May 4, 2022
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. L No. 48
The
House met at 10 a.m.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
Government
Business
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Motion 1.
SPEAKER:
Any speakers to the motion?
The hon.
the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Thank you, Speaker.
Of
course, it's a great honour to stand in this Chamber and represent the great
people of our vast beautiful District of Placentia West - Bellevue.
Before I
get started, I would like to acknowledge today is International Firefighters'
Day throughout the country.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
J. DWYER:
Throughout our province we
have a lot of volunteer fire departments and firefighters and those men and
women, whether they get a call today or not, obviously have their life on the
line and they're probably adjusting how far they go fishing in the woods or
anything like that to make sure that they're not too far from the call. So to
them, on this day, I commend them for their service to our province.
It's
also Mental Health Week for our nation and that needs to be acknowledged as
well, because obviously with the way the economy is going and stuff like that,
we noticed that there's an increase in the amount of people that are dealing
with mental health issues, Speaker. Like I said, a lot of it is due to the
economy because we hear about all these different initiatives and stuff like
that with reports and where we're to in health care and all that kind of stuff,
yet I don't see in any of these reports where we're addressing the economy and
improving our standard of living through increasing the revenue coming into the
province.
I have a
very industrial district. I have Vale in Long Harbour; I have Bull Arm and the
refinery there in the isthmus area; a state-of-the-art, world-renowned fish
plant in Arnold's Cove that's been passed down through generation after
generation, which are employing the beautiful people of Arnold's Cove for a long
time. And not just Arnold's Cove, I know there are people from even Chance Cove
that come over and work; Little Harbour East, places like that, that come over
and work at the fish plant in Arnold's Cove.
To move
down the Burin Peninsula from there, we have a lot of enterprises that are out
fishing and bringing in revenue for their communities and the province. We have
Grieg, which I would like to tout as – they just had their grand reopening and
I'm very proud of the work that we've all done there to make sure that this
company becomes a great success for our province as well.
On top
of that, we have Kiewit that holds down the Cow Head facility in Spanish Room,
in the Marystown area and, like I said, to see Bay du Nord get announced, that
excited me for the simple fact that I do have that industrial footprint in my
district. For all the things that I just named off, these are big operations. If
we can get all those operations employed, then I think that would be, obviously,
a greater benefit to everybody in the province, so that we don't have these
cost-of-living issues that we're experiencing.
There
are a couple of things, I guess, when it comes to our economy, we all have to be
on board and we all have to be prepared to put in our five cents worth, I guess,
because it's like any idea, a lot of ideas are not seen right to fruition, with
that one initial idea, but with the right people around the table, everybody can
weigh in on it and we can build it to a fruition idea. I think that it's very
important that we do come together.
The way
I see being elected by the beautiful people of Placentia West - Bellevue is that
I'm here to represent them. Not that I have to agree all the time with the other
39 Members, but I have to make sure that I'm putting the best foot forward for
our district. That's what I'm trying to do here today, by letting the government
know that we have assets in our province that we don't need to be farming out
any work. We can do it right here.
When our
facilities are shutdown and our workers have to go to Alberta and Guyana and
Africa and all these places, they're world-renowned. They're the leaders in all
these other operations. We can't do it right here ourselves, it just makes no
sense to me. We have the state-of-the-art facilities, especially if you look at
like Bull Arm. We didn't build that for one project. Let's make that something
that we're proud of and we can draw the Equinors of the world and stuff like
that and to convince them that what we have here is second to none.
So why
would we get any platforms made anywhere else? Why would we get any
infrastructure done anywhere else with topsides and stuff like that? I mean, if
we're doing Bay du Nord, why wouldn't we do the topsides at Kiewit facility in
Marystown? It just makes sense.
It's
common sense. Obviously, it doesn't flow in every facet of elected
representatives, but, like I said, I take things back from a common perspective
because I feel that's who I am. I'm one of these people who have struggled to
pay bills, have had to worry about credit ratings and all this kind of stuff.
I'm no different than anybody else in my district and that's why they feel that
I am their voice, for the simple fact that I'm realistic about the situation
we're in. I'm also there to help them through their time of need and what they
need.
Like I
said, when you have a district the size of Placentia West - Bellevue that goes
from seven kilometres outside of Whitbourne right to Marystown, then it is a
pretty vast district and there are many needs. There are 36 towns, 16 fire
departments. It's a busy district on top of that.
But the
thing that I have noticed is that a lot of them all got the same needs, whether
it is health care or seniors' care, whether it is the roads. These are things
that are common to everybody. So these are things that we need to look at in our
economy to make sure that we are giving back to the people that are providing to
have this province running. But we are not doing that right now. We are falling
short of supporting the people that need the help.
You look
at our blue-collar workers. These people are still getting up every morning to
keep our economy going, yet it's doubled in price for them to get to work. It's
probably gone up a fair bit, as groceries have gone up, to pack their lunch to
be at work. Obviously, there's a five-step program and I guess somebody in my
position I really can't wait, I guess, as I said in Estimates, to see what the
other four steps are. Because the first step really didn't hit the mark, as far
as I am concerned, for the people in my district.
It kind
of fell short, for the simple fact that we helped a sector of the province,
which I am happy to represent as well, to make their life better, but we didn't
do it for everybody. In doing it for everybody, it probably wouldn't be the fact
of introducing or putting in a carbon tax at this point in time. That might be
good down the road but right now – today – fuel prices are not at a situation
where adding tax to the fuel that we've already got is going to help us.
There
were some small steps, like I said, to help the economy but in no way, shape or
form did it actually hit the needs of our people. By taking some of the
surcharges off fuel, we would have hit the mark right across the board for
everybody in our province. It just seemed to me that that would be the
no-brainer because the first step in anything is making sure that we are looking
after everybody. But when you turn around and you pick out those vulnerable
sectors and you help them then yes, that is a good thing. It is not a horrible
thing, but it certainly wasn't enough to make a difference in the running of
their households or being able to sustain the household that they already have.
So, like
I said, there are the same issues. But a lot of the issues, when it comes to the
roads – which is something that is a big part of our economy that people expect
– is that, years ago, we laid roads but we haven't done anything to maintain
them. Take Jean de Baie, for instance. They got a paved road probably 40 or 50
years ago. Other than having a couple of collapsed culverts fixed, that road
hasn't been touched.
Now
there's economic activity down there that's going to bring millions of dollars
to the local economy, yet we're falling short of letting the people peacefully
enjoy getting in and out of their community. People don't buy a new rig, and it
could be based on the fact that the roads are not fit to drive on. You may as
well buy a second-hand rig and keep fixing it because you're going to break a
new rig or a second-hand rig, then obviously a second-hand rig might give you a
little bit more disposable dollars in your pocket in order to get that rig
fixed. But either way, you're going to have issues. And cutting away from
potholes is probably just as hard on your rig as it is to hit the pothole
itself.
Sometimes what I find, especially this winter obviously was a bit of a strange
winter with the freeze and thaw, freeze and thaw, but to say that we're hitting
the mark on maintenance when it comes to roads, I would ask anybody to drive
through my district. Like I said, go down the road in Jean de Baie, go down the
road in Spanish Room and Rock Harbour and go down the road in Chance Cove.
Like I
said before, we have a world-renowned trail in Chance Cove which is beautiful.
I've been there and if anybody would like to go and check it out, I think you'd
be quite impressed, because when you get out around the back out by Patrick's
Cove part, it's just like you're in Costa Rica somewhere. The water is green.
There are these beautiful archways and all this kind of stuff, beautiful beaches
and stuff. We've been putting in some money to that trail.
But the
problem is getting to the trail. We have a road there that's the branch from
Route 1 to it's a bypass road if something happened on the highway is used as
everybody would be rerouted through there to go to the old Cabot Highway. It's
honestly not fit. We have a little bit of work done on it. Changed out a couple
of culverts and a couple of guiderails over the last couple of years. But these
are roads that are beyond maintenance now. They need to be replaced, completely
replaced.
It's
unfortunate because the money that we're spending is not going in the right
areas to make it a fulsome fix. We can't fix, let's say, 50 metres here and then
the next 100 metres is not fit to drive on it. Or the shoulders are gone or the
sides of the pavement are eroded. These are things that are in our economy that
people need.
One of
the things that are in our Residential Tenancies Act is about peaceful
enjoyment. That is what that whole sector of our government stands on: Making
sure that not only the tenant but the landlord and everybody gets to peacefully
enjoy the property that is at stake. Then why is that not the same conscience of
people that are living in these communities? They need to peacefully enjoy their
community. Right now, they are embarrassed to invite people for Come Home Year
because there is nothing to drive on. People are going to come back and be like
I can't believe that this is what we got invited to.
It might
have been better to probably have a year of that lieu time because a lot of
people that didn't get to travel over the last couple of years, they're coming
anyway. Whether they're grandparents or they're bringing home their kids to see
grandparents or whatever. But if we had that one-year delay, it would give us
more time to prepare, more time to have our roads ready and it would have given
us an opportunity to realize the price of fuel that we're looking at charging
people while they're here.
People
are still a little bit weary of what is the state of health care when they get
here. They already know that there are 100,000 people in the province that don't
have a primary care physician. What is the propensity for them to be able to get
the right care when they come here if something happens to them? God forbid, I
hope nothing happens to any of our visitors, but that is not realistic and
common sense would tell us that there is going to be a percentage that is going
to have to rely on our health care while they're here. The people of the
province right now can't rely on our health care, so how can we invite visitors
to come and have them rely on it as well?
I am
very proud of our government that there are Ukrainian refugees coming here. But
what are we offering them as a primary health care opportunity? They're going to
need these things. These are things that need to be in place in order to invite
the world to come to us.
So what
I am saying in saying this and about talking to this amendment is that if we
don't start to realize that improving the economy is going to improve the
peaceful enjoyment of not only our residents but our visitors, then we're out to
lunch. We're missing the mark altogether. I'll take some of the blame for that,
but I want to be heard and I want to be listened to and I want people to know
what the issues are in my district. Not just pass it off as no big deal or I'm
blowing hot air or anything like that.
I was
very disappointed, actually, last week, I heard of a family in Twillingate – and
a couple of sessions ago, one of the ministers said: you choose where you live.
Well, these people are choosing not to live in our province anymore. And do you
know what? It's for a very miniscule – something operational that I think could
easily have been handled. They're leaving due to a bus not being able to pick up
their son because of where they choose to live. It's no more than 50 or 100
metres for that bus to go that little bit further to pick up this young boy.
Sorry, Speaker, for picking on your district, but the former minister said this
family is choosing to leave our province. Such a simple request of our
government. I think that's where we fall short.
When we
look at the global big picture, yeah, there are some serious issues there. But
until we address the economy and we improve the economy – and Bay du Nord is a
good start, but we have to do a made-right-here solution. What's happening in
the rest of Canada, we can't bring – we saw through COVID we adopted everything
that other provinces were already after trying and stuff like that. But these
are bigger urban centres. St. John's wouldn't even be considered an urban centre
in another province.
So
that's the whole thing that I'm trying to say. Until we take this common sense
approach about A has to do with B and B has to do with C, but we can't get to C
until we go through B after A. It's a linear approach, but we have to address
the economy. We have the resources, let's utilize them for the benefit of our
province and stop having to sidle up to the federal government and going with
cap in hand and all that stuff. Which is fine because they're supposed to be our
partners, not our adversaries, they're supposed to be helping us get through
this economy, as opposed to adding another Carbon Tax or adding – well, the
sugar tax, I can't even get into that, that's just – I mean, we have to look at
healthier outcomes.
Right
now, we're spending the most money in health care, with the worst outcomes. That
should speak volumes. I mean, we have a minister here that's been there for
seven years.
If I had
a CEO in my company that hadn't fixed things in seven years, he wouldn't be
demoted, or she, they'd be let go. I wouldn't want anything else to do with
them, for the simple fact that their ideas are either antiquated or not being
listened to. There are lots of good ideas that are coming from this side, from
all Members of the House; we're just not being listened to, the same as the rest
of the people in the province.
The
problem with our province is that we haven't focused on our economy for a
made-right-here solution and for the people of our province. We've let the
federal government come in and utilize all our natural resources for the benefit
of the country, but not for the benefit of our province.
I don't
understand why the price of fish in Nova Scotia would be a better price than
here in Newfoundland. Just makes no sense. We definitely have just as clean a
water and just as good a fish. That seems to be out to lunch to me.
But
we're not going to tax our residents into having that peaceful enjoyment. But if
we put them to work, I'll guarantee you, they'll have some peaceful enjoyment
because they're contributing and they want to contribute. We need to have good
paying jobs.
I see
that my time is running short. I will talk to the state of our economy again
soon and the cost of living. I have a lot more points to make. But the next time
that I talk I will certainly be bringing up about our recruitment and retention
to help our health care workers that have put so much on the line and now that
they're burnt out, we're still failing them. We've had a recruitment and
retention program that says show up and we'll give you a job.
Anyway,
thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to be able to stand again in the House of Assembly representing the
District of Stephenville - Port au Port and talk about the budget and some of
the adjustments that we have proposed.
But
before I do, my hon. colleague from Cape St. Francis sent me a little reminder
and I just want to read it out to you. In June of 2008, oil per barrel was
trading at $181.58. The gas prices in Newfoundland and Labrador were 118.6.
March 2022: oil per barrel was trading at $96.72. The gas prices are at 203.9.
So that's quite a spread. Some of it, obviously, may be due to supply, but how
much of it is due to tax? How much of it is due to changes in our tax structure
forced upon us, some of it, by the federal government, but others by our failure
to deal with a very difficult situation that people of Newfoundland and Labrador
find themselves in right now? Whether it's heating their homes or filling their
vehicles.
We have
talked about this continuously; we will continue to talk about it because we
believe that it deserves action. While lots has been done, there is lots more
that can be done and there is enough flexibility in the budget to allow that to
happen. So, again, we will continue to suggest that the budget needs to be
amended to reflect the fact that so many people in our province today cannot
afford to heat their homes.
When you
think about all of the people who work in this great province of ours that have
to commute to work. We don't have the public transportation systems, certainly
in rural Newfoundland and Labrador so that they can take advantage of those.
Carpooling is still going on, but at the same time, just think about the
significant impact of someone who has to drive an hour to work everyday and what
that is doing on their disposable income. The amount of money that they actually
have to spend on groceries. The amount of money that they actually have to spend
on kids activities. That's direct impact. That is a direct impact on the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador and we have to find a way to do it.
The
budget documents for the last two years talked about
CHANGE starts here, that was last year's theme. This year:
CHANGE is in the air. Unfortunately,
while there have been some good things, the changes are having a significant
impact on the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Let's
talk health care for a second. Over the last seven years, we have seen a
significant change in health care in this province. I would argue that it has
not been for the betterment of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The fact
that over 100,000 people do not have access to a family doctor is not a change
that is welcomed by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not a change
that we are proud of, or should be proud of. It is not a change that simply
happened overnight. It was forecasted; it was predicted. The NLMA predicted it
would happen. So five or six years ago, we should have been addressing this
issue. We should have been talking about how we increase recruitment.
The
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has a wonderful med school. It is part of
the solution, but also part of the solution in our province and in the history
of our province has been to recruit people, physicians to come from other
countries and other provinces. Somehow or other, that stream has dried up. There
are lots of reasons why that has happened, but the number one reason is because
of lack of action by the Minister of Health in dealing with that issue upfront
and acknowledging it five years ago when it was brought to his attention. Not by
me, but by all the people in the regional health authorities, by the VPs of
medical services, by the NLMA and others.
So
again, there could have been, should have been a lot more action taken. So yeah,
do we now find ourselves challenged to find physicians for 100,000 people?
Absolutely we do. Part of the proposed solution, of course, is collaborative
health teams. We all welcome the opportunity for those. But when you're taking a
family physician away from somebody who has one, to say they're going to be part
of a collaborative team, how does that solve the problem?
My
colleague from Terra Nova gave us yesterday the example of the person in the
community of Charlottetown. I used to work in the hospital in Clarenville and
people from Charlottetown, that's their hospital. But to turn around and say to
this person that you can't be part of a collaborative team because you live in
Charlottetown, so you now have to go through some 1-800 number? How is that even
possible for that to happen?
In my
own district, nurse practitioners have stepped up. They've stepped up in Corner
Brook; they've stepped up in Stephenville, to offer their services. Not as part
of the health authority, but as independent practitioners. So they have offered
their services and they're filling up. They're filling up in fact so fast in
Stephenville with the one nurse practitioner there, that you have to pay $300 in
advance to reserve your appointment times for the coming year.
This
money is coming out of the hands of seniors. It's coming out of the hands of
people on fixed income, and it's coming out of the hands of people all
throughout my district, who have no option – who have no other option. At the
same time our government says sorry, we didn't plan for that. We're thinking
about how we might fix it. At the same time, there are significant savings in
the salaried physicians' budget that could have paid or reimbursed the people of
the province.
If you
can't figure out a way for the health authorities to compensate the nurse
practitioners for doing that work, then find a way to compensate the people and
reimburse them. Because nobody, as I've said in this House before, nobody in
this House would think that they would have to pay to see a primary care
provider – nobody. And I would argue that if it was your mother or your father
or your sister or your brother, you would certainly be upset about it. You know
what? They are. They are your families. Because all of us in Newfoundland and
Labrador should not be satisfied that people in our province are having to pay
to see a primary care provider. It's simply not good enough, and it can be
fixed. We don't need to wait for long-term solutions. We need it fixed now.
In my
district, we have a beautiful hospital. Fully equipped, capable of performing
lots and lots of different types of procedures, but at the end of the day,
people are worried. They're worried because they hear that the Health Accord is
talking about what they're going to take away, not what they're going to add in.
We have assets all over the province just like the Stephenville hospital,
whether it's the hospital in Carbonear, whether it's the hospital in Burin.
At the
end of the day, we shouldn't be talking about what can't be done there. We
should simply be talking about what can be done there. Stephenville Hospital is
not part of the problem; it's part of the solution. In the western part of the
region we have the Corner Brook Regional Hospital and we have the Stephenville
hospital. So when we talk about OR services or availability of ICUs, those two
facilities should be seen as one. They should be used as one facility.
And when
we talk about recruiting staff or specialists to those facilities, then we
should talk about them as one, and find a way so that we can intertwine those
facilities, so that it's not about whether you work at Western Health in Corner
Brook or whether you work at Western Health in Stephenville. You work in Western
Health. And whether we have six surgeons or eight surgeons, we have them for the
region. We don't have them for a facility. Those are the things that need to
happen. Those are the things that can happen, and should be done.
But
here's another example for you. In my district recently, I had received an email
from a nurse, a new graduate, who told me that him and seven other of his
colleagues were only offered temporary call-in positions, not offered a
permanent, full-time job. How is that even possible in today's environment when
we have such a shortage of nursing staff in our province that new grads who want
to stay in the area are not offered a permanent, full-time job? Try renting an
apartment when you're on a casual call-in. You may be getting full-time hours,
but you have no permanent job. Try going for a loan to buy a vehicle if you're a
casual call-in because you don't have a permanent, full-time job.
These
are the problems that are becoming evident and they simply do not need to exist.
There is absolutely no reason in this day in age when we have such a shortage
and want to retain our health care workers that they should not be made
permanent full-time. If there are challenges with working out schedules, so be
it, make it work, but I would argue that we should be hiring every single person
we can. Every single nurse should be hired on a permanent, full-time basis and
let's figure out how we make the system work.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
T. WAKEHAM:
That's just one simple thing
that can be done.
We talk
about sustainability; we've heard lots of that in the Health Accord. Is it
sustainable? I would argue sustainability depends on whether or not you're
prepared to sustain it. We talk about the fact that two surgeons in Burin aren't
sustainable because they're on call one and two, or two surgeons in Stephenville
aren't sustainable because they're on call one and two. There are lots of
specialists in St. John's working at the Health Sciences that we have two of. Is
that sustainable? Are they sustainable because they work in St. John's and
they're on call one and two? Is that any different than Stephenville, Burin or
anywhere else? I don't think so.
I
believe that, at the end of the day, we have facilities that need to be
utilized. People should not have to get in their vehicles and travel over
highways, over roads. I would challenge anyone to travel over the highway in
this province in the dead of winter trying to get to an emergency, or trying to
get a service somewhere else because we don't have it available.
That, of
course, brings me to another passion of mine, which I will continue to argue for
and continue to lobby for and continue to demand, that is about medical
transportation. Yes, we have a Medical Transportation Assistance Program, it has
made improvements over the years, but, quite frankly, I believe it's not good
enough. I believe that nobody in this province should have to pay for travel for
medical appointments.
Let's
talk about affordability and accessibility because that's what that is about.
Nobody should say I can't go to my medical appointment because I can't afford to
travel. And if you think about today's environment with the cost of travel, it
gets even worse. So whether you live five miles or 500 miles from a tertiary
care centre – we only have one tertiary care centre, we'll only ever have one,
but surely we can find a way, whether we're the payee of last resort, in other
words your insurance pays upfront first and then government pays.
But
people in this province deserve to have equal access. People in rural
Newfoundland and Labrador deserve equality of access and deserve equality of
affordability. Because if I live on Lemarchant Road and I have to go to the
Health Sciences to see a specialist, no big deal. But if I live in Kippens, or
Cape St. George, or anywhere else in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, it is a
big deal. It's a significant cost for me to travel to St. John's.
Part of
the other problem, not only have you got the additional cost when you get there,
but your appointment is cancelled. That is one of the biggest challenges in the
health system: communication, or should I say lack of. Because there is a lack
of communication. I think there's a lack of communication between health
authorities. It's great to say we're going to put them under one, but if you
have no information system that people are able to communicate with each other,
that's a problem.
As I
highlighted earlier, we're going out for an RFP for a new health information
system for Western hospital, because that hospital was designed to be paperless.
So they have no choice but to do that. But why are you simply stopping at
Western Memorial hospital? Why are you not going out for an RFP for a complete
new health information system for the entire province? You can start with
Western, but you need to get this done. This needs to be a priority. It's a much
bigger priority than simply turning around and saying we're going to collapse
four health authorities.
So,
again, these are the things that are happening: health care and the cost of
living. I'm sure the Members opposite are all hearing those from their
constituents, because I'm certainly hearing it from mine and everybody else on
this side of the House is hearing it from theirs. So I cannot emphasize enough
that we have to find ways to help people. We have to find ways to put more money
back in people's pockets when it comes to the cost of living.
Some
time ago, a few years back, the government opposite introduced a levy. We all
remember the famous levy that was income based. The more money you made, the
more you paid in the levy.
Let's
talk about a new level. Let's talk about a reverse levy. Let's talk about a
rebate levy that's based on the fact that the least amount of money you make,
you get a bigger rebate back to help you with the cost of living.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
T. WAKEHAM:
To help you with the price of
gas. If you can bring in a levy to take money out of people's pockets, then
bring one in to put money back into people's pockets. That to me is what we need
to be looking at.
Short-term measures, yes, but these are extraordinary times. These are
extraordinary times and the people of our province need your help. I believe
that the government wants to help. I believe they've tried to help with some of
the measures they've introduced. But they themselves, the government, has
acknowledged it wasn't enough. So now we're asking to step up, to take some of
the money that's currently in your budget and reallocate it back to the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador through some type of rebate program.
It's
possible to do it; it's very possible to do it. I'm hoping that, at the end of
the day, the government will make sure that it happens. Before we leave this
House in June, let us leave here with a budget that has been amended, not by the
Opposition on this side of the House, but a budget that's been amended by the
government, because you're the only ones who can make this happen. You are the
ones that can make this happen. Do it, as I said yesterday, not because we want
it, but do it for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Do it for your
constituents because your constituents are calling you. They are calling you and
they're asking you for help.
They
need help with the costs of home heat fuel. They need help with the price of
fuel at the pumps. They need help with access to health care. They need help
with being able to afford to go to their appointments. We all need that help.
They need that help no matter what district of this province you live in.
Again,
my plea to the government is to take another look. Take the change that's in the
air and bring it down to the ground. Bring it down to the budget. Make a change
in your budget. Make the amendment and make it happen so that we can have some
relief for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
That's
what we should be focused on this Chamber. That's what we should be focused on
in our budget discussion. The focus is on the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Before I recognize the next
speaker, I just want to remind everyone that at 10:55 the emergency alert system
will go off, so I'm not sure if everybody have their phones on mute. Even if you
do, it may still come on. So we may have a short interruption, but if we do
we'll just pause for a few seconds.
I
recognize the Leader of the Third Party.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'll go
back to and follow-up on my colleague when it comes to dealing with issues
around poverty. It's about income, about putting money in people's pockets, if
you want to solve the problem. We've put motions forward here and we've
discussed the issues. There's a short-term approach and then there's the
long-term approach to this. It's pulling people out of the water. There's also
making sure that they don't fall into the water in the first place, into the
river.
We would
support anything along the lines that's going to provide temporary relief, but
also I think we still have to start addressing the bigger issues here in this
province.
In many
ways, as I said last night, you can see a lot of the issues in microcosm in my
district that we're facing, the social issues. I met this morning with the chief
of police to layout some of the issues. There are things that the police can do
and there are things that the provincial government can do. There are things
that the municipal government can do, the City of St. John's, but in many ways
we all need to be putting the resources there.
Because
what is happening is that we might think we're saving money in one area, but
we're going to pay the cost for it in some way. Whether it's incarceration;
whether it is the health care system. Whether we're going to be putting people
on long-term income support, whether there are mental health issues, drug
addiction, you name it; we're going to be paying for it.
If we
labour under the illusion that somehow we have zero-based budgeting, that we
find efficiencies, that we're actually saving money, it's an illusion that we're
living in. As much as I like to belabour that point as well, I will keep
fighting for that. I'll keep fighting for the long-term solutions: a living
minimum wage, a livable basic income, pay equity. All those things lift people
out of poverty. If we're lifting people out of poverty and giving them an income
that they can support their families in dignity, then that is helping everyone.
That is an investment.
I have
used this in the House of Assembly before, but my late brother used to say: Poor
people like us can't afford to buy cheap. In other words, you buy the best
service and you invest in what you need because you buy it once or you buy it
multiple times. The same thing here, if you think that, as a budget, we're just
looking at stopgap measures and we're not addressing the underlying causes, then
we're going to pay the price in the long run.
I want
to talk a little bit about schools and some of the issues and the education
system because this is another area where investment is key. I want to start
talking about an issue when it comes to the shortage of teachers and replacement
teachers and substitute teachers. I'll refer to an incident in Labrador West,
but it very much applies to a lot of schools.
I can't
begin to say how many teachers – and I'm sure my colleague, former educator
would relate to this – who said: We pray for the day, Jim, when we don't have a
prep period. When we can teach entirely within our subject area, where we deal
with our own students. There have been schools, certainly since the beginning of
this year, September, and before this, who don't have the substitutes, where
they have been, basically, filling in. That is basically it. Each day, there is
no prep period for a teacher and they are covering other people's classes. There
was a promise at some point that board personnel would be there. That has never
happened. Not to my knowledge. In any school that I have spoken to, that has
never happened.
What
does a prep period allow a teacher to do? I can tell you one thing, what you
will not find them doing in a prep period is sitting in the staff room with
their feet up on the desk reading a newspaper. Usually it means I am following
up on a phone call to parents. I am trying to get photocopying done, because I
don't have a secretary as a teacher. I can tell you that if there is PTSD for
teachers, it is to do with photocopiers. That I can tell you.
I walk
by the machine up there right now and the minute it starts to make – I go into
shock and my colleague from Bonavista knows exactly what I am talking about.
They are not designed for it. I am in the Third Party caucus, a small caucus,
and I tell you the support staff around there, holy jumping, if a teacher had
that. We don't. Or I am finishing off correcting or God knows what. That's the
life of a teacher.
I know
in the PERT report – I like this one – because it changed the opening and
closing of school days so that teachers have an eight-hour day. Bring it on
because I can tell you, I'll walk in and I'll walk out and my life will be so
much easier. But it is obviously written by someone who has no idea of what goes
on in the life of a teacher in the school system. Unbelievable that they would
actually promote that.
Primary
teachers, high school teachers – primary teachers, I can tell you, they are at
it from the get-go. And high school teachers, a little bit different in who I am
dealing with, but I can tell you my days were usually from 8 to 5 anyway, and
then I'd go home and I would carry on with it as well. So I can tell you right
here, this year has been especially traumatic and difficult on teachers because
they are not even gaining that time to do the work.
In
Labrador West, the high school has been down three teachers almost from the
beginning. So they have been basically covering since the beginning of this year
– as one retired teacher pointed out to me, it's a house of cards waiting to
collapse. It is a long-term problem that should have been dealt with a long time
ago.
I
brought the issues to the minister and he's certainly working with regard to one
and trying to deal with the housing issues. And to that, that's positive. But we
have got to find some way to bring teachers to this area because what you are
doing is you are burning out teachers. You are making it worse on the system.
We're
still down teachers and we're coming into the busiest time of the year for a lot
of teachers, in that area, but that's not the only school. So I can tell you
that I have brought it there, I have been in contact with the school and the
situation still needs to be resolved. It still needs to be dealt with. You still
have the school administrators who, in addition to their duties, are now
teaching in the class, as well.
That's a
school of about 500. I can tell you that I was never an administrator, but I
always needed a, administrator, full-time administrator, in any school I've been
to because they are the ones you go to when you're running into difficulty; you
need someone there. They have enough to do. So we've got to address that, but we
also got to address that in the rest of the school system. Because it's great to
have awards for teachers, but they want the resources in the classroom where
they can deal with it.
Teachers
are burning out. I spoke to a parent yesterday. Her child is in Grade 2. There
are 28 children in Grade 2. I taught high school, where I might have had 30
students in an academic class and you could get through that. It was actually
decent and you had students who were engaged. But I can tell you 28 students in
Grade 2, and let's assume for the minute, even if all students there had no
diagnosed exceptionalities, even if all students were engaged, had the supports,
academically competent, it would still be a challenge.
It's
untenable; that's three over the cap. The cap is 25; that's three over the cap.
I can tell you a lot of the primary grades, in addition to students that are
academically competent; you could have up to half the class where a student has
some diagnosed exceptionality. Some are violent and they need supports
themselves. I've dealt with the outcome of that. Grade 2, you would think can't
be a problem, but it is. The fact is you could have up to half the class of 28,
up to 14 who have some diagnosed exceptionality and teachers will tell me now we
still don't have the resources in place.
I don't
know if I told this story before, but years ago when I was president, and the
Minister of Education at the time, we were at the Education Week, and I remember
this vividly, because it didn't surprise me, but I'm sure it opened the eyes of
the Education Minister where a Grade 5 student proceeded to take his shoes and
his socks off and then clean out between his toes in the auditorium. I'm
thinking to myself, welcome to my world.
That's
the nature, that's a Grade 5 who then proceeded to turn around and shake our
hands. Now, I shook his hand, because guess what? That's part of the course.
That's primary and elementary for you, okay.
My wife
taught Grade 2 and I used to say to her: For God sake, honey, why don't you just
pick them up body and bones when they're throwing desks around and take them
out. She said: Jim, they're bigger than I am. Do you know what? She was right.
(Emergency Alert alarm.)
J. DINN:
There is it.
SPEAKER:
You can mute it.
J. DINN:
So I can tell you that the
issue I brought up here is because we've got the first Ukrainian refugee
families coming next week.
Now, I
have asked here in this Chamber what were the resources that were put in place
and provided to schools where children of refugee families will attend? The
minister assured me that the resources had been put in place. So like you
normally do, I do follow up with the schools involved and I do have a lot of
contacts from my days as a teacher and as NLTA president. I was told quite
clearly that they hadn't seen any additional resources and didn't know what the
minister was talking about.
There is
a gulf between what is said here sometimes and the reality in the school system
and it has to be addressed because I can tell you some of these schools where
the children will attend, they're already exceeding the class cap. That might be
acceptable if you had students who are academically competent; don't have a
language barrier; haven't been traumatized in a war setting; in a brand new
country, which is totally unfamiliar with them; probably just escaped with their
lives; and probably have learning exceptionalities themselves.
To me,
we should be doing everything we can to bring the class size down and give them,
our newcomers, and the children there, every opportunity to succeed.
I'll go
back a bit. I think it was The Telegram
reporter Juanita Mercer had asked the Premier: Given that the rationale for
returning to in-class learning was the concern about mental health of students,
she asked if the Premier would commit to more counsellors to reach the
recommended ratio of 1-250. The Premier dodged that question.
But I
can tell you that if you want to look at helping students then put those
resources in place, because, as a teacher, I depended on the guidance
counsellor. I depended on the guidance counsellor in many cases to guide me, if
I had a particularly difficult child or a child who was going through a rough
time, or a child who's transitioning, or a child that was facing homelessness,
addictions issues, mental health issues, they were gold. Yet, we do have
guidance counsellors in this case who might, on paper, have 250 or 500 students,
but they're between three or four schools. As I used to say in my conversations
with some of them, I guess if a student is going to have a crisis, they better
have it on the day that you're actually in their school.
If you
want to talk about putting resources in here – about priorities, I'm going to go
back to this $5 million for the Rothschild: What $5 million could do in terms of
helping people who are having trouble filling their oil tank; what $5 million
could do to help deal with the issues in our school system to make sure that
children have every success.
I can
tell you that primary teachers around now, three times a year they go through
this, running records where they take every student out and you basically get
them to read until they reach their frustration point, and you do an assessment.
Now,
imagine doing that with 28 kids, how long that would take because to the
children who are really good, you're going to have to do quite a bit before you
get to that frustration level. Then trying to do that while, by the way, you
have 27 other kids in the class who are – well, they're not independent
learners, that much I can tell you. That's the reality we're asking.
So from
my point of view, I don't know when it comes to the committee that's looking
into the teacher allocation, but I'm hoping that what it will come out with is
something that we're going to have find ways to reduce classes – even 25 at the
primary level is just way too much.
I taught
basic English at the high school, Speaker, and I had 15 in that class; 15 on a
good day when they all showed up and I can tell you, at the end of an hour, I
was more exhausted than I was in the three academic classes I had at 30. They
challenge, and I had an instructional resource teacher in with me who would at
least be able to say, yeah, Jim, you're doing all right. Because there are days
when you walk out of there and say I'm obviously not a good teacher because it
just wasn't making sense, I wasn't getting through.
But I
can tell you that those resources – because you reach some, and that is the key
thing. You always reach some and you often have more of an impact on students
than you think. Because you think you haven't done a good job and usually you
run into a few and say, okay, am I going to have to duck a fist or something at
this point in time or – but you find out that it's always a good relationship,
and we do our best.
But I
can tell you, from a teacher's point of view, as the former president of the
Teachers' Association, as a husband and a father of a retired primary teacher
and a current primary teacher, what they're looking for are the resources.
I can
tell you the sick leave provisions that were brought in back in 2006 have not
benefited teachers. In many ways what we have done, too, we have removed that
benefit, we've removed the whole notion of severance pay; we've removed every
incentive, really, for people to come to work there.
Now, I
will be honest with you. When I started teaching, severance was the furthest
thing from my mind. I didn't know if it was fit to eat. I didn't know if a
pension was fit to eat. I was just happy to have a job. But I can tell you right
now, why would I go in to the teaching profession, take on five years, six years
or seven years of university, rack up debt, go into a job where I'm starting at
maybe around $70,000, probably try to pay off a mortgage and get ahead, when I
can easily find a job that pays a lot better and a lot more quickly?
So I
think in many ways, in my last few seconds here of this, let's look at putting a
priority in terms of if we want to solve this problem, putting the resources in
the school so that teachers aren't burning themselves out filling in for a lack
of subs. Also, how do we make this more financially attractive so that we can
attract the best and the brightest to the profession? Because, from my point of
view, our children are the most valuable resource this province has, simply put.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you.
Always a
pleasure to rise in this House and speak for the wonderful people of Topsail -
Paradise who elected me and I'll continue to do that. Because it is Mental
Health Week, I do want to mention the motto for this year's week. It's: This is
empathy. Before you weigh in, tune in. I think we really need to keep the
dialogue open on mental health and mental health issues here in the province.
There's some work that has been done, but there's a lot of work that needs to be
done. In particular, when we look at long-term continuity of care and treatment
for those who struggle on a daily basis.
I also,
like the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue, want to send out my appreciation
as we celebrate International Firefighters' Day. What they do on a daily basis
for the many communities within our province is above outstanding. I have a
little better understanding of what they do. A number of years ago, I
participated in Fire Ops 101. The past premier was there and I believe the
Member for Virginia Waters - Pleasantville was also there and can probably
attest to what we went through.
We did
five drills in full gear, full outfit. We had to rescue a person from a car
using the jaws of life. We had to drag a charged hose up three or four stories
to rescue someone. We had to repel off the top of a building. We had to go into
a smoke-filled tube to beat out a wall to rescue someone, again, in full gear.
And it's really an eye opener. There are some people that actually opted out of
some of the drills. I won't say who but there were some who opted out. Not the
Member; I don't believe he opted out on any. But we were in a controlled
environment doing those drills. I can't imagine what they do in real life.
There
were some firefighters were slightly bigger than myself and the hon. Member
across the way and going in full gear, with two tanks on your back and trying to
get in through what seemed like a two-foot pipe. I don't know how they do it,
but they do. So congratulations and appreciation goes out to our firefighters on
International Firefighters' Day.
We are
debating the budget and we're debating amendments and subamendments and trying
to do the best for our province. We all represent fantastic districts throughout
the province. I look at government across the way and they represent some great
districts: Waterford Valley, St. John's West, Humber - Gros Morne, Carbonear -
Trinity - Bay de Verde, Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, Gander, Corner Brook,
Harbour Grace - Port de Grave, Mount Scio, Burgeo - La Poile, Windsor Lake,
Virginia Waters - Pleasantville –
B. DAVIS:
It is a beautiful district
also.
P. DINN:
– the beautiful District of
Virginia Waters - Pleasantville, Fogo Island - Cape Freels, St. John's East -
Quidi Vidi, Baie Verte - Green Bay, Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, St. Barbe -
L'Anse aux Meadows, Burin - Grand Bank, St. George's - Humber, Placentia - St.
Mary's and Mount Pearl North. So quite the list of wonderful districts
throughout the province.
The
reason I read that list out – and it is not to imply that the Members are not
doing a good job; that is not what I am implying. But when we go through this
debate and you have an opportunity through this debate to stand up and either
defend the budget, speak to the budget, to either talk about the good things
that are happening in your districts, it is disheartening that through this
debate we don't see individuals standing on that. It could be for any reason, I
guess. It could be that they've been told not to stand. It could be that there's
no one in their district experiencing the hardships like our districts are. I
don't think that's correct, because I know I've gotten calls from the other
districts. Or is it because you can't defend the indefensible in terms of the
budget? Or is it simply if we don't talk, we get out of the House earlier and we
close her down earlier?
I don't
know if I could do it. I say that not having to have gone through it. I don't
know if I could, on this side of the House or any side of the House, not take
the opportunity to stand up and either speak to the budget, or speak to the
accomplishments of my district, or speak to the hardships of my district and
work on solutions to make it easier on them. As I said last night, to make it
less taxing on the members of our districts and of the province as a whole.
I've
gone down through the list there last night when I was talking about just simply
the gas prices. Transportation: The gas prices are affecting our transportation,
and it's affecting both sides of the House. It's affecting the whole province.
So it's very difficult to be silent on those issues.
