May 3

May 3, 2022 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 47

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

First, I'd like to begin by welcoming Juanita Stone, the former mayor of Red Bay, and her spouse, Bob, here today. Welcome to the gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

SPEAKER: Today, we will hear statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Cape St. Francis, Bay Verte - Green Bay, Ferryland, Lake Melville and Harbour Main.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

J. WALL: Thank you, Speaker.

For the past 10 years, on March 20, the United Nations has published the World Happiness Report, a global ranking happiness study based upon social, economic and environmental statistics. From that report, the International Day of Happiness was established with the goal to make people realize the importance of happiness in their lives.

Speaker, today I'm happy to report that Action for Happiness in Killick Coast has begun in my district, thanks to advocates Crystal Murphy and Cassie Manning-Dyke. Both ladies, along with other like-minded individuals, are helping to promote a movement of people to create a happier world together among volunteer groups, organizations and communities.

Thanks to their ongoing efforts, all towns in my district have signed proclamations recognizing International Day of Happiness in an effort to raise awareness, help encourage people to become more involved and to promote the benefits of well-being and good mental health. That is something each one of us should pay close attention to.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in thanking Crystal Murphy and Cassie Manning-Dyke for their contribution in bringing Action for Happiness to my district and I hope this movement will travel across our beautiful province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

B. WARR: Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the late Guy J. Bailey, a well-respected businessman who passed away on Wednesday, April 27, 2022, at the age of 89. Guy J. will be remembered as a great community builder, having owned and operated numerous businesses for decades.

Guy J. Bailey Ltd. has been in operation for over 55 years, employing 100 local workers year-round. Each of his children have his entrepreneurial and community-minded spirit. There have been numerous businesses over the years, including Dorset Manor, Baie Verte Gifts and Flowers, Baie Verte Recycling, Sears Outlet, Bailey's Bus Service, a garage and, more recently, Shoreline Aggregates Inc.

In his retirement years, Guy J. purchased and renovated a vacant church building in Grand Falls-Windsor into a retirement home. Later, as a resident in the Deer Lake and Baie Verte retirement homes, Guy J. was known for always sharing a smile, leading singalongs, playing the piano and sharing the Scripture.

Guy J. Bailey has given his family an incredible legacy of love, support and a most generous giving heart.

I ask my hon. colleagues to join me in offering condolences to the Bailey family and the entire Baie Verte peninsula.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Speaker.

Today, I rise in this hon. House to recognize the Southern Shore Senior Breakers who were awarded the Herder trophy as the 2022 Avalon East Senior Hockey champs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. O'DRISCOLL: Just two weeks ago, the Breakers swept the Clarenville Caribous four games to none in the Herder Memorial finals to take the prestigious Herder Memorial Trophy back to the Southern Shore.

The team is mainly comprised of players who are graduates from both the Southern Shore Breakers and the Goulds Minor Hockey Association, but there are members of the team that hail from all over the province.

Mr. Speaker, I was honoured to be a part of a winning Herder team with the Southern Shore Breakers and I'm glad to see Herder number six finally make its way back up the shore. Winning the Herder is not only an accomplishment for the players on the ice, but it also reflects on the irreplaceable hard work put in by the volunteers and fans. Without the contributions of volunteers, senior hockey on the Southern Shore would not be where it is today.

Mr. Speaker, I have been told that the planning has already started to bring Herder number seven back to the Southern Shore.

Go Breakers Go!

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

P. TRIMPER: Thank you, Speaker.

As the world responds to the escalating war in Ukraine, our province can be proud of the contribution by Lieutenant Colonel Melanie Lake from Churchill Falls.

After growing up in Labrador, Lieutenant Colonel Lake graduated with an engineering degree from the Royal Military College, then an impressive career that includes: leadership roles with all three Canadian Combat Engineer Regiments; instructor at the Forces Leadership and Recruit School; senior officer with the Chief of Defence Staff; and three deployments to Afghanistan as part of Operation ATHENA.

As Commander of the Regiment in Petawawa, Lieutenant Colonel Lake assumed command of Operation UNIFIER in March 2021. This bilateral mission between Ukraine and Canada provides military training for thousands of security forces and their National Guard. President Zelenskyy recently highlighted the UNIFIER training mission and thanked Canada for improving the defence capability of his besieged nation.

Lieutenant Colonel Lake volunteers tirelessly with Mriya Aid to provide non-lethal survival equipment for Ukrainian defenders and in the resettlement of Afghans who worked with her and other Canadian soldiers to our country.

I would ask this Legislature to thank Lieutenant Colonel Melanie Lake, a proud graduate of Eric G. Lambert School for her leadership in support of those dealing with extreme adversity, both on and off the battlefield.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Speaker.

The Town of Brigus in the District of Harbour Main can now add another unique distinction to its colourful history.

Randy Spracklin and his father, Scott Spracklin, have brought national attention and have captured a broad interest in authentic home construction and restoration with their popular television series entitled Rock Solid Builds, which airs on the HGTV Canada Network.

Randy described the show as being 100 per cent authentic and unscripted. The second season just finished airing on April 7 and Randy and his team are hoping for a third. HGTV were looking for an East Coast show and when they reached out, Randy emailed back and, as they say, the rest is history.

The creative talents of this father and son team, along with their eight crew members and co-workers, is a demonstration of ingenuity, skill, professionalism and humour – all of which is on full display for the world to see.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Randy Spracklin and his team on their success and for showcasing our province's beauty and the communities in which we live.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

K. HOWELL: Speaker, in just a few short days, municipalities across the province will meet for the first ever Municipal Awareness Week from May 9-13.

In previous years, we have celebrated Municipal Awareness Day. This year, in partnership with Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador and the Professional Municipal Administrators of Newfoundland and Labrador, we are designating a full week to celebrate and acknowledge the importance of local governance to residents all across the province.

Municipal government is responsible for providing critical services that enhance the quality of life for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Dedicated mayors, councillors, staff and volunteers are essential for the effective governance of municipalities. Their work, supported by the collaboration and partnership and involvement of residents is essential for active, sustainable and vibrant communities.

Providing stability and predictability for municipalities is so important. With this in mind, Budget 2022 provides more than $141 million to maintain key programs such as the Special Assistance Grants, the Community Enhancement Employment Program, the Canada Community-Building Fund and not less than $22 million per year for Municipal Operating Grants for at least the next three years.

Speaker, cities and towns are busy organizing various activities for Municipal Awareness Week and I encourage my hon. colleagues and all residents to take some time next week to recognize the contribution of all those working in municipal sectors and to participate in activities that municipal councils will be hosting to mark this inaugural event.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

J. WALL: Thank you, Speaker.

And I would like to thank the hon. minister for an advance copy of her statement.

Speaker, my colleagues in the Official Opposition join the minister in celebrating the first ever Municipal Awareness Week. As a former mayor myself of my beautiful hometown of Pouch Cove, I understand first-hand the important role that individuals play at the municipal level, whether as a mayor, councillor, staff member, firefighter or community volunteer.

Speaker, these are the individuals who are often the first point of contact for an issue with any level of government or to organize a sports team, a recreation activity in their community, or to answer the call in the time of trouble. We all owe a debt of gratitude to these individuals who offer themselves to their communities, often for decades, with little or no remuneration.

This is why, under the regionalization plan which was announced by the minister, we need some fundamental questions answered: How much is it going to cost; what will be the new services that will be provided; what will the model look like? These are recurring questions that I have heard from residents all over the province that need to be answered as we look upon the importance of municipalities.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

We take this opportunity to thank those who serve in local governance, all our elected officials and employees. While municipalities are called upon to provide so many basic services, they often lack the funding and resources to do so. Therefore, we are calling on government to enter into more cost-sharing initiatives with municipalities and explore new ways for them to raise the much-needed funds themselves.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Are there any further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Speaker.

Thirty-four community organizations and health care providers have signed a letter calling on the Liberal government to increase access to rapid tests. In particular, for seniors, vulnerable people, and low-wage workers.

I ask the Premier: Will this government listen to these organizations or ignore them?

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

J. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

We have a rapid test kit distribution program, which is done under the guidance of Public Health. We get a small but steady supply from the federal government, and those are allocated to areas where Public Health feels they will do the most good: daycares, educational establishments, personal care homes, congregate living settings and the like. We keep a small reserve against the next wave and we use what we get, Mr. Speaker. This is all done on the advice of Public Health.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Speaker.

For those who can't afford to buy the rapid tests, this is a way to release their anxiety and to address their particular health needs.

Speaker, for seniors, vulnerable people and low-wage workers, access to rapid tests is essential. Wide access to rapid tests, like in other provinces, can help people determine their level of risk and help them keep themselves and their community safe.

I ask the Premier: Will this government invest in making the tools more readily available?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the minister suggested, we are in constant conversation with Public Health, Dr. Fitzgerald and her team as to how to best use these tests. I think it has been proven that how we've used this test to date has gotten us to a good point in this pandemic, Mr. Speaker.

Other jurisdictions have offered them broadly and they've had to roll back, Mr. Speaker. So some of the points made by the Member opposite aren't accurate today. They tried to provide them broadly. They couldn't provide them broadly and they recognized that it didn't actually achieve the goal that they set out to do. We are constantly re-evaluating how we provide those tests to the public, whether it's through the education system or beyond and we will continue to do so in consultation with Dr. Fitzgerald and her team, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Speaker.

We are hearing from thousands or Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, particularly those vulnerable in low incomes, and I know the other Members in this House must be hearing it too, where they would benefit from access to rapid testing, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier removed COVID-19 restrictions but has not provided the tools needed by seniors and vulnerable people to navigate this new normal. In other provinces, if a senior wants to visit family, they can take a rapid test for some sense of assurance. There is no such option here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask the Premier: Why are seniors and vulnerable populations being forced to pay out of pocket for what they can receive for free elsewhere in Canada?

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

J. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Speaker.

The rapid test policy approach is determined by Public Health. We also have what is one of the more liberal PCR and rapid PCR testing programs. So if a person is concerned about their COVID status or exposure, they can follow that flow chart. If they need a PCR, rapid or otherwise, it will be provided and it will be free of charge. If they do not need one, Mr. Speaker, they do not need one.

The rapid test kits that are available, are available where they will do the most use for the most people and we keep a small supply against the next wave, 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 would think the most vulnerable would even accept a Liberal test if they could get one, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: Taxi operators are struggling with rising costs of fuel and high costs of insurance. They are asking for support but so far the government is not taking action.

I ask the Premier: What are you doing to support taxi operators so they will be ready to welcome visitors during Come Home Year?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

As I said in the House before, we are happy to meet with the taxis, and we did. The minister and I spent half an hour with several of the members of the taxi community and we talked with them about solutions, about how to better their employment opportunities for their drivers, how to streamline it within the department of motor vehicle registration and how to make it more affordable for their drivers to get access to the employment opportunities that they provide.

I'm happy to say it was a positive meeting, we both took away action items and the minister has agreed to further those action items, Mr. Speaker. It was a positive meeting with a good outcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Speaker.

I hope we move this in a timely fashion, because the Come Home Year is coming here and it's very important to us promoting our tourism here and the expats want to come home. But more importantly it's to the thousands of people who work in the taxi industry and what that means to our economy. That's more important at this point right now.

Speaker, taxi operators are treated differently than anyone else and have only one option for insurance. This means higher costs for companies, which trickles down to higher costs for seniors and people who rely on taxis for trips to grocery stores or to medical appointments. It's one more way the cost of living continues to increase in our province for those who can't afford it, or can afford it the least.

I ask the Premier: When will you act to support the taxi industry and those who rely on it, particularly around the cost of insurance?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said in my previous answer we've worked with the taxi community to ensure that we can help, using government tools to make it more affordable for them and the taxis that are on the road. We appreciate the service they provide; we appreciate their contribution to the economy; we appreciate their contribution to Come Home Year and their importance in that.

That's why we had the meeting with them, when they requested it, and we are actioning several items that came out of that, Mr. Speaker, which will ultimately make it more affordable for them and the drivers on the road. It was the ideas they suggested, not the ones that we brought to the table. We're happy to act on them, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Just recently the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association spoke to the huge backlog in surgeries in this province, approaching 7,000 in St. John's alone. The Medical Association has called on government to set a target date for bringing this backlog down to pre-pandemic level.

I ask the minister: Will he agree to establish a target date that can give some assurance to patients that there is hope of timely surgery?

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

J. HAGGIE: Thank you, Speaker.

From personal experience, waiting for surgery can be a worrisome time and we are certainly keen to do anything and everything that's reasonable to help remediate this. This is a situation that affects all of Canada; there are 35,000 people in Regina alone on a surgical wait-list at the moment.

We are in the process of setting up a meeting between my department and the Medical Association to share that information so we can get everybody on the same page. We need to work with the clinicians, with the physicians and Eastern Health to prioritize those patients, to come up with a plan, to put the resources in place and to get this off the ground. We're committed to do that, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

The Official Opposition has called for updates on surgical wait times on multiple occasions. The minister today is downplaying that severity. He talks about other provinces. We're concerned about this province. I was elected by the people of this province to look after the people in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. DINN: The minister has written the NLMA agreeing to meet on this problem, and it's a long-standing issue.

I ask the minister: Why does it fall on the physicians to update on this surgery backlog, rather than his own department?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, certainly I can appreciate and empathize, as the minister has, with people who are on wait-lists. Certainly, I can feel that frustration as a former surgeon myself, having to tell patients that their surgeries are delayed.

That said, we already have a meeting scheduled with the NLMA this week to further discuss this particular topic, Mr. Speaker. As we've done in the past, we're willing to work collaboratively with the NLMA. This is not an adversarial relationship. We all want what's best. We all want to eliminate the barriers for patients to get the care that they require, whether that's surgical or nonsurgical services, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

It's encouraging to hear that they're going to meet. I mean, this just didn't happen overnight. This should have been happening long ago, meeting to deal with this.

The backlog of surgeries had a real impact on people both physically and mentally. The NLMA has called for an online dashboard to report the number of backlog surgeries in our province and asked for it to be updated monthly.

Will the minister commit to this request?

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

J. HAGGIE: Thank you, Speaker.

Certainly, sharing of data is key in this exercise. In actual fact, prior to COVID, I had a very initial meeting with the NLMA around the numbers and the data. I think it's important that we all get on the same page. Our different sources of data may have some gaps and overlap.

In terms of how this is reported, the NLMA may have a view on how they would like that done and we would certainly not want to put anything up there that would cause them challenges, beyond what they face already.

As the Premier says, this is a collaborative approach, we've met with them, as we did with the College of Family Practitioners earlier this week, and everybody is on the same page. We need to work together to fix this and we're prepared to do that.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Speaker.

I have a quote from last year from the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality regarding pay equity legislation. It's something that we certainly are committed to do.

I'm going to keep this question a simple yes or no: Will the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality table pay equity legislation in this sitting of the House of Assembly?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am happy to say this is the first time I've ever seen women's issues raised at prominently as they have been for this sitting. I am happy to see that and to thank the hon. Member, of course.

As we know, pay equity has certainly been the topic of conversation throughout this sitting. I'm happy to say work continues. It's across government. The Department of Justice is involved. Treasury Board is involved and, of course, Women and Gender Equality and the labour division. So it's something that is ongoing.

I also want to remind the hon. Member that simple pay equity legislation is not a silver bullet that is going to change or solve overnight the gender wage gap. That is the unfortunate. I think everybody is missing the definition. I encourage everybody to read up on the definitions of pay equity and the gender wage gap.

What is important is that we are doing concrete things to get women into the workforce and to negotiate –

SPEAKER: The minister's time has expired.

P. PARSONS: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Speaker, the minister seems to defer authority to other departments. So let's see who has the authority.

I ask the Minister Responsible for Labour: Will you table pay equity legislation in this sitting of the House of Assembly, yes or no?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, and Responsible for Labour.

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

As my previous colleague had said, it is a discussion that we are always having with respect to departments. It's multidepartmental. It's an issue that is facing many jurisdictions across this country and across this globe. We're going to continue to work together to try to find solutions to better improve the aspects for pay equity right across this province and, hopefully, get to a place where it's equitable across all parts of our province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Speaker, again, empty words about ongoing discussions.

I ask the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board: Will you table pay equity legislation in this sitting of the House of Assembly, yes or no?

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

S. COADY: Thank you very much, Speaker.

This is a very important topic. It is an important topic for women and I do believe for men as well. I will say, Speaker, that the Job Evaluation System that has been long adopted within government ensures a level and equal playing field across all of government. So the Job Evaluation System has been well established within government for, I would say, at least decades. I think that is very important to ensure that we have equity and equality across employment throughout the civil services.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: So, Speaker, still no commitment to table pay equity legislation it appears.

Speaker, I've also been hearing from employees of Eastern Health, for example, who work alongside males with the same roles and responsibilities, and one women in particular feels she's paid less because she's a woman. I've also heard from an executive-level employee of a government Crown corporation who feels she also is financially discriminated against because of her gender.

I ask the minister: Why are you ignoring concerns of these women?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I will read this into the record, of course, for the hon. Member: Newfoundland and Labrador has reactive pay equity legislation in place and it's via the Labour Standards Act and the Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Act is complaints-based legislation that prohibits discrimination in employment, including pay rates and gender.

So there certainly are recourses that can be taken here in this province. Again, as my hon. colleague said, there is no discrimination for wages in the public service.

I will say, the onus is on everyone: private sector, public sector, across Newfoundland and Labrador and the country, for that matter, to do what we can to help close the gender wage gap. Because the gender wage gap is what the Member's referring to, it's not pay equity. Pay equity is not the silver bullet and will not make the gender wage gap close overnight. We all know that, we see that here in Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec, Ontario and across the world.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: The minister's time is expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.

It's important that the people out there watching this on our TV channel realize that's why it's called Question Period, because you just don't get any answers.

Speaker, right now, people in this province are struggling with the high cost of living.

I simply ask the minister: Why does she refuse to listen to her own constituents and to people of Newfoundland and Labrador who are asking for a home heat rebate program?

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

S. COADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We certainly want to always have a respectful workplace in this environment.

I will say this is a very serious and difficult situation for the people of the province, indeed provincially, globally and, nationally, a difficult situation. We all know what's happening around the world, and coming out of a pandemic has exasperated the situation. That's why we put $142 million in the budget to assist people.

The Member continues to refer to the home heat rebate program that was rolled into the Income Supplement and the Seniors' Benefit, which both have been increased by 10 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, the minister talks about a program that was rolled in when the price of home heat fuel was about 70-something cents a litre. It's three times that right now. Home heating fuel, gasoline prices, rising food prices, they're all hurting people of the province. The five-point plan or the cost-of-living plan that was introduced pre-budget, that's not working, that's not making it work. The budget, it's not hitting its targets.

So, again, I ask the minister: How high must fuel prices go or home heating prices go before the minister will intercede?

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

S. COADY: Thank you very much, Speaker.

I will say that $142 million has been contributed back to the people of the province, and that is significant. Would we like to do more? Of course we would like to do more; of course we would like to do more.

I've heard the Member opposite refer to Alberta, for example. We're doing every bit as much as Alberta is doing when they eliminated their provincial gasoline tax – this is equivalent to the provincial gasoline tax.

Will we continue to see what more we can do? It really depends on the revenues of government, Speaker. As you know, in this budget, we have no revenue increases, no fee increases, no tax increases, Speaker, all that. And we still have a $351-million deficit and a $17-billion debt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, I'm amazed that the minister can stand up and say there are no tax increases, when they are about to implement a sugar tax and we just had an increase in the carbon tax. Again, the minister loves to give excuses as to why she can't take any action. A lot of times she blames Ottawa.

I ask the minister: Have you talked to your federal counterpart about making changes to the carbon tax, or making changes to the HST so we're not paying tax on tax?

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

S. COADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I certainly will say again, a respectful workplace environment is required in this House of Assembly.

I will say that, yes, I have spoken with the ministers across the country, all the Finance ministers across the country. I've spoken with the federal Finance minister as well and deputy prime minister about these very important issues. Of course, everyone is concerned across the country on cost of living and the cost of fuel. Everyone in the country is concerned about that. I'd say everyone in the world, if you listen to the news coming out of the United States, Speaker.

But I will say that, yes, at the Council of the Federation table, the premiers across the country did petition the federal government on the carbon tax. It is a federal tax to address climate change and they declined to move on that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, we're into the month of May and few, if any, provincial road tenders are out. The minister allowed the last five-year road program to expire and promised a new plan last fall.

When are we going to see it?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

E. LOVELESS: Over the next few days.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN: He almost eliminated the rest of my questions, but I'm going to keep going, because he promised this several weeks ago, it was imminent and contractors are still waiting, Mr. Speaker. I think this bears repeating.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

B. PETTEN: Speaker, I've not seen so few tenders out in the first week of May. Contractors are anxiously trying to plan their construction season. We're into May. While people on their crews are facing no income and employment insurance benefits are running out.

Again, how does the minister expect small businesses and families to survive when he can't get the tenders out to do the work?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

E. LOVELESS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A very important question, but there are tenders that have already gone out the door. We've consulted very closely with the NLCA, which is important communication. I've talked to contractors as well. At this moment, everybody seems to be pleased. When we roll out the roads plan, I'm sure people will be getting to work. There will be jobs in this province.

I say to the hon. Member, if you're going to ask me a question you need to listen because it's important. Jobs will be created when the standards come out –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

E. LOVELESS: – over the next coming weeks. We look forward to the work that's going to be done on our roads in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He must be talking to the roads people up in Ontario, not the crowd around here, not the Newfoundland crowd we're talking to. They're pretty upset. Actually, they're reaching out to us. I'm not sure who he's talking to but they are talking to the right people. We can bring it up here in the House of Assembly and bring it up in the right venue.

Speaker, the minister has about an extra $10 million this year and there's no shortage of need. Just ask the residents of the Baie Verte Peninsula, Terra Nova, Indian Meal Line and Route 60.

Again, companies are ready; workers are ready. Why are you not, Minister?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

E. LOVELESS: I make no apologies for doing due diligence. The Member opposite knows the challenges and so does some of his caucus Members, because I've had a lot of conversations over there with their districts.

We have a challenge in Baie Verte, yes, we do. He didn't mention Route 360, which is my district as well. There's a challenge down there. There are challenges in many areas of the province. We have work that's required, but the need far exceeds what we have in terms of –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

E. LOVELESS: So he stands in eagerness of hearing an answer but when he gets the answer that he don't want to hear, he doesn't listen to it.

We look forward to the roads plan. There will be roadwork done throughout the province, but we're doing due diligence because we want to be responsible with taxpayers' dollars.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: I remind the minister that conversations and research isn't action. Action is needed on a lot of roads throughout the entire province, with the exception of the three previous ministers.

Speaker, the Minister of Health boasts about collaborative care. I have an individual who lives in Charlottetown in my district. His family physician was in Clarenville. Every specialist he's ever seen has been under Eastern Health. This individual has lost his family physician. He reached out to Eastern Health for a collaborative care clinic and he was told he could not access a collaborative care clinic based on where he lived.

How does this make sense?

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

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

Patient Connect NL is the registration portal. It's currently active for Eastern Health, and that is currently a geographically defined area. Patient Connect NL for Central and Western will be up and running within the next six to eight weeks. At that point, the gentleman can seek registration through there.

In terms of interim measures, 811 is available. There are nurse practitioners available for virtual consults. There are hubs in Gander, there are hubs in Grand Falls-Windsor and we will be working with Eastern Health to set up something similar in the way of collaborative team clinics in Clarenville.

More is coming, Mr. Speaker and there's money in the budget (inaudible).

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The minister's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: I'd encourage the minister to call 811 himself. I would also say this person, individual, has been under Eastern Health's care from the time he was born up until now, and now he's being denied access. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, I have countless seniors and professional drivers in my district who have contacted my office stating they cannot renew their driver's licence. There is no accessible transportation in my district. They cannot renew it because they cannot access a physician. They can't get it through 811 and they can't get it through a collaborative care clinic.

Mr. Speaker: How does the minister think that this is acceptable?

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

J. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Speaker.

The agreement with the Medical Association and the physicians of this province relate solely to insured services that are covered by MCP. Drivers' medicals are not. The NLMA have never brought this up as becoming an insured service.

Certainly, the Member highlights an issue. We'd be happy to work with him and his constituents if he would provide us with details and we'll see what we can do to help them.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

Yesterday, the minister said in the media that equal pay legislation is not a silver bullet and referenced Ontario, who has already put the legislation in place, as having one of the largest gender gaps in the country. However, for every dollar earned by male counterparts, women in Ontario earn 89 cents. But here in our province, women only earn 66 cents on the man's dollar.

I ask the minister: What message does she think she's sending to women and gender-diverse groups in this province?

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I thank the hon. Member and thank you for the attention on these topics. I would ask the Member to check her facts to see if those statistics are indeed accurate.

But I will say, I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I didn't reflect upon the Member's statements yesterday, how I was very disheartened and disappointed to see her comments to denounce child care and the advancements that have been made. What a slap in the face to women it certainly was.

She is completely out of line with her party because I know that the party she sits with has been a long-time advocate for accessible, affordable child care in this province. And, Mr. Speaker, it is indeed good child care that is going to help get women back in to be competitive in the workforce, which is one of the barriers that we are taking down as a Liberal government here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I actually take offence to that.

I was pointing out the difference between child care for all families and single parents and, basically, equal pay so women don't, actually, earn 66 cents on the male dollar. Really, honestly, I take offence in what she is implying and basically is putting women against women. It's putting women against women and that's not my intent, Mr. Speaker.

This is a very serious issue that the whole province needs to actually stand up and say: women need to be treated fairly.

Mr. Speaker, the government says they are paving the way for other provinces to take the lead in new initiative. Yet, currently, the only province in Atlantic Canada without pay legislation and currently has the largest gender gap in this country is our province.

So I ask the minister: Isn't 40 years long enough to close the wage gap?

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: Thank you and, again, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the attention to the topic.

Again, it's going to take concrete steps – what we're seeing. This government invested $750,000 not a year ago into Sandpiper Ventures, a capital venture that is strictly aimed – it is mandated to support women in the tech sector, the growing tech sector, I might add, here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Again, child care: this gets women back in – and the reason why we see such a large, wide gender wage gap is because women are the caregivers and we know that. Traditionally, since the world began, women are the ones who take care of children and take care of aging parents. So we need to do what we can to get people, to get women back in the workforce.

That is exactly what we are doing with the Premier's gender round table and, of course, every initiative that we are making we are committed to doing everything we can. Those conversations and that work is ongoing every day. I hope the Member can understand it and she is welcome to come over and join the conversation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we've recently heard in the media the Privacy Commissioner talking about the fact that he's had to go to court to fight this government on the ability to be able to see information which, by all accounts, should be public information. The government is hiding behind client-solicitor privilege on everything.

I can remember being on this side of the House when Members over there were showing – as of Bill 29, blacked-out pieces of paper and so on. And now they're doing the exact same thing.

So I ask the government: Will you take the advice of the Privacy Commissioner and stop hiding behind client-solicitor privilege and make changes to legislation, if necessary, to eliminate that loophole that's currently being used by this government?

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

As the Member points out, that matter was before the court and it continues to be before the court, as it is headed to the Court of Appeal in this province, so I won't comment any further on that, other than to say that the Trial Division decision did follow the precedent set by the Supreme Court of Canada. I respect the decision of the Trial Division and we will respect the decision of the Court of Appeal as well.

With regard to any issues ongoing with ATIPPA, we received, in the last several months, a report from former Chief Justice Orsborn to review the ATIPPA legislation. The Department of Justice and Public Safety is currently reviewing his recommendations, which includes recommendations on solicitor-client privilege. When that review is done we will bring any proposed amendments to the House of Assembly for discussion.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The reason why it's before the court is because this government brought it before the court. Prior to that, it was not an issue. So they've created the problem, now they're hiding behind what they created.

Mr. Speaker, I've had numerous people continue to reach out to me about provision of rapid antigen tests. Almost every province in the country are providing them free of charge to the general public, you can pick them up at public libraries or clinics or retail locations. Not so here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and citizens who are already stretched with the price of gas, the price of food, the price of home heat have an additional burden placed upon them to have to pay anywhere from $15 to $20 for a rapid antigen test. Many of these people want to do it because they obviously have immunocompromised family members and so on that they want to protect.

I ask the government: Will they reverse this decision and make rapid antigen tests available to the general public?

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

J. HAGGIE: Thank you, Speaker.

We have a very open policy for PCRs and rapid PCRs, and the flow chart on the website allows any individual who's concerned about their health to go through that. If they need a PCR – rapid or otherwise – it is available at no charge. There is no cost to the individual.

If someone doesn't need a test according to that flow chart, then it's not medically necessary in the views of Public Health and we do not provide it. If people choose to spend their money on rapid tests, that is an individual choice, over which we have no opinion one way or another.

We have a limited supply which we are using in guidance of Public Health and we continue to keep a small stockpile against the next wave.

Thank you, Speaker.

SPEAKER: Time for Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will now rule on the point of privilege raised by the Member of Humber - Bay of Islands on May 2, 2022.

In Chapter 3 of Bosc and Gagnon, 3rd edition, it states that: “A complaint on a matter of privilege must satisfy two conditions before it can be accorded precedence over the Orders of the Day. First, the Speaker must be convinced that a prima facie case of breach of privilege has been made and, second, the matter must be raised at the earliest opportunity.”

In reviewing this matter, I am satisfied that the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands has met the second condition noted above. That is, the matter has been raised at the earliest opportunity.

The other condition outlined in the authorities is that the Speaker must be convinced that a prima facie case of breach of privilege has been made.

In Parliamentary Immunity in Canada, 2016, Joseph Maingot provides a practical definition of parliamentary privilege: “If someone improperly interferes with the parliamentary work of a Member of Parliament – i.e., any of the Member's activities that have a connection with a proceeding in Parliament – that is a matter involving parliamentary privilege.”

In order for me to find that a prima facie, or on first impression, breach of the Member's privileges, the Member must be clear as to how his privileges as a Member have been impacted; that is, how his work as a parliamentarian has been impeded.

I draw Members' attention to Part II of the House of Assembly Act, which is the law passed in this Legislature to address issues around Member's conflict of interest. The statute is very clear. All Members must file their financial disclosures and the Commissioner has the right and the responsibility under the law to request the information he deems necessary to assist Members in fulfilling their statutory duties. The Commissioner also has the legal authority to issue a report to this House where such information is not received.

The Commissioner has issued such a report under the authority of the House of Assembly Act and it is this report that is the subject of the Member's point of privilege.

The Commissioner has a duty and responsibility given to him by the Legislature under the duly enacted law. He has issued reports regarding compliance of the Member with statutory requirements. In his point of privilege, the Member argues that the report impacts his reputation. However, any impact on the reputation of a Member further to such a report may be a consequence of the operation of the law itself. It is not a breach of that Member's parliamentary privileges.

I note that the tabling of this report triggers a requirement by the House to deal with this in a prescribed time frame. In light of that, I feel it is incumbent on me to clarify three misleading comments made by the Member in his point of privilege.

One, in his argument, the Member cites the Conflict of Interest Act. This is incorrect. The applicable legislation is the Part II of the House of Assembly Act. I note that the relevant provisions of the act are outlined in the Commissioner's report and they include definitions that are somewhat different from those cited in the Member's point of privilege.

Secondly, the Member stated that, “I must remind the Members of this House of Assembly that the findings of the Joyce Report of 2018 were proven false by a Supreme Court decision.” This is also false. Out of respect and in deference to the court, I must clarify that there has been no Supreme Court decision regarding The Joyce Report of 2018.

In the point of privilege, the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands discusses personal financial information and references a private interest in a company. I would like to bring to the attention of Members that no such reference was made by the Commissioner. Further, the Commissioner's report does not disclose the Member's personal financial information.

Conflict of interest is a serious matter, particularly for elected officials. The statutory financial disclosure requirements of the House of Assembly Act are fundamental to the conflict of interest analysis that this House, by law, we asked the Commissioner to complete this report. All Members, including myself, are familiar with and must abide by these requirements. They are intended to provide the public with confidence in us as elected officials and to protect the integrity of our political system. A report respecting the compliance of a Member with these requirements does not, in and of itself, breach the privilege of that Member.

Therefore, I rule that there is no prima facie point of privilege.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

SPEAKER: Order, please!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Speaker, I give notice on tomorrow I will move the following motion:

THAT this House concur in the report of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards entitled the Joyce Report, April 12, 2022;

AND THAT the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands is directed to submit the required information to the Commissioner for Legislative Standards within seven business days of the adoption of this resolution;

AND THAT should the information not be submitted, in accordance with paragraph 45(1)(c) of the House of Assembly Act, the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands be suspended from the House of Assembly;

AND THAT the said suspension be without pay and shall continue until such a time that the Commissioner for Legislative Standards advises the Speaker that the statutory obligations referenced in the report have been met.

SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

The reason for the petition, again, is to increase the support for Labrador West seniors.

Reasons for the petition:

The need for senior accessible housing and home care services in Labrador West is steadily increasing. Life-long residents of the region are facing the possibility of needing to leave their homes in order to afford to live and receive adequate care. Additional housing options, including assisted living care facilities like those found throughout the rest of the province, for seniors have become a requirement for Labrador West. That requirement is currently not being met.

WHEREAS the seniors of our province are entitled to peace and comfort in their homes where they have spent a lifetime contributing to its prosperity and growth.

WHEREAS the means for the increased number of seniors in Labrador West to happily age in place are currently not available in the region.

WHEREUPON we the undersigned, your petitioners, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to allow seniors in Labrador West to age in place by providing affordable housing options for seniors and assisted living care facilities for those requiring care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

J. BROWN: Once again I bring this petition to the House on behalf of the seniors and the residents of Labrador West. Those who have signed it actually have said to me one day I'll be a senior in Labrador West. So once again we're asking that the residents of Labrador West, their concerns around seniors' care, housing and that be addressed in a timely fashion.

These people built Labrador West. They continue to live there. They have their families there. They have their lives there. It's just a cruel thing to think about that some of the people, in the back of their mind, are going: At some point I'm going to have to leave this region, be away from my children, my grandchildren, their friends and the community that they helped build.

It's not just the next community over like you'd find somewhere on the Island where you're 10 minutes away, five minutes away, so on and so forth. This is hours upon hours away if you're driving. In some cases, it's thousands and thousands of dollars for airline tickets if the grandkids want to go see Nan and Pop.

So this is the thing that we're facing in Labrador West is the lack of care. Home care is basically non-existent, we do not have a personal care home and what we have in long-term care right now is very insufficient of the currently growing need.

There was a report done in the early 2000s that talked about there was going to be an explosion of seniors in Labrador West, and the report was absolutely correct. We have a massive amount of senior population in the region, and they don't want to go. They don't want to be forced out of their homes, out of their community, because of something that every other place in this province gets to enjoy the fact that many other regions have the ability for personal care homes, care attendants and all that.

So this is what we're asking for now, to be treated fairly and equitably among that.

Thank you, Speaker, for this.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the reasons for this petition are as follows:

The residents of South West Arm are troubled with the unsafe conditions of the road and lack of maintenance to the roads that are maintained by Transportation and Infrastructure.

Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to repair and maintain the roads to a standard that are safe for travel by all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, South West Arm is a pretty important part of my district. It's made up of multiple communities. When you drive down that highway, you quickly see how unsafe it's become. I say tongue-in-cheek, but it's a very true story that the guardrails are asleep. There's no way that it could be anything else because, obviously, Transportation and Infrastructure would have removed them, if they had just fallen over. They must be just laid down sleeping. Because they're all lying down. And it's extremely dangerous conditions.

You're talking about some of the sharpest turns – literally, a hairpin turn they call the S turn – and the guardrails are falling down. And they've been that way for four years. There has been multiple pictures sent; the road is in massive disrepair, potholes. What's most troubling to me is that we've gotten to a point where we have fish trucks that refuse to go down over the road to collect fish.

