that's what I did for many, many years. I actually worked as the
safety officer for the City of St. John's for about four years. I was the safety
manager at Oceanex for a period of time and for the many years prior to becoming
MHA, I worked for the A. Harvey group of companies as the safety manager there.
I've
been around an awful lot of construction sites: water and sewer jobs, new
builds, waste water facilities, water facilities with the A. Harvey Group. Of
course, we had Argentia Freezers; we had Browning Harvey, which is
manufacturing, of course; Harvey Autocarriers; Argentia Freezers and Terminals;
the big giant salt pile everyone is familiar with downtown; crane operations;
offloading of offshore vessels; you name it. I had to become very well versed,
obviously, in the Occupational Health and
Safety Act regulations and so on.
I never
had a lot to do when it came to radiation. The only one that comes to mind,
which is one you might not necessarily expect and that would be at Browning
Harvey. What they actually have, they have one little device there. When they're
actually producing pop, Pepsi or whatever, in cans, when the cans got filled, it
would go through a production line and it would pass through this device, which
was actually a radiation device, it almost took like an X-ray.
As the
can went through, if the can wasn't filled to the fill line with Pepsi, because
sometimes when you're filling it, the cans didn't get filled up all the way;
sometimes they are half-full or three-quarters full or whatever, they don't
always get filled. When it would pass through that device, through the
radiation, like an X-ray would pass through the can and it would know that the
can is not full and then a little arm comes out and just flicks the can into a
basket and it all gets dumped, basically. It's what we always called low fills.
That was
the only nuclear device, radiation device that we had. Obviously, the
requirements under that legislation were not necessarily great because there was
nobody actually working with it per se. It was just a static piece of equipment
that was along the assembly line. Obviously, the maintenance guys had to have
more of an awareness of it. Obviously, all the employees had to be aware: Look,
if you ever hit this thing with the forklift driving by or something like that;
there had to be a plan for that. But, generally speaking, there was nobody
operating it per se, day in and day out the same way as an X-ray technician is
operating in a hospital and so on.
Anyway,
that was a bit of experience I had there. But as I look through the regulations,
and because of that I was aware of the old legislation that did apply to that
one particular piece of equipment. There is no doubt that it was old and
antiquated as has been said. No doubt, this piece of legislation is far superior
to what was there to govern the use of these devices.
I guess
the only observation I make – and I don't know if this was ever considered when
this was being put together or the rationale and so on, and perhaps when the
minister closes debate or, if not, in Committee stage, she may want to address –
is when I read through this, and the Member for Torngat basically touched on it
as well, several times, she kept saying: I see that you have this in place and
that's just like the Occupational Health
and Safety Act; and there's another section here which is the same as the
Occupational Health and Safety Act;
and there's another section here that's the same as the
Occupational Health and Safety Act. She's right, it is.
Not that
that's a bad thing. It's a good thing. I guess the question kind of becomes one
of a radiation device, piece of equipment that has radiation as part of it,
whatever that device is, is no different than any other piece of equipment in a
workplace, in that under the Occupational
Health and Safety Act the employer has a responsibility to ensure a safe
workplace. The employer has a responsibility to ensure that any equipment that
they have is in safe working condition; that all of the required preventative
maintenance is done; any replacement of equipment is done; employees are trained
in how to safely operate equipment; that if there's any requirement for any
warning signage or guards or anything around any equipment, that that's
provided.
So
whether we're talking about any piece of equipment on a manufacturing line,
whether we're talking about some sort of, I don't know, tools or something that
employees would be utilizing, whether we're talking about electrical components
of equipment, whether we're talking about the use of chemicals and so on in a
workplace, that's involved in a process or whatever.
Regardless of what we're talking about in terms of the function in terms of the
equipment, whether it's radiation, whether it's chemical exposure, whether it's
potential electrical exposure, physical exposure, whatever that exposure is,
it's all still covered off under the
Occupational Health and Safety Act anyway. The employer still has all of
those same responsibilities as is listed here for this piece of legislation.
Supervisors still have the same responsibility in terms of ensuring that all
employees under their supervision are abiding by any policies and procedures,
are working in a safe manner, are utilizing any personal protective equipment
provided to them for its use and so on. Those responsibilities are in the
Occupational Health and Safety Act.
Those same responsibilities would apply to employees who are working around or
with this type of equipment.
Under
the Occupational Health and Safety Act
employees have a responsibility to work in a safe manner to protect their own
health and safety, that of their co-workers, that of anybody else who comes in
contact with the work they are doing. They have a responsibility to utilize the
personal protective equipment provided for them. They have a responsibility for
following policies and procedures that have been put in place for their safety,
abide by everything they were taught in the training and so on. Whether it's on
a device that is a radiation device or whether it's utilizing a saw, whether
it's utilizing chemicals, whatever it is they're doing, any job, anytime, any
kind of job, regardless of what that job is. So it's all covered off under the
Occupational Health and Safety Act in
any case, I guess, is the point.
The
piece here about inspectors, that's covered off in the
Occupational Health and Safety Act. Because under the
Occupational Health and Safety Act you
have your inspectors – the minister does under her department. And they can show
up at any workplace at any time unannounced and they can say we're here and
we're going to do a walk-through inspection. They can demand to see training
records of employees, they can demand to see preventive maintenance records on
equipment and they can do all these things. They can issue stop-work orders.
They can write directives. They can lay charges. They have all those powers now.
No different, really, than what we're proposing in this piece of legislation.
Not that
I'm against this piece of legislation, because I'm certainly not. Like I said, a
vast improvement on what was there. Definitely covers everything off. This is
one way to do it, to have a stand-alone piece of legislation. But I guess my
point is that I think pretty much everything in here is already covered under
the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
If there are any differences, if there are any particular sections that apply to
a radiation device, specifically, that's no different than under the
Occupational Health and Safety Act
regulations where there are equipment-specific provisions in that for all kinds
of things.
Like, we
don't have a trenching act, but under the
Occupational Health and Safety Act regulations there is a whole section on
trenching. There's a whole section on working from heights. There's a whole
section on working with chemicals. So there are sections specific to certain
types of hazards, certain types of jobs that present certain types of hazards,
certain types of equipment are covered off in the act and in the regulations.
So,
theoretically, instead of having a lot of repetition here which is basically
mirroring what's already in the
Occupational Health and Safety Act and regulations, another thing that could
have been done was leave all those things as they are under the
Occupational Health and Safety Act and any specific requirements for
these devices in particular could have simply been stuck under a section of the
existing act and regulations specific to radiation devices.
Now,
maybe there is a very good reason that I'm not thinking of and perhaps one of
your staff, if they're listening in as they usually are and sending messages to
the minister, maybe they're going to say here is why we did it this way. I have
no problem with it; it is not a big deal. The biggest concern is that employees
are looked after; they're safe; that employers are held accountable to make sure
employees are safe. All that is achieved in this piece of legislation; all that
is also achieved under the Occupational
Health and Safety Act and regulations.
I'm just
curious why we need to have two. Why not just have it all covered under the one?
That is more of an observation than a complaint; it really is. I see nothing
wrong with anything that is in here in terms of requirements for training,
requirements by employers and employees, duties of inspectors and powers of
inspectors and mechanisms to hold employers accountable. All those things are
all good things; there is not a thing wrong with any of them. My point is simply
that all those things, from a general point of view, are already covered under
the Occupational Health and Safety Act
and regulations and any specifics here, perhaps, could have just been put in the
act and the regulations as has been done, like I say, for any other number of
hazards besides radiation hazards.
Again,
just an observation. Other than that, Mr. Speaker, everything is definitely
covered. I think it does a great job in protecting all workplace parties and it
certainly is, as has been said, a vast improvement over what was there, what
we're replacing.
I'll
support the bill because I think the bill itself is good; I just question
whether or not it could have been done as an amendment to the
Occupational Health and Safety Act as
opposed to a stand-alone piece of legislation for this in particular.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Any
further speakers to the bill?
If the
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL speaks now, the minister
will close debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you very much.
Thank
you to my colleagues for the feedback and the support of this piece of
legislation. To respond to the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands questions: In
the consultations that we did, we asked stakeholders and users of radiation
equipment whether or not this should be a stand-alone piece of legislation,
continued to be or live within the occupational health and safety.
When we
look across Canada, some provinces have this specific legislation within
occupational health and safety and some provinces have their own separate piece
of legislation. So we went with the results of the consultations where
stakeholders strongly wanted the radiation health and safety to be its own
unique piece of legislation.
I think
we're achieving the same thing, but that's kind of the rationale for not having
it within the Occupational Health and
Safety Act instead. So I'm happy to answer any questions in Committee.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Is the
House ready for the question?
The
motion is that Bill 6 be now read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act Respecting The
Protection Of The Health Of Persons Exposed To Radiation And Respecting The
Safety Of Persons In Connection With The Operation And Use Of The Electrical And
Mechanical Components Of Radiation Producing Equipment And Associated Apparatus.
(Bill 6)
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
This
bill has now been read a second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
The hon.
Deputy Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Presently.
SPEAKER:
Presently, thank you.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting The Protection Of The Health Of Persons
Exposed To Radiation And Respecting The Safety Of Persons In Connection With The
Operation And Use Of The Electrical And Mechanical Components Of Radiation
Producing Equipment And Associated Apparatus,” read a second time, ordered
referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 6)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Speaker, I call from the
Order Paper, Motion 26 and move, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House
not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 19, 2021.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Any
further motions?
I need
approval and a seconder.
L. DEMPSTER:
Seconded by the Government
House Leader.
SPEAKER:
The Government House Leader.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
We're
sitting tonight, thank you.
The hon.
the Deputy Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL, that the House resolve itself
into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 6.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the
Whole to consider the said bill, Bill 6.
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.
Thank
you.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Warr):
Order, please.
We are
now considering Bill 6, An Act Respecting The Protection Of The Health Of
Persons Exposed To Radiation And Respecting The Safety Of Persons In Connection
With The Operation And Use Of Electrical And Mechanical Components Of Radiation
Producing Equipment And Associated Apparatus, Bill 6.
A bill,
“An Act Respecting The Protection Of The Health Of Persons Exposed To Radiation
And Respecting The Safety Of Persons In Connection With The Operation And Use Of
Electrical And Mechanical Components Of Radiation Producing Equipment And
Associated Apparatus.” (Bill 6)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall Clause 1 carry?
Chair
recognizes the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just to
start off with a couple of general questions. Consultations were held through
EngageNL in 2018. What was their response?
CHAIR:
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We
engaged users on a range of questions. As I mentioned just recently, one of the
things we asked was whether or not this should be stand-alone legislation or
whether or not it should be included in the occupational health and safety
legislation. So we heard from stakeholders that it should continue to be stand
alone.
Something else that comes to mind is we consulted stakeholders on the committee
and the fact that the committee had not met and whether or not it was
appropriate to eliminate the committee or keep it. The majority indicated that
it is sufficient to eliminate the committee.
There
were a range of items that we consulted on and there was a
What We Heard document published as well. But those are just some
highlights.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Do all these proposed amendments stem from the public consultations and were
other consultations held as well?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
I can't say for sure whether or not each element was consulted on specifically,
but we did reach out to all organizations and stakeholders and we did have very
sufficient participation from users of radiation equipment. So there were no
outstanding, major things that I can think of that are related to this act in
particular.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
That's it for this clause, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Any
further speakers?
Shall
clause 1 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 34
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 through 34
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
CHAIR:
Sorry, the Chair recognizes
the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I
noticed that some definitions were revised, new definitions were added, but
others such as medical inspector, the radiation health and others were removed:
Why is that?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We
aligned our definitions, where possible, with the occupational health and safety
legislation for consistency and clarity. Obviously, we removed definitions that
were no longer relevant or needed based on the wording in the legislation.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
There is no definition of
radiation protection survey included in the new act. Will that be defined in the
regulations?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Yes, it will be in the
regulations.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Section
8 of the current act includes a section of medical examination of radiation
workers that is not included in the new act. Why was that removed and how will
it be addressed under the new act and the regulations?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Sorry, can I ask the Member
to clarify more detail about the section that he is referring to?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
This is section 8 of the
current act, it includes a section on the medical examination of radiation
workers that is not included in the new act. I am just wondering why it is
removed and how it will be addressed under the new act and regulations.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
That will be included in the
regulations.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
When the consultations were
launched in 2018, there was approximately 760 pieces of radiation equipment in
the province and according to officials there are 875, I think you said today.
What explains the increase in the last few years?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you for the question.
I don't
have a breakdown in front of me of the industries that have – the breakdown of
where the new ones came from. Every dentist office, for example, have radiation
equipment. The more dentists we have, the more equipment we might have. These
are private businesses or the university or our regional health authorities
buying this equipment and registering them with us.
There is
nothing that we, as a government, have done to impact the number of radiant
equipment, it's just the private and public industries have had more equipment
and we register them. There is no upper or lower limit as to how many we should
have.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Maybe while you're checking
that out, maybe can you tell us, geographically, where they're located as well.
If you're checking that out just to let us know if there is a certain area that
they're going to, as well.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Sure. I know off the top of
my head that there's more in the metro region than in other regions of the
province. But anywhere there's a dentist is where they're going; anywhere
there's a health clinic or a doctor's office that do X-rays, that's where
they're going.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thanks for that.
That's
125 to 130 pieces of equipment since 2018. I was just wondering where they may
be.
Are
there food-processing facilities in the province using this equipment as well?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Yes. There would be a range
of organizations using equipment. As we heard from another Member earlier in
debate, a local bottler uses radiation equipment in checking the quality of
their products. So, yes, a range of organizations use radiant equipment.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
I understand that this
equipment can be taken out of service by the owners for various reasons. This
sort of equipment, is it commonly sold second-hand to others? If so, where is
this addressed under the new legislation?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you.
In the
legislation we've indicated that any new or any new-to-the-business equipment
has to be installed by a manufacturer or a person authorized by the
manufacturer. So not just anyone can install. You can't hire a contractor or a
handyperson to come and install a piece of radiation equipment.
I would
imagine there could be an opportunity for a second-hand piece of equipment to be
installed but it would have to be installed by someone authorized by the
manufacturer.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Officials noted there are
currently seven inspection officers in the province. Is that the full complement
or are there vacancies?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We do
not have any vacancies at the moment for inspectors of radiation equipment.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
And there are still seven? Is
that the number?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
I'm just waiting for my
experts to let me know. Yes, we have seven.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Where are these inspectors
located, right across the province or just more in metro area, obviously, I
would think but –?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you.
We would
have some in the metro region. We would have some in alignment with our other
Government Service offices throughout the province.
One
thing that we do, when needed, we have inspectors travel. Sometimes it doesn't
make sense to have a full-time person in an area where there are not many
devices. They would travel and do inspections as needed, as well as respond to
complaints as needed. For example, in Corner Brook, Grand Falls-Windsor and Lab
West, we do have full-time inspectors in those locations as well.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Is inspecting radiation equipment their sole responsibility or do they have
other duties as well?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
So when we're taking about inspecting radiation equipment, the equipment
themselves has to be inspected every year by our inspectors. So they would also
inspect other things. They need a special radiation survey every second year and
that has to be done by a special radiation safety expert that, you know, is not
in our department, like a professional person. The operator of the equipment
also has standards. They have to do an inspection, like a visual inspection
every day of their equipment to make sure that it's functioning properly.
Then we
would also do other inspections if we had a complaint or if there was an
incident, or if there was a report that the radiation equipment wasn't working
properly or, you know, it exposed someone to more radiation than was planned.
There's a range of reasons why there would be, I guess, an ad hoc inspection.
But, yes, the officers do inspect other things as well.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thanks again, Mr. Chair.
How many
inspections are carried out in the province each year and how often is a piece
of equipment inspected – and I'm going to say once a year but it might be
different, so I just want to verify.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Mr. Chair, our department
inspects every piece, every year. Each company or the owner of the equipment has
to get a professional survey done every two years, in addition to our
inspection, to make sure that the device is emitting an appropriate amount of
radiation. Then the individual, the operator of the equipment, is mandated to
perform a visual inspection every day to make sure that there's nothing, you
know, mechanically wrong with the inspection. Then, as well, if there's a
complaint or an incident is reported, if equipment is not working properly, then
there's an inspection as well.
The
number of inspections by occupational health and safety, these are published on
our website. So they're inspected for all kinds of reasons, not just radiation.
It could be other hazards as well.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Under appeals, the new act says that the ADM must begin a review of an appeal
within 24 hours. How often are there appeals to the ADM and how long would such
a typical review take?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm not
aware of any appeals currently for radiation health and safety. I know for our
occupational health and safety, we get regular appeals of some of the orders
that are given. Those could take a few days to a few weeks. We have not received
any complaints specifically, I guess, on radiation. Sorry, complaints was the
wrong word – appeals. They are rare under the occupational health and safety. We
have received a few but we work through them as timely as we can.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Under clause 24,
appointments, will appointments to the committee go through the IAC?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The
appointments, if we needed to get a radiation health and safety, the challenge
with this committee would be that they would need to be radiation experts. Just
speaking from all the needs that I need from the IAC and other areas, it is just
anecdotally very difficult to find – to get even a gender balance, honestly. We
struggle with getting an appropriate gender balance to sit on the other
committees through the IAC.
The
occupational health and safety advisory committee is part of the category two
boards and is appointed by the Public Service Commission.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Have regulations been drafted
to coincide with this new act and when can we expect to see those?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have
not seen the regulations yet. After I've approved them and after the House, they
would have to go through the appropriate approval process with the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council. I would expect that they would be in place in
the next year.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Just a couple of more
questions.
In the
Offences and penalties, what explains the significant increase in fines and
penalties? Is this in line with other jurisdictions?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Absolutely, we have aligned our fines with other jurisdictions. I think this
reflects the importance of radiation safety, and it's important that companies
understand that they have to maintain the radiation equipment safely and there
could be dire consequences to their employees and the general public if they're
not maintained appropriately.
Yes, the
fines are in line with other provinces and in line with the importance of the
fact that we need companies and owners of this equipment to follow the rules.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
The last question for this
one: How will stakeholders be informed of the changes outlined in this new act?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you.
Upon
proclamation, we would notify all of the people who have licences and there
would be a news release, Mr. Chair.
Thank
you very much.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 to 34
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 through 34 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act Respecting The
Protection Of The Health Of Persons Exposed To Radiation And Respecting The
Safety Of Persons In Connection With The Operation And Use Of The Electrical And
Mechanical Components Of Radiation Producing Equipment And Associated Apparatus.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill
without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The Deputy Government House
Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Chair, I move that the
Committee rise and report Bill 6.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 6.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay and Chair of Committee.
B. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report Bill 6 without amendment.
SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed him to report Bill 6 without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
L. DEMPSTER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the bill be read a third time?
L. DEMPSTER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read at third time on
tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. Deputy Government
House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that this House resolve
itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider a resolution respecting the
imposition of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages, Bill 29.
SPEAKER:
The motion is that I do now
leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on
Ways and Means.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Warr):
Order, please!
We are
now debating the related resolution and Bill 29.
Resolution
“Be it resolved by the House
of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:
“That it
is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the imposition of taxes on sugar
sweetened beverages.”
CHAIR:
Shall the resolution carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Health
officials have identified the excess consumption of sugar as a contributing
cause of many diseases, such as Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease as
well as obesity. Chronic diseases impact the health of the population as well as
the sustainability of the health care system. Over half of Newfoundland and
Labrador's residents aged 12 years and older have at least one chronic disease.
Many people have more than one. That is why, today, government will be
introducing amendments to the Revenue
Administration Act, which will introduce a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages.
Making
better beverage choices without the added sugar and placing greater emphasis on
healthy living is central to achieving better health outcomes.
The
average household in Newfoundland and Labrador spends an estimated 2.8 per cent
of its total annual food and beverage expenditures on sugar-sweetened beverages.
This is the highest in Canada and twice the Canadian average of 1.4 per cent.
Our goal is to encourage residents to switch to healthier beverages, resulting
in long-term health gains for our province.
Effective September 1, 2022, a rate of 20 cents per litre will be collected at
the wholesale level. This is similar to the model currently used for the
provincial gasoline and tobacco taxes. It is not meant to impact manufactures,
distributers or retailers in this province: it is simply about making better
beverage choices.
I want
to thank and acknowledge the following stakeholders: the Canadian Beverage
Association, the Retail Council of Canada, Atlantic Convenience Stores
Association, Beer Canada, Labatt breweries, Coca-Cola Canada Bottling Limited,
restaurant association of Canada, Browning Harvey, F.J. Wadden and Sons, among
many others. I thank them for their feedback, their contribution and their
input. I know we all have one common goal and that is of ensuring the health and
well-being of our communities.
This new
tax only applies to beverages with added sugars including regular soft drinks,
fruit-flavoured drinks, sports and energy drinks, pre-packaged milkshakes and
coffee beverages and concentrated mixtures such as frozen fruit-flavoured drinks
and flavoured powders.
It would
not apply to beverages sweetened with non-caloric sweeteners; diet drinks; 100
per cent natural fruit juice or vegetable juice; medical or therapeutic
beverages, such as infant formula and nutritional meal replacement beverages;
milk and fortified plant-based milks and yogurt beverages; ingredients primarily
intended to be used in cooking or food preparation; beverages prepared for the
consumer at point of sale, such as tea and coffee; beverages packaged in
containers holding less than 75ml; and beverages brought into the province by a
consumer with a total quantity of less than five litres.
Now,
there are several medical groups and associations that recommend a tax on
sugar-sweetened beverages as a measure to reduce consumption. These include the
World Health Organization. Allow me just to read a quote from their recent paper
that talks about taxes on sugary drinks – why do it. They say: “A major action
for comprehensive programmes aimed at reducing consumption of sugars is taxation
of sugary drinks. Just as taxing tobacco helps to reduce tobacco use, taxing
sugary drinks can help reduce consumption of sugars.”