On the
cost of food throughout this province, again I talked to it last night. It's
very difficult to remain silent on the cost of food and how it is affecting all
our districts. I spoke to the shelters and affordability of a home. I alluded to
an incident last night of a young couple who just got engaged and have moved
back in with their parents because they couldn't afford to pay the rent and feed
themselves at the same time. That's in every district. I don't know how you can
be silent on that.
Medications: Again, we spoke about seniors especially, splitting pills and
trying to make medication go further than it is, and utilizing expired
prescriptions and outdated insulin. That's not just happening over here; that's
throughout the province. Again, I can't be silent on that – I can't.
Treatments: We talked about individuals who are trying to get treatments. The
Member for Stephenville spoke to people who come in and then they're told, when
they get here, it's been cancelled or postponed. Just the travel costs of doing
that, I can't be silent on that. That's happening in every district.
Of
course, heating your home, individuals who paid $500 and $600 a month are paying
$1,000 and upwards. That's happening in every district. I can't be silent on
that. We spoke to the cost of rapid tests on individuals. Come Home Year: We're
expecting individuals to come home – all good; don't have an issue with that. We
need something like that. However, if you can't get a simple rapid test, there's
still that anxiety of having loved ones come home and wanting to have gatherings
– we're going to have lots of gatherings and different events throughout Come
Home Year and people would like to have access to a rapid test. And again,
that's throughout the province. I have to speak up; I can't be silent on that.
The
health care issues throughout the province, especially when you talk about the
smaller communities that we'll say are off the beaten path, I will say some of
the pathways to those communities are well beaten and in need of a lot of
repair, but you have individuals down there who may need health care and may
have emergencies. You have individuals coming in from out of province who want
to see these beautiful nooks and crannies of our province. That's what they want
to see. That's where they want to go. And they have to get there. They have to
afford to fill the tank of whatever they're driving, if they can get a rental
car and if this new program works. It's still a cost to get there. They get down
there, and should they have an accident and require medical assistance, then I
can't be silent on that. I have to speak up on that for individuals doing that.
We talk
about, again, the mental health: This is empathy. Before you weigh in, tune in.
Empathy
is putting yourself in other people's shoes. All our districts, they are
not all created equal. Some districts are a little better off than others, but
as an elected Member I have to show empathy. I have to put myself in their shoes
and I have to speak up on behalf of them.
They did not elect me to be silent. They did not elect
me to sit back and hope to get out of the House earlier, or get up and try to
defend the indefensible. They elected me to represent what is happening in my
district and the province as a whole. I think it was on the news today that
someone mentioned walk a mile in my shoes and that is what we have got to do. I
say we got to walk it because, I guess, most of us cannot afford to drive it. So
we are going to walk it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
P.
DINN:
But
the point being is that if anyone walked in the door – if someone came in for
Come Home Year and stood up here and watched this House of Assembly for the last
couple of days, they would ask the question: Well, who is representing the rest
of the province? They would ask that question. Again, I am not implying that
there is not good representation, but going through this process, where you have
an opportunity to stand and speak either on the benefits and what is good that
is happening in your province, I'd take that opportunity. If I have an
opportunity to get up and speak about the hardships of my district and how we
need to address it, I'll be up speaking on that.
It is too important not to stand up for the people who
elected you. That is what we are here for. We all take an Oath of Office. We all
sign a Code of Conduct. We've all signed the same documents. Look, I know it's a
bit of theatrics here and there's a bit of a political game. I understand that,
but I know, on this side of the House, we will stay in this House as long as it
takes to get the people's work done. That's the way we are and that's the way we
should be.
If we go an extra week or we run to July,
not an issue. But I hope there are good reasons why individuals are not speaking
up for their residents. I really do; I hope there is. I hope it's not to get
through the process as quickly as possible and move on. I hope that's not it.
I know
some Members over there probably would love to stand up and speak on behalf of
their constituents. I know it's a team approach, and I know you have to follow
along with the consensus or the majority of your caucus. I understand that. But
something as important as the budget and something as important as the concerns
and issues that are being brought forward, they are important. And to allow
individuals to get up and speak to that is part of democracy; it's the heart and
core of democracy for allowing us to do that.
I've
received calls from other districts, districts here, all over when you take on a
critic role. Health and Community Services is a very difficult portfolio, no
doubt about it, with lots of hard-working, front-line workers who do over and
above what's expected of them on a daily basis. So I know that's a difficult
portfolio. But in a shadow minister's role I'm getting the calls from all over
the province. I cannot say that they must've called their own Members first, and
either their own Members referred them along or they just didn't get an answer,
I don't know. I know the issues around cost of living, the issues around health
care are in every district. Health care is life and death for people.
So if
you can sit and not get up and speak on behalf of the people who've elected you
and let them know that you're doing what you're elected to do and you care and
you have empathy, you know what they're going through and you want to let them
know it and you want to let this House know it and you want to defend and speak
up for them. Then stand up and do it.
Again, I
say in advance, I don't think I could just sit and listen, I really don't. Now,
in three years time, when I'm over here, that may be a different thing. We have
to speak up on behalf of the individuals that elected us and for why they
elected us. Maybe the government districts have it all in hand, I don't know,
but I do get calls.
I was
out to a town hall in Carbonear and Port de Grave last week. We had a great
discussion – not my district but they wanted to speak to the critic for Health
so we went out, myself and the leader went out to that one. They are doing
similar things; they are asking to speak to the critic of Finance and
Transportation. They want to talk to this side of the House and vent. I call it
vent because a lot of them are unhappy and they used the comment: out of touch.
We go
out. We answered the question; we had a good discussion. I will tell you – I
know during the session that I was at – we didn't knock the current Member. We
don't know what is going through in that district. We don't know if we just got
a cluster of individuals. But the point being, there is discontent in every
district based on the cost of living, based on our health care crisis we're in,
based on a lot of issues.
I go
back to Mental Health Week. This is empathy: “Before you weigh in, tune in.” I
think we have to continue to do that. We have to tune in. Part of tuning in is
standing in this House, letting your district residents know and letting
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians know: We are hearing you. We are listening to
you. We are walking in your shoes as best we can and we're going to continue to
do so. You did not elect me to be silent.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER (Warr):
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a
privilege to stand here again today to speak to the amendment that we put
forward to Budget 2022. It's always a
privilege to represent the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis and the fine
constituents.
Before I
get into my comments with respect to the amendment, several colleagues have
recognized today as being International Firefighters' Day. I do want to
recognize the two fine departments in my district: Torbay volunteer and Pouch
Cove volunteer. Both departments are well equipped with state-of-the-art
equipment and infrastructure. Both departments answer Code 4 medical calls,
which is a huge benefit to the constituents of my district. We all know the
parameters that Eastern Health ambulatory services are under and how stretched
that they are, and the volunteers with Pouch Cove volunteer and Torbay volunteer
do excellent work in providing that level of care to the constituents.
They do
handle hundreds of calls, annually, from Code 4 medical calls to fire scenes,
accident scenes, what have you. It is quite interesting to listen to what they
have to say when it comes to their level of training, their level of commitment
to the departments and, of course, to the municipalities.
Like my
colleague said earlier from Topsail - Paradise with respect to, I think, he said
about the Firefighter Challenge. As mayor I had the opportunity some years back
to take back in the Firefighter Challenge with the full bunker gear, with the
breathing apparatus, the helmet, the whole works. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker,
I've been quite active all my life, in all kinds of sports, but when you put on
that gear and you go through that course, it tests you to the limit. As it was
said, it was done in a controlled setting. Put that into an emergency setting
and you have a different quintal of fish all together, I can tell you that.
So I
want to give a shout-out to all of the volunteer firefighters in my district. My
son Zacharey is a seven-year member of the Pouch Cove volunteer. I'm very proud
of him and the work that he does with his colleagues. But I would like to
recognize two outgoing individuals from the Torbay volunteer fire department,
retired Chief Mike McGrath with 47 years of service and 18 years of service as
chief, retired just this past couple of months, and Deputy Chief Jerry Dunphy.
On
behalf of, I'm sure everyone here in this hon. House, I do recognize and applaud
their level of commitment, dedication and achievement in volunteer firefighting
and the difference that they have made to my district as a whole. So I'd like to
thank them for that, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
J. WALL:
Speaker, I know that there
are many challenges that each of our districts face when it comes to what was in
this budget. Now, I'd like to speak about Transportation and Infrastructure. I
do know that the hon. minister has a heavy workload, a heavy responsibility for
the province and I acknowledge that. We've had many conversations, myself and
the minister, with respect to the work that he and his officials, his
department, has to do throughout this province. There are many challenges that
the minister is facing.
But I'd
like to speak to Route 20 that runs through my district. My constituency
assistant and I, a couple of weeks back, took one full day and we spent it
driving the provincial roads in my district. I'm getting – as I'm sure other
people are as well – dozens and dozens of phone calls, emails, conversations at
the post office, at the grocery store with respect to the amount of work that's
needed and, unfortunately, the damage that people are incurring on their
vehicles with respect to the roadwork. I'm hearing it. I know the minister and
his officials are hearing it. It's something that every district is dealing
with.
As I
said, my CA and I took the full day and went throughout the entire district on
Route 20. I believe we had 102 – if I'm not mistaken – pictures of various areas
throughout the district with respect to paving needs, potholes, guide rails,
shoulders, bridges and signage. Everything that was forwarded to me – and, of
course, I listened to my constituents – we took those areas, took all the
pictures with the civic addresses as best we could and provided them to the
department.
I'm very
appreciative of the work that the minister's staff does in my district. They
have a daunting job, but it's work that is necessary for the well-being of the
residents who travel over the roads each day, those that have incurred
particular damage to their vehicles, working towards better roadwork and network
of travel for all of us here in the province, especially as I speak to the
District of Cape St. Francis.
I'd also
like to bring up the topic of Marine Drive in Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove.
Again, we've had this conversation, the minister and I. I appreciate the
Minister of Transportation reaching out to Mayor Denis Hickey of the Town of
Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove and his council with respect to the issue with
Marine Drive. It's been in the media, of course.
I feel
obligated to speak to that here today, not only to recognize the issue and to
recognize the work that the council is doing, because, of course, they have the
safety of the residents in mind, but to thank the minister for that particular
scope of work. I know that it is a large piece of work when it comes to Marine
Drive, but I do thank the minister and his officials for his attention to that
with respect to correcting that issue in the Town of Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer
Cove.
It is a
concern. It is a safety concern. The mayor and council are very in tune with
what is going on there and I do thank the minister for his attention to that. It
is something that is not an overnight issue. It has been going on for quite some
time. However, the issue has been recognized and I look forward to an update
from the minister and his officials with respect to working with the Town of
Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove.
Mr.
Speaker, with respect to the budget, I have spoken to it several times here with
respect to seniors in my district. Seniors are the ones I am hearing from most,
as I am sure most of my hon. colleagues are as well. I had a senior reach out to
me with respect to what the budget was going to do for her – what
Budget 2022: CHANGE is in the air is
going to do with respect to this particular senior and the money that is going
to be kept in her pocket with what was offered here. So she did the math and it
was approximately $350 with respect to the reduction in her home insurance, her
vehicle renewal and the Seniors' Benefit.
Mr.
Speaker, $350, no doubt, is a benefit in someone's pocket, but it doesn't make a
huge difference when the fill-up on her oil tank was an extra $600. So this $350
per year is welcomed, but as I said when I spoke yesterday, we need to do more
and we ought to do better. I realize the parameters that the Minister of Finance
and President of the Treasury Board is under. I have acknowledged that in this
House. It is a difficult position, but collectively and collaboratively, as our
leader has said many times, we need to work together to do better, to see what
can we do more for our seniors, our aging demographic. Each district is becoming
more and more heavy with seniors. The age limit is rising at all times and we
need to be mindful of that.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, I spoke yesterday and I am sure everyone can remember what I said with
respect to a young couple from Torbay that are moving out of province. It proves
to show that people do watch the proceedings in this hon. House because I had
another couple reach out to me this morning. I was in my office at 8 and I had a
phone call from a young couple who are moving out, again. They're moving to
Alberta.
This is
not the same couple as yesterday; this is another couple who saw me speak
yesterday in the House and who reached out to be again with respect to the level
of taxation that we are faced with and what money they're keeping in their
pockets. It is unfortunate. These are two people who've I've known for many
years, who have two children, who were involved in programs – these people
volunteered. This makes a difference to our communities. I know there are
municipal leaders on the other side of the House, friends of mine, who've led
their communities for many years, and they know the importance of these people
in their communities to the level of volunteerism, to the level of taxation when
they're running a home-based business and what that brings in to the municipal
coffers.
Time and
time again, this is happening. Time and time again, it's becoming more difficult
to listen to it and to bring it to this House. We want the best for all our
residents. I know the Minister of Finance does as well, and the Minister of
Transportation. All ministers here – all hon. Members want the same thing. But
it is, Mr. Speaker, becoming more and more difficult to listen to these
individual stories. It does – it hits you to the heart. I've said that before.
It is more difficult to listen to time and time again.
I
couldn't say a whole lot to this couple that reached out to me this morning,
other than to wish them well, and that I hoped that they would have stayed here,
but their plans are made and they are moving on. I fear that is going to become
more and more common as we go forward. It's something that we have to do better
on, no doubt about it.
Mr.
Speaker, in my shadow Cabinet role for Municipal and Provincial Affairs, like my
colleague from Topsail- Paradise said shortly ago, I'm getting many calls from
across the province when it comes to municipalities, from municipal leaders who
are finding it more difficult with respect to their municipal budgets, the
services that these individual municipalities have to provide. I know the hon.
minister spoke earlier this week in a minister's statement with respect to the
money that's going to come from the department back to the municipalities.
That's welcomed, no doubt. It's welcomed. But the municipalities are finding
that it's not going far enough.
The
level of responsibility that municipal leaders – and being a former leader, I
know the importance of it, to have your boots on the ground as the first line of
defence for any issue in government: municipal, provincial or federal. They come
to the mayor, they come to your councillors and they come to your staff. The
level of responsibility that these elected officials are faced with is becoming
more and more each year.
Just let
me fall back to the fire department for a moment. I had the privilege of sitting
with my colleague from Harbour Main; we sat in Estimates with respect to Justice
and Public Safety. When you look at fire and emergency services and the
responsibility for the municipalities that they have with respect to their local
fire departments and today being International Firefighters' Day, it ties in
very well. They have to make sure that their volunteer firefighters are well
protected, with the best possible infrastructure and equipment that they can
have. That is a daunting, heavy load when it comes to that budget in their line
item for municipalities.
I can
take an example from myself. We were faced with replacing our number one pumper
in the Town of Pouch Cove. The town applied several years ongoing to the
department for funding and we were turned down. The council saw the need to pay
for that pumper ourselves. We saw that need and we did that, $560,000 for a
state-of-the-art pumper vehicle for the Town of Pouch Cove, which also provide
service to the Town of Bauline.
There
were no provincial or federal funds to pay for that fire truck. I know the
Minister of Justice and Public Safety has said many times that it is not the
department's responsibility to pay for fire trucks for all municipalities. I
realize that. The minister has, again, $60 million worth of want on his desk and
he can give out $1.8 million this year, down from $2.7 million last year. That
is concerning when you have the level of firefighting equipment in our province,
which is being depleted year after year. There are many departments out there
who have outdated fire equipment.
I have
spoken to Members on both sides of this House who are faced with that with their
local fire departments. That is an issue that is on the floor of this House when
it comes from $2.7 million down to $1.8 million when you're looking at fire
protection for our municipalities. That concerns me as a former municipal
leader, as having family and friends who are in the volunteer fire service. It
is our responsibility to do more and to do better.
When you
look at the number of municipalities across the province who have outdated
equipment – and it's on both sides of this House. I've spoken to elected
officials on the municipal level across the province, from here to St.
Lunaire-Griquet. It's a heavy weight on the shoulders of municipal elected
officials.
I have
to say, I was disappointed when I saw that reduction in that line item in the
budget for Justice and Public Safety from $2.7 million down to $1.88 million.
That does concern me because I know it's not the full responsibility of the
department to provide a truck to every municipality; however, we ought to do
better when it comes to protecting our volunteer service, those brave men and
women who do so much for all of us on a regular basis.
Mr.
Speaker, my colleague from St. John's Centre touched on the teachers with
respect to what they have to do on a daily basis in our schools. My wife is a
teacher, a kindergarten teacher at Cape St. Francis Elementary. I'm very proud
of her for that. Teachers are a special breed, no doubt, when it comes to having
the patience and providing the guidance for our young people. I spent 27 years
in my former career as a counsellor with mentally delayed and autistic adults.
You need a level of patience for that, as well.
I've
said it many times that my training in the group home prepared me for politics.
Do you know what? You might smirk, but it does give one a sense of having to
listen, having to be a problem solver, having to put yourself in their shoes and
come to their level to solve the issue that they're dealing with. So it has
prepared me for municipal politics. I'm very grateful that I'm in this chair
representing Cape St. Francis and dealing with the issue now that I have to deal
with on a district basis.
But to
get back to the teachers. I've witnessed first-hand that it's not an eight-hour
school day. So whatever comes in the Premier's report with respect to teachers,
I know that my wife would welcome an eight-hour school day. With respect to the
point that he made of having prep periods: Prep periods are very beneficial if
they're there, but now they're having to cover for other classes. This is
becoming more and more common when it comes to teaching in the run of a day.
Teachers are no doubt overwhelmed with the level of workload that they have,
and, of course, the needs that are in individual classes as well, that they deal
with, sometimes without the proper supports.
I know
that the Minister of Education is listening. We have discussed teaching issues
in my district in the past and the minister has been quite responsive. I do
appreciate his attention to that; however, going forward, we need to keep in
mind our teachers, the benefit that they pass back to us with respect to
teaching our children and our youth.
They'll
be in this House one day. They will be in this House one day and they will be
the leaders for our province. So we have to do the best that we can in order to
make sure that they have a great education and, of course, to support our
teachers at the same time.
Mr.
Speaker, I do appreciate the opportunity to speak on this amendment. It is
always an honour to represent the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis. I look
forward to the conversation going forward as we hear from other speakers. I
thank you for your time, Mr. Speaker, and your attention.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
E. LOVELESS:
I appreciate the standing
ovation on the other side, I really do. I guess my mom had wisdom when she named
me Elvis because I can say, thank you, thank you very much.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess
I'll begin like all of us do and say thank you to the people of our districts
that vote us, give us the honourable opportunity to stand here on behalf of
them. I say to them thank you, but what's important as well is to thank my wife,
my children and my family because my dad does watch the House of Assembly and he
enjoys it. He gives me feedback on both sides. So I can share with you over
there, if you want me to, some of the feedback
But do
you know what he always says to me? Always walk with respect for whomever,
whatever side you are on and if you giveth, you will receive it. I know politics
sometimes here, we get heated and stuff, but I think it is paramount for all of
us, when we do stand here, we stand as a voice for our seniors, our youth and
everybody that's struggling right now. And we know there is a lot of struggling
going around.
I want
to say at the beginning. Thank you to many in my district, like in other
districts, when we talk about volunteers. We talk about the mayors, thank you;
councillors, youth workers, firefighters, firettes and you've got recreation
people. On the recreation theme, I spent a week of watching hockey and I met the
Member across when he had some words to say out in his district, and teams from
my district.
It was
an absolute pleasure because I have a passion for hockey. My son is a hockey
player as well, spent a lot of time in – but we don't realize, though, because
the coaches coach these teams and they do take heat from parents, that's the
nature of it because it's a competitive sport. So I don't think we thank them
enough. Plus, growing up in small school, volleyball was a popular sport for me
and coaches also take the time – their free time – to spend time in the
gymnasiums preparing those for tournaments and stuff.
I want
to recognize the Bay d'Espoir Academy, the middle of the month they're hosting
the badminton provincial tournament. I think there are 150 athletes who will be
coming to that area. So I'm going to go there and certainly be a part of it, be
a part of the opening ceremonies and to certainly go through the school and have
a chat with the teachers and administrators that are there.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to talk about the visit to my district last week when the
Premier was with me. It was a very important visit. The Premier came out and we
went directly to the hospital in Harbour Breton. We met with all the staff that
were there and we met with seniors. I have to tell you, there was a guy, an
older gentleman, Mr. Durnford that was playing the accordion in the other room
and the seniors were dancing. I said to the Premier: I have to interrupt you.
You can talk here, but I have to go and dance with the seniors.
Even
though we were talking about a very serious matter here, but inside the seniors
were having fun. I went and shook every hand because it's important. They had
smiles on their faces. But we visited one senior and she made it clear to us
that the hospital in Harbour Breton: we need doctors. It's not a long-term care
facility, it's a hospital; we need doctors. We reassured her that we're doing
everything, and we are doing everything. We heard it from the nurses and we
heard it from the nurse practitioners and we heard it from the administrators.
They appreciated the visit, they appreciated the sincerity and it was important.
We left
that and then went over to – and I'll say, many Members opposite say when you're
on your feet it's not me, it's not my words. What I'm going to tell you right
now were not my words either. We had 17 around a round table that included
mayors, councillors and ambulance reps. I asked them to be there because their
voice is paramount.
During
the meeting, I said we don't have a lot of time but I'm going to limit the time
because I want every voice heard because it represented all areas of the
district. The mayors that couldn't be there in the isolated communities, we went
to the communities, we went to them to hear their voice.
The very
important message that came from that meeting that we had with those voices in
those communities was the negativity has to stop. It's challenging enough as it
is trying to get doctors to areas, medical professionals, but the negativity has
to stop.
I'm not
pointing finger at anybody in terms of the negativity, but we hear it on the
media. One mayor described it as: I can't blame doctors not wanting to come to
rural Newfoundland and Labrador because we're out there, those that are
responsible that are trying to get doctors to come to the rural parts of the
province are actually discouraging it in their words.
So I
challenged all the mayors. They challenged us. We need to do better. I challenge
the other side as well, when you're on your feet – because I take exception to
the fact that government is to blame for the current state of the health care, I
do. I'm over here; you're over there, yes.
Minister
Haggie – I'm not supposed to say it but – the Minister of Health and I have had
a very good relationship over the years and to be honest with you it hurts when
someone calls for his resignation. I'm going to be totally honest with you. Many
of my constituents say the same thing, because it's not on his shoulders. He
just went through 2½ years of the pandemic. We all faced those difficulties.
It's not on that individual's shoulders and it's not on the Premier's shoulders.
It's not on the shoulders over there.
We know
where health care is, we know the challenges, but the messages that I got from
my district is let's pull together – let's pull together. Social media is to the
point where there's too much negativity. We need to stop, as a society. Each
individual, we have a responsibility as individuals to make it right.
That's
what I'm bringing back from my district as well. Absolutely, there are people
that are challenging me, absolutely. I respect that, but that important word is
respect. I don't mind people challenging me, but when you go outside the limits
of being disrespectful, or when you stay within the limits of disrespectful,
that's a problem for all of us. We're all doing our best and health care right
now, the challenges around it, is beyond challenging, but we will get there.
We
visited an isolated community and then we visited the school. The atmosphere in
that school, I wish we all could walk through there. The Premier and I sang
happy birthday to a young fellow that was there, Sam. But it was a very positive
environment. And just seeing what the students were – because we all talk about
rural Newfoundland and the challenges in isolated communities and what they are
doing. This student was online with a student from Westport, I believe,
Clarenville was there, but there was four different communities that were on.
The
interaction was – I could have stayed there all day. But the students were
positive. They were learning. The staff were learning and they appreciated the
visit. One of the staff members said: We need to do more of this, because the
students there had the Premier of the province there, they had their MHA there.
It was important to them.
When we
are being challenged by the other side, do you listen? Yeah, I do. I do listen.
I listen to my own father who can be a critic sometimes and your family, but
it's difficult. We are over here to do a job and it's not an easy job.
I know
there is only one Member over there that was in Cabinet and he said yesterday he
recognized the challenges in Transportation and Infrastructure. There are many
challenges, but we also have to remember – and I hear this from people in the
province, too – you are spending our money. It is not our money. It is the
taxpayer's money of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The
Leader of the Opposition said yesterday that we don't have a spending problem. I
don't know if I agree with all of that because when we spend, we spend more
money – we don't want to be just paying off the interest on our credit card. We
need to go to the principle as well. It's no difference over here in terms of
what we are doing because the more we spend, we are putting ourselves in harm's
way in terms of the finances. We need to be able to support the seniors and the
youth years to come, even when we are not here. There will be other people here.
So that's the challenge. There's no difference in your own household.
Where
should the future of rural Newfoundland and Labrador health care be? We had a
big conversation about that and through my conversations with the Minister of
Health and with the CEO of Central – and I am going to say here and I know it
comes from across the way, that's your prerogative to say that, that the CEO is
not in Newfoundland and Labrador. But I'm going to tell you, the conversations
we have, she understands Newfoundland and Labrador, from my perspective in
dealing with her, from the Coast of Bays perspective. Because the collaborative
care clinic approach will be focused in my district, I appreciate that. I
believe it was through the relationship that I had with her that she understood
that. She understands rural parts of Nova Scotia. She understands rural parts of
New Brunswick. She gets it and I support her leadership.
She
could retire and move on, I've asked her, don't retire yet because we need
important files dealt with for health care in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I
believe she gets it.
I take
exception when that is thrown at her. It's like, well, she's out of the
province. That's you right to say it, but I don't agree with it. I say focus on
working with her, in the other example of not working with her. I believe it's
important.
The
Premier – when we were around the table – he also talked and the message was
received. When we left the hospital, we had the lady that was in charge of
nursing and we had the administrators say that the visit and the reassuring
words that doctors are required in that hospital in Harbour Breton, we will find
them.
But the
challenge, because I know years ago when I worked with the former MHA down in
the same district, recruitment was always a challenge. Doctors had been coming
in and going out. It's just we have not come to the point where there's been no
doctors. I didn't think we would ever see it down there, but we have.
The
clinic in Bay d'Espoir, in St. Alban's, they've dealt with that for two years
now, the challenges, and it's been rough. It has been tough on the people, on
the seniors, ambulances being called. There are stories that people are
struggling. I get it and I'm listening, but because I'm listening doesn't mean I
have the answers.
Somebody
can tell me right now that they have a problem, I might not have the answers but
I'm telling you, I might not be on with Paddy Daly, every day, I don't need to
be on with Paddy Daly or any media. The Member who's the leader now was in
Cabinet back years ago, he knows that lobbying is done behind closed doors.
There are heated conversations behind closed doors and there are tough decisions
behind closed doors. I leave that with everybody as well.
In terms
of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, where it needs to be is a team approach.
Doctors coming to rural parts of the province, I think, come there with the
understanding – and the last doctor that left Harbour Breton made it very clear,
it has nothing to do with money. It was the language barrier and it had to do
with his children. He's a Muslim and the church is not out there. I respect
that.
How can
I tell a man that – and his wife's family live in Hamilton, Ontario. Those are
the reasons he moved. That's not the Minister of Health's fault. That's not the
Member for Baie Verte's fault. That's not the Member for Ferryland's fault.
That's the reality. That's the reality around rural medicine and the delivery
of.
But I
believe – because I have them in my district – that paramedics want to live in
rural Newfoundland. We need to support them, and the nurse practitioners. There
needs to be a team environment. When a doctor knows they're going out to a team
environment, I believe he's going to make a difference. And that was the message
that we had at the meetings, and it was well received and they appreciated it.
And
virtual care – virtual care is a reality, no matter who's governing wherever we
are. It's not the only answer to medicine or delivery of health care, but it's a
support. It's a layer of support. I'll use the words of one of my humble
constituents that said it's not just about attracting a doctor; it's about
attracting a family. I know the advocacy group in my district, one councillor in
particular, she was mayor and they've done a great job. They've actually went
themselves.
I even
had my brother-in-law from Peterborough, Ontario who's got a doctor – I haven't
told the Minister of Health yet – that wants to come to Newfoundland to
practise. How do the doors open? We need to open up the doors. If there's such a
thing as fast-tracking it, let's do it. I'm willing to have the conversation. So
I reached out and said give me his contact information and I'll open up a door
for him and his wife.
I've
heard it said that government is taking doctors out of rural parts of the
province. We have a responsibility to correct that message, though, whether
you're in Opposition or you're in government. Government is not taking doctors
out of rural parts of the province. And I gave an example why one of the doctors
was leaving. I've said it before and I'll say it again that it's not
government's fault. I referenced in terms of the Minister of Health and the
challenges that he has. I asked for people to really support and not bring that
person down who's in that role.
I
listened to a lot of the Members opposite in terms of their speeches. So I want
to say to the Member for Harbour Main, I was listening. The Member for Ferryland
talked about a burden on taxpayers. And I'm not going to mention that project.
I'm going to say what my constituents tell me as well. The unfortunate part
about that project is its burden on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, where they
feel that it should not have been. That is all I'm going to say on it. That is
their words; it is not my words.
Both
levels of government had to find $500 million a year so rates wouldn't double.
If we hadn't found that, the seniors' bill of – I'll use my parents – $300 a
month for heat would have been $600. If we want to change what goes on in this
House, acknowledge it. Show the respect to the people; they want to hear it. We
can lead from both sides of the House.
I think
I am getting near my time, but I am certainly going to use it because I have
much more to say. The Member for Exploits: No voice in Central Newfoundland and
Labrador. I take great exception to that. But –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
E. LOVELESS:
Hold on now, I take exception
to that. The thing about the Premier's office, I support it because it is
another layer of support for voices in Central. You over on the other side are
not the only ones who have received phone calls. I have received calls from
constituents as well that said they support it. They do. They can pick up the
phone and call these individuals. I know these two individuals and they have
experience federally and provincially. I know you have your opinions; I have
mine, too.
I just
want to say that Central Newfoundland is not just Grand Falls-Windsor and
Exploits or even Gander, because we consider ourselves Central. The people from
the South Coast, we buy lots of vehicles up in Central Newfoundland. But I
listen to you.
The MHA
for Terra Nova spoke yesterday and the other time, leaving the impression that
no one cares. I know you're not going to agree with it over there, but I take
exception to it. Standing on your feet to say no one cares and there is no hope
and stuff. That is the negativity that leaders in my district are asking that
has to stop. There are realities around it; yes, we get it. But the sky is not
falling. People in this province – seniors are listening to that and they feel
there is no hope. Now, he has the right to do what he is doing and that is his
choice.
I have
so much more to say because I haven't even talked about Transportation and
Infrastructure. Always a pleasure and I look forward to more (inaudible) –
SPEAKER (Bennett):
The minister's time has
expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Service.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
In my
capacity as acting interim deputy Deputy Government House Leader I move,
seconded by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, that this House
stand in recess until 2 p.m.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
In accordance with paragraph
9(1)(b), this House stands recessed until 2 p.m. this afternoon.
Recess
The
House resumed at 2 p.m.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
Good
afternoon, everyone.
In the
public gallery today, I would like to welcome Jayme Guy. Jayme is the subject of
a Member's statement this afternoon and she is joined by her family members:
Derrick, Betty, Courtney, Jessie, Elaine and Gerald.
Welcome.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
SPEAKER:
Today we will hear statements
by the hon. Members for the Districts of Labrador West, Topsail - Paradise,
Torngat Mountains, Exploits, Placentia West - Bellevue and St. Barbe - L'Anse
aux Meadows, with leave.
The hon.
the Member for Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I rise
today to give recognition to a group of students who have created a group called
The Be Kind Project. Their goal is simple: end the stereotype surrounding teens
and show the community that being kind is cool.
The Be
Kind Project has been encouraging residents to how one act of kindness per week
and share it on social media. The Be Kind Project has been doing just that, and
they have made an impression on the community by participating in a number of
events that show random acts of kindness.
They
have held presentations for school Grades 7 to 12 on the Pink Shirt Day,
volunteered and helped with the 50-plus club, collected donations for the food
bank, participated in Ronald McDonald House fundraisers and much, much more.
I want
to thank The Be Kind Project for making our community a bright place and taking
every opportunity to spread kindness throughout Labrador West.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in thanking The Be Kind Project for flipping the
narrative surrounding teens and encouraging anyone to always be kind.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
From
April 4 to 10, 16 high school teams across the province played in the 2022 Royal
Newfoundland Regiment Memorial High School Hockey Tournament that was held in
Topsail - Paradise. For six exciting days, top high school hockey teams hit the
ice for a chance to win the Beaumont Hamel Centennial Cup.
The
Royal Newfoundland Regiment Memorial High tournament is in memory of those who
fought and died with the famous regiment during the First World War. The
tournament began in 2016 as the Beaumont Hamel cup, designed to commemorate the
100th anniversary of the devastating battle. Despite being nearly wiped out
after Beaumont-Hamel, the regiment went on to earn the royal designation from
the British Crown in recognition of its actions in battles at such places as
Monchy-le-Preux, Courtrai, Masnières and Gueudecourt. Those battles are
commemorated at the annual hockey tournament in the Trail of the Caribou
championship and the final games are played for the Beaumont Hamel Centennial
Cup.
I want
to offer congratulations to all who played to honour the Royal Newfoundland
Regiment and the people who serve. Congratulations, as well, to the champions,
the O'Donel Patriots, winners of the 2022 Beaumont Hamel Centennial Cup.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
Thank you, Speaker.
Inuit
Elder John Jararuse passed away April 18, 2022, at the age of 74. My first
thought was: “We will never get over this loss.” Elder John was the greatest
keeper of our knowledge and truth about Inuit history.
He was
born in Hebron, Nunatsiavut. At the age of 11 years old, his entire community
were gathered in the Moravian Church and told they would be moved south to other
communities. His family were among the first Hebronimiut to move to Nain.
Witnessing such a detrimental act on his family and his community members,
seeing the lasting impacts over generations, he sought to strengthen and
preserve his Inuktitut language, culture and history.
Nunatsiavut President Johannes Lampe stated: “John was very passionate about his
roots, his culture and in promoting, enhancing and preserving Labrador Inuktitut
– having served many years as the interpreter/translator for both the Labrador
Inuit Association and the Nunatsiavut Government.”
He
served on the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Ratification Committee and
the Torngat Mountains National Park Co-Management Board. He assisted in
archaeological research in Hebron over the years, providing very valuable
information about the life history of his ancestors.
He was
greatly loved by his family, especially his grandchildren and
great-grandchildren.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Exploits.
P. FORSEY:
Thank you, Speaker.
On April
27, Mr. Gordon Lannon of Bishop's Falls celebrated his 100th birthday.
He was
born in Fermeuse in 1922 and grew up in Kilbride. He graduated from Holy Cross
in St. John's and worked several jobs before joining the army. After leaving the
army, he worked on the railroad for 44 years and retired in 1985.
In 1946,
he married Marie Hannon and moved to Bishop's Falls and raised eight children.
He has been an active member of the community and a long-time active member of
the Royal Canadian Legion and Knights of Columbus. Last year, Gordon and Marie
celebrated their 75th wedding anniversary.
Speaker,
I would like all Members of this House of Assembly to join me in wishing Mr.
Gordon Lannon a happy 100th birthday.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Thank you, Speaker.
Today, I
recognize a young lady in our beautiful District of Placentia West - Bellevue,
Ms. Jayme Guy of Arnold's Cove.
Jayme is
very focused on academics and athletics. In 2019 she received a hockey
scholarship with Rothesay High School, New Brunswick. After one semester of
living her dream, she decided to return home to complete high school at
Tricentia Academy due to COVID-19.
Jayme's
had a very successful sports career, winning three AAA hockey championships. She
represented our province twice at AAA Atlantics. She's a two-time AAA defensive
player of the year, 2021 recipient of the AAA hockey player's choice award, and
just this past month she won the U18 provincial minor hockey championship and, a
week later, went on to win the Tier 1 high school volleyball championship.
Jayme will also be travelling to New Brunswick as a member of Team Canada's U20
women's ball hockey team in July.
Jayme's the valedictorian for her graduating class of
2022, which gradates this Friday, and will be attending Memorial University with
plans on becoming a doctor.
I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Ms.
Jayme Guy of Arnold's Cove on her accomplishments to date and wish her great
success with her future endeavours.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. Barbe - L'Anse aux Meadows, with leave.
K.
HOWELL:
Speaker, I ask leave of my colleagues to deliver a Member's statement.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Leave.
SPEAKER:
Leave is granted.
The hon. the Member for St. Barbe - L'Anse aux Meadows.
K.
HOWELL:
Thank you to my colleagues.
Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to a remarkable constituent, nurse,
colleague and friend in the District of St. Barbe - L'Anse aux Meadows, Jeanette
Hostetter. This lady passed away on January 30, 2022, just fourteen days shy of
her 90th birthday. Ms. Hostetter came to St. Anthony in the mid 1950s as a young
nurse through the Mennonite Central Committee, along with many other
professionals who made remote Newfoundland and Labrador communities their home.
Fresh out of nursing school in Philadelphia, Jeanette joined the International
Grenfell Association in 1956, working as an OR nurse, an outpatient supervisor
and in the early 1970's, along with Dr. Gordon Johnson and team, created the
first collaborative travelling eye clinic serving Northern Newfoundland and
Labrador for 25 years. This crew often travelled and worked for weeks on end,
doing clinics in all of the remote nursing stations.
Following her retirement in 1991, Jeannette operated a bed and breakfast,
travelled extensively and through her faith was baptized in the River Jordan.
She was an active church member, in the Hospital Auxiliary and supported many
charities.
I
ask all hon. Members to join me in honouring a life of dedicated service to
others, the life of Jeannette Hostetter.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.
D.
BRAGG:
Speaker, forest fire season has started for the Island and will begin in
Labrador on May 15. The season remains in effect for the entire province until
September 30.
I would like to remind everyone enjoying the
province's beautiful outdoors this summer that you all have a role to play in
protecting our forests from the threat of wildfire. Be cautious when lighting
fires in and around forest areas, never leave one unattended and always ensure
fires are completely extinguished.
I strongly encourage anyone planning a fire to learn
the outdoor burning regulations and to check the Forest Fire Hazard Index Rating
Maps on the on the
Department of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture website to determine the
wildfire risk for the location in the province.
A permit
to burn must be obtained from a provincial Forest Management District Office to
burn vegetation, wood and paper during the forest fire season. However,
recreational campfires, backyard fires and boil ups do not require a permit,
provided they are conducted safely in accordance with provincial and municipal
regulations.
Our
fleet of water bombers and dedicated team of professional wild land firefighters
are strategically positioned throughout Newfoundland and Labrador and are ready
to take action to protect the public, property and forests. To report a
wildfire, call 1-866-709-3473.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Exploits.
P. FORSEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I
thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
The
natural beauty of this province is all our responsibility to protect and must
not be taken for granted. Every year because of a few careless acts, our forest
is put at risk. Speaker, from now until September, it is forest fire season. If
you have any questions and before lighting a fire, I would encourage you to
reach out to your local enforcement. They are here to help you and very
knowledgeable.
On
behalf of the Official Opposition, I applaud the incredible work of our forest
workers; they are on the front line of our forest at all times. I would also
like to recognize the vigilance of everyday people in protecting our wilderness
through responsibility, use and reporting fires.
In
closing, I want to remind everyone that our duty, as Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians, is to be stewards of this land and ensure our future forests are
here for generations to come.
Have a
great spring and please enjoy our beautiful forests responsibly.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement. When it comes to preventing
forest fires, everyone certainly plays a part. But individual efforts are not
enough and we need government to step in when the sum of our actions fall short.
That is why we are once again calling on government to restore the water bomber
in Labrador West so that there are no gaps in our fire suppression services.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I am
very fortunate to work with a great group of people in the Department of Justice
and Public Safety, and today I would like to recognize the correctional staff
for the important work that they do day in and day out.