Now, millions and millions of dollars worth of business happens down there, and the fish trucks will not go collect the fish. You've got to think about that. How can we just allow that to happen? I mean, it's an entire region of the province. On top of that we have a school down there, Southwest Arm Academy. Partway up the road to South West Arm, students go to Clarenville and then the rest of them go down to Southwest Arm Academy. The kids that go to Clarenville, they miss about half as much school as Southwest Arm Academy.

That's because the roads are not maintained. Now, I've had a conversation with the minister and he knows full well we have staff from Transportation and Infrastructure that have reached out to my office and told me their concerns with the road, the lack of maintenance, the type of sand that's used for winter maintenance, but it's more about the potholes and what they could do. The other thing is that we have individuals who work with the department who drive that road every single day to and from work. They understand the issues; they've highlighted the issues. The department is doing nothing about them.

So we have a Department of Transportation and Infrastructure truck that drives from the end of South West Arm to the depot and back on a daily basis, every single day. So it's impossible for me to believe that Transportation and Infrastructure doesn't understand these problems. Plus, my office has sent hundreds of pictures, videos and all kinds of drone footage to get this fixed. Not a response; it stays the same. Signage is falling over, but what's most troubling is how dangerous this road is. It should not take somebody getting incredibly hurt or killed in order for this to get fixed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Speaker.

These are the reasons for this petition:

The safety of 400-plus workers at the OCI plant in Bonavista who cross the poorly marked crosswalk on Campbell Street in Bonavista, a minimum of four times a day, is a major safety concern. Adding to this issue are the poor sightlines for drivers when approaching the crosswalk. Many thousands of tourists as well travel this street during plant production season, with the vast majority of whom are unaware of the area's safety risk.

We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately address the safety concern at this crosswalk by erecting amber lighting and, thus, creating a safer environment for the workers crossing this busy street.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, there are many demands on TI for safety issues on our roadwork. We have 400-plus employees, 65 of which are senior citizens, who work at OCI. Four times a day they cross the plant to get to their parking lot, back and forth. Sometimes we default that when we look at the Janeway and compare it to the Miller Centre, we see that there's quite a dichotomy of facility and services sometimes that's provided in those two elements.

I would say we have a safety issue of which pertains to a senior population that we have in Bonavista. The sightlines on this street are very poor. If you ever travel to historic Bonavista, you know that many tourists travel there for the first time and many would be passing through Campbell Street to head to Church Street in the heart of town. The sightlines aren't great. The paint we use on our crosswalks doesn't last. I'm not sure, if I speculated, lasting two weeks, but they certainly don't last a season and sometimes they're not painted until the end of the tourism season.

Amber lighting – I would like for the TI officials to have a look at this particular crosswalk, have a look at the crosswalk, do an analysis of it and then see what the safety issue would be while the plant is in production. Because our goal would be to make sure that people remain safe, those that are driving the economy in the District of Bonavista, and I think the amber lighting will certainly help improve the safety of those at the OCI plant in Bonavista.

Thank you very much, Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Speaker.

The background to this petition is as follows:

The Witless Bay Line is a significant piece of infrastructure. Whereas many commute outside the Avalon on a daily basis for work as well as commercial, residential and tourism growth in our region has increased the volume of traffic on this highway.

Therefore, we petition the House of Assembly as follows: We urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade this significant piece of infrastructure to enhance and improve the flow of traffic to and from the Trans-Canada Highway.

Speaker, I have mentioned this many times, as you know, in the House bringing up Witless Bay Line and the conditions of the roads. This time of the year we have crab trucks that are transporting crab from the Southern Shore – right from Petty Harbour, right to Trepassey, St. Shott's area that they drive across Witless Bay Line. It's a shorter distance for them when they are leaving these fishing ports. It's critical that they have some good infrastructure to go on.

I mean, you drive these roads and it's incredible how bad they are. I think one of the first times that the survey for the conditions of the roads in Atlantic Canada, when it first came out, I am going to say the first time it happened, the Witless Bay Line was on the top 10 list. So it was an original list that eventually started. It was one of the first roads that were on it from Newfoundland and Labrador and it hasn't changed since then. We've done a couple of kilometres in there – four kilometres – and there's more work needs to be done.

We have people that use it for towing trailers and campers across the Witless Bay Line and they decide to go out around, go out through the Goulds, go out the Goulds Bypass, come in the Trans-Canada rather than go across the Witless Bay Line. So there is something that should be looked at.

I know that they are in there putting some cold patch down, but it's only a temporary fix. Then the winter comes and the plows hit it and all of a sudden all the cold patch is gone again. So it's something that I would love for the minister – hopefully it's in his budget this year – to be able to do something with the roads in the district.

Thank you so much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.

These are the reasons for this petition:

The Local Service District of West Bay and the Town of Lourdes have an agreement in place for the extension of water services to West Bay. They applied for funding through the Canada Community-Building Fund but when the water service was tested, it didn't meet the federal standard resulting in the rejection of the application. The water service does meet the provincial standard and the communities still agree in principle on extending the water supply into West Bay, pending funding.

Therefore we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: To urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to secure funding through the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure to ensure safe drinking water for the residents of West Bay.

Speaker, one of the principles of the Health Accord talks about the social determinants of health. One of the social determinants of health is clean drinking water. Unfortunately, the community of West Bay has no drinking water. In 2022, the Local Service District of West Bay has access to no drinking water. They do not have a water system.

The Town of Lourdes has a system that was designed with enough capacity to take on the community of West Bay. They have an agreement in place to make that happen. What they need is the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to provide the funding necessary for this to take place.

Every summer, they wind up carrying water from household to household just to do the basic necessities of life. There's a real opportunity here, when we talk about regionalization and moving forward for two communities who have an opportunity to share a water system, to make that happen.

I urge government, whether it's Municipal Affairs, whether it's Transportation and Infrastructure, to make this happen. Let's fund the water system, the extension, so that the people of West Bay can have access to clean drinking water.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper first reading of Bill 55.

Mr. 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 Life Insurance Act, Bill 55, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Life Insurance Act, Bill 55, 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.'

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The Life Insurance Act,” carried. (Bill 55)

CLERK (Barnes): A bill, An Act To Amend The Life Insurance Act. (Bill 55)

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 55 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. 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 Condominiums Act, 2009, Bill 56, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Condominiums Act, 2009, Bill 56, and the 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.'

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. Minister of Digital Government and Service NL to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The Condominiums Act, 2009,” carried. (Bill 56)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Condominiums Act, 2009. (Bill 56)

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 56 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000, Bill 58, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000, Bill 58, and that the 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.'

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000,” carried. (Bill 58)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000. (Bill 58)

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 58 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, pursuant to Standing Order 11(1) that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m., today, Tuesday, May 3.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Speaker.

I move, notwithstanding Standing Order 9, that this House shall not adjourn at 5 p.m. on Wednesday, May 4, 2022, but shall continue to sit for to conduct Government Business and, if not earlier adjourned, the Speaker shall adjourn the House at midnight.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 1.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have, I think, four minutes left over from yesterday that I didn't get to use.

Mr. Speaker, the first thing I just want to say is I just got a message here from a constituent. This is just information for the House and the minister responsible for Tourism, I guess, about this Turo, which is being promoted. It's the Turo program. I've had someone reach out to me who said that they went to their insurance company about having their car as part of this Turo program and they've been told by their insurance company that they could end up with their car insurance cancelled.

I'm not sure if the minister and the government is aware of this issue. He is suggesting that there may be some kind of an amendment or something required to some regulations to allow this to happen, perhaps, or maybe it's just not going to happen. But I know that the government has been, I believe – the minister has been and others – promoting this idea and so on. While it may have seemed like a good thing, apparently there's a significant challenge. So nobody is going to put their car forward for tourists, if they're going to get their insurance cancelled as a result. I thought I would just put it out there for the information of the House in case they weren't aware.

Obviously, I only have a couple of minutes left here so I'll just go back to where I was my first time I spoke and it kind of ties into the emergency debate that my colleagues in the Official Opposition put forward, the motion for yesterday, and certainly it has dominated Question Period.

Just to add my voice on behalf of people I represent, Mr. Speaker, there are two things I have been bombarded with: issues around health care, family doctors, collaborative clinics and I could go on and on and on about that one, perhaps I will have another opportunity, but the other thing is the cost of living. Government keeps going back to the five-point plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The level of conversation is too loud.

P. LANE: And just to, I suppose, add the voice of my constituents, not just me and my personal opinion but people who I represent. I am getting the calls and the messages, as are all Members, and government needs to realize that the five-point plan helped some people: people at the very, very lowest end.

Again, if you are a senior citizen, as an example, who worked your whole life, maybe you have a few RRSPs, maybe you have a small pension or something, you got nothing. There's noting in it, like zero, zilch. If you are somebody who is working at a minimum wage job or a little better than a minimum wage job and you're barely struggling to survive: you got nothing. A lot of people – this house insurance, they don't own a house. They don't have tenant insurance. It's doing absolutely nothing for the average working person.

That is what, I believe, my colleagues over here, all around me, have been saying over and over again. I'm sure we understand it. I understand that we're strapped financially, I get it, but it is one thing to try to get the province on an even keel and there is another thing about having to care for the people that are living in this province. People are really struggling to survive, they really are.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I can't hear the Member speak.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the protection.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about these issues and we look at the soaring price at the pumps. I mean, my God, we're well over $2 a litre at the pumps. Whoever thought that would happen? The cost of home heating fuel, the price of groceries, people are really, really struggling. Particularly the people who are not at the very bottom, who receive some help, but that group that are just above. We need to do more for them. It hasn't been done in this budget, and I encourage the government to please do so.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

P. TRIMPER: Thank you, Speaker.

I want to, in my next 20 minutes – when the 20 minutes shows up on the clock; there we go – speak about connecting this province. I've talked about some of these issues before, but I thought I would try to tie a variety of themes that are very important to the District of Lake Melville – and my 20 seconds are almost up but thank you to my colleague.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

P. TRIMPER: There we go; we'll get there. I remember the Leader of the Official Opposition did this one time; I watched him do it.

Anyway, thank you very much. I want to talk about connecting the province and some priorities, some things that we're making progress on. There is, of course, with such a huge piece of geography, so much need.

I want to talk about a little trip I just did. I left my district a little while ago. There I am in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and, of course, to get to Happy Valley-Goose Bay, while I didn't start in the Torngat Mountains, I need to speak about the importance of proceeding with this North Coast highway. Whether we call it a prefeasibility study or a feasibility study, we need to recognize that the people of Torngat Mountains are looking for a connection to this province.

So much that we're dealing with in this budget debate is about the cost of travel, to get folks from the North Coast out to Happy Valley-Goose Bay, which is the hub for Labrador, and on into larger centres. Most of the time this is by air and the challenge that we have in doing that, and how important a road access would be.

It's interesting my colleague from Torngat Mountains; we actually worked together some 11 years ago, over the span of some two years on that very project. This was a private sector initiative. It was a company she was working for; I was working as a consultant. We know the route. We know so many of the issues. It's actually very straightforward between Happy Valley-Goose Bay, North West River and on into Postville and Makkovik. This phase, there's no reason why we can't get started at it, and I can tell you a lot of the work already exists.

Back to my drive; the other day, my wife, my wonderful dog Cracker and I, we jumped in the vehicle and we started driving out from Happy Valley-Goose Bay. For those of you who know the route, once you leave Happy Valley-Goose Bay, it is 410 kilometres before you see any kind of service; whether it be a washroom, telephone service that you can count on, maybe some other kind of emergency support.

I ask you, where else in the province might you go, venturing down a little road, for 410 kilometres? Just imagine you leave from here and you go well to the other side, probably to my colleague from Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans, I think 410 kilometres might get you out there somewhere. So just imagine covering that entire distance with no support if in the event something happens. And we're talking some pretty heavy-duty country and absolutely no opportunity for support.

We still need to think about it. I've been advocating for, I call them pit stops, emergency support, communications, maybe even just a little bit of food, and, by the way, a washroom. What the heck is wrong with having a washroom somewhere along on that highway? That was obstacle number one.

By the way, we went a day earlier because – and this was just weeks ago – of the snowstorm coming the following day actually was of sufficient size and configuration that it again shut down the highway in the vicinity of Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair District from Lodge Bay I think to Red Bay. That road was again closed. I was looking at images on her phone this morning. It's still dealing with severe snowbanks. That's challenge number two.

We then camped out in Forteau, along with some other folks who were waiting for five days before they could cross the Strait of Belle Isle. The reason why we couldn't get across is because the ice concentration, pressure, configuration has been so extreme this year that even with the escort of an icebreaker, it was an amazing experience.

Now, we're not talking the heavy sea ice that we see in Northern Labrador, but it was of sufficient strength and concentration. And if anyone follows me on Facebook, you can see that our ferry stopped several times and the icebreaker had to come around. As I posted there and as I'll say in this hon. House, it is really time to get serious about looking at an underground tunnel to connect the two chunks of geography that are our province. I can just imagine the economic boost that would occur. There's so much financial argument to proceeding with that, and I can tell you from the perspective of somebody who travels that route often, it would pay dividends in terms of so much other support for this province.

We crossed over, landed in St. Barbe, and then I was actually making my way down to see relatives in Nova Scotia. We started driving down along the Southwest Coast of Newfoundland and we were stopped again for a day because of the extreme winds. Now, the infrastructure is there and I'm not sure what we do with 140-kilometre-an-hour winds, but suffice to say there was a tractor-trailer overturned that was a solid reflection of the strength of the winds and the conditions.

We live in a heck of province and there's no question we are being challenged by the changes that we're feeling in our climate, by the existing conditions and logistics and so on. So all I'm saying to government is really we need some vision, we need to look forward, and we really need to start thinking about some investment now and how much that could save us over the long run.

Some of the other issues that relate to this and just a little while ago in the House – it's a bit abstract, and frankly I don't think it's going to cost a little money, but I wanted to raise it again because there was interesting feedback that I received, and it's this idea of how we communicate in terms of when we are communicating.

Labrador, for example, functions with two time zones. That's not counting the confusion that we have, especially down the southwest part of Labrador, down in Blanc-Sablon area, which is in another time zone, and then I look to my colleague from Labrador West who also deals with the Quebec zone. There's not much we can do about that, but could we at least consider putting all of Labrador in one time zone? Next, could we consider moving everybody to standard time?

Stop the shift from this twice a year jolt of jet lag that I think most of the province feels, as we adjust to that hour difference, stay on the same time throughout the year. Yeah, there are going to be some adjustments, particularly in the morning and in the evening. I believe we'll get used to it, and I note that the United States are certainly looking like they're moving in that direction. I suggest that we pay close attention.

Finally, I'm just going to throw it out there. It's certainly not a sword to die on, but I think it's one that we could consider. If you again watch me on all kinds of communications and meetings, all of us receive notices that there's going to be a particular briefing at 2 NL time tomorrow. I still wonder what NL time is. Are we talking Newfoundland time? I'm sure they're not talking Labrador time, but again, it's that confusion and how many missed appointments, missed flights and so on. So these are some of the things about connecting our province together.

Another aspect that I speak often of and I just want to mention it again. I share with the minister – I was here last evening at Estimates. We talked about the Medical Transportation Assistance Program and how vital it is, particularly for districts in Labrador, but also in rural parts of Newfoundland. If you don't have insurance coverage to get you to the health care that we are obligated, that we are proud of in this country to be able to provide, this is a real burden. It's not just a financial burden; it's a health burden. I'm very sorry to say it's caused and led to mortality.

I know of people who have cancelled appointments for such serious situations as cancer, perhaps cardiac attention and so on. They just can't even afford the difference in what we pay them. I look forward to whatever we see from the implementation plan of the Health Accord. Many of us have a lot of confidence in the co-chairs. I do believe they are listening. I do believe this may just be a report that never sees any dust. I do hope it's truly an accord that we can all work with and agree to. It's not going to change things overnight, but I believe there is so much that's critically urgent right now, that I look forward to seeing it roll out.

Air ambulance is one. I was just dealing with a very challenging situation for the last five days with a gentleman out of Churchill Falls, and I'd like to thank all those that participated. If I had to list the number of departments that were involved, I was thinking – and organizations – probably four or five that were required to get this one individual out. Not necessarily a medical emergency but it was one that we required medical assistance for. I'd like to thank and acknowledge everyone who was involved. You know who you are.

One issue that I think all of us as MHAs recognize and realize is the importance of sport. I'm hearing it in government and I welcome that and some support in terms of recognizing the cost of recreational pursuits and so on. But, as we know, it's the next generations, those that are in school, who so embrace, thrive and, let's face it, get them on a really good road for a healthy life, by getting involved in sports, particularly in high schools.

In Labrador, I can tell you, we are constantly running into problems that seem to be increasing. Once things settle down for me this week, I know I have to get back to some folks in the Lake Melville District who have come to me very concerned because, again, they can't afford to take teams – and these are teams with athletes with high skills – that are trying to get out to Newfoundland for competition and they can't afford it.

The subsidy is wholly insufficient and it's causing – well, it's preventing any opportunity. I note – and I don't want to throw it out as an attack or a criticism, it's a reality – we have the concentration of our population, we're only 6 per cent of this provincial population in Labrador, we get that, we understand that. So more on occasion, we probably have folks representing Labrador schools and communities who are going to travel to the Island for competitions.

But I can tell you there's a general reluctance for those teams to come to Labrador. We'd love to see you. But it's increasingly more of a trend in terms of teams or events, or even sport associations, and I can name a couple of them, who have declared that they will no longer host and hold provincial competitions in Labrador because of the expense of travelling there. Well, they recognize it, and I can tell you we deal with it every day.

Again, these are all important points about how we can try to pull this province together, and it's incredibly frustrating.

I'm thinking that if the Health Accord can really do what it is intended with its implementation document, so much of this is going to be about, as I say, pulling us together, but also recognizing that it should not be an extreme disadvantage to live in any part of this province. I often hear people say things like, well, you choose to live there, whether it be in Lake Melville or even the more isolated communities of the North Coast in Torngat Mountains.

Well, guess what? People who are in these communities – I look to my colleague from Lab West – we, collectively as a community, are heavily involved in very important, lucrative economic drivers for this province. And as we are so often arguing – the three of us sitting here on this side of the House – for greater attention because it is those same people that are running the Voisey's Bay project, the iron ore mines of Labrador West, the Muskrat Falls Project, if and when it gets up and running, will be very important in terms of providing electricity for so much of Newfoundland and so many other aspects of our economy.

We need to recognize that if we are going to develop these resources, and develop them wisely, we need people who are going to live adjacent to those areas. And all we are asking for is some adjacency consideration for people to feel proud about where they live, not to feel that they need to be propped up. I think, frankly, we can get there but it is going to be all about good communication.

With that, Speaker, I think I am going to stop on that point. I really appreciate the opportunity to talk about how we can tie our province together.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am going to have a few words before I won't be able to. I know a lot of people would like for me to stop bringing up issues concerning the Humber - Bay of Islands and Corner Brook but that isn't going to happen.

So I just want to stand up, Mr. Speaker, and speak on the issues I have been speaking about for a while: cataract surgery. We see the backlog again, the number of people backlogged, and why this government and the Minister of Health and Community Services will not allow to free up time at the hospital and now have to force them to go to Stephenville even though the equipment is not up to standard.

I received another letter from the Minister of Health and Community Services talking about the report. There is a report that was done up, and this is the cuteness of it. The report was done up and you're talking about how much it costs per surgery. The report that the minister referred to in the letter, it said it was something like $540. I haven't got the letter right here in front of me but it was something like $500 or $560, not the $1,160 or $1,260 that was reported.

But here is the detail that was left out, that is concerning one eye. Most cataracts are done with two eyes. So when you add that price together, it is the price that is in the report. So to put it into a letter that here is the actual cost to have these surgeries done at a public facility is half what it costs, when you know there needs to be two eyes. That is the kind of stuff.

I know the Member for St. George's - Humber is listening, call some of your constituents, call the Apex building and see what I am saying, if it's not correct. I know the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay did and I know he knows what I am saying is correct. Phone the Apex building and get the same information.

So when the Minister of Health and Community Services puts in a letter, trying to say that here's the report that was done and here's what it costs to do it in a public, and knowing that's only for one eye and there's always two eyes that are going to be done when doing cataracts, is just wrong.

There are 800 seniors on the West Coast now; they're going to start surgeries in Stephenville now. You should ask have they got the full equipment. You should go out and ask. I'll guarantee you that you will stand up and say this is wrong. Ask them do they have the full packs to complete the eye surgery. Ask them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

E. JOYCE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

E. JOYCE: Ask them what?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

E. JOYCE: I can't hear you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask them why they didn't have it.

E. JOYCE: Why they didn't have it? Is because the machine is outdated and the reason why the machine is outdated – and now the packs that they made for the outdated machine at the Sir Thomas Riddick Hospital, they don't make the packs anymore. They are actually gone off to try to get more packs. So what they have to do is take half of one pack and half of another pack, throw half out of this pack, half out of the other pack, to make one full pack. I say to the Member: If you want a number, I'll give you the number to confirm everything I am saying here.

For this government to talk about here is the amount of money that we got and here is where we're going to take care – and there are 800 seniors that could be done, their eyes. This is why I cannot vote for this budget. I just can't vote for it. On my conscience, I can't vote for it.

Time after time after time I have brought this up. I gave them options. I asked the Premier to call, the Premier never called. The information that is put out there using a letter, doing one eye instead of two and saying here is what it costs at a public facility when the report is there. I can even try to track down a copy of the report. It's over $1,100 with the lens now being including, because before you had to pay for the lens. Now, with the lens, it's over $1,200. And to put in a letter it's only $560 or $570, it's just wrong. Just making false excuses to deny seniors their eyesight.

I can't comprehend it, the reason why. The only reason why: a personality conflict right there. I heard the Minister of Health and Community Services go out and talk and say they could do it at the hospital in Corner Brook. As I mentioned before, there are two days at the hospital in Corner Brook. There is one person who does glaucoma for the whole Province of Newfoundland and Labrador – the whole province.

Anything I'm saying, the minister could stand up and I'll even give him my time. The whole Province of Newfoundland and Labrador – now, what they're saying is that, okay, start cancelling the glaucoma across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, start cancelling it and start doing cataract surgery so you could get your wait-list down. And glaucoma is much more serious than cataracts. That's what the minister is saying: Cancel it.

And the other one is retina in the hospital, because at the Apex building they don't have the ability to do retina or glaucoma – they could, if they were allowed, but they're not even allowed. They can get the equipment, but they're not allowed to do it and they don't have the equipment, so it has to be done at the hospital.

So what the minister is saying and this government is saying to people of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador with your eye surgery: Cancel glaucoma, start doing cataracts to knock down your wait-list. Go to Stephenville where the equipment is outdated. They don't even have the packs for the equipment; they have to substitute stuff in and out. Let the people now start right from Baie Verte, starts out, right on until Corner Brook, start going to Stephenville. Corner Brook residents, start driving to Stephenville.

I have had numerous calls from the Premier's own district and he won't even stand up for them. It is sad. It is actually sad that here is the Premier of this province, a doctor himself – I'm not disputing any work he ever did and all his volunteer work; I'm not disputing that – but when you get in government, all of a sudden, whatever happens to many people in government is that they change. They change. And you know that, Mr. Speaker; you're aware of that. You've seen that, haven't you, how people change? Yeah, you have. People change. People change when they're in government because they need this great position, they have to get up in this position or we have to stand up and defend something.

But for the Premier of the province who's a doctor himself, he has all the information that these cataract surgeries can be done – the cost at a public facility versus at the Apex facility is much cheaper. The cost to actually do the surgery is the same no matter where it's at, but the actual cost to perform the surgeries is much lower. There's a wait-list of 800 seniors that they can start and do it much more efficient.

So I'll say to the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay, sorry.

AN HON. MEMBER: Green Bay.

E. JOYCE: Green Bay, sorry. All I remember is Springdale over so many years. We go back a long ways. All I can remember is Springdale with the Member and I spent a lot of time in Baie Verte over the years. He's over there waving to me and saying what a great soccer team we had, the Curling Rangers.

But, Mr. Speaker, on a serious note, I just want to let you know, right now you may get calls from people – I don't know who's on the wait-list; I really don't. I just know the numbers. You may start getting calls now that people can't come to Corner Brook; they have to go on to Stephenville to get the cataracts. It won't be done in the Apex building because not allowed.

Go to Stephenville, it costs you more. It costs you more in travel. People from Humber Valley, the Premier's own district now, have to bypass Corner Brook, go on to Stephenville – that's only when they can do it, by the way. This is the big thing with the Apex building. If they want to work weekends on their own and call the staff in, they can work weekends. If they want to work nights, they can work nights. They can work whenever they want, but at the hospital it's a set time on a set day; Stephenville, the same thing. They can't work past a day or two in Stephenville because then they have to start calling people in. If you are working at the Apex building, your own building, where you have your own staff, you can work weekends, nights, to clear up the backlog.

The minister knows. The minister is well aware of this here. This is how you create the backlog by saying okay, we can only do it a day a week at the hospital. That creates the backlog. But if you get rid of that backlog and then go with the quota that's given out by the Health and Community Services, you would never have a backlog because you have a certain number that you have to get done.

Can you imagine? It's mind-boggling when you dig into it. It's mind-boggling. If any of us here in this room right now had a broken leg or a broken arm, as quick as we can get in, we get it done. Anybody here, quick as we can get in, we can get done. If you got cataract surgery, there's a quota. You will not go past the quota. There's a wait-list right now of 800 – I don't know if they started in Stephenville yet. Come April 1, you have a quota. I don't know what it is, 1,700, 1,800, whatever it is. You have the quota for Western Newfoundland, excluding St. Anthony.

So once that quota is done, if there's a list – the backlog – you can't fulfill the backlog. If it is leg, arms, anything else, you can do it. But cataracts, they won't. I even wrote the minister and brought this up, but guess what? Still the big backlog. If you had a leg, an arm, it's no problem.

And the other thing I brought up on numerous occasions, Mr. Speaker, is the laundry services for the new acute care hospital in Corner Brook. It's gone; taken out. I wrote the minister and asked him. He said: Yeah, well, in July, two ministers got together in consultation. I said: What two ministers? I wasn't there. Oh, it was consultations in between. I said: No, because I was in there. Here's the speech you gave in Corner Brook. Ah well, in collaboration it cost $100,000 per square foot; we can't afford it. Why didn't you tell the people that? The election –

AN HON. MEMBER: I think the Member for Corner Brook was campaigning on it.

E. JOYCE: Campaigning on it.

The election in 2021, in January and February 2021, they were out saying the laundry was in, during the election in Corner Brook and Humber - Bay of Islands and the West Coast. And that affects four of our districts. I have the print of it, during the election.

The actual RFP closed January 24, 2021. They knew, but out campaigning, saying how dare someone say the laundry is not included in the new acute care hospital. How dare –?

P. LANE: Who said that?

E. JOYCE: The Premier himself was out saying it.

P. LANE: Go away. Who else?

E. JOYCE: The Member for Corner Brook was out saying it.

If you're going to do it, do it. At least have the honesty to tell people you're going to do it, that you did it. Don't be out campaigning during election because the election was prolonged, and saying, oh no, it's in, it's in, when the RFP closed January 24. The laundry's 75 jobs gone. But if you're going to move it out, at least have the honesty to go and tell the people. That was a commitment that the Liberal government, which I was a part of, made that all the services within the Western Memorial Hospital would be in an acute-care hospital.

That was a commitment. We made that commitment to the unions. I walked out on the steps there on the Confederation Building and 500 or 600 – and I made that commitment on behalf of the government. We lived up to that commitment until we found out, by luck, that it was taken out, that is was actually taken out.

So if anything I am saying here – if someone wants to dispute it, stand up and I'll show you documentation about the RFP. I'll show you the statements that were made in Corner Brook during the election. This was the kind of stuff – when I hear things about cataract surgery, when I hear information about cataract surgery, I have got to go check because I can assure you, there's a different side of it.

And this is why I'm going to find it so hard to vote – I won't vote for the budget, on principle alone, when I know there are 800 seniors that can be done like that – start today. Let's do it in the Apex building. I don't care who gets paid. I'm not worried about personalities. I just want those seniors – I cannot vote for the budget, just on principle. Some of those seniors that we're talking about today lost their licence, can't drive; in their house and can't get out. Many of them cannot even read their medication and here we are standing in this House talking about the great deficit we've got.

Here's the issue with it: It don't cost any money. If you went into the Sir Thomas Roddick Hospital and opened up that building seven days a week and you paid to do the surgery, you're going to get paid. They're going to hire the staff, the nurses, all the people in the OR, all the check-in people, they're all going to have all that, the surgeons are going to get paid. If they did it in the Apex building, they're going to get paid a lesser amount for the building, but the money is there.

There is no money; it's not costing no money. It's just the personalities – just personalities. It boggles my mind about why this is not done. This is an easy fix; a very easy fix but it won't be done. And as long as I get the opportunity to speak on this here, I will.

Also about the nurse practitioners: a great opportunity in Corner Brook. I heard the minister when I asked the question about the nurse practitioner. He said we're meeting with the union, the Nurses' Union. Meet with the nurse practitioners; meet with their association. That's who you need to work with. Don't go standing up and saying you're going to work with the nurses. Go and meet the nurse practitioners who can help this out in Corner Brook.

There are thousands of people in Western Newfoundland now, people waiting six, seven, eight hours in the emergency room. Nurse practitioners could help out so easy. So instead of standing up and saying: oh, we're going to discuss this with the nurses. Go and meet with the nurse practitioners association. There are three set up in Corner Brook now. The last count I heard they had over 4,000 people going through the doors, paying out of their own pocket.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty-five bucks a shot.

E. JOYCE: How much?

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty-five.

E. JOYCE: Thirty-five bucks a shot, paid out of their own pocket.

That's how many that Lawrence passed on to someone to pass on to me, how many people they've seen and they are only opened up two or three months ago – 4,000. That is probably higher now. I mean, that's a lot of people in Western Newfoundland. That's a lot of people.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to bring up the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure for a second. I spoke to him, probably three weeks ago about an issue out in Copper Mine Brook about the gabion baskets. I got to say that the gabion baskets were done soon after because it was a treacherous situation. I just want to recognize that, the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure did that.

The Copper Mine Brook area where – I just wanted the people to listen from Lark Harbour because the word will spread that I went over yesterday to speak to the minister about Copper Mine Brook and the drop in the road and he had it on his desk, the letter that I wrote him, he was reviewing that.

I just want to let people know that the serious concern of the Copper Mine Brook and the gabion baskets, when I brought it to the minister, he addressed it. And, yesterday, when I went over to discuss about the letter I write, he had it on his desk reading the letter. I just want to recognize that and let people know that the minister is aware of it and hopefully where it is so bad, it is very dangerous, that something will be done. Thank you, Minister, for the safety of that area.

Mr. Speaker, I only have another two minutes left and I am going to speak on the helmets again on Side By Sides. I have to speak on that.

I can tell you, the minister never came out and said: we're not putting it in. But when I left this House and the reason why I voted for it, I had firm belief that it was going to be done.

AN HON. MEMBER: We all did.

E. JOYCE: The minister did not come out and say it's going to be done, but when you say: I understand, I got it, let me put it in the regulations, seriously considering it. It is going to come out in the regulations.

S. STOODLEY: Any day now.

E. JOYCE: Pardon me?

S. STOODLEY: Any day now.

E. JOYCE: Any day now you're going to change it?

S. STOODLEY: No, the regulations will be out.

E. JOYCE: Oh, that is a nice flippant answer to the people who are going to be out: any day. Why don't you go out and meet with the residents? How many people wrote you?

S. STOODLEY: I gave you my cellphone number.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

E. JOYCE: My God, relax, relax.

Why don't you go out and meet with the people who want you to meet with them?

S. STOODLEY: I gave you my cellphone number.

E. JOYCE: Why don't you go out and meet with the people?

S. STOODLEY: I gave you my cellphone number.

E. JOYCE: Why don't you go out and meet with the residents?

S. STOODLEY: I gave them my cellphone number.

E. JOYCE: Oh, yeah, gave your cellphone number.

There are people asking for a public meeting with the Premier and the minister, and refusing a public meeting – unheard of. I even wrote you and asked you on behalf of – Brad Gallant wrote you and asked you for a public meeting. What did you say? Got to go through your MHA.

So will you commit to a public meeting on the West Coast now? Would you commit to a public meeting?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE: When you won't commit to a public meeting to justify a decision that you made, you don't feel strong enough in your own position. That's my personal view.

Brad Gallant is waiting for your response for a public meeting.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member's time has expired.

E. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

I'm just going to briefly speak on the budget. For me, Speaker, sometimes I do struggle to, not find things to talk about, not issues to bring forward from my district, sometimes I struggle because there are so many issues for my district. I look around the province and I actually ask myself: How did we get here?

It's pretty obvious here that there's very little consideration given to people in rural, remote areas, especially in Northern Labrador. I was going to present a petition again today but I didn't get a chance. It seems like all my petitions are about serious needs that existed over the many decades, the many generations since we joined Confederation.

As the MHA for Torngat Mountains, six communities in Northern Labrador, each one of them are recognized as Indigenous communities. It's really hard.

It's kind of strange, too, I just started talking and now the banter is starting to pick up again.

But why do I have to put petitions in place? Like, for example, the petition I was going to present today was on marine shipping. I wasn't going to ask for something new. I was going to ask for the marine shipping to be reinstated from the Island.

Now, why would I have to ask for that? It's because, first off, the marine transportation services to the North Coast of Labrador, to my district, were done without the consultation, the full consultation of the Nunatsiavut Government, which is actually recognized as self-government. In actual fact, the Nunatsiavut Government has accused this provincial government of actually enacting changes without consultation and actually being in violation of the Land Claims Agreement.

It's quite sad, too, you know, I don't have the ability to spend $11.5 million on paving in my own district. Maybe if I did, I would be sitting in the House and I would be talking over everybody who's trying to speak.

In my district, in actual fact, there's –

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: In my district, we're looking at another budget, and we actually have trouble getting food into our communities. We have trouble actually travelling in and out of our communities. If this was anywhere else in the province, I don't think this would have happened.

First off, I don't think that they would have taken away marine services for transportation of food, building materials, all our community needs, while a Member of government was sitting and representing our district. That's really unheard of. So what kind of consideration was given to my district? None. None. So we're asking for it to be taken back.

One of the things that came out of the Truth and Reconciliation that was talked about: genocide. Not cultural genocide, genocide. Since Canada was actually established, we looked at residential schools. But I have to say, Speaker, where's the residential schools that existed? Are they on the Island? No, they weren't on the Island. So everybody is talking about reconciliation and Indigenous groups now, putting it all in one big pot and talking about it over and over again.

But the problem in my district, where we have Innu and Inuit that were seriously harmed and actually have suffered real intergenerational trauma – has suffered real intergenerational trauma. What is intergenerational trauma? It's trauma that actually is year after year, generation after generation. And what's happening is there's never been any help for the people in my district. Yet, we were blamed.

When those videos came out from Davis Inlet, that was really something that was taken and, basically, they just blamed the Innu. But no one really talked about the harm that was done to the Innu. That, in actual fact, it created so much harm that they were struggling. They were struggling as youth, as parents, as grandparents. They were all impacted: same thing with the Inuit.

I gave a Member's statement just recently on Boas Jararuse. As a young man with a young family, he was forced to resettle, relocate, from Hebron. They were collected in the church, the Moravian Church. I call him Uncle Boas out of respect. Uncle Boas always talked about the fact that they did it in the church because they knew that the people, the Inuit, wouldn't speak out against this decision.

They were relocated; sometimes families were broken up. It's so important to understand that it's not just the residential schools that harmed the Inuit and the Innu of my district; it's basically the forced relocation with the Innu. They were put on an island in Davis Inlet. That was one of the strategies there, was to keep them from going off on the land.