The
Canadian Paediatric Society, Dieticians of Canada, Childhood Obesity Foundation,
Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada and Diabetes Canada; here are some of the
comments we've heard in support of this new sugar-sweetened beverage tax.
The
Canadian Cancer Society on June 1 said: “We strongly support measures announced
by the NL government to implement a provincial sales tax on sugary drinks ….”
“Taxation is an effective and evidence-based strategy to reduce consumption and
use.”
Senior
vice-president of the Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and PEI Heart and
Stroke Foundation, Mary Ann Butt, said: “Our organization has long supported a
sugary drinks tax as one mechanism to help address the social determinants of
health and are delighted to see Newfoundland and Labrador step forward as a
Canadian leader on this issue.”
Dr.
Seema Nagpal, vice-president of science and policy with Diabetes Canada, said on
June 2, “This is an important step to addressing the negative health
consequences related to the regular consumption of harmful sugar-sweetened
beverages (SSB).”
As
quoted in The Globe and Mail on June
4, Dr. Mary L'Abbé, a professor in the department of nutritional sciences,
faculty of medicine, at the University of Toronto said: Newfoundland and
Labrador's tax was a good first step in reducing consumption of sugar, since it
takes aim at one of the worst culprits, sugar-sweetened beverages. Those drinks
have negligible nutritional value, are packed with quick-to-consume calories and
are the single biggest source of sugar for Canadians.
Now, I'd
like to address and speak to what I heard about this tax that will have harm and
impact on low-income earners. This is about healthier choices and for better
health outcomes. This is not about income. We have currently one of the highest
rates of sugar-related diabetes in the country. In fact, we spend approximately
$1,500 more per capita on health care than the national average, which is the
highest in the country. Chronic diseases impact the health of the population as
well as the sustainability of our health care system. Over half of Newfoundland
and Labrador residents age 12 years and over have one chronic disease and many
live with more than one.
Making
better beverage choices is just one of several initiatives that will support
health and wellness of our population. Other initiatives announced in
Budget 2021 included a Physical
Activity Tax Credit, which will provide a refundable tax credit up to $2,000 per
family; more than $1 million for continued support of the Kids Eat Smart
Foundation, which supports the education, health and well-being of school-aged
children through nutrition; approximately $500,000 in new funding for the Mother
Baby Nutrition Supplement, which will increase the monthly support for
nutritional food during pregnancy and infancy up to $100 per month and that's up
from $60 per month; $3.3 million for the expanded Insulin Pump Program; and $1.8
million to prevent and reduce tobacco and vaping use.
Now, I
have also heard today about the impact on jobs. Let me just say what we are
doing here is encouraging people to make smart choices. This is not about
limiting the amount of soft drinks that people drink. I will say that there is a
study that has been published in The BMJ,
which is one of the oldest medical journals in the United Kingdom, and a team of
researchers, led by the University of Cambridge's epidemiology unit, considered
the impact of the levy that was put on sugar drinks in the United Kingdom.
I'm
going to quote from that study, which is readily available on the Internet:
Researchers say tiered sugar-sweetened beverage taxes such as the one introduced
in the UK might represent a benefit for public health by reducing sugar purchase
from soft drinks without substitution to confectionary and alcohol, without any
commensurate harm to the soft drinks industry by not effecting total volume of
soft drinks purchased.
We are
working hard to position Newfoundland and Labrador as one of the healthiest
provinces in Canada by 2031. This is just another way toward that aim.
I thank
you and I'd be happy to take questions during the appropriate Committee stage.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Chair.
I'm
going to start off my comments and end my comments with the same quote. It's not
often I have an agreement in principle with the minister but, in this particular
case, I'm going to quote the Minister of Health who in 2016 said: “The last
thing we need to do is create extra bureaucracy to collect a tax for a marginal
benefit.” Couldn't agree with him more, so let's identify that.
Yesterday, in the briefing, we were told that it's going to cost $200,000 to set
this up and it's actually going to cost $300,000 per year on an annual basis. So
there's your extra bureaucracy. Now, let's talk about marginal benefits. The
comments by the Minister of Finance on the excess amount of sugars is key
factors in chronic disease are absolutely correct. No one is going to argue
that.
No one
is going to argue with the fact that over half of the population in Newfoundland
and Labrador have at least one chronic disease. Those are facts and they make a
significant impact on our health care system. What we're talking about today is
simply a means of how we go about addressing those issues. There are positive
ways to do it and there are negative ways to do it.
I firmly
believe that introducing negative, regressive taxation is not the way to do it.
It does nothing to increase the availability of healthy food. It, instead,
punishes those with limited options. Instead of helping people access healthy
options, the Liberals are actually making a cash grab on our most vulnerable
population. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador should be interested or
should be encouraged to make healthy choices, but a sin tax is not the correct
approach.
NAPE has
said Public Health education programs have proven effective during the pandemic,
and they're right. Education and promoting healthy lifestyles are a much better
option than simply putting a tax on the people who can least afford it.
The
minister mentioned the World Health Organization and commented on one of the
things they said. Let me read you another comment. This is from the UN
Secretary-General's Policy Brief on
the impact of COVID-19 on food nutrition and security in 2020. The World Bank,
the IMF, the FAO, the OECD and other respected organizations recommend reducing
tax burdens during a recession, such as the one caused by COVID-19, in order to
stimulate consumer spending and begin economic recovery.
As the
UN Secretary-General has stated, “High levels of unemployment, loss of income,
and rising food costs are making access to food difficult for many.” At a time
when people have less money in their pockets due to the COVID-19 global
pandemic, taxes that raise prices on foods and beverages are counter productive.
That is
the essence of what this tax does. It increases the cost of living for many
people in our province who can least afford it. You know, the minister also made
a comment about making healthy choices and encouraging people to make healthy
choices. We've had a lot of discussion around the Health Accord and their focus
on the social determinants of health, and included in that are housing and jobs
and clean water.
So I ask
the minister: How is a healthy choice to drink more water available to those
people in over 200 communities in our province that are on boil orders? How is
it a healthy choice for the people of Piccadilly Head and West Bay who actually
have no water flowing through their taps? How can we make water an alternative
choice? They would love to be able to drink clean water. Those people in over
200 communities would love to be able to drink clean water, but we don't need a
tax to help them do that. What we need is funding to put the systems in place to
allow that to happen, that's what I think needs to happen.
Let's
also make a point here, this is not just a 20 cent tax; this is another example
of a tax on tax. You're going to turn around and implement the tax at the
wholesale level, so when you pickup the product at the grocery store on the
shelf, the 20 cent additional tax will be on that price. When you go to the
checkout to pay for it, you're going to pay HST on that. So you're paying tax on
tax once again. We've seen it on the gas tax and now we're going to see it on
this sugar tax; double taxation on the people of the province who can least
afford it – least afford it, that is a critical point of this tax.
I'd also
like to talk about – the minister mentioned the subsidy that is provided as part
of a rebate on your income taxes for memberships in gymnasiums and all that.
When that was first announced I thought that was a wonderful thing, $2,000;
everybody was going to get $2,000 so they could go and buy the gym memberships
so they could get to workout. Nope, I guess the details didn't prove out that
way. Before you could avail of that, you have to have $2,000 in your pocket to
buy the membership. There are lots of people in our province that can't afford
to spend money upfront on a membership that costs $2,000 and wait to get a
rebate back in your income tax. So, again, we've missed the boat on helping
those who need the most help in our particular province.
The
whole issue here, again, is what are the impacts of this? Is this going to
achieve the health benefits that we talk about it achieving? I can see no such
benefits.
The
minister alluded to the journal in the UK. Well, the UK implemented the tax a
little differently. They didn't tax the people. They taxed the companies. They
put it on companies to say if you reduce the amount of sugar in your beverages,
we're going to tax you based on the amount of sugar you put in your beverages.
They encouraged those companies to lower the amount of sugar in the beverage,
not put the tax on the people in the United Kingdom or, as we are doing, taxing
the lowest income earners in our province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
T. WAKEHAM:
The University of Oxford did
a study – and Philadelphia brought in a similar tax into the City of
Philadelphia. They did an analysis of the economic impacts on that and they
said: Overall, our models indicate an employment decline of 1,192 workers in
Philadelphia as a result of that. So they scraped it.
When we
look at the Northwest Territories, they talked about bringing in a tax similar
what this government is bringing in. They studied it in 2017 and 2018 and the
government report concluded that the tax would have a disproportionate impact on
low-income users. I would suggest that is exactly what's going to happen in the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
They
went on to say: Individuals would not change their consumption and the tax would
put financial pressure on families because there would be less money available
for other purchases. Again, the idea that this tax is somehow going to help
people live healthier. In order to do that and move to healthy choices, as I
just said, you need to have those choices available to you.
That is
part of the challenge we face here in our province; we all agree with the
challenges with the health care system.
The
minister mentioned the Canadian Beverage Association. The Canadian Beverage
Association has provided evidence, I'm sure, to the minister that other similar
beverage tax programs have only reduced calorie consumption by five to six
calories per day – insignificant.
They
were also provided evidence that actually drinking sugar-sweetened drinks in
this province is on the decline – it's already on the decline. So, again, let's
not focus on taxing people, let's focus on education. Let's focus on getting the
word out there. Let's focus on making it better so that people have healthier
choices, lowering the cost on some of those.
If we
really want to improve the health of the people of our province, we need to
target the full diet of our residents, not just what they drink; if we believe
that there are better ways to do this than simply reaching in their pockets and
taking more money.
Food
First, Josh Smee, said: There's always a worry about the equity of these kind of
taxes because they are not just regressive in the sense that they're hitting
low-income households harder.
A lot of
people have talked about the fact that this tax will have the biggest impact on
the people who can least afford it and the fact that it is a tax on a tax once
again. If we are truly concerned about the well-being and health of the people
of our province, then let's focus on making our people healthier by giving them
the opportunity to purchase healthier products, healthier goods and healthier
supplies. That's the way that we could actually move this agenda and move this
forward.
The
minister quoted some other government departments and agencies, but even the
federal Liberals – back in 2019 the former Minister of Health said: “We've made
it clear during the course of the past few years that adding a tax to sugary
beverages was not a part of our healthy eating strategy ….”
So the
federal Liberal government has said taxing sugary beverages is not a part of
their healthy eating strategy. Then why is it a part of Newfoundlander and
Labrador's? That's what I would like to know. What are the reasons that you
believe that somehow or other you're going to make a healthy-eating strategy and
a healthy-drinking strategy based on putting an additional tax on the people who
can least afford it? How does that work? I am going to be extremely interested
in hearing that so that the analysis can prove to us that this, in fact, will
actually make people healthier. Otherwise, this is nothing more than another
tax.
There is
nothing there that says the $9 million in revenue is going to be given and
assigned to reduce the cost of healthier alternatives. It is not earmarked for
any of those, it goes into general revenue. While they've announced other
programs, this is not identified that this is going to help people in
Newfoundland and Labrador achieve the so-called desired results.
I don't
see how this tax does what it's supposed to do according to what we're being
told. It's simply another tax measure; it's a tax on a tax. A tax on the lowest
income people in our province and does nothing for healthy living in the
province.
I will
end by repeating my quote from the Minister of Health: “… the last thing we need
to do is create extra bureaucracy to collect a tax for marginal benefit ….” I
hope that statement by the minister, we live up to it.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
Before I
get into the meat of my comments around this resolution, I think it would be
best to address the comments. Those were made, I think, in
Budget 2016 and they referred to financial elements. A marginal
financial return for simply the fact that we would create a point-of-sale tax.
This is not a tax that's proposed with those mechanics at all. This is
different.
To go
back to the original statements that I had, this is a question of connecting a
few dots. We have the largest consumption per capita of sugary drinks: double
the national average. We have, as a province, the worst figures for childhood
obesity. We have, as a province, seriously bad figures for adult obesity. We
have 11.1 per cent of our population who have diabetes. The bulk of those,
numerically, are Type 2 diabetes. The single biggest risk factor for Type 2
diabetes is obesity and ingestion of refined sugar.
Join the
dots: The logic behind this is based on the experience with smoking. We know,
and we've seen over the years, that as you increase the price point of
cigarettes, the consumption goes down. We see that in health because every time
we have increased the taxation on cigarettes and tobacco, the Smokers' Helpline
gets an increase in calls for people who want their addictions assisted. They
want to manage them. They want to get off the cigarettes. It works; it reduces
consumption.
The
reason the focus is on these drinks is because if you get into good, healthy
habits as a child or a youth, they will carry over into adult life. This is the
importance, for example, of our School Milk Program, which provides free school
milk for school-aged children.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
J. HAGGIE:
It is the money that will be generated by these taxes that will help pay for
that. We support healthy eating in schools through Kids Eat Smart and the
breakfast program, which my late wife set up in Glenwood and worked extremely
well, but it focused on healthy choices.
If you
get children and youth to get into the habit of consuming healthy drinks and
healthy drinking, then that will carry them over into adult life.
I spent
from 1997 to 2015 in Gander, and each week from about 1998, I would do a wound
clinic. That was for patients who had wounds that would not heal. I thought it
was a way of generating casework for my interest, which was in arterial and
vascular surgery. It actually turned me into a manager of diabetic feet and
diabetic legs. And once you've had a few conversations with Type 2 diabetics in
their 40s and their 50s whose legs are unsalvageable because of diabetes and
their lifestyle choices, you start to realize that what you're doing is
basically palliative surgery. You're not curing anybody. You're providing
comfort and symptom relief.
The
opportunity to prevent diabetes exists in measures like this. Will it work by
itself? No. When will you see the results? It won't be the week after we
introduce this tax. This will be my grandchildren and, hopefully, my children.
But they have fortunately never acquired a taste for sugary and carbonated
drinks, except when mixed with other drinks.
From the
long-term perspective, the Premier and I have stated that our aim is to change
the story about chronic, persistent disease in this province. These are the kind
of measures that will do that. But they're not glamorous, they're not popular
and they will not work overnight.
The fact
is we need to go down this road, because the Member opposite referred to not
being able to afford the consequences of this. I would argue, from my experience
as a clinician, no one personally can afford the price of walking down that
road. Will it happen to everybody? No. Just like some smokers never get lung
cancer; some smokers never end up with arterial disease, but that is good luck,
not good planning or good management.
Our job
here is to provide the safest, healthiest environment we can. Basically, these
drinks are toxic, long term; let alone the side effects I saw from my other
clinical aspects. From the point of view of some carbonated drinks, they are
very injurious in other ways, but that's not the focus of this. It will be a
helpful by-product, but the main aim here is to reduce the ingestion of useless
empty calories from a source that the body, by and large, was never really
designed to deal with.
The body
will deal with sugar, but it is the kind of sugar you'll find in oranges or the
kind of sugars you'll find in berries: the complex sugars. Refined sugars like
this, basically, go straight to your arteries. It goes straight to damage your
metabolism and straight to damage your liver. In large quantities – some people
unfortunately in the province drink colossal quantities of these drinks – they
will find themselves the worse off from a health point of view.
Again,
there is a case – a very clear case – to be made as a behaviour modification
tool, this will work. It will not work immediately, it will not work overnight,
but this is a measure to make our children and our grandchildren healthier and
to take the edge off for some of us whose health is perhaps not as good as it
could be.
To
close, as it were, I'll see you a Minister of Health quote and I'll raise you a
premier's quote, from Premier Davis in 2017, who clearly said that he had
evidence – and it is in Hansard from
May 3 – that a sugary-drink tax will reduce the consumption of these calories
and will make people healthier.
With
that, Mr. Chair, I would endorse this resolution and encourage all
forward-thinking Members of this House to support it.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
Thank you, Chair.
Sugar
consumption is an issue. There is no debating that: Sugar consumption is an
issue. The only thing, taxing is not the right first step. In the short time to
speak on this, there are many that I've consulted with in the District of
Bonavista that I think many would agree. My colleague from Stephenville - Port
au Port mentioned that there are some people out there who are financially
hurting, and there are. They consume sugary drinks, not in a large amount
because they can't afford it, but they do. Will they continue to consume it?
Yes, they will. But they do not have the economics or the means of which to
purchase it if we are going to tax.
I stated
in the House before that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is usually
the 10th province and we probably have three Territories before us before we
adapt legislation. Well, this is new. This is a first. There's nothing wrong
with being first, but maybe there's a reason why we are first. Think about it.
I'm not sure what other legislation we've had where we've gone first and every
other jurisdiction in Canada, the other nine provinces and three Territories,
decided not to. But every one of them will agree that sugar consumption is an
issue – every one of them, without a doubt.
The
Northwest Territories did an extensive study in 2019, and it was an extensive
study. They did massive research on doing the sugar tax. But let me cite some
from their extensive research for the sake of our debate here today. In their
Executive Summary, they state: “Although research supports that the conclusion
that taxes on sugary drinks will reduce their consumption, other factors, such
as substitution of other forms of sugar and public education, make it difficult
to draw conclusions on how much a sugar-sweetened beverage tax would reduce
consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks and therefore have an influence on
reducing obesity and improving dental health.” Inconclusive.
So 140
calories in a can of Coke. Many Newfoundlanders drink responsibly. There are 140
calories in two doughnut holes that are covered in chocolate. One chip is 10
calories. I just share that with you to know that calories can be attained in
other than the sugary drinks.
Again,
my colleague who spoke prior to me, from Stephenville - Port au Port, mentioned
that our calorie consumption was going down before the sugar tax. In 2004, it
was assessed that we were consuming 189 calories per day; 2019, 119 in our
province. The diet sales and the no-calorie soft drinks were close to 50 per
cent in Newfoundland and Labrador, a significant increase, while the rest of
Canada is at 37.6 per cent.
Continuing on another note, from the research from the Northwest Territories: “A
tax on sugar-sweetened beverages is expected to influence consumers of the taxed
beverages in two ways: First, the tax will reduce the consumer's ability to buy
other goods if expenditures of the tax beverages are not reduced. Second, the
tax makes the sugar-based beverages more expensive relative to other products,
which may encourage consumers to substitute other products for the taxed
beverages.”
This is
my concern. I've spoken with several, many, in the District of Bonavista who are
having difficulty making ends meet. They are having difficulty making ends meet.
They certainly do not have the affordability to buy healthy foods or to make
healthy choices.
Again,
to reference my colleague who is sitting close to me here, he stated the water
in many parts of the District of Bonavista, it's advised you do not drink the
water. And I know there are healthier choices, but the healthier choices are far
more expensive on the group of Newfoundlanders who are going to be affected the
most and the hardest here.
It is a
regressive tax. It will burden those who can least afford it the most. I think
we can probably agree with that. It will burden those who can least afford it
the most, and that is the definition of a regressive tax.
Just to
continue with the research, Oxford Economics, which was cited a little earlier,
they stated that establishing sugar taxes for health objectives is highly
speculative since there are very few studies that provide complete and vigorous
amounts of the expected impacts. According to the study, the success of sugar
taxes to reduce consumption depends on the pass-through rate of the tax, how
responsive people are to the price increase, how much consumers substitute the
tax on healthy food for other equally unhealthy food that is not taxed and
whether the introduction of the tax creates trans-border purchases. I don't
think we have to worry too much about that here in Newfoundland and Labrador,
but let me get to the last point to conclude.
The
premise of this tax is that we would tax Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and
that is going to arrest their desire to consume sugary drinks. We want to become
the healthiest province in 2031 in Canada. I think if we looked at statistics
that are out now in Canada, Alberta may come out in front. They may be the
province that may be the healthiest. In the school system they are, because they
have quality, daily physical education. They invest a lot within their school
system – we're not taxing, but we are providing quality, daily physical
education to their students; they're healthier.
They
consume less because we consume more, according to the minister. But what do
they do? They do not tax 15 per cent. We have 15 per cent tax now; Alberta has 5
per cent tax. We have a 10 per cent higher tax as we stand now than what Alberta
does, but we consume more. What we're going to do is we're going to increase and
tax more and expect to get a different result.
There
are different ways of doing it. BC is another one that doesn't tax as much as we
do. They often don't tax candy and snack food either. But they're doing
something right that we're not; they're not resorting to adding more tax in
order to get the result back, and it is inclusive. There are no studies. For us
to be first out of the blocks in Canada, without any conclusive studies being
done in Canada, and the one I cited in the Northwest Territories is the only one
I could come across that had some extensive research done on sugary drinks.
So I
would say, in conclusion, if you read in an article – it was assistant
professor, and I think he still is, at the faculty of medicine here at MUN. He
is an occupational and environmental health expert, Atanu Sarkar. If you read
his comments: A tax meant to address chronic diseases seems certain to put a
financial burden on those least able to pay. “With the intervention of one
product, you cannot expect any such perceivable change,” like in the health of
those involved.
So the
only thing I would say is I am in favour of reducing the sugar consumption
issue. There are other steps that we can take that does not mean taxing – a
regressive tax of those who can least afford it.
Thank
you, Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Deputy Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Chair, I move that the
Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Deputy Speaker and Chair of the Committee of Ways and Means.
B. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
Ways and Means have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me
to report that they have made progress and ask leave to sit again.
SPEAKER:
When shall the Committee of
Ways and Means meet again?
L. DEMPSTER:
Presently.
SPEAKER:
Presently.
Thank
you.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again presently,
by leave.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Speaker, in accordance with
paragraph 9, section 1(b) of the Standing Orders, this House now stands in
recess until 6 p.m.
SPEAKER:
This House is now in recess
until 6 p.m.