Each
year the first week of May is recognized as Corrections Week.
It is a time to acknowledge the demanding and challenging job of correctional
staff who work 24-7 to ensure that all correctional facilities in the province
remain safe and secure for inmates, staff and members of the public.
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought additional obstacles,
but, through it all, staff remained committed to ensuring that the inmate
population and those who provide services in the facilities stayed as safe as
possible and connected to ensure the proper
supports were delivered. Despite these extra demands, correctional staff arrived
each day with compassion, empathy and enthusiasm.
This enthusiasm is also on display through the
participation of corrections staff in many community activities that aim to make
the province a better place to live and help some of our most vulnerable
citizens.
Speaker, I would also like to acknowledge our
government's investments in infrastructure for the construction of the new
correctional facility that will replace Her Majesty's Penitentiary and the
extension of the Labrador Correctional Facility. These projects will provide a
better place of work for our correctional staff and more opportunities for
rehabilitation of inmates through enhanced programs and services.
I ask all hon. Members to join me in thanking our
correctional staff for their service and contribution in their workplaces and in
their communities to support the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
I thank the minister for
an advance copy of his statement.
On
behalf of the Official Opposition, I would like to take this opportunity to
recognize this week as Corrections Week. I would also like to thank our
province's correctional offices for their efforts in making our correctional
facilities as safe as possible, especially correctional officers who work
alongside community organizations to offer supports, rehabilitation programming
and those who seek to improve the conditions within the facilities.
I have
met with several organizations who seek to improve life within prison. A
gentleman said to me that people should not come out of any prison system in
worse condition and that supports should be in place so that when offenders are
released they are ready to work and live responsibly in our province.
I urge
the minister and the government to keep this in mind while we wait for a
replacement for HMP. We still need to think about the programming in place for
all our facilities and how we can help improve society and the working
conditions for correctional officers by improving conditions within prison
institutions.
Thank
you, 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 his statement. The Third Party recognizes
the need for greater supports for both correctional staff and inmates. We
therefore take this opportunity to call for more psychological care and other
wrap-around supports for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. With preventative
measures such as these, fewer people will end up in the prison system in the
first place and we will all benefit from safer, healthier communities.
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.
On April
6, the Premier set the expectation that the Rothschild report would be released
through the Access to Information, saying the report will be – and I quote –
redacted accordingly and in accordance with the legislation. It was revealed
yesterday the report will not be released at all, citing Cabinet confidence.
The
Premier doesn't control the ATIPPA process, but he does control what is and what
is not hidden behind Cabinet confidence.
I ask
the Premier: Will you use your power and release the report publicly?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the
Member opposite is aware, as the minister has said many times, there's
commercially sensitive information in the document. We will have full public
debate on whatever we choose to do subsequent to the documentation and
evaluation.
This is
an important moment in Newfoundland and Labrador's history. We all recognize the
substantial debt, but we don't really have a full grasp of the value of the
assets that we own right now, Mr. Speaker. It would be unwise and frankly would
be commercially wrong and not prudent to release that information, as we're
trying to position our assets for the future, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
So we
spent $5 million of the taxpayers' money to do an overview of the assets owned
by the taxpayers, yet we won't share that information with the taxpayers of this
province. Real problem with that, Mr. Speaker, and so do the people of this
province.
Speaker,
the Premier can do the right thing and be transparent with the people of this
province, but he's choosing not to. He has to understand that the people of this
province paid for the Rothschild report to review the assets that they own. I
remind the Premier, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador own these assets,
not the Liberal Cabinet.
I ask
the Premier: Why don't you believe the people of the province deserve to know
what is in the Rothschild report?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the
Member opposite is aware, there's been much public commentary on the advice
that's being given by the Rothschild group. Many have said that it would be
wrong, frankly, to release that commercial reports available to us, Mr. Speaker.
We want
to get the best value and see what is the value of these assets and then how
they are appropriately positioned in a Newfoundland and Labrador moving forward,
Mr. Speaker. We're investing $5 million to assess the value, unlike some other
projects which invested $5.2 billion, and ended up with – wait for it – $13
billion in (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Unfortunately, the people of this province are telling us that they don't have
faith that what will be done will be done in the best interest of the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador, and it won't be taking care of Liberal friends in
business as they have with other entities here in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL:
Speaker, one individual who
received the Income Supplement told me that they used the extra money to buy
rapid tests. The money didn't go towards groceries. It didn't go towards
medication. It didn't go towards heat. They were forced to spend it on rapid
tests, available for free everywhere else in Canada.
I ask
the Premier: Is this good enough?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
We have
a robust PCR testing program available, and there is a flow chart on the web. If
you require a PCR test, rapid or otherwise, it is available at no charge through
the RHA facilities. If you, on that flow chart, do not need a PCR we do not
provide them because they are not recommended by Public Health and are deemed
not medically necessary. They are there for those people who need them at no
cost, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
So for months we were touting
that we wanted people to use the rapid tests so that we would ensure that they
would be safe and that they wouldn't pass on the virus to somebody else, so it
was a safeguard in the tool box for our health care system here. Now, all of a
sudden, it's swung 360 degrees, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker,
income support recipients are forced to spend their limited resources on things
other provinces offer for free. This summer, when tens of thousands come to our
shores for Come Home Year, instead of spending money on the local restaurants,
they'll spend their money on rapid tests. This is an embarrassment for our
province.
I ask
the Premier again: Will free rapid tests finally be made available widely to
avoid the national embarrassment?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We take
advice from Public Health. Public Health has best positioned us throughout this
pandemic, I would argue the best in the country, and in fact the best in the
world. And we will continue to take that advice, Mr. Speaker.
Because
frankly, Dr. Fitzgerald understands that 360 comes back to the beginning, and
not 180 which I think is what the Member opposite was trying to imply.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER A. FUREY:
What we are doing, Mr.
Speaker, is we recognize the importance and the use of rapid tests, Mr. Speaker.
As the minister has explained, testing is available for the public if required;
rapid tests are a special kind of test that need to be deployed appropriately,
Mr. Speaker.
We're
looking as we go through the school year and into the summer, as the minister
has said publicly, to see how to better deploy those, but right now the advice
comes from Public Health, as it should, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
It would be better if the
Premier was upfront with the people of the province. We know what it's about;
it's about monies. Monies that they haven't put in the right places in health
care that has been detrimental; they're not willing to invest to keep people
safe in Newfoundland and Labrador. We've seen evidence of that in this past
budget also, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday we heard the sad news that since March of 2020, 13 people have died
waiting for the necessary cardiac surgery, that the health care system needs to
provide these surgeries faster and that the wait-list needs to be reduced by
two-thirds.
I ask
the Premier: When will you finally act to improve cardiac care in our province?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and
thank you for the important question.
I
certainly empathize with anyone waiting for cardiac services, but as Dr. Connors
was publicly out yesterday stating, we've made great progress in a short period
of time. We continue to work with him and the cardiac surgeons in the cardiology
department to ensure that we're providing the best of care, Mr. Speaker.
He
himself, Dr. Connors, said that the cardiac system is not in crisis, that
patients can get access, when required, albeit sometimes a little slower. But we
are – his words – moving in the right direction, Mr. Speaker. And he got a lot
of positive things to say about the cardiac program and the hard-working women
and men who work in that program in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can
say that Dr. Connors and his team have made great strides to improve health care
in Newfoundland and Labrador, unlike the Liberal Party over there –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL:
– and the minister
responsible.
Speaker,
when I asked in the fall how many people have died while on the cardiac
wait-list, we found out that there was eight and now we learned, yesterday, that
there were 13. The Premier said at the time: We can't ignore the situation but
own it. Since then, three more cardiologists have left the Health Sciences
Centre.
I ask
the Premier: Your minister has ignored this issue and it has gotten worse; when
will you do the right thing and ensure that enough cardiologists are here to
meet the demand of the people of this province?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services?
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
We have
been working with the department of cardiology and the cardiac centre in St.
John's since the beginning of my tenure here. Certainly, the issue around
availability, recruitment and retention, we announced, very recently, a real
focused attention on recruitment. We have recruited new cardiac surgeons.
Indeed, one started within the last year. There is a turnover.
We are
working with the Ottawa Heart Institute and they have skilled staff who wish to
come and work here on a regular basis for medium-term locums. We have stabilized
the perfusionist workforce. As Dr. Connors said, we are moving in the right
direction. We will get there and we will get there as quickly as we possibly
can, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I have
been sent copies of correspondence from a violence prevention organization in
this province with concerns about insufficient support and engagement from the
department of Women and Gender Equality. The minister's office is not living up
to their responsibilities as a partner in violence prevention.
Can the
minister please explain why her department is failing to support the nine
violence prevention offices, failing to even hold a monthly conference call with
them?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.
P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I
certainly thank the hon. Member for the attention of these topics. I can
certainly report to this House and to the hon. Member that we are indeed – the
Office of Women and Gender Equality has an open door policy with all
organizations that we support and provide core funding to.
Our
office has not been made aware until an email from a third party that was sent
late yesterday. So it is the first that we are hearing of it. That said, staff
has certainly reached out to our community stakeholders to make sure that they
have everything that they need to move forward.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main,
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Speaker, the open-door
policy appears to be closed.
In these
emails received from these organizations, there are concerns about funding
inadequacy and uncertainty. These emails are full of phrases: funding is late;
unpaid annual leave; others on the verge of closing; their clients are surely
suffering; you folks disappeared; and we want to partner with you to ensure
survivor victims of violence are actually being taken care of properly because
right now they are not. These are just some quotes directly from a community
advocate.
Will the
minister acknowledge her department is failing to help provide the support that
these organizations and women need?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.
P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I
thank the hon. Member and I must say that I really commend the dramatic
theatrics that's here. I simply say that is not true.
We talk
regularly with stakeholders from all communities, stakeholders from across
Newfoundland and Labrador. We do indeed have an open-door policy but I have yet
to see the Member walk through it recently to come over. The invitation is
always there for her and any member of community who is interested in equality
seeking and violence prevention in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Again,
$3.2 million goes to core funding for organizations throughout Newfoundland and
Labrador. Staff are in touch with community stakeholders on a weekly basis, if
not more.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Speaker, if we are
dramatic it is because we're hearing from people that are feeling the inadequate
support from the department.
The
issues raised are concerning: outdated information online; the domestic hotline
letting people down; changes being made to the Violence Prevention Initiative
without soliciting input; and, perhaps worst of all, three of the nine offices
have closed and others are in distress because they are not adequately supported
by the minister and her department.
I ask
the minister again: What will she do to rectify this situation and to ensure
that individuals who are victims of violence have somewhere to turn?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.
P. PARSONS:
Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.
Again,
the Domestic Violence Help Line, not a hotline, of course, is done in
conjunction with Transition Houses of Newfoundland and Labrador. The feedback
that we've received, along with the Minister of CSSD, is that service is working
and it is certainly adequate to help the people that need those front-line
services.
Also,
the organizations that we support are not-for-profit organizations. They are not
government entities, but we do so support them with core funding. I can't get
into the details on the daily on goings within that organization because they
are controlled at that level.
That
said, $3.2 million in funding; our door is always open. I have weekly, monthly
meetings with all community stakeholders. The first time that we were made aware
of this was from a third party, not the actual organization itself, and staff
are in touch with those organizations now.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
my constituent, Rhonda Watkins, has spoken out publicly about her desperate
attempts to get lifesaving insulin covered under the Prescription Drug Program.
Unfortunately, she's been forced to use expired medication and samples. Ms.
Watkins gut-wrenching story last night is a plea for help.
What is
the minister going to do?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
There
are financial and medical eligibility criteria that need to be met. There's
documentation to support that that is required to access these programs. The
Assurance Plan was put in place to make sure that there was less in the way of a
significant impact from expensive drugs.
I would
encourage anybody who has applied for those programs to reach out to the
department and we would be happy to assist them with any issues they may have,
but we do need the supporting material to be able to do that.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I remind
the minister that program is outdated, as a lot of these income-threshold
programs are. This is creating a big problem, not only for my district and
constituents but right throughout the province. It's time for that stuff to be
addressed right across the board.
Speaker,
Ms. Watkins has cashed in her savings, maxed out her credit cards and dipped
into her child's education savings. She's hit a wall. With the soaring cost of
fuel, food and cost of living, combined with the fact she's not actually buying
her critical medication, she will never qualify under this plan.
Speaker,
how many more unfortunate people like Ms. Watkins are falling through the
cracks?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
Once
again, this program has been successful in reducing the expenditure and the cost
for those people with co-pays who do not meet other criteria.
From the
point of view of the program and its administration there are financial
documents, there are clinical documents and supporting evidence that needs to be
submitted so that claims can be assessed. We would encourage anybody who has had
challenges or feels they have been unreasonably treated to reach out to the
department and we would be happy to assist them. If the Member opposite wishes
to provide further detail, happy to look into it.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
It's
wonderful to hear that red tape is preventing people from getting critical
medication.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Sad.
P. DINN:
Sad.
Speaker,
on Monday, the Minister of Health promised to bring the Mental Health Crisis
Line to 811. Speaker, 811 is a stellar resource; however, it's already facing
extraordinary volume.
I ask
the minister: How will the mental health calls be prioritized to ensure people
get the support they need?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
The
Towards Recovery process created only the second Recovery Council in Canada and
it's here in Newfoundland and Labrador. These are people with lived experience
and direct experience of the health care system. The Mental Health Crisis Line
has been run for many years of the PAU, the Psychiatric Assessment Unit, at the
Waterford.
Because
of workload there, a decision was made last August to bring this in, on the
advice of the Recovery Council and the Ministerial Advisory Council for Mental
Health.
If you
ring 811, the first thing you will hear is: Is this a Mental Health Crisis Line
call? If you answer in the affirmative, your call is the next one answered.
There is no wait. Resources have been added, extra training has been provided in
the last six months to allow this to happen.
SPEAKER:
The minister's time has
expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
On the contrary to that,
Speaker, the 811 line frequently requires a wait before getting a call back,
contrary to what he just said.
That's
fine for non-emergency care, but when someone is in a mental health crisis they
need immediate attention. Before there was a dedicated, specific line for
immediate care. Now, emergency mental health calls are at risk of being lost
among other health issues.
I ask
the minister: How specifically will the mental health emergencies be prioritized
in the 811 system?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, I'm reluctant to
call this fear mongering, but it is something of an exaggeration.
If you
call 811 and identify, on the keypad, at the request that you have a mental
health crisis, your call is the next one answered. It's not a matter of
callback. It's not a matter of waiting. The next person there will answer it.
Extra people have been put on. We began the training last August to do this. It
was included in the RFP. It was asked for by the mental health community. It was
asked for by the mental health providers. It will alleviate the workload of the
PAU, and it is working.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Speaker, on Monday the
minister said that prior to the change, the Mental Health Crisis Line was – and
I quote – essentially a cordless handset stuck in the pocket of an RN on duty at
the Psychiatric Assessment Unit of the Waterford. His quote.
Minister, the Mental Health Crisis Line doesn't operate out of the PAU, as he
said earlier, and there isn't even a cordless phone anywhere in their office.
How can
the public have faith in the minister when he doesn't have his basic facts
straight?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
The
workload at the PAU has increased over the years; this decision was made in
consultation with the minister's advisory council on mental health, with the
staff, the PAU, with consumers of the Mental Health Crisis Line.
The
system as I have outlined is efficient, it is streamlined, it prioritizes mental
health and it is a one-stop shop. It integrates in a way that has not been done
before, mental health calls and physical health calls totally in line with the
recommendations of Towards Recovery.
Really,
Mr. Speaker, the Member opposite ought to tone it down a little bit and stop
frightening people.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Mr. Speaker, I've heard from
everyone in this province on health care. If anyone is frightening these people,
it's everyone on that side of the House – every one of them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P. DINN:
Talk about fear mongering.
We're talking about a mental health crisis here. Fear mongering – we are hearing
from front-line workers with the Mental Health Crisis Line. They feel
disrespected by this minister's comments, and they believe he is out of touch
with how the program actually works.
I ask
the minister: Will he apologize to the front-line health care workers for his
misinformed and insensitive comments?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
issue about workload at the PAU was brought to us by the staff at the PAU
through Towards Recovery, met with
them on more than one occasion. This is now back at the time of the
Towards Recovery report, which Members opposite also sat on, and I
think we actually had a tour together. The previous Member for Topsail -
Paradise might also have been on that Committee at the time.
This was
in response to their concerns. They have provided yeoman service for 20 years,
it is time to pass the baton now and bring it into an integrated care system,
which integrates physical and mental health crises, and is doing so
successfully, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Well, I
guess that's not an apology.
Speaker,
mental health supports in our province are stretched to the breaking point.
Wait-lists for long-term health are years long – years long. Dedicated help
lines are being phased out; staff are overworked and feeling stressed and
burdened by a broken system.
I ask
the minister: When will he access long-term mental health supports to become a
priority on his watch?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
Towards Recovery
describes a groundbreaking model called Stepped Care, going from 1 to 5. At 5,
the Premier and I, in conjunction with staff from Eastern Health and the project
team, went through some mock-ups of the new adult mental health and addictions
facility. That is step 5.
The
Member opposite refers to those steps in the middle. We have RFPs out and being
evaluated for community crisis beds. We are putting acute mental health beds in
Goose Bay in places where traditionally they have not had any.
In terms
of the demand for mental health services, we are aware that that has risen.
There's been a 40 per cent rise in requests for counselling and a 43 per cent
reduction in the number of people waiting for that service, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Speaker.
What's
frightening is you don't know how bad the situation is.
Speaker,
the Jacob Puddister Memorial Foundation honours the legacy of Jacob Puddister, a
young man from Bay Bulls who took his own life in 2016 at the age of 21. This
foundation seeks to give access to long-term mental health supports to
marginalized youth. Recently they had to suspend their wait-list for services
due to the erroneous demand for long-term mental health services in our
province.
I ask
the minister: How long are the current wait-lists for long-term mental health
services in this province?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
It gives
me an opportunity to continue where I left off. A 40 per cent increase in the
number of people accessing mental health and addictions services, and a 43 per
cent reduction at the same time for those individuals who are waiting for those
services.
We know
that we have challenges, particularly around psychiatry, and we are working with
the psychiatrists – as we have done from the beginning – to identify those
clients who are in need of more urgent care and work with them to reduce
wait-lists in the same way as we met with the NLMA on surgical wait-lists today,
Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Speaker.
We've
been waiting seven years to get this ironed out and it's going to continue to be
pushed down the road, so it's time to get action on this.
Speaker,
the wait-list for services at the Jacob Puddister Memorial has grown rapidly,
especially due to the pandemic, and despite the best efforts to accommodate
those in need of service, the foundation has suspended the wait-list after
reaching 200 people on a waiting list.
I ask
the minister: Wait-lists continue to grow with no end in sight; why have you
forgotten long-term mental health support in our health care system?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
The
Stepped Care model developed and pioneered here at Memorial University and now
accepted by the federal minister of mental health and addictions as a potential
national standard speaks to those middle grounds of steps for those people who
require more support than intermittent counselling and yet don't require
inpatient treatment.
We know
that we have a shortage of psychologists here. Recently an intern program was
set up in Eastern Health so that we can convert those people with degrees in
psychology into practising psychologists. That is a first. That has happened in
the last seven years. In addition, we now have an ADM of recruitment and
retention for health care providers.
SPEAKER:
The minister's time has
expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
right now nurse practitioners cannot bill MCP in private clinic settings like
family physicians are able to do.
With the
massive shortage of family physicians in this province, will the minister induce
legislation to allow nurse practitioners to bill MCP and create a greater access
to primary care across this entire province?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
I thought you were forgetting
me there for a minute, Mr. Speaker.
Nurse
practitioners provide a crucial service for primary care in this province. We
know that there is a demand for them. We actually have more nurse practitioners
per capita than any other jurisdiction in Canada. We led the way in the '90s and
we lead the country now.
In terms
of how nurse practitioners are compensated, that is an active discussion with
the RNU, who are their legal collective bargaining group, as well as the Nurse
Practitioners Association, who are a subgroup of that.
What we
want and what they want is collaborative care publicly funded in a team
environment. We're all on the same page, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Speaker, the cost of living
is spiralling out of control and more and more people are falling behind.
I ask
the minister: Will she look at removing tax from electrical bills, even
temporarily, to put more money back in the pockets of the residents of
Newfoundland and Labrador?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much.
We do
recognize, Speaker, how difficult and serious the situation is for people not
just in Newfoundland and Labrador, indeed in the country and around the world,
with the rising costs of living and with the challenges around fuel prices.
I can
say that we have a harmonized sales tax; it applies on a broad range of things.
There is only a small amount that we can do within the harmonized sales tax. For
example, we have removed it from books, just to give an example. But you only
have so much of a span, the wiggle room, within that band called HST because it
is harmonized federally. It might be something to consider as we move forward,
but we are providing quite a substantive amount of money for rate mitigation, so
we are spending a tremendous amount of money on that.
SPEAKER:
The minister's time has
expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
open door policies work only if people feel they are welcome to cross the
threshold.
Today,
in a SaltWire article, the executive
director of the St. John's Status of Women Council says, and I quote: Avoiding
pay equity legislation while conflating with other issues will continue to
perpetuate and legitimize conditions for discrimination for workers in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
I ask
the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality: Is she comfortable with
the message she has been sending?
SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister Responsible
for Women and Gender Equality.
P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I
thank the hon. Member for the question. I can only talk about the information
that I have and the facts that are available to me. As you can appreciate, I
took this office a year ago and I'm certainly doing the best I can with all the
tools I have available for me.
I want
to remind the hon. Member, and, of course, everybody in this House, as well as
members of the media, pay equity is only one measure to close the gender wage
gap. Unfortunately, we've lost the definition of the gender wage gap versus pay
equity.
We see
in Ontario and Quebec, who have pay-equity legislation in both private and
public sector, they have the largest gender wage gaps. It has not solved their
problem. We are taking concrete measures such as investing in women venture
capitals, child care, all of these things help support women get in to get those
high paying jobs –
SPEAKER:
The minister's time has
expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Lake
Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Speaker.
In 1965,
and to the consternation of those in Labrador, Joey Smallwood decided to name
the longest river in Atlantic Canada after Winston Churchill. There was no
consultation with the local people, particularly the Innu who referred to this
impressive waterway as Patshishetshuanau-shipu or the more widely known and
recognized Mishtashipu.
As part
of the important reconciliation happening in our province, would this government
work with Innu leadership to return an original name to this grandest of rivers?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and
thank you for the question.
Certainly, it's something that we would entertain and something that I'm willing
to bring up in the weekly Indigenous leaders' call and see how it goes from
there. But, obviously, we'd be interested in hearing the Innu and the other
Indigenous groups in Labrador, their opinions on the name and the move forward.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Lake
Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you.
I thank
the Premier for that answer.
If we
want to provide relief for people affected by high fuel prices, one should
examine the record earnings being celebrated by major petroleum companies, as a
result of those increasing fuel prices.
Will
government follow other jurisdictions and bring in windfall profit tax
legislation that, if in place with for Hibernia, for example, would support low-
and middle-income residents to the tune of $2.3 million per day, right now.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much for that
question.
It's a
very important question, one which we will take under consideration.
Extraordinary profits, of course, is something that we've seen the federal
government moving towards with a 15 per cent tax over a billion dollars for
banks, for example – an extraordinary measure.
But I
will say that we have a common tax base across the country for corporations
because, of course, corporations may have activities in multiple jurisdictions.
I will
point out, because I think this is important as well, last year we raised about
$250 million more in corporate income tax and we are anticipating that help, not
only provide the relief that we are seeing in terms of what we will be able to
provide in this budget but also in terms of our deficit.
So thank
you for the question.
SPEAKER:
The time for Question Period
has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Notices
of Motion.
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
reasons for this petition or the background of this petition is as follows:
The
rising cost of fuel is having a dramatic effect on truck drivers in our
province. Drivers are finding it increasingly difficult to pay their bills,
maintain their machines and paying for every increasing fuel cost. This means
for many that they must spend more time on the road with smaller margins of
survival and for those with families, more time away from home.
Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: To urge the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to consider a fuel rebate for truckers
so that they can continue to supply those essential services to many
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that depend on them each day.
Speaker,
this petition is signed by people in Arnold's Cove, Sunnyside and Chance Cove
and you know that's a pretty clear crosscut of the fact that this is affecting
everybody. You know, when COVID first hit it was our truck drivers and our
support people in the services industries that kept the economy going and kept
looking out for us and keeping groceries on the shelves of our grocery stores.
Now that
they need our people, we don't have any made-right-here programs ready for them,
which I think is a travesty really. Because if we realize that we represent
everybody in the province, all 40 Members here, then it's not just this side
that's being affected, it's both sides. It needs to be acknowledged and it needs
to be taken into consideration.
I just
heard today that we have another accolade that we – I'm certainly not proud of
it – but another accolade we got today is that we're the highest price for
diesel in the country. Now that's something to hang our hat on, isn't it? After
all these people went over and above. We are an island, we have to realize that
Marine Atlantic and all this stuff, all comes into effect, which is making the
price of our goods go up, but if we took off some of these surcharges and taxes
off our diesel and gasoline, it would help everybody in the province. It might
even help the fact that the store shelves will be fuller and less expensive. So,
like I said, it's a trickle-down effect.
If we're
not going to help the people in the province, then tell them. Don't hide behind
smoke and mirrors and think that you're doing something great.
I see on
the budget document that it's called
CHANGE is in the air. Well, there are certainly no dollars in the air, I can
tell you that because everybody is pinching every penny that they can.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I once
again bring this petition to the House floor, a petition to increase the
supports for Labrador West seniors. The reason for the petition:
The need
for senior accessible housing and home care services in Labrador West is
steadily increasing. Lifelong residents of the region are facing the possibility
of needing to leave their homes in order to afford to live or receive adequate
care. Additional housing options, including long-term care facilities 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 their lifetime contributing to its prosperity and growth.
WHEREAS
the means for the increasing number of senior residents in Labrador West to
happily age in place are not currently 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
long-term care facilities for those requiring care.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Once
again, I bring this petition forward to the House on behalf of the seniors and
residents of Labrador West. Once again, we currently do not have the same level
of seniors care as other regions of this province. We were, as a community,
created differently than most communities in the region and in the province as a
whole. Therefore, the requirements are very unique and different, but at the
same time more and more seniors are choosing to spend the entirety of their
lives in the community that they helped build. They have their children there,
their grandchildren, and, actually in a couple of cases, great-grandchildren.
We do
have a lovely senior, Aunt Blanche, who is 96 years old and currently resides in
the community. She has been a lifelong resident of the region. She came there
with her husband as a young couple and raised a family and has a massive
extended family that basically is related to almost everyone in Labrador West at
this point. So Aunt Blanche is there and a lot of other seniors.
Then we
have Joan Stamp, another senior, 95 years old. She spent the entirety of her
adult life raising her family in Labrador West and contributed greatly to the
community. Actually, when the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs was in
CSSD she actually had the privilege of giving Ms. Stamp an award for Seniors of
Distinction.
So the
Labrador West senior population is growing. We have a very vibrant senior
population and they need access to care and to other opportunities as every
other region of this province already has.
So, once
again, I'm encouraging the government to look at this, take it very seriously
and have a look at how we can make sure that seniors in Labrador West have the
same opportunities as every other senior in this province. We're just asking for
the same; we're not asking for anything special. We're just asking to be treated
exactly the same.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
reason for this petition:
With a
population in excess of 8,000 people being served by the Bonavista hospital,
there appears to be a two-week wait time, on average, to avail of blood work.
Prior to COVID-19, it was generally a 20-minute wait. The residents in the area
feel that these blood services should return to pre-COVID levels immediately.
We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately address the delay in accessing
laboratory services in Bonavista by allowing the residents much quicker access.
We spend
a lot of time in the House talking about health care, and rightfully so. We
appreciate the professionalism of those that are working in the system. I think
we've made that clear, they are good people. But residents in Bonavista and
other areas – I would think maybe not a lot different in the Clarenville area –
wonder why we are not returning close to normal of what the blood services were
prior to COVID.
Every
one of us will know how important an early diagnosis would be or the return of
blood work and if it puts us in the queue for services much quicker, then that's
not something that we should be delaying or having it delayed for any greater
length of time than what it is absolutely necessary.
We all
realize COVID is part of our world in the last two years and I'm sure that was a
significant part of the delay on accessing blood work, but we've come a long way
with COVID now and our knowledge of COVID. We have a lot of offices open. All of
our office are open. What people would ask is if it was 20 minutes, maybe they
would understand that if it was 40 or 45 minutes now, but if it's two weeks
that's much too long.
That is
what the residents of the Bonavista area are concerned about, and often they
have trouble getting through in order to book an appointment that is two weeks
out.
I would
ask that we have a look into this to see if we can let the residents access
blood services much quicker than what they currently are.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains. You have 1½ minutes.
L. EVANS:
Thank you, Speaker.
We, the
undersigned, are concerned citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador who urge our
leaders to return affordable travel to the region of Northern Labrador. Unlike
other communities in this province, our Northern Labrador communities of Nain,
Natuashish, Hopedale, Postville and Rigolet are land based and are not connected
to the provincial highway system.
Our
Northern Labrador communities are totally isolated with no road access and
marine transportation is limited to five months or less each summer.
The cost
of travel for residents living in Northern Labrador is grossly disproportionate
to the available income, thereby restricting travel, increasing the cost of
living and contributing to isolation.
Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the hon. House of Assembly to call upon
the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to provide reliable and affordable
transportation between Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Northern Labrador communities.
This
past week, it wasn't only about affordable travel, it was about reliable travel.
I always talk about from Nain to Goose Bay can cost up to $1,000 for one person
return, but we had patients stuck for six days.
We had
the Makkovik badminton team almost never got out to the regionals. They won
gold. The males, first, second and third place. The Rigolet Eagles, who actually
won the last tournament before COVID, they never got to go. There was a
volleyball team from Nain who –
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Orders of the Day
Private Members'
Day
SPEAKER:
This being Wednesday, I call
upon the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port to present his PMR.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Speaker.
I move
the following private Member's resolution:
WHEREAS
the cost-of-living crisis that is making life unbearable for countless
Newfoundland and Labrador individuals and families is worsening by the day, to
such a degree that it requires urgent relief measures beyond those included in
the government's 2022 budget plan; and
WHEREAS
during this Mental Health Week we must recognize that the cost-of-living crisis
is causing stress, anxiety and mental health issues for many people, and action
must be taken with greater urgency to ensure people get financial relief as well
as improved access to the long-term mental health care they need without
enduring excessive wait times;
BE IT
RESOLVED that this House urge the government to provide immediate relief
measures beyond those included in the government's 2022 budget plan, including
financial relief along with measures to improve access to mental health care.
The
motion is seconded by the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
SPEAKER:
I just wish to advise the
House that I did receive a proposed amendment for today's private Member's
motion, for advance ruling, under Standing Order 63(9). I've ruled that the
amendment is not in order, as it changes the scope of the motion.
I'd like
to recognize the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Speaker.
And now,
for those in attendance in this Chamber, and the thousands who are watching at
home, let's start talking about change – change in the air. But one of the first
things before you can change something is to recognize that you have a problem,
and that is part of what's happening here.
The
people of Newfoundland and Labrador have a problem. They have a problem with the
fact, as my colleague alluded to, we have just set another record as a province
that we now can boast that we have the highest diesel and home heating fuel
prices in North America. I don't believe that's anything to be celebrating.
I really
believe that in the secrecy of the government caucus room and the Cabinet room,
most Members and ministers would agree that we have a problem. They would also
agree that the actions put forward to date, while beneficial, have not been
enough. More needs to be done. Clearly, they are hearing from their residents,
just as we are hearing from ours. Their constituents are telling them they need
help.
Today,
we talk about financial relief and how we can do it. Well, I'm going to tell you
today how you can do it. I'm going to tell you how you can change this budget
right now. I'm going to direct you to the back, in Appendix II, under the
Summary of Salary Costs by Department. This year, the government projects to
spend an extra $67 million in salaries for government department employees – $67
million extra over last year's expenditure for government salaried employees. Is
that a priority?
Now, one
could argue that these were vacant positions because last year government had a
savings of $68 million in government service departments. But they have chose to
add back $67 million of that in this year's expenditure. So one could say, well,
they're going to fill the positions so they need to budget that money. But what
is interesting is that if you go back to the year before, you'll find that they
had again a significant savings. In 2021, they had a savings of $63 million.
So
again, a whole bunch of savings, budgeted salaries, but use the savings for
what? Then if you want to go back another year to 2020, you'll find the same
thing: $50 million in savings. So what is going on? Are we failing to hire
people? Do people no longer want to work for government? Or are we simply
padding our expenditures so that at the end of the day, in other areas, we can
spend more where we want to spend it as a government, but we'll use this surplus
to pay for it?
I would
argue that there is an opportunity here to take some of this $67 million in
additional salary cost and use it to give back to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador through a rebate program and adjustments on fuel costs and home heating
fuel.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
T. WAKEHAM:
I'm not suggesting that there
aren't positions that need to be filled, but I have also asked the minister in
Estimates how many of those positions have been vacant for more than six months.
How many have been vacant for more that one year? One could argue that they are
different positions, but the fact remains, for three years in a row, we have had
significant savings in the salary budget year over year, yet we continue to
budget at the same level as if they were going to spend it.
So it is
time to make an adjustment. I would suggest that part of that adjustment should
go back to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in a one-time rebate program,
as I talked about this morning. You want to talk it through any kind of a
rebate, it could be one-time but it needs to happen. The people need our help
and they need it now.
The
minister, earlier, gave us some hope in the fact that she alluded to potential
changes to HST. When asked a question, there was potential for some changes to
be made to HST. I would hope that one of those considerations might be the tax
that we pay on tax. The HST that we pay on tax on tax, whether or not that's
something she can negotiate with her federal counterparts, I don't know, but
that's a question. I think, obviously, the federal government has to be part of
that discussion. And the federal government certainly has a role to play when it
comes to the carbon tax and that fact that that's been imposed on the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador and right across the country.
But
again, there are opportunities. That's only one area in this budget document.
There are other areas. There are other funds in here that are unallocated that
could be used, if you really wanted to, to help the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
So as we
go through this, today, I think it is important to remind ourselves of why we
are here. We are here to serve the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We
recognize that things have been done by government to help, but they themselves
have acknowledged that their five-step plan didn't go far enough. The people of
the province are telling them that the initiatives in the budget when it comes
to relief on fuel prices and home heating fuel don't go far enough and they are
looking for your help.
Again,
as I said, we all agree in this House of Assembly that people need our help and
they need government to step up and find those solutions. So, again, I would
suggest before this hon. House closes, I would ask the government to make the
amendments that are necessary to adjust some of the expenditure in this
particular budget – not increase it, simply adjust it and find a way to put
money back into the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians by way of a
rebate program, especially our seniors, those on fixed incomes, those who are
really hurting. As the minister alluded to, a lot of times say we can't control
the price of fuel; however, we can control some of our taxes and we certainly
can control how we spend our money.
So I
would ask again that consideration be given. That's the whole purpose of the PMR
today, I think, and I'm looking forward to people on the opposite side and
hearing from them, what their constituents are telling them. Because maybe if
their constituents are telling them that everything is perfect, maybe it's only
on this side of the House that we have the problems. I don't believe that. I
believe your constituents are telling you the same thing. I'm looking forward to
hearing from people on the opposite side.
Again, I
congratulate you on the things you've done to date but I believe sincerely that
there's opportunity to do more and I look forward to it.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you, Speaker, very
much.
I thank
the Member opposite for his acknowledgement of what we've done so far. I think
it's important for the people of the province to understand that, as a
government, we are trying to ensure a very important balance here. So we
recognize fully and with our hearts – and I have listened to the debate and I
have listened to the Members opposite, and some of them say that we don't care
and things of that nature, which affects me deeply, quite frankly, Speaker,
because on this side of the House, and I believe every Member in this House,
cares deeply. We wouldn't be sitting in the chairs that we're sitting in, doing
the work that we do, the many hours that we spend at it, if we didn't care
deeply about the people of this province. If we didn't care deeply about the
future of this province, and we have a good future ahead of us.
I will
say that despite the very challenging and difficult times that we've come
through, despite the over two years of a pandemic and then to start to see the
light coming out of a pandemic, and to have a war that's having an impact,
globally. Of course, people are facing very serious and difficult times and the
impact is felt here at home, daily.
People
go to get fuel, if they go to the grocery store; they feel these things. That's
why we worked so hard in the budget to do what we could do. So let me remind the
people of the province, the Members opposite, how far we've come and where we're
hoping to go.
I think
everyone in this room today – I believe everyone in the province wants a
stronger, smarter, self-sufficient, sustainable Newfoundland and Labrador. I
have not had one person say to me they don't want that. Everybody wants that: a
stronger, smarter, self-sufficient, sustainable Newfoundland and Labrador. We
want the best future we can have here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
That's
why when I became the Minister of Finance 18 months ago – it's my third budget
in 18 months – we really focused on that balance. So you go back 18 months ago
we were $1.8 billion in deficit. What that means is we had to borrow $1.8
billion just to see us through that year. We were able, through really hard
work, to bring that down. Last year in my budget, I said we're going to be $826
million. Horrific. We still had borrow $826 million, only 525,000 of us. But we
were able to bring that down. Thankfully, our economy sustained and rebounded
from COVID.
As I
said in Question Period earlier, Speaker, we were able to have a better year and
we were able to bring that deficit down to about $400 million. Now we're down in
this budget to just over $350 million.
Speaker,
why is that important? That's about sustainability for our future. When I woke
up on the morning of budget, I knew that a billion dollars was gone. I knew a
billion dollars was gone before I got out of bed that morning just to pay for
the cost of borrowing. Imagine if we could bring that down, cut it in half;
bring it down.
So I
will say, Speaker, that while I hear the Members opposite talk about how can we
do more and how can we do better, it's in that context: We have to balance it.
Nobody wants to spend their children's money and cause us to not be sustainable
in the future.
I heard
last night Members opposite talk about how a former premier had to write the
prime minister and say we have a liquidity issue and this is very serious. We
don't want to be in that position again. So we have taken extraordinary
measures. I'm happy to go over it again how we have a really good strategic
financial plan to address the financial concerns that we have in the province,
the debt concerns that we have in this province. We already know that we have
been able to refinance and improve Muskrat Falls so that we don't double
electricity rates in this province.
So let
me just say first of all that, again, we have ensured that your electricity
rates are not going to double. Up until the point where we had a rate mitigation
plan and we were able to make arrangements with the federal government,
unfortunately, because of the constructs of Muskrat Falls, your electricity
rates were going to double. So we have been able to mitigate that, we have been
able to ensure that.
So that
is saving your household $2,400 a year on average – $2,400 a year. If you go
back 18 months ago, I announced that we were going to take the price of child
care down to $25. Then we moved it down to $15. In January, it goes to $10.
Affordable child care, finally. I've been working on this for 25 years. When I
was president of the Board of Trade back in 1993, I was talking about affordable
child care. That is saving tens of thousands of dollars. I think it's $6,700 per
child a year.
My
friend has three small children. She and her husband are teachers. Think about
that, think about the impact, putting that money back in their pockets: two
young teachers, three babies, all under the age of 3. Those are a couple of
things we have done. We have made sure in this budget.