There are so many different ways that the people have been harmed, but no one really wants to talk about that any more. In actual fact, the phrase intergenerational trauma has been used so much, people are tired of it. They're sick and tired of hearing about intergenerational trauma. But the biggest problem is this government has not done anything other than superficial, pretentious things.

Now, there's really value in symbolism. I understand that and also there's value in re-educating people about the harms that were done. But, at the end of the day, people can't eat murals that cost a lot of money to actually put in the House of Assembly. People can't eat murals. Statues: statues are not going to help you feed your children and heat your house. How can we get out of intergenerational trauma when this Liberal government continues to do these things without actually addressing real change?

It was this government that took away the freight boat and now has added burden of the trucking. If that was anywhere else on the Island, if that was on the Island, it wouldn't be heard of. It wouldn't be tolerated.

Do you know something? For example, me, I'm here, as the MHA, and I have to tell you I really don't like being the MHA in this House of Assembly. I don't really like actually a lot of things that I see. I really don't.

Do you know something? I understand why people write books after they retire from politics, because, in actual fact, I don't really know how to say something without getting kicked out of House, if I were to speak the real truth.

But, in actual fact, until real change comes to the Innu and the Inuit of Northern Labrador, this government will actually have blood on their hands because our people will continue to die.

I watched somebody die on a video. I watched it on a video. Me and a fellow MHA watched it. It was somebody who was harmed through intergenerational trauma, had fallen into addictions. And to slowly watch that person die in this day and age, in this year – I watched it. That is the consequence of inaction. That's that the consequence of the superficial, pretentious garbage that comes out of the mouth of some of the Members who are supposed to be looking after the Indigenous people.

Who are the Indigenous people? Well, I can take you into my communities, if any one of the ministers actually bothered to go anywhere else than Nain and fly in on the morning flight and get out on the afternoon flight, if you ever, ever come up into my district.

Now, I tell you, there were a lot of Liberals that went into Makkovik that went over trouting and fishing with my cousin who took them out. And, you know, when I was campaigning one of the biggest complaints was that the only time they saw those Liberal, whoever they were, because no one knew who they were, was when they got off the plane and when they rushed back with their coolers full of trout and salmon and fish to catch the flight out of Makkovik. People in Postville didn't see them; people in Rigolet didn't see them; people in Hopedale didn't see them.

Yet, we are continued to be harmed by these crazy prices that we have no control over by the lack of services that we never, ever got.

One of the fallacies in this province is that the Indigenous people of Northern Labrador, the real Inuit, the real Innu who exist today that continue with their traditions and their language, they actually destroyed the infrastructure that was given to them, that basically undermined the services that were given to them. That's why they're all up there sniffing gas. That's why they're all up there killing themselves. That's been said. I've actually had it said to me many times.

And do you know something? Some of the people that killed themselves, suicide, were relatives of mine: relatives of mine, friends of mine. People that died, people that were murdered, the murdered women and Indigenous girls, whatever the fancy acronym for that is, that actually cost the federal government so much money to have the inquiry into. What's being done about that? Who was murdered? I can tell you who was murdered. I've actually had relatives of mine murdered, friends of mine. My brother's girlfriend was murdered. One of my best friend's mother was murdered. We don't talk about that.

And I think I mentioned in the House the one person that people know in this province who they didn't know – everybody knew Dana Bradley. Everybody knew the name Dana Bradley in this province. No one knew the name Henrietta Millek, but she was an Inuit woman from Northern Labrador that was down here and was murdered – my sister's roommate.

I have got to tell you, it really impacts people. When I was growing up and when I went to university, I actually sat down one day and I was trying to remember all of the people I knew that committed suicide in the communities. I had to go through all my fingers and I was going through the years and I missed people – people that were close to me.

The thing about it is until services and infrastructure are actually brought into Northern Labrador – and do you know what really, really bothers me? One of the things that would actually change life in Northern Labrador would be a road or would be an extension in improvement of the airstrips that would improve transportation, as I keep bringing up in my petitions.

Do you know who was going to pay for most of that? Practically all of that infrastructure would be paid by, by the federal government. And one of the reasons why this province doesn't want to do that is because after it is built, they would have to maintain it. That was said to me and my response is maintain it like you do the rest of the roads in the province – like the rest of the roads in the province. Really? Honestly?

That's why we never ever got adequate – and for me, it's really hard. Honestly, most of my days, looking back in physics when we did university physics, college physics, it talks about inertia. And the definition of inertia is a body in motion will remain in motion unless it is acted on by an outside force. A body at rest will remain at rest unless it is acted on by an outside force.

And the thing about it is if we had people in this House that was interested in the greater good of everybody in the province and actually worked on that instead of just their own agendas, instead of getting all the paving in their district or actually just looked at oh, I can talk to Dr. – I can't say his name – I can talk to the Minister of Health about my particular patient's issue and then I can go back to him and that will boost me up. Oh, look, that will get me votes. Instead of saying that this is a chronic issue that's experienced by many, many people in the province that needs to be addressed for the greater good. You might not get the attention, you might not get the recognition but, at the end of the day, the people in the province would actually do a lot better.

Where's that? That's not here. There are very, very few times that I actually see that come forward. That's the biggest problem I have with this House of Assembly. The self-serving rhetoric that goes on, it's ridiculous. Here I am, and I'm no better. I'm just a little, old woman that came out of the North Coast. I mean, really, honestly.

But you know something? When I ran, I expected more. I expected better; I did. I had some delusion. Honourable – this House isn't honourable. It's not filled with honourable Members. We may not have criminal records, but I tell you some of the action that we do have consequences that are far reaching. In my mind, it might as well be criminal.

Actually pretentious, superficial words, and nothingness that comes out of people's mouth, really, is unacceptable. For me it's difficult to deal with that: health care. How many people do I know in Northern Labrador – most of our patients that have cancer, or had cancer, were diagnosed too late for treatment, even in 2022. My sister-in-law – she had a family history – was misdiagnosed and even when she was finally diagnosed, in actual fact, they failed to make the appointment for her to go out for her treatment. They were waiting – my sister-in-law.

I tell you something now; one of the reasons why it's hard to talk about is because she died a week before my uncle, both of them with cancer. I have to say I think he lived the extra week just to give us that little bit of comfort. Sometimes when I'm dealing with factors on the North Coast and I'm trying to talk about stuff that I knew that I was a party to, in actual fact, I have such trouble remembering. Like I talked about – I won't say his name, but I talked about a singer. This person that was so musically incline d and did so much for our people. I said he died with TB, but in actual fact that was another younger man who died with TB. He actually died with cancer. But I got to tell you, when you lose so many people who mean so much to you, it impacts you, emotionally. And the problem with actually travelling on the North Coast, and you get to know so many people, you get to know who's impacted, who dies.

I may have watched a woman die on video, but how many more do I know that died in snowbanks? How many people do I know that was actually repeatedly, repeatedly abandoned and neglected? With no supports, right? And the thing is, and I keep saying now, are we not a part of this province? I know people roll their eyes. And you should, you should just keep rolling them, buddy, because in actual fact you're not helping to solve the problems of this province as far as I can see.

But at the end of the day, we really do need help. It's not this superficial, pretentious, hot air of nothingness that seems to come from the side of government. I've got to tell you, everybody over here on this side is thinking it. I may be the only one saying it, but I've got to tell you. One of the things I always say is, if I say something that gets me kicked out, would I actually stand up and apologize to get back in? I think I owe my people that I would actually have to swallow my pride and apologize just so I could come back and try to get some more done.

Anyway, there are positive things going on in my district; our people are very resilient. I just have to look out to our youth. Just recently, I got so many calls from the Makkovik team trying to get out to the provincial regionals in Goose Bay. They couldn't because of the weather and all the delays. We thought they weren't going to get out. They finally got out and they took first place overall. The young males did quite well actually; they got first place, second place and third place. The girls did really well as well.

But let's just talk about that now for a second. I want to bring up something now; I've got 28 seconds left. To all the young girls that are growing up in this province, I want to say to them: I don't want you just to get 66 cents when your cousin who's a male, your brother who's a male gets a dollar. And that's something that we need to actually fight for. We need to all work together, I agree with that. But, at the end of the day, it's like solving problems; you have to take action.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member's time has expired.

L. EVANS: Thank you.

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

C. TIBBS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to start off by picking up on what the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands spoke about, I'll just take a second to talk about the helmet legislation that did come in a while ago. The minister, of course, she is from Grand Falls-Windsor. She comes from a great family and she knows about the Side By Sides, quads, all kinds of stuff out there. But make no mistake, we were under the impression that it would be given some serious, serious consideration.

I would like to know what that serious consideration was. In my opinion, it's a government overreach. We stated our case and why enclosed Side By Sides with seat belts, a helmet isn't warranted. The people of the province have spoken and, like everything else, the detachment is there where government just doesn't seem to be listening.

So we are going to chalk that up to government overreach, in my opinion. It's too bad because all of these people have bought $30,000, $35,000 vehicles and now have to wear a helmet. If they had known this beforehand, they wouldn't have bought the vehicle. Plain and simple. Because they feel as though they can't enjoy their drive right now or their Sunday drive with their family and that's a shame.

But, again, it's just another example of a detachment from the people that government are supposed to represent. Unfortunately, that's what we are left with.

I am going to take a moment and talk about the people of Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans and thank them very much for putting their faith in me twice. The first time there was no doubt it was blind faith. The second time, I would like to think that I proved myself in some way and I thank them all for re-electing me.

We've got some great things happening in Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans. One thing we have happening is innovation. We have the only aquamation cremation system east of Montreal, which is a big deal. My good friend, Mike Goodyear, who is also a captain at the fire department in Grand Falls-Windsor, he brought in this system. It's very clean for the environment – very environmentally friendly. There's no cremation. What it does is it's an aquamation system, which does the same thing as cremation but in a much more efficient manner and it's very environmental friendly.

The guy has been booked up forever. People like it. And I just want to tip my hat off to him for taking a chance – getting that innovation to Grand Falls-Windsor. People from all around the province now are checking this out and he deserves accolades for that.

The salmon season, of course, is coming up in the Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans District and the Exploits River is one of the greatest rivers in all of Canada for salmon fishing. So we're looking forward to seeing the anglers out there in due time. I know that they enjoy themselves out there and we enjoy having them.

Of course, if they're looking for a place to stay, Riverfront Chalets. My friend Todd Parsons, he's expanding his venture up there. He's bringing in some pods now that are fully equipped with bathrooms, the ceiling is all opened up to glass, you can stargaze, a hot tub is going to be by each of these pods. It's absolutely fantastic to see.

That's the way this province needs to move in the right direction. He's running into a little bit of trouble right now with the land he has. I'm hoping the Department of Fisheries can fix him up because it's important.

I wish Todd the best of luck. I hope that he doesn't run into any more difficulties, because I'm hoping that government is going to help him instead of hinder him.

Sometimes common sense isn't that common – I think somebody said it a while ago. Sometimes when we look at policy, the policy shouldn't always be black and white when it comes from government. The policy should have room for common sense. I'll just leave it at that.

Crown lands, of course, is a huge one. I have a gentleman now out in Grand Falls-Windsor who's had a cabin next to a lake since 1981. They're asking this gentleman, on his own dime, to come out and move this cabin, and it's been there since 1981. You look at that, that's over 40 years. Again, we need some common sense to come in there. That cabin's been fine since 1981, no issues. That man should be able to leave it there, absolutely.

Marathon Gold: We are very, very pleased to have Marathon Gold up in the Buchans, Millertown district. It's going to bring about 450 jobs. We're very excited, the spinoffs are going to be great and it's going to bring some real economic activity to my district. So we're very, very excited about that.

I want to thank Marathon Gold and everybody that works there. Matt Manson, he's the president and CEO and, of course, Tim Williams, he's the chief operating officer. Myself and Tim get together just about every other week and chat. They're very happy with the way things are going and so am I.

And just one other thing. We're going to talk about Kellie Loder. Kellie Loder is from Badger. We are very proud –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. TIBBS: – of Kellie Loder. I guess they are on America's Got Talent tonight, is it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Canada's Got Talent.

C. TIBBS: Sorry, Canada's Got Talent tonight. So that'll be for the semifinals tonight and we're going to be watching them. I hope they give it their all, and I know that Kellie will. We look forward to seeing them win the prize. They do great work. They are a songwriter, they are a singer and they do great work. So thank you very much to Kellie Loder.

I want to talk about the Buchans Highway for one moment. It's in rough shape. We have logging trucks going back and forth. Sometimes 20 logging trucks a day going back and forth out the Buchans Highway and it's ripping up this highway over and over and over again. We've had loads spill out onto the highway, logs spill out. It can be a dangerous situation sometimes. Now, with Marathon Gold going up there, we're going to have a lot of mining trucks, big trucks. Nothing tears up our highways like these big trucks.

We need to ensure that the work is going to be done to keep them intact for the residents that actually use the place. I know that the province is going to get revenue upon revenue from these companies, whether it be the logging companies or Marathon Gold, the revenue is going to come in, the royalties are going to come in. I believe that we need to sit down and look at some sort of legislation that's going to put in place money, a certain pot of money that can keep these roads maintained, because it's not fair to the people that use them every single day.

So I'm hoping to sit down with government and work together to come up with a solution that can work best for the people up around that area, and the people throughout all the province here. If a new company comes in and they're going to be making a lot of money and paying some of those revenues out to government, we need a specific pot of money to ensure the safety of the roads for the residents that have been there for 50, 60 or 70 years and continue to use those roads.

The safety concerns up there, of course, the brush cutting; it needs to be done.

The washouts alongside the Buchans Highway, if a car is coming down that highway at 80 kilometres an hour and it catches one of those washouts, well b'y they're done. They are absolutely done. We've been asking – no roadwork has been done up there since I've been elected. I really hope that the minister comes out with something this year to ensure that the people of Buchans have a safe place to drive and the people of Millertown and Millertown Junction have a safe place to drive.

Cell service, of course, is another one up there. We had a couple of people breakdown up there, middle of the night, no cellphone service and walked for kilometres. As a matter of fact, we had a school bus driver, no kids were on the bus, thankfully, but the school bus broke down and that man had to walk six or seven kilometres to get back to try to use a phone. In 2022, that's not acceptable. God forbid, if that was the middle of winter and he had some kids on board. It would have been pretty bad.

Sticking with roads, Mr. Speaker, the Trans-Canada Highway going through Grand Falls-Windsor has an issue. It has a terrible issue. It happens on both ends, it's a divided highway, as most people know as they drive across the province. We have an issue with people veering off before the divided highway into the other lane. It mostly happens when people are going west; they switch over into the eastbound lane. It happens on a weekly basis. We had two fatalities last year. The fire department, who dealt with this, said it was one of the worst accidents they've ever seen. So you can see how it takes its toll on a community in general.

We need something to be done out there. I am not an engineer, but I have been pleading with the minister, the Premier, this government to do something. Ed Card, the former mayor of Badger, called me last week. He said: Chris, I was driving back to Badger and I missed him by an inch. Now you picture that. You're going through Grand Falls-Windsor, which is a 90-kilometre-per-hour zone, most people probably go 100; divided highway, it bends around, and you see a car barrelling towards you at 90 or 100 kilometres per hour well.

This isn't a one-time occurrence. This is happening over and over and over again, and I want to go on record here today to express the urgency that something needs to be done. I don't care if you've got to shut down that highway and turn it into a 40- or 50-kilometre zone until we figure out what has to be done. But somebody is going to be hurt or killed once again. So I want to express that urgency.

I put up a post on social media a while ago, encouraging people to come up with ideas, people who have driven the roads for so long, and a couple of people chimed in. I want to address this. A couple of people chimed in and said: People need to pay better attention. I couldn't agree more. Absolutely, people need to pay better attention. But how is that going to help you, or your family, or me or my family, when we are driving perfectly at 90 kilometres per hour in our own lane and we get hit head on?

My son just got his licence. My son isn't allowed on the highway in Grand Falls-Windsor. I forbid him. Because I am terrified that something like that is going to happen again. To one of my constituents, not just my son. I am absolutely terrified. So I am going on record today again, and I hope the minister is listening, hope the Premier's listening – I hope somebody's listening – because another fatality, and we're all going to remember this, May 3 – another fatality is going to happen if something is not done. And this will be brought up again. So I'm begging and pleading for somebody to do something before somebody else is killed.

Health care: We spoke yesterday about Preston Pardy, and I am happy to announce that I spoke with Preston just a little while ago and he is out of surgery and he is in recovery up in Ottawa.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. TIBBS: I want to thank Preston for speaking out for so many others. It's not an easy thing to do, but he spoke out, he told the truth and he told his story. But it's so important for the people that are coming behind him. Preston's 44 years old, he has two children, he has a wife, he had a double bypass and of course he had to be sent up there. Fortunately he got the surgery in time, he is resting and I cannot wait for Preston to get back home and we're going to see him then.

In Grand Falls-Windsor, we have an emergency room that is overloaded. It's unreal. Now, we addressed this with the minister almost three weeks ago. The minister said, of course, that they're trying to clear up the backlog within two weeks; not even close. We are not even close to it being cleared up yet.

Part of it, of course, is people waiting to get into long-term. The acute care centre is overloaded with people that shouldn't be there and, of course, lack of family doctors. So when somebody has a health issue, you can't blame them, they get scared, they need to see a doctor and there are no doctors to see, right down to the emergency room.

I want to thank the staff, in the emergency room especially, all throughout Grand Falls-Windsor medical facility, but especially the people in the ER that are dealing with this. I know a lot of the nurses. I know a lot of the doctors. I know a lot of the support staff down there, and my God are they fantastic people. The work environment there is great. They're so upbeat. They work together as a team; they do great work. They have to put up with a lot. The strain on them is absolutely insurmountable. I'll leave it at that, but I just want to thank them there for that, and we look forward to the long-term care centre being opened, the ER backlog being cleared up so these people can breathe, because right now they cannot and that's a shame.

You have to ask yourself: What's going to happen to these people if they don't get a little bit of easement, or a little bit of relief? They're going to go off to another province as well, or they're going to go somewhere else. We're hoping to keep them right there.

I'd like to touch on the cost of living, of course, because that's what we're talking about. When it comes to the budget, the budget is going to talk about the cost of living. We need to ensure that it's brought up. Inundated, absolutely inundated with people that cannot afford to live. It's amazing; it truly is. I'm not going to stand here and point fingers at anybody, but it's amazing, and I know 40 Members have to be hearing it. We've been saying it over and over again.

I think the problem that we're starting to encounter is the normalization of the cost of living in Newfoundland and Labrador, and that's just it; that's the way it is. It's like that across Canada. It's like that around the world. It's not normal to choose between food and heat. It's normal at all. So stop normalizing this. People are suffering and people need help.

We may not have all the answers, but I hope that we can work together to have answers. Now, government continues to ask us: Well, what would you do – what would you do? Repeal the sugar tax, immediately. The sugar tax should be repealed immediately.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. TIBBS: You want to know what we can do to alleviate some of the stress and the costs of people during some of the worst times of their life – get rid of the sugar tax. It's simple, go back and get rid of it. We don't need it. The people of the province don't need it. They're paying enough as it is. Unfortunately what we're going to see, Mr. Speaker, is an exodus. It's coming – it's coming.

My fear is this, and we're starting to see it already. The rest of the provinces are beginning to pick up after COVID much quicker than we are. They are. I talk to other people from other provinces as well. Once people see this, the playing field does not become level again, and we begin to lose people. And it will be a mass exodus. You know, we talk about immigration, same thing. Who is going to want to come to Newfoundland and Labrador in the state that we are?

If they see the cost of fuel, if they see the roads that they're driving on, the health care system, people are not going to want to come. If people do come, by God when they get here they may not want to stay. So we need to have more of an aggressive attack with the province to ensure that when people do come here, they see it. Come Home Year – it's not Come Home Year summer 2022; it's Come Home Year 2022.

We are debilitated right now in this province. If you drive across this province, it's absolutely embarrassing – the road signs – and they've been like it for years. They may have been like it in this administration, I don't know. But I know they've been like it for years. Not just broken, scratched up – these road signs are cut in half, some of them. They are absolutely cut in half and strung out alongside the road. I don't understand, I'm hoping that some of these road signs can get fixed before people come to this province, because it's embarrassing when you get off a plane and you look and you see: er Lake. Well, those signs are cut in half, or Butter Pot Park. A lot of these signs need to be fixed, as well as the roads of course.

I said when we first started debating the Come Home Year 2022, cellphone service. If we're going to be putting up these signs, and you know that Buchans highway, for instance, you're going to be 45 minutes without cellphone service, let's put up a sign there for the people that are coming here and let them know that for the next 45 minutes, no cellphone service. Because if they break down and they take out their cellphone to call for help and they don't get it, it's not going to be good for them, of course. It's going to leave a sour taste in their mouth.

We want people to come here; we want people to stay here. It's a beautiful province, it truly is; it has the ability to be a beautiful province. We were on top once and we will be on top again, and we want to ensure that we can show the rest of the country and the rest of the world that as well.

Speaker, the last couple of minutes, I'd like to talk about working people across this province. I want to thank all of those people out there, man, woman and child, that get up every single day and put it on the line. Whether you're working part-time at 20 hours a week, 40, 50, 60 hours a week – and these people are still struggling, even though they shouldn't have to. But they get up, they get up, they put on their workboots, they put on their suit and tie, they put on their apron and they go out and they give their all every single day, only to come home to stay up at 2:30 in the morning to worry about a home heating bill.

That's not right. That's not right. What's going to happen is Alberta is booming again; the West is booming again. These people are going to get wise to it and they're going to say my dollar can go a lot further in a place like that. That's exactly how it's going to go, I guarantee you.

My last minute and 45, Speaker, I want to talk about mental health once again. I can't talk about it enough. I really can't. It deserves a full day of chatter, I guarantee you. People in this province are feeling the crunch so bad right now. Everybody is walking around with a big smile on their face, most days, but I said it before and I'll say it again, a lot of people are dying on the inside.

They get home at the end of the day and they face their bills, they face the kids who want to do something or the kids want to go somewhere.

When I was elected I came home from Alberta to work here. I left a job in Alberta that I absolutely loved. I loved drilling for oil. I did it for 17 years. I would encourage anybody to try drilling, offshore drilling whatever else, the oil sector is something we should be proud of, but I loved my job. I took a huge gamble to come home here and do what I do and, hopefully, get elected, and by the grace of God, the people of Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans elected me.

The reason why I came home, I never aspired to be a politician. I don't even consider myself a politician now, I really don't. I wanted to come home because I saw there was going to be no future for my children, for your children here at home, for the children of the province to grow up. There was going to be no future here. We see it already. We see people leaving all ready. I wanted to ensure that future was going to be here for my kids and for everybody else's kids out there. That's exactly what I'll continue to do.

I want to thank, once again, the people of Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans for electing me. God bless you all. I look forward to representing you for the next so many years to come.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER (Warr): Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Speaker.

I'm very honoured to speak on the budget today and on this particular amendment to the budget. I just wish to extend again my sincere appreciation to the people of the District of Harbour Main for giving me this honour, for electing me to serve them. It is truly a privilege to do that.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the budget, there are a few questions that come to mind when I reflect and contemplate whether to support the budget or not. There are several questions which I think are necessary to ask when we try to decide whether we're going to support this budget.

First of all, one of the questions that I think is important, it's probably the most important question that has to be asked, that is: Did the government listen? I'm going to address that in a few moments. But I am going to go through a few other questions that I think are important to assess and to analyze in this decision whether to support the budget or not.

The second question: Is this the budget that our province needs? I'll repeat it. Is this the budget that our province needs – I would even say – at this particular time? I'm going to discuss that as we move along.

I think the third question that needs to be asked: Is it the best that can be done? Is this budget the best that could be done?

The fourth question is important to ask: Does this budget drive jobs? Does it encourage growth in our society and in our province?

Finally, another question I think that needs to be asked: Does it inspire confidence? Does it inspire confidence in the people of our province? Does it protect our vulnerable populations?

I think those are some of the questions that, for me, are important to consider in whether we can support this budget and whether I can support this budget.

I'd like to go back, first of all, to what happened with respect to the government's five-point plan. That can be tied directly to my first question: Did the government listen to the people of the province?

Well, I think we just need to look at that five-point plan that was announced prior to the budget coming out. I think you'll get your answer to that question whether the government listened to the people. The answer to that question is, no, they did not listen to the people.

What did they do? Let's just reflect on what they did in that announcement with respect to the high cost of living and the rising cost of living that the people of our province are experiencing.

They announced I believe it was approximately $22.2 million. There was an Income Supplement, a Seniors' Benefit, an income support, electric vehicles, oil to electricity transition, but, Speaker, that announcement and that response fell short, in my respectful opinion. There were way too many people that were left out with respect to that response.

We've seen such a high rise in gas prices. Yes, we know that there was a 10 per cent rise with respect to income support and Seniors' Benefit programs. That will definitely not cover the significant rise in gas prices.

Let's look at the electric vehicle funding piece. So we know that there was $1.9 million on electric vehicle infrastructure. By the way, that announcement I think had been made last year by government, but nevertheless they announced that again, $1.9 million. And then they also expanded the Electric Vehicle Rebate Program.

Okay, that's good, but I ask the Speaker, will those measures help the people of our province? Is this what our people need right now? These measures, I would argue, do not help the people struggling with the price of gas, who cannot afford – they cannot afford new electric or hybrid vehicles. I mean, we know that, that's a no-brainer; we know that. So these kind of announcements and responses, that five-point plan, doesn't cut it. They were not listening, Mr. Speaker, they were not.

Is this a budget our province needs? I would again submit and argue that this is not the type of budget that our province needs right now. We know that people are struggling.

I was talking to a gentleman earlier this morning on the phone from South River and it is heartbreaking, Speaker. It is heartbreaking what people are having to endure. He said to me things are getting worse and actually he went through exactly how much he paid for furnace oil. He was so upset. He said he spent $300 worth of oil on February 25.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: – and that gave him 48.2 –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I need to hear the Member speak.

Thank you.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: This gentleman from South River had spent $300 worth of oil on February 25; it gave him 48.2 gallons of oil. On March 24, $300 worth of oil gave him 38.2 gallons; $300 worth of oil on April 1 gave him 31 gallons of oil.

When we discussed it today, he said basically he can't afford to live. Things are getting worse. He said now, as of last Wednesday, it was I believe he said $1.67 a litre and now up to $1.93. So he said I don't know what we're going to do. Everyone he's talking to he said they're in the same position. They cannot make ends meet. They're making very difficult choices as to what to do, whether they're going to be able to eat, or put money in their cars for gas. He said forget about going to the grocery store. He said the price of groceries is gone beyond.

He said I go into a store with $100 for groceries, I'm lucky if I come out with two bags – two bags. Then he also said about everyone trying to get you to eat healthy. He said the people want to eat healthy, but he said forget about that. You can't afford to eat healthy either.

So it's very heartbreaking when you hear from seniors. He said things are just getting worse, what are we going to do? I know that government has basically said their hands are tied. Their hands are tied; they can't do anything about it, despite almost 40 cent a litres of gas going to provincial tax. Yet, the provincial government says it can't do anything about it.

But, Speaker, I challenge the government. They can. They have options to take. They can take real action, but they choose not to. It's about choices. It's about priorities. Government is not choosing to help the people that are suffering right now.

What can they do? Well, let's look at it. We have proposed, and the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port, our shadow minister for Finance, has repeatedly made suggestions to be part of the solution. Let's implement the home heating fuel rebate. That would offset the cost of home heating fuel. From what I understand, our province, Newfoundland and Labrador, is one of only two provinces in Canada that does not offer a rebate on the carbon tax, for example.

So we see there are options. Delay the implementation of the sugar-sweetened beverage tax – delay it. We need immediate, urgent relief. People need it now. This is a serious situation. It is a crisis. We're hearing it every day from our constituents and I am sure we all are hearing this same story. They are reaching out for us to help.

In fact, that gentleman I was talking to in South River today said what are we going to do? I said I don't know what to tell you. I'm representing your interests; I'm trying to get government to listen, as is our Opposition. He said, well maybe it is time for us to have demonstrations and protests. That's what that man said to me. He said, because if they're not listening – and what it makes me wonder is do they even care. I mean, surely, they must care about what's happening to the people in our province.

But again, getting back to some of the solutions that we can propose and we have proposed as an Opposition, ask the PUB to review the five cents per litre charged on gas. That was implemented when Come By Chance stopped producing. There's another suggestion, another way of approaching this.

Speaker, I don't think anyone on the opposite side is listening to us. I really am concerned with why there is no immediate action. When we look at the fuel prices right now – and I've had a number of constituents trying to understand why they are so high. We hear a lot of excuses from government, but we also have to be fair and balanced. I believe that is important when we are trying to solve these problems.

So I have been asked the question: Well, why are our fuel process so high, especially when Canada has plenty of crude oil? From what I understand and from what I've learned one of the reasons – and I do recognize this because government does raise this – there's no denying, yes, there is an increasing demand for oil around the world. That's not in dispute and therefore the rising fuel prices. There is a clear supply shortage on the market. So we'll acknowledge that. That's true and that does affect the world crude oil prices.

What else? Of course, we know the ongoing Russian war in Ukraine. That's an important factor as to why the fuel prices are so high. We'll acknowledge that. We look at oil production and we look at the fact that Canada, for example, is the fourth in terms of proven oil reserves in the world and Russia is eighth. So oil production, however, Russia is the second worldwide. It produces, I believe it's 9.9 million barrels a day. Canada is fourth with respect to oil production.

It's a complicated equation, which does involve global markets. I get it, there are no easy solutions regarding prices at the pumps. But Speaker, that can't be used as excuses. We cannot allow government to deflect and to use that as the reason for inaction.

Government has opportunity here, Speaker. They have opportunity with respect to implementing the home heating fuel rebate. They have opportunity to ask the PUB to review the five cents per litre that's charged on gas. They have the opportunity to delay the implementation of the sugar-sweetened beverage tax. The carbon tax – they had opportunity there, but they're not listening. So again, when I come back to whether I can support this budget, I definitely vehemently oppose and object to this budget, particularly at this time.

Speaker, I need to also look at a couple of other things with respect to the price increases that people are experiencing. When we look at the gas, when we look at the groceries, when we look at all of these – the consumer price index has risen, and we know that that's the case as well. But when we see price increases in essentials – these are essentials that people need to live; these are not luxuries, Speaker – this impacts everyone. It doesn't only impact seniors, but it really is devastating for seniors and low- and fixed-income individuals. Devastating when we see these price increases in essentials.

But it also affects the working and middle class. And we are all hearing this every day. When I hear from people in my district say, well, why aren't you doing anything about it, I think sometimes they don't understand that I'm not in government; I'm not in a position to implement the needed policies that should take place. But when I hear seniors calling, like this senior from South River, saying he's struggling to make ends meet, to buy food, to heat his home, his medications – him and his wife, their medications are expensive, and then driving the car.

They're choosing between which necessity they will do without. That is what's happening to the people in our province. Right now it's happening and I don't know what's going to happen, what's going to give here. Because if we do not do something here to change this – and I call upon government, I call upon the Minister of Finance to amend this budget. They have the power. They're hearing from us.

The Official Opposition represents approximately 30 per cent of the population. You're hearing from us; you have to listen. You have to listen to what we're saying. We're bringing you the concerns of the people that we represent and that all of us represent. So it's up to you to make the necessary amendments. And that's going to require adaptability. That's going to require flexibility on your part. That's going to require listening. And if you do not listen to the people that you serve, the government will lose any of its really moral authority to govern, in my view.

So, Speaker, the issue with respect to the budget, when I hear the government saying that there are no taxes and fees will increase, that's not true. We saw the carbon tax increase in 2022. We saw the regressive sugar tax introduced in September. We're seeing these things. We're seeing the cost of fuel going up, home heating fuel and diesel. Necessities are becoming less affordable. It's not good enough. We implore government to listen to the people it represents.

So, Speaker, at this point in time I would like to move a subamendment, seconded by the Member for Exploits: That the amendment that was previously presented, the non-confidence motion, be amended by changing the period at the end “thereof” to a comma, and also by adding immediately thereafter the following words: “and that this House also faults the government for its failure to demand or deliver fair financial transfers for Newfoundland and Labrador from the Government of Canada.”

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Thank you.

This House will recess and we will take a look at the subamendment.

Recess

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The subamendment that was presented by the Member for Harbour Main is deemed to be in order.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you very much, Speaker.

On this subamendment, I'm going to talk about health care, specifically not only in our province, but as well in the District of Harbour Main. I also want to talk about the subamendment that was introduced, just by way of explaining the clause: “… this House also faults the government for its failure to demand or deliver fair financial transfers for Newfoundland and Labrador from the Government of Canada.” I'm going to talk about that, as well, during my 20-minute speech.

First of all, health care. We know that health care – and I don't even know if want to call it health care because it's not really health care, it's the system. Let's just call it the system. The system is broken. The system in our province is very concerning. We're at a crisis. I mean beyond crisis, really. When we look at the shortage of doctors we're at 100,000 doctors throughout the province, shortage of nurses, all of that is contributing to, I would say we can call it substandard care in our province.

We know from the problems out in Central Newfoundland, for example – and my colleagues have raised this many times – several communities in the region are losing their doctors by the end of June. Harbour Main, even in my district, we're losing a doctor in South River at the end of June.

So we're all inundated with calls from our constituents, from concerned patients about the fact that they don't have doctors. Let's look at where this is and the picture to try to understand what's happened. We know there's been seven years of this government. They've had opportunity. This crisis didn't just happen overnight. We know that. That is fact. There was warning, there was notice, but now we see some sort of attempt at action to deal with these problems. But what concerns me is why wasn't there some preventative measures put in place years ago?

Everyone knew this was coming. I've talked to family doctors in my district who said they knew that this was coming, and it was anticipated. Let's look at what the president of the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association has stated, Dr. Susan MacDonald. She, basically, in her advocacy with this government and to try to bring attention to this problem, has referred to the fact that we are losing doctors. Yes, there are doctors retiring. What else is very important is that we're seeing a lot of burnout, we're seeing a lot of frustration and we're seeing doctors that are just not prepared to work under the conditions. The lack of work-family balance is important and is a factor as well.

Virtual care: Dr. MacDonald and the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association has pointed to this and have raised concerns about virtual care. Family doctors remaining are being told to do virtual care or virtual emergency rooms. But her concern and the NLMA's concern is that they're going to be pulled from their own family practice and their own patients. How is that helping the situation?

The whole health care system is in dire straits, we all know that. The president of NLMA has cited a number of concerns. She is saying that many rural health care centres can no longer deliver the sustainable services because, as she called it, the physician workforce is destabilized. Yes, as I mentioned, the situation in Central is probably the worst but she used, I think, an important analogy to describe the situation of physicians trying to plug a dam about to burst. She said that is a dangerous situation, not only for the physician but also for the patient.

She has repeatedly, as has the Official Opposition, called on government to step in with a plan before it is too late. The alarm bells have been ringing but they have been falling on deaf ears of this government.

That brings me back to what I spoke to earlier, before I introduced this subamendment, the listening part. Government has to start listening. It has to engage more with the Opposition, with the communities, with these associations and with the NLMA. Well, we hear that they are meeting with them sometime next week. Hello, next week? This has been seven years in the making here. Meeting with them next wee – Too little, too late.

So what is the key to improving health care, Speaker? I mean, there are no easy solutions, I know that. We are all aware of that. It is not an easy task and we understand that too. We're not suggesting that it is an easy task. But I think from what I've heard and from what our Opposition Members have heard from the people that we represent is they need to involve front-line stakeholders. They need to listen to people with lived experiences. They need to listen to people who have first-hand knowledge, and they haven't been doing that.