October 19, 2021
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. L No. 23A
The
House resumed at 6 p.m.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Deputy Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
I move, seconded by the
Minister of Justice and Public Safety, that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means to consider certain resolutions and a
bill relating to the imposition of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages, Bill 29.
SPEAKER:
The motion is that I do now
leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on
Ways and Means.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, the
Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Warr):
Order, please!
We are
now debating the related resolution and Bill 29.
Resolution
“Be
it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows:
“That it
is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the imposition of taxes on sugar
sweetened beverages.”
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you, Chair.
I am
honoured to be back here in the House of Assembly for this sitting, representing
the people of Windsor Lake.
As we
all know, today, this evening we're debating amendments to the
Revenue Administration Act to introduce a tax on sugar-sweetened
beverages. It is important to note that there's no tax being introduced on non
sugar-sweetened beverages, so members of the public will always have a choice
about which beverages to purchase and whether they want to pay a tax on
beverages or not.
Chair,
the effects of this tax builds on our actions taken to date, the ongoing work of
the Health Accord, which will transform health care delivery in Newfoundland and
Labrador. As noted in the House today, this is going to take time. It is not
going to be something that we will see the effects of next week or next month or
even next year. It will take a generation to two for all of this to come into
effect.
I, for
one, am proud to be a Member of a government that's taking steps not for
current, immediate political gain, but that sees benefits for Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians in the next generation and for generations to come.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
J. HOGAN:
Chair, in 10 years, my young
daughter will be 14 years old. When I read this morning that she will have a
fifty-fifty chance of having a chronic disease, it really hit home for me what
we're doing here today. Over half of Newfoundland and Labrador residents aged 12
or older have at least one chronic disease and many people live with more than
one. In fact, almost 50 per cent of our seniors have three or more chronic
conditions. We know chronic diseases impact the health of the population as well
as the sustainability of our provincial health care system.
In
addition to the worst health outcomes in the province, as a province, the
average household spends an estimated 2.8 per cent of its total annual food and
beverage expenditures on sugar-sweetened beverages. It is the highest in Canada
and twice the Canadian average of 1.4 per cent.
This tax
is about prevention, Chair. It is about making people think twice about their
purchases and giving them that choice about which is the healthier one to
purchase. The tax will apply to regular soft drinks and fruit-flavoured juices,
sports and energy drinks, pre-packaged milkshakes and coffee beverages, and
concentrated mixtures such as frozen, concentrated juices, flavoured powders and
syrups.
As the
Minister of Justice and Public Safety, I'll make the comparison to tickets and
fines. As we hope that tickets and fines act as a deterrent to bad driving,
unsafe behaviour, it encourages safe driving habits. It's our hope that this tax
will act in the same way and promote healthy choices, safe choices and better
choices for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Chair,
we will hear the Members opposite accuse the government of taxing the poor. Let
me be clear, we are under no illusion that this one tax is the be all and end
all. That is why it is being introduced along with other measures. Like more
than a million dollars for Kids Eat Smart to support the education, health and
well-being of school-aged children; a three-cent increase per cigarette and a
six-cent increase per gram on fine-cut tobacco; $1.8 million to prevent and
reduce tobacco and vaping use; and a Physical Activity Tax Credit to provide a
refundable tax credit up to $2,000 per family. All initiatives to help improve
and help address social determinants of health in this province.
Simply
put, this tax is about a healthier Newfoundland and Labrador. As noted,
sugar-sweetened beverages represent a significant proportion of sugar intake and
daily energy intake in some groups particularly, unfortunately, in the youth of
this province.
This tax
will encourage a shift to have young people favour milk and water instead of
soft drinks and fruit juices. It's about giving them a healthier choice. We need
to create a culture that places greater emphasis on healthy living, healthy
choices and better outcomes.
The goal
of reducing consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is consistent with the 2019
release of Health Canada's new Food Guide, which includes a focus on making
water the drink of choice and replacing sugary drinks with water. Health
Canada's healthy eating strategy also includes initiatives targeting
sugar-sweetened beverage reduction and promoting healthy hydration among
Canadians.
Taxing
sugar-sweetened beverages is supported by the World Health Organization, where a
2017 report found that a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages can lead to reduced
consumption, which is the goal of this amendment. This tax is also supported by
the Canadian Paediatric Society, Dietitians of Canada, the Childhood Obesity
Foundation, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada and Diabetes Canada.
Chair, these are groups I am happy to support and stand with.
It is
noted that we are the first in Canada to implement such a tax, but there are
more than 50 jurisdictions worldwide where a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages
has been implemented. According to the Canadian Paediatric Society, Berkeley in
California decreased consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages by 21 per cent
just four months after a one-cent per ounce tax was implemented. So we do have
evidence that it does work and it will work here.
The
Canadian Paediatric Society says simulation modelling over a 25-year period in
Canada has predicted a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages could prevent 12,000
cases of cancer, 30,000 cases of heart disease, 5,000 strokes and 1.4 million
cases of Type 2 diabetes. Chair, I think those are outcomes we would be more
than happy to see here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
With a
healthier population and a decreased prevalence of chronic disease, like
obesity, heart disease and diabetes, the overall cost to our health system will
reduce. Additionally, the revenue generated from this tax, estimated at $9
million a year, will be reinvested to help fund future education and support
strategic initiatives that result in healthier choices.
I have
mentioned choice here, Chair, and I do want to note that this tax does not
remove consumer choice because the tax does not apply to: diet drinks; 100 per
cent natural fruit or vegetable juices; alcoholic beverages; medical or
therapeutic beverages such as infant formula and nutritional meal replacement
beverages; milk and fortified plant-based milks and yogurt beverages;
ingredients primarily intended to be used in cooking or food preparation;
beverages prepared for the consumer at the point of sale, such as tea and coffee
beverages; beverage packaging containers holding less than 75 millilitres; and
beverages brought into the province by a consumer in a total quantity of less
than five litres.
Those
are all the choices that members of the public will still have when they want to
purchase a beverage. They can just choose now to make sure that they purchase
the healthier choice.
Statistics Canada reports in 2019, the average household in this province spent
$207 on soft drink, which comprise the majority of sugar-sweetened beverages.
This is the highest in Canada. This is too high.
No one
wants to see tax increases on anything, but I hope residents of the province
will come to see that this tax is being implemented in the interest of healthy
living. Recognizing that tax increases are felt most by low-income earners and
those on fixed income, this tax will be considered as part of the province's
renewed Poverty Reduction Strategy.
I would
say everyone in this House knows at least one person with diabetes. Well, the
Canadian Diabetes Association is among those who have been calling on
governments to introduce this tax. I can speak personally to someone I know who
deals with diabetes on a daily basis.
There is
someone who works in the Department of Justice very closely with me. I know that
one of the hardest days of her life was when her daughter got very sick and she
had no idea what was going wrong. She was rushed to the hospital. It was a very
intense and emergency situation. Her daughter was diagnosed with diabetes.
Thankfully, they found the diagnosis and her daughter was okay. But I see her
every day – this lady in my office – more than once, two, three times checking
with her daughter who has to make sure that she checks her insulin levels.
It's a
very, very scary disease. One of the ways we can prevent certain types of
diabetes is by reducing sugar consumption. It's very easy, very straightforward
about how to get there. This is one of the ways that we can get there.
I do
want to make a couple of notes about the implementation of the tax. It will be
implemented September 1, 2022, which will give industry lots of time to adjust
to the change. They may have some issues dealing with how they're going to do
that. This is a reason we're not doing this tomorrow or next week. We are giving
them lots of time to address it and deal with it at the level where they are
able to make these changes that we are bringing forward today.
Overall,
Chair, those are my comments on this issue. I know we spent a lot of time in the
House today and yesterday listening to questions and answering questions about
health care and the suggestion that we're in crisis in this province. I hope we
can get the support of everyone in the House today, in one small way, to try and
address this so-called health care crisis in this province, and improving health
care outcomes by reducing the intake of sugary drinks is one way to get there.
Thank
you, Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's
great to have an opportunity to speak to this bill. Mr. Chair, I'll say that, of
course, this is a money bill. As I understand it, it's our only money bill of
this session so it's an opportunity to speak about anything that we want on
behalf of our constituents.
But I
will confine my comments, this time around, on this particular specific item
around this bill, but I certainly have a list of items that I do wish to discuss
before this evening is out or perhaps into another day, if necessary.
On this
particular bill, Mr. Chair, I do understand government's rationale and what
they're trying to achieve. Nobody here on either side of the House, I don't
think, is going to make the argument – I haven't heard it yet and I don't think
you will – that sugar is good for you. I don't think anyone's going to make that
argument.
I don't
think anyone's going to make the argument that, certainly, if there are things
we can do to encourage people to lessen their intake of sugar, encourage people
to live healthier, to exercise, all those good things, I don't think anyone is
going to argue with that. I don't think anyone's going to argue the points that
have been made.
I know
the Minister there just talked about someone that he knows in his life and who
is impacted by diabetes. We all, I'm sure, know plenty of people, whether it be
family, friends and so on, that have been impacted by diabetes.
The
minister is right when he talks about the majority of it is Type 2, which is
related to lifestyle. We know that.
We're
not a healthy bunch here in Newfoundland and Labrador, generally speaking. We're
simply not. The statistics are what they are. I guess it could be associated to
a lot of factors. A lot of it is just the way perhaps we were raised, our diet,
what we grew up on, what we grew up eating, what we were taught and so on.
That's probably a contributing factor to all these things, no doubt. So I get
the intent; I really do get the intent.
I'm not
sure, though, that this strategy, however, is the way to go to get the results
that we want. I'm not sure we're going to get the results we want. I know we're
talking about human health versus – but I liken it to the carbon tax.
One of
my colleagues over here, I can't remember who it was, said jokingly this is the
carbonated tax instead of the carbon tax, now we have the carbonated tax, which
I thought was kind of cute, but I liken it to that.
Why I
had issues with the carbon tax is because, as I said at that time, taxing me
extra money on my gas is just taking more money out of my pocket and giving it
to the government. But, at the end of the day, it has not changed my habits not
one iota, not one bit. I still get my gas. Everywhere that I was going a year
ago, I'm going this year. It has not modified my behaviour. I have not said I'm
going to drive less because there's a carbon tax. All I'm doing is I'm just
giving extra money to the government, paying for the gas. That's all I'm doing.
They're collecting extra money. I'm still driving my car like I always did,
never changed a thing, other than more money coming out of my pocket. Most
people, who are able to absorb it, are in the same boat.
Now,
there could be some people who are right on the fringe and there are a lot of
people there, too; a lot of people there, too, on fixed incomes, low incomes and
so on and they've had to modify their behaviour in the sense that, they can
barely use their vehicle at all, just for the essentials only. Whatever little
bit of enjoyment they might have gotten, in terms of going for a drive on a
Sunday or doing whatever, has been taken away from them because of the high
price of gasoline including the carbon tax. I wonder if imposing this tax is
going to be similar.
If
somebody wants to be healthy for their own reasons, they're going to be. If
somebody don't want to be healthy, they're not going to be. It comes down to a
personal choice. It comes down to a lifestyle choice. It comes down choosing
what you feel is best for you, for your own health, for your own self; it's what
it comes down to.
I'm
really not sure that charging 20 cents on a two litre of Pepsi, other than
that's another 20 cents gone from somebody and in the case of – listen there are
people who want their Pepsi and they're going to have their Pepsi. That's not
going to change because of the 20 cents, but you're taking more money out of
their pocket; they're still going to have it anyway. I don't know that it's
going to modify those behaviours.
Twenty
cents on a Pepsi or on a bottle of Purity syrup, for example, which is a
Newfoundland company, Purity Factories; been in business for years and years and
years. A lot of Newfoundlanders have their bottle of Purity syrup or whatever,
whether they should or not or whatever. I guess like anything else in
moderation.
They're
going to pay 90 cents on a bottle of Purity syrup, plus HST and everything else.
But they're paying 90 cents. So people understand it's not just 10 cents on a
litre. On a bottle of Purity syrup it's 90 cents because they're actually not
just taxing you for the volume in the bottle, they're taxing you on how many
bottles once you add the water and how many drinks you can make out of it. I
think we were told it works out to 90 cents on a bottle of Purity. I don't know
that it's going to have the impact.
Now, it
feels like the carbon tax in that it feels like it's just another excuse,
another tax grab. That's what it feels like. I think that's what a lot of
Members over here are saying and a lot of people I've talked to they feel it's
like a tax grab. Of course the minister and the government are saying: Oh, no,
no, it's got nothing to do about taking in money, it has nothing to do with
taxes; it's all about health.
I would
put this challenge out to the government: If this is truly about health and it's
not about collecting taxes and you're not in this to bring money into it, then
let's amend the legislation and let's create a healthy living fund and every
last penny that comes out of this tax must go into that fund and not general
revenues and must be spent on healthy living initiatives. It must be; no
discretion. You can't say: Well, we were giving $2 million to Kids Eat Smart and
so next year we don't have to give it to them because we're going to take the $2
million out of this fund. No, no, you're going to maintain what you always did
and all new the initiatives.
Now, you
can laugh at it, I saw to the minister over there. You can laugh away, but if
you are truly committed, if this is about people's health and not about taxing
people to death, then let's make an amendment, let's put in a fund, a healthy
living fund, and every last dime goes into that fund and every last dime is
directed towards health –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P. LANE:
– particularly for people who
can't afford it, particularly for the people who can least afford it.
I heard
someone talk about the gym membership and the tax break – and they're right. A
tax break for everyone in this House of Assembly is great. Go get a gym
membership, and you do your taxes and you get your tax break. But if you're
someone who's on low income you can't afford to pay for the gym upfront anyway,
so let's funnel some of this money for subsidizing their gym membership. We can
subsidize daycare for low-income families, so why can't we subsidize gym
memberships or something? With the money, new money, brand new money that's not
coming into the coffers today. We must remember: brand new money. Let's funnel
it into programs like that, particularly for the most disadvantaged, the poor
and the average working guy, too, and girl. Why not? They're the ones who are
paying for all this. Let's change the behaviour by what you want to do, but then
take that money and let's not grab that money and throw it into general coffers,
let's put it towards the intended purposed, which is to get people healthy.
If you
do that I can support it, and if you don't do it, as far as I'm concerned, then
this is nothing but a farce and it's nothing but a tax grab.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.
B. DAVIS:
Perfect. Thank you very much,
Chair.
It's
going to take a little bit of time to get used to the slight changes that we've
made, but they're good for what we need to be doing today. So I'm very happy to
– I would say rise – sit in this House of Assembly to talk about the importance
of what we are all going to talk about tonight: the province's new
sugar-sweetened beverage tax, Bill 29.
I can go
on and on and talk about the – not so eloquently as the Minister of Health, or
maybe the Minister of Justice or even the Minister of Finance. Some of the
topics that they did raise I may touch on, but I'm going to talk about a couple
of things that some of my hon. colleagues had mentioned earlier. I'm very happy
that I get the opportunity to speak here tonight. The MHA for Port au Port
identified some issues that may be with some drinking water and I will touch on
that a little bit tonight, if time permits, as well; also the Member for
Bonavista, who I agree with much of what he had to say. He's a very learned
individual. I'm quite happy that he brought up some of the ideas that we're
going to want to talk about tonight.
One of
the things we can't always talk about the fact that if we don't change anything
we do in the future then how are we going to ever expect to get a different
result than we've always gotten? So one of the things that I'm very happy about
is that we're taking a leadership role in this country with respect to a tax
that's going to offer people an opportunity to transition. I'll get to the MHA
for Mount Pearl - Southlands who seems to not agree with what I have to say
based on his laughter. So I understand fully that there's a choice in the
marketplace. The last decade or more – and the hon. Member for Mount Pearl -
Southlands would know full well that the transition has started to happen from
regular soda to diet soda. He would know full well from a previous involvement.
So he would know full well that that's happened over the last decade. All we're
trying to do as a government – which we all should be as stewards of the health
of the people of this province – is try to help nudge people to make that choice
a little better.
I
listened to the Minister of Justice talk briefly about one of his staff people
in the department whose child had diabetes, and I know full well what those
impacts are. My father died as a diabetic, you know, he was a diabetic for most
of his life and I know full well how the complications that go along with a
chronic disease such as that, and anything we can do as a House of Assembly I'm
proud to do, to try to make those chronic diseases less prevalent in our
province.
I
noticed the Minister of Health spoke as well about the health concerns that are
existing and I would tend to agree with all of those statements. I'm not a
doctor, by no stretch, and many of us in this House, except for two, aren't.
There are some health care professionals in this House, but there are two
doctors in this House who are trying their darnedest to ensure that the public
is as healthy as we possibly can, and knowing full well that it's not an easy
task, by no stretch.
I'd also
like to take this opportunity to talk a little bit about some of the priorities
that we have had in my department and some ministers prior to me that we've
placed on our priority for safe drinking water in this province. I think it was
touched on by a couple of Members on both sides of the House on how important
that is. But each and every resident in our province on a public water supply
should have access to clean and safe drinking water. There is no dispute in this
House that that should be the way it is. No dispute. It's a priority and an
objective of our government.
I have
to give credit to the former Member for Fogo Island - Cape Freels and the former
minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment who really put a push on our
colleagues in the municipalities to push – instead of funding recreation
facilities, let's make sure that the priority is clean drinking water for all of
our residents that we all represent. That's why we put a very favourable share –
a federal, provincial and municipal share – in developing water resources for
our people, and we've also made some significant and substantial improvements in
those areas.
I had
the pleasure of visiting one of our potable water dispensing units that were put
in place in Port au Choix with the minister. It was great to see how the town
was so happy about what they have had put in place. That was a cost-shared
initiative with the province, the federal government as well as the
municipality. It allows people in that community to get safe drinking water
pretty much as much as you would like to have, with very reduced costs and very
little work from the municipality to maintain it. You try to make that as much
as we possibly can to reduce those boil-water advisories that we have in our
province.
We've
made significant progress. The number of long-term boil-water advisories in this
province has been at an all-time low for the past five years. That's good. Is it
perfect? No, absolutely not.
The
number of PH exceedances are at an all-time low. The number of communities with
a number of certified operators and number of certificates awarded for water
system operators that have been given out in any given year is at an all-time
high. Which is an important piece that we should all be proud of. Is it enough?
Absolutely not. There still has to be more.
Number
of water treatment plants reached an all-time high. They are a partnership
between the province, the federal government and our municipalities. That is how
this works. We offer that optimal cost-sharing ratio with communities to ensure
they can improve their water systems. We provide funding through the Department
of Transportation and Infrastructure for water treatment plants and potable
water dispensing units, including dedicated call for applications for
communities for long-term boil-water orders, water – sorry, advisories in 2020.
We
trained to assist operators in maintaining water systems. We offer cost
accounting assessment tools for public water system owners. All of those things
are important pieces that we've brought in place over the last four or five
years. Fund a regional water operator pilot program that's been extended for
regional service boards. We've launched a special Boil Water Advisory Reduction
Initiative to work with communities on long-term boil-water advisories. There
have been 15 long-term boil-water advisories lifted as a result of this
reduction initiative.
Some of
the important facts and figures for quality in this province: 33 potable
water-dispensing units, which I talked about earlier, have been placed in
locations across our province; and 21 full-scale water treatment plants with
upgrades under way to systems in Pasadena to become full water treatment plants.
Funds were provided in January 2021 to the Town of St. Anthony to obtain
point-of-use water treatment pilot project. For communities on long-term
boil-water advisories, only projects that will address the boil-water advisories
will be eligible for Municipal Capital Works funding. That's an important piece
that we all have to focus on. We all have to get behind this in the province.
I know
all my hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that everyone in this
province should have clean drinking water as a first and foremost thing. I thank
them for that. But this is only going to happen if we all get behind it and
encourage our municipalities, our local service districts and our people to get
behind those initiatives and invest in those programs that we have a very
optimal cost regime for that.
I'd also
like to take the opportunity in the little bit of time that I have left to say
some of the amounts of money that we've put into the system. We've approved over
280 water projects in this province for a total $114 million. It's a staggering
number that we did, but it's only going to be done with the partnership of our
municipalities.
Last but
certainly not least, we are working to develop our Drinking Water Safety Action
Plan. That is going to be out for public consultation now over the next little
bit. I look forward to hearing from all Members on how we can make the system
better and how we can ensure that everyone has clean drinking water.
The bill
today I have no problem supporting. I think it's an important opportunity for
us. I'll close by what I said before. If we're going to be intent on doing the
same thing that was always done before, we're going to get the same result.
Health care outcomes need to be improved on. One of the ways to do that is
reduce the consumption of sugars as we have in regular soda pop. If we can do
that, it's not going to be seen by me, particularly, but it's going to be seen
in our kids, their kids and the next generations coming behind, which is what we
all should be looking forward to.
So I
encourage everyone in this House of Assembly to get behind the initiatives that
we're trying to make our population healthier, and encourage you to vote for
this bill.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't
think any of us would disagree that we have health issues here in the province
that need to be addressed. I don't think that's a debate here tonight. I guess
it's how we address them. I'm really not sure that this tax is the right first
step. I think there has to be a full plan in place here.
One word
or one term we've heard – I heard the Premier use it a couple of times – is
around behaviour modification. When I think of behaviour modification, I think
of you do that psychology 101 course and Pavlov's dog, the conditioning response
that you get from the dog. Every time the light goes on, he's going to get a
treat. Then, when that light comes on and there's no treat, he's still drooling,
looking for that treat. They're trying to get a conditioned response from that
dog.
Now,
behaviour modification is probably a little bit more than that. Behaviour
modification, if you look at the definition and what it's designed to do, it
must contain an element of teaching, an element of learning. I'm not quite sure
a simple – and it's not so much a simple but a regressive tax as we're putting
on sugared beverages, it's teaching or learning anything, because you can't do
that unless there's an education element involved.