I will
also say, and I'm going to run out of time so I going to have to be very quick,
we've also done things to put money back in people's pockets, but the first
thing we talked about was helping the most vulnerable. A 10 per cent increase in
the income supplement and a 10 per cent increase in the Seniors' Benefit. This
is money that we send quarterly to those that are less advantaged, those that
are vulnerable. We just send money in the form of a cheque; they get it
quarterly. We've increased that: Helpful.
We sent
– very quickly, within a week – a cheque to income-support clients: $200 if
you're single, $400 if you're a family, just to help them. Now, in this budget,
we're also putting money back, for example, in your pocket by lowering the fees
that we charge on motor vehicle registration. We looked for how do we get the
most money in people's pockets right away? That 15 per cent, the retail sales
tax on insurances, we took that off. There are so many more things.
At the
same time, we were lowering and putting that money back in people's pockets. We
increased the budget for health. The last two years we've increased it by $400
million. Education this year is getting an additional, I think it's $67 million.
Safety and security, I think, if memory serves me, it's probably around $30
million or $40 million dollars we've put in additional services. We've put
additional money in connectivity. We've put $10 million more – I heard it
multiple times here in the House – in roads. We put $5 million more towards
community groups. All of those things are needs in our community.
We have
struck the balance. We recognize how important it is to put money back in
people's pockets. These are difficult, difficult times. At the same time,
continuing to lower our deficit. I think, Speaker, in anyone's terms – and I
have a list of people who've spoken very highly of our budget: Scotiabank: this
budget is a step in the right direction. RBC: the fog is starting to lift. CIBC
–
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
S. COADY:
I ask for respect in this
House.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
S. COADY:
Thank you, Speaker.
CIBC:
seeing a quicker recovery in the fiscal position. BMO: seeing more favourable
fiscal fortunes. Canadian manufacturers when they ask for jobs. Canadian
Manufacturers and Exports: this is a big win in our sector. TD Economics: debt
burden is much lower than anticipated. I can go on, Speaker, but I'm going to
move an amendment.
I move,
seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that the private Member's
resolution currently before House be amended as follows: In the clause beginning
with the word WHEREAS, delete the words “beyond those included” and substitute
the words “including but not limited to those.” And in the clause beginning with
the words BE IT RESOLVED, by deleting the words “urge the government” and
substituting the words “continue to support the government's efforts.” And by
deleting the words “measures beyond those included in the government's 2022
budget plan including” and substituting “including but not limited to those
outlined in Budget 2022, which
include.”
I will
table this motion, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
We also received an advance
copy of this amendment, and this amendment was ruled in order.
B. PETTEN:
How come we never seen the
amendment before now?
SPEAKER:
Because it has to be
presented to the House first. She has to read it into the documents.
S. COADY:
Thank you, Speaker.
And on
that, I will allow the debate to continue.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We get
up and we talk about cost of living. I've heard a lot of people talking the last
two days. I've sat and listened intently. There's been a lot of good debate and
probably a lot of not so good answers; a lot of good questions, not so good
answers. Ultimately, it's a level of frustration, I suppose, too, when you sit
and listen to this stuff. We sat late last night and listened to a lot. Again, a
lot of good debate and not much in the way of answers.
But
people of the province, they are looking to us for solutions. We don't have all
the answers, they don't have the answers, but they're pleading with us for
answers. They're pleading with us for help. That's what we're elected to do.
We're supposed to help people.
Your
Code of Conduct, recently I read it, we're suppose to help the people who we
represent. There is a clear line in that message. When we get elected we sign
off on our Oath of Office and our role is, no matter what stripe you are, you're
supposed to help the people in need in this province. That's the roll of 40 of
us in this House of Assembly to help all members of this province, not matter
what they do. Whether they vote or don't vote; who they vote for; whatever their
beliefs are, we're supposed to help those people – full stop.
That's
not happening, Mr. Speaker. That is a huge failure. This government can sit
there, they can answer these questions and I am a bit annoyed. I try to keep
that under control, it annoys me.
I got up
today and I asked a serious question about a lady in my district who I spoke to.
We did everything we could to try to help that lady. The people we spoke to that
work within the programs sympathize, but their hands were literally tied because
it's government policy. They can't go outside the policy and break the rules.
They would lose their own job, and rightfully so. That is what we all sign up
for. They have no choice, but did they say that they sympathize with this lady?
You betcha. I sympathize with her very much. She has a very valid situation,
without getting into every part of her medical problems; she has a very valid
argument.
So the
minister can stand in his place and act smarter than me and everyone else in
this House, if he wants to, and say that certain criteria need to be met and
certain financial things. If you're a layman and you're out there listening, the
minister is giving a valid answer. But that is right from the book. That's wrote
on a piece of paper. That's in his briefing binder. He gets prepped, he knows;
he's a doctor, he probably knows the answer.
But what
he's not saying is that one of her biggest expenses is because of one flaw in
the policy, not even insulin, it is another issue that is not covered until you
hit 65. But this problem don't affect people at 65, it affects people all
through their life. It is very expensive medical equipment, that's not said, but
she can't survive without that. She cannot survive without this other expensive.
At 65 she'll get a break and she maybe able to get her insulin covered. Is that
satisfactory?
So
continue to use the expired insulin – that's appalling. That's banana republic
stuff. That's stuff you hear about down in those developing countries that
people are using that. That's when you go down and you recycle hearing aids for
people because they can't afford to buy their own hearing aids. If you're in
Cuba, you walk down the streets of Cuba and you got hearing aids, you're a rock
star because they can't afford them. Is that what we have become? Is that what
this government wants to hang their hat on? It is appalling. It is disgusting.
If we
debate this budget – and I know politics as well as anyone in this House and
I'll debate it with anyone all day long, and I understand what that side of the
House and this side of the House, no matter what colour you are, but to watch
this stuff in action.
The
Premier of the province looks over when I asked this question about a lady in my
district and I said, respectfully, the system is flawed. Not that you've done
anything wrong. Tell me it's flawed. Look at me. Do you know what? It's flawed.
We have to work to make that better because tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, anyone in
this House is going to run into the same person. That same man or woman is going
to come to your door and you're going to tell them you have the same answer that
I have, and it's not good enough.
Then you
get all these other people and these emails and messages coming in. They can't
afford to fill their oil tank. They can't afford to put gas in their car. They
can't afford to buy groceries. We're hearing that over and over and over again.
The media are not covering it all the time because it's getting old. They're
getting tired of hearing the same thing. They're getting tired of hearing the
same answers. It's not news anymore.
That's
what we've become. If it's not a headline story that it's a disaster, the sky is
falling, they're not reporting it. But people are suffering. People are
suffering in this province under our watch, and I say our watch, it's 40 of us.
When I go back to my district, it's me; the PC Member represents that area, no
one else here. I have to try to answer their questions. I have to try to console
them. I have to show empathy.
We just
went through the Volunteer Week, and it was Empathy in Action. Now, we get paid
for what we do, but I feel sometimes that's what we're all missing. There's no
empathy anymore. It seems like nobody cares, Speaker.
Like I
say, I've had the opportunity, I spoke on a lot of the budget before our break,
so I've had time to sit here and listen to all my colleagues and the
independents and the Third Party. We're all saying the same thing, every one of
us are. We're trying to put personal circumstances in there. We're trying to
tell personal stories. We're trying to tell how it's affecting individual
people, but, ultimately, it could be either one of us who could stand up and
take each other's story and it will fit into your district. I don't say that
from this side, I say that from any side, every Member in this House.
But we
just had this budget, and coming into the budget it was the Rothschild report,
it was the Moya Greene report, people were nervous of what's coming. But when
you're not getting the messages, it was really quiet, so it's either we're going
to get hammered or there's nothing going to happen.
Budget
day here, we were rich; we were full of riches. It was great. Good news
budget. We had the outreach program. There was a crowd going around with red
coats on. I couldn't identify them all; some looked familiar. Knocking on the
doors, spreading the message: we've got this budget and it was all over social
media. The Premier is out in his district. There was big push on it.
Who did that? Who is the orchestrator behind that? If
there was time, Mr. Speaker, I could for about two hours but I only got about
three minutes left.
There was a time when we were in government, previous,
people would say: Who's advising the Premier? Who's advising the 8th floor? And
I sometimes would shrugged my own shoulders and said: B'y, I don't know. I
questioned it myself.
Well, I guess the shoe is on the other foot now and I
ask you: Who is advising you? Who is advising you to go out and do that stuff?
Because all I'm hearing on the other side is: Sweet God, you got to be kidding
me. While they are trying to keep their oil barrels filled and keep their cars
full of gas and wondering how they are going to get to pay their next bill, we
got his crowd out praising up this great budget they just gave. No home oil
rebate in it; no heating rebate that my colleagues have been hammering and
asking and asking and asking day in day out. No, nothing for that.
A few dollars for this and something for that. They are
like: What are you giving us? It's pittance. They are out spreading this message
the world is good. So if you turn off all of the lights and you close your eyes,
you'd think you are in an alternate universe. Open your eyes and say: What
happened? What happened in the last four or five years? This is not reality.
This didn't happen. Everything is wonderful. There are bowls of cherries. There
are butterflies flying around. There are photo ops. We're happy and life is
great.
I tell you, life is not great in my district and I
don't know if life is great in any of your districts, are they? There's no
doctors out – my colleagues in Central, they got no doctors; they got people in
their waiting rooms; people are waiting for weeks and weeks and weeks for
life-threatening heart operations. That don't look like – but on top of that,
add insult to injury, you got a lot of seniors out in that area. Two long-term
care facilities out in the region – seniors waiting to get in.
March 25, I believe, roughly, maybe 28, photo op,
ribbon cutting, glossy pictures, big smiles on everyone's faces. Today is May 2,
May 3, we're into another delay, but a month later we are told, oh, we got
another delay. We don't know when it's going to end. Could be the end of May; it
could be June. Seniors are waiting. People can't get in the hospital. But we had
the photo op. What did you open?
Deficiencies that were identified last year – what did
you go out there for? We had to change the conversation, the strategy, that's
what the advisors told them. Get out and change the conversation. Get a picture.
It'll take the pressure off. And me there listening to it and I read it and
said, yeah, do you know what? Good on them. It's going to open. I'd be the first
to compliment them, if it's a good thing, I will compliment it. And I did. Yeah,
it was good to see.
But,
again, Mr. Speaker, it's smoke and mirrors; it's an alternate universe, it's not
what it appears. It's cut the ribbon, look really sharp, all is good, take a few
pictures, get in the rig and get out of Dodge. That's what happened.
Is it
open today? No. They're out there tearing up all the showers again now. But
everything's under control; rest assured, everything is under control, Speaker.
We're in good hands.
SPEAKER:
The hon. Member's time has
expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Thank you, Speaker.
I look
forward to making my contribution to this debate this afternoon. I want to
obviously call out and recognize that this is Mental Health Week, and the theme
is empathy. It's also Maternal Mental Health Day, for those who monitor these
things. It's an important day in the life of mothers.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
J. ABBOTT:
Where I want to focus my –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Thank you, Speaker.
Where I
wanted to focus my comments today was on the, I guess, the second prayer of the
resolution, which talks about this being Mental Health Week, the need to make
sure we recognize that there is increased stress, there is increased anxiety in
our province and in the country, in the world all over, if we look at what's
going on right now.
We have
the issues of cost of living and what that's contributing to many households. We
have those with COVID and the concerns about COVID still throughout the province
and people are still very anxious about that. Of course, we have events over in
Europe with the Russian war on Ukraine and the impact that it's having, I think,
subconsciously for many of us. It is contributing to a wide spectrum of stress
and anxiety for all of us.
I think
one of the things that we were trying to do through the budget is recognize that
where we can as a province and as a government we need to support individuals
and individual households with some aspects of the increased cost of living. Can
we factor in all those elements and cover all those cost factors? No, we can't.
We don't have the resources to do that. So we've had to pick different elements
and focus our financial efforts on those.
But what
I wanted to bring to your attention is around what the government is doing on
mental health services to support individuals, whether it's because of cost of
living or other factors in their lives that the government is spending a
significant amount of resources around mental health services and will continue
to do so.
The
Minister of Health in Question Period today talked about Towards Recovery and
the plan that was tabled here in the House a couple of years ago as a result of
the All-Party Committee. And to a credit, I think, to the legislators at the
time recognizing that mental health has to be and must be a priority within this
province, within government funding for when it comes to health programming.
Right
now, we are spending close to $250 million on mental health and addictions
services here in the province. And we've increased our spending. It was around
5.7 per cent in 2017 and we're now about 7 per cent. The All-Party Committee had
recommended that we get to 9 per cent of total health spending on mental health
services. So we are on the road to doing that.
We are
looking at the full spectrum of services. Again, the Minister of Health talked
about the stepped care model, which is really paying dividends in how we design
and deliver services. Not all individuals will need to see a psychiatrist. At
the same time, we want to make sure that when mental health issues arise that an
individual can immediately get access to services.
We've
introduced Doorways across the province and that is being well received. Our
wait times have gone down and the level and amount of services delivered
continues to increase. So that's very good news.
We also,
again, are building the new adult mental health facility, and as those who drive
along the Parkway here in St. John's will see, it is well under way and on time
and, hopefully, will be in budget. But that's going to be a game changer in how
we deliver acute mental health services here in the province.
It'll be
a state-of-the-art facility providing state-of-the-art services, something
that's long overdue. We're replacing a facility that was built and opened in
1855. So I think you will see that the government is on the right path when it's
addressing these issues.
We're
providing and now spending over $1.5 million in eMental health services. Many
people today rely on and use eServices for a broad spectrum of services,
including their health services. So we are working to keep up with the need and
the demand in that area. Again, we are seen as one of the leaders in the country
around those services.
We're
providing $750,000 to support social, emotional learning curriculum, to support
curriculum in our schools. Again, recognizing that we have to work with
children, at the earliest possibility, so that they can be supported and that,
as mental health issues arise, they can be addressed with the children, with
their families, within the school environment where that can happen.
Again,
in Labrador, we've got $300,000 set aside for land-based programming to foster
mental health wellness in connection to culture and Indigenous communities.
Something, again, that was recognized by the All-Party Committee, based on
representations from our Indigenous citizens and communities, particularly in
Labrador.
In terms
of some statistics that we're keeping and monitoring this very closely – and
that's certainly one of the benefits of the
Towards Recovery plan; it is being
monitored for its implementation and success in meeting the goals and objectives
in the plan. Where we can and how we can build on that plan, we will continue to
do so.
As I've
said in a previous debate around mental health services and COVID that,
hopefully and realistically, we can learn from the current experience, and that
will inform our policies and programs going forward. The same as what's
happening now around cost of living, there is some literature out that talks
about the impact of stress because of low incomes, because of increased prices
on goods and services that people depend on, how that effects their mental
health. We need to learn from that and how we build better services and
counselling services to help individuals. At the same time, where the government
can, then we'll put money into the hands and pockets of individuals.
Right
now, we have 43 per cent fewer people that are waiting for mental health and
addiction counselling services. That's a significant improvement over where we
were three to four years ago. Again, we are seeing an increase in referrals, but
we're able to accommodate those because wait times are being reduced. For
example, Labrador- Grenfell has no wait-list for counselling services. That's a
significant improvement, and other areas in the province can say the same thing.
The
transition from the Mental Health Crisis Line to the 811 HealthLine, I know
there was some bantering back and forth on that earlier today. But for me, who's
been involved in that issue in the past, this is long overdue. It's the right
thing. Not to say there won't be some bugs to be worked out in the transition,
but it is definitely the right thing to do because it is now a 24-hour service,
365 days a year, and it is around the clock.
That
wasn't always the case with the previous Mental Health Crisis Line, just the way
it was funded and managed. And we've got the resources in place to make sure
that all calls are addressed and that services are provided, and referrals made
to the appropriate service.
So,
Speaker, really what I wanted to say here is, in terms of the resolution, I
think in some aspects it is on the right track, but I think the Opposition and
others have to recognize that the government has invested in addressing the cost
of living factors here in the province. We recognize on this side of the House
that more can be done, and will be done. But we need to monitor where we are at
this point in time. The caucus is continuing to talk about these issues, the
Cabinet continues to talk about these issues, and individual ministers in their
departments are talking with staff and what are other things that we can and
should be considering.
And if
one department is close to the action, it's mine, and we're monitoring things on
the ground and will be ready to respond as needed.
SPEAKER:
The minister's time has
expired.
J. ABBOTT:
Thank you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Exploits.
P. FORSEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again,
it's a privilege to get up here and talk on the PMR and the budget from the
constituents of my district. Mr. Speaker, I think maybe on their slogan this
time they just may have things right. I think they just might have it right this
time. They brought down The Way Forward.
There was no way forward; that didn't work. So they went with a better way
forward; we never seen a better way forward. So now they might have the slogan
right this time: CHANGE is in the air.
I think there might be a change in the air, Mr. Speaker, there just might be. It
is going to take three years for that change, but a change might be in the air,
yes.
Anyway,
Mr. Speaker, again when we talk about the budget, there's nothing in there for
medium-income people who right now are having struggles to support their
families, even to get to work so that they can support their families. The
seniors, again being able to afford food, afford heat, to keep warm in their
houses – it's not there.
When we
talk about mental illness, this alone is causing many, many stresses. Mentally
and everything else combined with it, it is. When people are not comfortable to
be able to buy gas to get to work, be able to afford to feed their children,
mentally they become concerned. They really do. Their child has to do without.
They have to do without themselves, but knowing that your children have to do
without – they going to school hungry. They're going to school without the
necessities that they need. That causes very serious illness, mentally and
otherwise. Not only mentally, that moves to other things. So then that turns to,
probably, addictions and more stress and drugs – try to handle some of those
addictions, try to deal with some of their complications they got. That is very,
very unfortunate.
When
there is funding that can be provided to those people to help deal with some of
that but they're not getting it, that is where we're losing and that is where
they are falling through the cracks. We need to do more to support those people
in those conditions, in those situations.
The
unfortunate fact then, Speaker, is those addictions, those stresses lead to the
ultimate, I guess, and that is suicide, which we don't want to talk about. We
shouldn't be here talking about it. I know it happens. Do we get rid of it
completely? Probably not. There probably will always be problems out there with
that sort of thing, but we do need to deal with those situations. I know in the
budget that they need to look after those situations with regard to funding for
some of those programs.
I know
even in Central Newfoundland, in our area, in our region, we have reached out
for mental health crisis lines. We've reached out to facilities, especially –
again, females in abusive situations in their homes, they've had to go to the
shelters. There is not much there to help them along their way. There really is
not.
I know
I've heard a few times actually that when they try to get some mental health
help, where are they are shown to? Right up into the emergency departments in
Grand Falls-Windsor, basically, or James Paton, fed some medication, probably,
and sent back to the same situation that they just ran away from. You're sending
them right back in that situation that they just ran away from. What are we
trying to do? What are we showing? There are lots more things we can be doing
with regard to helping those people to try to control the mental illness that's
affecting those people because of that.
Housing,
another big stress. People can't afford to have housing. I know in our area, in
our district – and I know the minister just got up and talked about some of the
things they were doing for seniors and housing, but the unfortunate fact is just
in our area alone, there are 300 applications of people on the wait-list for
housing in the Central region.
I'm
sorry, I don't buy it. I just don't buy it to have that many people in our
region looking for housing or some sort of home supports that they can't get.
Seniors doing the same thing, calling me to say: Can I get some housing? Can I
get some help? Even if I can't get housing, some home support, extra hours,
extra help in my own home that I can stay here. Can't even get that. It's just
not there to get.
I know
they're trying. They've said they've tried, but that's what we get out of this:
We're trying. We're going to do. We will. What we have and what we've already
done don't seem to be coming. What they've already done in our area – and I know
that financially, money-wise, they're a bit tight. Yes, they are, I agree, 100
per cent. But we need some funding to help support those needs.
In
Central Newfoundland, the unfortunate fact is when you see the Premier, and the
Premier solely, spending $250,000 on an office in Grand Falls-Windsor, when I
just mentioned all those needs – not wants, they're needs. So when I just
mentioned that, you could have took some of that money to help alleviate some of
this pain. I don't buy it. I don't agree with it. I know the Member for Fortune
Bay - Cape La Hune this morning got up here, but he agrees with the office, and
that's fine. That's his prerogative. He can agree with it and a couple of people
that he talked to, they can agree with it as well.
But the
people that I'm actually talking to, I tell you when they see that the Premier
can spend $250,000 on an office that's not needed, and when they're looking at
all this that is needed, then I tell you there's more than a couple of people
that don't agree with it. I'm getting this all around the region, and again I'll
say, all our region in Central Health – that's Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune,
that's Baie Verte - Green Bay, that's Exploits, Grand Falls-Windsor, Fogo Island
- Cape Freels, Gander – am I missing one?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Twillingate.
P. FORSEY:
Fogo - Twillingate, the
Speaker's district. That's the Chair there now, Fogo - Twillingate. And
Lewisporte - Twillingate, sorry. Fogo Island - Cape Freels is over there, our
Minister of Fisheries.
But
anyway, then the Premier can say that he needs a voice in Central Newfoundland.
He needs a voice in Central Newfoundland. With five Members of his own caucus in
Central Newfoundland and he needs a voice? The Premier said it, not me. The
Premier said that. So if you can agree with the office being there and agree
that he needs a voice there, hey, go ahead and agree with it. But those people
that are on that list – if you're listening over there, Central Health contains
Fogo Island - Cape Freels. That's part of Central Health. If you're in that one,
you can have it. If you're not, you don't have to be there.
So
anyway, when those needs that are there, and you fellows can supply an office
like that, agree to an office like that, on $250,000 that could have been spent
on somebody to help with a little bit of health care, to help with some other
ways, some other means of getting their stresses away, be able to find a pocket
of money for them – not a pocket of money for the office in Grand Falls-Windsor
that we really don't need. Find some pockets of money for those people. That's
where we need the change.
And
whatever you're doing there that you have done, will do, can do, let's get
something done and help those people that really, really need it. Let's get this
budget changed; let's put something back for them. Take away the office in Grand
Falls-Windsor and put it in this budget for those people.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER (Warr):
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
this PMR that was put forward by the MHA for Stephenville - Port au Port, it
does talk about the cost of living. It talks about urging the government to
provide some relief for escalating high prices which are leaving many people in
dire straits – I'm quoting from the PMR – and they're asking for decisions such
as lowering certain taxes, or offering home heating rebates; talks about the
social determinants of health such as income. Income is very important and if
the cost of living goes up, it does impact what you can spend your income on –
food, medicine and housing.
It talks
about these having an even greater impact on health outcomes in the health
system. So it is very important and I am here and I know and my party, the NDP,
knows that the people of the province do need help right now. A lot of this has
been caused by the high prices of fuel at the pumps. Fuel for heating your
house, for driving cars, for transportation, for airlines, for marine. When
those costs went up, it impacted everything. It impacted the cost of the price
of the food at the stores. It impacted your transportation. It impacted your
ability to heat your house. It really is impacting everyone. When you talk about
who is the greatest impacted, it is the people who are on fixed incomes like our
seniors, our elders.
This is
a big problem – low-income people, people on income support. The thing is there
is only so much money to go around for a lot of people. It is all right if you
have a high-paying job with a large disposable income, you can adjust. You might
be inconvenienced. But what we are seeing now is people are making decisions. It
was in the news about a lady having to use expired insulin – insulin that is
critical to her survival, her ability to live and her ability to be a healthy
person. Those crises that people are facing that makes them actually have to
face these decisions is concerning. So I do understand the rationale behind this
PMR.
With us,
we advocate for a living wage so the people can have some quality of life. And
we also advocate for affordable daycare. We are so glad that the federal
government now is stepping up so that families can afford to work and have a
safe place, an affordable place that their children can be looked after.
We also
talk about pay equity. That's been a huge topic in the House of Assembly. So
when families are being faced with major decisions and if the family is made up
of a male and a female, the decision doesn't have to be, well, the man is making
more money so the woman will actually be the one to stay home. Because when
people are making decisions about whether or not they're going to be able to
afford insulin or have to use outdated insulin, they're not given much choice,
there's not much flexibility there. So it's really important.
Of
course, with me, my role as an MHA is to advocate for my people. I just want to
say I have five minutes left, so I'm going to talk a little bit about the
ability to actually have quality of life and the impacts of high costs have
impacted my people for generations, not just this year, not just recently since
the price of fuel has gone up, not since Russia has invaded Ukraine.
So one
of my petitions is for affordable travel and I actually talked about that in the
House of Assembly earlier today. And in this petition it talks about affordable
travel, but down here it says the cost of air travel for residents living in
Northern Labrador is grossly disproportionate to their available income, thereby
restricting travel, increasing the cost of living and contributing to isolation.
So one
of the things that we want is we want access to affordable travel, whether as a
patient going out to a hospital visit or whether it's somebody who wants to go
and visit their parent or loved one who is actually in the nursing home in Goose
Bay.
Petition
for fair electricity rates for Northern Labrador communities: Right now, we're
paying 19 cents a kilowatt-hour over the 1,000-kilowatt life block. So no one on
the North Coast can actually afford electric heat. People do have electric heat
– not a lot of people – but really they can't afford it. They're sacrificing
somewhere else, because we have that limited amount of income – 19 cents a
kilowatt-hour.
I've
talked about that in the House of Assembly where everybody was in uproar. Back
last year we were paying 18.5 cents a kilowatt hour and the rest of the
province, the highest they were paying was 12.2 cents a kilowatt, and everyone
was so upset that because of the so-called Muskrat Falls might go up, didn't
know how much it was going to go up to. But we were already there. We were
already paying cost-prohibitive prices of being able to heat our homes. And
who's impacted by that?
The
thing about it is if you can't afford electric heat, what are your other
options, to haul wood? Well, not everyone can haul wood on the North Coast of
Labrador. First off, in Nain and Hopedale, you have to travel hours to actually
be able to get the wood and then hours back. Well, what about our seniors, our
elders? What about single parents? What about the physical ability, the
strength? Unless you're a big strapping person, usually that's a male who can go
in and haul and cut the wood and haul it out and put it aboard the Kamutik box
and bring it all the way back to Nain or Hopedale, which is several hours.
If you
have family supports, or you can pay somebody to actually haul the wood so you
can heat your house, if you can do that, you still have to chop it up, you still
have to bring it in. Even when it's in the house, you still have to physically
put it in the stove. Do you know something? There are people that are impacted
by health conditions, where they actually can't do that. What you're doing is
you're taking away their independence.
Right
now, we're all in a crisis again. The price of fuel has gone up. It's impacting
everything. It's impacting the price at the stores. It's impacting your ability
to drive. But on the North Coast of Labrador, that's our reality. That's been
our reality since we joined Confederation.
One
thing that really bothers me is there has been a lot of money made available
that we should have been able to access. It goes back to where did that money
go? It was stolen from us. There should actually be an inquiry as to what
happened to the monies that were designated for the North Coast of Labrador,
because we certainly didn't see it.
That's
electricity. Let's look at Newfoundland and Labrador vacant housing. Housing is
a huge crisis, because in Northern Labrador right now it costs $250,000 for the
building lot. Do you know something, too? The misinformation, the fallacy is
that we are there with our hand out asking for a lot of Newfoundland and
Labrador Housing. I talked about it in the past; we don't actually have, on the
North Coast in my communities, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing units.
But I do
have to say in all fairness for this minister that's responsible for Housing;
he's actually working to get something done. It may not be as fast as we want,
there may be some delays, but I have to say, I went over across to his desk
earlier today and I told him, I said I can't help but have respect for you,
Minister, the Minister of CSSD who's responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador
Housing, because, I tell you something, he actually is trying to get something
done.
I would
have liked to have seen him be the Minister of CSSD since this Liberal
government got elected in 2015, because I think we probably wouldn't even have
to have that inquiry that we're going to have now for the Innu children. I don't
even think it would have went through all the things that the Child and Youth
Advocate had to do on behalf of the Inuit children. Because if we had a minister
over there that was actually working to solve problems, it may have made a
difference, honestly. I'm not going to even bother to continue on with that one.
But what
is impacting housing is the ability to get the materials up.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind
the hon. Member that her time has expired.
L. EVANS:
Thank you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Burin
- Grand Bank.
P. PIKE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a
pleasure to stand in this hon. House today and as well to be part of this
debate. It is also a pleasure to be here representing the beautiful District of
Burin - Grand Bank.
Cost of
living is an issue for all of us, Mr. Speaker. Some of the Members over on the
other side are saying we're not hearing it, but we are. When we go to our
districts, we hear it. We hear about the price of food, the price of gas and so
on.
As a
matter of fact, yesterday, I went into a local gas station on the Burin
Peninsula, I happened to be out for a funeral of a friend of mine, and the boys
were there chatting, as you do. As soon as I went in they said, there he is,
give him the gears on the gas. I mean, that's the reality of it. We take it.
It's having an impact on everyone. But we also have to realize that it's a
global issue and that's hard to explain. It's a global issue. There's a crisis
in Ukraine, and supply and demand for gas and oil is, certainly, at an all-time
high.
I think,
Mr. Speaker, that the cost of living has also been a priority for this
government. This government has done a lot, within their means, to address this
issue. You have to acknowledge the fact that we are doing so – and I am not
going to poke any fingers or try to get any brownie points for us over here or
poke fun at you, but there is a $500-million bill each year that we have to take
care of.
I was
really surprised with the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port, in listening
to his address to the House today. He always does an excellent job, but today he
mentioned that he would take the $67 million for jobs in the provincial
government and pass that money out. I find that troubling, because we need those
jobs filled and we need people working in them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
P. PIKE:
We have done a lot with the
Income Supplement, and we've done the Seniors' Benefit. We're helping 160,000 in
the Income Supplement; 150,000 individuals and families and 50,000 seniors for
the Seniors' Benefit. To me, that has gone a long way. As you say, when you go
out to the district and you're listening to people, you'll get that feedback as
well. So it's not all negative.
I wanted
to touch on mental health, because we are doing a lot of work in that area
through Bridging the Gap, 811 and in-person visits and so on through Doorways.
Back a
few years ago, three years ago, there was a crisis in the District of Burin -
Grand Bank. At that time, the Grand Bank mayor was on the airwaves and on TV
talking about the fact that they had a number of suicides in their community.
People were actually scared; the town didn't know where to turn. So from that,
government was able to do pilot projects on the Burin Peninsula. I'm happy to
say that on the Burin Peninsula now Doorways operates in St. Lawrence, Grand
Bank, Burin-Marystown and down north in Placentia West. A wonderful program,
walk-ins are welcome and it's open daily.
There
are great things happening in the province. I just wanted to say that because if
there are problems in your area, there are people out there and government
support, as well, to establish these types of programs. Again, the 811, from
people in my district, it's working. So I'm pleased to say that as well.
I had a
number of topics that I wanted to talk about; one of them was Come Home Year. I
think we all agree – or probably not – that Come Home Year is a great thing. For
rural Newfoundland – my district is all rural – we are certainly looking forward
to welcoming home people that haven't been able to get home in the last three
years.
Towns
are planning events; if you want to look at some examples of what's going on in
the province, just look at my hometown, St. Lawrence, and look at what events
they have planned. Ten days, with something every day. There's a town in my
district as well, St. Bernard's, that want to put infrastructure in place for
Come Home Year, but this infrastructure will be there forever and a day. It's a
campground, concert area, located on a pond, a beautiful thing. All part of us
taking the initiative – and I mean us, both sides – to invite people home, to
put money into these Come Home Year celebrations, to develop trails, to do all
these things.
One of
my favourite Come Home Year activities, and we have them in my hometown, every
four to five years, is we close off the main street in town and we have a
walkabout for a couple of hours every day. So no vehicles permitted, and the
downtown area in St. Lawrence, people walk up and down, greeting each other.
It's a wonderful, wonderful, wonderful event. You see people you haven't seen in
years.
It
certainly brings a lot of money into the province, but as well, in communities
on the South Coast where my district is, the population doubles for that 10
days. It actually doubles. So the last Come Home Year, I think we went from
1,200 to 2,400 and what that did for local businesses was fantastic. And it will
bring millions of dollars into our provincial economy, and also will help the
local businesses.
The
other item I just wanted to touch briefly on today was the sugar tax. Now, I
know a lot of people disagree with that, but I agree with it. Personally, I am
not saying I agree with it because you agree with it or you agree with it or you
agree with it. I agree with it because I was an educator. I spent 41 years in
education and I remember back 20 years ago in school cafeterias trying to bring
in healthy food choices for menus and so on. It was a battle – it was a battle.
But to try and get rid of french fries, french fries, french fries, french fries
and sugar-enhanced drinks was something that was tough to do, but we did manage
to do it. It took a year, but we did manage to do it.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Without a tax.
P. PIKE:
Oh yeah, without a tax. But I
think – let me finish – that a tax will discourage people from buying sugary
drinks because if you can get a non-sugary drink at a cheaper price. That's all.
I see that as something very positive and I think it is important to create a
culture of healthy foods and so on.
I'll end
by saying that from the sugar tax, if we are all hearing correctly, we're going
to put that back into school programs, like the breakfast programs and so on. We
are going to do that with it. Let me tell you, I was a volunteer in my community
for years serving breakfast to children, and I tell you they come in, they're
hungry and they want to eat.
Anyway
my time is up.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
Thank you, Speaker.
Excited
to be able, again, to have 10 minutes to speak on behalf of the residents of the
District of Bonavista. I have a lot to pack in in 10 minutes, so I am going to
speak as quickly and succinctly as I possibly could, and I know that may be new
for me.
Stronger, smarter and more sustainable Newfoundland and Labrador – 100 per cent.
I agree wholeheartedly. That is all our goal is to make that. I want to speak
specifically to Bonavista, the District of Bonavista, but I want to follow up on
a couple of comments that were made by the Minister of Transportation and
Infrastructure when he spoke this morning. He had a good address this morning
and he will have no problem that I would disagree with some of the things that
he had stated.
Number
one would be, as my colleague from Exploits has said, I strongly disagree with
the Premier opening an office in Central Newfoundland for around a quarter of a
million dollars, and I'm sure it's not only one year, it's probably three years.
So while my colleague from Exploits says that we've got $250,000. I would assume
that this office is in place for 2025, which would be three years. Again, we're
talking about $1 million as opposed to $250,000.
Another
thing I would say with very little experience, if I read the Code of Conduct for
Members of the House of Assembly, number 8: “In performing their official
duties, Members will apply public resources prudently and only for the purposes
for which they are intended.” And
number 10: “Members should have regard to the duty of public service employees
to remain politically impartial while carrying out their duties.” Enough said on
that office.
The hon.
minister also said government is not taking doctors out of rural Newfoundland –
not government's fault. Let me give you an example and just see if you would see
a point of view that might be, respectfully, other than that.
Bonavista hospital serves about 8,000 people. Quality of Care NL does statistics
on health in Newfoundland and Labrador and it's compiled and led under the
mentorship and leadership of Dr. Pat Parfrey. So he compiles all this medical
data. In that publication, it states that the regions with the highest
proportions of persons greater than 65 years of age – one of the four mentioned
is the Bonavista Peninsula. Those are the residents which I serve.
If I add
another statistic on the hospital in Bonavista, because some of you may be
thinking now, well, you can't keep health care in areas that there's no need, or
there's low population. Well, it serves 8,000 people. Of all the health care
centres in Newfoundland and Labrador, the emergency in Bonavista saw 156 Level
1, Level 2 situations, which Level 1 would be resuscitation and Level 2 would be
emergent. The highest number in health care centres. Now, keep in mind, not
hospitals but health care centres. The amount of visitations to the emergency in
health care centres was second only to Twillingate at 10,443.
When the
minister says government does not take out doctors from rural Newfoundland, but
let me tell you one stipulation that happened. They changed that hospital in
Bonavista, with those statistics that are provided by Dr. Parfrey, they changed
the emerg from a category A to a category B. You might say what difference does
that make? The difference in the emergency room for an emergency physician would
be a loss of 60 per cent of their wages in Bonavista compared to neighbouring
Clarenville or other A hospitals.
So if we
realize the impact that making Bonavista which would be the indicators through
Dr. Parfrey's Quality of Care NL statistics, that made a significant difference
to maintaining doctors in Bonavista, that one decision by government. Did it
effect physicians in Bonavista? It sure did.
I would
say, there are people in Bonavista looking and saying there are lens of which we
make decisions and choices in our budget and in our government that sometimes
does not always reflect rural Newfoundland well. It may be urban Newfoundland
but it may not represent rural Newfoundland well.
An
example, in 2019, the current government decided to close the Advanced
Education, Skills and Labour office in Bonavista. Cost saving: they moved the
employees to Clarenville, an hour and a half away. Statistics would show that
the greatest number of residents visiting any AESL office in the province was in
Bonavista. So we pulled the office out of Bonavista, we moved it to Clarenville,
which would be a two hours and forty-five minutes round trip.
People
cannot now access, because their goal was to do it via technology, move into
technology, which is a noble pursuit, but many of these people don't have
technology. They need an office to visit. So what they do now, with space
available at the College of North Atlantic in Bonavista, lots of available space
which is already being covered by the government, we send down these workers now
to Bonavista once every two weeks to serve the constituents of the office that
closed up.
These
are the decisions, I would think, that government has to be accountable for and
what our job would be is to raise them in the House of Assembly in order to
debate them and discuss them.
So two
decisions that greatly affect the residents in the District of Bonavista, in an
area where, once you leave the top of the district to the bottom of the
district, the household income drops by 40 per cent. The people can least afford
it. We've impacted and made two decisions that greatly impact the residents of
the District of Bonavista – two decisions. So when we say they're not causing
the removal of doctors or impacting rural Newfoundland, then they certainly are.
Just to
clue up in the last couple of minutes. For the thousands watching now in the
District of Bonavista, they're going to look and they may have missed the
late-night talk last night where I talked about the fishery. We had a good
debate and a good discussion where we stated that if we only controlled the seal
predation problem, we can grow the fishery, earn more money for government and
be able to supply and give people a break and improve our bottom line. And I
would think most people listened. I think all listened. But I think most people
probably particularly tuned in that they may want to hear more or to explore
more.
I just
want to share with you some statistics from DFO that I didn't get to last night.
In 1994, 4.8 million harp seals consumed approximately 1.1 million metric tons
of capelin and 142,000 metric tons of Atlantic cod. Keep in mind, we're around
14,000 metric tons is what we harvest. Just think of that. But those were
figures back in 1994.
The 2019
census says now there are 7.6 million harp seals, DFO states, and those numbers
are estimated that they consume 1.7 million metric tons of capelin each year and
224,000 metric tons of cod. What a difference from 1994 to 2019. Think of the
seven years of inaction, how much of marketable product that we didn't land in
our plants that ought to have been landed. We ought to have been able to get
some financial reprieve from it.
I look
forward to my next speaking time, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER (Bennett):
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Thank you, Speaker.
I am
going to stand and have a few words on this very important PMR here today just
to raise the issue. There is a thing that is a bit concerning to me, and I have
been around for a while with it, is that the Opposition and I am sure a couple
of Members does it also – they may do it quietly, but the Opposition are here to
raise issues. And the issues that are being raised are what they hear from their
constituents to pass on.
What is
concerning to me is that when the government changes the PMR, which will be
approved because they have the majority, it's going to change it to reflect that
we all support it after changing the PMR. So they don't want to hear it. The
minister stood up and made some amendments and it goes “beyond those included”
to “including but not limited to those.” What the Opposition, the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port, put in there was “urge the government” and the
government got substituted “support the government's efforts.” They don't even
want to hear it.