We wonder about the Minister of Health. I would argue that, quite frankly, he's missed the boat entirely. His priorities have been disconnected – disconnected from the reality, which is seen on the ground by our front-line workers. The minister's attention, in my assessment and analysis of what's happening, is on the boardrooms in our health care system, but not on the staff. Not on the people on the front lines. Not with the nurses and with the doctors. That is a serious misstep and a serious error in judgment.

When we look at other organizations, the Registered Nurses' Union, Speaker, what did they have to say about the budget? They said: 2022 budget does nothing to help the retention and recruitment crisis in our health care system. These are not my words. The Nurses' Union have set out the concerns. So I ask you, what has this government done to address the understaffing in our health care system for the past seven years? I mean, why are we here now?

The minister, in Question Period, responds often with, well, we have the Health Accord, as that being the solution. There are good things in the Health Accord, there's no question about it. I've spoken to physicians, I've spoken to specialists who haven't even had the chance to read the Health Accord because they're so busy trying to care for their patients in this overburdened system that we have. So it's not a solution for today – it is not a solution for today. A 10-year plan is not a reason to ignore the issues today. So, Speaker, there's no relief in this budget in my view to address this critical situation with respect to health care.

So let's look at the health transfers. Increased health transfers were promised by the federal government. They were promised to increase money to this province for health care spending in the budget. Did that happen? No, Speaker. The Premier failed in getting any increase with the Liberal federal government.

The Health Accord called for additional health care investments by Ottawa, even that health care plan, which is a good plan in principle, but it called for additional health care investments by Ottawa, and it's needed. Why is it needed? To improve wait times, to give nurses and doctors some relief; to make sure everyone has a family doctor. Yet, seven years in government – the Minister of Health has had seven years, this crisis didn't happen overnight. There's no surprise here. We saw it coming. It was seen, we knew it. We had knowledge, prior knowledge. Yet, now we have people that are really suffering.

Speaker, I look to the surgery backlog, for example. I believe the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association has said it's approximately 7,000 surgeries are wait-listed. That's in Metro St. John's area alone: 7,000 surgeries.

We have over 200 of those delayed surgeries involve cancer treatment, Speaker. Now, we all know cancer has touched us all. I'm sure everyone here, cancer has touched us all. Most of us have been impacted by cancer, the lives of loved ones, family, friends, colleagues – we all have personal experiences about cancer. But when we are seeing that there are delays in diagnosis, in treatment, in surgeries, can you even imagine? I can't even imagine what that must be. It must be very frightening when you are diagnosed with cancer and your surgery is being delayed.

We know that over 200 – I believe that's the latest stat that we have – delayed surgeries involve cancer treatment. That experience must be just unimaginable, how much stress and how frustrating and scary that must be. Their lives are at risk.

So what happens here? We need to see government engaging more. We need to see, for example, immediate and long-term consequences, we know. We're seeing all these disruptions in the health care system now, like the delayed surgeries, like the wait-lists of surgeries. We need to see that government is diligent, that they will anticipate, because they haven't done it before. But they need to start anticipating and preparing, like, for example, people that need to have treatment with chemotherapy, because if they're having their surgeries delayed, well what does that mean? That means if their surgeries are being delayed, perhaps they may have tumours in their body and if their surgeries are being postponed, it's possible that the cancer is advancing.

So what is government doing to anticipate and prepare for these contingencies because, surely, that's happening? If you have 6,800 surgeries wait-listed, 200 of those delayed surgeries involve cancer patients: is there a plan? What's happening to help these people?

It's very interesting that this week is Mental Health Week. I wonder how patients and families were affected when they were told they had cancer but their surgery was being cancelled or postponed. How must they be feeling? We can only imagine the emotional and the mental health consequences of that for them.

We know, Speaker, as well, the current estimate with respect to Canadians is that 45 per cent of Canadians are expected to be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime: 45 per cent. We cannot ignore this fact.

So what we need to do, Speaker, is we need to work together: government, non-government, organizations, health care authorities, nurses' unions, the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, we need to work together to make things better.

But I must say when I look at what is happening with Newfoundland, within our confederation, it is very concerning. We know that Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest taxes in the country. So we know that means it keeps consumers from spending. It keeps business from hiring. It keeps young people from staying here. The more people we lose, the less transfers we receive.

So that brings me to the subamendment. Based on the per capita formulas that exist now, the health care transfers and the equalization is not equitable and it is not fair to Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: So why is that? What does that mean? Because I have looked at it and we look at it in our Opposition, the federal funding programs, they're unfair. It is an unfair distribution of funds. We need to make these transfer payments fair and equitable. The health and social transfers should be based on need, not population.

But you might say, well, why should we do that? Are we asking Ottawa for something, you know, for a hand up?

No, we're not asking the federal government for a hand up or a handout. We're asking to be treated fairly in this Confederation that we joined in 1949. And that's not happening. If we were treated fairly, Speaker, within this Confederation, we would be in the same fiscal position, perhaps, that provinces like Quebec and Nova Scotia are in. They receive federal transfers, which are denied to us, and they are achieving fiscal balances.

So, Speaker, I look at Quebec, for example, $3 billion surplus. They get $13 billion, the latest data that I have, in equalization. What does Newfoundland and Labrador get? Zero. The perverse rules of equalization have to be changed. They have to be addressed. And who is advocating for us on this? Who is advocating for fairness on our behalf in Ottawa? Who is seeking for this inequity to be remedied?

We have a provincial Liberal government that's silent on this. We have a provincial Liberal government, it bears repeating –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh

SPEAKER: Order, please!

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: – that are silent on this. The federal government has failed to increase the amount of money given to this province for health care spending in the budget. They have failed to do that. We are entitled to that, as part of this Confederation. We are supposed to be equal partners in Confederation in this country. The federal government promised increases to health transfers, specifically to mental health – no. Did our Premier, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador secure an agreement from the Trudeau government for this year's budget? No.

So, Speaker, I am very concerned about these issues when it comes to our rightful place in this Confederation and how we continue to lack leadership on the part of our Liberal provincial government to advocate for our rights to be enforced.

Speaker, finally in cluing up, I do want to say that collaboration is the key here. It's a nice word, but you know what it is? It's a two-way street. It requires both sides engaging, both sides listening. It's time for the government, though, to hear the people say what they need. They're not listening. The people are desperate to be heard.

The people, though, of Newfoundland and Labrador are savvy. They are savvy. Then, when the government says they're doing all that they can do, guess what? People see through that. They know what's going on. They see the inadequacies in this budget. It needs to be amended, but they're not going to do it, Speaker. This needs to be amended. The people of this province are hurting.

The Minister of Finance claimed their focus is always on relentless pursuit of better, so I challenge the Minister of Finance, prove it. This budget doesn't meet the needs of the people. It needs to be adapted, it needs to be changed and it needs to be improved to meet the needs of the people you serve, and we all serve.

So show flexibility. Show a flexible approach. Show that you're adaptable. Bend your response. Meet the needs of the people that you serve. Because if you don't your own respectability, your own legitimacy will really be questioned in terms of how the people of this province see you.

So I would ask, with respect to this, that this is the hallmark of democracy here in the House of Assembly, and we have to engage in listening to one another.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER (Bennett): The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

S. CROCKER: Oh my God!

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad to see the Minister of Tourism is so excited to hear me speak again. He'll listen just as intently as he always does.

Always an honour to stand in this House and represent the people of the District of Terra Nova and certainly the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Obviously, this budget and the time we're at in this province is a very hard time for everyone, and it's important for people to get up and speak to the budget. Something I'm a little sad to say that government hasn't got up and done. They haven't spoke to it whatsoever, so it's a bit shocking –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

L. PARROTT: Oh good, but we presented a motion the other day for an emergency debate that got shut down because there was going to be lots of debate in the budget, and we haven't heard a peep, so you can't have it both ways. At the end of the day, it needs to be one way or the other.

Health care: Health care is such a huge issue for everyone in this province. We are overwhelmed with calls on a daily basis, and I'm sure everyone is. I have zero doubt that everyone in this House of Assembly is dealing with not just constituents and family and friends from their own ridings, but they're hearing from people whenever they're out to the grocery stores. When I'm here in St. John's and go somewhere, I've been approached several times by people talking about health care. It's a state; it really is.

I just recently learned Category B hospitals in Central are paying double the going rate now – double the going rate – in order to get doctors to go out there for a 24-hour period. So while the Minister of Health seems to think he's playing this elaborate game of chess, the reality of it is he's playing Jenga. He's taking a block from the bottom and he's putting it on top, and he's hoping that it's not going to topple over. But guess what? That's right where we are. It's about to topple and when you rob from Peter to pay Paul, it's gonna catch up.

And that is exactly what is happening in our health care. There are no solutions. If you think for a second that the solutions are right here right in front of us, absolutely not. And the sad part, as the Member for Harbour Main just elaborated very eloquently I might add, is that the current minister has had seven years – seven years – and by his own admission he understood the problems before he got involved in politics – seven years as a sitting minister. The Premier said he only ran because of the problems with health care. It was one of the cornerstones of his campaign, one of the reasons he got involved: because he knew the problems with our health care system.

I'll tell you what, my time in the military, I used to jump out of airplanes. That don't mean I know how to fly them. And they certainly don't know how to run health care, I can tell you that right now. Because we're in shambles.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: We need to understand the people's needs. I've got to go back. The Member for Harbour Main, she talked very eloquently when she said that they haven't talked to the nurses or the doctors. But you know what the sad thing is? They don't have to talk to them. Turn on VOCM and listen to the ads they're running. You can listen to what the NLMA is saying and the Nurses' Union without even picking up a phone or writing a letter. They're screaming for help. Overworked, overburdened, understaffed, unaware of what's going on, no plan – all things they've said.

Quotes from people working in the medical situation: Do you think you could pick up another shift this weekend because there's nobody to cover? We're desperate. Oh no, we are accepting another diversion today. Quotes from medical people to patients: I know you're frustrated you had to drive three hours and then wait for six more, but we're doing our best.

These quotes are very common, not just in rural Newfoundland, but all throughout the province. The reality of health care in Newfoundland and Labrador is that the health care system on the Avalon and Eastern Health and rural Newfoundland are incredibly different. Nobody can tell me for a second that health care in Labrador or the Northern Peninsula, or the West Coast or Central is the same. You heard me ask a question today: Imagine an individual who was told by this minister when we reached out and said we have a patient – and we reached out he can't get a family. He needs to apply to the collaborative care clinic in Eastern. Here's the phone number. He calls them. This guy was born in Clarenville, Eastern Health. His family physician, Clarenville, Eastern Health. Under the care of specialists in St. John's, Eastern Health. Calls the number for the collaborative clinic – sorry, Sir, you live in Charlottetown, nothing we can do for you. How does that make sense?

This phone call happened not one day, not two days, not one week, not two weeks, but weeks after this government announced we're going to one health care authority. What's the sense of one health care authority if you don't know how you're going to look after it all? What's the sense if you're going to turn away a patient based on where he lives?

Now, I can tell you the people in Charlottetown are a heck of a lot closer to Clarenville than they are to Gander. Very simple. That's not tough geography. It's no different than patients in Clarenville getting diverted to Carbonear. It's no different than an ambulance – I had constituents in an accident last week. Instead of sending them to the Health Sciences, 12 kilometres east of Whitbourne, they sent them to Placentia. Serious bone injuries, it makes no sense. You don't have to have a medical degree or a business degree or any other kind of a degree to understand that our health care system is not falling. It has fallen apart. You also don't have to have much time in this House of Assembly to understand that it's happened on their watch.

Now, the Premier sits over here and when you talk about health care he quickly says I've only been here two years. Five minutes later, he says but a $500-million debt you guys left us. You can't have it both ways, though. It might be true, but you cannot have it both ways and that's pretty simple. It's another excuse. The truth of it is you guys have failed to bring it across the finish line. You promised – as a matter of fact, from the EY report: “We take EY's recommendations seriously and it is our full intention to action them all including strengthening project governance and expanding oversight which we expect to have completed by the end of May.

“Schedule pressures and expected cost increases on the Muskrat Falls Project concern us all. The project is now being reforecast for cost and schedule….

“EY will assess the reasonableness of the revised forecast and will then present us with a final report following their review.” We will ensure the project is managed effectively within budget and on time.

The hon. Minister of Natural Resources, 2016, April 12. They were going to finish in 2017. Guess what? It's 2022.

S. CROCKER: It's a good investment.

L. PARROTT: Hear that? The Minister of Tourism is saying it's a good investment. I'm glad to hear him say that. As I talk about Muskrat Falls, he is saying it is a good investment. I'm glad to hear it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: It is about time someone on that side recognized it.

Our health care system, right now, has become unsustainable. If you don't believe that, talk to a nurse or talk to a doctor –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. PARROTT: But I will give you one better. Just for one second forget about the nurses, forget about the doctors and imagine you are a patient. Imagine you have cancer. Imagine you have an issue with your heart. Imagine you have had a stroke. You know what the Premier says?

He's going to reimagine. I challenge him to imagine what is going on with those people. As those people sit at home and try to understand what their future holds, nothing is changing. We are taking a block from the bottom, we're putting it on top and we're hoping that it is not going to topple over. It is a sad state when that is how we manage our health care. The people of this province deserve much, much better.

If you live in rural Newfoundland right now and you think about what it is going to cost you as a cancer – any kind of a specialty, really. Any specialty service that you have to go to, you're either going to the West Coast or to the Avalon, mostly to the Avalon. Think about the cost incurred. Now we can talk about the MTAP and all the different programs that are out there to help people, but the reality of it is: (a) people do not understand a lot of those programs, the educational material is not out there for people to know that they even qualify for them; and (b) we have patients every single day who are not able to avail of services because they can't afford to travel, because of the cost of gas because of the cost of hotels, because of the cost of fuels.

Then, on top of that, add the fact that they could travel to St. John's, as an example, and they get here and an appointment is cancelled. Just imagine leaving the Northern Peninsula to come down here or Labrador, getting on a flight to come out here and being told, sorry, your appointment has been cancelled. We're going to reschedule you at the earliest convenience. Well, that individual may have waited two years in order just to get an appointment and now they have to wait another very extended long period of time.

We have 200 cancer patients awaiting surgery? I'm willing to bet you we have Members in this House that have serious ailments that have not only had to wait but are waiting for treatment. Now, nobody in this House deserves any special treatment, that I can guarantee you, but the men and women we represent, they deserve special treatment. They deserve much better than we are giving them and there is no question about that.

We have a Health Minister and a Premier who says, we're on it. The Health Minister talks all the time about the amount of family doctors we have in this province. We have more than our share of family doctors, 600-and-something family doctors. We've got every family doctor that we need. If that's the case, why is it 20 per cent of the population doesn't have a family doctor?

If the collaborative care clinics are the solution, why is it we're turning people away? None of it makes sense. It doesn't make any sense. So I believe that the minister, much like regionalization, doesn't have a plan. He's going through a process. He's throwing darts at the wall, playing darts with people's lives hoping that it works out okay, and it's simply not good enough.

Seven years sitting as a Minister of the Crown, representing one entity, the same position, for us to be in the position we're in right now, I would say if he could look anyone in this House and say that our health care system is better today than it was seven years ago when he started, then maybe, maybe nobody would be talking the way they are. But I can guarantee you, our health system is far worse today than it was seven years ago, far worse. As a matter of fact, when he sat as the president of the NLMA, if you go back and listen to the things he said, all of those things are non-existent all of a sudden. How does that make sense? How can you go from A to B?

One of the Members talked here earlier about how people get in the government and they change. Absolutely right. Probably a good example; probably one of the best examples. You're talking about a guy who went from being the president of the NLMA and a national president, to coming in here and turning his back on the very people he represented. As a matter of fact, a couple of days ago when the NLMA came out talking about it, he said he responded to them with an email. He shouldn't have to respond to them. He should be the one going to them. It should be his initiatives that are keeping our health care system afloat. He shouldn't be waiting to get information from the NLMA or from any other entity in our health care system.

Our health care system is going to fall down around him and it's going to go unnoticed. It's sad. Our Premier had the opportunity to change it. He said he knew the problems when he got here, and when he got here two years ago, he put the exact same individual back in the same seat. He had the opportunity to change it and he failed, simple.

When I talk to people throughout my district and throughout the entire province, we talk about the ability to access services; mental health is one of the biggest things that comes to light all the time. It is incredible how many people cannot access mental health and it's okay to say. We've heard the minister talk about the robust program and how people are getting in to get mental health consults, first appointment. Guess what happens after that? Two-year waiting lists, maybe longer. Guess what happens in that period of time? Your mental health deteriorates exponentially.

Now, let's go back two years. Two years ago we had a mental health crisis. Two years ago we had a mental health crisis – pre-COVID. Now add COVID into the mix. Take a bunch of senior citizens, lock them into houses by themselves; take a bunch of kids, lock them at home and put them on a video game, put them on a computer to try and go to school, and tell me what you expect is going to happen to their mental health.

Our mental health issues have exploded and there has been nothing done, not a thing. It is not just seniors and it is not just young children. But I can tell you I talked to a family physician in my district last week and they have kids – and I have heard from other Members in my caucus – lined up to see them because of mental health issues. And they are serious and they are real.

I'll tell you something else. Don't take my word for it, go to one of your schools and talk to a guidance counsellor, talk to the social workers at the school and ask what they have to say. I can tell you what they have to say. They are going to tell you we are failing our kids. We are failing them. Everyone in this House. Those children are supposed to be our future, and from a mental health aspect and what has happened over the last two years, we have done nothing. Yet, the minister seems to say everything is A-okay. Everything in not A-okay.

Now, forget COVID – forget COVID. Go to the financial state we are in. Now you tell me how those kids feel when they go home and mom and dad are fighting because they don't have enough money to put food on the table. You tell me how those kids feel when mom and dad say: I can't put you in hockey this year. I don't have the money to do it. Dad has been laid off. I don't have work. You tell me how those kids feel when someone can't afford to get gas to go drive a kid across the Island to play in a tournament. This is what's happening. Yet, everything is okay.

Between mental health, between our regular health care system and our financial situation, I can tell you what, it's seven years – there are not many new faces over there, there may be a new premier – that's three terms, seven years: nothing done.

Balance the budget in 2021; promised in '16, '17, '18, '19, now it's '25-'26. Do you know what? Everybody in this House can talk about Muskrat Falls, but Muskrat Falls was there in '16 when the promise was made. It was there in '17. It was there in '18 and it was there in '19. Nothing has changed.

The only that has changed is the influx of money that this government has gotten because of COVID relief. They have actually won the lotto and they still couldn't get it right. Prior to the COVID relief, in March of 2020, the previous premier wrote a letter to the prime minister and said we are on the very crisis of collapse. We are on the cusp of collapse here in this province, prior to COVID.

So I have sat here and listened to COVID as the main excuse. It's not COVID. We were there long before COVID. People have short memories.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

L. PARROTT: If you're embarrassed about something maybe you should get up and say it there, Minister. Is it an embarrassment over failure or is it an embarrassment for something I'm saying? At the end of the day, while you're signing your greeting cards, if you are embarrassed by what I am saying, perhaps you should get up and say it to me. I didn't think so.

Our health care system has fallen apart and they have watched it. Yes, I agree 100 per cent with the Minister of Finance: it's absolutely embarrassing. One hundred per cent embarrassing. Because do you know why? The people that put us here deserve better. The people in this room deserve better. All I hear is: in Canada, in Saskatchewan, in Manitoba. We are worried about –

E. LOVELESS: (Inaudible.)

L. PARROTT: I hear the Minister of Transportation talking about leadership over there. I know you guys lack leadership and you're excited to see some. You will at some point, no doubt.

E. LOVELESS: (Inaudible.)

L. PARROTT: Yeah, I know you will.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

E. LOVELESS: (Inaudible.)

L. PARROTT: You don't know what the questions are, so certainly –

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. LOVELESS: (Inaudible.)

L. PARROTT: I'm speaking.

SPEAKER: I ask for order from both sides, not just you. I speak to all Members.

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your protection.

Mr. Speaker, my point is quite simple. At the end of the day, as the health care crumbles, as people can't afford to live anymore, we sit back and we watch. We come in here and we present a budget that does nothing for anyone. It does nothing for anyone. Now, I'll agree that parts of it will help seniors, marginally; it will help certain aspects of the population, marginally. But, at the end of the day, there are too many missed opportunities.

The reality of it is we should be looking to delay the sugar tax. We should be looking for ways to reduce carbon tax, tax on gas and find ways to address the cost of living. We should be looking for home heat rebates. We should be looking for ways to help, not only the most vulnerable but everyone. Part of that comes with ways to reduce the cost of living and the other part is to get people the health care they need.

We don't have one crisis any more. We've got two major crises – two. And nobody is addressing them. This budget doesn't address them; there's no question about that. Anyone who thinks this budget addresses that stuff, they haven't paid any attention to it, I can guarantee you. The five-point plan, I can tell you, electric cars, the ability to switch from home heating oil to electricity, it doesn't work. It's not going to solve it for anyone. Because, at the end of the day, the people that need the most help can't afford electric cars and they certainly can't afford to switch.

I had a lady call me yesterday and she had a quote to switch from oil to electric. Guess how much? Twenty thousand dollars. So you're going to tell someone who's at the very lowest end of the totem pole, we're going to help you out now, we'll give you a $5,000 rebate to switch from oil to electric. All you've got to do is come up with 15 grand. That's an easy fix. That'll look after you. When that's done, you're still going to pay $400 or $500 a month for electricity.

It's not a fix. It's not a solution. It's not anything. The reality of it is, is that most of the people who are living in houses with oil heat are probably renting them, which is even worse.

I cannot, in good conscience, support this budget. I can tell you right now, I will not. I'm with the Member for Harbour Main. I guarantee you there's nothing in this budget that makes any sense with regards to how it helps the cost of living.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

J. WALL: Thank you, Speaker.

It is always a wonderful opportunity to be able to rise in this hon. House to speak on behalf of the residents of the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis. It's good to be back here after a couple of weeks.

The last time I had the opportunity to speak in this House, Mr. Speaker, I spoke with respect to the budget on the blue-collared worker. Since that time, I've had dozens of people reach out to me, to thank me for standing up for the middle class, to bring their concerns forward, and that is what we need to do. Everyone needs to be represented here in this House and, of course, throughout our district.

Last evening, I had the opportunity to speak with a young couple from Torbay. When I was speaking with this couple I thought back to the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board with respect to her Budget Speech. This young couple, two professionals living here with their parents in a basement apartment, are moving out of province. As I was going through the conversation with them, again, I thought on the line in the Budget Speech, and I quote “This budget is about us. About what we all want to achieve – a stronger, smarter, self-sufficient, sustainable Newfoundland and Labrador.” I couldn't agree more. I couldn't agree more.

I was overwhelmed with the thought of, not only this particular couple leaving our province but how many more couples are leaving. These are our young, educated, professional, innovative people that we are losing. I know the quote, it was said here yesterday: it's not about the amount of money that's in my pocket. It's about the amount of money that's being taken out of my pocket, with respect to the level of taxation and the cost of living here in our beautiful province.

So it caused me to think how many more young individuals are leaving our province – not only in my district, but in the 40 districts represented here. That is concerning, and as I said before, that is reality.

It's something that we are faced with. It's something that we have to make good, credible choices to keep people here. Right now, that one couple is just one couple, no doubt, but it leads you to think of how many more couples are in that same situation. We all know that the cost of living is increasing for everybody; it's a struggle. I spoke to a gentleman in Flat Rock, a senior, recently retired, and I asked, as anyone would do: How are you doing today? And his response to me was: I'm surviving.

Again, that hits home. Because he didn't respond with anything more positive than: I'm surviving. And we got into the conversation about the level of income that they have and what's required for them on a daily basis, on a monthly basis, with respect to the cost of living. We all heard about the cost of fuel, the cost of heating oil, the cost of goods and services, and it is – it's getting harder and harder each time when we look at what people have to face in order to live day to day.

That is the reality that we need to be faced with. When we look at the budget and what is there and how it helps people – again, it was said earlier, a portion of our population has been positively affected by this. But not everyone, and I go back to the blue-collar worker. With that level of income, and they're working on a daily basis, trying to pay the bills and trying to survive, it comes back to us to make better decisions for all people of our province.

So I'm no different than any other MHA here; I know constituents are reaching out to you all the time. That's part of our job, is to listen to our constituents. And they're making choices on a daily basis that, you know what, perhaps they shouldn't have to be making. So I spoke to a small-business man in my district, operates an excavation company, has a truck, an excavator and he's etching out a living, no doubt about it. He's working hard; he's working hard for the dollars that he makes. But it's become increasingly more difficult for that gentleman – and he's only one of many – to make a go of his business.

When we think of what has to be done with respect to small business, with respect to people trying to survive, this couple back in Torbay, again, they said that their dollar will go a lot further outside of this province. That's a heavy statement. Their dollar will go a lot further outside of this province. So when we're looking at the budget, when we're looking at our level of taxation, when we're looking at the decisions that we are making here, that has to be in the forefront.

I'm not saying, Madam Minister, that you're not making and putting that effort into it. That's not what I'm here to stand and say today. What I am saying is that we, collectively, have to do better. We have to do better for our province, for all of our constituents, because we all have family members who are going to be affected. When we look at the many challenges, I'll go back to seniors with respect to that particular demographic and the level of affordable housing.

I never thought that it would be a difficult position in my district, in the District of Cape St. Francis, that affordable housing would be an issue. But it is increasingly becoming more and more evident that seniors cannot afford to live in their homes. That is clear with respect to the for sale signs as you drive down Route 20 – not Route 66 – with respect to the homes that are for sale. It leads me to think on what they are having to do, the discussions that they are having to make and the sacrifices that they have to give in order to stay here. That, Speaker, is only a small demographic with respect to seniors who can't live in their homes, but that is making a big difference to them, to their families, to the communities as a whole.

When I look at that five towns in my district and the level of services that the municipalities have to provide and with people moving out, you have less of a tax base. With businesses who are not doing so well and may close up, you have less of a tax base to draw from. It is very concerning to me when I hear these instances in my district and I think of the choices that these individuals have to make, it causes me to wonder what else can we do. What better choices can we make, collectively, as 40 MHAs in this House? That is something that we need to keep first and foremost.

Mr. Speaker, it was mentioned earlier today that this is Mental Health Week. I think that needs to be recognized a bit more than what we are doing from May 2 to May 8. Good mental health, Mr. Speaker, has a positive effect on your physical health and, in return, good physical health has a positive effect on your mental health. That can't be said any clearer than that, with respect to mental health. I do know that we have many issues facing our health care system in our province – many issues. The Premier has stated, in this hon. House, that our health care system is broken. Well, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you from the many doctors and nurses that live in my district, many of those who have reached out to me over the past number of weeks and months, who are pushed to the max with respect to the level of service that they have to provide in health care, they're burnt out. They are pushed to the max; they are overstressed.

One nurse did say to me a broken health care system leads to broken physicians and broken nurses. When you stop and think about that and you really digest it, these are the people that we are relying on when we're going to our health care centres, our emergency rooms. This is something that's unacceptable with respect to the level of care that we're at currently in our province. I won't repeat what was said earlier with respect the seven years and the opportunities that had been here, but I can tell you that a solid platform is needed going forward.

I know that we've had the opportunity to speak with Sister Elizabeth Davis and Dr. Pat Parfrey on many occasions with respect to the Health Accord, and we all agree that the Health Accord is welcomed here in our province. But that's years out. That is years out that we're looking at this particular solution for our residents here in Newfoundland and Labrador. So we need something a lot sooner than that. We need something that's going to make a difference now, in addition to the Health Accord that's going to be coming down the pipe in at least several years.

So with respect to the level of health care that we have in our province, I spoke with a friend of mine in Stephenville Crossing who's coming into St. John's for cancer care. You just look at the amount of money that that couple, husband and wife, has to put out from coming from Stephenville Crossing to St. John's to stay here overnight, meals, gas. The prices are just through the roof. And that's on top of the stress that this couple is going through while one of the individuals is having cancer care.

I can't imagine having to travel across the Island for that. For me, I live 25 minutes outside of the tertiary care centre here in St. John's, and we unfortunately had to go through a time in our lives where that was needed as well with respect to cancer care. A cancelled appointment yesterday for my wife is stressful enough when you look at what you have to go through. But we were 25 minutes outside the city; we didn't have to travel across the province. All of these things make you stop and think of what can we do better to serve our residents. It's indeed overwhelming at times. This is not something that we take lightly, no doubt about it. It's overwhelming at times.

Mr. Speaker, I've had the opportunity over the last couple of months to do a bit of travelling across the province from time to time. Recently, we were in the beautiful District of Carbonear - Trinity - Bay de Verde. A beautiful district. You won't find a pothole I can tell you that. Wonderful roads. What a Member.

I can tell you, I can only dream of having the same in my district. But I can tell you the people that we spoke with –

S. CROCKER: (Inaudible.)

J. WALL: The minister has a plan for this evening for the news. Not a problem.

The people that we spoke with in that district, Mr. Speaker, it's not all rosy, I can tell you that. We hear it in the 12 districts that we represent. I know that the government are hearing that as well in their districts. I know that. This is not a one-sided issue, but I can tell you the people that we met within Carbonear - Trinity - Bay de Verde, the quote that one young lady left me was: We are losing hope. We are losing hope, I say to the Member from the middle of St. John's.

That causes us great concern, when you're looking at the level of health care that's provided. We discussed the Carbonear hospital and what is going on there.

They must love what I'm saying, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

J. WALL: When we spoke about the Carbonear hospital and the level of care that's being provided there – of course, the doctors and the nurses or what's going to be coming from the Carbonear hospital – the quote that I was left with was, and I need you to listen to this: Carbonear hospital is not part of the problem, but it's definitely part of the solution.

S. CROCKER: I've been saying it forever.

J. WALL: I'm glad that the minister agrees with me. I do hope that the Minister of Health would listen as well. When it comes to the Carbonear hospital and the services that they provide not only to the people in that district, or that area, I can come from Pouch Cove to go to Carbonear General Hospital, not a problem.

So when government is looking at this, remember that is part of the solution, when you're looking at appointments that can be filled, some of the backlog or what have you. It's important to remember that level of commitment.

Speaker, I do know that I spoke with the municipalities in my district. They are concerned with the state of the province, with our economy. They are concerned with the cost of increases in municipal projects and tenders. When I listened to the Minister of Transportation, he says that the roads plan is coming out soon. I appreciate that. When we look at the level of money that is required to do the work throughout the province, again, it is something that is not going to be an easy fix and it won't be done overnight. But I do appreciate the level of concern that the municipalities have with respect to municipal projects, tenders and roadwork. I do just want to make that point known.

Mr. Speaker, I'll touch briefly on Volunteer Appreciation Week. All of our districts, I'm sure, had many, many functions for Volunteer Appreciation Week, as did mine. I just want to note with respect to some volunteers that were pointed out in my district.

So for the Town of Bauline we had two, we had Jackie Legrow and Megan Hibbs; in the Town of Pouch Cove we had Danny Connors; and in Flatrock, we had Brian and Corrina Martin. I have to give a shout-out to my constituency assistant who did attend that function for me; I was at another municipality.

She did share with the council that by her being there they got the better end of the bargain – never. Anyway, I'll just give a shout-out to my CA, Barb, for that and to Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove, Michelle Hickey, Karen Youden Walsh, Rita Kennedy and Cole Inkpen.

All of these people are making a difference in my district and, of course, in the individual municipalities. So that has to be recognized when we are coming home –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. WALL: Thank you – for Volunteer Appreciation Week.

S. CROCKER: (Inaudible.)

J. WALL: Mr. Speaker, I am hearing the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. I can't stop him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

J. WALL: That's it. I appreciate that.

Speaker, with respect to Come Home Year, I am hearing from my residents in my district, from my municipalities that they are no doubt excited for Come Home Year. A lot of work has to be done and the Minister of Transportation knows that. We've had discussions.

A lot of work has to be done in order for us to celebrate Come Home Year, but I will give a shout-out to the municipalities – for the Town of Pouch Cove from July 14-24, the Town of Bauline from July 28-31 and the Town of Torbay from August 4-7. So if you are inclined and join me in my district for those particular times, please reach out to me and we can celebrate together.

Speaker, one thing before I leave, I think we need to recognize the Queen's 96th birthday. She's 96. I can tell you that in the Town of Bauline they're having a large celebration for that. I look forward to taking part with respect to the Town of Bauline and their residents in that as well.

Speaker, I will close by saying that I try to look for the positive. I do. Most times I do. I will say with respect to the cost of living and health care that I spoke on today with respect to the budget, we need to do more. We ought to do better. We have the residents of this province here as our responsibility. It's something that I take great pride in, representing the District of Cape St. Francis. I take very seriously the work that this honourable House does.

I know that there are times when there are things going back and forth. I realize that. But I do have to say that we need to do better when it comes to our residents, with the cost of living; we need to help them as they're going forward. With respect to health care in our province, I'm looking forward to what's going to be coming from the Minister of Health with these conversations that we're going to be having with the Medical Association, the Nurses' Union, what have you. It is something that we all have to keep first and foremost.

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate your time, your attention and especially the attention of all Members here.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I can understand why the Conservatives in my district are losing hope.

Mr. Speaker, I move that this House do recess until 6 p.m.

SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion”

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

This House stands recessed until 6 p.m.

May 3, 2022 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 47A

The House resumed at 6 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 1.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Speaker.

I'm going to take a different tack here, because I'm going to have a conversation as to where and to inform the House as to a suggestion as to where we could earn more money and benefit those in rural Newfoundland and within the province. So at least I want to try to pass that on, and that will be a contribution for your thought processes as you get around and make some decisions, and just see if you can see a little bit of merit in what I present.

But before I do so, I just to mention that my hon. Member for Ferryland stood up and gave a Member's statement about the Flatrock Flyers and the Southern Shore and how they defeated the Clarenville Caribous four games straight, didn't give them too many goals, and didn't even give them a game. He said six Herders, and I think he was modest in the fact that this man played on the teams that won five Herders. So I would say, way to go to the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: I know that we were trying to get entertainment into George's Brook-Milton, their cultural house one year, and we were in hot pursuit of Kellie Loder. I know my Member had stated in his address and wished her best of luck as a songwriter and singer from Badger. She is in the Canada's Got Talent, so I want to wish her all the best.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: We had Estimates this morning and I must say, learned lots, sat down and we engaged the department. I learned that we are an exporter of milk, which was exciting. I looked at that and said: Boy, that's great; I didn't know that. But to know that we were self-sufficient in our milk products as well as others, but also we're exporting it, and that was good.

The only thing that myself and the minister may have not seen eye-to-eye on was at one point in time I told him during Estimates that the fishing industry ought to be a $5-billion industry as opposed to a $1 billion. And I think he might have looked at and said, well, you share what your science or what you've got, if it's something that he doesn't have. The only thing I would say to you is let me see before I start whether I can rationalize to you some thinking. Because in this House if you did an analysis of what was being discussed on the floor of this House, we're all here because of the fishing industry.

Everything we've had in Newfoundland and Labrador, our beginnings, were the fishing industry. Our dispersed geography is because we were close to the fishing grounds. It stretched all over our coastal communities. But in our decision-making body, which are the 40 Members here in this House of Assembly, not a lot of times that the fishery comes up. And that's part my responsibility, it's part the minister's and it's part the other 38 Members that would be in this House. There's not a riding here in this House of which the fishery is not a significant part of, and it ought to be more significant.

Let me share with you – and when the budget was read and the hon. minister read out the budget on the fishery, I was thinking I was disappointed that it was only a billion. The price of crab is so high, but I was a little disappointed that we were settling and getting excited about $1 billion. And I noticed that the government at the time gave a rousing applause as if this was great where we currently find ourselves in the fishery. And that concerned me a little bit.

Let me just give you some numbers. I've said before in the House, we have 200,000 metric tons we harvest – 200,000 metric tons is what we harvest and that equates to $1 billion. So just keep that in mind. That's our fishery, 200,000 metric tons.