We look
at the Health Accord that's happening. One of the biggest things that the Health
Accord is going to look at for us, this province, is looking at the social
determinants of health. So in that vein I would look at this and say, well, how
does this affect low-income families? We can go back and forth on this.
I'm
looking at a document here, a report that was done on the proposed
sugar-sweetened beverage tax. It was done by a Ph.D. Thomas Cooper. I'll just
take two quotes out of this that relate to that: There is also evidence that sin
taxes – as he calls it here – of this sort take a greater share of income from
the poor than from the rich. Since low-income groups tend to buy larger
quantities of sugar beverages, the impact of the sugar levy will particularly be
regressive.
If I go
further on in that document: Jurisdictions that have had this tax – steep
increases in the retail price of common household consumer products. This can be
considered a regressive form of taxation disproportionately affecting the
consumption habits of the low-income consumers. I think it was mentioned earlier
today about some of the physical activity taxes and such. That's all good for
those who can afford it.
The
Minister of Finance, the Member for St. John's West, two quotes today: This is
about healthier choices. Further on she said: It's about ensuring people make
smart choices. Two key words there: choices. Not everyone has a choice. Not
everyone has a choice between healthier drinks. Diet drinks can be debated that
the aspartame is not healthy in them, but healthier choices – and it was
mentioned here. I believe the Member for Windsor Lake mentioned choices like
milk and water.
We know
there are 213 boil orders in this province, at last count. We know not everyone
has the choice of water. We know that milk is 160 per cent to 200 per cent more
expensive than soft drinks. So, really, is that a choice? I don't think so, not
for low-income families. They don't have a choice.
Then we
look at, again, that quote: Ensuring people make smart choices. If you're
talking about smart choices, you're talking about education. You're not talking
about a carrot and a stick to get people to make a choice. You're talking about
education, making sure people are aware of the pros and cons of their lifestyle.
The
Member for Gander tried to simplify it. He simply said: It's simply about
connecting the dots; simply about addressing childhood obesity.
Well, if
I look at the quote here from a 2014 Fraser Institute study on obesity, it
states: “… obesity is not a soda problem, nor a 'junk foods' problem, nor even
necessarily just a calorie problem. The causes of obesity are multifactorial,
where obesity in each individual case may be influenced by literally dozens of
physiological, psychological, and socioeconomic factors.” That's from the Fraser
Institute.
Now, I'm
not arguing that sugar doesn't have an effect, but there are many, many more
factors involved there. And it's interesting; the last one was socioeconomic
factors. Again, back to my point on low-income families and being able to make
healthier choices and our Health Accord looking at the social determinants of
health.
I think
we've put the horse before the cart here in looking at this taxation. I think we
should be doing more in terms of education. I don't think there's been any
formal consultation with industry. We've spoken to industry, we know they've
done much to reduce the calorie and sugar content in soft drinks. We know they
have offered, by letter to this Premier, to do further consultation and have
offered to help with an education program. That's on the table.
The
Member for Gander also noted that as you increase the price of something, the
consumption goes down, and he used tobacco as an example.
Well, we
all know when the tax went on tobacco you look for alternatives. We know that
more and more youth took on vaping. So that doesn't necessarily lead to a
healthier outcome. It becomes an education process here. It's not a simple
transition. If you're living in a low-income family, you don't have a choice.
The
Member for Mount Pearl used a good example on Purity Syrup. But let's take it a
further step because this deals with powered drinks and that as well. Something
as simple as a cup of hot chocolate.
Now, I
can go down to Tim Hortons and buy a hot chocolate over the counter, no problem.
But for a low-income family – or any family, because I like hot chocolate – I
can buy the tub of hot chocolate and you're being taxed on how much that tub of
hot chocolate produces. So if that tub of hot chocolate produces four or five
litres, you're talking a dollar or more in taxes. It's crazy, right? It all goes
on what that tub of hot chocolate can produce.
My point
here is there are many, many pieces to dealing with the health issue here. I
don't disagree with that. But you really need to have a plan. You really need to
have a chronological approach to dealing with this. And if we're not educating
people first, I think we've missed the boat.
What's
happened here is a very easy thing to do: When you cannot be innovative, tax. As
the Premier mentioned today: If you can't be courageous in making solutions,
tax. And that's where we've gone here.
I think
we certainly need to move forward with looking at a healthier population here in
the province, but I really need to see a fully thought-out plan that outlines:
Here's what we're going to do, here's the steps in order of how we're going to
address these issues. But a simple tax, to me, as a starting point is not the
way to do it. It certainly doesn't show innovativeness at all, nor does it show,
really, an understanding of the problem.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Chair recognizes the hon. the
Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I
appreciate the discourse over the last number of hours concerning the
sugar-sweetened beverage tax. I certainly would like to say that I do believe,
in all sincerity and fairness, that there is choice here.
People
walking into a store can make a choice of either, you know, a sugar-sweetened
beverage, which contains – in a can of soft drink, there are about 10 teaspoons
of sugar – 10 teaspoons of sugar, approximately. Or they can choose another
alternative – and there are lots of flavoured waters out there, there are lots
of diet alternatives to this sugar-sweetened beverage.
As I
said earlier today, this is not about, really, income. It's more about healthier
choices and making better choices and that will have, as the Minister of Health
has indicated, long-term benefits to our population. I know everyone in this
House is concerned about health and ensuring that we have considered how we can
help ensure a healthy population.
This
type of tax has been applied in 50 jurisdictions around the world. I have
multitudes, honestly, multitudes of studies here that I'd be happy – if anyone
would like to see them or if anyone would like to have me table them: The health
and economic impact of tax on sugary drinks, a proposal from the Canadian
Paediatric Society. Here's one: Liquid
Candy: Working Together to Reduce Consumption of Sugary Drinks by the Heart
& Stroke Foundation.
There's
plenty of evidence from those that are involved in health, plenty of evidence to
say that this is something that we should proceed to do. So I certainly
appreciate the discourse this evening, and I know the Members opposite are
concerned about this. More, they are concerned about it from a low-income
perspective, but I say to the Members opposite, quite frankly, regardless of
income, this is about healthier choices. We want to make sure that people have
those healthier choices.
I did
hear a little earlier a Member opposite raise the idea of boil-water orders and
allow me to say – because I think that's a very important issue and one that we
all in this House should be concerned about and continuing to make sure the
public water supply is safe – as a government, since April of 2019, the
provincial government has approved 280 water projects for a total provincial
contribution of more than $114 million.
Is there
more to be done? Without a doubt. This is important. Without a doubt there's
more to be done, but let us continue to move toward that and ensuring that the
boil-water orders in this province are eliminated. I think that's critically
important. I will also say that we need increased awareness of this issue and I
think the debate today does bring a lot of that awareness to people. Education
is going to be very, very important and surely we must continue along that line.
Now, I
did hear, and my colleague, the critic for Finance and Member for Stephenville -
Port au Port, did raise the idea and the prospect of surely we can allocate this
money. I did raise this during my opening remarks of how important it is that we
allocate any money raised to programs, and I named some of the programs that
we've already allocated to: Kids Eat Smart, for example, I talked about the
diabetes Insulin Pump Program and I talked about the Physical Activity Tax
Credit. I will give all Members opposite credit for really making sure that
we're focused on allocating the monies that are generated by this tax to do just
that: education, making sure that we have it for the diabetes program and for
others. We can't do it under this particular act because this is not a supply
act. The Member opposite, my colleague from Stephenville - Port au Port,
understands this is not a supply act.
I will
say, in listening to your concerns, listening to the way you're raising it,
understanding what you're trying to achieve here, that all revenue generated
from this tax will be reinvested in healthy choices for kids, in educational
programs and in diabetes programs and we'll build it into the fiscal framework.
I'm trying to remove all doubt and confusion, because I have listened to what
you've had to say. We'll make sure that in the supply act of next year the
appropriate appropriations for the next budget is there. You have that
commitment and I think it's an important point that you have raised and I'll
make sure of that.
Now, I
will say to you again that –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
S. COADY:
Thank you.
I just
want to make sure I'm really clear that this is about healthier choices; not
about income. Healthier choices: You have two, three or four cans of drink lined
up and rather than choose the one with the 10 teaspoons of sugar, please choose
an alternate. That's what this is about. Please choose an alternate, because we
all know – everyone in this House – no one has disputed that we know sugar is
having a huge impact.
I will
say that we're working with industry and we'll continue to work with industry on
this. We did move the date of implementation from April 1 – which is what we
announced in the budget – to September to recognize that a longer runway is
needed for the wholesale industry to make the SKU changes and things of that
nature. So we are paying attention and we are listening to people about this. We
do know that industry, overall, and the consumption, overall, is moving towards
these healthier choices. But this is another way, another tool in the tool box
for addressing the concerns that we all have.
As the
Minister of Health has indicated, and as others have indicated in this debate,
on both sides of the House, it is incredibly important that we try and make our
society healthier, all the time working towards that goal. So I ask for your
support in those endeavours, and understanding it and listening to what you have
asked and what you've said, I commit to you that all revenues generated from
this tax will be reinvested in healthy choices for children, education programs
and diabetes programs, and we'll build that into the fiscal framework.
I just
wanted to make sure I made that clear to Members opposite, make that clear to
those that are listening and to please implore everyone in this House, anyone
who's tuning in and all of Newfoundland and Labrador to make those healthier
choices. We know industry is moving towards this. We know they are. We want
people to make healthier choices. We're not over that 50 per cent threshold yet.
We want to continue to put emphasis on making those healthier choices as we move
forward.
We all
know, based on multiple studies – including the World Health Organization, which
I think we all respect and understand, they are saying that we really do need to
address beverage consumption and sugar consumption in beverages because this is
empty calories and that we need to address this. So that's what we're trying to
do here, is really address those concerns and make those changes that are
necessary. We all understand the implications to health, we all want people to
have a healthier choice and we also want to reinvest any monies gained by this
tax in programs, services and education to help ensure a healthier population.
I thank
you for your time this evening.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
If you
had a chance to read Michael Moss's book,
Salt, Sugar, Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us, it was a very clear
treatise on just not only the dangers of sugar, which he calls the
methamphetamine of processed food ingredients, but also the dangers of such
things as salt and fat in foods. So there's no question about the deleterious
effects on your health.
I'll
come down to this. I've never had an issue with paying taxes because, as I said,
it's what I pay for the privilege of living in a country that has so many
amenities. I would have no problem paying extra money on the salmon licences or
even the carbon tax. The key thing for me is always going to be: Where is that
money going to be invested and are the programs going to be that effective? I've
heard here in the previous speaker a commitment to bring other plans in place.
Wait for them; trust me. Well, I think this has been announced in the budget.
We've had time to start developing some comprehensive plans.
It's
been said by the Minister of Finance that this is about making better beverage
choices without the added sugar, placing greater emphasis on healthy living is
central to achieving better health outcomes and encourage residents to switch to
healthier beverages resulting in long-term health gains for our province. I
can't argue with that. However, it's akin to saying to a person who's hungry and
homeless: Keep warm, stay well fed and talk to you later. If you do nothing
about it, to address some of the underlying problems, what good is it? To me,
that's where this tax is.
To say
to people about making choices who already have limited choices, is not a
choice. Twenty cents per litre on wholesale, I think it was, and one of the
comments is, if I understood it and heard it right, that it will also cover
beverages brought into the province by consumers. Well, that tells me right
there. Most of the people I served when I served with the Saint Vincent de Paul
and the food banks, they weren't making trips outside the province. They could
barely afford to walk outside their door in some cases. You got no worries about
them bringing in the sugar-sweetened drinks. A refundable tax credit works if
you've already got an income.
School
lunch: When I taught, I did my teaching internship over in Netteswell
Comprehensive School in Harlow, England. One of the things that they had there
was a school lunch program free for every student there. It was served by staff.
It was obviously paid for by government with the assumption that this was a
significant investment that children, regardless of their economic circumstances
– a levelling of the playing field – they would be fed.
Now, I
support the school milk programs and the Kids Eat Smart. But let me tell you,
there's a vast difference, because they depend on volunteers and fundraising.
They depend on teachers to take that time out before class to do it. This is a
commitment by teachers.
So if
we're going to charge this money, then let's start putting it into funding
school lunch programs – not Chartwells or any other group, but we pay them so
that children who come to access the service don't have to pay for it. And put
good food choices there.
How will
taxing the Pepsi product or the Coke product or the sugar-sweetened product make
the price of a carton of milk more affordable? Show me. It's not cheap to eat
healthy. I can tell you my two grandchildren eat very well. They're got their
choice of yogurt drinks, of milk. They haven't had a soft drink; it's water. But
guess what? They live in a privileged family because they've got two
professionals as parents, professionals as grandparents. They've got those
amenities.
So when
was the last time that income support levels were raised in this province? I
think here of a constituent of mine – I brought this up here before – who at one
point was living on $40 a week after paying expenses. Tell me how you eat
healthy on that. And times when he was trying to pay off an outstanding light
bill, he was done to $9. How does taxing sugary drinks help this person eat?
I have
here a gentleman – a senior citizen – who's paying $735 a month in rent, plus
utilities which are not included. The cost of living is far higher than his
senior income allows him. He cannot afford the other expenses. How will taxing a
sugary drink help this person? If we're talking about doing something
constructive and something proactive, let's start looking at the underlying
causes.
What is
our commitment, by the way, to minimum wage? We have a wonderful report; you
might have heard of David Card, the Nobel Prize winner for his research into
minimum wage. That it's not a job killer, a living wage. Yet here we are
steadfastly opposed and resistant to the idea of having a living wage for
people. We can't afford to have a living wage, but we can tax – it's such a
small measure. Be bold – if we're going to take action, be bold.
We had a
guaranteed basic income program here. It was called CERB. An interesting thing
with CERB is that during CERB, the usage of food banks dropped significantly.
Now, what does that tell you? For the first time, people had money in their
pockets to pay for food. Yet, this government, despite the pleas from a number
of food agencies, decided to claw that back.
So you
had a program that actually helped people out of poverty for a while, allowed
them to pay for food, and we clawed that back. Where was the concern for those
who are food insecure, who are hungry, at that time? For the families? We had an
opportunity to be bold and to listen to the various food security groups that
pleaded with government. We didn't.
We talk
about connecting the dots and childhood obesity. Well, there's a clear
connection of dots between a living wage, a guaranteed basic income and better
food choices. If that's what we're about, then let's start moving in that
direction.
There
was mention was that consumption of cigarettes goes down. Well, I would ask why.
Is it because people are no longer smoking or are they just smoking different
cigarettes that they don't have to pay taxes on? I don't know how many people
who have their supply of contraband cigarettes. I can guarantee you they're not
paying taxes and smoking sales are gone down, but they're still smoking.
So, to
me, it comes down to this: If you want to give people the choice of choosing
between that sugary drink and a carton of milk, show me – then put money in
their pockets so that they can afford it. For me, I can afford to eat healthy. I
would say, looking around this room, many of us eat healthy – very healthy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
J. DINN:
Including myself, Mr. Chair –
very healthy.
So it
comes down to this: making life affordable – don't worry, I'm not looking at the
Member across; I can look at my own reflection.
AN HON. MEMBER:
He said across, not around.
J. DINN:
That's true.
Let's
look at affordability, making life more affordable. Let's make sure we've got
the best health care system possible to make sure that we look after people,
that they have a doctor to go to, and let's make sure that whatever money we
bring in, it's investing in the future of this province. That starts with
investing in making food more affordable, about raising incomes and about giving
people the means to which they can make a choice.
Thank
you, Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Chair recognizes the hon. the
Member for Placentia - St. Mary's.
S. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Chair, I recall discussing
this topic as a former minister of CSSD in 2016 of the pros and the cons of
introducing a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. This amendment didn't happen
overnight. Many hours were spent by staff from multiple departments researching
the evidence about the impact of sugar on our health.
I don't
know how many of my colleagues have ever tried to remove sugar completely from
their diet, but I can assure you that this is no easy task. It's not easy
because sugar is often hidden in what we consume. You may be surprised by the
amount of hidden sugars that can be in what you eat and drink. Some of the names
won't even register as sugars in your brain at first. Companies will try to
trick you by using technical names.
Anything
that has the term “sugar” or “syrup” in its name is a sugar. This includes maple
syrup, raw sugar and confectioners' sugar and, yes, even corn syrup is a sugar.
They may not look as dangerous as your usual white sugar that you buy for
sweetening your tea and your coffee, but they are unhealthy for you.
They
will all cause the same risks of high blood sugar levels. And as your body
releases more insulin, the body gets used to it and builds up a resistance and
you can then end up with requiring more insulin. Eventually, your body struggles
to release insulin and you struggle with diabetes.
The most
common type of hidden sugar is fructose, another foreign name that most people
don't recognize, and is added to energy drinks, granola bars and much more.
I would
like to talk about sugar in general. Fructose has been linked to obesity rates
in the most recent decades and this may be because it's the most popular, but it
also shows how dangerous it is. Surprisingly, we can consume 10 per cent of our
daily calories through fructose. Ten per cent – that's a high amount. Because
it's linked to obesity, it's also linked to the rising diabetes crisis we are
experiencing in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Corn
syrup and high-fructose corn syrup are very similar to each other and they're
highly popular additives to products. They're found in canned foods, sodas,
yogurts and even frozen pizzas. Yes, frozen pizzas have sugar added to them. Who
would have thought?
Sugar is
linked to increasing the amount of fat stored in the body, which leads to weight
gain, and your body can't process corn syrup well and so blood sugar levels
increase considerably. You're then left with a sugar crash afterwards leading to
more sugar cravings and very poor energy levels.
Our
government, after much research and thought, took the position to amend the
Revenue Administration Act and
introduce a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages effective September 1, 2022. While
revenues from this tax are modest, they can help fund future educational
opportunities and they can support strategic initiatives that result in
long-term health gains for our residents. The goal is to encourage residents to
switch to sugar-free beverages. This is not an attack on anyone in our society;
you have a choice. The sugar-laden beverage will cost you more than the
sugar-free beverage, because choosing sugar is not a healthy choice and that is
evident by the alarming data pertaining to the rise in type 2 diabetes in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Chair,
the negative impact of sugar-sweetened beverages on our children and adults has
been known for years. In 2017, an article published in the National Library of
Medicine focused on the results of the impact of sugar on childhood obesity from
2013 to 2015 and it compared those results with previous studies. Their
conclusion was that evidence suggests that sugar-sweetened beverage consumption
is positively associated with or has an affect on obesity indicators in children
and adults. By combining the already-published evidence with the new evidence
they concluded that public health policy should aim to reduce the consumption of
sugar-sweetened beverages and encourage healthy alternatives, such as water.
That is what our government is aiming to do here.
Chair,
while the sugar-beverage tax will position Newfoundland and Labrador as a leader
in Canada and will help avoid future demands on the health care system, we know
that a tax alone cannot solve our health problems. It is one tool to deter
people from consuming drinks with sugar in them.
To help
address the social determinants of health a number of other initiatives were
announced in Budget 2021, such as:
over $1 million for continued support of the Kids Eat Smart Foundation, which
supports the education, health and well-being of school-aged children through
nutrition; $1.8 million to prevent and reduce tobacco and vaping use; and a
Physical Activity Tax Credit was also introduced to provide a refundable tax
credit of up to $2,000 per family. This is a helpful incentive for families as
they look to access sport and recreational activities. It also holds the added
benefit of supporting the local health and wellness industry. Additionally,
government provides the Newfoundland and Labrador Income Supplement, a tax-free
payment made to low-income individuals, families and persons with disabilities
who may be impacted by additional provincial tax measures, and government is
renewing the province's Poverty Reduction Strategy. Speaker, might I add, $29
million towards the continued construction of a new mental health and addictions
hospital and associated projects in St. John's. The new hospital will be open in
late 2024.
Our
children are our future. That is a fact. We, as adults, are their teachers and
role models. The onus is upon us to provide our children with healthy,
sugar-free beverages. Speaker, I am a proud mom of a 25- and 27-year-old, and I
can say in this House of Assembly that my children do not drink pop. As a nurse
and as a mom, who was lucky enough to stay home with my children for 10 years of
their school-age life, I never gave my children pop products because of the
sugar and aspartame in them. Thus, my children simply do not consume nor like
these products as adults.
The
average household in Newfoundland and Labrador spends an estimated 2.8 per cent
of its total annual food and beverage expenditures on sugar-sweetened beverages.
This is the highest in Canada and twice the Canadian average of 1.4 per cent.
Our province also spends more per person on health care than any other province
in Canada. By implementing initiatives to deter unhealthy habits in our
population, such as the tax on sugar-sweetened beverages and the Physical
Activity Tax Credit, the health of our population should improve. With a
healthier population and a decreased prevalence of chronic disease, like
obesity, heart disease and diabetes, the overall cost to the health care system
will reduce over time.
Speaker,
I have 22 years of behaviour modification experience and our government is
supporting positive interventions to produce positive behaviours. I support my
government in introducing this tax as a means to a healthier tomorrow.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Lake Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Chair.
It's a
great honour to be able to speak to this one and it's also interesting. I feel
that there's actually a lot more agreement than disagreement here. I'm going to
make a couple of points and then I want to get to the heart of something, but
I'm pleased to feel the sense of some progress being made here.
I did
want to refer the folks that are sitting in this Legislature right now to what
happened in the previous Assembly. There was a PMR that I was involved in, along
with a gentleman by the name of George Murphy and Julia McCarthy, where we
actually identified strategies for reducing vaping in the youth of this
province. I saw today in government's announcement that they intend to put $1.8
million towards reducing the use of tobacco and vaping. I would refer those in
charge of that $1.8 million back to those recommendations that came from all
sides of this House, in a very unanimous way, to see what we can do to honour
Mr. Murphy and Ms. McCarthy and all of the efforts from before. I think that
would be a great thing to do.