And when
you do that kind of thing it is almost like saying, okay, let's just close her
down. Everybody in this House has got to support what is happening. Why do you
need to do that – why do you need to do that? The role of the Opposition is to
bring up some very serious issues. Like, I know, myself – if there's no one in
this House not hearing about the high cost of gas, oil, they are just living in
a dream world. When you bring it up and when you got the cost of heating oil,
then you've got the cost of food that has gone up, then you have got many other
costs that's gone up to get it here – your medication and other things.
This is
what this PMR was for: to have a debate and what else we can do as a government
– as the Legislature. Not as a government. We are not government but, as the
Legislature, what else can we do?
So
instead of standing up and saying, okay, nothing we can do and here are the
reasons why or, yes, there are things we can do, what suggestions do you have
that we could bring forth to change the PMR to say we all support what
government is doing – there is no one criticizing government saying that you're
not in a tough bind – absolutely. I haven't heard that on this side. I haven't
heard anyone from the government side say that, but what we are saying is: Are
there any other solutions to help people out in Newfoundland and Labrador? \
That is
what you are asking. That is what this PMR is for: to have a debate on issues.
Have debate on some issues that we're going to bring forth that are going to
help the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That's what PMRs are for. There
are some things that can be done. There are definitely some things that can be
done. I know the minister's in a tough bind; I don't doubt that one bit.
But when
we had COVID – and I'll just go back to the COVID days – and everything was
uncertain, we always found funds that we could help out to keep things moving.
Now, mainly because the war in Ukraine – and God bless the people in Ukraine –
the price of oil has gone up which brings everything else up.
So if
we're into extraordinary circumstances around the world, which is affecting
Newfoundland and Labrador and which is affecting the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador, why can't we look at something extraordinary to help out the
residents? We did it during COVID. The federal government did it on a regular
basis. The provincial government did it on a regular basis.
So the
question is: Why can't we have a healthy debate on that in this Legislature
instead of trying to change it? Because if you think that people aren't affected
by the gas prices, oil prices, food prices, medical, there is just something
wrong. By not acknowledging that, there is a problem.
Rent is
another thing. For example, there are people with low income who are in a rental
unit who have to pay for the heat and light and rent has gone up, heat and light
are going to go up. It is getting to a point of crisis; I'm serious. I'm not
going to harp on government and say, b'ys, you have to do this and this, but I
hear it on a regular basis.
We're
fortunate. The people in this Legislature are fortunate. We do make a
half-decent living and, over the years, some of us are a bit older, but we did
find ways. I can say there are a lot of people struggling. There are a lot of
people struggling and that is what we have to recognize here. By changing the
PMR to say that we support the government initiative, when in fact we're trying
to give suggestions of what we can do.
We did
it back in 2016, when we had a very drastic budget. I was part of it; I take
ownership of it, no problem. But we found some way then to bring in funds that
would help the low income; we did it then. I'm sure we could do more now. I'm
sure we could do it now. We did it back in 2016, even with that drastic budget
that we brought in. But we made sure that we took a certain amount of funds and
that we put it to the low-income earners of the province, and seniors, of the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have a lot more funds now than we had
in 2016 to be able to do that. We do.
So this
is the idea of the PMR, is that oil and gas and other things – I can see that
there's going to be other speakers trying to get up also to speak on the PMR.
What I'm going to do, I'm going to sit down and let one or two of the Members
from the Opposition, where the PMR came from, so they can have time, to sit down
and give them the courtesy of having a few words to support their own PMR.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to rise in this House and represent the people of the beautiful
District of Gander, as well as the Department and portfolio of Health and
Community Services.
I think
the issue of the cost of living has been addressed during Question Period, and
on other occasions in budget debate thus far very ably by my colleague from the
Department of Finance and President of Treasury Board. But I think it is only
fair to say on record that there is significant investment in this budget and
prior to the budget that addresses the issue of the cost of living.
Everyone
naturally is exercised by the fluctuating price of gasoline. I think one of the
things that is always difficult to convey, and indeed I didn't understand it
fully until a couple of years ago, is that oil prices and gasoline prices are
not directly connected.
One is
the raw material for the other, but the pricing of one doesn't rise and fall in
concert with the price of oil. I think it's very difficult for people to kind of
understand that, but the other piece around that is people feel that because we
have our own oil field sitting off the coast, that somehow we should be in a
better position. We do get significant revenues from that, and indeed have had
even greater revenues, a fact I addressed in the scrum area earlier on today,
and how they were spent or not spent over the course of previous years.
In terms
of the oil and gasoline market, it's a global market. It's vertically
integrated; the same people who own the wells actually own the oil refineries.
Oil refineries are highly specialized and each requires a certain type of crude
oil, and the products that they produce depend on the products that go in. So
that is the disconnect.
The
budget as presented and some initiatives of the five-point plan go some way to
address the challenges over the short term and indeed the equivalent of the
gasoline tax, the province levies, the provincial portion, has more than been
repatriated through budget initiatives this year. The Minister of Finance has
outlined those in some detail.
Challenges remain: food; my colleague to my left as well as the current
incumbent in Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture have been great stimulators
through their department of a homegrown agricultural industry. The land under
cultivation here has doubled in a short period of time. It's on its way back to
the heights that one would have seen 30 or 40 years ago. Certainly, that will
make supply more reliable. Cost and quality will come along, too.
My own
interest in the PMR was really around the concept of mental health that was
raised in light of the strains and stresses of the cost of living. I think one
of the things we have to be aware of is the language that we use in this House.
There is a difference between mental health, as we understand it in the
Department of Health, and mental wellness.
Mental
wellness is something for all of us. Mental health is not necessarily a
challenge for all of us. It is that wellness, it is that resilience; it's that
ability to cope with day-to-day stresses that is baked in, to a large extent, to
the DNA of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We always talk about how resilient
we are as a province.
I think
one of the challenges that we see in youth is – particularly with the advent of
social media – that resilience is warn away. Parenting styles have changed;
families are more nuclear, often single. There's no extended family to provide
support for parents or children or grandchildren in the direct way that perhaps
when I grew up, albeit in a different culture with a different heritage, the
extended family was an integral part of that. That support is missing.
Because
of that, we have to use other tools and we have worked very closely, for
example, with the Department of Education. We have a transitioning youth group,
by transitioning I mean from 16 to 25 in terms of age, that awkward time when
you move from children to adult services, for example, should you require health
care. We are working closely to try and get an integrated service delivery model
for that.
Part of
that will be about resilience. We have Roots of Empathy, which the department
has funded for some years now, which is widespread in the school system. That is
to teach empathy, it is also to provide children and youth with tools to combat
the adverse effects of bullying, which has always been there. It was there in my
day, it was just a little bit more in your face and a bit more physical. Now,
it's on the phone and you can't escape it. It's an era that, in some respects,
I'm grateful I don't have to parent through directly. It's a real challenge.
And so
those elements of resilience and mental wellness have also received focus from
the Department of Health and Community Services. They were highlighted in
Towards Recovery. Given the fact that
a lot of youth, particularly, and a lot of us, spend our lives on our phones, we
have taken advice from experts such as New Zealand about electronic and virtual
ways of providing wellness.
Indeed,
I remember trying to promote here among my own colleagues a mindfulness app that
we purchased through the Department of Health, which is free to any
Newfoundlander and Labradorian. It's a 30-day mindfulness challenge and it
teaches things like relaxation, it teaches things like stress management, box
breathing and all that kind of good stuff. You have an exercise a day. I
remember doing it through the budget of 2016 or 2017, if I'm not mistaken, as we
sat into the evenings. And it was really – I found – very helpful.
What we
did was we've moved that into a suite and it's called Bridge the gapp. Those
were app based when it was originally brought out. It's now web based through a
portal. We have developed that way beyond its initial offerings. So there's a
whole suite there, it has a child area, it's got a youth area, it's got an adult
area and it's got ways to move further beyond that for virtual support and the
like.
We had
gone to New Zealand in 2015-2016 to see how they did it. Last year, in New
Zealand they invited us to tell them how it was done. That's the progress we've
made in virtual mental health in three years, Mr. Speaker. Not only did they
invite my team to go to New Zealand, who went and presented; they came away with
an international award from the eMental Health International Collaborative. A
first for Canada, done by Newfoundland and Labrador in the field of mental
wellness and step zero, step one of mental health.
I think
this again shows the focus that was brought with the
Towards Recovery report and then the 54-point action plan. I
reference some of the actions around that in earlier questions around the adult
mental health facility and these kind of things. There are no doubt challenges
that remain.
But for
the last little while I want to tie things together. We talk about mental health
and wellness as if somehow it is separate. It is not. You go back to the days of
Rome and Greece: mens sana in corpore sano is a Latin phrase, which is: a healthy mind in a healthy body.
We have
long promoted physical activity. We have long promoted wellness. And we need
that link to be re-established between physical well-being as a means to mental
well-being, too.
Colleagues across the way have berated the sugar tax; you can get healthier
drinks at a cheaper price and that will help you. It's a cost-of-living
initiative in reverse. You get the cheaper drink, which is better for you, than
the more expensive drink that is not.
I see my
time winds down, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues here have known over the past
and probably suffered, I can talk on these matters far longer than the 10
minutes allocated. It's a pleasure to get up and show what we have done with
mental wellness, not just mental health, and also to use this opportunity to
congratulate the director of mental health and addictions in the department for
winning an international award, the first in Canada.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Grand
Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
C. TIBBS:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
First of
all, I'd like to say, do you know what? People watching at home, they see us
back and forth sort of thing. I'd like to say, there's no ill will in this House
towards anybody at all. In fact, we do work together sometimes. There's not a
person over on that side that I wouldn't sit down and have a beer with any day
of the week, and many Members I have and I enjoyed it and I enjoyed our
conversation.
When my
colleague from Port au Port stood up earlier and talked about the $67 million
that is set aside each year trying to fill positions, do you know what? We hope
those positions get filled that need to get filled. But if we take 25 per cent
of that money – just 25 per cent by my calculations – and we put that back into
some sort of a home heating rebate, that would give 17,000 families $1,000 each
to help with their home heating over the winter. And I guarantee you that 25 per
cent and more will be there in the next budget. So it can be done. I love my
job, but the one thing I hate about my job and being a politician is the
politics. I really do hate it sometimes. I know a lot of people hate it here as
well.
There's
not a minister over there that doesn't work hard; I know that they do. There's
not a Member over here that doesn't work hard; I know all of us work as hard as
we possibly can. I get that. But I sit back and I think to myself, the people at
home that watch us every single day, that follow it in the media, want to give
you a scenario. What if the Minister of Finance said this afternoon we are going
to amend this budget? Because 17,000 families that could get $1,000 each over a
year for their home heating rebate, that's a fantastic idea. We are going to
amend our budget and we're going to ensure that those 17,000 families get that
$1,000 home heating rebate. That would show the people of the province that we
worked together and they would be shocked, but they would be happy, I guarantee
you.
I don't
see any reason why we can't do that. Why the government can't say that's a
fantastic idea, let's do that; let's try that this year, because I guarantee you
that money will be there again next year.
The
Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, today, he talked about when he
went down to his district and he talked to some people that are A-okay; they're
doing fine. In Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans, I have people that are A-okay,
doing fine. I don't talk to them; they don't talk to me. They're okay. Everybody
here have those people in their districts, too.
On
International Firefighters' Day – I'll use a firefighter as an example – you
never see a firefighter going into a house that's not on fire, doesn't have any
smoke, because there's no reason for them to be there. So we're not running
towards people that A-okay, they're doing fine, their everyday life is
hunky-dory sort of thing. Just as a firefighter would run towards smoke and
fire, politicians should be running towards where the most help is needed at the
time. The pictures, the photographs, the ribbon cuttings, you know what? I get
it; it's all part of it probably. But how Preston Pardy sat on a stretcher for
nine days in Grand Falls-Windsor hospital and then sat out to the Health
Sciences for another 14 days without any help, and he's been in the media for
the past month, not a minister, not a Premier, nobody reached out to that young
man to say we're doing the best that we can. Our thoughts are with you; maybe
I'll even come down and visit you.
I talk
to the man every second day. Now, I know there are time constraints and stuff
like that; I get it. But maybe we need to start running towards the smoke and
fire a little bit more as politicians, not away from it, because that seems to
be the way it is sometimes, and it's not good enough.
Again,
we all have people in our districts that are doing A-okay. We don't hear from
those people and I am glad. The more of those people that I have in my district
the happier I would be because I know they are happy as well. But we have got to
start running towards the smoke and the fire because that is where we are
needed. We are not needed for the photo ops. We are not needed for the ribbon
cuttings, and I get it. And you know what? If we sit over there one day, I'll be
doing it too, but you've got to pick up the slack on the other end as well, and
that is what we are asking for.
The
Member for Burin - Grand Bank, first of all, I want to thank him for his 41
years in the education system. Thank you very much, Sir. That is absolutely
amazing. That deserves a round of applause, definitely.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
C. TIBBS:
He talked about 811 and
Doorways, of course, for mental health. Fantastic programs and they have helped
a lot of people in my district as well and I thank those people who work in
those programs. Unfortunately, those are for emergencies, unless they are going
to go to the ER or they are for the one-time visit. The follow-ups are what we
are talking about.
So,
unfortunately, a lot of people who are using these systems and these programs,
the follow-ups can be two years out. That's not good enough because, of course,
your mental health can absolutely nosedive within two years, or a year or a
month or sort of thing.
It is
definitely something that needs to be addressed. The one-time visit it is great
and we want to save as many lives as we possibly can but as the cost of living
rises, the mental illness will rise with it as well and that is exactly what we
are talking about.
I know
that the fiscal restraints are in place and I get it. It's not an easy job for
anybody here. Do you know what? I empathize with the ministers and trying to do
their job. I really, really do, but at the end of the day when the Member for
Port au Port raises this number and gives an awesome, fantastic idea, I would
expect the Minister of Finance to at least dig into her department and say: Can
this be done? Can we take 25 per cent of this money, this slush fund or whatever
anybody wants to call it – I heard that term thrown around today – can we take
25 per cent of that, re-evaluate it back into the budget and give 17,000
families that truly need it in this province a home heating rebate? I think it
can be done and if can't be done, then maybe the Minister of Finance can come
back and say, I am sorry it can't be done but we looked into the department and
we tried.
I think
it is ideas like that that we need to start including and if we show the people
of the province that we can work together, especially with things like this, my
God, they would be shocked. But it would be a start and it would be a great
start.
My
colleague from Exploits spoke a little while ago about the Premier's office. Are
we done in five seconds?
AN HON. MEMBER:
No, just keep going.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
You are
going to give back some of your time?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Yes.
SPEAKER:
Okay.
C. TIBBS:
Two minutes.
Talked
about the Premier's office. Listen guys, I think that we all do the best job
that we possibly can. I'm going to call it for like it is. A lot of people
throughout our districts think it's two things: It's myself and the Member for
Exploits is there, and now we have a Conservative MP there as well. You know
what? We can do a great job out there. We've been doing a great job. I know the
Member for Exploits is doing a great job. I try to do the best job I can as
well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
C. TIBBS:
So we get together, we do
these jobs. At any given time, the Premier can reach out to me. He truly can. He
has my phone number. If he reached out to me, I know that we can work together.
I truly believe that we can. I would love to work with the government to get as
many things for my district as I possibly can and I know they're needed here.
I'll
just touch on one more thing: the amendment. The amendment is to support instead
of urge. There are some thing there we support. When you register your car, they
cut that in half $180 to $90, fantastic.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Motor vehicle registration.
C. TIBBS:
Sorry, motor vehicle
registration, thank you. They cut that in half. Fantastic idea, it's going to
help a lot of people, and we're really happy about that. But what we are urging
are things like, one again the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port said, to
get out there, to look for more money to be allocated in different areas, which
will really help the people of the province. Because this budget does little to
nothing to really help the people of the province. Remember, the people of the
province have to live with this for another year. There are people in this
province that can't go on for another month and they have to swallow this for
another year.
I'm not
saying it's all bad because it's not, but if we could work together and this is
just one small example of what possibly can be done. Well, you know what? I
think we could show the people of the province that we are here to work
together, because these are unprecedented times of people hurting and people
suffering. We need to work together and we need to come up with new ideas.
I
commend the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port for bringing it up today, and
I thank him very much. I truly hope that the Minister of Finance goes back to
her department and says this can be done. They can take all the credit; I don't
care about that. But if we can do that, I think it will be a great time for the
people of the province.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'll
close out the debate. I want to thank everybody for their comments today. I do
want to make reference to some comments by my colleague from Burin - Grand Bank
when it comes to the public service. I spent more than 30 years working in the
public service. I have a great appreciation for the hard work that people in the
public service do. When we talk about the fact that there's $67 million not
spent last year, and $63 million not spent the year before and $50 million not
spent the year before in terms of recruitment, then that is a concern. That is a
concern as to why people do not want to join the public service.
I will
certainly have more questions for the Minister of Finance as to how she plans on
spending that $67 million this year, because I truly believe that will not be
spent and there are opportunities there to use that money in a purpose that will
help the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I also
want to talk about the amendment. So the amendment that has been put forward – I
understand it's government's right to amend this PMR and, in some ways, it's
good. I'm not opposed to this amendment. Because I want to read you out some of
the things with the new amended PMR.
It now
says: WHEREAS the cost-of-living crisis that is making life unbearable for
countless Newfoundland and Labrador individuals and families is worsening by the
day, to such a degree that it requires urgent relief measures. So the Members on
that side of the House agree with the Members on this side of the House. That is
good to see and I am pleased to see that.
And it
goes on to say: including but not limited to those in the government's 2022
budget plan. That gives me a sense that perhaps there is more to come. That
gives me a great anticipation that there's more to come. That's what it says
right here in your amended PMR and I look forward to it.
And then
it goes on: And WHEREAS during this Mental Health Week we must recognize that
the cost-of-living crisis is causing stress, anxiety and mental health issues
for many people, and action must be taken with greater urgency to ensure people
get financial relief as well as improved access to the long-term mental health
care they need without enduring excessive wait times.
I want
to thank the Member opposite for this amendment, because that's exactly what
we've been asking for. That's exactly what we've been talking about. So I'm glad
to see that you, on that side of the House, agree with us on this side of the
House.
And
finally: BE IT RESOLVED that this House continue to support the government's
efforts. We have always supported the government's efforts; we will continue to
support the government's efforts when they are good, when they do the right
things.
However,
let's keep going. These are your words.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
T. WAKEHAM:
To continue to support the
government's efforts to provide immediate – highlight that word – relief
measures, including but not limited to – again, what an outcome today. To hear
the government opposite say that their measures that they have in the current
budget are not limited to – there is more to come and so there is hope in this
Chamber this evening that there is more measures – we're not limited to what's
in the budget. There is more to come.
I want
to make sure that I get his title right, let me see if I can find him. The hon.
Member for Corner Brook – the hon. Minister of Immigration, Population Growth
and Skills, so now we can take his words he said on
Open Line the other day and say: everything is on the table.
Everything is on the table and now we have the PMR that government amended that
says not limited to what's in the budget. I am so delighted to hear that because
that, at the end of the day, gives us some idea that there will be more to come:
Including financial relief along with measures to improve access to mental
health care.
We
couldn't have written it better. Thank you that we now have hope. The people of
Newfoundland and Labrador have hope that government has recognized that more
needs to be done; that by supporting and amending this PMR, you have given the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador hope that there is more to come; that you
indeed are listening; that you will do something so that we're not going to be
known as having the highest fuel prices in North America or the highest home
heating fuel prices in North America. You are going to do something else.
Before
this budget gets passed, let us make that happen. You have the power to do it.
The people in Newfoundland and Labrador are waiting anxiously for things to
happen. So let's all agree: measures in the 2022 budget but not limited to.
There is more to come. So let's hope. Let's all have hope that you live up to
the words, to the written word that you put forward today; as you put it
forward, bring it home.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
T. WAKEHAM:
CHANGE is in the air.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
T. WAKEHAM:
CHANGE is in the air.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
T. WAKEHAM:
You are going to change your
budget to reflect the needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
CHANGE is in the air. Amen, brother.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
T. WAKEHAM:
Amen to that.
On that
note, I will sit down.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
All
those in favour of the amendment, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
amendment is carried.
On
motion, amendment carried.
SPEAKER:
All those in favour of the
amended resolution, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion
carried.
On
motion, resolution, as amended, carried.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker, to the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port for his arousing speech
this afternoon. I'm sure we will hear more about today's PMR.
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that this House
do now recess until 5:30 p.m.
SPEAKER:
This House do stand recessed
until 5:30 p.m. this evening.
May 4, 2022
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. L No. 48A
The
House resumed at 5:30 p.m.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
Are the
House Leaders ready?
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, first reading of Bill 57.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, for leave to introduce a bill
entitled, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Savings Plans Act And The Pension Plans
Designation Of Beneficiaries Act, Bill 57, and I further move that this bill be
now read a first time.
I think,
Mr. Speaker, I did that in the wrong spot this afternoon, earlier.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded the
hon. Government House Leader have leave to introduce a bill, Bill 57, and that
the said bill now be read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion
carried.
Motion,
the hon. Minister of Digital Government and Service NL to introduce a bill, “An
Act To Amend The Income Tax Savings Plans Act And The Pension Plans Designation
Of Beneficiaries Act,” carried. (Bill 57)
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Income Tax Savings Plans Act And The Pension Plans Designation Of Beneficiaries
Act. (Bill 57)
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 57 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 call
from the Order Paper, Motion 7.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I will
not take a lot of time on this motion, but, Mr. Speaker, I will start off debate
on the debate on this this evening by proposing an amendment.
SPEAKER:
Mover and seconder first,
please.
S. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Deputy Government House Leader, Motion 7.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I was
getting ahead of myself.
Mr.
Speaker, I'll start debate on this motion this evening by actually offering an
amendment.
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that this
resolution be amended as follows:
In the
second recital, by deleting the word “business” and substituting the word “clear
sitting,” and by deleting the third recital and substituting instead of the
following;
AND THAT
the Speaker is ordered to appoint a mediator to assist the parties to resolve
the matters described in the report;
AND THAT
the mediator appointed by the Speaker shall, within seven clear sitting days,
report to this House;
AND THAT
if the House is not then in session, the mediator's report may be tabled as if
it were a report under section 19.1 of the
House of Assembly Act;
AND THAT
where the mediator finds that a resolution of the matter cannot be achieved due
to unwillingness of the MHA for Humber - Bay of Islands to comply with a
reasonable requirement of the Commissioner for Legislative Standard and that as
a result the Member's statutory obligations are still outstanding, the Member
for Humber - Bay of Islands shall, as of the date of the tabling of the
mediator's report, be suspended from the House of Assembly in accordance with
paragraph 45(1)(c) of the House of
Assembly Act;
Therefore, the amended resolution would read as follows:
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 clear
sitting days of the adoption of this resolution;
AND THAT
the Speaker is ordered to appoint a mediator to assist the parties to resolve
the matters described in the report;
AND THAT
the mediator appointed by the Speaker shall, within seven clear sitting days,
report to this House;
AND THAT
if the House is not in session, that report may be tabled as if it were a report
under section 19.1 of the House of
Assembly Act;
AND THAT
where the mediator finds that the resolution cannot be achieved due to
unwillingness by the MHA for Humber - Bay of Islands to comply with the
reasonable requirements of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards, and as a
result the Member's statutory obligations are still outstanding, the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands shall as, of that date of the tabling of the mediator's
report, be suspended from the House of Assembly in accordance with paragraph
45(1)(c) of the House of Assembly Act;
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 referred to in the report have been met.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
This House will now recess to
review the proposed amendment.
Recess
SPEAKER:
Are the House Leaders ready?
Order, please!
I
have reviewed the proposed amendment and I find that the amendment is in order.
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I
am happy the amendment is in order.
Thank you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
thank the Government House Leader for the amendments. I just want to make it
quite clear; first, I apologize to the people of the province because we have a
lot more issues to discuss than this, as I have said before. But there are times
that you must stand on principle and this is one of the times.
How
can anybody in this House – anybody – Liberal, PC, independent, NDP, anybody –
let an Officer of the House who is in a civil suit – forget what's going on with
the civil suit – have a privacy breach and still have to deal with the Member
after asking the person on at least 10 occasions, maybe more if I go back –
assign it to somebody else?
This was the crux of it all, and actually I won't do it now because there is no
need. I even had a certificate of dissolution of the company 10 years ago to
show we don't owe a company. My spouse doesn't own the company. But to have to
come in this House and do that is pretty sad. I have been in this House now
20-something years. I
think twice I had to withdraw statements in 20-something years.
To have
to come into this House, and on principle, go through what I had to go through
to get this, which I asked right back at the beginning, probably in September,
October, to hand it off to somebody else. Then have the process go through
whereby I'm forced to give it to him in front of someone who he tried to expose
as a government employee, ended up being his private lawyer. Then say that he
couldn't get a certificate of conduct because I was past the 60 days, which he
never even gave me the information to file and then putting in a report.
I don't
care if you're Liberal, PC, NDP – this is where you have to make people
accountable. When you won't give a Member a certificate of conduct because
you're gone past 60 days, supposedly, because of his negligence not giving you
it. And admitting that there are others here but I'm not going to bother them,
they're all right, I'm not going to bother them.
So it is
obvious – it is very obvious, I'm not going to belabour this point anymore. The
only thing that I will say to all the Members of the House of Assembly is it
could happen to anybody. It happened to me back in 2018, and I won't get into
who said what, but I can tell you, the Minister of Energy – I don't even know
the department – Andrew Parsons.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Industry, Energy and
Technology.
E. JOYCE:
Industry, Energy and
Technology, Andrew Parsons, went outside this House of Assembly and said to the
media that the Officer of the House of Assembly made false statements at the
meeting of the IEC and made false statements to the Management Commission. He
went out publicly and said he made false statements because he couldn't answer
them in the House. And do you know what was done? Zero. Zero.
And the
person who asked the question was the Deputy Premier. She is shaking her head;
she asked the question. Did Members participate? The Officer of the House, at
the time – and this is where it all started – he said one refused to
participate. The Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology went and said who
was it? And he said Eddie Joyce refused to participate. I've produced a letters
where I asked for meetings.
This is a lesson for all of us, by the way. When that was confirmed, publicly,
that the statement was false, do you know what was done? Zero. That's why Andrew
Parsons walked out of this House and went on. The Member for Baie Verte – Green
Bay came over to me. He was walking away and I said no, don't ruin your career
over me. If they're not going to do it, they're not going to do it. And he stuck
with it, too.
But
when you have a Member saying that it's different. So my thing here tonight is
whoever is involved with this thank you very much for getting this done. This is
what I have been asking for, for the longest time, to make sure that my
obligations as a Member of the House of Assembly is completed, it is done and it
is done properly. I won't go any further on any more details of the report
itself, but I just ask the people – all Members of this House – if there is
someone answerable to this House of Assembly, let's make them answerable to this
House of Assembly so we don't have to go through this again.
Thank you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just for the record, I just can't let this go and say nothing. Mr. Speaker,
first of all, I, too, acknowledge that some of our colleagues, I think, got
together from both sides and came up with this amendment. I certainly – not just
for the Member who can speak for himself, but I think on behalf of us all –
think it was the right thing to do. I'm glad to see that, in the end, all
Members stuck together to some degree to try to make this situation, I guess, as
palatable as it can be. I acknowledge that and thank everyone who was involved
in doing it. Not for the Member, per se, although I am glad that it is getting
addressed for him, but for all of us because it sets a precedent of how matters
are handled or should be handled in this House of Assembly.
Now, with that said, there are a couple of points that I do want to re-emphasize
and I raised this the other day but, again, for the record, for
Hansard. The first point I think needs to be said in all of this is
that regardless of what's in the report, regardless of the personalities
involved, the reality of it is that this particular Member, who has a civil
litigation against the person who was issuing this report, this Member has a
privacy breach
investigation against the person who issued this report. How can anybody in this
House of Assembly tell me this is not a conflict of interest? How could there
not be a conflict? Just think about it for a second. I've got a person here who
I'm taking to court –
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I'm
going to ask the Member to stay relevant to the amendment to the motion, or to
the actual report.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Speaker.
Well,
Mr. Speaker –
SPEAKER:
I granted the Member a little
bit of lenience, as he was being impacted, but I ask you to stay relevant.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
trying very hard to stay relevant to this matter. It's all tied together because
it's about the same two individuals. It's what got us here; it's what started
this report to begin with.
The fact
of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, is that clearly not only should we be utilizing –
well, right now, in this amendment we're talking about utilizing a conciliator,
which I agree is the right thing to do, and I think the Member himself has said
he's satisfied with that.
But
given the fact that we have these other two outstanding matters, my point is
that the Commissioner for Legislative Standards should have recused himself. The
minute that he was served and saying that I'm taking you to court, he should
have recused himself. He should have assigned someone else in his office to say
I'm going to look after the other 39 Members, you look after this Member.
Because clearly there is either a real or certainly perceived conflict of
interest. A lot of this stuff is sort of a judgment call.
A lot of
these things here, in terms of what he's going to ask for – and as we seen, the
Member had pointed out in this report, to be relevant, that one of the points he
made was that he didn't give him the information within the 60 days. While, at
the same time, there were other Members in this House who did the very same
thing and, oh, that's okay with you; don't do it again. That's okay. But for
this particular Member, he was the only one that was treated differently.
So you
have to ask yourself, why would he be singled out? Why would he be treated
different than other Members? Given the fact that this is sort of a judgment
call, and what he asked for, and how he deals with this. So, one could, I think,
conclude that perhaps there was a built-in bias. There could have been a
built-in bias of the fact that this is the guy who has a litigation against me,
so I'm going to forgive these people over here, you, you and you, but shag him.
Now,
whether that's what happened, I definitely think that the perception could be
that's what happened. I definitely think that could be a perception and anyone,
I think, a reasonable person considering that matter and that circumstance would
say that is a real possibility.
I would
say that until these two matters are resolved, before the court and the Privacy
Commissioner, I would suggest that not just for this particular matter but any
further dealings that this Member has with that office should be through either
a conciliator or somebody else in that office, not the Commissioner for
Legislative Standards. It is fine to do this right now, but we have to put these
in every year and there are other things that come up. So I would say that until
the matters are resolved, this Member should not have to deal with that
individual any further, period. I think that is the sensible thing to do.
The
other point I want to make around this process, which I thought about, was, what
is our avenue for appeal as Members of this House? What avenue do we have for
appeal? Remembering that the Commissioner for Legislative Standards is all for
the House and he is supposed to report to us, not the other way around, but he
does have duties to carry out under the act.
So if in
carrying out those duties, as in this particular case, where he is saying one
thing and the Member is saying another thing; he is putting things in the report
that the Member didn't do and the Member who swore an Oath of Office, the same
as we all did, is standing up publicly in this House of Assembly and he is
contradicting things that were said and inferred and so on in these
investigations – there is obviously a conflict there somewhere. They both can't
be right; somebody has strayed away from exactly the facts of what happened.
I would
say, Mr. Speaker, looking at the bigger picture on an ongoing basis for not just
the Members of this House of Assembly but future Members, we do need to look at
that relationship between the Commissioner for Legislative Standards and this
House of Assembly and how will these things unfold in the future because, to the
best of my knowledge, we don't have any appeal.
So he
could put whatever he wanted in the report – not saying he did, but he could put
whatever he wanted in the report. It could be done in a biased manner as opposed
to an unbiased manner. There could be false information in there, false
interpretations, misleading information could be in there. If any Member of this
House says that's not what happened; that's not true; I swore an oath in office
and I'm standing up in this House of Assembly and I'm saying this is not true;
this didn't happen – who does he or she appeal that to? Who does the Member
appeal it to, to have this matter looked into? Nobody.
My
thought would be I could appeal it to the Members of the House of Assembly to
say this is what went on, this is not true or the Management Commission or
whoever the case might be, but the Management Commission has to be willing to
investigate it. It's fine to say yeah, the Management Commission, but they have
to have a majority of Members that are willing to investigate it. Of course, if
politics gets involved and everything else, for any reason, the majority might
say no, we're not going to investigate that. We're going to let that slide.
So I
think there should be an automatic – I think we need something in legislation
that says it shall be investigated. That if a Member has any kind of a dealing
with an Officer of this House, that is untoward, or reports are not being done
properly or they're not being treated fairly, it should not go to the Management
Commission, who have a majority, who could say no, we don't want to do that. The
rules should say they have to do it. The rules should say there shall be an
investigation by a third party.
So, in
this case, this mediator, whoever it is, it should automatically go to an
independent mediator that will do an investigation and will present it to the
Management Commission and to the House. Not on the discretion of the majority of
the committee, it automatically happens.
We need
some protection, because we don't have them right now. We don't have them right
now. Again, it's not just about this Member; it's about every Member in this
House. It's about making sure everybody is treated fairly and squarely, and it's
about accountability. I don't think that's unreasonable to ask for.
I can't
see how any Member in this House would not want to have a system in place that
ensures every one of us are treated fair and square and if, for some reason, we
feel that we were not treated fairly, that there's an automatic mechanism where
we can appeal that situation, have it investigated by an independent party who
could come back with a report to the House to say if indeed this Member has a
legitimate right or they don't. We don't have that right now. I think that's
something we should do.
Beyond that, I just wanted to put that out there for the record in fairness for
all of us. With that said, I will support the motion because I think the Member
has told me he has no problem complying now and, again, I thank whoever was
responsible for amending this to make it more palatable.
But
as we move forward, I really believe that the Management Commission or this
House needs to look at how these situations are dealt with and if we need to
update the policies or the rules around this kind of stuff to make sure
everybody is guaranteed to be treated fairly and squarely, then that's what we
need to do.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Seeing no other speakers to the amendment, shall the
amendment carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'
The
amendment is carried.
Back to the main motion, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I
will only take a couple on minutes but I think it is important to speak, I
guess, on behalf of our caucus, the Official Opposition. This issue is not new
to the House and by no means am I going to go back and revisit anything that is
– but I think probably the important point to make is, we will come into this
Legislature, we will not always agree. We're not always in agreement with one
another, we're not always on the same side, we can be very adversarial and
nothing is truer than government and Opposition.
But, I guess, on this situation, there was a lot of struggles going on. People
have their own issues because you are dealing with one Member, putting
everything else aside. We all stake our place and we are all held to a high
standard. MHAs are held to a very high standard, more than the average person,
and that is a lot of responsibility and sometimes we take it. We come in, we
sign the Oath of Office when we get elected and we walk away.
But
as recently as probably a week or two ago, and don't ask me why, but I actually
got reading. I went in and read our Oath of Office. I've done it three times
now, but we all should go in and read it again because it's really interesting.
One of our commitments is that we have to help the people of the province. Like
I said, I spoke earlier today when I said it earlier, but it is really written
there and it stuck with me. It's so true. It don't matter who you are, we are
all equals.
But
in this Legislature it is much the same. This is kind of a different club, as we
get our different routes and you're on a different stage, it's a different
platform, but, ultimately, we're all individuals trying to do the right thing.
We find different ways to get there.
The
Member for Humber - Bay of Islands is no different than myself from CBS, or any
of my colleagues. You can find yourself sometimes into difficult situations. But
to make a decision that you are probably not comfortable with; you are not
certain about; you have reservations. I know I'm a very principled person and I
think most of my colleagues are pretty well on the same page. You all struggle.
You're not picking one side over the other. You struggle with your principles,
your morals; you're trying to get it in your mind.
I don't
do this very often either, but I will throw a compliment out to my colleague,
the Government House Leader, and I know you're all kind of surprised, but I have
to give the man credit. I do give him credit and the Minister of Justice and
Public Safety and my colleague, the Deputy Opposition House Leader from Harbour
Main, and my colleague from Lab West. It was a combination of everyone in caucus
kind of working together. We have to try and find something to go forward; it's
not just for this individual. It's probably something to go forward. We need to
make improvements.
I think
we can all agree some of this stuff is pretty outdated. Some of the ways we do
business here is pretty outdated. I think we say that a lot of times in
confidence, sometimes in our Management Commission, or probably inside the hall
here. I think if there's anything you learn from this, and I'm reinforcing it
here now, I think we really have to sit down and make changes to some of this
legislation.
I know
the Clerk told me today, I asked one question, it's 30 years old. We're doing
our Elections Act. I think we need to look at a lot of things, because some of
this stuff, it doesn't fit into today's world.
So we're
committed to that, and I think my colleague, the Government House Leader, is
discussing it. I think he's committed to it, too, to do better because we're
talking about one individual today; that could be any of us next week. Until we
make the right changes and get this right, and that's not nothing to do with the
issue, the mediator will decide that, but it's the principle of what stage we're
on and how you can be exposed.
You
know, I guess, it's one thing we forget, I think all of us forget; I don't think
we forget it every day, but we have families. At the end of the day, we all have
families, we all have loved ones that rise and fall with every high and low we
go through. We'll only fall this much, they'll fall 10 times more than we'll
ever fall. They'll read the news one day and they'll say wow, why did this
person say that? They might turn on the station in here and say what are they
getting on with? I tells my mother not to watch it too much because that becomes
a problem.
But we
rise and fall; they go big time. We're used to this world. We rise to it. I'll
laugh, that's nothing mom, that's a part of the House. But on a serious note,
everybody have families. The Member for Humber - Bay of Islands has a family
home that cares about him; I have a family home that cares about me. So we need
to work together. We don't always come together as a happy group, but I think we
need to kind of learn from all this stuff and try to make things better for all
of us on a go-forward basis, on this issue and many other issues.
I do
commend the Government House Leader and thank all individuals who worked
together. I think we found a reasonable solution to an ongoing issue. Hopefully,
at the end of the day, it satisfies everyone's needs and everyone is happy and
we can move forward.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Seeing no other speakers,
shall the resolution carry?
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,
seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that this
House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider the
Estimates of the Legislature and the Executive Council.
SPEAKER:
The motion is that I do now
leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on
Supply to consider the Estimates for the Legislature and the Executive Council.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion
carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Warr):
Order, please!
Are the
House Leaders ready?
We are
now considering the Estimates of the Legislature.
CLERK:
The Legislature: 1.1.01
through 7.1.01 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 1.1.01 to 7.1.01
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 7.1.01 carried.
CLERK:
The total.
CHAIR:
Shall the total carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, Legislature, total heads, carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the Estimates
of the Legislature carried without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, Estimates of the Legislature carried without amendment.
CHAIR:
We are now considering the
Estimates of the Executive Council.
CLERK:
The Lieutenant-Governor's
Establishment, 1.1.01.
CHAIR:
Shall 1.1.01 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here this
evening and for my officials that are watching and participating as well. I will
say that we were doing various Estimates tonight and it is a little different
process. As people who are watching can tell, there are no officials here in the
Legislature with us. It is a Committee of the Whole and we will have questions
throughout this – both Government House, we'll have OCIO, the Women's Policy
Office and Labrador Indigenous Affairs, for example, because all of them fit
under the Office of the Executive Council, which provides whole of government
support. So we will go through the various Estimates. I know my colleagues have
many, many questions.
I
do want to point out because we are going to talk about Treasury Board and I do
want to say in Newfoundland and Labrador we have – I am going to get you the
exact number now – I think it is 7,345 employees. I am just getting you the
exact number – 7,237 core government positions – filled positions within
government and they are hard working. They are professional. They are incredibly
dedicated to providing the services to the people of the province and I think
all of us in this Legislature thank them for their efforts and certainly
appreciate what they do for the people of the province.