So this morning the minister and his wonderful staff mentioned about capelin and they said the value of the capelin stock was $17 million. I don't know if that was accurate, but I think that's what was estimated, that the –

D. BRAGG: Last year's.

C. PARDY: Last year.

So $17 million landed value is what was stated. Out harvest for capelin is 14,500. It nets us $17 million. Capelin in Iceland, and I'll give you Norway – and remember, global warming, every country we have in this world is battling and has the environmental issues that we would have. Climate warming is an issue with all those fisher nations. There's nothing different about that.

In Iceland, the quota is reported to be as high as 900,000 metric tons for 2022. If it were 200,000 tons – remember we are 14,500 – that would be 234 million. Norway is 70,000 metric tons, which, again, would be 4.8 times what we harvest in capelin and they would be up 82 million. That is one species. That is one species we got.

Let me give you some of the other ones that we have in Newfoundland and Labrador. The quota, the total allowable catch for cod, in Newfoundland is 13,000 metric tons; Norway it is 708,000-plus tons; Iceland is 180,000 tons.

We've got haddock. We're less than 1,000 in Newfoundland and Labrador. The haddock in Iceland is 33,000, the quota. Norway is 180,000 metric tons. We are less than 1,000.

The mackerel, it was 4,000 last year. This year it is closed. In Iceland it's 140,000 metric tons and in Norway it's 298,000 metric tons.

The herring, we are less than 15,000 metric tons; Iceland is 68,000; Norway is 454,000 metric tons. If we looked at the value of that alone, and we know that our shellfish is our most lucrative and that is what is giving us our value right now. But if we look at all the species that we have in our waters and know that we collect 200,000 metric tons and we've got the largest coastline, coastal coastline, in the world, two currents that are meeting that are strategically making it a very rich, fertile breeding ground and one would say: Why are our numbers so low?

Gus Etchegary and many other fishers would say they are low because of federal mismanagement. Federal mismanagement since 1949. That is a whole different topic that we can discuss, but it is what it is.

The other significant difference with Newfoundland and Labrador and those other countries is the seal predation. The difference between those nations and ours are the seals. They have less than two million harp seals on their quota. We now, I would think, are probably close to 10 million. In 2019, we were 7.9 million.

The way the herds are growing. The helicopter that flew up the coast and the Northern Peninsula that I seen a video of two weeks ago, it was constant while they were flying and while the people were talking the helicopter was taking a picture of the ice and the seals that were on the ice. After about 5 minutes in the presentation – and this was the St. John's Rotary Club where Bob Hardy was speaking on seal predation and where we ought to be – it became a little unnerving. There were so many, and the helicopter was moving, it was constant and they were littered all over the ice.

We talk about our cod fishery – we usually don't have grey seals pupping in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think that is uncommon, from my understanding. Sable Island off Nova Scotia, that's the real breeding ground, 80 per cent plus are there and the others are not too far off. But now they're saying they're pupping in and on Newfoundland and Labrador coastline.

Seals are reported to eat 200,000 metric tons of fish in the ocean every six days. Let me repeat that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Repeat, repeat.

C. PARDY: I'm going to repeat it a couple times.

Every six days our seal population consumes 200,000 metric tons. Now, if 200,000 metric tons of fish equates to one billion – do the math. Just do the math, linear, without having any science background, just do the math and one would say that seals are eating, conceivably – let's just say six days and move it to 14 days – one billion of landed product that we could be developing in rural Newfoundland for the betterment of the province.

Let's say that it is not five billion. There is some out there saying that it should be 10 billion. Bob Hardy would say between five billion and 10 billion. Let's say it's two billion or three billion. It ought to be a pursuit of government to make sure that the fish is not just eaten off our shores. It ought to be landed and there ought to be a market value of the product that we currently have.

I said to the minister this morning – he had said it was different times – in this particular government, since coming into power in 2016, there hasn't been one news release on sealing.

Now, listen, you might say, well there's nothing to report on. If someone could have said well at least you could have put in the changing of the chairs in the House of Assembly that did have seal pelts on them. The only thing I would say is that speaks volumes. We don't have a release on seals, no release since this government here came into power.

Now, go back to 2016 and before, there were numerous there. They were numerous and they were substantive. But that is where we are.

John Efford in 1999, let me give a couple of quotes of John Efford. You'll say that was 23 years ago that he stated: I want to say at the very outset that for three years plus I've been saying there is no larger problem facing the present and future of Newfoundland and Labrador and the very survival of coastal communities of Newfoundland and Labrador than the problem we have with under-biomass resource of fish stocks and an overpopulated seal herd. There is no greater problem facing these communities than that problem in itself.

Now, you should have listened to your colleague and we should have had much more action since '99 to this point in time.

One question I would love to ask, which we never had time in Estimates, would be: What exactly have you done? And that's a fair question. There are pressures and there are things that you can't do. Listen, there are high hurdles that you're going to have to climb here and there are things that are barriers. But we've got to make that first step in making sure that we do get a greater return on our fishery.

The minister had disagreed with the $5 billion. The only thing I would say to you, I would hope that the decision-makers that are across from me here tonight will think that it has a degree of merit – 200,000 metric tons, $1 billion for our economy, our landed value. Seals eat it in six days. A depleted stock with an overpopulated herd of seals is going to quickly demise the remainder of some of these stocks. It makes sense. When stocks are plentiful, we haven't got to worry about these seals, I don't think, of making extinct the redfish.

A DFO fish biologist states that he can see, in the next short time, cod on the South Coast becoming extinct in that area. Now, Mr. Swain stated, in a couple of readings and articles, extinct because of the sealing situation that we have. That is alarming.

So here we are with a quota of 450,000 thereof, approximately of seals, and we don't harvest anywhere close to that. I said this morning let's do something; let's incentivize. I don't know if that went over very well. But I'm just saying let's do something to make sure we minimize the seal herd to make sure that we land more product and get more revenue for our province. Rural Newfoundland will thank you for it because I would think at this point in time what's saving our bacon, as was stated by the minister and I would concur, is our shellfish. If something happens to our shellfish by those numbers I just read out to you, we're in trouble.

John Efford called it right. We are in 2022 and if the shellfish industry drops and we lose that price that we get for fish, you tell me what else we're going to harvest from our waters. Seals are plentiful our there; we can harvest seals. What else? So the only thing I would say, that is food for thought.

Another one Mr. Efford says – just to quote – what I am saying is what has happened to the fish stocks? We have caused the fish stocks to collapse. But at the same time we caused the fish stocks to collapse, we stopped hunting seals and the populations of seals exploded. Now it is out of whack; it is out of balance.

I would say to you if anybody – the Member this morning, for Lake Melville, talked about the value of capelin and I forget what he said. It was pretty inspiring.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

C. PARDY: Yeah, I know. But he said they were the vegetation of the ocean?

AN HON. MEMBER: Fertilization.

C. PARDY: Fertilizer of the ocean. He is 100 per cent correct; it is.

One fisher from the hon. Member's district out in Green Bay contributed to a slide presentation that I saw on the Rotary session where they opened up one seal and the stomach and they had a five-gallon container of capelin – one seal. And now we're going to close down for fishers when we have a herd out there of 10 million that is feasting away every day while we sit here in this House and every minute. So the only thing that I would say to you, John Efford may be right: If we don't soon take action, it is going to be too late. And Doug Swain may be correct for the South Coast, but it won't only be the South Coast.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.

I'm glad they were so good to listen to what my colleague had to say. I'm not sure that you'll be as happy with me.

I will start off, though, because I think all of us in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador know how important the fishing industry is to us. When we joined Canada in 1949, we brought the richest fishing grounds in the world, to Canada. As a matter of fact, history will show you that Canada's value as a fishing nation went up considerably because of that. However, we all know what followed. It followed that the management of that resource became the responsibility of the federal government. And we can sit here all day and argue about that, and I would be one that would say that it hasn't been managed well, similar as my colleague has said, and I would also say to all of us, if we could have an accord for the oil off our shore, then we should have an accord for the fishery off our shore.

We don't need sole management of it; we need joint management of it. We need to be at the table. And I think that's something we could all agree on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: I look forward to that fight, I really do, because I believe that everyone in this House would want that same principle. I also believe that the principal beneficiary of our fishing resource should be the people of Newfoundland and Labrador first.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: We're willing to share, but let's start off looking at our own. And I'll go one step further, to say that the principal beneficiary of the people who are involved in that should be the people who go out on the water every single day and risk their lives to catch that fish. They should be the principal beneficiary. We'll share with everyone; but they're the ones that go out on that water and risk their lives every day. So, again, that's something I think we all value – we are here because of the fishery, and I think we'll be here for a lot longer as a province because of the fishery.

The other thing I'll add to him when he talks about seals. Seals are the wolf of the ocean. They have no enemy. There are no natural predators in our waters that are eating seals. Now maybe if the temperatures keep warming up, we'll get more great white sharks that'll come up. But other than that –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

T. WAKEHAM: Yeah. And a few killer whales, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

T. WAKEHAM: Yeah. But they're not eating enough.

One of the challenges we have – we have a quota right now. We have a quota, as I understand it, of 450,000. The problem is we have no markets. So as my colleague said, and I will challenge you, it's your challenge to find a way to open up a couple of plants and do some experimental work on developing food products, markets, seal oils and others so we can take advantage of that 450,000 quota that we already have.

We need to harvest that quota. We don't need the federal government's support to do that. They've already given it to us. We just need to get on with it and find a way and harvest it, and put it to use. So that'll be all I have to say about the fishery for now.

I've spoken lots about what's not in the budget. Today, tonight, I'm going to talk about some of the things that are in the budget. We've had a few conversations already about Herders, Herder champions and records and sports; well I would say that the government opposite is setting a few records of their own. As a matter of fact, let's talk about some of their records.

They now have the record for the highest gas prices in the history of our province, and every week they seem to set a new record. Not something that I think you would be proud of in the record books. They have a record for the highest prices in the history of our province for home heating fuel. And again, continue to set records. Again, not something that I am sure the record books should reflect.

We are about to introduce sugar tax. Never before in the history of our province have people had to pay a sugar tax. I challenge anyone in this House to stand up and say that this sugar tax has merit. It is just a tax. Nothing more than a tax. To say that there are no tax increases in this year's budget is really not true because, in September, we are going to be paying a sugar tax. All of the evidence that our side has been able to find points to nothing that suggests that this will actually do anything to solve body mass index or make significant changes to it.

So I would argue that this is one thing and one opportunity that the government has to make a difference. The budget says change is in the air. I would hope that the Members opposite and the minister in her budget will take some consideration of some of the things that can be changed in her budget. This is just one of them: the sugar tax. That needs to be changed. That needs to be stopped. There is no need to inflict more taxes on the people in Newfoundland and Labrador than they already have to pay.

Some of the highest personal income tax rates for two-person incomes in the $100,000 a year mark are right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have some of the highest personal income rates in that category. So imagine if you are trying to retain health professionals or encourage people, other professionals, IT people to stay in our province or to move here, you have to have that competitive tax structure in order to do that. You have to have that.

So that is the kind of thing that these people are looking at. I can give you an example right now of a person who moved to Nova Scotia to take the exact same type of job they had in Newfoundland and Labrador. They are turning around; they're getting the exact same pay in Nova Scotia as they got in Newfoundland and Labrador. The only difference is they're taking home $5,000 more in their pocket in Nova Scotia.

So again, that's part of the things that we need to do. I guess one of the things that bothers me a lot, and I've spoken about it – another record. For the first time in our history as a province, people of Newfoundland and Labrador have to pay to see a primary care provider. When you can't get a doctor, you have to pay to go to see a nurse practitioner. And this is something that, in my opinion, is a violation of the principles of the MCP program – the fact that we have to actually pay to see a nurse practitioner.

The Minister of Health, the Minister of Finance, the Premier, none of them have been able – with all of their officials – to find a way to be able to pay those nurse practitioners. Other than saying to the people of the province, the seniors of the province, I'm sorry but you have to pay. You have to pay out of your pocket to see a primary care provider. I never would have thought that our medical system in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador would come to that. I really don't.

But that's where it is. I believe it could be fixed. I think it needs to be fixed. I don't think we should be delaying it. I think it needs to happen now. And let's get it done. There have been a number of suggestions made on the health care front, for example. We've talked about reducing the number of health authorities. That's been on again, off again, for a number of years now. It's back on again. We're about to make the change in the number of health authorities.

Some people, at the end of the day, that may be a good thing. But I would suggest that before we focus on the number of administrative or health authorities, we focus on getting one new health information system. Because our health information system looks like Dolly Parton's coat of many colours. It's a patchwork, that's all it is. They do not talk to each other. Health authorities can't speak to each other; their systems don't talk to each other. These are the real challenges.

Now I'm hearing rumours that we're going out with an RFP for a new health information system for the new hospital in Corner Brook. Sounds great, except what are we going to do with a new health information system for a hospital in Corner Brook? How is that going to tie in to the health information systems that exist in the rest of Western Health or even the other parts of the province? Surely, it is time to invest in a new health information system for the entire province.

So if you're going to go out with an RFP, let's do it, but let's do it for the entire province because it is long overdue. Then we can start to talk about the one health record and then we can have people communicating, and maybe then we can start to figure out where the beds are available and what surgeons are available and some of the other things that we've talked about in this House of Assembly. But that is where we should be going.

Here is another interesting thing: A number of years ago, the government opposite commissioned a report on waste management boards. They have this report now for two or three years – I'm not sure if it is three or two. That report recommended going to one waste management board. I think there may be as many as eight. Imagine, we're standing here today and we have more boards looking after garbage than we do health care. And they're paid; the board chairs of these boards are paid. The board members are paid to attend meetings. All of the board members of the health authorities are volunteers.

So how does that make any sense? Why are we sitting on a report that recommended going to one board for garbage and done nothing about it, but we can now say that we're going to change up the health care system and the number of boards? So again, I wonder, why that has not happened. I would certainly like to understand it a little better.

Now, I have to have a little go at my colleague over there, the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, because earlier today – and I respect him for the job he does; it is a tough job and a very tough portfolio – he talked about due diligence and he talked about being responsible for the spending of government money. So I stand here and I say, those are great morals to have and I would hope that everyone would have them. However – there is a but – I still do not understand, standing here, how $9 million can be allocated to move from a 70-year-old courthouse to renovate a 60-year-old building and spend $9 million doing it.

My question is simply that: What due diligence was done to decide that this was the best option? What options were considered and how did you arrive at the decision that renovating the 60-year-old-building was the best option? Because that is the question. It is not about location, because location becomes one town fighting against the other. It is about how the decision was made. Certainly, none of the people that work in Justice out in that particular region were aware of it; that this was a decision being made. Certainly, there are lots of questions coming from the people around that facility about how the decision was made.

I would simply ask: Please identify exactly what the process was. I know the Town of Stephenville has written the minister asking for some clarification on the process that was used to select this, what options were considered. I have been told that there was a tender ready to go to put a new elevator system in the current building and it never got issued. Again, I don't understand why that would have happened.

So I seek clarification. You know, any time you are investing money in our region is a good thing, but I still think it should be able to be explained. It should be able to say this is the options we looked at. This is why we have chosen it. This is the plan. All of that is a key, important ingredient when you make a decision to spend taxpayers' money. We have all talked about it in the past.

So $9 million of taxpayers' money is going to be spent to renovate a 60-year-old building and move out of a 70-year-old building. Again, people simply want to know: How did you arrive at that decision? What analysis was done? How was the budget determined? What other options did you look at? And all of those are legitimate questions. If you can't provide the answers, then that's a problem because those answers should be readily available to the people of the province.

Earlier today we got notice that the Rothschild report won't even be available through ATIPP. The Premier said it would be. The parts that were sensitive would be redacted, but today we received notification that the Rothschild report will not be released in no way, shape or form.

Imagine, we spent $5 million of taxpayers' money on a report that we have no intention of ever releasing to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. How is that accountability? How is that transparency? If there are sensitivities, we understand that. But surely not every single page in that report is sensitive and will result in somehow or other disclosing critical financial information. What is concerning is the fact, as I just said, that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, who paid for this report, will not be able to see it.

That's the ruling that came out today. I'm sorry, people of Newfoundland and Labrador, we trust you enough to vote for us, but we don't trust you enough with the information that we've received because we don't want to disclose it to you. There's something fundamentally wrong with that. Fundamentally wrong that at the end of the day. The people of the province, it is their money, it is their dollars, and I would think that we should be able, should not be afraid, should be willing to share with them what we've found out as a result of that.

Finally, before I close, I wanted to talk about again – go back to that principle of change is in the air. There is a real opportunity here – we, on this side, can't make adjustments to the budget, but you can. Do not be afraid to listen to some of the opinions that you hear from this side of the House. Do not be afraid of the suggestions that are being made. Do not be afraid to say, you know what? Maybe we can do things a little differently.

There is significant flexibility in that budget. Millions of dollars worth of flexibility, as a matter of fact, that things can be adjusted. We don't need to have a sugar tax. We can do something about a rebate program for our citizens. Because I have to believe that at the end of the day, it's not simply the people on this side of the House who are getting those concerns about the high cost of gasoline and the high cost of home heat fuel. I have to believe that it's impacting you and your constituents, and you are getting those calls.

So I would simply ask that you take an opportunity at the end of this as we all stand up and talk about options. Don't make the change because the PC Party wants the change; don't make the change because the independents want the change; don't make the change because the NDP want the change. Make the change because the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want you to make the change. They need your help. So I would simply ask: Please, take another look; find a way. The money is there. As they say in the Nike commercial: Just do it.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Speaker.

It's indeed an honour again on this evening session of the House of Assembly to stand with my colleagues and talk to the 2022-2023 budget.

As I mentioned one time before when I spoke to the budget, this is my 40th budget that I've either been directly or indirectly connected to. And I've seen a lot of things in my lifetime. In my lifetime as a civil servant and as somebody in the not-for-profit sector, and sat in the House of Assembly many times when budgets were being read and happened to be part of some of the processes prior to that.

But I want to acknowledge for the people at home who are watching now because it may be a little convoluted, what we are really debating right now, at what level we are at when it comes to the budget itself. Right now we're debating a subamendment that we had put forward as the Opposition. And what my colleague for Harbour Main had put forward in regard to the debate on the budget.

Right now, we're at stage three. Stage one would be the budget itself and the discussion on the budget. Then there was an amendment to the budget that was put forward and debated, and now a subamendment to the budget.

The process that's used here is for the Opposition to be able to outline, from their perspective, what they've heard from their constituents, what they've heard from various people and organizations around the province where they feel there are gaps in services that need to be provided; or where there could be other better ways that the monies could be channelled to address the needs, particularly of people.

But before I get into that, I do want to outline one specific thing here. I'm 120 per cent confident that due diligence in addressing the process for a budget was totally done by the minister and her officials, by all the bureaucrats – I know I was one; I had time to look at that. No doubt all the numbers were added up and put in the proper categories and looked at where you could get the best return on it.

The challenge that we are having and what we are hearing is that it didn't go far enough to address the particular needs or some of the needs that needed to be addressed were lumped in with other things. The minister is true when she says most of the additional revenues that are being generated right now, because of the increase in oil, have gone back to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Not disputing that; 100 per cent. I don't even disagree that that's not a good thing in a normal circumstance. The unfortunate thing is that this is not a normal circumstance; that the cost of living index has dramatically increased so much that the most vulnerable, the people on fixed incomes are most dramatically affected.

Would we all like to have a break on tax? Sure. We got that. There is some evidence of that here. I'll acknowledge that, some good evidence of that. But we also acknowledge the fact that there is money to be invested in certain areas that could help generate and stimulate the economy, and they are great things to do. But this is a unique situation that dictated a unique approach.

You know, giving a break on the cost of your registration of your vehicle is great, and across the board it seems fair and it makes sense. But in the case of somebody who financially can afford that extra $90, that break is welcome, but it doesn't change their life. It does change it for somebody on a fixed income. Somebody who has to make the decisions around heating their home; making decisions around the medications that they may be able to take; making decisions around the quality of food they can do; or even the social things that they would like to do.

So we will never – you will hear us – we will never attack the government that they spent frivolously. In this case, I don't see any evidence of that in this budget right here. What we are saying is prioritizing and picking what would have been the best approaches to dealing with certain issues. I think every cent is welcome by the people that they're savings, that is going to certain areas, but we found – and I've travelled to nine communities in two weeks, right around this beautiful province of ours. I do want to acknowledge to the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure when I did go down with the Brazil-mobile, down in St. Alban's, I was very welcomed and accepted and the 200 people loved to see my picture travel down that – and it's a beautiful highway.

E. LOVELESS: (Inaudible) St. Alban's.

D. BRAZIL: I only got that far yet. I will be coming back further.

E. LOVELESS: Come on down.

D. BRAZIL: I'll be right down to Harbour Breton and English Harbour East and West and all around. I will get to see them all.

But I do acknowledge that there are investments in infrastructure here; there are improvements. But I will acknowledge one thing that the minister said, and I know because I have the unique situation on this side of being the only person who served in Cabinet in the Official Opposition. The only person who understands – and I shouldn't say understands, but lived, that it's not as simple as people think about making decisions and spending money that you don't have. You have to prioritize.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was a good minister.

D. BRAZIL: I'm glad some people thought I was a good minister. I think most on your side who were around in my day would have thought I was a good minister. Maybe not all on this side, maybe not all on this side. Not my honoured colleague there from Mount Pearl - Southlands.

But my intent of saying that is that I realize when you're in Cabinet – and I know all Members of the House of Assembly, we're all 40 equal, but when you're into the decision-making process, trying to find the right mix, the right balance and trying to prioritize certain things becomes a challenge. As a minister, your first priority, when you get in that Cabinet room, is to the ministry that you have responsibility for, because it's your budget you're responsible for. You're trying to outline why the programs and services and where you want that money to go is a priority over another colleague's spending.

That becomes a balancing act there because everybody still is answerable to the money they have. You're going in trying to dictate what is important in acknowledging the responsibilities you have, but in actually providing the services that are necessary. So I get that.

One of the things that I've changed my mindset on in the last four months at least, I've disagreed now with some of my colleagues on this side and some other people and some big agencies, I don't think we necessarily have a spending issue. We have a revenue issue. I've yet to find our spending is not in accordance with what people need. Not necessarily what they want, but what they need.

I mean, the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure would outline he could use another $200 million just to address his bridge issues. I know that. The Minister of Health could use a billion dollars to address some of those particular issues. I know every line department here could use it. Education could use it to do things and all the other line departments here. The issue becomes around how do we generate the additional revenues to be able to provide the services people need? Not necessarily what they want – need.

One of the issues becomes around getting our fair share. That brings me back to our subamendment here. That's what our subamendment is about here; it's acknowledging the fact that more has to be done by all of us, but particularly by the government who has the responsibility and the ability to lobby their federal counterparts to get additional monies that we're entitled to as part of this Confederation from the federal government. If it's in equalization, if it's in other types of transfers, if it's in other partnerships in development. If it's in some other specific initiative that could be done.

I know we have them in Municipal Affairs. We have joint partnerships that work there. We know we have them in other line departments that work and they are very valuable. We know we have them in health care.

The issue that we have, and we're hearing from the people of this province, is that we're not getting our fair share and we're saying – not that we're not getting our fair share, but basing it on a particular formula that 95 per cent of the time is based on population doesn't address the issue and it isn't fair. Don't forget, this province was around long before the rest of this country was settled. So 500-plus years dictate that our geography is totally different. The demographics are totally different and, as a result, so are some of the challenges around how we provide services and even some of the issues that we have around health care.

So just to blanketly say, based on your population, here is the amount of money you would get becomes a challenge. No different than it is with infrastructure, municipal affairs – our municipalities are spread across a vast area. The geography dictates it is not as simple to invest – what you get for $1 million in Toronto in infrastructure in the sense of being able to do something with the ground; it might take you $2 million here because of the nature of bedrock and all the other challenges you may have here. Or the shoreline, for example, with the surges we have. Or the wind issues we may have. So just on a blanket concept doesn't work well for us in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The concept of transfer payments were based on the principle, as I always understood them, in economic downturns when your economy is down is when you're entitled to a transfer, not just because your population is at a certain level. We see in Quebec, Quebec runs a surplus budget and still gets $13 billion in transfer payments and cuts their taxes annually for individuals. While in this province, taxes are having to change in an upward swing consistently to try to meet the finical demands in this province.

So there is a problem and that is what this subamendment talked about. The failure to be able to deliver on what we should be entitled to; we shouldn't even have to fight for this. There should be an agreement already in play that says the formula for supports for our province are based on these things.

The big thing that it should be based on is the economics. The economics dictate that if we're generating enough revenues to provide adequate service – we're not saying better services but we're not saying worse services – adequate services for the people of this province. Meaning that if somebody in another province travels 35 kilometres or 50 kilometres to get a provided service in health care or education, than we should be in that same range. It doesn't have to be exactly and we're never saying that we need to have better service than other people. We need to have adequate services in Newfoundland and Labrador that would provide the service that people would need.

But to do that people need to understand and accept, particularly federally, that there are some unique challenges in Newfoundland and Labrador. We'll argue about there's wastage in everything we do and there's more efficient ways we can do stuff and there are things we'll challenge. I have no problems. People challenged us when we were in government, they'll challenge us again when we get back in government.

But what I'm saying here is that there's no big, glaring indication that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians just waste money for the sake of wasting it. No administration, I've never seen that – we try stuff that may work out or it may not work out. We try things that you won't recover the real benefits for years down the road. But for us to be labelled federally as saying here's all you're going to get, just enough to keep you from dire straits.

It was noted here before, a former premier did write a letter; there was a challenge here. There was a major challenge financially. A lot of that was based, not on our overspending – people can say all that, but we know it wasn't. The minister will know in Finance, it wasn't that because we're generating fairly close to what it needs.

Most provinces run deficits. Some years they'll bring it up. We're reliant on certain income streams; the oil industry, the mineral industry, tourism industry, fishing industry. Even the forest industry and aquaculture and all these things. When one falters, it has an impact. When three or four falter the one time, like has happened the last couple of years, it has a major impact on all of us. It has an impact on what we're bringing in.

So to still be able to be fairly stable, speaks volumes. But if we were given the same opportunities as other provinces, if we were given the same acknowledgement that we have a unique set-up here, to give some extra supports, it would put us over that threshold. It would give any administration the ability to be flexible on other things and prioritize the things that they need to do, and address certain issues and knock off the things that we're behind on – if it's in health care on surgeries, if it's in investment in businesses and giving businesses a break, if it's supports for seniors, if it's about our infrastructure and our road networks and our bridge networks, if it's about other supports for special needs adults or children, whatever it may be that would give it.

But it doesn't work if we don't get that fair shake from Ottawa. That's what we've been asking for, for the last number of years. Listen; when I was on that side, the Opposition said the same thing, that we need to lobby. I know there are premiers who have gone and there are ministers who've gone and argued the points and negotiated the points. I know we've been successful sometimes and not so successful other times.

I don't think we should have to be doing that, no matter what administration. There should be a common respect out of Ottawa, for whoever is there, because we go up and we advocate. We can advocate collectively as a group, as the Members of the House of Assembly, all 40 of us, that this is what we feel is right and just for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We're not asking for more than anybody else, but we're not willing to accept less than anybody else either, based on our needs and based on what we've proven to be supportive of in this Confederation.

So we've talked about that, and we've all seen it where we came back with $2 billion cheques in hand. We've seen it where there have been agreements around rate mitigation and the supports there. I get all that. But I would think and I would hope that somewhere along the way, in the next number of years, sitting in this House we come up with a collective approach to Ottawa that says, no matter what administration is there or what administration is in this House, here are the standards that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians expect when it comes to services; here is what we propose would be an equitable process in evaluating what we are entitled to here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Don't just base it on population, because as we've seen we have a decreasing population, we have an aging population and we have all kinds of challenges. Base it on other things. Base it on the natural resources that we have here and what that means to this country, what that contributes back. Think of the billions, the tens of billions, hundreds of billions of dollars that have gone back to this country because of the resources that we've had here. So that must account for something at the end of the day.

So we're just asking for some fairness here, and that's what we're talking about here. This is what our challenge is on this, why we have a challenge with this budget. Not because of what it's offering in it, or what it's not offering as much, as what it could've done. What other gaps in services that it could've filled that it didn't in this case. And I get it, it couldn't. You can only spend X number of dollars, that's all you have to do.

The issue that we've argued to is that we need to be able to find the resources and the revenues that provide the services that are necessary. One of the gaps in that is not over-taxation, is not overzealous taxation of people. That doesn't help; that doesn't stimulate the economy. I'd rather be able to take $50 million and invest it in the business initiatives in Newfoundland and Labrador so they create more jobs and more taxation and more industries as part of that. But to do that, we need a partner in this game and the partner has to be Ottawa on every angle.

Not every now and then giving us what they consider a handout. And that's how it's proposed to us: a handout to keep us happy because we have a challenge. What it should be, it should be about the equality of having us as a partner and giving us our fair share. So again, I want to stimulate the economy based on let's develop a partnership nationally. Not just coming down every now and then when it's a bailout, when they consider it a bailout because it might be embarrassing to them if something happens.

We talk about, on one side of it, hydroelectric power is going to be the mainstay. Canada will be able to stand up for green energy – and very rightfully so; we welcome it. Have no illusion, I spoke to it in this House and still would speak that I think there are other initiatives under green energy and the environment that we could very much speak to and invest in that would be beneficial to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The issue now becomes the rest of the country would like to use us for that example and we want to be part of that. But we want to be part of it as a partner. So invest in what we need here; treat us equally; make sure that our citizens are safe and healthy and educated so we'll help this country get to where it needs to go to be the global leaders when it comes to green energy, to environmental friendliness and environmental stewardship.

But don't just piecemeal when it is convenient for the rest of the country. That is not how it works. I am not going to pick on Quebec but I do have to acknowledge, our relationship with them, at times, is cantankerous. At best, it is tolerance and not on our part because I think we are very open. I said, even when we are not in the best of friends, we are very professional. That's Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We will work with people. We will find ways to make things work. That responsibility comes on both sides. I say both sides: the federal side and the provincial side.

So when I talk about then – so the people at home would understand what we are doing now because they might say, but you have been talking about this continuously. You know what? We have changed. There are three things. It's the budget itself where we had an opportunity, after the minister presented it, to look at what is in it and we have acknowledged there are some good things in there that we applauded. There are some things there we're not quite sure; they might work out. We are hopeful. There are some things there that we're feeling really didn't hit the mark and then we know there is a number there that are some gaps in services that we need to find a way to fill those gaps because we are now hearing, maybe even stuff that we weren't aware of – and with all due respect to everybody here, maybe we haven't faced them.

But since I have been travelling and my colleagues have been travelling here and the budget has come out – and I suspect Members on both sides are getting the same thing. They are hearing some of the challenges. I know things have happened like the price of fuel has dramatically gone up and I know we can't directly control that. I get that. But there are things we can control, and my colleague noted some of the things we can around taxation and some of the other supports around rebates and some of the other supports around the most vulnerable, offsetting some of those costs. And I get that.

What I want to make clear to the people at home, we have had the budget speech. We are going to go back to the budget debate. That will happen – before the budget is fully voted on, every Member of this House of Assembly will get an opportunity to speak to it, what they feel, their views on it, even some suggestions that could be put in play that would be of benefit to them.

I know a number of my colleagues have said over here, listen, we are here to collaborate, and we have said that from day one. We are here to make suggestions. Some of them may have come from the people over on this side. Some have come, definitely, from our constituents. Some have come from constituents from ministers and the Members of the Liberal Party. We are all one big part of this great province of ours, so everybody's view should be taken into account and, as a result, hopefully, we come up with a happy medium that works, that is affordable, that has the time frames it does and meets the outcomes that we are looking for.

There's no doubt there are going to be some groups that are not happy with it, and I get that. But our priority should be right now that – we're in a crisis for two years with COVID and we're just now transitioning out of that. I know there are going to be things that will challenge us, the new norm will be something we were never expecting and there may even be a cost associated with it.

But we're also in another crisis now. We're in an economic crisis for people's own ability to stabilize their quality of life. Not improve it, but stabilize it, because there are people making decisions about what they can and cannot afford and that's heart wrenching. Particularly when we know, in a lot of cases, these are the most vulnerable or the people who have given most of their lives, because now they're seniors on fixed incomes. So we have a responsibility to address those particular needs and find whatever is necessary to alleviate that for the near future.

I, like, I think, everybody in this House see there's a future for Newfoundland and Labrador. I see it on the Burin Peninsula, the Connaigre Peninsula and the Northern Peninsula. I see it in Labrador. I see it in the urban centres. I see it in Central Newfoundland and Western Newfoundland. It's everywhere. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have the resolve, but they also have the ability and the resources to make this a great place to be and a place where it's not overburdening to be able to get certain basic services or to be able to have a quality of life.

So before I end, I just wanted to note a couple of other things. We had talked about this amendment. This amendment is about, at the end of the day, before we vote on the budget, we want to make it clear that this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador that we're so proud to be part of has to do everything possible so that we don't have our citizens leaving. We heard heart-wrenching stories about people this week saying, I don't know, if I have to go out of the province for health care, maybe it's better I live somewhere else. Having people say well, my plan was to move back to Newfoundland and Labrador after retire, I don't know anymore.

We have to make this the engaging place where I know they want to stay and where they want to come back to. We can collectively do that. We have to get on the right page, consistently. Part of that would be looking at the subamendment here. Finding a way to let Ottawa know that, not only do we deserve more but we want to more a part of this Confederation by getting back to what would make Newfoundland and Labrador a sustainable province and continue to keep contributing to this province or this country.

We talked about the Bay du Nord, and I go back to that because that really, to me, was an eye-opener, that the future of this province, the future of the people, this generation and the generations to come, hinged on a couple of people's views in a federal Cabinet. That was very worrisome. Very worrisome to me and to the tens of thousands of people who reached out to us, very much so. We need to find a better mechanism here to ensure that.

Now, are there checks and balances? One hundred per cent. Do we, should we, are we committed to being cognizant of the environment? One hundred per cent, without a doubt. And that no company, no big industry, no outsider should have control over what we're doing here.

We talked to the trades union people and they talk about a community benefits package. That has to be for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, it has to be for the companies in Newfoundland and Labrador and it has to be for the communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. We can make that happen here in this House.

So what we're saying in this part of the amendment is about getting a fair shake. Collectively, getting to Ottawa, either convincing them or forcing them, whatever mechanism we have to use. I would hope it would be collaboratively convincing them that our stake in Confederation is not only beneficial to us but it's extremely beneficial to the rest of this country. So we talk about that.

I just want to note a couple of things that we've talked about in the past. You know, there are all kinds of good ideas. We had a Blue Book that we put out prior to an election, we update it every year so that it's modern and it reflects the needs of individuals or organizations or the will of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. But we talked about a lot of things.

I'm just going to note a number. Who takes them and modifies them or implements them exactly as they are, who takes credit for them, it's immaterial to us over here. The benefit right now is that it improves the lives of people in Newfoundland and Labrador. That's what it's totally about. I'm just going to note a few things that are in the table of contents that outlines it.

It does three things: It outlines exactly what our vision would be and it's a vision of the people that we've spoken to, which are tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians over the last number of years. But it also talks about how it would be implemented. Some of it is as easy as modifying existing programs. That could have been developed by any party or any administration. The third talks about the costing of these, because anybody can promise anything. We know, we hear, there are parties that will promise everything but don't have a plan on how they can deliver. That becomes the (inaudible). Coming up with a program that reflects the needs of the people, developing it so that it can be implemented and the outcomes will be beneficial. And the third, finding the costing that's effective and frugal and can be sustained. They're the three things.