I also
want to throw in one other issue before I get to my main one, which is – and
here I am, sitting in Labrador and always thinking about price differentials,
whether it be gasoline, or alcohol or now sugary drinks. We do have retailers,
for example, who are going to be selling these same commodities, these same
products, on one side of a border that's now going to have an additional price
differential from what is sold in Quebec. I think I haven't seen or heard of any
reference to this, and so I identify that to the Minister of Finance and
hopefully the minister will be able to identify that in their remarks.
I wanted
to focus on a key aspect of the debate and I've heard some folks mention it
today. I recall back in the budget of the spring when this topic of putting the
sugar tax in place was first raised, and there was a very interesting interview
that occurred with Ted Blades and a representative from the United Kingdom on
On the Go, the radio show in the
afternoon, and I paid close attention to that and it was very interesting. I'm
going to refer Members of this House to some of the key words that represent
what's happened in the UK and how they did it, and I really want to understand
from the minister, if the minister is able to, to explain to me the difference
between the UK and what is being proposed here. Because the United Kingdom's
sugar tax was described as working exactly as intended.
It's
interesting that it's called the Soft Drinks Industry Levy, it was announced in
March of 2016 and it was aimed at manufacturers and importers of soft drinks. It
wasn't targeted at the consumer, which is what so much of the concern has been
here today. It's actually done in advance, in the production of these products.
It's interesting that the levy was applied in what was called a tier system. So
there were higher tier rates and each one is based on a sort of a range of sugar
in terms of grams per 100 millilitres and so many pence – we're talking UK –
charged to each of the manufacturers.
What was
interesting was that when – I won't go into it, as I said, it's a high, medium
and low – and what happened, some 100 days prior to the actual implementation of
the tax, the signal had been sent and, as with this situation, we're looking one
year out from now, the manufacturers actually moved to address the intention of
the move by the UK legislators.
What I'm
getting at is that, at the time, there were something like 52 per cent of the
sugared drinks of the day had been targeted. But as a result of this legislation
being passed, it was reduced from 52 per cent to 15 per cent of the soft drinks.
What happened was that the higher-tier drinks with the higher concentration of
sugar, the manufacturers essentially said: Nah, we're really not going to be
able to deal with that. But it was those ones that were at that range that
government was intending to try to get below, manufacturers said: Wow, with a
little bit of effort, we can actually drop our sugar content, avoid this levy
and not have to pass that onto the consumer.
And it
was a tremendous success. Like I said, it dropped from 52 per cent to 15 per
cent of the drinks. So it was just those high, super energy drinks – I don't
need to mention names here, but I think we can all imagine what they might be.
So I
would like to understand, from the minister, how come we are not following that
exact model, given we seem to be referencing it, but it was a different strategy
in that it was targeted at the manufacturer, it was targeted at the importer,
but we are picking on the consumer. I think, as so many have very eloquently
spoken about, there is the concern of that, especially if it can be seen to
cause immediate reactions.
You
know, I think a lot of our concern is that – particularly people with a lower
income, and I think the Member for Topsail - Paradise was just talking about the
cost of milk, an incredibly healthy product that we really try to make sure we
have available to Kids Eat Smart in school and other situations like this versus
a can of Coke.
Wow, you
know, these pops are coming at you, as my mother would say, a lot less
“expenseful” than other products and therefore more available. Even imposing
this fee, I'm not sure if that's even going to get us to the price of a good
glass of milk. But how can we get in front of that again? How can we get to
those manufacturers, as they've done in the United Kingdom?
I'd like
to leave that with the minister and I'm hoping we can hear a little bit of
insight into that.
I think
that's really what I wanted to say at this time.
Thank
you very much. I look forward to further debate on this.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation.
Sorry,
the hon. the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.
G. BYRNE:
I have to fight. I have to
fight, Mr. Chair, for my opportunity to speak in this House, but I shall not be
silenced.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
CHAIR:
The Chair concurs with the
hon. Member.
G. BYRNE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Perhaps
my words he shall not say – he'll say that even louder once he hears my words.
Mr.
Chair, as I reflect on the advice that has been given to the government from the
Members opposite – notwithstanding the relatively reasoned and rationed advice
from the Member for Lake Melville – I am struck with one glaring observation,
which is, for the government in waiting it has one particular position which it
advances, which is, we're not sure.
We're
not sure is not a definitive response to a government proposal. In fact, what
they suggest is that unless we can offer the perfect, we should let the perfect
become the enemy of the good.
The
range of initiatives to promote public health, personal health, are varied and
proven to be effective by each and of themselves, but also together with a more
contained package. But what I see here, Mr. Chair, is that we are speaking of
sugar drinks.
There is
little doubt in any expert's mind that sugar in any excess – refined sugars in
particular – is a danger to personal health. The contributing factors to
disease, the contributing factors to morbidity and its consequences to poor
health outcomes is very clear. So perhaps it may be time to simply take a short
breath, to pause and to reflect on what it is that we're trying to do here.
I have
heard it over and over and over again – and while respecting the fact that
sometimes opposition is offered for opposition sake – when goals are being
advanced of this nature, this is where we have to loosen our partisanship and
prevent offering opposition for opposition sake. If this were not a longstanding
debate within the scientific community, I could understand why there might be
some confusion or doubts. But it is not. This is something that is well reasoned
within the scientific community.
If one
were to suggest that we are preventing options and monopolizing any access to
beverages, then I could understand opposition. But we are not doing that. In
fact, so just to make this abundantly clear, as I understand it, if a consumer
were to make a choice between a two litre, sugar-enhanced bottle of soda pop
versus a non-sugar-sweetened bottle of soda, they still maintain that choice.
But we are incentivizing a good choice.
So while
I heard it here this evening the opinion that sin taxes do not work and various
small-seat conservative institutes were offering opinions or references to
having opinions that sin taxes do not work; I have not reflected once on this
Chamber ever suggesting that cigarette taxes do not work, that they should be
abolished, especially even according to when the Opposition offering opposition
for opposition sake were in government and not in Opposition, they promoted
taxes to incentivize behaviours. So I can't think of a time when tobacco taxes
was suggested as ineffective. I cannot suggest a time when alcohol taxes were
not suggested as being effective.
We are
talking tonight about a sugar incentive or de- incentivizing sugar beverages.
Yet, the debate here tonight reels largely around the component of: It will not
work. They are not sure how it will work. But if we can't be sure how it will
work, or it will not work, it should not be done.
Mr.
Chair, if we were to follow through on that suggestion and say that unless we
have a perfect justice system, there should be no laws. Well, I think we would
be all lesser off because we do not have a perfect justice system, but we do
have a very good justice system.
Mr.
Chair, what I'll say to anyone who would like to advance the cause, that until
we have the perfect, the perfect shall overrule the good, I would suggest to you
we are going down a very bad road.
This is
about children. This is about families. This is about incentivizing better
health outcomes. This is about ensuring that while there are still choices that
are available those choices are incentivized towards better choices, healthier
choices. There will still be sugar pops available. There will still be beverages
available that are not sugar sweetened.
So
before anyone gets too carried away and providing opposition for opposition's
sake, don't try to promote a notion whereby this will be incredibly
disadvantaged to certain demographic groups or certain income groups. Those
choices will still be available, but of course we'll incentivize other choices.
Milk, in particular, I cannot think of a more perfect food. As the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board pointed out, funding for this
appropriation will go towards supporting healthiest of choices, providing our
children, providing our young people with the healthiest of options. So we'll
continue on in that vein.
But, Mr.
Chair, what this is not about, what this should not be about is about the
perfect being the enemy of the good, and it should not be about opposition for
opposition's sake. This is about healthier outcomes for Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians at a time when the one true debate and one true question of public
policy that everyone in this province is interested in – outside of this Chamber
and inside of this Chamber – is better health outcomes.
I'm very
proud to be part of a government which is acting on all of these initiatives.
And we're doing so from a position of strength, because we know that there's
large support from the public at large.
So thank
you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity. I hope that at the end of the
day, at the end of this debate, we all choose reason over rhetoric and support
this legislation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR (Trimper):
Thank you.
For the
next speaker, the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's
again an honour to speak in this House for the first time, other than Question
Period, back in the General Assembly. I want to clarify first a couple of
comments by my hon. friend, the Member for Corner Brook. I can speak for the
Official Opposition and say we don't oppose for the sake of opposing. I thought
we had shown that in this House of Assembly. I think I can speak for all Members
on this side of the House here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL:
We don't oppose for the sake
of opposing.
I'm not
against action, but I'm against tax action when the evidence is not so blatantly
upfront that there's not a dispute around what's right and what's wrong in this
situation. None of us dispute that sugar isn't and potentially can be a severe
health issue for people. None of us debate that over here. The debate we're
having over here is whether or not taxation will get us to the desired effect of
curbing people's habits for intake of sugar; educating individuals to understand
the impact it'll have on their health immediately and long term; and changing a
lifestyle, particularly for a younger generation, to make healthier choices
around eating, particularly around beverages.
I first
want to start by acknowledging the Beverage Association who seem to be the big
bad wolf in this, who, through self-regulation on their own, have decreased
sugar content in drinks, in beverages, by 23 per cent in the last decade on
their own and have found other ways to market in Newfoundland and Labrador diet
drinks. We consume higher levels of diet drinks which have less-to-no sugar
content in them. So the industry themselves should be acknowledged. There's not
a big bad wolf here. There's been a culture for centuries. We're into the second
century now where soft drinks that have sugar content was part of it.
The
taxation process that we're having a debate here – and this is not opposing for
the sake of opposing. What it is, is asking for clarification. It's expressing
our views based on the facts and figures and the research that we've looked at,
looking at it beyond just one jurisdiction in Europe that did a specific thing
that isn't directly connected to what is trying to be sold here on this side of
the House.
What we
want to look at is how do we make and educate our society to be healthier. We
had things that were already in play. If you want to talk about for sake of
opposing, I want to talk about how we were keeping our young people healthier in
this province for over a decade by supporting the JumpStart Program. From an
economic point of view, you were getting $10 back on every dollar you invested.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL:
And that seemed not to be the
proper lifestyle for Newfoundland and Labrador, who were the first ones in and,
unfortunately in this country, we're the first ones out under this
administration.
So when
you want to talk about healthy lifestyles, we started having to make choices
that have already been proven. So we've proven in the past things that have
worked and for some reason we got rid of it.
Now
we're starting to implement or bring in something that we're not quite sure will
get the desired effect. So I'm going to jump right back to the beginning. We, on
this side of the House, agree that we need to find a way to ensure that our
society has a lower intake of sugar, not only immediately here now but that we
be the lowest because we have other health issues here that can be increased
because of sugar intake.
So how
do we do that? What's the best way to do it? The best way is through education.
It's through other inclusive social programs. It's through other alternatives
and finding healthier ways and healthier beverages that people need to consume.
Even the
beverage industry has started giving healthier choices. So the industry that
you're targeting, as the big bad wolves, all of a sudden have said they accept
they have a responsibility as corporate citizens. While they're entities and
they're employers and they generate revenues, the issue here becomes around we
need to find a way to do the best thing to get the best outcomes so that our
society is healthier.
To do
that, we need to have open discussion. I accept the fact that we have a
democratic society here and the democratic society in the last provincial
election chose the Liberals to have a majority government. So we know that this
tax will go forward. We know it will be passed in the House of Assembly. It
wouldn't be brought forward if it wouldn't.
So in
the discussions, what we wanted to express and share on this side of the House –
and it comes from the Opposition parties and the independents equally – was
around what is the best way to ensure that people in our society are healthier,
have less consumption of sugars and are educated to understand not only what
sugar does to them, but other behaviours from a health perspective to keep them
healthier.
That's
been the dialogue I thought – that's what I've been listening to over here. I
thought it was a very open – and I even give credit to the arguments back from
the government's side, that they were logistically sincere, 100 per cent, that
it was about people being concerned about their kids being healthy down the
road. It's concerned about what seniors are and it's concerned about having
healthy choices – 100 per cent, we agreed totally with the discussions here.
But
again, our debate – and we've had some very intense debates as a caucus on our
side. This wasn't flippantly just thrown and oppose for the sake of opposing.
This was a factual – you've heard my colleagues talk facts, they've talked
figures, they've talked alternatives, they've talked generic situations and
they've even talked about some of the other scenarios that may be happening.
My
colleague from Corner Brook had noted about the tobacco tax, but he didn't also
note that hundreds – and I mean hundreds of millions of dollars have gone into
an education campaign to educate people about the negativity and the risks of
smoking. I think it was a great thing. I think that's the major reason why
smoking has dramatically dropped over the last number of decades. No different
than what we should be doing when we talk about sugar content, also, as part of
the whole process.
So we
can't just statistically say taxation will do it because that's not true; that's
not accurate by no stretch of the imagination. Smokers still smoke. People will
still drink soft drinks, sugar, no sugar tax or no tax. What we were talking
about here is that if you're going to tax somebody and start a whole philosophy,
that the easy way of solving all issues is tax it, it's not the right approach.
Have an open dialogue and a discussion like we had. There was a multitude of
discussions, recommendations and viewpoints here on both sides.
They
were very valued, very poignant and if they were all collectively put in one
policy or one piece of legislation, I think it would go much further than just a
tax to solve the issues around healthy lifestyles but particularly around the
one issue we're talking about now, intake of sugar. So that becomes the issue
that we're debating here right now. It's about whether or not the tax on
beverages – sugar tax on beverages – would actually get any more desired outcome
when it comes from a healthy point of view.
The one
thing I am pleased about – because I do realize and I do accept the fact it's a
majority government – this piece of legislation will pass. I understand that. I
understand the legislation. I've been here for 11 years, so I understand what's
coming in advance and what to expect. The fact that the government has
acknowledged and the Minister of Finance – and I give her credit for it – that
this money will not go into a general account, that's the discussion that's been
talked about over here and I feel echoed on your side. Would not go into general
account and would be earmarked specifically to address healthy lifestyles,
education, alternatives and any other nuance there that may improve people's
outcomes from a health point of view and their understanding, particularly, if
we're addressing one of the health condition issues here around sugar intake.
We agree
with that. We actually would've had a discussion about proposing something to
that. So I'm glad to say through open dialogue and open debate we came to an
understanding that would be the best path forward. The minister put that
forward. Isn't that what I thought the House of Assembly was all about? I
thought that's what we pretty well achieved here tonight.
So I get
a little dismayed when the Member for Corner Brook says this is about opposing
for the sake of opposing. I thought we were very cordial; we were very
respectful. We talked in facts and we acknowledged the dialogue back and forth.
We may not always agree, as you're not always going to agree with our viewpoint,
but at the end of the day the intent here is to acknowledge that there is an
issue.
There is
an issue about healthy living in Newfoundland and Labrador. There is an issue
about the impact that sugar content and sugar intake has on people. The issue
became about what's the best way to address it. The government has put forward
an alternative, a sugar tax. We don't see it as the best alternative. But at
least at the end of the day now we see the discussion going to a point where any
monies that are generated will go specifically to addressing that particular
issue.
I see
that as a win-win for everybody in the House of Assembly. I would've preferred
that it wouldn't have been a sugar tax, that we would've found some other
mechanism to educate our society, to find supports for agencies and
organizations that could support that and to also find another collective way to
improve our health care.
On that
point, I do applaud the government for acknowledging the money will go in the
right direction, but I still cannot support the sugar tax in the mode and the
way it's presented here, Mr. Chair.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Thank you to the speaker.
Next
we'll hear from the Deputy Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Chair.
Always a
privilege to speak representing the people of the District of Cartwright -
L'Anse au Clair for eight years now – a tremendous privilege.
I'd
probably be remiss, Chair, if I didn't say right at the beginning, the
district's been going through an extremely difficult time with the tragedy from
September 17. I attended a memorial for one of the boys on Sunday. I would ask
all Members of the House to keep the families in St. Lewis, and Mary's Harbour
in particular, in your thoughts and prayers.
Chair,
everybody brings a different perspective to the House. Some have been talking
about stats across the country, taxes and various things about this. I've been
thinking about the last 10 minutes as I was reflecting my thoughts to speak. I
was thinking about the former Member for the beautiful District of Cape St.
Francis, because often when he spoke he would tell a little story. I was
thinking about my own experience in my family's life, which became a lot less
sweeter on the 21st of November 2003. It'll be 18 years, I can't believe it,
coming up in November when my six-year-old, three weeks shy of her seventh
birthday, was medevaced out to St. Anthony and we got the diagnosis of Type 1
diabetes.
Living
in an isolated community, living where no one else had Type 1, was certainly a
steep education and learning curve for us where, over the next two weeks, I was
with her. We were talking about units of N and units of R, sliding scales; when
you go home if you find her passed out in a snowbank, this is what you do, you
carry the glucagon. There was a tremendous amount of learning for us.
Her
pancreas had stopped producing insulin. So when we eat sugar, as many of us
would know – I didn't know a lot about it first – our pancreas will produce
sugar. That all changed for her. So she would take insulin or also activity
would have the same impact. I remember that first Christmas going home. Her
sugar would be high and we'd all dress up in our snow clothes and we would walk
through the community for hours looking at the Christmas lights, because I
wasn't sure – I wasn't comfortable with how much insulin to be giving her.
But over
time and every three months from then, until she became an adult and came in
here to go to university, we would be in St. Anthony with all the Type 1
diabetics from the Northern Peninsula and the South Coast. We learned a
tremendous lot. We were into counting carbs in the household. She actually did a
science fair one year on counting carbs. She won in her school and she won
regionally for that.
But,
suffice to say, we learned about the impacts of sugar and things like a bottle
of Gatorade never came in our household anymore. You talk about modified
behaviour. There was one day when she was about eight years old she rushed in
the door at lunchtime, like I thought some child had committed the biggest
crime. She had to tell me that so-and-so had eaten a Honey Bun for recess and
now the amount of sugar in that Honey Bun was probably more than she was
supposed to have for the week. So the education piece, the message was getting
through.
We talk
about the impacts. Fifty per cent of our seniors here in this province live with
at least three conditions. Just on Saturday past, Chair, I had the privilege,
once again, to walk with a very dear friend of mine, Guy Poole, who lost his
wife to the complications of diabetes when she was just 57 years old.
Guy has
now been walking for 15 years. He's almost 78 years old. Says he's in the best
shape of his life. He's walked across this entire province. Now he's doing the
side roads. He's walked from Labrador City to St. John's. He's walked 3,500
kilometres and we walk with him when we can. The first year he was walking, he
met a little nine-year-old girl that gave him a card and a donation and said I
hope you find a cure. That girl was my daughter. We've had a special connection
ever since.
Yet,
again, talk about modified behaviour, Chair. That first year my daughter went
around at seven in our community on Halloween and everybody wanted to support
her. They were calling saying: What do we give her? When she comes to the door,
what do we give her? Everybody knew she liked scallops, so we'd come home at the
end of Halloween night, she'd have bags of frozen scallops; she'd have loonies
and toonies. There were all kinds of interesting things that people gave; it
didn't have to be cans of pop. You talk about the good that's in small
communities that we see. We certainly felt supported along the way.
So
that's just a story of how we learned for the last 18 years. There are many
things that are not in our household. I also want to add, Chair, that we are
better for it. It couldn't be just a change for my daughter; it had to be a
change in the household. We learned the benefits mentally and physically of
active living.
Just to
pick up on a couple of other points that have been said here tonight. We've
heard people say we're not sure. Where's the full plan? I think this is a start.
It's also important that we note – some people talked about the vulnerable, low
income. I just want to go back and reiterate this is about choice. It's about
choice. If you see a can of Pepsi, regular, and a diet, choose the diet.
I
remember for a number of years my husband drank regular Pepsi and I drank Diet
Pepsi. I would always try to encourage him to drink the diet and avoid the 10
spoonfuls of sugar. He'd say I don't like the taste of that. Well, guess what?
For as long as I can remember now, we all drink Diet Pepsi if we have pop.
The
other thing, Chair, that's been coming out here, as the conversation has gone
back and forth to all sides of the House, is it's a tax grab. It's a money grab.
I can tell you that this government right now, led by a doctor – a doctor in
health – we have many, many conversations around our table, saddened, really, by
the fact that we're leading in a number of areas in this province that we don't
want to lead in when it comes to chronic illnesses. I was thinking, often when
we're travelling abroad and people find out we're from Newfoundland and Labrador
they're always very friendly because they think we're from one of the best
provinces in the country. What a wonderful goal that we want to become the
healthiest province. What a wonderful goal that instead of leading in rates of
smoking, obesity or alcohol that we're going to lead by saying we're the
healthiest.
I've
heard – I don't want to put words in his mouth – the Premier. I did hear him say
many times: This is not a tax grab. Whatever money comes in, let's put it back.
Let's put the education piece there. When somebody walks up to a cooler, let's
have a sticker there so that they can see the benefits of choosing the low-sugar
choice. So I think it's important that that be a part of the conversation here
tonight.
We know,
Chair, it's been mentioned many times, the strain on our health care. We know
that we are spending more per capita in Newfoundland and Labrador in health than
any other province or territory in this country. There's a saying: If you do
what you always done, you'll get what you've always got. We need to change the
dial. We need to change the channel. So that's why right now the Minister of
Finance has this resolution before the House tonight, Mr. Chair. It's not about
a tax grab.