Then there are many more that do provide services in health care and education
and so on that are not part of core government but part of the civil service
overall. I know we want to thank them, recognize them and appreciate them. As we
move forward now, I want to say appreciation to Treasury Board and to Executive
Council for their guidance and support to the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador throughout the year. I know
many of them are participating and listening this evening to ensure that the
questions are answered fulsomely, so I thank them for their efforts.
On
that note, Mr. Chair, I will await the questions.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Subhead 1.1.01.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Chair.
Under the 1.1.01, Government House, the salaries amount last year went over
budget by $66,500. I suspect I probably know the answer to that because we had a
retirement, I believe. I was just wondering what makes up the type of positions
that would be included in this $600,000.
S. COADY:
Thank you for the question.
You
are indeed correct. There was a retirement payout last year. The slight increase for this year, coming into
'22-'23, is because of a slight salary increase that was across government last
year. There are 11 funded positions at Government House; 10 of which are filled,
at this point in time.
There
is, if I can use the term, a human resources evolution going on, refresh going
on at Government House, indeed across all of government, because there's a
requirement now for social media assistance and changes sometimes in the
positions.
But that
is the human resource component; there are 11 funded positions and 10 are
filled: private secretary, kitchen staff, residence staff and a gardener make up
the staff of the LG.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay, thank you.
S. COADY:
And we should recognize that,
I think it's three years ago yesterday, the first female Lieutenant-Governor was
sworn in.
T. WAKEHAM:
Happy anniversary.
S. COADY:
I think it was three years,
yeah.
T. WAKEHAM:
Wow. It's a good thing to
celebrate.
S. COADY:
Yes.
T. WAKEHAM:
Under the Purchased Service
heading there was an increase in expenditure there of approximately $3,900. I
was wondering what type of services were purchased.
S. COADY:
Yes, thank you very much for
the question.
There
was a new required copier and there was a backfilling of a chef. I understand
that the chef needed some support and backfilling of that position.
T. WAKEHAM:
So that would have been a
temporary position for Purchased Services?
S. COADY:
Yeah.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay, thank you.
I have
no further questions.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
Member for St. John's Centre.
J. DINN:
My apologies, I was going to
get Lela to fill in for me.
CHAIR:
Sorry?
J. DINN:
The Member for Torngat.
CHAIR:
Okay.
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
What headings are we at? I'm
just getting set up.
CHAIR:
We're on page 25 of the
Estimates schedule: Government House.
L. EVANS:
No questions on this section.
CHAIR:
No further questions?
L. EVANS:
No.
CHAIR:
Is the House ready for the
question?
Shall
1.1.01 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, subhead 1.1.01 carried.
CLERK:
Office of the Executive
Council: 2.1.01 through 2.8.03 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 2.1.01 to 2.8.03
inclusive carry?
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Chair.
Under
the Salaries for the Premier's Office, the salary budget for '22-'23 is expected
to increase to $1.7 million, which is an increase. I was wondering what
positions have been added and what they might be?
S. COADY:
Thank you very much.
Overall,
you'll see the Estimates total for the Premier's Office is actually slightly
increased this year, but overall down over the years. So if you go back five or
six years ago, I think the budget was over $2 million and now it's down to $1.9
million. If you look at in 2014-2015, I think it was over $2 million so we are
holding the line, as we are across government, we're holding the line on
expenditures.
There
are two new positions. We have talked about it in the House quite a number of
times and they are in Central Newfoundland and, again, it's enhancing the reach
of the Premier's office. You'll also appreciate, for the people that are
watching, there is an office on the West Coast with an employee on the West
Coast and there is also, of course, in Labrador the Office of Labrador Affairs
that is staffed. So there are specific offices throughout the province that
provide that kind of outreach for the Premier's office.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you.
We won't
debate the merits in this particular exercise.
Under
Transportation and Communications, again, the budget for that particular area is
being increased from an actual expenditure of $110,000 to a budgeted expenditure
of $189,000. I'm wondering how that number was determined.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much for the
question.
The
restated original budget is $132,000 and there is a slight increase of $57,000.
That is the Premier requires travel for national files to Ottawa, but also part
of national files because of the Council of the Federation. The Premier is also
assisting on some big files around health as well. It is trips to Labrador; you
can appreciate the Premier has been making sure that he visits Labrador on a
regular basis. I think he is very committed to reconciliation. It is also for
the Atlantic Premiers meetings. So, again, it is all about that relationship.
As you
know, he's also had to do some other travel within the province, as well as
other travel across the country. So we've increased that mostly because there
has been an overall increase in the cost of travel as well as requirements for
relationship building.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you.
Can you
also explain under Purchased Services, what the $14,900 is budgeted for?
S. COADY:
A very good question but let
me have someone get you the details of that. I'm getting a message very quickly.
Purchased Services are – just let me get a proper response for that and I'll
come back to you.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay.
I'll
move on, then, to 2.2.01 under Salaries, again. Last year, $2.2 million was
budgeted, $2.3 million was spent and this year the budget is again back to $2.2
million. I guess some clarification on just what exactly is going on there.
S. COADY:
Sure.
I'll be
happy to answer the other question while I do that. It's for general office
services, so things like printing, document management, copying, that type of
thing is under the Purchased Services.
Coming
to 2.2.01, Executive Support, the slight increase is because we've spent money –
I think I've mentioned in the House about a change team, a change desk. As you
know, we've talked about transformations and modernization across government.
We've consolidated a change desk that is providing support across government to
assist in those changes.
So that
is the difference in salary last year. We've been able to accommodate that
within the budget this year, but last year was when we started the change desk.
We have a change desk that we've put in place for our transformations and
modernizations, to support that activity.
T. WAKEHAM:
Under the Professional
Services category there's a budget of $12,500 and an actual expenditure of
almost $9.8 million. So can you provide a breakdown of how that $9.8 million was
spent, because the budget has gone back down to $12,500 again this year?
S. COADY:
Thank you for the question.
This is
indeed important. As you can appreciate, as money is spent it comes out of the
financial assistance budget of the Treasury Board and then into the appropriate
location, as it's being spent. The $5.2 billion rate mitigation, financial
restructuring required some professional services and that was just over $5
million. And, of course, the Rothschild report is the other big report that's in
there as well.
T. WAKEHAM:
So this is where the
Rothschild report was charged to?
S. COADY:
Correct.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay.
S. COADY:
And so both the Rothschild
and rate mitigation, we needed professionals –
T. WAKEHAM:
The lawyers' fees –
S. COADY:
The lawyers, accountants, the
professional services that were required to make sure that was done
appropriately.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay.
So are
all the expense related to the Rothschild report concluded now, or will we see
more expenses for Rothschild in this fiscal year?
S. COADY:
Thank you.
I'm not
sure if all the bills have been received. This was only worth $4.4 million in
this particular funding, so there may be an outstanding invoice. As you're
aware, we are now pausing, looking at that report, and if we require more
services, then it will be on a separate contract.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay.
So to
clarify, there's $4.4 million of that $9,794,700 –
S. COADY:
$4.461 million, yeah.
T. WAKEHAM:
That's related directly to
the Rothschild and the others are related to the rate mitigation lawyer's and
accountant's fees.
S. COADY:
Correct.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay, one more on this area.
Under
the Purchased Services category, again, we had a budget of $103,000, we spent
$117,000, but we're going down again this year. I just wonder what the $117,000
was spent on.
S. COADY:
Just before I move on to
that, I want to also say that all the bills have been paid for phase one for the
Rothschild report, just got that in.
The
$117,000 was for some expenditures from the Premier's Economic Recovery Team.
There are some expenditures there, I guess it was $13,500, kind of related to
the Premier's Economic Recovery expenditures.
T. WAKEHAM:
And what about the rest,
$13,500 was the Premier's Economic Recovery Team?
S. COADY:
Right, that was the overture
of the budget. You want a full breakdown of the Purchased Services? I'll get
that for you.
T. WAKEHAM:
Yeah, what made up the
$117,000 in total?
S. COADY:
I'll get that. Professional,
no that's Purchased versus Professional. I don't have that at my fingertips but
I'll certainly get it for you.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay.
So if I
could back up for a second though, you said phase one of the Rothschild report
is now completed, which is $4.4 million. That implies there is going to be
another phase or …?
S. COADY:
No, it doesn't imply that
there's going to be another phase. What I said was we're pausing now, reviewing
that report. Should we take a decision that we want to prepare an asset or we
want to do more work, then we would continue on? But, right now, everything is
concluded.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay.
That's
another question for Question Period at some point.
S. COADY:
Sorry, I'm just getting
there's also one-time money in there to replenish the bravery medals for the
Protocol Office. But
that's under Purchased Services; I'll get a detailed note on the Purchased
Services.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay. I'm going to jump over – I still have 53 seconds
– under 2.3.01, under the Salaries heading again. Salaries went over budget
slightly last year by $49,700 and this year it's actually being increased again.
So, again, some context about why it was over and are positions being added
here?
S. COADY:
There have been some changes to the way Communications
is being done. You can appreciate there's more creative design work being done.
I can tell you that, for example, you have seen creative development around the
child abuse campaign; around some of the child care information that is being
put out there; some of the Come Home Year, and it comes through this. That is
why we have, now, some creative direction in that division and that's why it's
basically reprofile – we have reprofiled money across Executive Council to
increase the salary level there to ensure that we have that creative designing.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Minister.
I
remind the Member that his speaking time is expired.
2.1.01 to 2.8.03.
MHA
Evans.
L. EVANS:
Thank you.
Just a couple of quick, general questions to start off with. Are there any plans
to alter the attrition targets in the incoming years, both for government
departments and for agencies, boards and commissions? And also how many of the
current targets have been calculated, for example, is the target for government
departments 0.05 per cent and not, say, 1.5 per cent?
S. COADY:
Thank you for the question.
No,
we have not altered the attrition targets at this point. There were 51 positions
that were changed throughout government last year and we are anticipating the
same or similar again this year under attrition.
L. EVANS:
Okay, thank you.
I
guess the standard question always is about the binder.
S. COADY:
Yes, you will have that at the end of the –
L. EVANS:
Copies of the binders as well.
Would you have an update on the Mandatory Vaccination Policy for government
employees? How many employees have received two doses of the vaccine? How many
are non-compliant with the policy and are, thus, on unpaid leave?
S. COADY:
I can go by memory. It was not in Estimates, but I can
go by memory. The Mandatory Vaccination Policy remains in place. As you know,
when we brought it in, in December, it would be reviewed within six months. But
in an effort to protect employees of government, to ensure that there is no
transmission and to set that requirement, it remains in place.
It will
be reviewed. We said when we brought it in there would be a six-month review. So
I'll say that.
And I
understand throughout the entirety of government, that means through core
government agencies, boards and commissions, there are 30 people affected.
There
are almost 100 per cent fully vaccinated.
L. EVANS:
So how many would have
applied for and received non-medical exemptions?
S. COADY:
Allow me to get that
information.
L. EVANS:
Thank you.
So going
to the line items now, just a quick question there on 2.3.01, Communications
Branch. I was just looking at Salaries there. There was an increase, I think, my
hon. colleague also asked about that as well. Salaries did increase, but we
notice that there's no overall increase for Women and Gender Equality or
Indigenous Affairs.
So I was
just wondering why was Salaries increased for the Communications Branch?
S. COADY:
The salary increases are
across government. So are you suggesting – is the question about the salary
increase or the question about the positions? This particular communications
actually provides service to women's policy and gender equality. They have a
communications person, but they would get communication support from this
division as well.
L. EVANS:
Okay, thank you.
In
2.3.02, Public Engagement, are there any further consultations planned through
engageNL regarding the implementation of the Health Accord?
S. COADY:
I'm sorry could you repeat
that question. Are there any –
L. EVANS:
– further consultations
planned through engageNL regarding the implementation of the Health Accord?
S. COADY:
That's a policy question, and
I'm not aware. I can check with staff and see, but I'm not aware, it would be
under the Department of Health, if they require more consultations.
L. EVANS:
Because there were
consultations in the development of the –
S. COADY:
Yes, there was an outstanding
amount of consultations. It would be under the Department of Health as to
whether or not they require further consultations or the use of that division,
right.
L. EVANS:
Correct.
S. COADY:
Public Engagement, sorry.
L. EVANS:
Would you be able to give us
a general summary of the activities undertaken in the past year by the Premier's
Youth Council, and how many people sit on the council, and how many are
selected?
S. COADY:
I would have to get that
policy information. I will endeavour to get that for you.
L. EVANS:
Okay.
S. COADY:
Again, that's not in the
Estimates Book.
L. EVANS:
Thank you.
2.5.02,
Intergovernmental Affairs.
S. COADY:
Yes.
L. EVANS:
With an eye to the review on
the equalization formula in 2024, has work continued on this file to help ensure
that our province gets the fairest deal possible?
S. COADY:
Absolutely. Under both
Intergovernmental Affairs, who deals across government, as well as in Finance,
we discuss, review and speak to our federal colleagues about equalization on an
ongoing basis. So, yes, there would be ongoing work on that file.
L. EVANS:
So work has continued.
S. COADY:
I do have some information on
the Youth Council. There have been two virtual meetings with the Premier's Youth
Council relating to – and they have been virtual, so no cost – clean energy,
youth leadership and retention. And there are 25 representatives on the council.
L. EVANS:
Okay. Thank you.
Moving
on to 2.6.02, Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation.
S. COADY:
Ms. Dempster.
L. EVANS:
So 2.6.02, Indigenous Affairs
and Reconciliation. Would you have an update on the status of the implementation
on the Calls to Action for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which items
have been addressed in the previous year and which ones are in the planning
process?
L. DEMPSTER:
The 94 calls to –
L. EVANS:
Yes. That's the ones for the
Truth and Reconciliation that apply to the province.
L. DEMPSTER:
That's right.
Thank
you for the question.
Thirty-three, I believe, of the 94 are being led from our office. We're in the
process, right now, of working across departments to get an update on what Calls
to Action have been implemented and what calls are outstanding. I can loop back
and provide a more fulsome answer for you, but I don't think that piece of work
is finished yet.
L. EVANS:
Okay.
I missed
most of it by the time I got my earpiece in, but this is recorded anyway,
correct?
L. DEMPSTER:
I'll start again. The 94
Calls –
L. EVANS:
That's fine. As long as it is
recorded, in the interest of time.
What
issues arose out of the discussions at the Premier-Indigenous Leaders'
Roundtable back in October? So what issues came out of that and are there any
follow-up actions being undertaken as a result?
L. DEMPSTER:
We had, I am happy to say, a very successful, wonderful
roundtable again held in Corner Brook. It should have been Labrador and actually
planning is well under way for the next one to happen in Labrador. I believe it
is sometime this fall. There is ongoing discussion with the Indigenous leaders.
Every week we meet combined but, in addition to that, I have ongoing dialogue.
Like just today, I had a meeting with one of the Indigenous leaders and maybe
three other Indigenous leaders yesterday,
So
there were a number of agenda items – I am not recalling them all from memory
now – that was on the agenda for Corner Brook last fall. Basically, we reach out
to the Indigenous folks in the province, Friendship Centres, the elected
Indigenous leaders and we invite them to bring agenda items forward. There are a
number of things that we are in the process with now around the Beothuk statue,
the murals. There was a request that there be increased emphasis put on mental
health and, right now, we have a staff person that is working toward setting up
a mental health forum. We will have a date for that very soon.
I
am going from memory from that agenda. I can't think of anything else right now,
I say to the Member across the way, from that meeting other than we reach out to
them, they give us the agenda items and then we act on those initiatives. Some
of the ones I am looking at here around reconciliation, one of the topics was
cultural sensitivity training, the Innu anti-racism training. All of these
initiatives are moving forward and were discussed at that table.
Indigenous education is quite an active conversation in our shop, working
closely with the Minister of Education and his department. There has been a
number of MOUs that have been completed. There is an education advisory
committee that is working on Indigenous curriculum for schools across our
province. There is a whole, long list and I am happy to share them with you
after if you wish.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Minister, and I remind the Member that her
speaking time has expired.
Subheads 2.1.01 to 2.8.03 inclusive.
The
hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Chair.
I
just want to go back for a second to 2.2.01 under Professional Services.
Minister, you mentioned there was $5 million in there broken down between, I
think, accountants and lawyers to do it. Can we get a breakdown exactly how that
money was spent? You can forward it on to us.
S. COADY:
I'd be happy to do that and may I also answer the
question that you had
for Purchased Services –
T. WAKEHAM:
Yes.
S. COADY:
And that was for
protocol-related awards, support for diplomatic visits, normal office services,
printing, documentation, those types of things, regular – but the awards were
the big one.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay, thank you.
2.3.01,
under the Salaries again, the Communications Branch, you mentioned some creative
design work. I'm wondering if you can tell me exactly how many positions were
added there.
S. COADY:
Thank you.
I
understand there are two contractual positions.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay.
Under
the same area, under Professional Services, there was $113,500 spent last year.
Again just wondering where that money was spent, i.e., which firm, what
projects, what campaigns. The budget was $288,000. It wasn't spent last year,
but it's budgeted back up again at the same level, so just want to understand
why.
S. COADY:
Thank you for the questions.
We
normalized the budget because there may be important campaigns that are required
throughout the year and that we want to have the monies available, but we only
do the campaigns if required. So that's why there was less money spent last year
than we would normally have budgeted for, because we didn't have as much a
requirement.
I've
already mentioned to you things like the child abuse campaigns, the child care,
the Come Home Year. Those are the types of campaigns that would be held
throughout that and any writing or document services that we require would also
go underneath there.
T. WAKEHAM:
So all of those, you'd be
able to get a list of those easy enough.
S. COADY:
I would ask for them right
now.
T. WAKEHAM:
Yes.
The same
way under the Purchased Services, just a breakdown of the $103,000. I assume the
same explanation when it comes to the budget, but the actual breakdown of the
expenditure.
S. COADY:
Yeah, there was less media
campaigns than were required. So, across government, we only do these campaigns
if required. As you can see, there was a decrease last year, but we normalized
the budgeted back again, because you don't know what you may require for next
year. So we normalized that budget, but it depends on what the requirements are
across government.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay.
I've
noticed that government recently updated their provincial logo and the branding.
I was just wondering what the cost was of that.
S. COADY:
I don't think there was a
whole – no money spent on adjusting the logo to reflect the province's full
name. It was done internally.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay.
S. COADY:
I knew I saw that somewhere.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay, if I go down to 2.3.02
again, under the Salaries heading, we had a savings last year of $277,000 in the
salary budget. I guess outline if there was actual positions vacant, for how
long they were vacant and the salary again is expected to go up this year. So
I'm just wondering what the plan is here.
S. COADY:
Thank you for the question.
There
are 12 funded positions in that, and they had changes and active recruitment for
five of them. So you can see that there was some movement within that division,
and that's why the salary level has been adjusted because they also are
anticipating the rehiring of these people.
I do
know there's some policy shop change. One of the policy people moved to another
shop within Executive Council because of the services. I mean Public Engagement
doesn't necessarily – I think it was thought that they could move the policy
area, so there was some movement within that. But I can tell you the Public
Engagement did 26 engagements and consultation projects from June to March of
'22.
T. WAKEHAM:
That was my next question.
S. COADY:
Oh, was it? I had anticipated
that one.
T. WAKEHAM:
So 26?
S. COADY:
Twenty-six, everything from –
and I'll just run through them very quickly. Budget '21 and '22, agricultural
policy framework, the building accessibility, the Coat of Arms, the child care,
drinking water action plan, the embalmers and funeral directors changes that
were made, the cannabis policy evaluation, mortgage brokers, moose management,
the Red Indian Lake name change, the renaming of the Mary March Museum –
tremendous, 26 different ones.
T. WAKEHAM:
Would you have information on
how the feedback was provided? How much, for example, was received online? How
much was received in-person sessions, in terms of a breakdown between the two
categories.
S. COADY:
So of the 26 different
projects, there were 39 virtual and/or in-person sessions, and the number of
participants was 6,430.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay, let's skip on over to
2.4.01, Financial Administration. Again, in this particular area, it was a
salary savings of approximately $110,000 last year. I want to know what
positions are actually held here in this particular line item.
S. COADY:
So again, Financial
Administration, it's the administration across this particular division, and
there are 10 funded positions. There were three vacancies and two are under
active recruitment. The third one is a contractual and it may not be required.
So they're kind of holding that one to see if it's required or not, but the
other two are in active recruitment and that's why the salary has been
rightsized again.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay.
S. COADY:
Normal sized. I won't say
rightsized.
T. WAKEHAM:
There's a small little bit of
revenue there that was received last year, $4,400. What was that about?
S. COADY:
Just sometimes there's
repayment. This is very, very little, but it reflects receipts of the revenue
related to repayment of any expenditures across the entire Executive Council. So
if someone had to pay something in or if there's money moving, it's just extra
money.
T. WAKEHAM:
Nothing to do with the
Auditor General's report, is it?
S. COADY:
No, nothing to do with the
Auditor General's report.
T. WAKEHAM:
The credit card repayments.
S. COADY:
I'm saying that, but I also
am checking.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay.
I'm
going to move over quickly under the Intergovernmental Affairs now, if I could.
S. COADY:
I am right.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay, good.
So the
big question here, I guess, is one we've talked about in the House is wondering
if you could provide an update on the possibility of any increased revenues in
future years from the federal government when it comes to health care funding –
the health care transfers.
S. COADY:
As you know the Council of
the Federation is working very diligently on this very issue. It is probably the
top priority, is talking to the federal government around the health transfers.
I hate pulling numbers off the top of my head because there are so many numbers
floating around, but the level of support from the federal government over the
lifetime of medicare in the country has been declining.
T. WAKEHAM:
Right, significantly.
S. COADY:
It used to be 50 per cent and
now it's somewhere – and I don't want to use a number, but it's somewhere in the
quarters. It has changed significantly. While there has been additional funding
received by the federal government, and we're thankful for it across the
country, probably there is a real need in all jurisdictions across this country
for more supportive funding for health care.
At the
COF table, the Council of the Federation table, as well as the Finance
Minister's table, this is an ongoing and required topic. As you know, there's
real work being done with the federal government on this very issue. So we would
hope – we would anticipate more so than hope. We would anticipate that there
will changes to that funding formula.
I will
say – and you would have heard by the federal government – they have been
funding certain things. We will receive $27 million from the federal government
to help with the surgical wait-list, as an example, and that money is not
necessarily shown in this particular budget because we only received it days
before we gave our own budget. So it is not reflected in here, but the money
will be received by the provincial government. Of course, I can tell you that
the Minister of Health will make good use of that money.
T. WAKEHAM:
The next important one, of
course, for all of us again has to do with the upcoming review, I think it is in
2024, of the equalization program. I am wondering what work is being done by the
province and what work, working with other provinces, on how to prepare for this
particular review.
S. COADY:
Well, again, from a policy
perspective, as you can appreciate, there is a fair amount of concern in the
country around the equalization formula. It is not just Newfoundland and
Labrador; it is across the country. So there will be, as we edge towards 2024, a
tremendous amount of work will be done around the formula itself and we'll see
how that engages.
But I
can tell you that as a Minister of Finance and across the country it is
something that, you know, is raised repeatedly at the FPT – the
federal-provincial-territorial tables. As we move toward 2024, of course, there
will be more granular work being done on the formula itself. Because it is a
federal government program, it does not mean that the federal government will
move the parameters on the equalization formula but it is our fervent desire, as
many provinces across this country, that they would.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Minister. I remind
the Member that his speaking time has expired.
2.1.01
to 2.8.03 inclusive.
The hon.
the Member for Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
Thank you.
Going
back to 2.6.02, Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation. I was just wondering,
what additional things have been put into place that would actually help
children either stay in their Indigenous community or in the close proximity to
the community that would allow them to maintain ties with their culture,
traditions and also their family members?
L. DEMPSTER:
(Inaudible) Minister of CSSD
from '17 forward, about 3½ years. One of the things I look back at very humbly,
we brought a new Children, Youth and
Families Act into this House in, I believe it was, May of '18 and then we
took a year to put the regs and things in place and it was fully implemented in
June '19 and it was a very substantive bill. It was a very progressive piece of legislation. So
much so that after that, when we went to an FPT meeting with ministers around
the country, folks were actually asking us if we would share what we had just
implemented in Newfoundland and Labrador.
In
that bill, which now my colleague is responsible for, there are a number of
measures and mechanisms in place that would ensure that – well, first of all, I
will say that removing a child from a home is a last resort. If that has to
happen, sometimes for a period of time, we have also done some agreements with
folks like in Nain where workers may have more local knowledge than, for
example, CSSD social workers and they may find a spot with an auntie or grandma,
et cetera.
But
in the event that a child has to be removed, there are now things like a
Cultural Connection Plan. So there has to be a plan attached to that individual
child. I know of circumstances where sometimes the child is flown back regularly
to community in terms of we are speaking of Indigenous children, or sometimes
families are brought out to see that child. I know that happened on numerous,
numerous occasions when I was the minister in the department, if they were
around the Island. But I was happy to see that more and more we were having
success either keeping children in community or at least keeping them in other
parts of Labrador.
One
of the other things that was put in place from that bill – I am going back from
memory a while – is we also now reach out to Indigenous leaders in those
communities and we inform them when court is going ahead so that they have an
opportunity to attend court and to be heard. When I finish speaking, if there is
anything that my colleague would like to add to that process, he certainly can.
But
I just wanted to clarify something in an earlier question that you asked
regarding the 94 calls. I said 33 in my department but of the 94 calls, 33 are
under provincial jurisdiction and the remaining would be federal. And when you
asked the earlier question, one of the bigger things I guess that we did that
sort of slipped my mind in working in consultation with the Indigenous leaders
was on September 30, the Truth and Reconciliation Day that I believe was
appreciated and was just another step of our relationship building on this path
of reconciliation.
Also while we were in Corner Brook at the Premier-Indigenous Leaders'
Roundtable, we received a very wonderful presentation from the Friendship Centre
on behalf of all the
Friendship Centres combined, and also around the anti-racism piece. There was a
ministerial anti-racism committee struck, four ministers on that; myself and the
Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills were the co-chairs, along
with the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Education.
I don't
know right off, but it was a massive amount of work. We met with maybe more than
100 groups, for sure – I don't have that number right off – as we worked towards
reaching a place within our province where we don't have to talk about
anti-racism at the level that we're talking about it now. Clearly, always
sending the message that we are against racism in all its various forms and
manifestations.
So those
were a couple that I missed. I'm not sure on the
Child Welfare Act, if
there's anything my colleague would want to add, or did I cover most of that?
CHAIR:
The Chair is recognizing the
Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Just to add to the Minister
Responsible for Indigenous Affairs's comments, we have signed a protocol with
the Innu Nation around child welfare matters. It's been well received by all
parties and have been lauded within the Innu communities as the way of doing
business. The results are showing in terms of the number of children in care has
dropped considerably and the number of children having to come out of community
has dropped considerably.
So we're
quite pleased with that, and supportive of both the Innu and the Nunatsiavut
Governments in terms of them self-managing the child welfare program in the
future and we'll be working with them as they embark on that journey.
L. EVANS:
Thank you.
Also,
I'd like to thank you, Minister, for all the work you've been doing. It's been
actually having quite success, not only with the Innu protocol but with the
upcoming Innu inquiry, and just the work and communication and you making
yourself available for issues that arise, I must say. Also, to work with NG
towards transitioning to taking over child services.
Again, I
seem to be thanking and complimenting you quite a bit, but I think it's –
J. ABBOTT:
Keep it up.
L. EVANS:
– because of the work that
you've been doing. So I must commend you on that.
J. ABBOTT:
Thank you.
L. EVANS:
Going to 2.7.02, Labrador
Affairs, one of the questions that has been coming up is: Are there any plans to
open up satellite offices for Labrador in other parts of our beautiful Big Land.
For example, now with Lab West, the office that was closed, is that something
that you would look at reopening? We have all kinds of issues that are arising
from our caribou being poached, to mining activities, to the airstrips and we
just saw with COVID and because our regions are so vast, there's such distance
in between.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.
L. DEMPSTER:
It's a fair question. It's
one that's come up a number of times. You're right, we call it the Big Land for
a reason; 6 per cent of the population spread over a really large land mass.
There's
no plan right now. Historically, the office that's there in Goose Bay, it does
serve the South Coast of Labrador. It does serve the North Coast and it does
serve Lab West. We've been making concerted effort to try and have staff visit
other areas. That's been happening, I think it's fair to say more in the last
couple of years than it has been historically. Even in my absence, there's been
officials from Labrador Affairs that have gone to Lab West, that have met with
municipal leaders, et cetera.
The
topics that you mentioned are all very important. I guess the interesting thing
about Labrador Affairs, sometimes I feel like I'm the minister responsible for
everything and authority for nothing, but for that reason, we work very, very
closely across departments.
The
caribou is a file that I'm quite close to. We've had multiple meetings, myself
and the Minister of FFA. We met with three ministers in Quebec. Planning is well
under way to go to the Lower North Shore of Quebec and to sit down with
leadership in that community.
Myself
and Minister Abbott have been working very closely on the transient Housing
file, on the Indigenous relations file. So, for a small shop, we're working very
hard with a number of departments across government, perhaps I can safely say
all of them.
L. EVANS:
Thank you.
I was
also wondering, one of the questions that keep coming up is: What's the status
on the road to the North Coast? Listening to the MP for Labrador recently in the
media, she said that it's gone off the rails and she doesn't understand why. So
it would be good to get an update there and some clarification.
L. DEMPSTER:
Actually, I had a
conversation this afternoon with one of the AngajukKàks in your riding on that
very matter.
So the
road to the North Coast, the prefeasibility is something that I am equally
anxious to see get moving. I did say it won't be the be-all, end-all answer,
given how many road closures we've suffered from, what locals call, an
old-fashioned winter. We just had students from five schools in Southeast that
were stranded two days in May month because the road from Red Bay to Lodge Bay
was closed due to the massive snowfall again just a couple of days ago.
But
where we are with that, the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure has
been working with the federal government through Transport Canada. They have
recently come to terms on a contribution agreement that they are ready to sign,
federally and provincially.
On the
11th of April, the draft scope of work for the prefeasibility study was sent to
Nunatsiavut, to Innu Nation and to NunatuKavut Community Council. To date, we
don't have their comments back. When we do our weekly leadership call on Friday,
I will raise it. If they have comments, concerns, or have feedback they want to
give us, we'll set them a deadline to get back with that.
Following that, then, it goes through a Cabinet process and then there will be a
contract signed with a consultant and that work will begin, hopefully, in the
not-too-distant future.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Minister.
I remind
the hon. Member that her speaking time has expired.
2.1.01
to 2.8.03 inclusive.
MHA
Wakeham.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Chair.
Just to
get right back at it. Before I do, there was one item I had in the Premier's
Office. It was a practice that former premiers were entitled to administrative
support for a couple of years after they retired or resigned. I don't know if
there is still money allocated in the budget for the admin support for the most
recently resigned premier or anything like that. There used to be a practice,
apparently, and I'm just curious if there is any money allocated to the former
premier for administration support.
S. COADY:
I'll certainly investigate
and get back to you; I have somebody who will investigate that for me.
I did
want to, if I may, to the MHA.
T. WAKEHAM:
Yes.
S. COADY:
We were discussing the value of the federal government's investment in
Newfoundland and Labrador with regard to health care. When I looked at the
actual numbers, it is about 20 per cent. So the federal government contributes
to the Newfoundland and Labrador's medicare system about 20 per cent.
Now,
that is not referring to the funding, for example, they're giving that is coming
out of COVID. For example, I just told you about the $27 million. But on the
average, it's based on per capita, as you're well aware, but it's about 20 per
cent. So there is a significant request gone in
from the Council of the Federation to bring that up. I don't think we will ever
get to where it was when it was initially started, but it certainly will be good
to have more than just 20 per cent.
T. WAKEHAM:
Because if you are going to truly follow the idea of
the Terms of Union and equal access and everything else, certainly 20 per cent
is a small cry of what it is costing us to deliver health care services in this
province. And hopefully, like you said, you will have success for your
counterparts and pushing for that.
In
terms of those discussions, are they formalized discussions or are they just
part of a general table discussion? Like is there a group that formally looks at
it and says hey, we are going to tackle health care transfers and we are going
to go hard on that particular topic; or is it part of your overall meetings when
you meet, type of thing?
S. COADY:
So at the Council of the Federation tables are the
Premiers' table –
T. WAKEHAM:
Right.
S. COADY:
– and they have formulized and they have made this
their number one issue and they have formulized that as an issue. If you are
looking at the Finance ministers' table, it becomes our number one discussion
point but it is more formulated at the Council of the Federation table.
T. WAKEHAM:
But it is a number one issue?
S. COADY:
It is our number one issue.
I
will also say – I am just getting more information – the Premier is one of three
premiers working with federal ministers on this very important issue of health
care. So he is part of a small team on behalf of the Council of the Federation
working on this.
You
asked about whether or not there was administrative support for the former
premier. There is not. Apparently that ended a while back.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay. I was just curious.
The
Atlantic Loop, can you give us an update on what is happening with that concept?
S. COADY:
Certainly, that would be under Industry, Energy and
Technology and there has been a tremendous amount of discussion with that
department, but I would suggest it is probably a question that is better suited
for the minister who is working on that very active issue. I can tell you it is
something that is being actively discussed and pursued. It is an important topic
for all of Atlantic Canada actually.
T. WAKEHAM:
Good. We will make sure we ask.
The
$27 million you just referenced that the feds are going to provide for the
surgical wait-list – that is money that you said, I think, not reflected in the
budget?
S. COADY:
Correct. It came very close to budget date and as you
can appreciate, having worked in Finance, that all of the papers were done at
that particular time. So we will be receiving that money but we will also be
putting it –
T. WAKEHAM:
You'll be amending the budget to include that? Just
while you are amending your budget, I just thought I might get you to amend some
–
S. COADY:
Good try.
But that
money will be received and it will obviously be spent on that particular issue.
T. WAKEHAM:
It has to be spent on that
account.
Under
2.5.01, under the Salaries section of Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat,
again last year the Salaries went over budget my approximately $34,000. This
year we've seen another increase in the budget. So I am wondering what the
increase is for. Are there new positions here in this particular area?
S. COADY:
As you can see, it was
decreased last year because there were two positions under active recruitment.
So there are now 10 funded and there are 10 filled positions. The number has
come back to what was required. You're talking about under 2.5.02?
T. WAKEHAM:
2.5.01.01.
S. COADY:
01.01, sorry. I was on the
wrong one.
T. WAKEHAM:
Yeah, you were just below it.
S. COADY:
I was on the one after. Let
me just check that one.
Oh, it
was payout of annual leave. So it was a little bit higher last year because
there was a requirement of a payout of an annual leave and then we reprofiled
some money from the other section that I was in –
T. WAKEHAM:
Right.
S. COADY:
– reprofiled that into this
position to rebalance across Intergovernmental Affairs for some requirements for
this area.
T. WAKEHAM:
So there are no new
positions, it is just a swing –
S. COADY:
It is moving of the salary
monies.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay.
Again,
under Purchased Services, there is $279,700. It seems like the budget last year,
the actual revised, was the exact budget so I am wondering if there is a listing
of what services were purchased here.
S. COADY:
Certainly, they're standard.
That's why it is pretty much – it is the Council of the Federation is $20,800;
the Council of Atlantic Premiers is $234,000; the New England Governors is
$13,000; and then there are some document services.
T. WAKEHAM:
So those are pretty every
year.
S. COADY:
They are every year; that is
why it is so, what I am going to call, flat. It is the same amount,
T. WAKEHAM:
Under 2.5.02, we have already
talked about the Salaries saving there and the fact that it has been moved up to
the other one.
S. COADY:
Yes.
T. WAKEHAM:
Again, under the Professional
Services category there, the same explanation? There seems to be a standard
amount.
S. COADY:
It does but that really
reflects third party legal advice for international and national trade. We're
now actively, as of country, in negotiations with the United Kingdom, with
Indonesia, with India for new trade agreements and these are professional
services around those trade
agreements.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay.
Under the Grants and Subsidies there is a small amount of money there. I am not
sure what that would be budgeted for.
S. COADY:
That's our contribution the Internal Trade Secretariat.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay. Small amount.
S. COADY:
Yes.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay. Now I guess –
S. COADY:
Just if I can go back because I didn't mention this. So
that $27 million would show up in the fall fiscal update. So any new monies that
we would gain from the federal government discussion, when I update in the fall,
you will see those come – that is how it flows through.
T. WAKEHAM:
Hopefully, they won't spend it before then.
S. COADY:
Well, likely.
T. WAKEHAM:
Get these surgeries done.
I
am ready to move quickly over to Indigenous Affairs. I apologize if I repeat
some of the questions. I am wondering what work has been done to support the
upcoming apology to the Newfoundland and Labrador residential school survivors
and the families impacted. Is there a timeline for such an apology and are there
any funds set aside to support an apology?
L. DEMPSTER:
Thank you for the question.
The
apology is something that we committed to and had hoped to carry out right
before COVID hit. As you can appreciate, especially in some of the isolated
Indigenous communities, that wasn't possible. We have kept the file active and
there has been ongoing conversation and just maybe within the last number of
weeks a draft text has gone out to each of the Indigenous groups.
Now
we have different people in the office that are assigned to each of the groups
to move this along. What the apology will look like for one group may look very
different for another group, so we are in the process now of receiving comments
back. There is not a set timeline when the five apologies will be carried out,
but we do feel that we are very close to doing the first apology.
Obviously, the first group that comes back with draft text and we can reach a
consensus, then that is where we will be going and hopefully then the other four
will fall in line but work is well under way. It is also an active conversation
in the weekly calls that myself and the Premier have with the Indigenous
leaders.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Minister.
And
we move back to MHA Evans; 2.1.01 to 2.8.03 inclusive.
L. EVANS:
Thank you, Chair.
2.8.02,
Women and Gender Equality, the funding for the Blue Door Program at Thrive ran
out this winter. What efforts are being made in the department to negotiate with
its operators to see that the project continues? Are there other supports for
sex workers that are currently being considered?
P. PARSONS:
The Blue Door project, as we
know, was a federal program that was started. I think it set the price tag of
$417,000 annually, and that went on for five years, as we know. As we also know,
of course, as has been stated here on record and in the media that certainly the
Office of Women and Gender Equality doesn't have the budget to support that ask.
That
said, though, we have reached out to the executive director. We've had her in;
as a matter of fact, I just met with her on Monday morning to certainly let her
know that we're committed to doing what we can in her efforts, if she's
interested in pursuing new pathways to funding, whether it be the federal
government, private sector, or even if she were to change the ask and how she
would go about individual grants to submit to the provincial government for Blue
Door.
Also, I
think there was a second part of the question.
L. EVANS:
Other supports for sex
workers that are currently being considered.
P. PARSONS:
That's right. As you're
aware, of course, the department of Women and Gender Equality, we support
S.H.O.P., the Safe Harbour Outreach Project, and we provide annual core funding
to S.H.O.P. in the amount of $142,700. Of course, as we know, S.H.O.P. provides
valuable services to people engaged in the sex-trade activities in St. John's.
Services include peer support, safety and exit planning, crisis support,
management, navigating the system of public services, housing support, referrals
for health and addictions issues, referrals to educational programs, one-on-one
counselling, legal advice and life development skills, of course among other
valuable skills that are needed for individuals who are in this industry and
looking to exit this industry.
L. EVANS:
Thank you.