These are the table of contents so sometime, if anybody at home would like to look at it, you can go on the PC Party webpage and it's called our Blue Book. It's a blueprint for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador, but I just want to touch it, because I don't think – we don't have monopoly on this. I know all parties have talked about similar things. We've just outlined what we think would be an approach to it, how it would be done and how it would be financed.

This is what we talked about. We talked about one of the big sustainability ones: It's all about jobs. Creating employment in Newfoundland and Labrador is the key thing. We know when people are employed the revenues that are generated. We know the sense of community, the sense of hope. We know that people are more physically active and involved. They're more engaged. We know communities become more vibrant. And we know it sends a message around this world that we're trained, we're skilled, we are hard workers and do you know what? We are open for business.

Fighting for fairness is what I just talked about, a new deal with Ottawa and it outlines how that new deal could be achieved. It talks about what it right and equitable and fair. Bringing back jobs: it's talking about jobs that were lost to other jurisdictions in this country that belonged to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It talks about secondary processing. It talks about our resources being utilized for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Lowering taxes equals more jobs. Companies have tax breaks. They invest their money into new equipment which creates more employment. There is taxation for individuals then who are more apt to buy more things within their society which creates more employment.

Putting locals first, I already mentioned that. We talked about a community benefits agreement and we're not just talking trade unions. We're talking about any Newfoundlander and Labradorian who can provide a service in Newfoundland and Labrador, they should be the benefactors and then all the spinoff supports, obviously, benefit the people of this province.

Bring home more people to fill more jobs. We know we have a population challenge in Newfoundland and Labrador. I see help wanted. It's amazing. I told a story forty something years ago when I went to university – 43 years ago – trying to get a job. I put in 106 resumes. I used to get two hours work at Sobeys a week. That is all and that was just by luck. Now, you could have two jobs a day if you wanted them in Newfoundland and Labrador

So that speaks volumes. It tells me the potential is here. But it tells me we have a gap in being able to fill those potential services. So if it means immigration, which is a great thing, let's keep doing that. It's great; we have some good strategies. I acknowledge what we are doing in Ukraine. Let's keep doing what we need to do to get people here, but we have – and we all know it – tens of thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians all over this country. Let's find a way to get some of them back to Newfoundland and Labrador also in their communities that they are comfortable with, providing the services that they are already skilled at. There are ways that this can be done.

Educating to complete. You know, we've talked about it and I'm so happy – I have to acknowledge in the budget and I have to acknowledge the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Education. I have been arguing for 12 years, since I have been elected, that in my District of Conception Bay East - Bell Island, the largest community, which is now the eighth largest community out of the 200-plus municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador, doesn't have a complete education system.

We had an elementary school chocked to the rafters, beyond exploding, 450 people – 790 in it with cubicles all over the parking lots. We have since negotiated and got built a beautiful junior high school; massive; 650 kids in it; state of the art and beyond. Now busting at the seams. Argued, lobbied back and forth with the Minister of Education, at the school district and all of that, and in this budget, which I think nobody thought because there didn't seem to be any indication there would be investment in the school system infrastructure there but I give credit, vision was seen. In communities that are growing, communities that need it, why would you not have an all-inclusive, complete education system?

So happy to see phase one will start – the design, the site location. That is what we talk about in Newfoundland and Labrador, just a complete education system. Now it doesn't mean every community is going to have three schools in there but it means, within a decent range, you are going to have access to quality schools, where you have a lab and a gymnasium and these types of things.

So we have come a long way and I am fortunate enough, during my reign on that side when we were in government or our part, we built nearly 30 schools and I am glad to see there are three more that will start this process. But I think we are almost at a point now where that is maxed out. We have provided good services to everybody; people are going to have state of the art. There will always be improvements to school system. But now we need that whole, complete process and it might mean changing how our busing system works so people can have access to it; or using virtual education to let people have access to courses that they normally would; or if you can't recruit a teacher that has a specific skill, there are other ways of doing it. So we like that.

Helping parents get ahead – accept $10 daycare. Wonderful. Challenge – and I will say in my district, I have six daycares. They are busting. We need an ability to be able to get more day cares. The Minister of Education knows because, on a daily basis, I am sending him emails from people from my district and there has been meetings set up with people representing the day care centres, finding ways to be able to make sure that those who need it – $10 is great but if you can't find a seat or an after-school program in this, we need to be able to find an infrastructure way to do it. So we outlined some of that.

I am glad to see there is movement. That is why I am saying, we don't have a monopoly on this. We never ever had. These are things that other people have been talking about and other parties have already put in place.

Standing up for our energy industry and jobs – well, you know the debate we have had here for the last year and a half: Terra Nova, Bay du Nord; all the other ones that were there; Hibernia to keep continuing to more forward. So we want to make sure that this industry is very viable and very important to us. I understand the green energy and all of these things in the environment, but this is something that is going to be with us for generations. Why would we not maximize the benefits for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, particularly, when are cognizant of the environment and the ethical work of our workers and the safety of them versus any other jurisdiction in this world of ours?

We will find a way and we will use that money to transition to other industries when it is appropriate. And the ability means those industries are going to be successful too. Whatever they may be, things in the fishing industry, other types of industries that may be very viable also.

You know, making Muskrat Falls work, we have talked about that. I applaud it and I said it before, the mitigation deal, we probably would have done things a bit differently; we would have demanded a few more things from Ottawa, but the fact that we're going to be able to stay at 14.7, which is what we had outlined in our Blue Book, would be a sustainable, affordable level of hydroelectric power for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

So that's what we're talking about here: creating clean, green jobs. We're talking about that. Investments in that. I know there are parts of it in the budget here and I understand while it's a priority, it's probably not an immediate priority, and I get why. Because the immediate priority is people's health care, the economy itself, naturally, the cost of living.

But there are some things here – and I say this because it might be some things to look at that you may already be doing, there may be some things here that you want to look at, that you can enhance, or maybe things you can say, we can modify that. Or it might be something you say no, no, no. We tried that and it wouldn't work. Tell us that, too, because when we put this out again, we want to make sure that it's fluent enough that it will work for the people of this province.

More mining jobs – what's happening is we've had the privilege as a caucus to meet with a couple of Central Newfoundland mining companies, and what's potentially happening in the gold industry could be the next – we talk about transitioning. Newfoundland and Labrador, we're transitioning on a daily basis. Transitioning doesn't necessarily mean you go from one industry to another, it means you transition even within that industry – the mining industry, which was traditionally based on ore.

I know, coming from a mining community, what is happening in Labrador, and what went on in Buchans and all these places, but now we're transitioning into all kinds of other minerals. What we're doing in Labrador, you know, with Inco and all these things. So that's one thing, we have got to be cognizant that our mining industry needs to still be front and centre with all of our other key industries as we look at that.

Growing our fishery industry and making it sustainable – and my colleague had talked about the sealing industry. There are two sides to what he's talking about; one, it's the impact the seals are having on the fishing industry, the detrimental effect, but it's also that we know, and we've been promoting it and trying to, along with a number of other people – I would suspect Members over there are too – that the sealing industry itself is an industry. Finding the markets, finding the value of the meat and every product there, if it's giving to third-world countries for sustainability.

Whatever it is that can be done to help, not only employment in Newfoundland and Labrador, but if we can help other people globally, why wouldn't we do it? While at the same time we know, if the sealing industry is vibrant, then we're also doing something environmentally to benefit our fishing industry. So there's a balance here of being able to do things like that.

Healthy forests and sustainable ecosystems, which means more jobs. Don't forget, the global downturn on newsprint, and I think somebody told me there were 25 mills across North America that's closed. Kruger managed to survive, and I give credit to the industry out there, the individuals, the unions themselves, monies that both governments – I know, I was there. I know what we put in; I know the support on that side. We might be at a point now where maybe we've weathered the storm. Maybe there's an ability now for that mill to even expand beyond what it normally does, because the market out there now may be shrunk, but the competition has dramatically shrunk. So there may be some things there.

So how do we encourage that and keep working with the industry people, particularly with the Kruger family and the management out to the mill? I had a great look at the mill, and still see, while parts of it look like it did 50 years ago, some of the technology in there is second to none, and I know they're still investing. So maybe we keep moving that forward.

We keep the jobs that that creates in Western and Central Newfoundland in the forest industry. I mean people forget about that. People forget about the truckers that benefit from this. They forget about the loggers that benefit. They forget about all the other amenities, support services. We're talking millions and millions and hundreds of millions of dollars that come from an industry that we thought basically was almost dormant, but it isn't. So we need to be able to find a way to keep moving that.

Agriculture: We forget about that, and that's our sustainability. That and the fishery is what brought Newfoundland and Labrador to where it is, what kept us alive. There's an ability to do that very much so. So why don't we continue to do that? I know there are programs and services out there, and I know just in my part of the district, Portugal Cove-St. Philip's is always an agricultural area, and I know it's expanding. Bell Island, we've got a group of five farmers who've come together and now we're working with them to try to find ways to expand what they'd doing. So agriculture in areas like that that are remote and isolated areas, imagine what we can do in the areas that we're used to, the West Coast, for example, in agriculture. Let's keep promoting that and moving that to the next level.

Revitalizing tourism: I felt so bad for tourism the last two years. Absolutely nothing anybody could do. There was nothing we could do. I know, part of my district, Bell Island, perhaps one of the top 10 tourism attractions, but it was decimated, literally. Will they survive? Yeah, I give credit. Some supports from different levels of government, some creativity on being able to keep stuff afloat. This could be our year to revitalize it. The Come Home Year, accept that. It's there to go. Now we have to make sure it works.

I know we've had some discussions with the Minister of Service NL about the transportation industry here, the taxi industry. We're getting closer to solving some of the challenges that may be part of it. We know the airline industry – I give credit that the airports themselves now are getting ready. I happened to be in two in the last couple of weeks and talked to their managers, and they're getting prepared for what needs to be done here. They're getting prepared for meeting the needs of tourists and being able to make it an engaging, attractive visit for them.

There are going to be some challenges, but, I think, before the real crux – we have a month to really figure what they are and address it. I know car rentals are an issue. I'm travelling out of the province for a few days later on and there is no difference from other places. We just have to find creative ways. I know we're working with companies to make that happen, so I'm hoping we can fix some of the wrinkles and get everything in play. So we compliment everybody in the industry for doing what has to be done to make that happen.

Unlocking Labrador's potential: We know what the Big Land has to offer from every perspective. We know that 100 per cent, but we also know that we need to do it collaboratively with the people of Labrador, with Indigenous communities there. It has to be a balance of engagement by all and a buy-in by all. But the potential in that land for economic development, for cultural development, for our promotions of who we are is enormous. So we need to maximize that and make that work, and that comes with collaboration, it comes with supporting each other as we work towards that.

Achieving equality for women: We've had quite a debate in this House in the only two months that we've been here and that has to be front and centre. I know we need to do it, find ways to engage more females into politics, but it's about equality. Equality can be very standard if we all accept it and breakdown any barriers that are there. I know the discussion here has been about it. I know there are organizations here and I know there's been great strides made to try to do that. But we need to continue to do it. It can't be on some of the things that we criticize government; it can't be five- or 10-year plans. It has to be immediate plans. There has to be immediate interventions to ensure that it all works across the board.

Protecting the most vulnerable: I would suspect every person who stood up on either side of this House have talked about the most vulnerable. There are those who are in need, financially, who are vulnerable health-wise and who are seniors, who for years, have contributed to our society; who've given us everything to help make Newfoundland and Labrador what it is today so we need to find ways. If it's special needs adults or children. If it's certain things that are needed in our society, we need to make that happen for them.

Learning from COVID: We did a great job. I think, collectively, we did a great job. We were in unchartered territory. I remember first when this broke there was six of us sat in the Premier's boardroom and we had no idea. We looked at Dr. Fitzgerald as if to say guide us. I know she was learning the process, too, from here colleagues across the country and around the world. But we managed to maneuver through it.

I know there are some challenges now; it's unfortunate. At this end of it, when we thought we were getting over it, it becomes the most vulnerable who are being affected the most, physically. Unfortunately, we're losing more people than we would have ever expected or hoped. So it's a learning curve. We need to find ways to prepare for it. We've outlined things here that would be beneficial, that if we ever run into that again, that we're prepared in advance. Being proactive versus reactive.

Better health access for better health outcomes. Every day we talk about it here, every night we hear from people. We have to find a way to provide the proper health care in a timely fashion that people need so that we're going to get the outcomes that we need in this province, which includes access to medical interventions right away, access to emergency processes and access to assessments in a timely fashion so that the outcomes are better, which means people become more productive. And do you know what it means from an economic point of view? While we may spend more money on the front end, we're going to save twice that on the back end and provide a better quality of life for the people of this province.

Reinvigorating municipalities: I know there's a lot of discussion here about regionalization. I see the value of that discussion. I do say, and I know my colleagues over here have said it, there's not a one-size-fits-all concept here. We've had conversations with the Federation of Municipalities, we've had it with the municipal administrators and we've had some real good discussion about how it could work. I do acknowledge the minister and the roundtables that she's been having across the province, because engagement is where you're going to solve the problems.

We, in this House, know a little bit about a few things; the people out there know a lot about everything related to them. So we need to engage them, find a solution that works, find how we provide services that better fit the needs of a particular region and that the taxpayers can afford. There's not one taxpayer that's willing to pay more taxes for less services and it's not somebody else who doesn't pay any taxes now, willing to pay any taxes for no services.

So it's that balance. But I'm confident that there is a balance out there, and the process that is put in place and the engagement, we'll find that. We outline some of the recommendations here. I'm happy to see some of them are already being enacted by your administration. So well done there.

Cleaning up corruption. We've talked about that when it comes to issues in our society around tenders, bidding and some of the other issues, that we need things here that reflect the people have faith in what we do, that everything is transparent and open. And that's very easy to do; we've all adopted that here. We've signed documents around minimizing impact on people, about harassment, about transparency and accountability. Now we have to live up to it. And we have to then ask the rest of society to live up to it. It is the business community, nationally, internationally and particularly in Newfoundland and Labrador because we're all part of it, we all benefit when that happens.

Last but not least, our commitment to fiscal responsibility. Again, and I said it before, we can't spend frivolously. We can't waste money. We need to do due diligence. We need to actually anticipate, when we can, what will be the reaction or the outcome if we do this. Sometimes it makes sense, and I will acknowledge that we talk about the cataract surgery on the West Coast. I personally believe if we invested $1 million or $2 million now, we would save tens of millions down the road by having that issue out of the way, having those patients that are backlogged now get back to their quality of life. It would also help eliminate some other potential medical issues that are attached to it and at the end of it they are more productive, they are more engaged. We are going to save money.

Now, I know to spend that money you have got to have it. So we have got to find creative ways to generate that particular amount of money to address issues that save us money on the back end.

We are talking about fiscal responsibility, and again we will criticize some of the contracts that have been let. We will criticize some of the consultants that are in. I would hope at the end of it what comes out of it is the benefit. I have no qualms or no problems if we spend money upfront, but I'm convinced and we are convinced that we are going to gain either a better quality of services or we are going to financially save money or make the right decision.

So on that note, I want to say this subamendment that my colleague brought in is about us getting our fair share in this Confederation. If we get our fair share and we equitably work together and collaboratively work together and I mean together – all citizens, all businesses, all of the entities in this province – Newfoundland and Labrador has a bright future and the people of this province will be proud to be here. They will encourage their expats to come here and they will encourage immigration to this great province of ours.

But to do that, we need to first have a proper debate and understand exactly what the intent of this budget is and be open that there are gaps. We have identified them because the people have identified them to us. Find ways to rectify those gaps in services. Make sure that the people get what they need in this province and the people have faith in the people of this House of Assembly so that we have a bright future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that and I look forward to further debate on the budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Speaker.

I appreciate another good opportunity to stand up in this House and represent the District of Ferryland; it's certainly a great privilege.

I was going to start on the seal fishery tonight. The last time I spoke on the seal fishery, relevance came up so I'm going to get away with it tonight, but I don't know if I want to follow my colleague from Bonavista because he articulated pretty well. I don't know how I could touch on it any better, but I will certainly give it a little chance.

I live in a town in Bay Bulls. Thirty years ago, if you saw a seal down by the wharf that was a big issue, a big thing. I don't think they saw it that evening, he would be gone; somebody went down and shot him. No question about it, it happened.

You drive up through Renews right now, and I'm trying to tide in – you know, one time, you didn't see them; now you see them everywhere. Drive up to Renews at low tide and there are 50 seals sitting on a rock in the sunshine. And they aren't going to McDonald's to get something to eat. They're coming in up the rivers and they're eating the salmon, and they're eating the fish and they're eating the capelin.

So we realistically have to do something about the seals in this area. There's no question. I look at the minister and he's talking about a billion-dollar industry; it's great. No question about it, it's a billion-dollar industry. But what we as Fisheries departments for the last 30 years have done to generate that is nothing. Federally does it – the fishermen go out and catch it; what do we do provincially for it? It all happens. We take credit for it, but we don't do anything more to develop it. Because we don't have any say in it.

And that's our problem. And it's not his problem, but I bet you on this side if we had to start a seal harvest, that the Opposition here would definitely back you 100 per cent if you went to Ottawa to do something with the seals in Newfoundland and Labrador. Because it's a big issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. O'DRISCOLL: It just wouldn't survive. I went to Chance Cove last year during COVID, had to go for a walk, you go out and you go down in Chance Cove up in between Trepassey and down in Cappahayden, and walk down there, and I'm going to say in June or July, you see three or four seals bobbing up and down in the water. You do the same up in Cappahayden, the same – you never seen them. Now it's a big issue in all the districts.

I grew up in a fishing community. In 1992, July 2 – it was my birthday – that's when the fishery was announced and shut down. I was 26. So it was on my birthday; you wouldn't forget it, for sure. We live in an industry – when we were there then – so there were four boys in the family, and my mother and father. We were all affected by the fishery when it shut down – everybody. We're still going today; we're not going to lie down and die. We're going to keep going, we're going to figure things out, we're going to move on to something else, and that's what we did.

I worked in the fish plant and 6 in the evening, you wanted to go play softball, I couldn't go. We were working; that's what we had to do. I said to my mom: I'm not going to be at this for a living, because I want to go play softball. I'm not staying in the fish plant to go working. Eventually we did that and we moved on, but there were six people in one household that was affected.

We're still living in the area, and we moved on. Right now, there is no fish plant in Bay Bulls – none, nothing there, gone. Now it's oil. Right now we've got the rig in Bay Bulls, just sitting there; I think it's going to go offshore in the next week or two. I'm not sure of the exact date, I'm sure somebody on the other side knows when it's going to move, but it's up there now and it's lit up in the harbour. It's a beautiful sight to see, if you ever drive up there, last night with a little bit of fog settling down on her. It's just so nice for the area, just to see that there.

And that's only sitting there yet. That's not gone to work yet. That's going to do some drilling, going to drill a couple of wells, supposedly. Just in the port in Bay Bulls, there are boats in there the last two or three weeks – my brother works down there now. They're hauling chain aboard that boat that's going offshore to Hibernia, and it's going to wherever it needs to go. But just speaking to the tourism – and they're going to benefit, too. They have an oil rig in the harbour and how often do you to sail by an oil rig, for the next week or two, that you can do on a boat tour and go sail by an oil rig and be able to see it sitting there in the harbour? It's pretty spectacular to see. Last week I think they lowered it 40 feet down, so it's up in the air and they lowered it 40 feet down.

We were speaking to somebody the other night and they were talking about how did they get it over here. Did they tow it over? They didn't realize that it drove over itself. It floated over here and it maneuvered over here to – people brought it here. It didn't get towed here; it actually moves on its own. People thought that it all got towed here from Norway or wherever it was at the time. But again, it's great for the industry.

Speaking to, as I said earlier, tourism, the person there in the harbour, he's bringing people back and forth to the oil rig, along with the people that own the marine terminal there, plus there's another boat that's bringing people back and forth. Speaking to the gentleman that has the tourism there, he said that for every job that's offshore, there's probably four or five spinoff jobs. He told me it might be not even as little as that, it might be way more than that, but there are at least four of five spinoff jobs for every job that's off there, just based on that. I said, wow, you're thinking about that, and it's a big number.

It started on the seal fishery, then to the regular fishery and now we're off to oil and gas, all in one community. So it certainly can happen, and things can certainly change.

I'd like to touch a little bit on the roads in my district. I've certainly done it on petitions, along the way, touched on Witless Bay Line and spoke to the minister on different occasions about paving, ditching and brush cutting. I look at one area in St. Shott's and it's called the Irish Loop. It goes right around and joins the whole loop – absolutely beautiful. It will be well travelled again this year when the whales come up in St. Vincent's. It's a big thing now that you can drive and look at the whales instead of having to get in a boat. I mean, it's blocked up there. But the road in that area – I had it marked here – it's 36 years since that road has been done up there. So to see the condition – and everybody have roads in their district, I do realize that, but it is a part of the Irish Loop and we'd love to see that to be completed somewhere along the way here. I get so many calls on that area – so many calls.

People, when they leave either Trepassey or St. Shott's, they don't drive down the shore a lot of times, they drive down the Salmonier Line because the roads are way better over in the Liberal district than they are in the PC district right now, and I'd like to see that changed. But it is what it is, and we will get our share somewhere along the way I'm sure, and you have a budget that you have to keep to, but we would love to see that in our area get completed.

Because we have got so much tourism there. You have got Mistaken Point down in Portugal Cove South that's a real big industry. I just spoke to a gentleman – probably a couple of weeks ago – and he has got 300 or 400 bookings already for this year. That's only probably four or five, five or six years ago that that was claimed as a UNESCO site. I think it was five or six years ago.

It is going to be a big tourism area for sure, but you hear people in the area saying that they come up here with campers and trailers and you tow them along. They tell people in the district when they are in these convenience stores or Foodlands, wherever it may be, that they don't know if they would come back because the conditions of the road. When they are saying that then, they are not passing that on to people that they talk to as encouraging them to go to that area. That's a big tourist area that we need to work on.

Again, they suffered so much during COVID – all tourism. In Bay Bulls, we had two boat tour operations and they combined one week – and then they both had employees. So they didn't have enough visitors and most of their visitors, I am going to say, 90 or 95 per cent are from out of province. So to rely on people from the local area to go – They had, again, people working and I don't know how many people they have got working each, but they are trying to get employment for all of these people to be able to get EI when they are finished after October. So they combined. One week it would be one boat tour and the next week it would be the other boat tour. So they sort of made it work during COVID, which was good to see and I'm pretty sure they will probably be doing their own thing this year if it all goes well with Come Home Year. So we are looking forward to that as well in the area.

I'll touch on electric vehicles because I came from the car industry. I spoke to someone the other day dealing with vehicles. She is selling vehicles in one of the dealerships. I won't say where and it is not where I worked. She said there is three electric vehicles coming in before the end of the year – three. Plus it is hard to get a vehicle right now. We all know that because of the computer chips and all of that – three vehicles. I know there are rebates out there. I never asked the cost of these vehicles. I can guarantee you and I hear some advertisements on the radio – the minimum, when I was at it, was $40,000. That was the minimum.

It was nice to say you could do it but once I drove to Bay Bulls and back, you had better plug it in. I think the range was 250 kilometres. So to offer these rebates to the low income to try to get away from oil, yes, I see that is certainly a good plan. It is just hard to understand for these people to get from oil to go to electric or go to heat pumps or go to mini-splits in their house and as one of the Members said here today, to get a $5,000 rebate it's going to cost you $20,000.

I had a person in Bay Bulls – I was driving on my ATV with a helmet on – I stopped and spoke to buddy, he said to me, you know, it's going to cost him $20,000. He couldn't do it. He just couldn't do it. It's not affordable for him. He's retired now. He said he just cannot afford to do it. So at some point in time people are going to be forced to do it, because they're going to be forced out, this is not going to happen the next couple of years. I'm going to say it's going to take 30 to 40 years.

The way it's going now, I mean, it's going to go quicker than that, I hope, but it's not just going to stop overnight. You look at people that are using chainsaws and lawnmowers. Yes, you can get them all electric, but they're not readily available yet. I'm sure that it will come. But a fellow with a chainsaw, he's going to need about six kilometres of extension cord to go in the woods to cut a bit of wood. I mean, it makes no sense. It just don't make any sense.

But we're going to get there. It's going to take time. Again, in Fermeuse and up in Trepassey, they both have electric charging stations right now, so that's where it's going to be. But that's reality. I mean, people are talking about it. You see fellas in cutting wood and you see fellas in driving Ski-Doos and driving bikes, I don't know that's a long ways off to me.

Yes, we've got to get there, and I agree with it. I do my part. I've been doing my part since the kids were in school; I've been recycling bottles and they haven't touched them. They started in kindergarten. They wanted to recycle bottles. I've been doing it ever since. It's something that we've done, you recycle as much as you can and compost and do all that stuff. So it's all good for the environment, for sure. But you've always got people that are never going to adapt to it and that's the way it goes.

I'd like to touch again on the cyberattack and on the election; it's all tied together. You know, we look at the cyberattack and our own security and our own personal information being out there, all right? I'm trying to tie it in to the election that we had. Like, right now, we're here talking about the election and you're trying to vote online and not having the people to go out and go do it, but be able to vote online. They said no, it can't happen, personal information. Well, do you know what? We had personal information when we were in the hospitals and they could do it.

But I can't see how we can't make a voting system that you can vote online. We can do – what?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

L. O'DRISCOLL: Well, we can't afford right now the cost of living but we still have to do it. We have to get to it. So the same as electric vehicles, we've got to get to it. We can't afford to.

Do you know what? We had a cyberattack in the hospitals and our personal information – mine wasn't, but there's personal information that was gone. It's the same thing. We've got to get to it. The same as we're getting to – I'll touch on motor vehicle with the licence plates, another issue. We have people that – and I've touched on this before, plate to vehicle should happen here. It's a big investment to change that system, according to the minister, and we've had that discussion the last couple of years. But it's something that should happen. You have to make that investment.

Again, you invested $600,000 for NASCAR, which is a great idea and it's going to be a spinoff of whatever, it's a great idea. I think he said a spinoff of $5.4 million, which great investment during Come Home Year. Not everybody is into NASCAR and you're going to get people that are going to be critical of it, so be it. There are never going to be 100 per cent of ideas that people are going to accept, but it is what it is.

We have to get to a plate to a vehicle and make that happen. That's something that should happen in this province, because we have people that will go in and buy a car, not in dealerships, but privately and never take the registration off and go and get fines. They have $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 worth of fines and they go out and start all over again with another car, when they get caught. That's how it works because you don't take your plate off the car; the plate goes with the car. If you had it the other way, then so be it.

Touching on the cost of living, I had a letter from a constituent today. This is where it's to in regard to – I'm sure that all you people here and all MHAs are getting letters from constituents. She said: I know you're not a Member of the Liberal government, but as an MHA I would like to address rising fuel prices. Seniors in their own homes heated by furnaces soon won't be able to afford to keep their homes. The cost to fill our tank now is $2,000 to fill an oil tank. Less than two years ago, it was $800 to $900. And they were accepting $800 or $900, which still wasn't cheap. How can a couple just receiving CPP and OAS afford this? We still have our power bill, our cable bill, our house insurance, our car insurance, our car payment, groceries, gas for our car, municipal taxes, et cetera, to pay.

I think we're out of touch. We've said that before. I listened to the Member from Bell Island speak and being very cordial about you have certain budgets that you have to do, but if we wanted to raise revenue, you rise the gas taxes five cents; you'd see it in the budget, gas tax go up five cents, beer goes up $1. Well, why can't you drop gas by 10 cents or 20 cents? Why can't you do that?

It's something that should be looked at. If you wanted to raise your revenue, yes, you go out and say we're going to raise beer $1, or cigarettes $1, no questions asked and don't matter who's smoking them, they're going up, or who's drinking them, they're going up, but you can't take it off gas. It's just hard for people to understand.

This is the one issue that you're seeing in the public today. Everywhere you go people are talking about fuel prices. It's affecting every single person. You talk about $141 million and it's a balance in and out, but it's not a balance in their pocket. They're not feeling that – when they came out of the budget, they're not feeling $141 million in their pocket. They're not feeling $1 in their pocket. It's coming out; it's not going in.

She says: It's hard enough on all the residents of the province to deal with the rising costs, but with the income our seniors are having in each month is more difficult. It's time for the government to act now and look out for our seniors.

Is that the first time somebody mentioned that in the last week? You sit over there and – and this is a budget debate – haven't been much debate on the other side about this budget, you must be happy with it totally. You must be totally happy with it.

Not one person has got up and spoke. Not one. I know you're not going to get up and criticize your budget, but you can get up and talk about your district. It's just unbelievable that we've got a budget debate and not one person has gotten up on the other side and spoke about it.

This is last year, during the election: OAS, $615; CPP, $634; that equals $1,249. Heat, $300; drugs, $400; shelter, $600; gas, $100; $50 for cell; and $100 miscellaneous; leaves him with $59 for the month. And that was last year, before the price of fuel went up. That is the normal, common people that voted us in and we cannot get here and figure this out. Somehow we have to help these people get some relief. They're looking for some relief. They're not looking to get a pile of money. They're looking for some relief at the pumps.

We cannot seem to get there; heads down, not acknowledging it. The only time they acknowledge it is when we say something that you don't agree with and really get out of your minds and start to argue back and we'll talk back and forth. But we've got to start doing something about this. Somehow, we have to start doing something about this.

We're after giving out enough examples that I don't have to go back and touch on them.

Sugar tax: Who knows what that's going to be in September? The problem is right now the people don't even know there's a sugar tax coming. They know that we voted on it last year. They don't know it's coming. It's going to come in September and guaranteed that's when it's going to hit the fan. That's when they're going to realize it's the same as they're saying, well, you're not out on the cost of living, you're not out on the price of fuel. We've been out on that for months.

It's not like when the budget came down we came out on it; we've been out at that for months. The Member for Stephenville - Port au Port has been out on that a number of times. When somebody says to me, you know, you're not out on it; we've been out on it a lot. We just don't seem to be touching or hitting the right spots to be able to change or just help the people out. That's what we're looking for. That is what – all the stuff in the budget, there's not much other stuff that we didn't agree with. Again, the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island touched on it and he agreed: revenues, expenses and all that.

We haven't beat up the budget but we have beat up on the cost of living and health care, the two things that we have touched on, and we haven't had any acknowledgement that we are going to try to fix that problem.

What is it that we don't get, on the other side, to help the people of the province? What is it that we don't understand? Listen, you are getting the calls. You cannot tell me you're not getting the calls. You are absolutely getting the calls. Sometimes you sit over there and you nod and agree, and I know you got to agree. But somehow we have to help these people. They are not looking for anything else right now other than a break on the prices of gas.

I filled up my vehicle the other day and it was $120. Last year, let's say it was $1 a litre – a little over a $1 – it has doubled in price. We didn't get any increases and nor did anybody else, most times, get any increases. So you have got $60 extra just on one fill-up.

We are here talking about the registration of a vehicle – I am running out of time now. Registration of vehicle is cut in half, $80 – well, guess what? That is one fill-up. The gas is up now for the last two months. So we have to be able to help the people of the province, just to get the price of fuel somehow – do something with the price of fuel. Let's figure something out or go do something to figure that out.

I am out of time now.

Thank you so much, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER (Trimper): Thank you very much, I say to the Member.

Next speaker, the hon. the Member for District of Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is great to have another opportunity to speak. I guess this will be my last opportunity now on the budget. Of course, we do have, I think, a loan act and maybe another money bill that we have to look forward to and I certainly look forward to many more opportunities when that happens.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the budget. Look, we all realize where we are, I think, financially as a province. I don't envy the government. If you look at our year-over-year deficits, if you look at our provincial debt – I had a briefing this morning with officials in Finance. I believe $17.2 billion is our net debt. I think that is the number. That is not including, of course, all of the unfunded liabilities, pensions and so on, which bring that number way, way higher of course. But $17.2 billion would it be.

I think the people of Newfoundland and Labrador realize that is not sustainable. I think we all in this House of Assembly realize that is not sustainable. We understand, I think, that some things are going to have to change and we are going to have to find better ways of doing things. We are going to have to find more efficient ways of doing things. We are going to have to find ways of saving some money and tackling that debt.

There are a number of ways we can do it. Making cuts and finding efficiencies is certainly one way of doing it, but increasing revenues is another. I have to say, the spirit and intent of this subamendment talks about our relationship with Ottawa. I listened to the Leader of the Official Opposition and I agree with him 100 per cent, as it relates to that. I agree with him pretty much 100 per cent on everything he said. I thought he did an absolutely fabulous job, to be honest with you. I really do. He hit the nail on the head on pretty much everything – very professional. He offered solutions. He offered his perspective. It's not just about complaining; it's about here's what we would do and so on.

I think it's a refreshing approach, an approach we haven't seen necessarily over the last few years over here, but with him at the helm I have to say that it is very refreshing. I think he's doing a great job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. LANE: Now, Speaker, he talks about our relationship with Ottawa. That is a challenging one. I do agree, I think it's fine to say, if you're on the government side, we're going to leverage our relationship and our good relations with our friends in Ottawa, our cousins in Ottawa, whatever the case might be, and I understand that approach.

I also understand the approach if we go too far the other way, we saw what happened when we started taking down flags and referring to the prime minister by his first name and so on. It felt good at the time. I was there at the time and I was cheering it on, I admit. I was proud, on that bandwagon cheering it on. Way to go, shag you, Steve. I was there. But we did pay a price. We did pay a price, no doubt about it in my mind. In the end, we did.

So it is a tricky balance of how hard is too hard. How much sugar or honey do you use as opposed to using the big stick? Personally, I think that trying to use a diplomatic approach, certainly on the onset, is where we should be. But if we don't get the action that we require, that's when I think it's important that we – not necessarily take it too far. We don't have to rude and disruptive. We don't need to start tearing down Canadian flags, but I think we have to be more assertive and more firm in our approach. I think there has to be a more united approach.

The fact that the Leader of the Official Opposition would say – I would join with him and I'm sure the NDP and the other independents will all agree that we would certainly be on board in a united front. I don't care who goes to Ottawa; it doesn't matter to me, but I would sign on to that concept. Whether I'm part of it, I'm there or not, I would certainly sign on to that concept that we really need to, as a group, come together and try to leverage more funds from Ottawa; what I would certainly consider our fair share, which we're not getting. I will agree with the Official Opposition.

Members over there may not want to say it, I get that. You've got to be careful what you say, and who you might peeve off. I understand that. But I think deep down inside you know what we're saying over here is right. I really believe you know that to be true. And it's a challenge. Because we have seven seats. It is what it is; it's politics. Our system under this federation, while it's a great country and it works in many ways, the reality of it is that small provinces do not necessarily fare well in this particular set-up.

Because we have seven seats. And those seven Members, whoever they are, regardless of political stripe, it does not matter. There are seven, and they are sitting across the table from 100, or 100 and some-odd from Ontario, and another 70, 80 from Quebec, or whatever the number is, against seven. So it doesn't matter. Stripe doesn't matter. This is not about Liberal versus PC versus NDP. This is about seven seats in Newfoundland up against central Canada. That's the challenge we face.

And it's not an easy challenge; that's why we haven't seen any significant movement on Marine Atlantic; that's why. The Minister of Immigration made his political bones, I would say, Mr. Speaker, on the Open Line every other week talking about Marine Atlantic. I agreed with what he was saying. But he did. It was the challenge of the number of seats that we have compared to the number of seats on the Mainland. Quebec has a lot of seats, so they have that political piece going for them. And of course they always love to play the separation card, and Canada folds every single time – every single time.

I would suggest we probably would have gotten a much better deal on the Upper Churchill, even, back in Smallwood's day, only for the fact if the federal government at the time had the guts to say we're putting a national corridor through here and you can't block it. I don't care if you like it or not. That's what they should have done, if they were looking after the best interests of the country, but they kowtowed to Quebec. The tail wagged the dog, and the tail continues to wag the dog. That's the reality of what we're up against.