I would
also challenge my colleagues in this hon. House: If this isn't the way, what is
the way? I've been sitting here listening intently, it's almost 8 o'clock on a
Tuesday night, and I've heard many say: This is not the option. I heard the
Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands say – he started off speaking; left me a
little bit confused, I say respectfully – healthy living initiatives don't work,
but then he said let's put a fund in place to support healthy living
initiatives. But that's what this is all about and I'm not sure if that was
clear at the beginning. This is about the money that comes in, incentivizing
people to make a low-sugar choice and then to take that money and to put it back
into education, to put it back into physical options, Chair.
So I see
that my time is almost gone. I'm very happy, Chair, to support this resolution
and I look forward to a day when our province is leading as the healthiest
province and not in chronic illnesses and obesities, and – like a TV program I
used to watch one time – so that we can all live our best life now.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Thank you.
I will
next hear from the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm just
going to have a few words on this tonight. I hear the comments going back and
forth and it's a healthy debate, but I get a bit leery when you question that
people on this side are just doing things just for the sake of opposing them or
for the sake of just saying something in the opposite.
Just for
the record, I want to put it on for the record: There was a negotiation going on
with the government – which is the way this should work in this Parliament –
with the Opposition, with the Third Party and with the independents to try to
work out a deal on this. This is what we were doing outside. So for anybody to
stand up now and criticize the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, anybody else
or the Leader of the Opposition, that's what we were doing. We were actually
outside trying to work out something that we all can support to get the best
results for the funds that are going to happen. That's what we were doing. This
is how the Parliament should work. I know there are Members from the Opposition
that were there, I know the Member for St. John's Centre was there, I was there
and, Mr. Chair, you were there also. So, please, let's not just make these
blanket statements that we're just here to say whatever you try to say and do
that we're going to oppose. It's just not true. It's just not true.
I just
want to give credit to the Government House Leader and to the Minister of
Finance – I'm sure who's going to make a commitment on this. I know the
Opposition, the Third Party and the independents are all in agreement. That is
what we were doing. So when people talk about that we're just here prolonging
this, this was a debate that was happening outside in this corner right here to
make this work.
I thank
the Minister of Finance for having that open suggestion –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
E. JOYCE:
– I thank the Government
House Leader. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for being a part of it, the
Leader of the Third Party, myself, the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands and
you, Mr. Chair, the Member for Lake Melville. I think we came up with a solution
that we all can come up and support this.
Now,
this is one issue of it. There's another thing I have to raise because I spoke
to a lot of people on this: How are we going to initiate this tax? How are we
going to initiate it? There are going to be a lot of issues. Will there be a
loss of jobs throughout? How can we work on that? Because there are lot of
people who are working with this here. There are a lot of people who depend –
their livelihood – on this here through transportation, through the grocery
stores and through the small convenience stores. So there's a bit more to this,
and I know the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board said she prolonged it to
give more time, (inaudible). I think we need a dialogue with all the interested
parties in doing this, to find some way to make it easier on the people that
have to initiate this here.
I'll say
to people here in the House and the people who are listening outside, my wife
was a dietitian and what she always said, she always said this: Foods don't hurt
you; it's the choice and the amount of bad food you use. A soft drink is not
bad, but when you continuously drink the soft drink that is where the issue
comes in. The issue, I feel, is putting up a price for it and driving up the
price, will that decrease it? I'm not too sure that it will. Who pays for the
extra? If the kids are still going to buy it or families can't afford the
healthy foods, they're going to have something to drink. They're definitely
going to have something to drink.
In part
of this here – and I know the Minister of Finance is involved with this here –
is find some way that the funds, whatever the amount of money is, somehow is put
in some programs. I use a few – the diabetes education; we heard that a lot here
today. I'll use Heart and Stroke. There's some way that we could put it in for
an education fund, not so much as you just take it out and give it to some group
and say: Here's a grant. But do an education fund. I feel that if this bill gets
passed and this gets put through the House of Assembly, that if we could take
the funds and use it for an education fund that would be the best thing that
this Legislature could do in the long run.
Now, if
this is the way to go or not the way to go, that's another debate that we can
have because, of course, the government has a majority and the government is
going to get what they want. We understand all that. That is a part of the
process. But there are a number of ways to do that. I know when I was coaching
the kids in Sacred Heart, four, five and six, and I'd see them with the
Gatorades. I'd sit down and I'd say: Guys, what are you drinking, Gatorade? It's
only sugar. Let's have water, bring water. When you educate them for eight or
nine years and you see them with the bottles of water instead of Gatorade,
that's the education. If we could do it on a larger level.
I'll
just use that – I don't mean to be picking on Gatorade. A person who drinks
Gatorade, the average person should have to run about a marathon. For Gatorade,
when they need it, they actually need it.
Like, if
you go out and play a volleyball game drinking Gatorade, you never burn enough
energy to burn off the sugar that's in the Gatorade. It's a half-marathon up to
a marathon before you can actually burn off the amount that's in a Gatorade. Why
do we see so many kids with Gatorade? It's the promotion of it; it's the
promotion.
So if we
could promote – if the big stars in the world can promote Gatorade, how can we
design a program in Newfoundland – if we're going to be leaders – how can we
design a program here to educate and say no, you don't need Gatorade. Picking up
water, just this water, will do you just as much benefit as any Gatorade; do
better, actually. It would do better.
So this
is where I think we should focus our attention, is the education part because a
lot of kids that I know, if they feel that they're going to have something to
drink and it tastes good and it's cool, they're happy. They're more than happy.
So I think in the part of this here, we have to put the funds in the education
program for the youth.
I hear
all the comments about diabetes. I can assure you, with diabetes, there's not
one factor that goes into someone creating diabetes; there are a number of
factors. No doubt, sugar is one of it; sugar is one. Fatty foods is another.
Lifestyle is another. There are a number of factors that goes into it. So it's
hard to just take it and say, okay, it's this here, so this is why we're doing
it. No doubt, it's a contributing factor; absolutely no doubt that it is a part
of it.
But what
we have to put in context, there are going to be, possibly, Mr. Chair, job
losses over this if there's a reduction. There is a possibility, if there is
less coming in that we're going to have consequences. We have to deal with the
industry. I mean these are people, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that we're
dealing with and their jobs. So we have to ensure that we're dealing with the
industry on this part of it to ensure that if there's any job loss, they're
minimal and is there any other way that we can work this out and branch this
out.
So, Mr.
Chair, I can go on a lot more but I understand that there is some movement by
government, the Opposition, the Third Party and the independents that we will
reach some kind of solution to this here. I'm not sure how the vote's going to
go, but I think what we agreed upon is that there will be some kind of solution
that we can put it into some kind of fund.
Again,
this is the way Parliament should work and this is the way the House of Assembly
should work. There was a very healthy debate on it. There are a lot of notes we
can go to and from, who's right and who's wrong. We can banter this all day. And
I'm sure everybody got their own point of view of what should be done and how to
do it.
I know
from my experience dealing with people with diabetes in my family also and
dealing with people who treat diabetes in my family also, that there's a bit
more to diabetes than drinking soft drinks. We have to keep that in mind.
So the
bigger part of that is, if we're concerned – and this is one part of it – about
the sugar, we should try to get some program for healthy lifestyle all across
the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I said
before in the debate earlier, part of it is the expense to get proper milk, to
get proper juice. It's the lower income that (inaudible).
I see my
time is up, Mr. Chair. I may have another opportunity later.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's
always a pleasure to speak in the House and this is – I suppose outside of QP
and that – my first time speaking in debate. It's always a pleasure and it's
always nice to speak for the people you represent, which happens to be the
people of Conception Bay South. I'm proud to represent them; this is my third
term and I hope to continue on.
And
speaking of those people, I guess, in my district and all districts throughout
the province, the word tax is not a nice word to most people and probably most
people in this Chamber. Obviously, the word tax comes with extra monies in an
economy that's really strapped, it's stretched; people struggle.
We have
a lot of social issues out there. I mean, us being Conservatives, we've railed
and I was, I guess, fortunate and unfortunate enough to sit here during the
debate of 2016 because we learned a lot during that debate. That was a big,
heavy, loaded debate on taxes and implications of taxes and many taxes. It was
the last real filibuster, I guess, the House will ever see maybe – unless it's
changed again – when we stayed four days and four nights on tax.
It still
doesn't make it any more palatable to people. You know, you can take a tax and
you can put any – you can try – and in this one you can sugar coat it – no pun
intended, but that's what you're doing. It's meant to be: You don't have to pay
this tax if you buy a diet drink. It's going to show on the shelves, you're
going to pay 20 cents more for the sugar drink than you are the diet drink.
I get
the Members opposite – and we've had a lot of conversations, a lot of debate
even on this floor and off to the side – it's a choice you make, and life is
about choices. We all make choices in life and there's no doubt you walk up to
the cooler, right or left you're 20 cents out of pocket or you're 20 cents in,
depending on your choice.
But it's
a lot more involved in that. You're basically forcing behaviours and trying to
change people's behaviours by penalizing them with a tax, is what you're doing.
So you're trying to keep people away from these sugary drinks so you got to pay
extra.
Does
that work? I'm not so convinced that's the answer. I think there are much more
deep-rooted problems sometimes when you get down to a lot of these issues.
Sugars
in general, I suppose, if you want to get on another debate, I mean, there are a
lot of people – that's a form of an addiction, too. The saying goes: the sweet
tooth. You can be around people who have a real craving for sugar, that's an
issue in itself. I know lots of people like that.
It's a
broader conversation and it's not one that I'm going to go down that road
tonight by any stretch, but I think it's important to point that out in this
debate.
I guess
to go back to 2016 again, I know there was some conversation and I know the
Minister of Health and Community Services quoted at the time about the sugar tax
back four or five years ago, he didn't see the need of it. I think we all agreed
there.
There
was some other debate that went on. It was a former Cabinet minister across the
way, actually, who reached out last night in the social media and put it up and
remembered that it was pointed out – and I remember it – it wasn't worth the
effort. A former minister of Finance was proposing it back in 2016 and was told
it wasn't worth the effort. The amount of effort to collect this money, what you
get from it, wasn't worth the effort.
I just
wonder what changed in five years. So now it's all of a sudden it's worth the
effort and we're going to get $9 million.
Will we
get $9 million? Who knows, that's what they estimate. I mean, who knows, it
might be more than that. It's really a shot in the dark.
I know
when we did the cannabis bill there we were struck with the same thing: How much
revenues will be collect? That turned out to be probably more. It was
underestimated at the time. So it's getting more than that.
But the
bottom line is: Really, what are you trying to do? When you bring in a tax of
that nature and it looks good on paper, I mean, it was meant to be a revenue
generator.
Now, I
know the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board has announced
tonight that the money will be revenue neutral and it'll be funnelled into
better programs, which we are happy about that. Make no mistake about it, we
commend government for making that move and that's something that we all, on
this side of the House, think that's a good idea.
We've
also had discussions there. We'd like to be able to have some input on what
these groups have – I think all the House would like to know what groups are
going to be supported, because all of those groups affect each of our districts
and their healthy eating initiatives will help our youth, and that's where we
need to be focused.
But
underneath all that is a tax. I guess my question comes out and sometimes I get
caught in the common sense argument: Why didn't we go through this exercise in
the beginning? So we're at a point now where the money is going to be revenue
neutral, so the monies are going to go to good options. When this was brought
in, that wasn't the reason it was brought in. It was brought in to create
revenue to help the shortfall in our budget line.
They'll
say it's not true, but what other reason were you bringing it in? They're
bringing it in for people to eat healthier and make healthier choices. But when
you had the money going, you had the money sitting there collecting $9 million,
it's going to general revenue, so what are you not doing in the beginning – this
is the beginning; things have changed since the minister spoke tonight. In the
beginning, it was still going into the government coffer. Where was it going?
There was no direction, where the money was going to be spent.
That's a
big problem with this and that's something that we've discussed. So what is the
purpose of this? What is the purpose of putting the tax on – the sugar tax,
which is unpopular. What's the sense of doing it? Why did we even start this
process? Now the money seems to be heading in a better direction but, at the end
of the day, I wonder why we didn't go through this exercise in the beginning.
What's the purpose of it?
I know
Members across the way will not agree with what I'm saying here but, ultimately,
I wonder what's the purpose of the exercise because I don't think that's how you
attain it. I think you got to dig deeper into your socio issues in your
communities and figure out what's the root cause. There are root causes to all
these issues. You got mental health and addictions right on through. There are
root causes to these things.
Right
now, a lot of this stuff is a band-aid and it doesn't get the desired effect.
But, in saying all that, I will speak on behalf of our caucus; we are happy to
see that the monies are going to be directed into healthy food choices,
education – no problem. One issue that we had concerns about and our caucus met
with the group – and I don't know if government did, but the industry didn't
feel like there was proper consultation. They were made aware of this tax that
put a lot of pressure on them and their bottom line and just their overall
business models when it was announced last year. They didn't feel there was
enough consultation and, after discussing it with us, we kind of agreed with
them.
So, end
of the day, any changes tonight is not going to help them. They still got to
charge this tax, find ways – there is extra cost comes in for them, too, and it
effects their business models. They're on tight profit margins, like I suppose
everyone. Everyone has their own business model to operate on. There are extra
costs to operate and if it's $9 million a year, it's an extra $9 million coming
from their customers and maybe some from them, too.
At the
end of the day, our caucus have debated this and we're not going to belabour the
point all night, but we're not in favour of supporting a tax. We do commend
government, though, for being willing to be revenue neutral, to bring the money
and put the money into better uses for healthy eating choices. For that, we
commend them but, ultimately, we will not be supporting it based on the fact of
the mere principle that it's a tax and we don't feel it's a proper use.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Thank you.
We'll
next hear from the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am
pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this House and, as always, to
represent the people of the District of St. Barbe - L'Anse aux Meadows who have
given me the opportunity to sit here and be their representative. I'm also
pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this resolution respecting the
imposition of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages, Bill 29.
Before I
get into that, I would like to highlight some of the facts that the Minister of
Environment and Climate Change presented here today, because I think he was
reading my notes. He talked about how municipalities have stepped up and how
they've placed a priority on clean drinking water, and I certainly do want to
commend them for their efforts.
I want
to reiterate how important it is for communities to recognize this concern and
move towards reasonable solutions through programs offered like those in the
Department of Transportation and Infrastructure. We recognize that there are
struggles for some communities. They face aging infrastructure and challenges
with capacity to address these things. Of course, here, I'd like to drop my
little plug for a regional approach to managing some of these issues.
Communities that are working together collaboratively can share services and
bring benefits to areas that may never have been able to avail of such
opportunities in isolation.
As we
move forward and talk about regionalizing services or service sharing, that is
certainly something that is top of mind as we go forward. How can communities
work together to bring services to their residents that they might never have
had an ability to do? You're stronger when you're together. So by putting our
communities together, they have that opportunity to avail of.
A
significant portion of our discussions in this House relates to health care and
we talk about acute-, long-term and chronic care solutions and provisions and
dealing reactively with health concerns. There might be some confusion across
the way as to the intention of adding this tax, but let's be clear that the
introduction of this legislation is a proactive measure to deal with some of the
challenges that face our individuals in their health.
This is
certainly indicative of a shift in thinking and approach to health care; it is
just another example of how this government is committed to reimagining health
care and transforming government. We're not content to stand on the riverbank
and haul constituents out downstream, we aren't content with the status quo and
we're determined to move the camp up the line and try to prevent residents from
falling in the first place: an upstream approach.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
K. HOWELL:
I think we can all agree that
this is a very small step in a much larger journey. As the Minister of Health
noted earlier when he spoke, this is going to be a long-term commitment. An
investment that will yield results much further down the road. We're definitely
a generation out. We have to make these important decisions now so that they pay
dividends for our children and their children and so forth. As a population with
the highest spending on health care and the poorest outcomes, it is imperative
that we step up and make progressive decisions to address this disparity.
Working
as a registered nurse with inter-professional teams, there is an immense
resource that goes into caring for the implications of poor health decisions and
the impacts of chronic disease in the population. Conditions like obesity, a
result of diets high in simple sugars or carbohydrates, which also compounds the
risk for diseases like diabetes, which have complications like neuropathy
affecting the blood vessel supplying nerves and that causes some sensory motor
compromise. We're talking about retinopathy, which affects the vessels of the
eyes, and nephropathy, which affects the kidneys. You've got seven miles of
blood vessels in your kidneys that could be affected or compromised. When that
filtration is compromised, the end result is often dialysis, which significantly
impacts a person's way of life.
Diseases
like cardiovascular disease, heart attacks, stroke, and heart failure, none of
these have favourable outcomes. In my past work as an OR nurse, I have seen
several children who have come to the operating room to have significant dental
work done as a result of overuse of sugar in sweetened beverages and in their
lifestyle choices. It is drastic when they have to have those types of
interventions. You look at your dental health often as an indicator of your
overall health. We certainly don't want to have these children facing these
challenges at such a young age.
Sadly,
in my time as a nurse, which was 10 years, it's relatively simple in the term of
a registered nurse's lifespan. I saw drastic change in the demographic of
patients that presented with these conditions. The toughest probably being
children who were stricken with obesity and a lifetime of complications, young
men and women who were facing the reality of chronic disease.
As the
Minister of Finance detailed quite eloquently, this tax won't apply to milk or
medical or therapeutic beverages, but only to those with added sugars. That will
ensure that customers still have a choice but will aim to steer them in a
healthier direction.
Friends,
the revenue generated here is relatively modest; however, the cascade that it
will inspire certainly is not. A million dollars to the Kids Eat Smart program:
We speak of that like it just rolls off our tongue. But once you've sat there
and seen the impact that this education and promoting healthier choices have on
these children, it's certainly something that alters the way that they see their
choices and impacts their lives their whole life through.
Chair,
$1.8 million to address tobacco use and the introduction of a physical activity
tax credit are additional measures that are initiated to promote the health and
wellness of the population. I think I heard it referenced across the way that a
$2,000 gym membership was the only option, but just to remind us all that this
credit is available for any eligible physical activity program or organization
that contributes to cardio-respiratory health, strength, endurance, flexibility
– any of those things.
Additionally, the Minister of Finance has indicated that the revenues of this
initiative will be reinvested in healthy choices for kids, educational programs
and diabetes programs. I heard it referenced across the way – we talk about
promotion. I think that's a great idea.
I don't know if you remember when the
soccer player Ronaldo was sitting in front of the media and there was a
sugar-sweetened beverage in the frame with him. He moved the beverage and asked
for some water and, instantly, the stocks dropped. That certainly has an impact.
I think the education related to this program will certainly go a long way.
There's
support for individuals and families who will require it. Income support is
available for individuals with disabilities or seniors or those on low incomes.
We're making major steps forward here. Steps towards reimagining health care and
improving the lives of the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. Which I would
venture to say is certainly the goal or objective for each and every Member
sitting in this House.
We have
the opportunity here to be leaders in the country and to advance the lifestyles
of our constituents moving forward. I'm very pleased to support this motion and
urge all hon. Members to do the same.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just
want to briefly speak on this topic. I understand the merit and everything about
behaviours, changing behaviours and education and all that. But I do have
reservations and concerns in the fact that even with this tax in place, a two
litre of pop will be still be cheaper than two litres of milk. That's where I
have the issue with it, the extremely high cost in this province to access
healthy foods.
You can
go to any grocery store in this province, especially in Labrador, and look at
the extreme costs of fresh fruits and vegetables, milks, fresh juices and those
kinds of things. They're extremely expensive, especially to a family on a low
income. But a frozen pizza or a bag of chips or anything on the other side of
the aisle per se, is a lot cheaper and all those products contain high amounts
of fructose corn syrup.
As the
Member there earlier said about that word, the corn syrups and the fructose and
stuff like that, that's a refined sugar. That's the thing that really – wraps my
head around is if we're going to do this we have to balance it with something on
the other end. The balance on the other end needs to be something to bring down
the costs of these very important foods in our diets that cost extraordinary
amounts of money.
Obviously, we understand shipping and all the other things too, but we need to
do something to bring back the balance because right now there is no balance in
that system. Now, we're going to tax one side, but even with taxing the sugary
drinks, they're still going to be cheaper than the thing that we want people to
choose. They can't choose it because they can't afford it and that's the thing.
I know
the hon. Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs said to bring something, an
idea. Well, why don't we strike that Committee from my private Member's motion
in last session? Let's strike that Committee on basic income, reviewing it and
looking at it as a thing. That's a way to bring balance, to be able to have
people of lower income afford these kinds of foods because we have to find
balance everywhere.
If we
can't make it affordable, then what's the point? We can tax but it's still going
to be cheaper and that's the problem I have with it. These products are still
going to be cheaper. We have to find a balance to be able to get these healthy
foods and let these people to be able to make the healthy choice.
I know
another Member across the way mentioned about the physical activity tax credit.
That doesn't hit some of the right communities that would benefit from physical
activity because you have to be able to afford these memberships, the equipment
and all these things to participate in these sports. People on low income have a
very hard time being able to do these things. So tax credits are great for
certain portions of our population, but a large portion of our population that
actually does really need this help can't avail of these things. Once again, the
balance is not there.
My
suggestion is let's find balance, let's find ways to make sure that mom of
three, who's living paycheque to paycheque and barely can afford her rent or her
light bill, to be able to go to a grocery store and pick up healthy fruits and
vegetables and stuff for her family. Because right now that is the barrier that
I see every day is the affordability of these healthy fruits and vegetables. You
can just walk around and see it. It's very present; it's very there.
So this
is where I think we really need to hammer home the affordability of the choices
that we want people to make, and I hope people make. Even in my own personal
life I can tell you even I struggle to make the healthy choices. Because I'm
sure I walk around the house with a can of Vienna sausages and my wife yells at
me and says: Put that down. Even I am caught up in it. I know I thank my wife
every day for her ability to keep us eating well and healthy, but I personally
still struggle. I still like a can of Vienna sausages or a bag of cookies or
something. I'm still working on it.