Just
looking at this now, the next question: When can we expect pay equity
legislation to be introduced and debated in the House? I know before I was
elected there was a resolution, I think, about five years ago in the House for
pay equity. So I was just wondering when would it be introduced and debated in
the House?
P. PARSONS:
In 2018, as we know, there
was an interdepartmental committee that has been struck, and work has been
ongoing for several years, as we talked about recently here in the House and in
the media. That work is ongoing, as we know, and it's across government. It's
something that we're committed to doing. I mean, I think we can all agree here
that pay equity is certainly important legislation both for the public and the
private sector. I think we're all in agreement with that.
That
said, I had a conversation with my colleague, the Minister of Finance, on what
we can do now for next steps. So as soon as there is an update available,
believe you me, we'll be happy enough to do that. It's my hope and it's my goal,
it's a conversations that's going on daily in my department with staff and it's
something that's very significant.
L. EVANS:
Thank you.
What has
the uptake been like for the Domestic Violence Help Line? And have there been
increases or decreases in this use since its founding?
P. PARSONS:
The domestic help line, as we
know, was implemented during COVID as a response, of course, to the pandemic
situations we find ourselves in. Victims, of course, of domestic violence, as we
know, they can't escape, certainly during a lockdown. I think it's about $3,000
that comes from the department of Women and Gender Equality in conjunction with
Transition House Newfoundland and Labrador, which is also teamed up with CSSD.
From the
feedback that we are getting, it certainly has a big uptake. There's a texting
option as well as a phone call. That number is 1-888-709-7090. The texting
option is available there, for obvious reasons. If a victim has – we all know
they may not have that window to make that phone call, if they're living with
their attacker, so the option, of course, is there to text. From the feedback
that we are getting, there is uptake, unfortunately, but that said, it's
important to have this service in place.
L. EVANS:
Thank you.
Have
there been expansions to the sexual assault nurse practitioner program and are
there any more budgeted for this year?
P. PARSONS:
As we know, too, I'd be
remiss if I didn't say, we know that we have the highest stats in Labrador, in
particular for Indigenous women, compared to the rest of the country; $225,000
has been allocated to expand that service, the sexual assault nurse examiner
unit for Labrador and for Central Newfoundland.
That
money has been transferred from the department of Women and Gender Equality to
the Department of Health and Community Services and they are now within the
regional health authorities, is my understanding. I don't know if my colleague,
the Minister of Health, can elaborate on that further.
But
that's obviously a needed service. It's unfortunate that we need it, but I'm
happy to say it is a permanent funding structure that's in the department, and
it is here to stay.
L. EVANS:
Yes, actually there was an
interview done, I think it was this morning or yesterday, where they were
talking about the program to people in Labrador, but basically the closest they
can come to a sexual assault nurse examiner or practitioner or whatever the
title is, is Corner Brook.
P. PARSONS:
Yeah, I don't know. Again,
the funding comes from my shop in the amount of $225,000 annually.
L. EVANS:
Yes.
P. PARSONS:
But, again, it is my
understanding that it's with the regional health authorities for that training
to be done with multiple nurses in those regions. Again, I don't know if my
colleague can elaborate further on where that training is.
L. EVANS:
No, that's good. I do
appreciate your answer and I do appreciate the increase in funding; I think that
is a good sign.
Just
going back now, where I do have a little bit of time for Labrador Affairs. Just
looking at Labrador Affairs, I was wondering if there is anything planned to
offset the cost to travel for sports activities and cultural activities for
people in Labrador. Either travelling within Labrador or to the Island, because
what is happening is that a lot of people are losing out on activities that the
rest of the province, really, can engage in.
L. DEMPSTER:
Yeah, there is no doubt,
there is nobody that will dispute the high cost of travel and I guess
exasperated more since COVID, because the airline industry is one of the areas
that we have seen that has really been decimated. Even just a week or so ago, I
was on quite a large plane and there was only six people. So they have a ways to
go to get numbers back and flight availability up.
I'm not
sure if the Member is aware, under Labrador Affairs, we do have a Labrador
travel program for sports. I'm looking for the figure – here it is. So
established since 1969 and in that budget there is $730,000. It was initially
created to allocate monies each year to help offset the disparity of cost, what
you're referencing, for Labrador youth participating in provincial sport on the
Island portion of the province.
I will
say that since COVID, because schools are just now getting back to activities,
the budget has not been expended. The year before last some of that money, when
it was just sitting in the pot, the Member would know she and myself worked with
the then Finance Minister and some of that actually went into isolated
households to help offset some of the cost. Last year, it was not used as well,
but I know that is a very valuable program.
In
addition to that, we also have the – not under me, but in Lake Melville –
Aboriginal Sports and Recreation Circle that we work closely with, and I work
closely with from my time in CSSD, and through federal and provincial money,
there are supports that they're able to offer athletes sometimes as well. If
there's any particular group that's wondering and wanting to go, wondering what
we have available, I would definitely encourage them to reach out.
L. EVANS:
Okay. I don't think I have
time for another question, but I was just going to – about the apology for
residential schools. I was just wondering, you're going to be looking at
different Indigenous groups, right? One of the things I was wondering, is there
going to be some sort of educational program or education information put out
there?
Because
what I find is that most of the people in the province do not realize that
residential schools were only in Labrador, on the North Coast of Labrador and in
the Cartwright area. A lot of people think it's been throughout, right? So, in
actual fact, I think a part of truth and reconciliation is about educating
people. So I was just wondering do you have any plans, your department have any
plans to actually educate the province about residential schools in our
province?
L. DEMPSTER:
It is a very, very important
file, and some of us who have constituents that were residential school
survivors, we certainly have had a little insight into, really, the trauma and
the horrors of some of their experiences.
Where we
are right now is working with the different Indigenous leaders. We want to reach
a place where the leaders and the survivors in those communities, and the
communities, are comfortable with what we're moving forward with.
So I
already know, we're far enough along the road, I know what an apology looks like
for one Indigenous group is going to probably look very different for another
Indigenous group, even in terms of some groups have asked that there be supports
in place in community for the triggers that will occur when these apologies are
happening.
We will
do our best to make all these things happen. It's really us moving forward in
lockstep, in partnership with the Indigenous leaders as we get to a place to
carry out these apologies.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Minister.
I'm
going to take this time to apologize to my colleague, the Independent Member for
Lake Melville. I should have been recognizing him. This is the Committee of the
Whole, so with my apologies, I'd like to recognize you, Sir.
P. TRIMPER:
No problem, my friend. No
problem at all.
Thank
you.
It's a
great opportunity to ask a variety of questions. I'm going to start with my
colleague about his announcement yesterday on the Labrador Woodland Caribou
Recovery Team, the re-announcement. We had a chat earlier today and I just
wanted to, sort of, bring some of that out into the open because I had some
feedback, back and forth from a conversation we had this morning.
So I'd
ask the minister – well, actually I'd just like to make some suggestions to him,
just for the record. In terms of composition, very important that this has been
re-established. I would suggest that we certainly need to make sure there are
Indigenous organization representation. Groups like the Labrador Hunting and
Fishing Association. Certainly, provincial, biologists from both Labrador,
Quebec and the federal government also on that. And I think that there's
probably going to be a need to have a couple of representatives from some key
communities. So I'll just throw that out there.
You
indicated the gentleman that's responsible in your department; I have full
confidence in him. Again, I applaud you, Sir, for moving ahead with that. I feel
it's going to make progress in solving some serious issues.
I don't
know if you had a comment.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.
D. BRAGG:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
Yes, I'd
like to thank the Member for the question because it's very important. The
conversation of caribou anywhere in the province, whether it's on the Island or
in Labrador is of major importance to us, but, most importantly, we know what we
deal with when we deal with cross-border hunting. We are reconvening, as we
mentioned earlier today, our ADM and our new – not our new wildlife officer, but
the current one. Mr. Adams, you know who I'm talking about, will be the lead on
this. You and I talked about this today in great detail.
Anytime,
let's keep the conversation going on that. I trust to yours, and the hon. Member
for Cartwright area, to give me some guidance through all that process. But I'm
hoping on getting that –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
D. BRAGG:
Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair,
I'm so sorry.
This is,
I guess, revitalizing that whole committee and getting people to talk and,
hopefully, get the feds involved as well.
P. TRIMPER:
Wonderful, I see I've got 77
minutes to go, so I'm doing just fine.
I would
like to ask: Does the minister have any idea on timing? When do you hope to have
the recovery team in place?
D. BRAGG:
That's a great question. I
would hope that we would have it before the spring ends, early within the
summer. I mean, I don't want to drag our behinds on this. We need to get at this
and be as active as we can and as quick as we can. So it's active on our desk. I
met with the ADM responsible today; we had a conversation about it. So by all
means reach out to me anytime and we'll see where the status is at that time.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you.
I have a
series of question. All my questions I could always run them through the
Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs, but while I have sort of the
specialist ministers, I'm also going to bring them up.
I'm
looking over to the Minister of Education and I have this déjà vu going on,
because I think it was one year ago in Estimates, and we're talking about the
Labrador Institute, and the – what's the right word – implementation of the ban
on further acquisition, purchase and so on of land for Memorial University.
I'm
still looking, appealing to the minister, still aware of the challenges that
we're having as a community, as a region, with proceeding with activities at the
Pye farm, not having the ownership of that building. And I just wondered where
you are with your review of the infrastructure, the ban and any possibility of
an exemption there.
T. OSBORNE:
So I know Memorial had leased
the property at the Pye farm, which I believe satisfies their needs until such
time as they're able to purchase. Similarly, with the other infrastructure that
was required in Labrador, they've leased, and they don't need government
approval or ministerial approval to lease property. They do to purchase.
So while
we're going through the review of the
Memorial University Act, and until such time we get that in, they have the
autonomy to make those types of decisions. We want to be cautious on the size of
the footprint. They've got an infrastructure deficit; they have challenges
maintaining their existing infrastructure. So until we know the course that
we're setting them on, we want to be cautious to ensure that any new
acquisitions, they're able to afford.
P. TRIMPER:
Okay, thank you. I guess I'll
just underline, people are anxious to get on with it, so as soon as that's done,
that would be great.
Looking
over to – I guess I'll go to the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs and
just ask her a question. Last night, I spoke at length about the role of this
province potentially in supporting and enhancing lobby efforts that need to go
on, I would suggest mostly in Ottawa, regarding our National Defence profile.
I'm thinking about 5 Wing Goose Bay. There was an active group several years ago
called the Goose Bay Citizen's Coalition that was a heavily charged political
machine that worked at different levels of government, different organizations.
My
position is that we need to go there now. Last night, I spoke quite at length
with the – I'm sorry, today, I spoke with the Minister of Health and Community
Services, who represents Gander, which is also a very busy base. Both Goose Bay
and Gander are extremely busy right now. I just wondered what the minister's
thoughts were on contributing her time and resources towards sort of a
reincarnation of an organization, of a small network that could really help us
in the competition.
We are
competing with Alberta, right now; we are competing with Quebec; and some of the
other provinces. They are lobbying out in front of us; we are missing
opportunities.
L. DEMPSTER:
That is a really important topic that you have raised.
Within the last week, I have had a conversation where I raised the topic of 5
Wing. There was a time when you went to Goose Bay that was the dominating
conversation, and I actually said to someone: Where are we right now with 5
Wing? We have to get back to realizing the value of 5 Wing, not just to Lake
Melville but to Labrador.
So
I would be more than happy to sit down with yourself, as the Member, to look at
ways that we can work to try and revitalize things and support 5 Wing in
whatever way we can. If that includes lobbying the feds, then I am all on board.
P. TRIMPER:
I will just list a couple of examples.
First of all, in terms of the next 10 years, we are secure. We have a $1
billion-plus contract in place now for up to 20 years. So the facilities and the
operations it provides right now – very secure for NORAD and austere training
and so on. It's all these other things that are coming including, right now, the
German Air Force wants to return to Labrador and set up a seasonal operation.
Alberta is lobbying them. It is just some examples.
One
other area that is really important right now for the base that I need to bring
to your attention, if you are not aware, is there is additional power that is
going to be coming through the lines for Upper Lake Melville and my position is
that we need to make sure that the support to displace the diesel generation
system on 5 Wing is replaced by much cleaner hydroelectric power that will come
from Churchill Falls. I'm not sure if you are aware of that. I have met with the
CEO a couple of times.
L. DEMPSTER:
Yes, I do have some knowledge of that and while, within
the provincial government, 5 Wing and related initiatives would fall under IGA,
as you would be aware, I'm certainly willing to take this conversation further
along, you know, after Estimates tonight. The next time I am up in that area we
can pull together some of our officials and have a meeting.
P. TRIMPER: I'm jumping around. I'm going to now go to the
Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure. I have two questions for him.
I
am just wondering are there any talks still about – I know the ferry across the
Strait of Belle Isle, that contract was awarded for 12 years and that was to
allow us, hopefully, to be in a position where we could be starting construction
of a tunnel connecting our two big chunks of geography in this province. I just
wondered where that is on your horizon.
It
is difficult to hear. Thank you.
E. LOVELESS:
No, my red light is on, I
believe.
In terms
of the question, it is a good question. I have to be honest, it is not something
that I have had in-depth discussion over the last several months but it is a
discussion that has been had. I'm certainly glad to have the discussion if you
want to sit down with me and we can have a discussion further.
We
recognize the benefits that can be of having such infrastructure and that is why
it is worth having the conversation.
But, as
we know, there is a huge cost element to it and we need all levels of government
to be at the table for that. Again, I reiterate that I haven't had a
conversation with the federal government in terms of where we go from here.
P. TRIMPER:
Right on. Thank you. I have
just one further question for the minister.
Just a
suggestion, I've often spoken about that great distance, 410 kilometres, from
Port Hope Simpson to Happy Valley-Goose Bay, where there is essentially absolute
no washroom, no communications system, sometimes the Internet system works and
sometimes it doesn't, but it is not an emergency line and no other support for
410 kilometres of – it is a tremendous highway, it is going to be completely
paved this year.
My
suggestion is would the minister consider putting out an expression of interest?
It wouldn't cost the government anything, but let's just put it out there and
say we have this great geographic challenge. We need to provide these basic
services. I wonder if the department would consider doing it.
To me
there are three locations: Crooks Lake, Cartwright Junction and Cache River,
looking to the west of Goose Bay. Each of these locations would – it's at least
200 kilometres between each of those and your nearest opportunity, but at least
it's an improvement over 410.
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
E. LOVELESS:
Do I get a chance to respond,
Mr. Chair?
CHAIR:
Go ahead, Minister.
E. LOVELESS:
It is a discussion that I
know you and I have had before. The Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs,
we have had that discussion as well and it is a very important point. Without
making commitment, without going back to the department, which I have
responsibility as minister, I think it's a good idea. I don't see any reason why
we wouldn't entertain looking at an expression of interest for something that is
beyond valuable, I guess, to people who travel those highways.
We can
have a further discussion on it. I'll update you in terms of that commitment on
that expression of interest.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Before
we continue, we're getting a little broader than what our Estimates book is
saying so if it's Education, if it's Transportation, we've had those Estimates
so I would like to leave it to what is involved in the Executive Council.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Right now, I am recognizing
MHA Wakeham for 2.1.01 to 2.8.03.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Chair.
I just
want to get back to Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation, if I could. I had
asked the question about the upcoming apology and I asked if there were any
funds set aside to support an apology.
L. DEMPSTER:
At the moment that my time
was up, I realized that I didn't answer your funding question.
What I
want to say is when we are ready to proceed with the apology the funding will be
there to match the need. Unequivocally.
T. WAKEHAM:
The second one: Is there any
money in this budget to implement the Calls to Action from the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission?
L. DEMPSTER:
We're actually doing a piece
of work right now. It was 2018, when there was a table set to look at the 94
Calls to Action, 33 of which are under this province, there have been a number
of things that have been implemented, like the September 30 Truth and
Reconciliation day, that was one of the calls. The new
Children, Youth and Families Act could
fit into one of the calls. So we're actively now in IAR taking a look across
departments to measure what's been done and then we'll be reporting back to the
Indigenous groups and to the broader piece.
T. WAKEHAM:
Yeah, but is there any money
in the budget?
L. DEMPSTER:
Guys, I'm finding it hard to
hear.
T. WAKEHAM:
Yeah.
L. DEMPSTER:
Sorry.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
Can I
just ask us to bring the noise down a little bit; it's hard to hear here on the
floor.
T. WAKEHAM:
Is there any money allocated
in the budget, though, for that particular Truth and Reconciliation Commission –
this year's budget, in your department?
L. DEMPSTER:
Initiatives that are being
carried out are housed in different departments across government. Right now,
that would be covered off from existing budgets.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay. So there's no direct
budget allocation.
L. DEMPSTER:
No.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay.
Last
year in Estimates, there was a discussion about a statue to commemorate
Indigenous history in the province. Can you provide an update on that?
L. DEMPSTER:
Yes, I actually had a look at
it today. It's actually quite, quite striking. It's going to be a beautiful
piece that sits out in front of the East Block of the Confederation Building.
We
commissioned Morgan MacDonald, we went out with an expression of interest and we
had a number of folks that were interested. Every step along the way we've done
that with the Indigenous leaders, providing them an opportunity to go down and
to take a look and to have input into design when it was still in the clay form.
We are just about there. There was money in this budget allocated and there'll
be money in next year's budget for that.
We're
looking forward to having a legacy of the Beothuk people, who have a very sad
history really in our province, that we're just totally destroyed and wiped out.
It's going to be an exciting day when we can honour their legacy by erecting the
statue. That's well on its way.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay.
Under
2.6.02.01, Salaries, there was a salary savings last year of approximately
$208,500. Can you explain what positions were vacant and for how long?
L. DEMPSTER:
So it's a couple of things.
We had a couple of positions that were vacant, that were not filled. In the
very, very near future, if not today, I'm happy to say that we are back to a
full complement. Also, we had a change in a senior position where somebody went
out the door that would have been maybe at a higher step than the person who
came in, so that contributed to a little bit of savings there as well.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay.
Under
Purchased Services, it went over budget, spending last year $407,000. Can you
explain what was spent here under Purchased Services?
L. DEMPSTER:
The Beothuk statue.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay.
So is
that the full cost?
L. DEMPSTER:
No, I don't believe that is
the full cost. I believe there is $120,000 that will be coming from the next
fiscal, once it's completed.
T. WAKEHAM:
But that $407,000 is directly
related to that?
L. DEMPSTER:
Yes.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay.
Under
your Grants and Subsidies, there's a significant amount of money there. Budgeted
was $604,000; actual $587,000; budget this year is $604,000. I'm wondering if
you can provide a breakdown of who received the grant money last year.
L. DEMPSTER:
Yes, sure. It is only three
or four. Back a couple of years ago, we actually gave core funding to the three
Friendship Centres in the province, recognizing and appreciating the valuable
work that they do. So $90,000 is there. We have a land use planning appeals
board, $6,500, and they provide some really valuable work to us as well. There's
the LICA Dispute Resolution Board grant, $11,300; Torngat Joint Fisheries Board
grant of $248,500 and Torngat Wildlife and Plants Co-Management board grant,
which is also $248,500.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay, thank you.
A couple
of quick other questions: Are the Labrador Games still on track for March 2023?
L. DEMPSTER:
Yes, they are.
The
first Labrador Winter Games was held in 1983, and 30 years later we're really
looking forward to making this March 2023 extra, extra special. So we set aside,
every three years, $500,000 for that to happen. This year, we actually held back
10 per cent, so you will see that the number there is a little – there's $50,000
held back, and that's because we want to ensure that we get a fulsome report –
it's a substantive amount of money. That will be maybe the end of June or
something of next year.
T. WAKEHAM:
So where will they be held
to?
L. DEMPSTER:
In Happy Valley-Goose Bay.
T. WAKEHAM:
In Happy Valley-Goose Bay?
L. DEMPSTER:
Yes, and you're welcome to
come; bring all your team.
T. WAKEHAM:
I've been there.
L. DEMPSTER:
It's a first-class event, and
we also have Cain's Quest happening in Labrador City, in March 2023, as well. So
it's a big year for the Big Land.
T. WAKEHAM:
Yes.
I wonder
can you give me an update on the Nain airstrip. I'm not sure if that question
was asked.
L. DEMPSTER:
I don't have the details. I
don't know if –
T. WAKEHAM:
Or is that in Transportation?
L. DEMPSTER:
That's Transportation and
Infrastructure.
E. LOVELESS:
Sorry, I had this Member here
distracting me, but we were having a good, important conversation around the
fishery, as you can appreciate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
E. LOVELESS:
Yeah, we were talking about
seals. We have to find a market for them, if you're going to –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
T. WAKEHAM:
(Inaudible) I wasn't sure if
you could provide an update on the Nain airstrip.
E. LOVELESS:
I don't have an update right
now, but I can certainly get the details on where we are.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay.
E. LOVELESS:
There have been discussions
around it, but not of recently.
T. WAKEHAM:
I know we've already had –
E. LOVELESS:
Your colleagues didn't like
the answer, so I don't know what they're laughing at.
T. WAKEHAM:
We also had a question asked
about the road through Northern Labrador before, I think.
L. DEMPSTER:
(Inaudible) Nunatsiavut
Government have gone out seeking expressions of interest or an RFP. I'm pretty
sure I've seen that, I'm just waiting for confirmation here.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay.
L. DEMPSTER:
Yeah, I'll get back to you on
that.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay.
Under
2.7.02, under the Salaries again, Labrador Affairs, there's a variance there in
the salaries, and again, last year there was a savings of approximately
$146,000. Were there any vacancies last year? How long have the positions been
vacant?
L. DEMPSTER:
There were a number of
vacancies. So we've been doing some recruitment and I believe, by the end of
May, we anticipate to have a full complement of staff again.
T. WAKEHAM:
Can you outline where the
staff are located, what towns, what cities?
L. DEMPSTER:
Under Labrador Affairs?
T. WAKEHAM:
Yes.
L. DEMPSTER:
All of the staff is in the
office in Happy Valley-Goose Bay.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay.
And
again, under Grants and Subsidies, it's been decreased by $500,000. I also would
like to know, can you provide a breakdown of what the $1.851 million was spent
on?
L. DEMPSTER:
You just asked about the
Labrador Winter Games. So, every three years, we have that
funding. That funding would have went out and
that is the $500,000 difference now. In addition, Grants and Subsidies, we have
four under Labrador Affairs.
We have the Labrador Transportation Grooming Subsidy. I
believe it is nine agreements. We got 700 kilometres of trail that we groom. The
Combined Councils of Labrador, we support them with $100,000 annually. The
Labrador Sport Travel Subsidy that I referenced earlier, it is application-based
and the budget there is $730,000. We also have a Labrador Aboriginal Nutritional
and Artistic Assistance Program and that $50,000 is split between the three
Indigenous groups, where $20,000 goes to Nunatsiavut, $20,000 to NunatuKavut and
$10,000 to Innu Nation.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
We
are going to move back to MHA Evans – 2.1.01 to 2.8.03.
L. EVANS:
Thank you, Chair.
Did
you say four?
CHAIR:
2.1.01 to 2.8.03, Executive Council.
L. EVANS:
Okay, I have no more questions.
CHAIR:
Okay, thank you.
We
are going to move to MHA Trimper.
P. TRIMPER:
Two questions, Chair. I will be sure to keep this all
focused in Labrador.
Just a little update. I am aware and just for the minister's benefit – she many
not know that there seems that the contract for the prefeasibility, feasibility
for the airstrip and the road connection, I believe that was awarded just last
week. So they are making good progress which is good news, and that geotechnical
investigations and so on will be going on over the next few months. I just
happen to know some of the people involved. So that is good news.
I
guess the other point I wanted to make – my colleague from Torngat Mountains –
on the sport subsidy, I think the problem we are finding, in the MHA offices, as
we hear from the different groups and so on, is just the amounts are sorely
insufficient and that is the problem. I am not sure what will be required, but
perhaps we need to start tallying the various asks and try to do it broader. Mr.
Demers is one of the key people that handles this cash and he can only
distribute so much around.
Some sports, frankly, don't get any support. Others use it up – just sending a
single team out can use up a large chunk of money and then you are back to
community fundraising or not going at all.
Thank you.
L. DEMPSTER: Just in response to that (inaudible) gone out with an
RFP but I wasn't following it that closely so that is great news. Thank you.
On the
travel subsidy, I certainly am someone who really can appreciate and value
first-hand the opportunity for students to get out and to compete around the
province and beyond. While I was minister for Sport and Recreation, I had the
opportunity to attend provincial games, Labrador games and lead the team at Red
Deer, which were all high points during my time there.
Nothing
has reached my level. I know the budget was only half spent last year and so
within the last year, I guess, there wasn't a lot of events or travel. I'm
certainly happy to sit down and have folks educate me on, you know, here's an
example of how much money we need to get to a certain community and we fall
short, we can't go. I'm happy to engage in that conversation to get a better
understanding.
P. TRIMPER:
Good.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
2.1.01
to 2.8.03, MHA Conway Ottenheimer.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Chair.
I'll
continue on now with the Women and Gender Equality heading.
I have
some general questions first.
Minister, can you please provide the gender-based analysis that was done on the
budget?
P. PARSONS:
The gender-based analysis
that was done on the budget; well, I don't have that here in this briefing, but
I do have staff that are actually sitting by, they're waiting, they're actually
next door. So we can certainly get all that relevant information to you in your
hands.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
I appreciate that. Thank
you.
Does the
department have any statistics on the instances of domestic violence in the
province over the last year?
P. PARSONS:
I've actually asked that
question myself to our partners at the RNC as well as the RCMP, as well as the
domestic helpline. I'm told that those statistics are not necessarily released
due to obvious reasons. But, that said, I can certainly find out what we can,
what is available.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you.
Yes, I'd
like whatever data you have on this. I'm also interested in knowing has the
pandemic resulted in an increase in violence.
P. PARSONS:
Right.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
So if you could find that
data that would be (inaudible).
P. PARSONS:
Absolutely. Based on what we
hear, what we've heard in the media and what we've heard reported in statistics,
I think it's safe to say that certainly we know violence has risen; it's become
worse for people who are trapped, especially with lockdowns, just based on the
knowledge that we've heard in the media. But, certainly, the request has gone
in, like I said. My staff is listening and they're taking notes, so whatever
information is available to us, we can certainly get and provide.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you.
I also
wonder if you could provide any information with respect to whether there are
any issues with the domestic crisis line. Have you heard, for example, from any
of the transition houses that there have been any issues?
P. PARSONS:
Again, same kind of scenario,
based on the statistics from the helpline and whatnot.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Okay, thank you.
P. PARSONS:
They're not here available in
my briefing notes, but we'll get that request and what is available to us, I
will provide to you.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you.
Last
year in Estimates we talked about a women's leadership conference in Labrador,
did this occur? If not, is it deferred to this year? And is the department
planning any women's leadership conferences this year?
P. PARSONS:
Just let me have a quick little glance here. It didn't occur this year based on
travel restrictions in Labrador, but I do have a section on this.
No, we
had the – well, the gathering that we did travel to Corner Brook, but there was
actually something, if you just bear with me here for a moment.
It
didn't occur this year and we couldn't get to Labrador, even for other travel
that I was supposed to go up for work, but based on COVID things were postponed,
unfortunately, so we didn't actually get to Labrador.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Do you know if it has
been deferred to this year?
P. PARSONS:
I'm going to have to get that
information to you.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Okay, thank you.
Is the
department planning any women's leadership conferences this year?
P. PARSONS:
The Equal Voice, which is now
going to be called the Future of the Vote, was supposed to happen. It is a grant
that we provide from the department of Women and Gender Equality to Equal Voice
but that didn't happen. The onus is on the group to organize that but they
needed more time so we are hoping to do that this coming fall.
It will
also be rebranded; it is called Future of the Vote as opposed to Daughters of
the Vote event.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Okay, thank you.
`
The
Member for Torngat Mountains had asked a question about pay equity. I want to
ask you specifically about the – I understand that your officials would have
been working on this with you and I know you have referenced briefings with
various departments.
What I'm
wondering about is, with respect to the officials that have been working for
you, can you provide what advice they have given you – your officials have given
you with respect to the pay equity issue?
P. PARSONS:
Again, there is not
necessarily new information that has been made available. As we know, the
briefing binder for the Office of Women and Gender Equality has been ATIPPed and
that information is available, so there is nothing different.
What I
can tell you, as we know, this work is important, that's not a debate, we all
agree on that. Again, it comes down to finding best practices. We do know that
we have the reactive pay equity legislation available. That is available through
the Labour Standards Act, as well as
the Canadian Human Rights, of course. We also know, my colleague commented and
elaborated on the JES, which we have here in the public service that prohibits
and prevents any gender bias with salaries and positions.
But,
again, the work is ongoing. It's something I'm passionate about, and believe you
me, there's nothing more that I'd like to stand up in this House, before the
media or whoever to talk about the advancements that we will make.
I'm
certainly mandated in my department, as are other departments, to advance pay
equity for Newfoundland and Labrador. It's something that, as we know, as I've
mentioned here earlier, it was first talked about by Premier Peckford in the
'80s. As we know, Premier Williams didn't bring in pay equity legislation, but
this work continues to find out the best practices for what will be best for
Newfoundland and Labrador; what we can do with our fiscal reality; and what we
can do. But it's important. I concur. It certainly is an important issue that
we're committed to advancing.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you.
The
Elizabeth Fry foundation provides services to women in the criminal justice
system. I have spoken to them. They've expressed disappointment that they have
not received any core funding. Is there a process that they should go through?
How would you suggest they go about seeking core funding?
P. PARSONS:
I'm going to defer.
S. COADY:
I'm going to take that.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you.
It's an
important question, and it's falling to Finance, so I thought I'd provide the
information.
As was
indicated in this year's budget, we're having a new process to go through for
core funding. We're going to have – and this is what most community
organizations have been asking for – a centralized portal. They'll come in and
they'll make their request on core funding and continuous funding.
So when
that process is underway – and we're hoping to get that up probably during the
summer, but I don't want to make – there is some work that has to be done in the
background. So within the next number of months, we're hoping to have that
process underway. It is a new process and the Elizabeth Fry foundation can put
in an application at that time.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you.
So what
would you suggest that an organization like this, like Elizabeth Fry foundation,
do in the interim while they're waiting for your process to get started?
S. COADY:
This is for core funding.
They can certainly apply to multitudes of departments across government for
project funding. That is available to them and multitudes of departments have
funding available for organizations.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Okay, thank you.
Under
section 2.8.02, Women and Gender Equality, under Salaries, could you please
explain the variance in the Salaries line item? I note that last year there was
$1,010,700 budgeted and $776,700 was spent, and this year $961,800 was budgeted.
I'm wondering if you could outline if positions were vacant, what were they and
for how long they were vacant.
P. PARSONS:
Yes, savings that we're
seeing is $234,000. Those savings are due to vacancies. Those were an extended
maternity leave. Three employees also accepted positions across government in
other departments.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you.
I note
that last year you had advised that three senior policy and program specialists
took leave. I believe there were two other policy, planning and research
analysts moved in to, really, perform acting roles. What is the current
situation with respect to those vacancies?
P. PARSONS:
The two current vacancies are
for recruitment for policy analyst positions, and they are ongoing. They are not
yet filled, but they are ongoing for recruitment.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Okay, thank you.
Under
Transportation and Communications, last year there was a savings in
Transportation and Communications of $40,500. I assume it's because of less than
normal travel, because of the pandemic. How did this impact the services the
office provides to women serving organizations and women in general?
P. PARSONS:
There has been no impact, and
you're right there was a savings of $40,500. Again that's due to the reduced
travel for COVID. For example, the FPT this year was scheduled for in
Saskatchewan in December, but it certainly was a virtual, as opposed to
travelling, so that's precisely why. But no, there has been no negative impact
or decrease to services due to this.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you.
CHAIR:
(Inaudible) if you have a
couple more questions.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
I do actually. I only
have about five remaining questions.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you.
Under
Professional Services, could you please give some information on this line item,
including an outline of how the $270,000 was spent?
P. PARSONS:
Sure.
Professional Services, as you mentioned $270,000 – the Intimate Partner Violence
Unit is funded through Professional Services. RCMP Intimate Partner Violence
Unit resides in the RCMP provincial headquarters here in the White Hills, and
provides service to 43 detachments that are respective throughout the
communities, throughout the province.
This
unit also bolsters police responses to issues of intimate partner violence, and
brings a standardized degree of methodology and accountability to investigations
and supervision relative to intimate partner violence. These resources
complement existing resources in the implementation of the strategies to reduce
and prevent intimate partner violence, with an emphasis on violence against
women. The IPV Unit ensures that the RCMP's response to intimate partner
violence is aligned with community-based provincial and RCMP priorities.
There's
one corporal at the salary of $131,920 and an analyst of $112,953.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you.
Under
Purchased Services, could you please give some information on this line item,
including an outline of how the $337,000 was spent?
P. PARSONS:
Yes.
Purchased Services provides support for events such as room bookings, catering,
captioning, audio-visual equipment, speakers, artists and facilitation in
support of the gender-based analysis plus training, leadership initiatives – for
example, like Future of the Vote, which I just talked about, which was Daughters
of the Vote but now we will be rebranding as Future of the Vote, in conjunction
with Equal Voice.
Violence
prevention, intimate partner violence training for assessment, sexual assault
nurse examiner program, which we talked about earlier, in an amount of $225,000.
And of course the Premier's Roundtable on Gender Equity, which I'm happy to say
you were also a part of, and you'll be certainly invited again when we put off
the next one, which we're hoping for this fall.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you.
Under
Grants and Subsidies, I would like to see if you have a list that you could
provide on how this grant money is distributed.
P. PARSONS:
Absolutely. I can provide a
list and I can actually give a little overview now, okay, if we want to.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Okay, yes, please.
P. PARSONS:
I can provide you with that
list: Status of Women Centres, $1,059,000. And of course we know these are
feminist organizations that continue to do work to achieve equality and justice
throughout political activism, community collaboration and in creation of a safe
and inclusive space for all women.
Also
Violence Prevention Newfoundland and Labrador organizations, at $820,000 – there
are 10 regional coordinating committees against violence, located across the
province. Indigenous violence prevention grants, as well as the Safe Harbour
outreach program known as SHOP, and multicultural women's organizations of
Newfoundland and Labrador, the NL Sexual Assault Crisis and Prevention Centre,
Newfoundland and Labrador Aboriginal Women's Network and the Coalition Against
the Sexual Exploitation of Youth, also known as CASEY.
Provincial Indigenous women's gatherings, that's at $25,000, and of course I'm
getting into the miscellaneous grants now, but those are the organizations. We
can provide you with that list, for you to have in hand.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
I'd appreciate that,
thank you.
Under
2.8.03, Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women, under Grants and
Subsidies, last year there was $10,000 extra given out.
Can you please outline where this went and for what project or activity?
P. PARSONS:
These were due to salary increases – just regular,
normal salary increases.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Okay.
Under Grants and Subsidies again – this year the budget is being increased.
Where is the additional money going?
P. PARSONS:
I do think that is, again, because of the salaries but
I will have staff get that precise information for you.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.
That concludes my questions.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Is
the House ready for the question?
Shall 2.1.01 to 2.8.03 inclusive carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 2.1.01 through 2.8.03 carried.
CHAIR:
Shall the total carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, Office of the Executive Council, total heads, carried.
CLERK:
Treasury Board Secretariat – 3.1.01 through 3.1.06
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 3.1.01 to 3.1.06 inclusive carry?
The
Chair recognizes the MHA for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Chair.
I
want to start off with some general questions. The Budget Speech had talked
about the establishment of a House Committee to review financial statements,
budgets and the annual reports of Crown corporations and organizations. I am
asking: When will this be done?
S. COADY:
Thank you for the question.
As
I have indicated in the House in Question Period, this was left to the House
Leaders to implement. So I would suggest that the House Leaders have been
discussing this very important point because I think it is an important point. I
think the scrutiny of Crown corporations is something that the House would have
a good role in providing – the same type of process. That is what I see.
T. WAKEHAM:
Yeah. That's good. We will get after our House Leader
to work on that.
My
next question was around the attrition plan, which government is now following.
What is the attrition plan and is there a multi-year forecast by department
which you can provide?
S. COADY:
Thank you for the question.
The
attrition is basically 0.5 per cent. I believe my colleague from across the way
from Torngat Mountains indicated earlier it is basically at 0.5 per cent. So
there have been 51 positions removed over the last year across government. It is
an attrition plan.
There are escalating annual attrition targets and they're removed then from the
base budgets.
As I
said, there have been 51 positions eliminated through attrition across core
government.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay.
Has the
Treasury Board Secretariat done an analysis to determine the total savings which
occurred as employees were working from home? And subsequently to do this, are
all employees now back in the office or is working from home long term being
explored?
S. COADY:
eWork or working from home is
something that I know has been a very active subject of conversation. Things
have changed in the general workforce and we have many people looking to work
from home. Everyone has returned to the workplace. There are some pilot projects
that we are doing in certain areas and departments to see how it we would
transition to an eWork environment. I know it's a pretty hot topic today across
all industries, not just government.
T. WAKEHAM:
Right.
S. COADY:
But everyone has returned.
With
regard to your question as to how much the savings were because people were
home. Of course, we had multiple lockdowns and then hybrid models throughout the
year, so it would be very, very challenging, I would say. There have been,
obviously, savings in paper costs. There have been savings in transportation
costs, but it would be hard to accumulate all those savings and determine
whether or not they can be eliminated, because I don't think they actually can
be. We're seeing activities return to normal.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay.
As we've
been going through Estimates, of course, there's been a pattern that departments
are saving money because positions are vacant. Again, has the Secretariat done
any analysis on this pattern? Do you monitor how long positions are vacant for?
What impact it has on the budget? Because there seems to be a number of vacant
positions that are left vacant for extended periods of time and I don't know if
they're able to use the money for something else or what? So I'm just curious as
to what analysis is being done.
S. COADY:
Well, certainly they can only
use the money for something else if there is a vote and if they have the
approval of Treasury Board itself. If they're moving monies within a vote, they
have to have the approval of Treasury Board.
I will
say that like others, not just governments but all industries, we have about 500
job vacancies in a general sense. It could be down to 400, it could be up to
550, in a period of time, that we're actively recruiting. There's a process for
active recruitment. We are doing a lot of work around marketing and improving
the process. So we're improving the processes to hire more efficiently, but
we're also doing some marketing to entice people to come to work for the
provincial government. That is why we introduced the Graduate Recruitment
Program, for example.
The
intent is not to hold these positions vacant, as much as it is taking a longer
period of time, as it is in every industry, to recruit. The big thing is
retaining, but we have a lot of retirements. You would know this; we have a lot
of retirements. There are about 800 people eligible for retirements this year.
We did have 238 people retire last year. So we're just at that period of time,
as we are in the world, because the baby-boom generation, which was a large
demographic, they're moving through to retirement. So we're actively doing an
awful lot to try and recruit people into the civil service. It is a noble and
honourable profession and we want people to come here.
T. WAKEHAM:
I asked when we did the
Estimates for Public Service Commission for a listing of how many positions have
been vacant for more than six months and how many have been vacant for more than
one year. Is that something that you could follow up for me –
S. COADY:
Oh, certainly.
T. WAKEHAM:
– to find out where that is.
S. COADY:
I would imagine they're
compiling all that information and I will be interested to see it as well.
T. WAKEHAM:
I appreciate that.