There are no easy answers, but I do agree that we are not receiving – in as far as I'm concerned – our fair share. When we look at the fact that Quebec have all these surpluses and they're getting all this money from the Upper Churchill and so on, and their own rivers, and their revenues are just flowing in. They have the best kind of programs, topnotch, and they're just flush with cash and then they're still getting transfers from Ottawa. Here we are struggling. We have people struggling to survive. We have a huge shortage of family doctors. We have problems in long-term care. We have problems in tertiary care. We have problems in home care. We have problems with ambulance services, transportation, roads and infrastructure, ferry services, you name it. We've got huge issues in this province because of the size, the geography and, of course, how the communities are laid out all throughout that geography.

It is unique. You cannot compare that to a city like Toronto where you have millions of people all together in high-rise buildings and so on, and you have that density where, when the money flows in there, they're able to do so much more. That's not the reality that we have. I would suggest we're more like a territory, arguably, than we are a province. As a matter of fact, it's interesting. When we receive funds from Ottawa, some of these programs that come out for infrastructure and so on, we fall under the rural category actually. Money that's coming to St. John's, Mount Pearl and CBS, we're considered rural under the federal programs.

So arguably, we should be treated more like a territory, recognizing our issues and our geography, but we're not. We need to fight for that – we need to fight for that. I'm not saying that ministers and people over there are not talking to the prime minister when they get a chance, or raising it with the federal Finance minister, or raising it with the minister of Health, federally. I'm not saying that you're not doing that. But obviously, nothing has changed.

Again, I'm not saying we go back to tearing down Canadian flags, but I do think this is such an important issue for our province, for our fiscal sustainability as a province, for the people who we represent, that this is an issue where all parties and non-parties should come together in a united front to look at ways that we can be lobbying the federal government together. And who is on that team, who's the one who is actually having the meetings, doesn't matter to me, I don't care. But represented with the blessing of all of us, and the people, to look for more because we need more. We need help. We really do.

We're talking about trying to reach a balanced budget by 2025, I think. Before that it was 2021 and now it's 2025, any little glitch that happens, that could be thrown off to 2027 and 2030 and so on. That's just to balance the budget. That's not doing anything to deal with the debt. That debt is there; we're still going to paying a billion dollars a year, whatever it is we pay on debt servicing. We pay more on debt servicing than we do on education. So that doesn't even touch that.

This is growing. From now until 2025, we're going to just add to that bill. So we do need some help, and there's no silver bullet that's going to come from the oil industry – that God for Bay du Nord, that it did get approved. Disgusted by the fact of how that went, that we had to be waiting on pins and needles. You talk about our relationship with Ottawa, that was another one, but thank God it did go through. It's going to be helpful, but it's not going to save us. It's not going to deal with that huge debt that we have, and it's not going to necessarily deal with all our health issues and education issues and everything else, but I think it is a step in the right direction.

But we do need to do things. We do need to work together with Ottawa to try to bring in some more revenue into the province. I think that has to be part, at least, of the solution. Also, we obviously have to try to grow our industries and we've heard it talked about here in the House of Assembly, time and time again, the opportunity as it relates to IT, as an example, opportunities to grow tourism and great opportunities to grow our fishery. Some nice to hear the Member for Bonavista and the Member for Ferryland raised as well and talked about our fishery.

I think it's the first time I've heard fishery – no, I've heard the Member for Bonavista raise fishery before, but other than that I haven't heard the word fish in this House. The former Member of Cape St. Francis, he used to bring it up, but very, very little mention of the fishery, and that's what brought our people here. The fishery is a billion-dollar industry, but maybe it could be a $2 billion, maybe it could be $3 billion. What's happening with the seals is ridiculous. That's another one that goes back to our relationship with Ottawa. That's another one.

It's absolutely ridiculous what's happening, and the fishery impacts us all. It's not just rural Newfoundland; it's the lifeblood of many communities in rural Newfoundland. I've said in this House before, go through Donovans Business Park and start looking at the businesses there and ask yourself which ones have connections to the fishery, in terms of supplies, service and everything else. There's an awful lot.

If the fishery shut down in full tomorrow, there'd be a bunch of empty buildings over in Donovans, and there would be a number of businesses that a good part of their business would be chopped off. If they could survive and find something else, who knows. But it would. So there are opportunities there, but again it comes down to our relationship with the federal government, and we need to come together to address – I think it's a huge issue for us.

Speaker, I've got about five minutes or so; I want to just branch off into a different subject now. I want to talk about, for a moment, the whole concept of openness and transparency. I was part of the PC government at the time, when infamous Bill 29 was brought in to this House. I can remember there was a filibuster. I can remember Members on the opposite side – I think there was the Minister of Energy and the Member for Bay of Islands that were with the Liberals at the time. Nobody else is left there now.

But I can remember them on the other side, with all the pieces of paper, everything blacked out, telling us day after day what a disaster Bill 29 was. I remember the filibuster, and I can remember when that filibuster was over and the vote happened, and after listening to the debate and everything, I remember looking over to my colleague to my right, I believe – I think it was the former Member for Terra Nova. It might have been the Member for Mount Pearl North. It was one of them. I think it was the former Member for Terra Nova. I remember saying, b'y, this was a long haul, and I think we're on the wrong side of this one.

We all had to vote for it, of course, or possibly be tossed, or whatever. It was a whip vote and so on, but we voted for it. I voted for it and I remember saying, I think this is a mistake. We're on the wrong side of history, mark my words. And sure enough, time went on, and we saw all the people being denied information because of Bill 29. I would argue it was being misused and abused. We started hearing from constituents, over and over again. It became a huge issue.

I remember it became a huge issue in our caucus. I can remember bringing it to every caucus meeting, and other Members were too, saying, pleading with the Cabinet, we've got to reverse this; we've got to do something to Bill 29. But they wouldn't heed our warning. They wouldn't listen. In the end, that was the main issue that landed me with the other party at the time. No doubt, it was the beginning of the end for that administration.

Now, in fairness, the new interim Leader came in – the former Member for Topsail - Paradise – and he got Clyde Wells and they started a committee. They came up with new ATIPP legislation, which was touted as being the best in the country. We had the best in the country. That was not that long ago.

Unfortunately, history starts to repeat itself and that's where I want to go with this. You would think that we all would have learned from that experience of not being open and transparent, hiding information from the media, from the public and so on. And that administration paid the price at the polls, primarily over that issue.

Now, we are hearing from the Citizens' Representative today and he is talking about the fact that the government is hiding information from the public, from the media and utilizing the client-solicitor privilege to do it – not wanting to release information. It was this government that jumped on some court ruling out West, out in BC somewhere and took the, I'll say, privacy commissioner to court, or his office, and they fought in court to fight against our Privacy Commissioner to allow them now to start hiding information under the auspices of client-solicitor privilege. Not a good move, I would say. Not a good move.

We have also heard, now, as it relates to the Rothschild report talking about Cabinet documentation under the excuse of: it's a Cabinet document, we can't release anything. I believe the Privacy Commissioner recently came out and talked about he had done a review of all the times that the government had used that excuse, that it was a Cabinet document. And when he reviewed them, I can't remember the percentage but a high percentage, I think it was like over 60 per cent of them, if I am not wrong, the Privacy Commissioner determined it was an inappropriate use of that excuse, but they did it anyway.

Of course, NL Hydro and OilCo, formerly under Nalcor, were hiding information under the Energy Corporation Act. We debated that legislation when we brought in OilCo. At that time, I asked, let's change this so that OilCo and Hydro can't go hiding information from the public like Nalcor has done under the Energy Corporation Act, and this government refused to do it.

That's three solid examples of where we're going backwards, not forwards and I would say it's very concerning. I would say to the government, look at what happened in the past. It was the downfall of that administration; it could be yours as well. I suggest you start working on being more open and transparent.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

It's a privilege again to stand in this House and represent the wonderful people of Labrador West.

My colleague behind me here from Mount Pearl - Southlands said that we don't get our fair share, and we don't. We have to go to Ottawa and ask for that. It's kind of funny because sometimes us Members from Labrador feel that similar way if we have to go St. John's and ask for a little extra, to explain ourselves as we are a very rural and remote area. We are a territory, basically, within the province, within the provincial union. So I understand exactly where he's coming from, but from a different point of view as a Labradorian and as a person who represents a very, remote, rural area, along with my colleague from Torngat Mountains and my colleague from Lake Melville and, to the extent, my colleague from Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, as well.

When you want to talk about a territory, you can talk about Labrador. It's only 30,000 of us. We're spread out over a geographical area larger than the Maritimes. We have that one road. We understand. It's interesting to see the juxtaposition of how we feel as Labradorians sometimes, as the province as a whole feels with Ottawa.

So when my colleague from Mount Pearl - Southlands says get our fair share from Ottawa, I do agree on both accounts. Labradorians, we do need a little extra. We do live in a very unique, challenging environment that do require a little extra, but at the same time I do understand the province's need. We need to go talk to Ottawa as well, because by talking to Ottawa maybe we can get something for Labrador as well.

You just look at the health transfers. What we get from Ottawa – and it's interesting in the federal health act that it talks about trying to, with the health transfers, make sure that we can deliver an equal service across the country, but we don't have an equal service across this country.

I live right on the border. From my house, I look into Quebec. I feel like Sarah Palin, I can see Russia, but I actually can see Quebec from my backyard. If someone gets sick in Fermont and they need to get to a doctor's appointment, a cancer appointment, anything like that, they go to their doctor, or the clinic. They don't even have to go to their actual doctor; go to the clinic, get a pass for the next outgoing flight and they will either go to Sept-Îles, Quebec, or Montreal, according to where their specialist is to. No questions asked. They go pick up a slip, get on a plane and they go get the medical service.

If I take sick in Labrador West and I have to go to a specialist appointment, well, I break out my credit card for a $2,000 round trip to St. John's to go see my specialist and then fight with them to get my money back. That is not fair and equal access to health care. We are supposed to have a similar service across this nation. That's how the federal health transfers are supposedly supposed to work.

Clearly, the health transfers we're getting from the federal government don't take into account the very rural and remote regions that we have as this province. So I agree with my colleague from Mount Pearl - Southlands and my colleague, the Leader of the Official Opposition, that, yes, let's go to Ottawa and ask for more money for health transfers and try to justify that we don't live in a province with the type of infrastructure that Quebec, Alberta, even the Maritimes has. They don't have the similar challenges. We have the challenges of a territory, but we have the population of a province. So we're stuck in this weird paradox of we're a territory but we're a province, but we're a province in name but a territory in geography with a splash of urban.

So we're the interesting one of all the provinces.

AN HON. MEMBER: Unique.

J. BROWN: Unique is a good term. Thank you my hon. colleague. We are unique.

At the same time, we have to make Ottawa realize that not all provinces are made equally. Not all provinces have the same issues. We are all very unique, we all have our challenges and some more challenging than others.

Yes, we understand that other provinces do have some unique challenges, but they seem to be striving a lot better with them than we are with ours. I know we went to Ottawa and asked for rate mitigation help and stuff like that, but that's just a drop in the bucket of the actual issues that this province faces.

Yes, we have to keep electrical rates down because electricity is a necessity. It is a necessity of modern society – understandable. But health care is challenged now. As we go into the future of health care, we are going to find more challenges and more complexities as we come out of this pandemic. We may be out of the pandemic and back to a semi-normal society but that pandemic is going to haunt us for a generation afterwards, so we are going to find some unique challenges in our health care afterwards.

Clearly, we watched health care workers get stretched so thin now that many of them have left the profession altogether. How do we replace these people? But also, at the same time, how do we encourage a new generation of health care workers to come into the system, as they just witnessed what happened to the health care system during the pandemic? Did we frighten a complete generation of potential health care workers? How do we mitigate that challenge on how we encourage and ask the youth of this province to become a health care worker?

So these are things that we are facing. Yes, I am with you. I will go to Ottawa and ask for help to increase health care transfers because we are going to need it. We clearly need it. What we are seeing from Ottawa now in that is just not going to cut it. So yes, that is one thing that we need to go and talk about, and I am more than happy to go and talk about that because I see it in my community. I went from eight doctors to three. I have less services now than I had when I was growing up in Labrador West.

I know that my colleagues from across Labrador have the same thing. We are facing some unique challenges when it comes to delivering health care. At the end of the day, how do we go past this? But, at the same time, we have to go back to Ottawa and say, you have to take into consideration some of these things. So yes, 100 per cent, I agree with that.

And this is going to cost a lot of money that even if we did get our financial house in order, it is still going to be a significant cost. Health care, obviously, isn't free. It is a very expensive service, but we have to make sure that everyone has equal and ample opportunity to get the health care they need. I know that we can do it and we should be having this dialogue with our federal counterparts.

We also have a lot of other unique challenges too in the sense that how do we move forward in encouraging the next generation to take up the mantle of health care worker, to take up the mantle of engineer, technology and so on and so forth. And we need to go, actually, look at our own school system and how we provide education, because that is a changing world as well. Even after the pandemic, we had those issues there. But we have to encourage our own, to train our own, to take up as a physician or a nurse practitioner, or work in IT or work in the future of any industry in this province, or develop a completely new industry. It is possible, and this is where we need to (inaudible).

So it's another thing that we need to go and see, where do we find this? Do we talk to Ottawa about it, about training our own and stuff like that? Because we have to stem our population decline. We have to find ways of immigration, but also, at the same time, keeping the population we have and encouraging the population of the future to stay. Because as we continue to lose population, it's a smaller tax base. It's a smaller –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

It's just getting a little difficult to hear the identified MHA.

Thank you.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We need to stem the tide of our low population. We have to encourage our population to stay. We have to encourage our population to do what they pursue, what they want to do in life as a professional or whatnot, but we need more people to take care of the previous generation.

Right now, as a good example, I can't get any home care workers in Labrador West. The wages are just not there and the work-life balance is just not there, but we need to find ways to make those a more appealing and more wanted career path. At the same time, we have to make sure that we train them and encourage them that they can do this as a valid career, that won't burn them out, and won't put them in a financial situation where they can't afford to even live.

So we have to take step back and look at the big picture, and then the sides of the picture and around the picture, because it's just not that clear. At the same time, the answer is probably pretty close at hand, and that's where we need to have a good look at all that.

I know my fellow colleagues just said it – the cost of living in this province. It's no different my way. I get calls and I get people saying it's getting tough that the cost around them have gone up, but the income into their home has not gone up. We need to have a step back and say, what is priority? What needs to be looked at first? How do we pursue it in a way that we can make immediate action and make immediate corrections?

Seniors not being able to heat their homes – that's a concern that should be top-of-mind priority. It is very important that it should be addressed immediately. Also, with that, there are other bills – your hydro bill. I remember that they have already mentioned to me, it's a public service; why do we pay taxes on hydro? It's a public service.

So these are things that we can take back and look and say, hey, should we be charging tax at this time on hydro? Should we be doing this at this time? Stuff that actually hits directly at home. When someone is looking at their bill and they notice that if there is a bit of trimming that the government can help to make that bill smaller, it is probably the best solution there. Not just a one-time thing but at least for the next year, how did the bill that shows up at their house, how do we make that smaller? How do we actually put that back into households and families?

And not just for certain income people, but for everyone in this province right now because everyone is hurting and some may not actually say it. Some have their pride and may not say that they are hurting, but I think a lot more people than normal are hurting. I think there are a lot of people in this province that are going to have a hard time with this.

We need to have a look at where do we actually help people directly and the most effective way and reach the greatest, broadest of this province. Because those are the ones who really need it right now. I know it is not as simple as it is to say it, but we have to make sure that – are we looking in the right places? Are we helping people in the right spots of society and are we doing that?

What is going to happen now is we are going to see a lot more people not being able to afford rent, so we are going to see more evictions. We are going to see more people not being able to find shelter. It does spiral very quickly. For a lot of studies and stuff, even leading up to the pandemic, talking about how for every one dollar a Canadian makes they owe $1.15 or $1.25. So a few extra bills or a few extra dollars tacked on to their gasoline or their grocery bill or anything like that for a person who is living paycheque to paycheque is going to spiral very quickly.

So a culmination of pandemic and, in my opinion, greed on Wall Street and a few other things now have created a situation for residents of this province that were just not seen before. There are some signs there that this is not going to be a one-time, small thing. This is going to be an issue for quite some time as we come out of the pandemic but also as we see a lot of the wealth of Canada held by a very small amount of people. It's going to have devastating effects, especially on a province like ours.

Whenever the cost of living in this province is significant as it is, we're going to see a lot more people hurting. So we need to take a step back, look at everything that's actually going on around here, what actually is hurting, what people are actually hurting around here and say do you know what? Where do we put the time, energy and resources into places where people actually get the maximum amount of benefit?

You look at the taxes on hydro, the taxes on home heating fuel, things like that, as ways that, in the short term, people actually have immediate relief from the cost of what is spiraling out of control.

It's disappointing to see the large multinational corporations just hoarding so much wealth at this time, needlessly to be honest; it's unreal. Just to watch the trading prices on the commodities market and just watching, going wow. These companies are making massive, massive, massive profits off the backs of some of the most vulnerable people in the world. It is unreal to watch this time.

So we need to find ways to step in and push that below for our most vulnerable people. At this time, the most vulnerable people in this population, that population of people has grown significantly. We have a large amount of people here that need immediate relief. They need immediate attention, but, at the time, all of us together to step up and do what's best and protect them because we just can't let so many people in this province fall behind. It's just not what we need right now.

If anything, we need to encourage and lift up as many people as possible and move forward, because we have a province to rebuild after a pandemic. We have a province that we need to move forward because we need to get on the right path when it comes to the future.

We're well positioned; we have the resources, the knowledge, the know-how and the people. We are a place that actually most other nations in this world would envy and that's just the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. They would envy what we have here and our ability.

We have a small population but – I think one study, and I don't know how long ago it was – I remember saying that some of the most educated people per capita is Newfoundland and Labrador. At one time, we had the largest per capita of so many different types of engineers and other academics. What really stemmed that was the ability for us to teach so many people effectively in a short period of time. We just look down the street at Memorial University, that's a massive piece of infrastructure, that's a massive education facility for a province of 500,000 people. So we are very well tuned at this, but we can't lose it. By letting our people down in a time of need is how we lose something like that.

So we have to make sure that we keep the people of this province supported in a way that they still want to go and get an education; they're not trying to look for shelter; they're not preoccupied with the idea of trying to keep their chequebook balanced. But instead they're looking at maybe I want to go to school. Maybe I want to take that chance and start that small business and maybe I want to be that person right now. That's where you have to be to make sure that those dreams of those people are still those dreams of those people and not worrying about am I going to make this payment this month; am I going to make that payment this month.

I know the other day I asked a question of the Minister Responsible for Labour about the new relationship between the confidence and supply between NDP and the Liberals in Ottawa federally. But one of those other things, a good thing that came out of it is pharmacare. That would do this province so wonderfully, to have that program put in place here, now, today. Because we see it, as with another thing that has gone up in cost, is people's medication.

There are so many stories of seniors cutting pills so they get two days out of one pill instead of when they're supposed to be taking one or someone using expired insulin and all those other stories we're hearing. That is a huge cost on a lot of people is medication. Especially people with chronic illnesses who are on a medication for life. That is a lifetime of extra cost, especially if they're not on a drug card or they don't have insurance from their work or employer, that's an extra cost on an individual for the rest of their life. If we could take that burden off a person like that and apply it so that they can go to school or take that chance on that small business or move forward in any of that stuff. That is one more person who is lifted up and can help another person. For every person you help, there are two other people that will get helped afterwards because when you help a person it carries on. It always does. Helpfulness and kindness is contagious and that is the thing that we need to look at as a province: How do we help that one person?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: If I can have the attention of the House, please. For all of those of you who are fans of Canadian Jeopardy! players: Mattea just won again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. DINN: And the question is?

Always a pleasure to get up in this House of Assembly and speak on behalf of the wonderful residents of Topsail - Paradise and all throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Before I start, I think I'll just talk to the ribbon that we've all been wearing. I know some are not wearing them anymore, but I guess we change our suits, we change our outfits and the ribbon gets lost, but I'm sure our thoughts and prayers go out to those in the Ukraine and their families and friends and what they're going through.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. DINN: And all those throughout the world who are dealing with hardship. That just makes what we do here tonight even more important, because we live in a fabulous province and we have the opportunity to do what we do.

This is Mental Health Week. It's a huge week when we talk about the numbers of individuals who are dealing with mental health challenges. The slogan for this year is Empathy: Before you weigh in, tune in. A very good slogan on that. I believe their hashtag is #GetReal.

I know when I first got elected, my brother and I spoke to how we were raised, and empathy was a big part of that. Empathy meaning put yourself in the other person's shoes. That's something we need to do and we need to do especially when we're dealing with mental health issues, or speaking with people with mental health issues.

Like I said: Before you weigh in, tune in. It's good to know a little bit about mental health. I've learned a lot since I've taken on this role as shadow minister for Health and Community Services. You learn that upwards to 100,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians deal with mental health illness. Approximately 40 per cent seek treatment and approximately 20 per cent receive proper treatment.

We also know that out of those 100,000, 70 per cent of mental health illnesses start in childhood or early adolescence. Those are huge numbers. So when you talk about this showing empathy and before you weigh in, tuning in, that's one in five when you look at our population. One in five are dealing with mental health issues. That's probably just the ones who've identified as having mental health issues. So put that in perspective; that's quite a number.

So how do I tie that into the budget and the debate that we're having here this evening? Well, one big issue we've been dealing with is the increase in gas prices. Gas prices affect a number of things. The main one, of course, is they affect transportation. For any of us driving or travelling or transporting anything, you know, to see the price of gas go up like it has, has put a tremendous strain on our everyday lifestyle.

It's also affected the price of food. I gave an example there not too long ago in the House about going into a local grocery store, picking up a small single-serving salad, mainly lettuce, some tomatoes, some bacon bits, and it was $11-something. So you talk about trying to eat healthy – that's the result of our increasing cost of living, our increasing gas prices.

Heat, that's been mentioned a couple of times in the House, trying to heat your home. Think of your mother or father or grandparents, living on a single income, filling their oil tank on a monthly basis, something that may have cost them $600 is now upwards to $1,000. That's huge. That's huge. Some may not even realize it, but even shelters where you live is affected by this. I've known of individuals who have come to me, young couples who actually moved back into their parent's house in the last month because they couldn't afford to heat their house and they couldn't afford – so they move back into the basement apartment. And that's people who have the opportunity to do that. There's others out there who do not have that opportunity.

My colleague here from Labrador spoke to the medications. We have the highest aging population across Canada. At some point in time, we're all going to be on some kind of medication. But seniors, of course, tend to be on more, and you hear of them splitting up, rationing out their prescriptions. You hear about them using expired prescriptions, skipping a dosage. That's all attributed to the cost of living.

Not too long ago a couple were interviewed, they come back and forth into the Health Sciences to get treatments – I believe it was cancer treatments they were getting. The cost of getting in their car and driving in is becoming a factor in how they schedule those treatments. So cost of living is playing on them.

If you're talking about travel as well, we look at the Medical Transportation Assistance Program, good example, because individuals, who don't have a service within a certain range will have to drive to that, have to get there somehow. They're paid per kilometre. They get a per diem per kilometre. That hasn't changed, yet the price of gas is gone up. So that becomes a cost. That becomes a strain on individuals who have health issues.

We also spoke to rapid tests. We got a good answer from the minister today talking about the groups that get them and talking about small supplies, yet there are vulnerable groups out there who would do much better if they had access to that quick rapid test. Not all of them are capable of going off and getting a free PCR.

We have Come Home Year happening, we're expecting people to come back home. There's going to be some anxiety when people come from abroad and you're wondering, okay, should they come in to the gathering. If they had access to a quick rapid test that would quell some of their anxieties.

I just roll back to this is Empathy: Before you weigh in, tune in. That applies to those with mental health issues, but it also applies to when you're putting together a budget. When you're putting together a budget, before you weigh in, tune in. I think it was said in the House a couple of times here: Listen to the people you represent. Listen to the people with lived experiences.

There was a tour of the mental health facility today; I think it was a mock-up tour. Wonderful. From what I saw, it looks like it's going to be a top-notch facility. Part of this mock-up tour is to get staff acquainted with it, and they can also suggest where changes can be made, where improvements can be made, where something can be done a little bit more efficient.

But this is a mental health facility. I do hope today was not just a photo opportunity. I do hope that in moving forward with this facility, that those with lived experiences, those who are going to be in that facility as patients are going to be at least asked for this opinion in how they see it set up. That's who it's going to serve.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

P. DINN: Thank you. The Member across is telling me they have been. So that's wonderful to hear. Because that's what should be done. Because we should be looking at the goal, the outcome, who it's going to serve and if it's going to serve them better.

So if I roll this back, Mental Health Week and what mental health we're dealing with, and I've given you the numbers, some of the numbers on that and you'll get other numbers elsewhere, but the fact of the matter is, it's a serious issue here. And I would suspect coming out of COVID those numbers are probably gone up even higher. So when we go back to the budget and we talk about, before you weigh in, tune in, think about individuals with lived experiences; listen to the individuals out there.

We've been getting lots of calls, and I'm sure everyone in this House has been getting the same calls, on the cost of living and what can you do. What can you do to ease the burden? We've had some debate here when you get up and say: There are no new taxes in the budget. And we might argue, well, there's a sugar tax. We might hear, well, that was coming last year, or we might hear talk about the carbon tax and we might get another response there. That's fine.

But if you look up the definition of a tax, it's usually a compulsory levy that's put on residents. But the secondary definition of a tax is a strain or a heavy demand put on individuals. It does not talk to a levy. It does not talk to compulsory contribution. The second definition of a tax is a strain or a heavy demand put on an individual.

So although the budget may not have had new taxes, and what we see and what I spoke to when talking about the gas increase, as an example, there is no doubt in my mind that the budget and the response, or lack of response, is taxing on the people of this province. It's taxing on them. It may not be a tax, but the lack of action in some areas has put an unnecessary strain and heavy demand on a good portion of our population.

Let's roll back to mental health that I started on. Individuals dealing with financial stress are twice as likely to develop poor health. So we have a taxing budget and the gas prices have gone up, and they put financial stress on so many individuals, and it's twice as likely – forget COVID now. Forget the increase from the pandemic on mental health, but you have the financial stress, which is proven to lead to anxiety, depression, substance abuse, mental health issues, heart disease, high blood pressure, loss of sleep, broken relationships and the list goes on.

Here we are in Mental Health Week, debating the budget, and it's all connected. We look at health outcomes. We have the Health Accord looking at proper health outcomes and this budget is contributing to poor health outcomes and unnecessary mental health strain. So that's factual. There's absolutely nothing I said there, in that 15 minutes, that you will find incorrect. There's nothing. It all flows and we all heard the issues around the increase in tax and how it's affected people.

You want to talk about solutions. How do you do this? We've tossed out some things like the home heating rebate. I even suggested that investment in continuous glucose monitoring will save money down the road. There are different things we can do. Also, we talked about, the Member for Labrador talked about it, our leader spoke to it, about a united front, to try and get our fair share in this Confederation that we're in.

The Labour Market Development Agreement, as an example, provides different pockets of funding across the provinces and territories. It's based on, I think – I stand to be corrected now – 19 different factors or variables, to try and be fair in what they put out. I'm not sure if it looks at employment rates and the like.

Our health care transfers, on the other hand, are done per capita. Again, a united front to get our fair share is what's needed here. But if you look at per capita, every jurisdiction – every province or territory is in a different situation. They have different demographics; they have different geography. In this province we have the oldest population. We have the highest rate of chronic illness, the highest rate of diabetes. I looked at the cancer report recently, Canadian statistics for 2021, and there some instances there where we have the highest rates of certain cancers across the country.

So to accept the per capita formula does not address the real need in this province. I really think we need to look at that. We need to look at getting our fair share from the federal government, and I think we need to do it. We hear collaboration a lot; this is where we really need to collaborate and come together to ensure that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are getting their fair share from this.

But, again, we have got to bring it back to those with lived experiences. What are we hearing? What are we hearing here? The Member for Carbonear - Trinity - Bay de Verde will be happy to hear I, too, was out in his district just last week and met with a group down in New Perlican and a great conversation. We had a nice meeting there at the community hall and I will throw this out to him: One of the phrases we heard was that government is out of touch. Not us, they said it.

When you hear that, that goes back to listening to what people are saying. Before you weigh in, tune in. But the other thing which was touched on tonight as well – I'll quickly get it out in a minute – is one of the individuals I spoke with – actually there were three gentlemen and they went on and on about the seal fishery. They went on, much like the Member for Bonavista talked. They went on and they had all of the facts and they cannot understand why the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador were not doing more about the seals and not just hunting them. They said every part of a seal can be utilized. If it is not for the meat, if it is not for what is left over for dog food, there are some portions that can be sent away. The oils are the best you can have health-wise.

So let's start listening to the people, listening to what they are saying and let's really try and make this less taxing on our residents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

I just want to talk a little bit about my district. It is the second time around. Anyway, earlier, I was a little bit emotional because it is really hard when we are dealing with day-to-day life and I see the lives impacted in my district. It is different when you talk about, oh, I have the poorest district in the province. We don't have as much infrastructure and services as other districts.

It is one thing to talk about that but when you are out there in the district and, over the years, you have that acquired history of knowledge and you see so many generations impacted and you see children born and, unfortunately, sometimes, they are not born into a good future. So, for me, that is important, but I did talk about the resilience of our people and I wanted to speak a little about some of our strong leaders.

Last week, I did a Member's statement on Boas Jarause. We're only given 200 words, so to sum up a man who had so much life experience, so much knowledge and was such a strong leader, it's really hard to sum that up in 200 words, Speaker.

So one of the things I wanted to mention was his love of the land. I talked a lot about his leadership in Nunatsiavut. He served his people well, but he was also a very knowledgeable Innu hunter. He was resettled from Hebron. One thing my mom always talked about because she and Boas Jarause were chapel servants, she would refer to him as Brother Boas, which is probably some of the reasons why we called him uncle, Uncle Boas. But when he was resettled from Hebron down to Makkovik, every year he would go back. He would go back to his homeland and he would actually travel by dog team. Every year he'd go back hunting, go back fishing.

Then after, as time went on, he would travel by Ski-Doo and he did this into his old age, even when he was sick. He was a really strong person. I think his strength came from what he witnessed as a young man, when they were forcibly resettled to the southern part of Northern Labrador.

I remember a story of my Uncle Tony told me about when he was out with Boas and Boas's son, Clements. He would go out and he would be sort of really impressed with Boas Jarause's knowledge of the land. He would know exactly where to put a net, or he would know where the birds were going to be. His knowledge – and it didn't matter if it was actually around the Makkovik area, his new home, or whether it was up north in the Hebron area. That's so important.

Also, he had such a love for the culture and the language and he was a strong advocate for keeping the language for the Labrador Inuit. Every time he would go to meetings, he would speak of that. I have to say, over the years, growing up as a young girl, and then later going to university and coming home and seeing him, I was always so pleased to see him. I was so always so impressed by him. In actual fact, he was one of my heroes, I think, because of his resilience. I think it's important to talk about that. You can't put that in 200 words so it is important to be able to say that.

Another leader, John Jararuse, was resettled from Hebron as well. He went through all that adversity. I'm going to give a Member's statement tomorrow on him but I don't have enough room to talk about some of the things and his respect and love of his church. He was an organ player.

One of the biggest things that really impressed me was his knowledge and the way he shared it with people. He knew the history of Hebron. He knew the history of the resettlement. He was such an educator, not only for people in Nain but for people from all over the world about his experiences and about the actual, true, Inuit history. He was never awarded a grand honourary degree. He never had a lot of recognition, but John Jararuse was a true leader in many ways for the people.

When I went to his funeral last week, one of the things that really struck me was the overall love that I could feel in that church for John Jararuse, from his family and especially his grandchildren and his great-grandchildren. I think a measure of a person, sometimes, is when you can actually share things with your family and receive so much love and admiration from them. I have to say, the respect in that church was overwhelming.

Just a couple of things, too, I am also speaking on the budget. I do bring up housing issues in my district. One of the biggest problems we have is actually plots of land now. To get a plot of land developed costs $250,000. If you went back through Hansard you'd probably see me mention that probably six or seven or eight or nine times. A plot of land $250,000, without even starting to build a house.

Over the last year, I have been bringing up vacant Newfoundland and Labrador houses, only because they need repair. I think I thanked the Minister of CSSD, who is responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. I have seen the work that you have done over the last year. I have been critical of the shipping schedule, I have been critical of the delays, but at the end of the day, I do acknowledge the work that your department has done. I have to say it is so good to see a minister who is involved in actually getting action taken. I need to recognize that.

The one thing that I would like, you know, looking forward for budgeting, is for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing to come up with a plan where, when a house – and this doesn't have to just be for the North Coast because it is a chronic problem elsewhere as well – becomes vacant, that it's turned around; repairs done and the house is put back in service for another needy family. On the North Coast, there's no consistency there.

When you look at it, you rely on the shipping season. So, really, there should be materials stored and services available so that if a house becomes empty during the winter, it doesn't sit empty. Because what happens is with the elements, with mould, break-ins, those sort of things, small repairs become big and then we get the houses sitting year after year, and on the North Coast we do have a serious housing shortage.

Now, one of the things that has always bothered me, as the MHA, is the perception within the province that we are always wanting things. We always have our hand out. But when you look at the number of Newfoundland and Labrador houses in my district, I think there are only 64, 68, around that number, for my entire district. That's not a lot of houses. I'm not asking for more, I'm just asking for services to be put in place so that when a house becomes empty, vacant, where a family is actually relocated, then that house could be put back into service. I don't think that's a lot to ask for.

Another thing I'd like to say is that one of the reasons that sometimes it's quite difficult day after day to talk about the issues in my district is because I know that people – there's not a lot of interest in helping my district. I'm just one district; we're up in Northern Labrador, kind of out of sight, out of mind. But when you look at the problems we experience, the cost of our electricity.

Before Muskrat Falls, we were looking at, in my district, over 1,000 kilowatt hours, we were paying 18.5 cents a kilowatt hour. The highest anywhere else in the province was 12.2 cents a kilowatt hour. Really, when you look at that, there's such a gap between what we were paying for electricity and what the rest of the province was paying for it. Yet, there's the perception that we want everything for free, that we want things to be given to us.

For us, it's really hard. We can't heat our houses at 19 cents a kilowatt-hour up in Northern Labrador, when the rest of the province is paying 12.2 cents a kilowatt-hour. We went to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, went to the province, and here in the House we were told that that little subsidy is costing millions of dollars, but it's not broken down to show the North Coast access to that little subsidy. I can say not very many people on the North Coast uses electric heat, and very, very few houses are taking advantage of that full small subsidy. So the millions of dollars are from other areas outside of my district. I think that needs to be pointed out as well.

Just looking at the price of fuel now on the Avalon, I think it's $2.04 a litre. We're frozen over the winter. Probably the first time the price freeze have worked for our benefit, but if the price freeze comes off right now we'd probably be paying $2.30 a litre. We always end up paying about 30 cents more than Lake Melville; 32 to 35 cents more than on the Avalon.

The thing that's really strange is that we're not on an island. The communities in my district are not on islands. We are not isolated because we're on islands; we're land based. Every region has been connected to the Trans-Canada, the Trans-Labrador Highway, but my region.

I mean, it creates so many problems. It's really, really difficult. One of the issues we deal is chronic problems with our Internet. If we had a road connecting us, they would actually be able to roll the fibre optic cable in on the back of trucks. They wouldn't be looking at hundreds of millions of dollars.