But at
the end of the day I think the importance of it is we need to strike a balance
and find balance in the sense that, yes, let us do mitigation on one side, but
we also have to rise up the other side so the people can make these healthy
choices and find ways that we can get healthy food to a reasonable cost. Right
now, you can go to a grocery store and you can see it. It is outstanding how the
prices have gone and skyrocketed. It's getting harder and harder for people to
make these healthy choices because they can't afford it. That's my problem with
it all; we're throwing it out of balance. That's where I can't (inaudible).
Like I
said, again, let's work on solutions. Let's form that Committee on basic income
and let's explore that as a way to be able to bring up some people in society so
they can make healthy choices and they can afford to make the right decisions.
That's how we get to a healthy population and that's how we get to the goals
that we all want to see in society.
With
that, Mr. Chair, thank you.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Thank you, Chair.
Good
evening, fellow Members.
Obviously we're engaged in a big discussion around, relatively, a small
amendment to an existing piece of legislation, and what I'm finding about this
particular discussion is the different perspectives on leadership when it comes
to a major public policy issue facing this province. The government, through the
Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, has taken on her shoulders to challenge
all of us, all sides of this House, to really come together to think about the
future of our children and grandchildren when it comes to the issue around the
beverages that we choose, obviously those that are sugar sweetened.
I met
with the industry representatives and I agree – I think it was mentioned that
they're probably not opposed to the tax so much as they're opposed to how this
is going to be implemented. I know the minister has had numerous conversations
with the industry and I think the bill that's being proposed reflects how we
want to do that. We'll give lots of time for the industry to ramp up and to
incorporate that into their business practices.
The key
thing, which is contrary to what the Opposition House Leader talked about, this
is not about a tax or a tax grab, it's to promote a healthier diet and lifestyle
here in the province. The World Health Organization, and it's been referenced
earlier, recommends the use of fiscal policies to actually move governments and
society in that direction. There was a recent study in 2020 that came out in the
International Journal of Behavioural
Nutrition and Physical Activity, so a journal that promotes academic and
other research around behavioural nutrition, and it found, through a systematic
review and meta-analysis that evaluated the impact of food pricing on dietary
consumption, that it supports taxation as a method to reduce the intake of
unhealthy foods and beverages. That is the key to this piece of legislation. The
same report found that taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages has been reported
to lower sales of these beverages, leading to the potential to reduce energy and
sugar intake. That has been certainly something we want to see happen.
What is
the intent of our proposed legislation? I think if we can agree on that we can
see passage of this legislation quite easily. One is to reduce the consumption
of sugar-sweetened beverages. The industry tells us that we are, in fact, going
in that direction and diet drinks overtake sugar-sweetened drinks here in this
province, but we are still consuming the higher percentage of sugared beverages
relative to other parts of the country. We also we want to be able to support
healthier food choices; in this case, healthier drinks without sugar. We want to
improve the overall health of the population. Who can argue with any of that?
The research and the real-world evidence supports what the minister is, in fact,
proposing. Again, we have to get our heads around that.
Now, we
will only know if we're successful if, in fact, we evaluate what we are doing
here with this public policy objective. I certainly would challenge the local
and national research community to, in fact, get behind this legislation, once
it's passed, to begin some real-time evaluation to allow us to measure its
impact on a go-forward basis. I think that would help us on this and future
policy objectives when it comes to using taxation to, in fact, modify personal
and human behaviour here in the province.
The
concept and the idea, which has garnered a fair bit of interest here tonight,
around using the funds from this tax to support healthy food choices, to promote
education around healthy food choices and the like, that's something we've
already started. With the support of the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board during the current budget, she approved an increase in the
funding for the Mother Baby Nutrition Supplement, which is the kind of
initiative that we wish to see happen right across the board. We've already
started down the road of allocating dollars within our budget to support better
nutrition and nutritional diets in the province. I obviously want to see us do
more of that.
Back to
the industry, one of the things they were concerned about, and I've listened to
them intently, was around possible employment impacts. I think the way we're
going about implementing this tax should not see any change in employment and it
should not see any change in the cost of them doing business. We've talked to
them about how we can support them in doing that and we will be applying it at
the wholesaler and producer level so that it will be administratively feasible
to do this without having an impact at the retail level. At the end of the day,
the choices that the consumer makes will determine, really, how effective this
particular policy and fiscal measure will be.
As the
Premier and other speakers on the government side have addressed, we have to
start to turn the dialogue towards a healthier diet and healthier lifestyles for
the province. He, his Cabinet and our caucus are supportive of the leadership
that he and this government are taking on this major policy initiative. I'm
saying that the benefits of this will be both short term, medium term and
definitely long term and that we will be able to accomplish multiple policy
objectives by a simple amendment to a very large piece of legislation.
I
encourage all Members, Members on the opposite side of the House and the public
who are following this debate to really get behind the intent. Again, it's to
reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages. We consume too many, too
much and too often by young children, teenagers and even adults.
The
Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, given her professional background,
and the Minister of Health and Community Services, given his background, have
spoken to the physical health impacts of these beverages. There's no doubt in my
mind that we are given an opportunity here in this House tonight to change the
course of direction on a substantive policy initiative. We have a choice here to
do nothing or to do something. On this side of the House, we are focused on
doing something and something significant so that the sweetened beverages that
we are consuming will be reduced in a very short order.
I think
I would ask the Members opposite to think about their decision when it comes to
the vote on this particular motion because I think it would send a very strong
signal to the citizens of this province and to those outside this province
watching this debate that we are resolute in this province to make a change in
the future of health and healthy lifestyles of this province.
If we
were unanimous, I think that would send a very strong signal. With the
commitment to allocate the dollars to healthy food choices and education and the
like, then I think any concerns that the other Members opposite would have would
be – and I think are – addressed in that regard.
So,
Chair, I support the motion as presented and encourage others to do likewise.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
I want
to read a few stats from Stats Canada's 2017-2018 Canadian Community Health
Survey.
I'll
start with this. I serve with a food bank, as I said before. That is not an
upstream approach.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Three minutes.
J. DINN:
Three minutes.
That is
not an upstream approach to solving poverty. This is not an upstream approach.
Stats
Canada: 1.2 million or one in eight Canadian households struggle to access
sufficient food. That's one in six children live in a food-insecure household.
“A
growing number of studies have also documented the links between food insecurity
and adverse mental health outcomes, such as higher rates of depression, stress
and anxiety, and poor self-perceived mental health.”
“There
is consistent evidence that household food insecurity is associated with lower
diet quality and a variety of physical health problems, including elevated risk
of diabetes and cardiovascular disease.” Not just sugar consumption.
Sixty-five per cent of food-insecure households – that's households who are poor
and are hungry – rely on wages as their primary source of income. Black
households are 3.5 times more likely to face food insecurity. The three most
likely types of people to be food insecure are single parents, renters and
people on social assistance. This is not about a sugar tax.
The food
insecurity policy came to the conclusions using this research that tackling the
conditions that give rise to food insecurity means re-evaluating the adequacy of
the income supports and protections that are currently provided to very low
income, working-age Canadians and their families.
Second
recommendation: Governments must re-evaluate the adequacy of income supports and
protections for low-income Canadians. We have presented, in this House, a way
that we can start to tackle that. The Member from Lab West brought it up.
Interestingly, in a survey – and I'll finish with this – of Atlantic Canada
perspectives on food insecurity by the Maple Leaf Centre for Action of Food
Security, it noted that in Atlantic Canada, compared to the rest of Canada, 65
per cent of Atlantic Canadians basically support the notion of a basic income
floor that would provide a safety net for all Canadians.
So while
we play around with a sugar tax, we are not addressing the root problems of
hunger, of food insecurity, of poverty. If we want a healthier society, then
start addressing those problems and start addressing it now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm not
going to spend a lot of time talking on this; it's been covered quite well. But
there are a couple things I'm wanting to say.
We all
know that adding sugar to food and to drinks is not good. It impacts our
children, it impacts adults; it impacts our society. We're learning a lot about
the impacts of sugar now on the body and on a developing brain. Even adults,
there's a cycle between craving and reward. They've done diagnostics on the
brain and you can tell.
So
anything that would deter people from choosing a sugary drink is a good thing.
When it was brought up here in the budget, you know, about this tax, I agreed to
it right away. I thought it was a good thing and I'm actually in the House of
Assembly saying, you know, it's something that I would support.
An
additional 20 cents per litre added to sugary drinks and that would act to deter
people from selecting them, right? As my fellow MHA from Stephenville - Port au
Port talked about: This is going to generate $9 million in revenue. That's a
good thing – we could see that as a good thing if it deters people from
purchasing sugary drinks that impacts their health, their children's health and
have long-term effects, and generate $9 million. Well, woo-hoo or whatever that
saying is.
But I
have to say, in the debate I supported it, right. But when I said I supported
it, I was looking at the benefits being twofold, not just as what everyone's
talking about here – a money grab.
First,
to put the additional 20 cents per litre on to deter people from purchasing and
consuming sugary drinks. We acknowledge the impact of sugar on our overall
health and, as I mentioned, about on growing brains of our children. It trickles
cycles between reward and craving. Do you know something? That impacts
decision-making.
I'll
tell you how old I am now: my nieces have children. It seems like the younger
generation are wising up to this because my nieces – all their children don't
drink sugary drinks. You go to the fridge in their houses, there's not even the
sugary – the red Kool-Aid, no soft drink, no Kool-Aid, none of that foolishness.
Even the yogurt is rationed. That's about decision-making.
The
twofold benefit to this tax, I was looking at twofold. One is to deter people
from making the choice, the easy choice. But the other thing I thought of was
that the second benefit should be that this tax should be earmarked to help and
improve the overall health of our population. Our population is not doing well
and the Minister of Health would probably agree with me. It's very, very
important for us to make sure that that $9 million is earmarked to help improve
overall the health benefits of our population.
Do you
know something? I'm trying not to say, do you know something. But especially our
low-income residents because we know now a lot of our low-income families make
the choices based on money and what they take home in their grocery bags is not
high nutrition. The twofold benefit, the second benefit is I'd like to see that
$9 million go to help people have more nutritional choices, affordable choices.
We only got to look to my district.
I would
stop talking about my district and all the woes and the poor this and the poor
that, the lack of access to services, lack of access to affordable food, if
something was ever done about it. Now, I realize I've only been in the House for
two years, but I'd like to see some sign about something put in place to help my
residents be able to access affordable, nutritional food.
The
first thing people will think of: Well, you get a subsidy for nutritional food.
Do you know something? We don't. The reason why we don't really is because the
nutritional subsidy that goes on our food only goes on for the freight cost, the
cost of shipping. It is so labour intensive most of the businesses don't even
bother. We were trying to find out whether they were skimming the subsidy. Were
they pocketing the subsidy? When we looked at it, some of the companies weren't
actually even implementing it because it was too labour intensive, and it is
only on the shipping.
If you
want to talk about shipping impacting costs, then we just have to go back to
this government, the one that is sitting opposite of me. In my district, there
was a Liberal MHA who went around with his own PowerPoint presentation
advocating for the benefit of taking that freight boat off from Lewisporte that
kept the food cost down, the building materials down, the things that we needed
in our communities – our communities that basically if you don't fly, you have
to go by boat and if you're doing that, you basically get five good months.
When you
look at everyone talking about quality of health: Oh yeah, rah, rah, rah. For
me, it is hard to get enthusiastic because in my district you're paying $28 for
four pork chops. That is the picture that everyone is familiar with, not the $17
for a box of cereal.
So,
twofold, if you're going to have a tax put on for unhealthy drinks, sugary
drinks, then that $9 million should be put towards helping people in our
province have access to healthy choices; not try to tax them into healthy
choices. I think I said this before: I remember back when I was in university
and there was a lot of controversy about milk. You brought up milk. Do you
remember when milk used to go on sale? You get two litres of milk for 99 cents.
I remember as a student because I used to live on milk and Kraft Dinner a lot of
times because I had no money.
They
were actually implementing this thing where milk wouldn't go on sale. It
wouldn't go on sale. What they said was that they had to protect the dairy
farmers. I think that this tax, if it helps deter people from making the
unhealthy choices, that's a little bit of a benefit; but if we're going to take
$9 million out, we need to make sure that $9 million is to help improve the
quality of health in our communities. There will be another benefit. If our
populations are getting healthier, then our health costs will actually go down.
People
talk about a win-win, but I have to say, since this is a money bill, I'm just
going to quickly bring up another thing too: physical activity for youth. In my
district when COVID struck, the schools closed their gymnasiums and because more
than half of my district had community-shared gymnasiums, my communities didn't
have access to gym activities. While the rest of the province was actually
playing sports, using the gyms, continuing to be physically active, in my
district, this wasn't happening.
I think
that if we go back into more restrictions again and that type of lockdown
happens, we need to make sure that communities in my district have access to
gymnasiums. It's a right. I talk about access to services that the rest of the
province gets. Like I said, it's really important for me.
I think
one of the things that we need to look at, though, is making sure that any
benefit tax-wise would go back into its intent, which is actually improving the
health of our province.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think
we've belaboured that point enough. I think people have their mind made up in
what they're going to do. Seeing that this is a money bill and it's going to be
one of the only opportunities this session to bring up a few issues, I'm going
to bring up a few other issues that are very near and dear to me. One of them is
the acute-care hospital in Corner Brook.
Mr.
Chair, this has been something that I've been working on since 2011, first when
the Opposition got elected and we went out and we proved that a radiation unit
is viable in the West Coast. Also, we went out and showed that a PET scanner was
needed for the area. One of the commitments that we made at the time when we
were in the Opposition and then we went in government as the Liberal government,
which I was a part of, was that all existing services that were at the Western
Memorial Regional Hospital would be brought over to the acute-care hospital.
That was a commitment we made. That was a commitment the Premier made; I made.
It was well documented.
I even
have it in the access to information where it was stated in the access to
information, in the briefing notes, to speak. We know what happened with the PET
scanner, Mr. Chair. Now it's in a trust fund with the Western Health Foundation
to be put in at a later date. But the idea and the whole concept was to have it
in as soon as we can with the radiation unit.
That was
the commitment we made. That was the commitment I was a part of, making that
decision as the Liberal government. I stood on the steps out here in
Confederation Building when we were in government with the unions protesting. I
remember walking out and standing in front of the crowd and making the
commitment that all existing services will be in the acute-care hospital. That
was a commitment, well documented in the media, the premier also at the time.
Now I
find out – it just happened one day that I stood up here and asked the question
in this House of Assembly about laundry services. Now we're finding out that
there are 75 jobs at stake at the acute-care hospital in Corner Brook as the
laundry services now is gone out to RFP – 75 jobs.
I spoke
to the local people at the hospital; they didn't know. I spoke to the head at
CUPE; she didn't know that it was taken out. I asked the Minister of Health and
Community Services about it and he said it was taken out some time on, I think,
July 6 or July 8.
In
actual fact, I just want to put something on the record. I just want to make it
very, very, very clear. I had no idea that the laundry services were taken out
of the new acute-care hospital in Corner Brook. It absolutely did not come to
the infrastructure committee meeting – no meeting.
Here's
what I got under access to information. On November 2016, representatives from
the Department of Transportation and Works, TW, and Health and Community
Services participated in a value engineering session with procurement and
technical advisors to review the project scope for the Corner Brook acute-care
hospital project.
The
scoping was held to (inaudible) project elements in order to lower the expended
costs. One of the underlying premises reviewed is that since the acute-care
hospital is an expensive space to develop, project elements that are not
critical inside the acute-care hospital should be provided elsewhere.
Mr.
Chair, back in 2018, there's documentation here now where the Western Health
steering committee asked to have the laundry services placed back into the
hospital and that was rejected. This is coming from the access to information,
Mr. Chair. Two of the scope elements that had been requested to be included in
the P3 project: laundry services. It hasn't been included. It's gone out to RFP.
It is taken out.
Mr.
Chair, that is something that I can tell you I was a part of making a commitment
by the Liberal government to the people of Western Newfoundland and to CUPE,
their workers. That commitment is broken.
Now, Mr.
Chair, I have no problem – absolutely none – if the Minister of Health or the
minister of TW or the Minister of Finance had to go out and sit down with the
unions and say here's what we're doing and the reason why we're doing it and be
upfront and be very straight with them and be honest with them. But when you sit
down and talk to the people who are directly affected, they weren't aware. When
you have the steering committee from Western Health trying to get it back in
because there are 75 jobs at stake, they weren't included in any discussions on
it.
We take
the PET scanner. I can assure you that we made the commitment, even Dwight Ball
during the meeting that he had with the hospital committee. The premier stated
the commitment was to have the PET scanner up and running as soon as the
radiation unit was up and running. That was a commitment that we made. We made
that commitment as a Liberal government.
The
question I have to start asking, Mr. Chair – and I will be asking a bit more;
I'll be doing whatever I have to do to get all the information – what else is
taken out? What else? What other commitment is broken? What else?
Then we
talk about all the commitments when you say a government makes a commitment and
you wonder why you question things? I want to say to the Minister of Health and
Community Services: I was never in an infrastructure meeting when that was taken
out. Never in any discussions when that was taken out, the laundry services.
Absolutely none. In 2018, the steering committee tried to get it put back in.
The
other part, Mr. Chair, I can go through it and I can show the speaking notes
when they were making the announcements about it. It says here – and you can
read through it all. A lot of it is redacted. It's sad actually. I don't know
why but if you go through it, there's one part there are 17 pages straight
redacted – absolutely redacted about the hospital. I can show people the whole
part of it that is redacted, 17 pages and a lot more.
When you
go through the briefing notes that they had for the speeches out there and for
the questions and answers, here's one, Mr. Chair. I'll just put it there just to
show that the commitment was made. Here are the briefing notes that they were
making up for the people when they were speaking out there:
“Exactly
what services and care will be provided by the public sector at the new
hospital?
“Nursing
care services and other supportive services such as laundry, housekeeping and
dietary, will be provided by Western Health staff.”
That was
the commitment. Those were the notes given to the premier, whoever else spoke
out in Corner Brook at the time for question and answer period by the media.
Those were the actual notes, Mr. Chair.
So when
this here moves along, Mr. Chair, I will also be asking questions about what
else is in it and what else is out of it, because I have no problem – and I say
it and I'll say it again: I know a lot of those workers. There are a lot of
those workers who are going to be in the Premier's district, they're going to be
in my district, they're going to be around Corner Brook, some may be in
Pasadena. They now are wondering what's going to happen to their jobs that we
committed that we would keep there.
I
understand the cost. I understand now we can probably do it cheaper somewhere
else. But if we made a commitment that we're going to keep those 75 jobs at the
acute-care hospital in Corner Brook, then we should try to work right now to
ensure that.
I know
in this briefing and in the access to information it's saying that, okay, it
costs too much to put in an acute-care facility. If we're going to do that and
it's going to go out to RFP, how are we going to guarantee those jobs that we
committed to it? This is why a lot of people in Western Newfoundland jumped on
board with this hospital. This is why they jumped on board, because we made a
commitment to keep all the same services in that acute-care hospital with public
sector employees. When I find out just because there wasn't enough time here in
Question Period one day, I jumped up and asked a question to the minister and I
get a response back. I said, hold it, there's something wrong here. That's not
accurate. Then, a few letters that we got back and forth. Hold it now, there's a
bit more to this. When I got it from access to information I realized that it
was taken out.
I'll
close and I'll probably have another opportunity to speak about this later, Mr.
Chair.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm glad
to have another opportunity to speak to this. I'm going to digress from the bill
as well, because this is a money bill so we can talk about whatever we want. I
would say, just to reiterate, I guess, a point that my colleague from Humber -
Bay of Islands made – not this time when he spoke, but the time before that. I
think we saw, in my view – and I would concur with him – how a House of Assembly
should be functioning. How Members should be working together and collaborating
regardless what side of the House that we happen to be on.
I just
want to acknowledge certainly the government in this case for listening to the
suggestion, and just to reiterate certainly my understanding of the commitment
that has now been made, that indeed any money that is collected from this
beverage tax, all those dollars will go into a healthy living fund, if you will.
It will be distributed amongst healthy living initiatives.
I would
have liked to have seen a separate fund but apparently I'm told now that the way
the legislation works and the way government operates, it has to go into the
general coffers. We have the commitment now, Mr. Chair, from the government and
I put it on the record, if I'm going to support this. We have the commitment
that every dime that comes in is going to be – it's not going to go into general
revenues to be spent on other functions of government. It's not going to be a
tax grab, but every cent is going to be put into initiatives to hopefully get
our population more healthy. Whether that be healthy eating, whether it be
exercise, healthy living initiatives, advertising, things of that nature,
promoting healthy living, that type of thing. I'm glad we have that commitment
because that was all I said.
I say to
the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, who was putting words in my mouth
when she spoke about what I allegedly said, which I didn't say. I'm not against
healthy living initiatives. I never said I was. I said I was supportive of them,
but the point I made was that I wasn't convinced then and I'm still not
convinced, by the way, that this is necessarily going to have the effect that is
intended in terms of the taxation.
I'm sure
it will to some degree. It will discourage some people from buying the sweetened
beverages, but there are going to be a lot of people that are still going to buy
it because they like their Pepsi and they're going to have it regardless. That's
just the reality. That's no different than when you tax cigarettes. It may cause
some people to stop smoking or whatever, but there are a lot of people that you
can jack up the tax to $100 a package and if they have the last $100 to their
name they're going to spend it on cigarettes because of that addiction. You can
do the same thing with booze and everything else. That's just the way it is. So
I'm not saying it won't have any impact, but I'm not so sure it's going to have,
necessarily, the great impact that we're thinking. I hope it does. I really hope
it does.