S. COADY:
Some positions are
notoriously hard to place.
T. WAKEHAM:
Right.
S. COADY:
And I can tell you I had a
conversation most recently and chartered professional accountants are hard to
come by these days. The front-line workers are hard to come by. So we're in a
situation where we have to make it very attractive to come to government.
T. WAKEHAM:
That's right. They have to be
competitive salaries with the private sector in order to come to government.
Have you
considered any incentives for those employees who are perhaps have the years of
service but not the age? In other words, one-time offering to suggest that if
you have the 25 or 30 years of service but you don't have the age that you could
go without penalty?
The fact
that our pension plan is in good shape these days and an opportunity to allow
people who want to retire to retire without penalty. That gives you two options:
one, you can review the positions to be filled; or two, open more positions up
for recruitment as you're trying to do. I'm just wondering if it had been
considered.
S. COADY:
We have 800 people that are
eligible for retirement. There are two concerns, if we incentivize people to go
early, one would be we would add to that number; secondly, that we would loss
that institutional memory as well. So we're managing now, through a recruitment
process, to bring more people into government. So we need to attract more people
into government, as I said, roughly 500 jobs on the board. We need to keep some
of that institutional memory. So, no, we're not considering, at this point in
time, any incentive or inducement to encourage people to go.
T. WAKEHAM:
I think that comes down to a
very robust recruitment process and competitive salaries. I mean, we all have
heard the stories in Transportation and Infrastructure, for example, of
inability to get mechanics and a lot of other positions in simple things that
for years I would never would have thought we would have a challenge in some of
those areas. I mean, the ferries is another one where we seem to have challenges
with crews and others. So I guess it really needs that look, to really take that
close look at it, to see where we go with it.
Under
3.1.01, under the Salaries there, there is a small variance last year in the
savings and then this year Salaries have gone up. I'm just wondering if you
could explain that one.
S. COADY:
Yes, we had a secretarial
position or an assistant's position that was vacant. We're anticipating that,
obviously, again in the budget coming back and, of course, we've had salary
increases.
T. WAKEHAM:
Under 3.1.02, significant
savings there in the Salaries area, $584,000.
S. COADY:
I'm happy to say we have 17
funded positions and we only have one vacancy now. Last year, we were recruiting
for ADMs and DMs – sorry, I should say because there are people watching –
deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers. So now we've filled those
positions with excellent recruits and we've even brought in a new person as
assistant deputy minister responsible for continuous improvement and
accountability. Really happy to have her expertise brought into government.
So
that's why you see the salary levels, the budget for Salaries, is back to where
it should be. But it was the recruitment process, because we had a change in
deputy minister and we had a change in ADMs. Again, we are having these changes
and retirements.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Minister.
3.1.01
to 3.1.06, MHA Brown.
J. BROWN:
I just want to ask the
minister, I know with the new recruitment and retention program, with the
graduate program you're introducing, I want to know if she can elaborate a bit
on the goals and targets that are set out by that program and what expectations
they hope to meet with this
in the changing workforce that we are, nationally, seeing?
S. COADY:
I think that is a couple of questions. So if I may, let
me talk about the Graduate Recruitment Program because it has been very well
received. Hundreds upon hundreds of applications and we are thrilled to receive
them. Hopefully, if they can't go in the Graduate Recruitment Program, we can
suggest they apply for other positions within government. So we are really happy
to see this.
The
Graduate Recruitment Program is a program that offers mentorship and leadership
skills. There were other iterations in previous years, previous decades and we
had a lot of good people come in to government, including our Clerk, by the way,
who is responsible for all of the civil service. So we are really excited to
have these people.
Now, it is up to each department how many people they can take in. So we are
anticipating an influx in September, maybe of 20, and then there will be more as
we move through the program. But this is kind of a mentorship, leadership,
across government process. Then others can take on other positions within
government that may not have that same kind of robust training program, I'll
call it.
With regard to recruitment within, you are absolutely correct. It is becoming
harder and harder, and this is not a government phenomena. There is a lot of
movement in society right now with job creation so that's why we have moved back
to the Public Service Commission as a more robust entity now. Again, we are
looking at new marketing programs. This, I guess, is under the Public Service
Commission Estimates, but we've also brought on new people to run the
recruitments as well.
So
you are absolutely correct, we are having to do a more robust job on
recruitment.
J. BROWN:
Excellent. I'm glad to hear that you are getting the
feedback and you are getting the applications.
Another thing is has Treasury Board or any of that looked at what seems to be
some hesitation from the general public to apply to the public service right
now? Has there been some research internally or anything to have this looked at?
S. COADY:
I thank you for the question. That would be under the
Public Service Commission, not Treasury Board.
J. BROWN:
Okay.
S. COADY:
Because this is a public forum, I just want to make
that – under the Public Service Commission, I don't think there has been any
active research around that, but it is a good suggestion.
J. BROWN:
All right, thank you.
And just
one more question there from me on this one here. Is there any interest or
anything from the Public Service Commission for this to actually expand how we
recruit and what kind of techniques we're using to recruit right now, since
we're in such a large deficit of employees right now?
S. COADY:
Absolutely, without a doubt.
So the Public Service Commission is doing a full review of how they're
recruiting, what are the best practices of recruiting. We've brought in new
recruiters, if I can call it that, the Graduate Recruitment Program, the
marketing program, so absolutely. There's a full amount of work being undertaken
in the Public Service Commission.
J. BROWN:
That's my questions for this.
Thanks.
CHAIR (Pike):
I recognize the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Chair.
Just to
continue on under 3.1.02, we had just talked about the additional positions
under Executive Support and I noticed there was an allocation of monies under
Property, Furnishings and Equipment. Is that to buy office equipment for all the
new ones you just hired?
S. COADY:
No. We're consolidating, and
you'll also see it under Supplies as well. So what we've done to ensure, kind
of, better executive oversight, if I can call it that, or improved executive
oversight, under Supplies, we've consolidated all the mobile phones and then
under the Property, Furnishings and Equipment, we've consolidated all the
materials for ergonomic equipment. Sorry, it's getting late and I'm losing my
tongue.
So you
know how there's a tremendous amount of work being done on ergonomics to ensure
the proper fit for people at their offices, that's where we've consolidated
across all of it. And if you look you can see it from 3.1.03, we've moved the
money from there into here.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay, yeah. Okay, I can see
that.
S. COADY:
Yeah.
T. WAKEHAM:
The other one under this
particular area is the revenue piece. I notice that the revenue budgeted last
year, received last year, $151,000 but this year it's gone down to $95,000.
S. COADY:
Yeah. So as you know, we have
consolidated – sorry, we have moved the pension payroll – and you're going to
see this throughout the Estimates, so it's a pretty big topic. So as you know,
we have three different consolidated pension plans and we have now moved the
pensioners' payroll into PSPP. So before, our department under Treasury Board,
under the Office of the Controller General, was providing those payroll
services. It's now moved to the pension plan.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay, under Public Service.
S. COADY:
It used to be that the
revenue for the provision of those services came from the pension plan, but now
it's being provided by the pension plan.
T. WAKEHAM:
So you're starting to move it
back.
S. COADY:
We're moving it to
Provident10.
T. WAKEHAM:
Yes, okay.
S. COADY:
And you'll see that. It will
be a common occurring – it will come up again.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay.
My next
questions are under 3.1.03. Again, under the Salaries piece, significant savings
last year of $1.47 million. Again, what positions were vacant and how long they
were vacant for?
S. COADY:
So this is an entry point to
enter into government. So they're very entry-level positions and there's a
significant turnover. So people come into government, into these positions and
then might be there six months or they might be there a year and they find other
opportunities within government, they have improved their careers. They move on
to other positions. So we have a significant amount of turnover in this area.
So there
were 43 vacancies and, unfortunately, that's what's going to happen. You're
going to see this, the entry-level positions, people come in, move on, they
upgrade their position, they move to other positions.
There's
also some very hard-to-fill positions in here. I just mentioned about chartered
public accountants, internal auditors. So a lot of professionals in here take
time to recruit. So they're hard to find sometimes.
It's a
matter of, we spend a significant amount of time recruiting into this area; it's
just the way it is.
T. WAKEHAM:
Under the Professional
Services heading, again the budget for '21-'22 was $573,000. We actually spent
$610,000 and we're going up to $698,000. I'm wondering if you can explain the
increases in that particular section?
S. COADY:
Yes. So let me just tell you
first about '21-'22 and I'll build on it for this year.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay.
S. COADY:
So that's the actuarial and
accounting services for employee benefits, pooled pension plans, the OPEBs, the
renewal negotiations pension administration system maintenance and arbitration
costs, all fall under that category. The difference this year is we're making
some changes to the document management system. There's been some technological
advancements there and we want to keep up with them. So that's why there's
additional funding in that category.
So
you'll see that last year, the projected revised budget is $610,000, we're going
to $698,000 and the difference is that technical advancements. And the regular
answer to your Professional Services are actuarial costs, arbitrations costs
that I just mentioned.
T. WAKEHAM:
Right.
So the
Revenue - Provincial there, is that the same explanation as was on the other
page in terms of the significant decrease in the budget and the revised and has
to do with the move –?
S. COADY:
You've got it. It's that
pension payroll transition. There's no longer a recoverable expense there, so
it's moved to Provident10.
T. WAKEHAM:
So at some point will that go
down to zero?
S. COADY:
I can ask.
T. WAKEHAM:
No, I'm just curious –
S. COADY:
I don't know if it will ever
go to zero, but I'll ask if –
T. WAKEHAM:
– to zero, but it's going to
continue as more –
S. COADY:
It'll basically be gone,
yeah.
T. WAKEHAM:
The next area I had was under
the 3.1.04, Government Personnel Costs, and this one last year we budgeted $41
million. I'm wondering how much of that was transferred out and spent in what
departments.
S. COADY:
To answer your previous
question about whether or not that'll ever go to zero, not likely because it's
the whole pensions division's recoverable costs.
T. WAKEHAM:
Oh, okay.
S. COADY:
But it won't be very high.
Put it that way.
So on
the $41.2 million that was budgeted, no, there was no spending. It wasn't
required in '21-'22. So it's zero. But this year we're anticipating $35 million
and it's only used and only sent to departments, as required. But we've settled
some big things this year, like NLMA, like judges, so there are some things that
we know that we will be sending out this year.
T. WAKEHAM:
So that's basically someone
would have sat down and calculated out the estimates of each of those types of
settlement?
S. COADY:
Absolutely.
T. WAKEHAM:
So we can get a listing of
those?
S. COADY:
I will endeavour to provide
that for you.
T. WAKEHAM:
Yeah, because somebody must
have done the worksheet up, you're right, to figure out what the budget –
S. COADY:
Right, because the estimate
last year was for $41 million, but we didn't settle with the judges until it
came to the House. Therefore it wasn't used, so there was nothing transferred.
This year, we know we're going to do that, so it will be transferred.
T. WAKEHAM:
So you are going to spend it.
S. COADY:
So somebody would have done a
worksheet.
T. WAKEHAM:
Yes.
There is
revenue here from both the feds and the province again. In this particular case,
though, provincial revenue, we only got $65,000 but it has gone up to $325,000
again. I am curious about those revenue items.
S. COADY:
Sure. They are basically like
funded positions, if I can use that. From the provincial side of things, there
are a number of positions funded through WorkplaceNL, for example, because they
assist with the review processes. So they are funded positions and then
WorkplaceNL compensates government on that and that is that revenue.
T. WAKEHAM:
You bill them, yes.
S. COADY:
There are some pension plan
administrators and again because it deals with the pension plan, we get revenue
to offset those costs and that is where you are seeing it there.
On the
federal side, again, much less significant, it is for some federal cost-shared
personnel. Specifically around, if I can remember it, water quality agreements
and climate change response initiatives. But because they are cost shared with
government, we have to have a place where we take in the revenues.
T. WAKEHAM:
Yes.
Let's
see if I can get through this now before the 55 seconds runs up.
3.1.05,
under the Grants and Subsidies again, looking for a breakdown of how much money
was spent, including what was transferred out to other departments or the ABCs,
and wondering how much in total of the $27 million was spent, where it was spent
and for what purpose.
S. COADY:
Okay, let me try to do this
very expeditiously. There was $18 million of the $27 million utilized and $16
million of that was Come Home Year. So the majority of it was Come Home Year.
T. WAKEHAM:
So there was $18 million
used; $16 million, Come Home Year.
S. COADY:
I'm using rounded numbers.
T. WAKEHAM:
Yes.
S. COADY:
So that was what was
appropriated and transferred then to the department.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay.
S. COADY:
And then there was some money
there for reconciliation and a few other small things, but they were small
things.
For this
year, there are things – I'm going to say we augmented it, but there are things
like the vaccine passports, the money for the community grants program. I
mentioned today $5 million more we're going to put towards community grants.
There are some strategic initiative things in there. There are some third party
legal requirements, reconciliation requirements, so that makes up the rest.
T. WAKEHAM:
So you can get us a list of
those things?
S. COADY:
I can.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay, because my time is up.
CHAIR (Warr):
There are no other questions?
T. WAKEHAM:
There are no other questions?
CHAIR:
Yeah, they're done.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay, I got one more then.
CHAIR:
There you go.
T. WAKEHAM:
Quickly, under the Revenue - Provincial $10 million.
S. COADY:
Wait now, just –
T. WAKEHAM:
3.1.06, Financial Assistance,
Capital. I'm just wondering where the revenue is expected to come from and was
anything collected last year.
S. COADY:
That's the Corner Brook Pulp
and Paper loan. During COVID, that has not been paid down. So there have been no
recoveries on the Corner Brook Pulp and Paper loan, and that's what you're
seeing there. We're working with Kruger.
T. WAKEHAM:
Right.
S. COADY:
As you know, there was a
downturn in the industry. There seems to be a bit of an upturn now, so we're
having continuous conversations with Kruger, but that is where it's being held
because, of course, there is a loan to Corner Brook Pulp and Paper that was to
be repaid.
T. WAKEHAM:
That was the $90 million –
S. COADY:
And that's what you're seeing
here.
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay.
Okay,
that's all the questions I had.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Is the
House ready for the question?
Shall
3.1.01 to 3.1.06 inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 3.1.01 through 3.1.06 carried.
CLERK:
Total for Treasury Board.
CHAIR:
Shall the total carry of
Treasury Board Secretariat?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, Treasury Board Secretariat, total heads, carried.
CLERK:
Office of the Chief
Information Officer: 4.1.01 through 4.1.05 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 4.1.01 to 4.1.05
inclusive carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Chair.
I'm
aware that many of the line items and budget items in OCIO will change. As
projects are finished, they move on to the next stage. Could you please give an
overview of the major projects, which are ongoing at OCIO currently?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Sure. I'd like to answer the
question, and then I can just give a bit of brief overview.
We have,
I guess, a full section on projects, 4.1.01. We have a lot of projects in flight
and different stages of starting, and, obviously, when we do a project it's in
conjunction with the department. Unless it's like an OCIO project. If we're
doing a project with Crown Lands, we need Crown Lands to be ready. So there's a
lot of kind of partnerships for all the projects.
We have
a certain amount of control about how projects proceed and when they stop and
start. Some of the projects we have ongoing, Digital Government project, for
example, we have Amanda, which a permit and licensing program for Digital
Government and Service NL, but we use that same technology across multiple
departments.
There's a payroll system upgrade that is going on. The IPGS has a LaMPSS Program
replacement. There is a building upgrade for the Department of Health and
Community Services. We are looking at overall how we modernize some of our older
systems. We have a project around managed services. We are upgrading servers.
There is a shared Apprenticeship Management System. That project is across with
all of the other Atlantic provinces.
We
are working with Crown Lands on improvements. We are doing a financial system
upgrade for the courts because we do all of the IT for the courts as well. We
are doing a project with Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation, a merged
manifest. I think that is part of their internal systems that they have in that
department. We are doing an electronic death notifications with Vital Stats.
That is funded by the federal government. We are the first in Canada to do that.
There is a Kiteworks project for Registry of Deeds. We are upgrading CADO. For
education, there is a special education case management system. For ECCM, there
is a Municipal Support Information System upgrade. For Justice and Public
Safety, we are improving the chief medical examiner case management system. For
HRS, we are doing an upgrade of their HRMS system. We are replacing the Digital
Government and Service NL alert program.
For
ECCM, we are doing a greenhouse gas registry. We are also doing some mobile
inspection software so a lot of inspections that happen across government,
people can do them on their iPads, tablets and phones rather than having to do a
paper-based one. We are doing a training intake program. We are looking at cloud
strategy, I guess, overall and what things and when we migrate to the cloud. So
rather than being physically on something, somewhere, here, it is hosted in a
lake that Amazon owns just as an example of in the cloud.
We
are looking at the MRD system upgrade – to submit a photo for MRD, to get your
driver's licence. We are doing an upgrade of a program we have called Qmatic and
Dealerweb.
So
those are the projects that are going on in various stages at the moment with
OCIO. I would like, I guess, to just provide anyone watching or listening with
some overall feedback, information about OCIO.
So
we support all the IT and the information management functions of core
government and agencies, boards and commissions – everything from the RNC, the
Provincial Courts, Supreme Courts and the Public Procurement Agency. We also do
everything for, essentially, all core government, digital government – MRD for
example, anything online, all the web sites. It goes on and on and on.
One huge
thing that we've focused on, I guess, in the last so many months, is
cybersecurity, which I'm sure we'll get to further. We're doing a range of
things to just make sure that we're as beefed up as we can be. We continuously
monitor for cyberattacks. We work with the Government of Canada's Communications
Security Establishment, the Canadian Center for Cyber Security and Public Safety
Canada on that, to continuously monitor, I guess, our threats and the threats of
other provincial and federal governments, and we kind of share data at a higher
level to make sure that we're as protected as we can be.
I'd also
like to add in terms of the structure of our Estimates and the financial
structure of our department. We have Corporate Services and Projects, so that's
Current and Capital projects. That's all essentially IT projects for all
departments and agencies that the OCIO works with. And then the second section
is Application and Information Management Services, so that area is responsible
for support and maintenance of all the departmental applications across
government.
Operations and Security, which is the next – we have Current and Capital;
they're responsible for government's data centre, all the core technology
infrastructure. Like the laptops, desktops and servers, networks, email systems,
all the mobile devices. Managing the stuff on your phones, the backups, recovery
of government data, information protection and security.
So then
just some notes for OCIO that's different than in some other departments. In
OCIO when we have Supplies lines, I think it's important to note that supplies
includes things like software purchases and subscriptions, you know, when we buy
a piece of software that counts as supplies. We have over 160 software renewals
that are in supplies.
Then
when we talk about Purchased Services, that could be anything from – we have a
contract with the company who helps us maintain our data centres, or it could be
we have a contract with a cybersecurity company to help us with that. So
Purchased Services is like all the IT contracts that we have with different
organizations.
So
that's, I guess, my overview and looking forward to lots of other questions.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Member for Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
How many computer assets are
in use, and do you know the breakdown of desktop compared to laptop computers?
S. STOODLEY:
I don't have that with me; we
can certainly get that for you.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Yes, that's fine.
Do you
know how many people have two computers assigned to them as well, a laptop and a
desktop? While you're checking that out, I guess.
S. STOODLEY:
Sure.
I would
like to add that I've insisted that no one have both, unless they absolutely,
absolutely needed one. When someone was given a laptop, for example, during
COVID, we were going to take away the desktop, or when they went back into the
office and if they're no longer working from home, we took the laptop for
someone else, and they're back on the desktop.
Ideally,
in a perfect world, everyone has a laptop so that they can work from home, but
we do have a lot of desktops in government and they are slightly cheaper to buy.
There is a government policy on single devices. So unless it's absolutely
necessary, that everyone has to have one device.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Okay.
4.1.01,
under Salaries, can you please outline any vacancies, which gave the savings of
$155,000 in the previous fiscal year, and how much did this impact operations?
S. STOODLEY:
Sure.
Hiring
in IT is extremely difficult in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have lots of jobs
and we just can't hire people for them. That is a problem for all companies in
Newfoundland and Labrador, and government doesn't pay as much as other
companies. There is a big financial services technology company in St. John's
and they hire all the graduating classes of all the IT classes for college and
university. So it is a problem for all tech companies in Newfoundland and
Labrador, and it also impacts government.
Any
salary savings is not because we didn't try; it's just the nature of the
environment. I don't have the number exactly of salaries broken down in this
area, but I can tell you – no, I do, sorry. I guess, in total, across OCIO we
had 52 vacancies. I don't have the breakdown by division.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Okay.
When I'm
asking about Salaries and you're talking about IT, maybe somewhere along the
way, because you're competing for people, that salaries may have to increase
because of the cyberattacks and having the best people in the industry.
S. STOODLEY:
Yes.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Last year the spending on
Supplies went over budget by $71,700. Can you please explain that, if you could?
S. STOODLEY:
Absolutely.
So
Supplies, we had a big increase and a big decrease here. We obviously put in the
VaxPass program, which was fully funded by the federal government. So that shows
up in this line item, which was $950,000. But then we also moved a mix of
software – some projects required less software but more professional services,
so we moved $878,300 to the Professional Services line. So that is the
difference in what we were going to spend and what we did spend.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Minister.
4.1.01
to 4.1.05, the Chair recognizes the MHA for St. John's Centre.
J. DINN:
No.
CHAIR:
Sorry, I recognize the MHA
for Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
Thank you, Chair.
Before I
begin, Minister, it's been a very hectic time for your department with COVID and
the transition to many of your staff working from home; a lot of services
working from home; also having to have a lot of services online. Then the
cyberattack. I'd just like to take a moment to say that you've weathered a lot
of storms and I must congratulate you. I know that your department has received
a lot of criticism, but I must say you've done a tremendous job.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you.
L. EVANS:
Thank you for your
resiliency. I think we need to recognize that.
Moving
to 4.1.03, Operations and Security, I do have some questions there. How many
data breaches have occurred across government since April 2021, not counting the
cyberattack last fall? How many people have been impacted by these breaches?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Minister of Digital Government and Service NL
S. STOODLEY:
Sure.
I thank
the Member for her compliments of the team. They are a very hard-working team. I
think that they are stretched and over – I don't know exactly when, but the OCIO
budget continuously continues to decrease. It would be easy to spend four times
as much money. So I think part of the challenge is spending within our budget,
which I think is very important, and trying to maximize what we're doing and see
what we can stop doing.
I guess
I will just clarify that OCIO and core government were not subject to the breach
– the cyberattack, sorry. That was NLCHI. I just want to be clear about. We are
looking overall at our cybersecurity to make sure that we're doing what we can,
but core government was not impacted by that.
So, I
guess, in terms of data breaches, I don't have a number – I'm not aware of any
IT system breaches. I know there are sometimes like a manual privacy breach.
Like if someone sends an email to the wrong person, for example. I don't have
the information for that for government. I can certainly find out if there are
any in OCIO.
My team
is telling me they're not aware of any IT breaches whatsoever.
L. EVANS:
Okay, thank you.
What was
the role of your department and OCIO in the response on the cyberattack last
fall? What steps did you and the employees of OCIO take to help mitigate the
impacts?
S. STOODLEY:
Obviously, when the
cyberattack was announced, I was not part of the core team. But certainly the
experts in OCIO were engaged to just – kind of all hands on deck. There were
additional supports that were brought in from the federal government, for
example, to just make sure. We did do kind of like a second look at everything
just to make sure; we brought in fresh eyes to makes sure that in terms of core
government there were no vulnerabilities, for example, that we weren't aware of.
We've also looked at a bit of a cyber review just to kind of triple check again.
Our team
was just kind of stepped in and helped as needed, but it was not led by our
team.
L. EVANS:
No, it was of an assistance
type of –
S. STOODLEY:
Yeah.
L. EVANS:
Yeah.
Has OCIO
entered into an agreement with a management security service provider to
increase the level of tools and expertise available to government in protecting
its computer systems from threats?
S. STOODLEY:
Yes. So before the
cyberattack, we did engage with a managed security provider and part of the
rationale for that is that we cannot hire cybersecurity experts. They make way
more than we can pay; I think we should pay them a lot. So because we can't hire
them because they are in such high demand, I think a safe, prudent, road we can
go down, which we did go down, was engaging with a cybersecurity provider who
can come in and fill some of those – provide that expertise as a company rather
than as employees. So we have 24-7, 365 support from the managed cybersecurity
company.
L. EVANS:
Thank you.
Has
there been an audit completed recently on the vulnerability of all the
technology and databases in government networks? And if not, has this process at
least been done for some of the systems in the departments?
S. STOODLEY:
I will say that we have done
a review with different partners and we're kind of actioning and looking at what
we need to do and what we can do. I guess that's all I'll say about that.
L. EVANS:
Okay, thank you.
Next
question: Is there now a concerted effort to upgrade our health information
systems away from Meditech and build something more efficient and secure?
S. STOODLEY:
My understanding is Meditech
is the health – like with NLCHI, that's not on core government, so we do have,
for example, the MCP system within core government, so we do have some health
systems. I'm not involved in the Meditech or any of the software within the
health authorities. Although, I know that the Health Accord, and in the upcoming
blueprint, we'll have a better – my understanding, I could be wrong – idea of
the technology for the future of health care in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I've
looked to that document, I don't know what it's going to say yet, but that will
be my guiding point for technology for health.
L. EVANS:
And to be quite honest,
Minister, we don't have a full picture of exactly how the government interacts
or OCIO interacts so sometimes our questions are a little bit off base.
S. STOODLEY:
Yup.
L. EVANS:
I do appreciate you answering
them. I also know, too, there are some areas that you don't have much reach into
the knowledge of the activities, so I think we're both sort of trying our best
to formulate questions and to get answers.
A lot of
these jobs get contracted out, and due to the precise technology expertise that
you alluded to, involved in projects to be undertaken, what kind of things is
OCIO capable of building in-house? Like, for example, the contract that was
awarded to change health care in 2020; with that deal, we paid $35 million and
they own the data that's produced from the operating software.
Is that
something like our team in government could have built, and if not all, maybe
some type of the program, rather than spending tens of millions of dollars that
would then leave the province?
S. STOODLEY:
Sure. That's an excellent
question. So we do have some things that we do have teams for. I guess I'll say
in terms of all the core things we have experts on, like Microsoft Outlook and
Exchange and the networks and devices, all those, we do have experts for those
types of things. We do have teams focused on some of the bigger software. For
example, PeopleSoft is a huge application that we have. We would have experts on
that, for example.
We do
have a technology that we're using to build new online things for employees and
residents and that uses one team. It's kind of like an agile approach where they
might do something for Digital Government and then they'll pivot and they'll go
do something for Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation using the same
technology. So someone online goes online and does like a series of steps on a
form and it goes into a place where the data can easily be manipulated and
stored. We do have specialized teams for things like that.
We also
have a digital team, like a Web team, focused on website things. But there would
be projects or certain technology where we would have to bring in people that it
would not make sense to have experts, or maybe we can't find experts.
L. EVANS:
Yes and you did allude to the
cost of actually hiring and retaining that expertise.
S. STOODLEY:
Yes.
L. EVANS:
Thank you.
That's
the end of my questions.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Chair.
I will
do the same as the Member for Torngat Mountains and congratulate your
department, to come up with the VaxPasses during COVID and implement all that
and make sure it's safe and secure is a pretty good job to do. I congratulate
you on that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Could you please outline the
Professional Services that were purchased last year? I note that last year the
line item went over budget by $1.3 million.
S. STOODLEY:
Which one is that, sorry?
L. O'DRISCOLL:
On Professional Services
under 4.1.01. Some of it, I think, came from Supplies, you did say earlier but
there was a bit more there. There was $850,000 you said, I think.
S. STOODLEY:
Sure.
The $2.6
million, the revised budget, that was some additional VaxPass funding, which was
fully offset by the federal government and included $400,000 for a security
review. We did have to hire some additional project managers and business
analysts for projects. Then $73,000 of mixing projects around a bit.
Then if
you look at the budget for the upcoming year, we had to move some things around
and that was $265,000. We've reprofiled a million dollars from Capital to
Current, so that's to reflect, I guess, as a government, when we buy things and
spend money, we're spending them less on physical things that sit here in the
building or in another building and more things in the cloud. More things that
you pay for on a monthly basis, for example, or as you use them.
So if
you buy things that are in the cloud that you use on a regular basis, that is
Current. If you buy hardware, for example, that sits in a data centre, that is
Capital. Just as a process, we would have to go to Treasury Board and ask for
that, for example.
We did
move $1 million from Capital to Current, which is here, for the upcoming year.
Then, I will say, as a government, we are investing an additional $3 million in
cybersecurity for the upcoming year.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Okay.
That was
my next question. So good. Thank you.
Under
Purchased Services, last year Purchased Services went over budget by $136,100
was spent, but could you please provide some information on that?
S. STOODLEY:
Sure.
So
during COVID we weren't able to do as many – we had some, I guess, areas where
we had staff who had some time available so we did do additional training. We
did additional user experience training for some of our staff and Microsoft
Exchange training.
We kind
of moved money around and that is why it's in this line item. We are not having
it again because we kind of took advantage of some time and money to do
additional training.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
All right.
Under
4.1.02, Salaries, can you please give some context to the Salaries budget? Last
year, there was $8.4 million budgeted; $8.1 was spent this year; and $8.4 has
been asked for again.
S. STOODLEY:
Sorry, are you on 4.1.02?
L. O'DRISCOLL:
4.1.02, yes.
S. STOODLEY:
Okay.
So the
difference between what we spent originally and what was budgeted was attrition,
employee turnover and just the delays in finding and hiring people. Then the
extra increase is just the general government step salary increase.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Under Supplies, last year Supplies went over budget by $145,600. I was just
wondering why that was.
S. STOODLEY:
Sure.
One of
our big software is PeopleSoft and it is a bit complicated the way, sometimes,
we buy technology, but we had to do an upgrade so that extra funding was to do
this PeopleSoft upgrade. Now, OCIO has a project to make some changes to that
software, so we won't need that spending next year.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Okay.
Under
Professional Services, can you explain how the money was spent in Professional
Services last year and where the money is planning to be spent this year?
S. STOODLEY:
Yes, Professional Services is for contractor supporting government systems. We
were slightly less than what we expected but we still anticipate that level of
need moving forward.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Okay.
Under
Revenue - Provincial, can you please outline how the revenue is generated and
what accounts for the variance? I note last year $52,000 was expected and
$15,000 was received.
S. STOODLEY:
There are some organizations
that we provide specific IT services to, for example, Provident10, the Teachers'
Pension Plan, the Newfoundland and Labrador Municipal Financing Corporation and
Legal Aid.
Depending on what we do for them, we have different agreements where they pay us
for our team, kind of track their hours, and they pay OCIO for their work. So we
kind of charge them as we use it and they didn't need as much from OCIO. They
also have their own IT teams but they didn't need as much from OCIO so we didn't
need to bill them as much.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Okay.
I am
going to move on to 4.1.03. I just have a couple of questions there first. Given
the recent cyberattack, has OCIO increased its spending on security, which I
think you did answer, I think you said $3 million?
S. STOODLEY:
Yes, our government gave OCIO
an extra $3 million to focus on cybersecurity.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Did OCIO have to spend any
money last year in response to the cyberattack, like right away?
S. STOODLEY:
We did engage a partner to
help us with a review. I mentioned that already, I think it was $400,000. We did
reallocate a lot of people's time to looking at that, so that wouldn't
necessarily be cost, it's just their salary time. There might have been a few
small things, but the big, substantial thing is the $3 million that the
government is giving to OCIO in addition to its budget for this upcoming year to
kind of just make sure that we're shoring up what we need to shore up.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
I'm pretty sure it won't be
hard to spend.
S. STOODLEY:
Oh, no. I mean we could have
quadruple the budget and still not be able to do everything.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Following the cyberattack,
has OCIO conducted a review of the security of all ABCs and departmental
technology?
S. STOODLEY:
We have looked at core
government; we've done an initial review with a partner. In terms of all ABCs,
that's an ongoing discussion and what OCIO's role is. I think we could have a
bigger role, but we haven't worked that out yet.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Under 4.1.03, under Salaries,
can you please outline the variance in the salary line item. I note that in last
fiscal year there was a savings of $698,100.
S. STOODLEY:
Yes, so this is just people
that we could not hire. There are jobs and no one applies. That's why we didn't
spend as much. There was a $27,000 increase for the salary increase of staff who
are there, but the difference is that we can't hire people.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Okay.
Under
Transportation and Communications, can you please outline what this expenditure
of $1.5 million was for?
S. STOODLEY:
Sure.
We had
an additional wide-area network. Like our network, which is what we use to
connect to Wi-Fi and stuff, we had additional costs for that, which was offset
by reductions in travel and deliveries. Then the increase is we've just moved
some money around with the zero-based budgeting process. So there's a $22,000
increase there.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
So in your previous question,
you said it's a hard job to fill. Is that because of IT – you're specifically
looking for in those jobs that you're saying that you can't find people?
S. STOODLEY:
The tech sector in
Newfoundland and Labrador is booming, and it would be 10 times bigger if there
were people to hire.
There is
one big financial services technology company here, who's in the news a lot and
they hire the graduating class of every college and university. In my previous
life, we would have had 10 times the IT people, but we hire as many people as
will come. As a government, we don't pay as much as some of the private sector
or companies, which is why we have to go with the managed providers, like we did
for security.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Right.
S. STOODLEY:
Outside of my OCIO role, as a
province, we could employ another 5,000 people like that in IT, and you don't
need to be coder. Anyway, that's another conversation.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
It's just that it's –
S. STOODLEY:
Those jobs pay really well.
Anyone in high school listening – I'm sure there's not – do an IT field or email
me.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
I'm sure in high school
they're listening to this.
S. STOODLEY:
Tell your grandkids to go
into the tech sector; you'll make more money than any other sector.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Under Supplies, could you
please outline the types of supplies purchased last year and why there was $8.9
million spent last year?
S. STOODLEY:
Absolutely.
Supplies
for OCIO is software. This would include all the software that 160 departments
use. So it's a lot of software. Anything from, like there's graphical user
interface systems for mapping. It could be all software. It's all software for
all departments, I guess, like IBM, the court systems, Adobe, Oracle, Microsoft,
McAfee, all that.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Just keep going?
CHAIR:
Yes, there are no more
questions.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Okay.
Under
Professional Services, I note that last year Professional Services went over
budget by $166,400. I'm just wondering why.
S. STOODLEY:
So we had additional demands
for contract resourcing due to, I would say, a cybersecurity review. Then there
was an additional $12,000 added just from the zero-based budgeting moving some
money around.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Okay.
Under
Purchased Services, can you please outline what services are purchased here and
what accounts for the variance in the line item?
S. STOODLEY:
Sure.
Purchased Services would be a contract that we have the company to help us run
our IT. That would include, for example, the company we pay to help us run our
data centres. That would include the cybersecurity company. We had savings from
hardware maintenance costs, because we bought some new equipment. When you buy
new equipment, maintenance is included for so long. I guess like when you lease
a car or something. When you buy new, we had so much of that included.
We had a
$59,000 increase for what we pay OnX to run our data centre, and then we had
$167,000 decrease as a result of realigning some of the resources. So if we
needed anything for our data centre, like any physical hardware or anything,
that would also go in Purchased Services.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Under Property, Furnishings
and Equipment, could you please outline what was purchased totalling $795,700?
S. STOODLEY:
Sure.
It's IT
hardware.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Under Revenue - Provincial,
could you please outline where this revenue comes from?
S. STOODLEY:
So the extra revenue, I guess
this would go to things that we support for other organizations as well. But the
extra revenue, the $58,000, was from a carryover of extra revenue we received
for essentially expenses that were invoiced in the previous year.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Okay.
I will
just go back. Why wouldn't government do more support and more training for IT
people? That would be something to look at.
S. STOODLEY:
Well, we did spend more money
on training; we talked about that earlier. We do a lot of training.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Okay.
S. STOODLEY:
We could always do more.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Yes, invest more, for sure.
Under
4.1.04, last year the Salaries savings was $440,000. Can you please outline why,
and the impact that had on the projects?
S. STOODLEY:
So the Salaries were less in
this Capital bucket. This is kind of a special bucket for if we're doing
something, from an accounting perspective, gets to be billed to Capital costs.
Our digital government team, we didn't need as many resources initially because
of COVID. We weren't ramping up projects and stuff. We took the Digital
Government people away from what they usually do and they were redeployed on
special projects and vacancies.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Okay.
Under
Professional Services, can you please outline what the $6-million expenditure
was for and what this year's $5.9 million is budgeted for?
S. STOODLEY:
Sure.
The
difference is we're doing an immigration project, which again it goes to Capital
costs. That's a project with all the Atlantic Canadian provinces. The project
was a bit delayed, so that's why we didn't spend as much as we had budgeted,
about $500,000 worth, which is carried forward to the next year, which we're
going to spend on the project now. This would include funding for big projects
that, from an accounting perspective, we can capitalize. So we get to amortize
the money over a longer period of time.
What we
did was work on the immigration initiative. The reduction is the million dollars
that we moved from Capital to Current, which I talked about earlier. An extra
$500,000 was for the immigration project. Up until this past year, there was a
special pot of money brought in for Digital Government. So that special pot of
money is used up and now we're just doing Digital Government from within what we
currently have.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Okay.
Under
Property, Furnishings, and Equipment, can you please explain how the savings was
found in the previous year?
S. STOODLEY:
The projects that were
capitalized, we didn't need as much hardware as we thought. That's why the
amount is lower. Then looking at the projects that we have, that are Capital in
the upcoming year, we need less again. This kind of, I guess, aligns with what I
was saying about we're doing fewer projects that are Capital and more projects
that are Current. I guess we need to buy fewer pieces of hardware and we pay
more monthly subscriptions, for example.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Okay.
The last
one is under 4.1.05, Property, Furnishings and Equipment; could you please
explain how $558,000 is spent?
S. STOODLEY:
Sure.
This is
Capital costs, I guess from an accounting perspective, things that are Capital
related to Operations and Security. This is the budget for the physical parts of
our data centre. We have a data centre. We have three supplemental disaster
recovery sites and this is support for our – so here it says over 10,000
desktops and laptops and over 1,700 services. So that's what the money pays for.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
All right, that's all the
questions.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Is the
House ready for the question?
Shall
4.1.01 to 4.1.05 inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 4.1.01 through 4.1.05 carried.
CLERK:
The total, Office of the
Chief Information Officer.
CHAIR:
Shall the total of the Office
of the Chief Information Officer carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, Office of the Chief Information Officer, total heads, carried.
CLERK:
Total, Executive Council.
CHAIR:
Shall the total of the
Executive Council carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, Executive Council, total heads, carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the Estimates
of the Executive Council carried without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, Estimates of Executive Council carried without amendment.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I move
that the Committee rise and report having passed, without amendment, the
Estimates of the Legislature and Executive Council.
CHAIR:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay and Chair of the Committee of Supply
B. WARR:
Speaker, the Committee of
Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report that they have passed, without amendment, the Estimates of the
Legislature and the Executive Council.
SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
Supply reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred
and directed him to report that they have passed, without amendment, the
Estimates of Supply.
When
shall the report be received?
S. CROCKER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, report received and adopted.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
getting some very strong, very good information from the Clerk. She looked at me
and she said just adjourn.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
S. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I don't think
there would be any objection.
I move,
seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that this House do now adjourn.
SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion
carried.
This
House do stand adjourned until 1:30 o'clock tomorrow.
Enjoy
your evening.
Go Leafs
Go!