But let's just look at the services now for our Internet. Over the last two years, we've had COVID. Everything went online. If you're in one of my communities, you can't do very much online. You can't even upload two pictures at a time because the speed is 0.2, not one – on average it's between 0.2 to 1.9 megabits per second. So that's slow Internet, but when you look at the bill you pay for your Internet – home, we have a phone, the regular landline, just a basic phone line and the Internet, and our bill for the Internet and the regular landline is $207 a month – no TV, nothing else, no cellphone.

Now, luckily for us Starlink is coming into play. A lot of people are looking at Starlink as an option, but I'd like to point out that we're paying $207 for an Internet speed that don't average over three megabits per second. So how is that allowed to happen? Where's the fairness in that?

In actual fact, there have been a lot of federal dollars available for Labrador and for rural northern regions for upgrades, but the last 10 years we've had very, very little upgrades. So who is actually availing of that money? Not my district. I actually draw little pictures of pots and I put a dollar sign on it and a little arrow, because that's the federal dollars, the pots of money that's available to us, that's actually sailing away. So who's getting the money? It certainly is not us.

Looking at our airstrips, our airstrips were built in the 1980s, 40 years ago. There have been no upgrades to our airstrips, very little maintenance. Even the little shacks for the passengers and the freight, they're so small. They're like the size of a small living room, probably 20 by 20. That has to house the passengers and all the freight. There's no room for the operator of the heavy equipment that maintains the airstrip to practically even turn around, let alone do some work.

So where else in the province would that be acceptable? We rely on those airstrips. That's the only way in and out during the winter. Don't get me started on the ferry, the boat. Because that boat is weather delayed, quite often, and in actual fact when that marine service is running, we get probably five months out of the service. In actual fact, we don't even get that for passenger travel because when you're getting into September, by the second week of September no one travels on that boat because it is so rough and people are actually afraid. People are afraid to travel on that boat. So they don't have access to the service that is actually being provided because of the conditions they have to endure.

What about travel? Practically every week, this time of the year, we have patients delayed. I have had patients trying to get home for over six days. In actual fact, I got an email from a resident in Rigolet. There are people delayed in Hopedale and Makkovik, and I didn't realize there were people trying to get home from Rigolet. She messaged me and said she had been stuck now, trying to get home for a week. That was yesterday. She finally got home today. So after seven days of waiting to travel home after a medical appointment, she has finally got home.

I went in on her Facebook to message her and I saw there was a post there from April 30. This is while she was stuck. She says there, on her Facebook: As bad as I want to get home after being gone for over a week, I feel even worse for the kids who are supposed to be here in Goose Bay competing in the badminton regionals this weekend. So the badminton team from Rigolet couldn't travel to compete in the regionals. She goes on to say: There hasn't been a regional or a provincial event since before the pandemic began and our Eagles – that's their team from Rigolet – are the defending regional and provincial champions. So they couldn't attend because of weather, because of transportation.

We are not talking about a big blizzard that would keep cars from driving. This is just, basically, warm, mild conditions where you get the difference between snow and rain and so the planes can't fly. She goes on to say: This spring has been the absolute worse with regard to bad weather and another time the road would have been so beneficial for us.

So it is not only patients that are stuck waiting to get home or patients on the North Coast waiting for their specialist appointments that are cancelled and rescheduled for probably another three months. Access to travel is so important. And what is impacted? Our entire lives are impacted. Our quality of health service is impacted. Our quality of our student life is impacted.

The emotional and mental health – I had the Member there for Topsail - Paradise talking about mental wellness. It's so difficult to travel and then you're faced – if the weather is good and you can travel, well, then you have to buy a plane ticket. If you're in Nain and you want to visit your grandmother who's in the nursing home in Goose Bay, you've got to cough up about $1,000 return for one person.

So there are lot of issues that go on, that impact my district. Sometimes I do get a little upset about it because it does fall on deaf ears.

But I just want to give a shout out to Holy Moly, the Nain team in volleyball that just won the provincials for the age group of 18U Males B – Holy Moly. Now, I might get in trouble because, in actual fact, they weren't allowed to travel as students, that's why they're not called the Jens Haven (inaudible) but, anyway, Holy Moly did win so a big shout-out to you guys.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm going to stand and just have a few words tonight on the debate and put a few things on the record.

First of all, to thank the people of Humber - Bay of Islands for, again, when it started to open up I was invited to a lot of events and being around and seeing more people, listening to more concerns. It's always great to get out. This Saturday night, I attended a firefighters' ball down in Humber Arm South. A great bunch of volunteers, 28, they had so many calls this years and there's about 15 of them with 100 per cent showing up to the scene. So I've just got to recognize that. There was a MHA award given out to a young fella by the name of Keegan Hynes.

Keegan did something special down there with one of his friends; he stuck with him and possibly saved his life. So the MHA award went to young Keegan Hynes, a young little fella, 16 years old that did something extraordinary that a lot of people at that age would just try to run and not be involved, but he stood there. I just want to recognize the great work of the young fella, because we hear so many sad stories sometimes about young fellas going astray, but here's a young fella that stood up, showed a lot of courage and a lot of spunk and a lot of maturity along the way.

Also, I was over in Irishtown-Summerside Saturday and they had volunteer appreciation day, the seniors. So they had a great show of seniors, had a great show of volunteers showing up. The HIS fire department was there and just across the road there was the Summerside 4-H, the longest one in the province. They were doing a first aid training put off by the Irishtown-Summerside firefighters. They're heavily involved in the community with the youth. Congratulations to the 4-H club in the area.

I know all throughout the district there are all kinds of events, a lot of volunteer work. Also, Saturday night, I presented a certificate to the Humber Arm South firefighters on behalf of the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, to recognize the work of the volunteers. They were very appreciative of receiving the award and being recognized. That was special to them.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank all the residents of the Humber - Bay of Islands once again. It's always a pleasure to be working with the town councils. It's a pleasure to be working with all the volunteer groups; more so, it's an honour and there's only so many of us in this House ever gets that honour.

I'm going to bring up a few concerns that were raised to me throughout the travels. One of them is the cost of living. It is real. I think we all know it's real. What can be done? That's up to government. There are a lot of great suggestions put forth by the Opposition, by the independents, a lot of great suggestions put forth. But, obviously, when you stand up and say, well, we're putting back the gas – I look at the carbon tax, the carbon tax right now goes right into general revenue, back into general revenue.

When you talk about, well, here's how much money we get from tax and here's how much money we gave back. How about the carbon tax? The carbon tax is there, it goes right into general revenue. This is all extra funds that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador gets. They always say, okay, well, we can't cut the gas tax, can you give an income tax rebate? Can you give a rebate to senior citizens? Can you give a rebate to some people who are on lower income? There are always ways to do it, if there's a will to do it.

I can assure you, I know some Members opposite, they get the calls; they get a lot of calls. They definitely get a lot of calls. There has to be a way, the cost of oil, the cost of gas, the cost of food, the cost of medication, anything that you do now, it's gone up. So this idea that, okay, that's how much we got for the gas tax, that's how much we'll give you. We need more. We need more.

I would venture to say – and I'm not speaking for anybody in this House, but if we gave some rebate right now because of the extraordinary circumstances in the world, not just Newfoundland and Labrador, not unique to Newfoundland and Labrador, in the world, if we gave extra, a rebate to the lower end; the seniors who really need it; the transportation; the truckers and all that. And we said the deficit this year, instead of being $300 is going to be $500. Who is going to argue that? When it's extraordinary circumstances, you take extraordinary measures. That is the way governments should work.

We all applauded the federal government when we had the COVID; we all applauded when they were helping out the tourism industry; helping out this industry; helping out with that industry because it is extraordinary.

Here we are in Newfoundland and Labrador right now with extraordinary circumstances and we have a government out bragging how low the deficit is, which is not bad, but there are people suffering. There are people suffering. I know people, personally, right now, who can't put enough oil in their tanks. So what they do is they save it for the night times or evenings and they are out somewhere all day. And I'm not being dramatic here. That's a fact. That is an actual fact.

Here we are sitting down when there are things that we can do as legislators, things that can be done by government and just not being done. It's just not being done. It's almost like you can't understand it, because I remember the Liberal values was to help the people on the lower end. That was always the Liberal values and then you had the philosophy of the PC Party was okay, let's help, and it is going to filter down. Always the philosophy – if there are Liberals over there – was to help the lower end. Always the philosophy. Now the philosophy is just not there any more. It is not there.

If you go back and look at the history of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador – look at the history of the Liberal Party of Canada – it was always helping the grassroots – the grassroots. Somewhere along the way the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador has lost its way.

When there is a way to help, when there is the means to help, when we got extraordinary circumstances in Newfoundland and Labrador where people are suffering; people are deciding should I have medication; should I have food; should I have heat; should I have oil? We can help and we are not helping.

It is a sad day. If the Members opposite don't hear any of those concerns, come with me for a day or two. Just come over and spend a bit of time. I'm serious; there are people suffering. When people start suffering, the anxiety kicks in. With anxiety, then we have the mental health issues because they become isolated. They can't go out and do the things they wanted to do. Some seniors can't even drive the car.

I'm urging government – I'm probably speaking on deaf ears – I'm used to that – but I can tell you I am standing here as one person who has been elected, who has been around longer than anybody in this House, there are people suffering in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and we can do something about it and we're just not doing it – we're just not doing it.

I just had to bring that up. I urge the government, again, to reconsider. Go back in that Cabinet room, wherever you got to go, go back and say, what can we do – what can we do? Because there has to be something; our people with the mental health issues; people are going without medication; people are going without food; people going without heat in their houses.

Trust me and if everybody over there is living in a glasshouse, come over in the Humber - Bay of Islands and I'll let you speak to some real people –

(Disturbance.)

E. JOYCE: That's one right there on the phone now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

E. JOYCE: One right there just sent me a note then: What you're saying is 100 per cent correct.

Speaker, the other thing that I am going to bring up too – and, of course, we all know it, but it is almost like it is not happening, is lack of doctors on the West Coast. People say, oh, we have more doctors in Newfoundland and Labrador. I can tell you there are thousands and thousands of people on the West Coast without doctors. I know three myself, just gone, absolutely gone. The wait time now at the emergency goes up seven, eight, nine hours. So no one can tell me that's not real.

There are options. There are three nurse practitioners; I asked the minister to meet with them. He won't do it. The answer that you get, well, we're working with the Nurses' Union. That's great, but meet with the nurse practitioners. My god, they're human beings. They're out there helping people. They're actually out helping people and here is an opportunity to help out on the West Coast, the Corner Brook area, all surrounding Corner Brook, Bay of Islands area.

Here are three people who set up an office trying to get a meeting with the minister. I'm asking for a meeting for the minister to meet with them and we can't get the Minister of Health and Community Services to meet with three or four nurse practitioners in Western Newfoundland that would help with our health care. There's something fundamentally wrong. Fundamentally, there's something wrong.

If the minister would like to meet with them, I would arrange the meeting tomorrow. They would clear their schedule, Minister, for you tomorrow. For Friday, Saturday, Sunday, they would meet with you.

I ask any Member in this House – here's a good example – any Member, whoever wants to stand up and deny this, if you knew there was a business coming in here going to spend $5 million or $10 million and they said we need a meeting this Saturday or Sunday, how many people in this House, if they're in town, would meet with that group? How many? Not one, but the minute we say let's go and let's help and meet with people who are going to help our health care, there's an issue. I just don't understand it. I honestly just don't understand it. I don't know where we went wrong that we can't sit down with individuals to try to help with solutions.

I use the cataracts again; I brought it up today. It's just beyond me why this is not solved. It is just beyond me. I have a lot of reasons, which were proven false. I have other reasons were proven false, but there is no one in this government has yet to say to me, okay, we can do that. Let's go do it. It not going to cost a cent. It is not going to cost any extra money. We're going to help 800 seniors in Western Newfoundland. I mean you think you'd jump for joy. You think you'd go out and have a nice press conference and say look at the seniors we're helping, which you deserve to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: Photo op.

E. JOYCE: Photo op, I don't care what it is. If the people want to have a photo, go ahead, as long as the seniors can see. As long as the seniors gets a quality of life, as long as they can get their licence back, as long as they can read the medication, I don't give a hell who gets the photo, as long as it's done.

This is the kind of thing that I don't know why it's not done. This is the kind of information that you give to a government that should take it, grab it and say oh my God, we can help out here. Take it and do it, but it's not being done. For some reason, there are two or three options for health care in Western, and it's just not being done.

I'd say to the Minister of Tourism, if somebody was going to set up a big tourism structure out in the Humber - Bay of Islands tomorrow and say we need out there, we have a great tourism structure, you'd be out to meet with them – you would, but health care we won't for some reason. We won't.

We know the lack of doctors. We know that we need some other way. Here are nurse practitioners who can do it, and they can do it much cheaper than having people waiting in outpatients or specialists. They can give people their driver's licence. They can give prescriptions. They can give it to the people that need to go for a blood test. They can do all that. There are options there, and we won't do it as a government.

This is where I can honestly tell you, I miss it. I just don't understand it. I go back to the days with Clyde Wells. I even go back to the days with Brian Tobin. I even go back to the days with Roger Grimes. If you said to Roger Grimes, Brian Tobin, Clyde Wells, Beaton Tulk and any of those guys, we've got an option out there, we're going to get you 600, 700 per nurse practitioner that can see people; we've only got four or five. The b'ys would be on the plane, gone. They'd be gone out to meet with them. They'd sit down with them. They'd bring them in a room and say: What can we do to help out here?

That's what I'm used to as a Liberal Party. If there's an option there – I've seen Clyde Wells sit down with a fisherman, on a regular basis, because it was something he thought they could help out. I've seen Beaton Tulk fly out on a Friday night to meet with someone because there was a great adventure that someone needed done out there, that he needed to be a part of. No PR, no cameras, just go out and get it done.

I'm asking this government will someone go out and look at the options that can help people with their health care. They're there. They're easy. They're simple. But it's just not being done. For some reason, if it's going to be a bit of controversy, or it may be not within the procedures that we should follow, it's just not being done. And while it's not being done, there are a lot of people being affected by it, and that's the sad part. If it was some of us just worried and some of us up here bantering back and forth, but I'm giving suggestions.

I'm making real people count in this House of Assembly by offering and asking the minister, asking the Premier, asking other people in government to try to get meetings with these people so that they can get the cataracts done, so they can get back their dignity and quality of life in their last number of years, and then nurse practitioners who can definitely help out with our doctor shortage in Western Newfoundland. I'm begging the government to go look at it – begging them. I'll even arrange the meeting, and I'll walk out. I don't want to be a part of it; I just want the meetings.

That's not much to ask. For the seniors, for the people in Western Newfoundland that haven't got a doctor, who's spending eight, 10 hours at emergency, some of them leaving out of frustration or pain, that's not much to ask a government official, who is elected to help the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, either the Minister of Health or the Premier to meet with these groups and get this resolved, because it can be resolved.

I can assure you, once the meeting is held I will walk away from it. I'll walk away from it and I won't say another word, because I'm convinced that if the Minister of Health and the Premier sits down with these two groups, the nurse practitioners and the seniors about the cataract surgery, I am confident they would say we can do this fairly easy.

Once again, I'm repeating myself and I won't do it anymore. I'm asking, again, to have meetings with the people in Western Newfoundland, who can make a difference with our health care, because we hear it every day, some horror stories about our health care; how we haven't got enough doctors; people got no family doctors. I'm giving solutions here that people are coming to me and saying we got solutions. Yet, we won't give the solutions and the government won't give me the option to give them the solutions. It's sad. It's actually sad, and for whatever reason, I don't know. I really don't know what the reasons are. I really, truly don't know.

I ask any Member here without a doctor in their communities, if you had an option, wouldn't you expect to get meetings arranged? Wouldn't you expect it? As I said, those nurse practitioners, they had over 4,000 visits so far – 4,000 – in Western Newfoundland. That a lot, that's a lot for three, and they could do a lot more.

So I'm urging again, the government, to reconsider the way they have meetings, or who they meet with, or however they do it. I don't know what the procedure is. I'm asking you to change those procedures so we can put dignity of life back to Newfoundland with our number one issue in this province right now – the number one issue is health care in our province and close behind is the quality of living, because the cost of living has gone up so much. But I can assure you that the health care is a major issue that we can help out on the West Coast.

I'm going to bring up another issue to the Minister of Education. I was asked to bring this up to the minister, it's very brief, is sign language. There are a lot of people in Newfoundland and Labrador who need sign language. A person asked me would I bring it up the Minister of Education in the House and I committed I would. To see if there's any way to get some – if there's any class or anything in school that you could do a program or a course in school so a lot of the kids will not be so isolated in the schools. So some of the kids, some of their friends, other people would be able to learn sign language.

I ask the Minister of Education if there's any option that can be done to help out people who need sign language to associate with (inaudible).

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

The Member's time is expired.

E. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

P. TRIMPER: Thank you, Speaker.

I'm not sure if you were paying attention while I was in the Chair a few minutes ago, but I took some liberties to announce that Mattea Roach just won her 21st game of Jeopardy! I wanted to start off my remarks because there's a lot of – maybe some possible parallels with what is happening with this amazing young woman. She's only 23; she's from Nova Scotia, now living in Toronto. I think the whole country is claiming her.

You know, in these troubled times, we all need heroes and they come from different directions. I just wanted to read to the Legislature here tonight, Mattea says her reason for success – she's won 21 games, she's now slowly becoming one of the top winners of all time on that amazing show. The final Jeopardy! question tonight was in the category of national anthems. So here's the answer: Terre de nos Aieux follows the title in the French version of this anthem.

Quite remarkable, because she says that her number one trait and secret to success is luck. Her second feature of great success is her memory. And, finally, it's her thirst for knowledge. She says it's these three traits which are giving her this amazing run that a lot of us who watch and participate in different kinds of things.

But, anyway, I just wanted to mention that because I think for this province to really go forward we need to realize what our assets are. We certainly have tremendous natural resources offshore and onshore. Most importantly, we have an amazing workforce. Amazing human resources, the next generations that are coming, the attitudes that we all share. The reasons why we're all in this room. We love this place. Even those of us who weren't fortunate enough to be born here, but have come to fall in love with it and commit to it – I'll speak for myself – I can't think of a better place in the world, despite all it's challenges and so on. It's a tremendous place to contribute to society, and I believe everyone in this room.

Similar with Mattea, it's going to take a very determined group of shrewd thinkers to get us through the hurdles that are in front of us, whether it be climate change, which I'm always speaking to; our fiscal challenges; or our demographic challenges. So many other issues that we're dealing with, but we will get through it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a little bit of time tonight to talk about something that is right here in front of us. And staying with the theme of the subamendment of non-confidence and the discussion around the role of Canada and what Canada is doing, I wanted to talk about some of that Canadian presence that we have within our province that we actually don't talk a lot about in this House and that is the Department of National Defence. I speak from a great personal experience. In fact, I wouldn't be here if it wasn't for 5 Wing Goose Bay.

In 1987, I was working elsewhere in the country and I heard about an opportunity to support the NATO base proposal in Goose Bay. At the time, it was called Canadian Forces Base Goose Bay. I applied to work on the environmental assessment and the rest is history. It has been an amazing run.

At the time, in the'80s, and as we all know the history of, whether it be, Goose Bay, Gander, Stephenville or even St. John's, the role that we played and our strategic location on the Northeastern edge of this continent of North America is really an amazing asset. The determined workforce that we have here and so on is also something that builds on it.

So back to my hometown of Happy Valley-Goose Bay and the Wing – this is a very important asset. Back in the late '90s and early part of the 2000s, you know there were foreign nations that were conducting low-level flight training and other kinds of training from Britain, Germany, Italy, Holland, we actually had other allies who would be there on occasion but those ones were the main allies that were flying there. And do you know what? For every dollar that Canada was investing in the operations of Goose Bay, at the time, foreign nations were spending another two or three bucks. Think about that. I mean, talk about a business case, and I come from the private sector. If you invested one and knew you got another one or two, you wouldn't stop.

I found myself in 2003 chairing what would become known as the Goose Bay Citizens Coalition. This was a group of people from the private sector, from government, different levels of government, Indigenous leadership, folks who were connected with the Air Force, with different circles and so on. And we became an incredible, interesting grassroots force that found itself here in this building around, I would say, November of 2003.

The premier of the day had just been elected. We managed to make a great impression on him and what we needed to do, because at that time it was very clear that Ottawa was considering closing down 5 Wing Goose Bay. We argued on all those points I made before, and many more, as to the merits of this. It took a great, determined effort, and I'll thank the government of the day for standing forward with us.

Off we went to Ottawa, and I think it was just before Christmas and just after, we found ourselves in the prime minister's office sitting and talking about the importance of the base and the role that we needed to all realize we're going to need to play to ensure its sustainability.

I'm very pleased to say that, over the subsequent years, we actually found ourselves in 2005-2006 in a bidding war between the two main parties of the country, the Conservatives and the Liberals. Lo and behold, we went from a place that was definitely destined for closure to being involved in a bidding war between the Conservatives and the Liberals.

It was an interesting exercise for myself to learn some of that political arena and, lo and behold, the base has continued to maintain an important presence. Just recently, Serco, the service provider for 5 Wing, has just been awarded a $694-million contract for operations over the next 10 years, with opportunities to extend for an additional two five-year increments, if exercised, represents a $1.5-billion contract for the next 20 years.

So we have an amazing facility located on the northeastern part of our continent, and I have to tell you there's a great friend of mine – I'm going to mention his name – Lieutenant-Colonel Guy Parisien. He's the commander of 5 Wing. He was just in town here, I think, last week. He got to meet with some of the different officials, I think, here in the room.

He is leading an amazing team at the Wing that is playing a pivotal role. We provide NORAD response right now through North Bay and then out of the United States. I don't know if many of you were aware but we often have, for example, Russian Tupolev bombers coming off our coast, fighter jets, which are based in Bagotville, 505 miles away, political lobbying, will scramble to Goose Bay and then will mount the defence. Again, the importance of Goose Bay and where we sit on the coast.

We've been doing this for decades. Now, with the heightened alert and sensitivity and the fact that hey, just across the top is Russia – a country that I worked many years in – which has become a belligerent in terms of our posture for Canadian geopolitics, it's a real big challenge for us.

With this challenge, comes an opportunity. That's what I wanted to speak to government about because I would suggest, just what Goose Bay alone can contribute, and the opportunities – and you've heard the Defence minister say just recently, she's working to increase Canada's commitment to defence spending to the NATO requirement, which is 2 per cent of GDP. There has been a substantial increase. I don't think they quite got there in the budget, but she's certainly working on it.

There are massive amounts of money available for investment in infrastructure, in training, in materials and equipment and so on. We need to realize that. Just as I stand here, late on a Tuesday night trying to get everybody's attention, everybody in this House needs to realize there's opportunity in Goose Bay; there are opportunities in Gander; there are opportunities here in the CFS station here in St. John's. There are other locations in Corner Brook, Stephenville and so on. Every one of those locations and many more have opportunities to step up. We all need to create – and I'm going back to Mattea –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The level of chatter is getting too loud.

P. TRIMPER: – I'm suggesting that we need to get our heads together. If people in this House would actually sit down and think about it, think about what you can bring to the table and bring our collective lobbying, I can tell you right now we would stop losing contracts right now, which have recently been awarded to Greenwood. We are in a serious competition right now with Cold Lake for maintaining the attention of the German air force.

We are also in competition with Bagotville, Quebec; I heard some of the Members talking earlier about the frustrations of Quebec. I can tell you, if we're not paying attention, we're going to watch a lot of these opportunities go by. And they're there for us. The federal government is spending billions and we can decide, well, that's a federal responsibility, let them just go do their thing, or we can realize this is in each of our backyards.

I've just named, I would say, seven or eight MHAs here right now who have an opportunity, and maybe they haven't even thought about it. I'm proposing, as part of this budget discussion here this evening, that we should find ourselves again with a coalition. And this time I'm offering to take the wisdom and the experience that we had in Goose Bay – we ran the Goose Bay Citizens Coalition for some six years; it was tremendously successful. We need a similar model. I would love to take my previous experience, connections here now with everyone in this room and share with you some ideas. I think there's a great situation there.

Just a few more things that are going on in Goose Bay, because I want to reach back also to the folks back at home, who elected me in Lake Melville. Speaker, 5 Wing is really an important hub; I call it my sixth community, after Sheshatshiu, Mud Lake, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, North West River and Churchill Falls. And 5 Wing is itself, its own community.

I am often on the base, working with and socializing with folks. We have close to 100 people in uniform. Many of them, often I will have a beer with them on one Friday night and then two weeks later they could be deployed to Afghanistan or in Operation UNIFIER. The Member's statement that I gave today is very personal for me. The Member for Terra Nova and I we had a little chat today because of his previous experience and I thank him for his service. But we both recognized the role that people like Melanie Lake – and perhaps she was inspired by the military presence. There are great opportunities for us. We need to think about them and we need to go after them.

Again, at Goose Bay, Lieutenant-Colonel Parisien is in charge of Operation Noble Defender. This is a NORAD exercise. It runs three to four times a year. It involves several NATO countries. I bet you almost nobody in this room knows about it and it is happening off our coast. The United States Air Force and the Danes are involved, Canada, others. And we are preparing for cruise missile attacks, enemy aircraft attacks and these are simulations, yeah, but it is all about a state of readiness. As I said with my Member's statement today, you look at the people like the Lieutenant-Colonel Lake and what she is doing and how Ukraine is benefitting from that.

So, unfortunately, there is a very important humanitarian role to play here but let's face it, folks, there is an economic opportunity. I am suggesting that we, as a Legislature, and with each of the locations that we have, let's get our heads together and see what we can do to come up with some real synergy. I know we can do it. If you can watch a 23-year-old win 21 episodes of Jeopardy! I am sure this Legislature can figure out how to get the attention of Ottawa and show them what we can do in terms of the defence of Canada.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

So, Speaker, what I will be talking about is related to an event I attended today and how it affects my district. I guess it goes to the whole notion, Speaker, that a budget is about priorities; about where we choose to spend money and where we choose not to; where do we assign value; what do we consider valueless.

I was invited to speak at a CUPE convention today the theme of which is Reject the Reset. Some of the key issues that are important to them is pay equity. Basically, they reject the whole notion that pay equity for women is expensive, costly and, basically, it will be a meaningless, minor and non-meaningful adjustments for a limited number of women. They totally reject that, certainly for the women who would be affected. Yet, we're hearing that, we've heard that in this House already and we've seen it in the media.

That's a priority that should be a priority, about lifting people up in this province. Whether we do it on our own or we do it with the help of Ottawa is immaterial, but somewhere along the line that's got to be a priority.

Early childhood educators: what's our priority when it comes to early childhood educators? What is the value we place on our children, on looking after our children, of making it possible for parents to carry on with a career? Well, it would make sense, Speaker, that we have early childhood educators who are well paid. CUPE is looking for $25 an hour, on a wage grid, starting at that, as an indication of their value. What has government put forward? Four hundred thousand, Speaker, to study pay equity, to further study it, to do another study; there are plenty of studies on it. Most of the people who are in early childhood education are women.

We've got $400,000 for that, but we can put $5 million into a Rothschild report, an outside company to determine what resources we're going to sell off. I can tell you, Speaker, that my phone has been ringing off the hook with regard to – I've got a folder up there now of parents who are looking for child care and some people who are looking to start child care, but we've become the centre, the clearing house for it, and they're desperate.

That brings me into another issue: housing. Noam Chomsky said that privatization, the strategy of privatization is to defund, make sure things don't work, people get angry and then you hand it over to private capital. We're seeing that, I believe, in the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing very clearly.

I spoke with a number of workers in transition houses who are seeing increasing numbers of homelessness, more people staying in the transition homes who are victims of domestic violence or homeless as a result of that. And they're finding that the people who are staying in these transition homes are either staying longer, they have more complex needs and they have no place to put them. The main reason, Speaker, that they are having this difficulty is that a lot of the houses, especially Newfoundland and Labrador houses, are not fixed up and available for residency.

The people in Marystown told me that they can't have rent supplements in Marystown because they have vacant units, but the units – 30 or so – are in disrepair and uninhabitable.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

J. DINN: Thank you for that. I appreciate the support, Minister.

Here is the basic thing: insufficient staff to do the job. This is what we're hearing. There are not enough staff in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing to do the job. Can't get the contracts to do it at a reasonable price, and there are delays. And there is certainly in St. John's, in my district, I can tell you, the same issue. So that's Marystown, that's Labrador, that's Central Newfoundland, that's Western Newfoundland, the same thing. Newfoundland and Labrador Housing units are in disrepair, uninhabitable; people there's a crunch.

So it would seem, based on –

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The level of chatter is getting too loud.

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: I guess as they pointed out, it seems as if it's being deliberately done not to get these units fixed up.

Now, today, CBC had contacted me about the decline in the downtown centre. Since I was elected in 2019, and my predecessor Ms. Rogers, dealt with the same thing: phone calls with regard to crime in the area. Residents are concerned about public safety; they want to see proactive supervision by the police. I compare it, Speaker – and my colleague for Bonavista will certainly appreciate this – to supervision in a school. It was never about being reactive; it was always about having a presence there in the corridors so that you can prevent problems.

And this is what they're asking for, in many ways, to have a police presence that is not just responding to the calls, but is there to get to know the residents of the area and the neighbourhood.

So here is a situation back in the fall of a single mother who had willingly given up her children to deal with her own substance abuse and addictions issue. She had to get her life in order, and then went back to get custody of her children. She was going to be put into a house in one of the streets in this neighbourhood. She called our office; she was in panic. Her comment was: I cannot go back there. I cannot go there, it will jeopardize everything I've worked – it will jeopardize my sobriety, my recovery, it will jeopardize my family. She was frantic.

Now, we were able to get her moved somewhere else, but no neighbourhood should be that bad, that people do not want to move in there because they know that there is a drug issue there. There are multiple houses where drugs are being dealt with, and we need to deal with it. There's a role here, Speaker, for all. It's not an easy solution, but there's a role here for the provincial government, for the municipal government, the police and, yes, the federal government as well.

We ask for standards. One of the problems in the neighbourhood are slum landlords. We've asked for standards when it comes to putting people into these homes, to make sure that they are able to live with dignity. We are, after all, putting public money into paying rent for people. They should be in decent homes and landlords should be held to account.

We also have landlords who are refusing to rent to people who are on income support. Usually it goes like this: Where do you work? I don't work, I'm on income support. You never hear from them again. And part of it is that income support recipients are getting the reputation of difficulty. Why? Because there are people who are difficult to house. There are people who have mental health and addictions issues that need supports. I used to say this with teaching, inclusion is not simply putting every student into the class. It's about inclusive education, where you put the supports in place.

So when we are putting people into housing, what are the supports in place so that they have the ability to thrive? They have the supports they need so that the neighbours around them are safe and that they are safe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

J. DINN: Thank you.

It is one of the reasons, Speaker, that we have asked for – to me, if there is one form of housing that should be banished, that is bed-sitting rooms. Every place that we pay rent for, a person should have their own kitchen and their own bathroom where they have privacy and dignity and they are free from a threat from anyone else. But instead, we put them with slum landlords where that is not done.

I asked as a priority, Speaker, in our budget submission that we build another community centre in the eastern end of my district that would help create a sense of community and a sense of neighbourhood. I will speak from experience here from the people – because I have mentioned both the Froude Avenue Community Centre and the Buckmaster's Circle Community Centre and the work that they do in creating a neighbourhood environment of creating a community, and that is what is needed when you are invested in the area.

The other part about this, I would argue, is that we need to start investing more in the community centres we have. Making sure that the people who work there are able to afford health care; they have a decent salary; they have a pension at the end of it. That is not the case. They are working above and beyond, but they are needed. I can tell you, as a teacher, they are also doing yeoman's work in making sure that the students have the supports for their academics that they have. That is an all-around solution to poverty.

I will tell you that some of the issues in the neighbourhood have to do with the drug houses. There needs to be greater police presence because while the police are dealing with the big fish, the ones who are bringing it in, we still need to know and deal with the people who are dealing drugs out of their houses. And it is bringing a criminal element there – organized crime even.

They are looking, basically, for some help with this. When I was first elected, I think it was on Bond Street, Speaker, there was a killing outside of an emergency shelter. Since that time, there have been several other murders in that part of town and it is no wonder that the people in the area are feeling unsafe. They are feeling neglected. Basically, all levels whether it is the provincial, federal, municipal and the police have written them off. It is something we would not tolerate in our own neighbourhoods.

Of course, I'll go back to this. The root of poverty, of hunger, is income. We can solve a lot of problems here by dealing with it, about priorities. Now the five-point plan is a good stopgap measure, I guess, as far as stopgap measures go. It's like pulling people who are drowning out of the water. But at some point we've got to stop pulling people out of the water, and we've got to figure out why they're ending up in the water in the first place, and stop it there.

I brought up in this House before that a study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives noted in a BC study that raising the income of the bottom quintile of the population, the poorest quintile up to the next level, actually results in a saving of 6.7 per cent to the health care system. I think it's over $200 million if we did the same here. That would be the savings.

So that's one thing we can do. But the other thing we can do for a small number of people is when they decide that those who are on income support, when they decide to return to upgrade their education, when they decide to make the step to get off income support, that they are able to keep their drug card. So that they are not disadvantaged, so that they are not in panic about their own health care, their own serious health care needs.

Secondly, can we not strike the committee of guaranteed basic income? Prince Edward Island – little PEI – all three parties, the PCs who are in government, the Liberals –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

J. DINN: Oh no, this is a compliment to you, don't worry – this is a compliment. The same idea of poverty reduction, Speaker, this is good. They're the Premier, so that's fine.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. DINN: The Liberals and the Green Party, and I'm sure if the NDP were actually the House they would be signing it as well. But they signed a letter to the federal government demanding basically that they put a province-wide basic income in place in the province. That's PEI. Wouldn't it be great – I know on this side, for sure, we would go along with it, but wouldn't it be great if we all started that all-party Committee on guaranteed basic income to look at a pilot, just to explore the idea and see how it would benefit our people in this province?

Let's legislate a living minimum wage. I have said this in my budget speech, if it is a problem for small businesses then let's give them a break in their business tax. Let's bring in pay equity legislation. If it is only going to affect a small number of women – that's what it is – it is not going to cost that much but it will be meaningful to the women who benefit from it, then let's do it. It will raise their level – it would raise them out of poverty.

Let's bring in anti-replacement worker legislation so that we don't have the longest lockout in history like in D-J Composites in Gander. Let's really start looking at just transition legislation that involves workers and unions that is meaningful and that protects workers and Newfoundlanders and the economy as we transition to a greener economy.

As I said at the beginning, it is about priorities. Where do we spend our money? To me, there is a neighbourhood in my district, Speaker, that could use the investment and the priority. A lot of the measures I have put here that are dealing with mental health issues, supports, supportive housing, increased police presence, a community-based approach and housing standards are all going to be helpful. I will focus on this again.

The Grace General Hospital site: before that is given over to a developer to put up high-priced condominiums, there has got to be room there for affordable and supportive housing for the people who need it. Emergency shelters are not the answer. It's not the answer. It's a stopgap measure. So, if anything, let's put the money into developing supportive housing, similar to what is down at the Ches Penney Centre of Hope for those who need it and affordable housing for families and single people who need it as well.

That's my desire in a budget. Those are the priorities that I have because I think if you are helping people like that, you're going to cut down on crime. You're going to cut down on the admissions to the health care system. You're going to cut down on unemployment. You name it. All of those things, in addition to what I have heard here in this House tonight, when it comes to health care. That's going to lift people up in this province; not selling out of our public assets. It is going to come down to lifting people up at the grassroots level. That's where it starts; that's where it is meaningful.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Seeing no other speakers, is the House ready for the question?

S. CROCKER: Absolutely.

SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the subamendment?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

SPEAKER: Motion defeated.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: My God, Mr. Speaker, I was about to –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, it has been a long day and I almost had to get my election signs out.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by my friend for Conception Bay South, that this House do now adjourn.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 10 a.m.