I would
also say that when we talk about people on a lower income and so on, they are
the people that are going to be impacted by this the most. There is an argument
to be made there, but I will counter it, though, by saying that even if you're
on a low income, you can't afford milk and so, therefore, you're buying pop, you
still have the choice to buy diet pop. So it's not as if we're saying all of a
sudden someone who bought Pepsi and who has a low income and so, therefore, they
drink Pepsi all the time, that now they don't have an option because they could
actually buy Diet Pepsi, Diet Coke or diet ginger ale. If you have a juice box,
you can get the juice boxes with the sugar and you can get the juice boxes
without the sugar for relatively, I think, the same price. As a matter of fact,
if you're buying bottles of Pepsi or cases of Pepsi you can go over to Wal-Mart
somewhere and you can buy this here, this Kirkland water. I've seen, what, you
get 24 in a package for $4.99, or $3.99, or whatever it is and sometimes it's on
sale. You can buy a lot of bottles of water for a lot cheaper than you can
buying pop.
There
are alternatives. To suggest there are no alternatives or to suggest that all of
a sudden someone who is on a low income now doesn't have a choice, they actually
do because they could just go with the diet version of the same thing they're
already drinking. Now, maybe they would prefer the regular Pepsi, but then
that's got nothing to do with income because I could be a millionaire and still
prefer the regular Pepsi. I'm still doing the same harm to myself regardless of
my income status. I think that's a point that sort of needs to be definitely
driven home as well.
The big
thing for me on this was I did not want to see it as a tax grab, because I did
not know what the motivation was. Because, quite frankly, when this bill came
forward, when we received a briefing and everything, nobody actually said: Our
main purpose here is to reduce sugar consumption, to get everybody healthy and,
by the way, every cent that we take in here we're going to reinvest it in
healthy initiatives. That was never said. So one can only be left with the fact
that: Okay, maybe they're hoping it will have the desired effect, but, at the
end of the day, they're making $9 million that they can throw into the general
revenues. Without someone actually saying: No, this money is being targeted as
new money to further the cause of getting people healthy. If that had been said
and made clear from the beginning, probably the debate would've started off in a
more positive perspective from this side of the House, certainly from myself. So
I'm glad that we have that clarification and I certainly would support that
piece of it. I just wanted to clarify that.
I've got
a couple of minutes left in this particular speaking time. As this is a money
bill, as I said, you can bring up anything, and I just want to reiterate. I
asked a question today in Question Period around motor vehicle registration. I
just want to take a couple of minutes just to reiterate the concerns that we
have.
Now, the
Minister of Digital Government and Service NL, she said that she's got lots of
emails from people who said they're pleased as punch with the service, it's all
great and so on, and she feels happy with it all. I'm sure she has gotten some
positive feedback from some people. I mean, the reality of it is I hated going
to Motor Registration and standing in a lineup or waiting in there. I can't
stand it. I don't go to the bank anymore. Everything I do, pretty much, is
online. If I can possibly do it online I do, because I don't want to be going to
these places. I don't want to be waiting in line. I don't want to be at it. I
wish we could do everything that way so I wouldn't have to go there at all. I
wish there was a way for driver's licences, your pictures and so on, that I
could just take my picture here in my house and hit send and I didn't have to go
there and get a picture taken. That would be perfect. Maybe it will be available
at some point in time.
But the
reality of it is that not everybody has a smartphone, not everybody has a
computer and not everybody has Internet access. A lot of people who even have
this don't even know how to use it or don't necessarily know all the functions
and so on. We saw that with the election – if I can go back to that; that's
another discussion – the issue of people trying to just take pictures of their
ID and download it to Elections Newfoundland and Labrador and the trouble a lot
of people, particularly seniors and so on, were having with that. So it doesn't
work for everyone.
I can
tell you that my office has been bombarded with calls, emails, messages and
everything else from people. I know poor old Kelli Penney, the registrar, God
love her. I got to say, man, she's been fantastic. But I got her drove off her
head; I really do. I don't know if other Members got her drove but I know I do
with the number of people that are having issues accessing services at motor
vehicle registration. They make calls and you can't get an answer, and if you
do, no one is calling you back. The wait times on the seniors' day is ridiculous
–
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The
Member's time has expired.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you very much.
Any
further speakers?
Oh, yes,
the hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
E. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again,
this is another money bill and I'm just going to speak on this for a few
minutes.
I'm
going to make a suggestion to government – I don't know if it's the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure or the Minister of Health – to sit down with
the union and the workers and explain what's happening in the acute-care
hospital setting for the laundry services, because there's a lot of anxiety
there.
I know
it has gone out to an RFP; I have a copy of the RFP that was sent out. We should
at least have the courtesy to sit down. If the RFP includes these workers and if
there is some way that we can include it so we can keep up with our commitment
that would be great. I think out of courtesy, Mr. Chair, and the commitment that
we made as a Liberal government, that I was a part of, that we should at least
have the courtesy to go out and have a meeting with the union head and have a
meeting with the workers in the Corner Brook area and explain why we had to make
a decision, why the government had to make the decision, or how the decision was
made and what is the process now? It's two to three years down the road, no
doubt – it's two years down the road, actually. If their jobs are at stake or
not, that is something that we need to speak to the workers about, Mr. Chair.
Because,
I can tell you, when I made the commitment back with the Liberal government to
put in the PET scanner, radiation unit and all the services, I was sincere and I
thought that it was going to be followed up on. If it's not going to be followed
up on, let's go out and sit down – I'll even go with you. We'll go out and sit
down with you and have a chat to see what we can do to help out with that
situation.
That's
all I'll say on the hospital now but I had to speak about it because it was
brought to my attention by a number of the workers. I spoke to the president of
the union, as I said earlier. That's something that I'm going to bring to the
government's attention and I'm going to look very closely now at the acute-care
hospital in Corner Brook, Mr. Chair.
My
colleague just brought up, again, about Motor Registration and it bewilders me.
It bewilders me why changes were made because it worked during COVID. It
bewilders me. If we brought in a system that's going to be more beneficial,
that's going to help services for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, I
would be all for it. But I can tell you and I can tell the government and I can
tell the minister, this is causing more anxiety and more frustration than you
can imagine with the changes that you made.
As I
read earlier today, one of the letters I read earlier today was appointment
only. This person was trying to reach somebody. They went online and on the note
it said: Because of the high volume, our systems can't handle it right now. This
person tried to phone online and couldn't get no one to speak to. They got the
email back: You have to put in for an appointment.
There's
another issue that's raised – I thank the staff for this – when you get a
vehicle inspection, you have 30 days to get the – the inspection is good for 30
days. The vehicle has to be done within that 30 days. A lot of times now you
can't get an appointment for five, six or seven weeks. What they're doing now,
they're grandfathering in the inspection slips, which may be over 30 days but
they're accepting them. It is a courtesy thing, but, then again, that's another
drawback that we have of this whole change to the system for Motor Registration.
Again,
I'll ask the government: Give me a plausible reason why it was changed?
Everybody is not online. Everybody don't have a computer. Everybody can't get
through on the system. Even when you can, there are certain circumstances where
you need to go in ASAP.
Now, I
know that I heard the minister say on several occasions that the doors are open
but it has to be by appointment. When you walk into that system and you look at
that system and you look at the corner where there are people sitting down,
lined up and trying to figure out: Am I going to get selected today because
someone may have missed their appointment? Will I be the lucky one today? It's
just not right. It is just not right.
It's far
from being proper, and if the minister got a plausible way to explain it, I'd
love to know. Because I'll try to explain to the people, but I can tell you
right now the frustration, the lineups is just not worth the changes that's
being made by this government. It's just not.
I went
down there last Wednesday, I went down and there was some people that just moved
in from Baie Verte way, actually, living with their son and daughter. I brought
them down. I showed them where the building was and they walked in. I walked on
in and the same thing. There's one line here for seniors, there's one line here
who got appointments and there's one line over here. There are chairs over here,
people waiting: Am I going to get in?
Why?
Explain to me, Minister, why you made the changes. That is what I need to know.
I will keep on this. I got petitions after petitions after petitions that people
are so upset with this. We're causing a lot more aggravation for the people of
the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador that we're supposed to serve and we're
not doing it.
There
was a lot of stress during COVID. Why are we adding to all this stress? Why are
we adding to the stress?
Minister, I'm asking you, you can stand up at any time or someone in government
can stand up at any time and explain how this is a better system. I'd love to
hear it because I can tell you it's not a better system. It's definitely not a
better system.
As I
said back years ago when Service NL was put in place the way it is now, you can
go in and get mostly anything in there. So if you got to get a picture taken for
your driver's licence, you got to make an appointment or go in and just wait. So
if you live an hour or two hours away, you got to take your time to drive in,
come on in and sit down in the corner. Hopefully, you're going to get in. If
not, spend another hour, two hours, to drive on home again.
This is
the problem that you're seeing on many occasions. I hear about it on a regular
basis. I had emails that I can show how people are so frustrated trying to get
through, trying to get online; the system is up, the system is down. You phone
and you can't get to speak to anybody, and we're supposed to be serving the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is a very serious issue. I know my
colleague, the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, has been hearing the same
issues also.
I ask
the minister: Let's put it back. Let's step back a bit and ask the staff,
because I can tell you that the staff that I speaking to said we want the doors
open. We want to be able to serve people. We don't want to have this
frustration.
The
other part about it more so than a lot of it, Mr. Chair, a lot more of it is
that the staff are the ones that have to turn people away. It's not us here in
the House of Assembly. It's the staff out there who has to tell someone: No,
b'y, we're not open or no you can't get in today. We're full, all the
appointments showed up today so you have to leave. We can't get you in. It's
sad. We shouldn't have to put the staff through that.
I'm
asking again, as the old saying is, put a bit of water in the wine. Let's step
back and let's see if we can get the system back where people can avail of the
services; people could go in at their leisure to get the services and then
people can come in, if there's a lineup, they can leave. Right now, they have to
stay because they don't know when they're going to get in.
I'm
going to ask this question: Later on in the winter, when people have
appointments, it takes five or six or seven weeks to make an appointment and
then there's a snowstorm, they have to wait another five or six or seven weeks
to get what they need done. What if it's a stormy day and people won't drive up
there because it's a bad weather day?
These
are the concerns. Right now, it's just frustration and anxiety that we're
putting people through. Later on, it's going to be a lot of logistic issues with
the winter coming on, ice, snow and people travelling from outside Corner Brook
to come to these services.
I'll
have another opportunity to speak later.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want
to pick up where the Member left off and I guess where I left off.
As he
said, the calls that I have been fielding from people is unbelievable, actually.
Whether it be people that are phoning and phoning and phoning, they can't get
through; can't get a return call. If they finally do get through and they need
something, they're given a time of a month or six weeks to get an appointment to
get something done; the lineups and so on, on seniors' day and everything else.
I'll
give you an example. I had a gentleman call me on Thursday past. So his wife –
80 years old, now, a lady in Mount Pearl, and she needed to get her licence
renewed. So she had to go to the doctor and get a medical certificate saying
that she could keep her licence. She goes to the doctor and gets the medical
certificate. She goes over to Mount Pearl there, because it's only up the road,
Motor Registration. She goes in there; there's nobody around. She knocks on the
door; a person from inside opens the door and lets her in. They said: Yes, can I
help you? She said: Yes, my dear, I'm here and I need to get my licence renewed.
I have my medical certificate here from the doctor. Now, a lady 80 years old.
They
said: Do you have an appointment? No, she said, I didn't know I needed an
appointment or anything. Oh yes, you got to have an appointment, and this is not
seniors' day. So she said: You can go home and call and make an appointment, or
you can show up again on next Wednesday on seniors' day.
Now,
there was nobody in the building, according to the person. There was nobody in
the building, only the staff behind the counter and the person who let her in.
So they're just sat there basically doing whatever. Instead of saying to that
lady there's nobody here now, my love, come on up to the counter and we'll take
care of you. No, go home, make an appointment or come back next Wednesday on
seniors' day.
That's
just one example. I could give all kinds of examples that are like that and
similar circumstances. I don't understand it. I got no problem with technology.
If we can use technology and people who want to and are able to avail of it can
do it and it makes life simpler for them and simpler for the system, that's a
good thing. But the bottom line is – and the minister can stand up and tell me
if I'm wrong here – to the best of my knowledge everyone that was on the payroll
before we put in this system is still on the payroll. This is not about shutting
down offices and eliminating staff or whatever. So the costs are the same today
as they were before you did it.
If we're
talking about COVID-19, when I went to get my COVID shots over to the Village
Mall, there was a big old lineup of people outside the Village Mall, then you
went inside and there was a big old lineup. There were two or three lines you
had to go to. They'd send you here, there, whatever. And they had X's marked on
the floor and you'd go in, you'd get your shot and then they had chairs set up.
They said: Sit down on one of those chairs now, Mr. Lane, and wait for 15
minutes to make sure you don't have an adverse reaction. There were probably 30,
40 or 50 chairs there and they were all spaced apart, like we are here in the
House of Assembly. And everyone sat down on a chair and they waited 15 minutes
and they got up and left.
Now,
that's at a COVID clinic. I could go to the Avalon Mall. I could go to a movie.
I could go to a restaurant. I could go down on George Street. I can go, I can
dance, I can do whatever I want to do now, as long as I got my shots now and we
got the VaxPass.
But, for
some reason, people cannot go into Motor Registration like they always did, walk
in through the door, stand on an X on the floor and space the chairs out. There
have always been chairs there. Space them apart a bit and do like we always did.
I don't understand it. It can't be about COVID because we're doing it at the
clinics; we're doing it everywhere in the private sector. You go in to Costco,
for God's sake, sure, you're banging into people. There's people going mad
everywhere, trying to get toilet paper – it's not toilet paper now. What's the
thing everyone's after now that we're going to run out of? Salt beef, isn't it?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Turkeys.
P. LANE:
Turkeys and salt beef, right?
Everyone is there fighting over the turkeys and salt beef. It's madness. But we
cannot go into Motor Registration.
Like I
said, if it was about saving money, if it was that we're going to lay off half
the staff or something and we're going to, you know, reduce the hours and make
appointments and do it online and save money – not that I'm in favour of doing
all that – but at least that would be a reason. At least it would be some
justification; we're trying to save the taxpayers money by reducing the cost to
operate.
Like I
said, the buildings are still there, the overhead is still there and, to my
knowledge, everyone that was working there before you implemented this system
are still working. They're still on the payroll. So the only thing that's
changed is the service levels. It makes no sense – it makes no sense, Mr. Chair.
People
are asking me about it and asking what is the justification. I cannot justify it
and it's not for the sake of just trying to beat up on the government. I'm
really not. They're doing a lot of good stuff. I've acknowledged them in the
House on a lot of things they've done, voted for most of the legislation they
put in. I'll probably vote for most of what they bring in this time, if not all
of it. So it's not about that. But what's right is right, what's wrong is wrong.
And what's going on here is absolutely ludicrous.
Somebody
said to me jokingly – I thought it was pretty cute, actually – that we're
looking at the mess over at Motor Registration and the issue about trying to get
your phone call answered, computer crashing, no one calling you back and all
this kind of stuff. And someone said to me one day that they must have the
Commissioner for Legislative Standards. They must have gave him a lateral
transfer over to Motor Registration because it's just like what happened at the
provincial elections. He must be in charge of that now. That's what someone said
to me one day.
It's
sad, what's going on. And I cannot believe, Mr. Chair, I refuse to believe that
it's only me and the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands that's getting it. I
know I've talked to other Members here. They're getting it. So I do not believe
for a second that the government Members are not getting those issues from their
constituents. There's no way that they're not having those same issues. They've
got to be.
But no,
they don't want to talk about it. I guess they were told to shut up and say
nothing about it. They got to be having those issues because I am hearing it
from all over. I am getting it from everywhere with the same issues, Mr. Chair.
Again, I
am not trying to beat up on the minister for the sake of it. I'm just pointing
out a problem that should be obvious to every Member in this House of Assembly.
Not just on this side of the House, every Member in this House of Assembly has
to know that what's going on with Motor Registration is absolutely madness. It
is madness.
I say to
the minister: Put things back the way they were. You can still continue on with
your experiment with the technology. I think it is a great thing. I think it is
wonderful. Like I said, if you can come up with a way now that I can take a
selfie here on this phone and hit send and send it to Motor Registration so that
I don't have to go in there and line up or get an appointment to get a picture
taken and I can avoid doing it, I'd be all for it, 100 per cent.
I'd
stand up here and I'd give you a standing ovation, thank you very much,
Minister, if you could do it for me. But there are a lot of people that just
don't work and they need these services that they're used to, especially senior
citizens and lots of people who don't have technology, don't know how to use the
technology or don't have Internet connection. It is a big problem.
One of
the things I've learned in this House of Assembly over the years and being
around politics, it's funny about it. Sometimes we'll come in this House of
Assembly and we'll debate the budget, millions of dollars – expenditures of
billions of dollars and we think it is all heavy duty and it's a big thing, but
it is the small things, it is the day-to-day things that he average citizen –
the average citizen don't pay attention to half the stuff that we do in this
House of Assembly. A lot of these bills that we pass, it's all good stuff. It is
all necessary stuff, but the average person don't pay attention to any of that.
But what they do pay attention to are the day-to-day things that impact their
daily lives.
Motor
Registration and access to Motor Registration is something that impacts the
average Joe and the average Jane on a regular basis. All you're doing is
frustrating people and really peeving them off big time, I can tell you that
now. I say to all Members over there: If the minister is not willing to make a
change, b'ys, you need to put a bit of pressure on her because it is impacting
you too, I can tell you that now. Everybody over there is taking the political
hit on it, I can tell you that now, guaranteed – not from me, from the people.
They are very, very upset about this one. It's in everybody's best interest to
get that solved.
Mr.
Chair, with that said, I'm going to conclude for now. I think my colleague has
something he wants to say.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm
going to go back to the bill that we were just talking about. Someone just sent
me a note on it. I ask the Minister of Finance if she can answer this.
There's
going to be a 20-cent tax on a litre of some kind of sugar drink. Someone just
sent me a note, and I haven't got the answer so I ask the minister: You take
McDonald's, for example, who can sell 860 millilitres of a drink, 140
millilitres short of a litre; it has 19 teaspoons of sugar. Are we going to be
able to tax that at the source or is it because it's under – that's the question
I ask the minister. If the minister wants to answer it or she can get someone to
answer it. I guess I won't get the answer but that's fine.
I was
just wondering if you can get the –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
E. JOYCE:
Pardon me?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
E. JOYCE:
It's a question someone just
asked me. Like, the quantity that goes through somewhere like McDonald's or when
it's put down to a 140 millilitres short of a litre, do that count as any tax
whatsoever? That's a big question because with 19 teaspoons of sugar, that's a
question –
P. LANE:
I think it's prorated.
E. JOYCE:
Is it prorated? That's what
I'm asking the minister. This is what this person is asking me. If it's
prorated, I don't know if it's prorated or not.
AN HON. MEMBER:
It's done on the canister.
E. JOYCE:
It's done on the canister.
Well, if it's done on the canister that's fine. That will answer the question.
Thank
you very much for that.
I'll
conclude tonight with my comments and with my few words that I had.
Again,
on the Motor Registration, I urge the government to try to look at the human
cost that we're doing things; the anxiety that we're causing people for no
reason, absolutely no reason.
I'll be
bringing this up every opportunity I get because everyday I'm getting more and
more calls about frustration of people can't get in. I agree with my colleague,
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, I don't know why we're putting people
through it and why we're doing the changes.
I'll
close there, but I'm sure I'll be back again to have a few words later on the
Motor Registration during other debates.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Shall
the resolution carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
Carried.
On
motion, resolution carried.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 3.” (Bill 29)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 6
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 2 through 6
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 through 6 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Revenue
Administration Act No. 3.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report Bill 29
carried without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
This motion is carried.
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the resolution and a bill
consequent thereto, carried.
CHAIR:
The Deputy Government House
Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Chair.
I move
that the Committee rise and report the resolution and Bill 29.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report the resolution and Bill 29.
Is it
the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Lake Melville and Deputy Chair of Committees.
P. TRIMPER:
Speaker, the Committee of
Ways and Means have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me
to report that they have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill
be introduced to give effect to the same.
SPEAKER:
The Deputy Chair of the
Committee of Ways and Means has reported that the Committee have considered the
matters to them referred and have adopted a certain resolution and recommend
that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.
When
shall we receive the report?
L. DEMPSTER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, report received and adopted.
SPEAKER:
The Deputy Government House
Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the resolution be
now read a first time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the resolution now be read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
“Be
it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows:
“That it
is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the imposition of taxes on sugar
sweetened beverages.”
On
motion, resolution read a first time.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the resolution be
now read a second time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the resolution now be read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
“Be
it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows:
“That it
is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the imposition of taxes on sugar
sweetened beverages.”
On
motion, resolution read a second time.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, for leave to introduce
a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 3, Bill 29,
and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. the Deputy Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill
entitled, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 3, Bill 29, and
that the said bill now be read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
that the hon. the Deputy Government House Leader to introduce a bill, “An Act To
Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 3,” carried. (Bill 29)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Revenue Administration Act No. 3. (Bill 29)
On
motion, Bill 29 read a first time.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 29 be now
read a second time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the said bill be now read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Revenue Administration Act No. 3. (Bill 29)
On
motion, Bill 29 read a second time.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 29 be now
read a third time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 29 be now read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Revenue Administration Act No. 3. (Bill 29)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the
Order Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 3,” read a
third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 29)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Speaker, I move that this
House do now adjourn.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
this House do now adjourn.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
This
House do now stand adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 10 a.m.