PDF Version

October 20, 2021

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. L No. 24

The

House met at 10 a.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

Orders of the Day

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 6, Bill 20,

An Act To Amend The Coat

Of Arms Act.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

K. HOWELL:

Thank you, Speaker.

Today,

we are introducing for second reading proposed amendments to

Schedule A of the

Coat of Arms Act.

SPEAKER:

You need to move and second

it first.

K. HOWELL:

Sorry.

I move,

seconded by the Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation,

that Bill 20,

An Act To Amend The Coat Of Arms Act, be now read a second time.

S. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, if we could have

a brief recess?

SPEAKER:

This House will recess for a

few minutes.

Recess

SPEAKER:

Are the House Leaders ready

for take two?

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As you

just said take two. My apologies to the House this morning, in a little bit of a

rush here this morning set us back a few minutes.

Mr.

Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 6, Bill 20,

An Act To Amend The Coat

of Arms Act.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

K. HOWELL:

Speaker, I move, seconded by

the Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation, that Bill

20,

An Act To Amend The Coat of Arms Act, now be read a second time.

SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 20,

An Act To Amend The Coat of Arms Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Coat of Arms Act.” (Bill

20)

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

K. HOWELL:

Thank you, Speaker.

Today,

we're introducing for second reading proposed amendments to

Schedule A of the

Coat of Arms Act. The proposed

amendments seek to change the legal description of the

Coat of Arms Act and to add Labrador to the name of the province and

to replace the word “savages” with “Beothuk.”

I'd like

to take a moment or two to provide some background and general information on

the Coat of Arms Act.

The act

sets out the legal description of Newfoundland and Labrador's official coat of

arms. It also contains the legal authority for the use of the emblem. Like many

traditions and monuments throughout North America, the United Kingdom and

European countries, it dates back hundreds of years and it is an expression of

the views, the language and the culture of that time.

The

written description of our province's coat of arms reflects the original 1637

patent, which does not reference the Labrador portion of the province. This

description also includes racist and colonial phrases. Phrases, Speaker, that

are specifically derogatory to Indigenous peoples.

Needless

to say, it is time that this legal description was changed and that is the

purpose of the amendments that we are discussing today.

Actions

that respect the culture and heritage of Indigenous peoples are an important

step on the path to reconciliation. These proposed changes are part of the

process of building an inclusive environment in the province. It's a step

forward in ensuring that the coat of arms more accurately reflects the people

and cultures of the province.

Changing

the wording is also part of an ongoing review of cultural symbols, observances

and monuments. Symbols, such as statues and monuments should better reflect the

diversity, resilience and history of Indigenous peoples. The inter-departmental

working group continues to look at all observances in our province to find a

path forward on recommendations on how to best recognize and commemorate our

history.

Speaker,

as part of the review of the Coat Of Arms

Act input was sought through an online questionnaire. In total, 201

submissions were received; 29 of those identified as being a member of an

Indigenous community. Over 85 per cent of those identified individuals agreed

with proposed wording changes. Overall, 83 per cent of the respondents agreed

with the change.

Some

respondents also expressed a desire for us to go further. Some have suggested

that the emblem itself be changed. These steps that we're proposing today are

very important and there is nothing to prevent us from looking at further

changes in the future. We continue to consult with Indigenous leaders as we move

forward.

Speaker,

I look forward to hearing the views and any questions from my hon. colleagues on

these proposed amendments. I'm certain we'll support the changes that will

better reflect the culture and heritage of Indigenous peoples. We will work

together to build on these changes and other actions to ensure an inclusive and

respectful environment in the province.

Thank

you.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

J. WALL:

Thank you, Speaker.

It's

always an honour to sit in this hon. House and represent the constituents of the

beautiful District of Cape St. Francis. It's a privilege to speak to this

particular piece of legislation this morning, Bill 20.

I'd like

to thank the minister and the staff for the presentation this morning, and I

look forward to the conversation as we move forward.

Speaker,

our caucus welcomes this long-overdue change to modernize our coat of arms. From

what I understand, this has been a recurring conversation over the years and I'm

glad to see that it's finally to the floor of this hon. House.

Each and

every one of us need to do more to reflect on our relationship with Indigenous

people. This government has been slow with dealing with reconciliation, as

evidenced by the long delay of the lack of apology for the Inuit for the

residential schools, first promised in 2017. And I'd also like to mention that I

note that the Innu feelings of betrayal of the secret rate mitigation talks

which resulted in court action. This symbolism of change must be judged as the

totality of the government's action.

Mr.

Speaker, I look forward to asking questions further as we go through the

process.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

J. BROWN:

Thank you, Speaker.

This is

a long time coming, as we even said in the presentation, especially the part

“and Labrador.” I'm sure the Member from Corner Brook can remember when he was

there in Ottawa when we changed the Constitution to “and Labrador.” As a

province, we've been recognizing “and Labrador” even long before that and we're

only getting around to now putting “and Labrador” in the

Coat of Arms Act . I believe it was first brought up in the '90s to

make sure that “and Labrador” was added to all legislation and staff that

officially dealt with government.

But I'm

glad to see it there today. As a Labradorian, it's important that we, in

Labrador, are also recognized for our contribution to this province and our

distinct heritage and culture that make up Labrador. I'm sure most Members here,

who have been there, can tell when you go to Labrador, you know you're in

Labrador. I do welcome that and it just seems like a bit of a long time to wait

until we get it.

Removing

such derogatory language in this act, especially the description of the coat of

arms, which is one of the official seals of this province, its official symbol

and having derogatory language in its description is, one, not really a

surprise, coming from colonialism and how things were, unfortunately, in the

past. But it's great that we are going to delete that and put in a more correct

and appropriate description that actually is more in kind.

But, at

the same time, we also have to look at what other pieces of legislation, what

other pieces of descriptions and stuff that do sit in the archives of this

province that, you know, maybe they also need to be updated and changed. Maybe

we can have a broader scope and look at where we can do better as a society, as

a people, as a province, to better reflect the true aspects of what is this

province.

I look

forward to seeing what other things we can move forward with and start on the

path of healing as a province. We do have a very large and distinct Indigenous

population in this province so it's time to reflect those beautiful cultures

that we do all share and we love.

I do

support this and, obviously, I will support this as a great change. But, at the

same time, let's all reflect on how we can do better, as a province, how we can

change things and work towards a reconciliation and make sure that maybe there

are other things that we could do that, you know, better reflect how we act and

how we go forward.

We talk

about systemic racism; we talk about other things that are prevalent. So let's

all do better and let's all go forward mindful and thinking that when we do

something, we have to make sure that we're doing stuff from the best interests

but also out of a place of kindness and out of a place of healing and

reflection.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation, and Labrador Affairs.

L. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll

take a couple of minutes to speak to Bill 20, amendments to the coat of arms. I

will say that I enjoyed listening to my colleague from Labrador West; he made

some good points. Labrador certainly is a unique place and it is a tremendous

privilege to call that beautiful part of the province home for those of us born

and raised there, I can tell you that.

The

amendments to the coat of arms, as has already been said, really are about two

things, Speaker. It is about adding Labrador to the description. We know that

the Coat of Arms Act sets out the

legal description of the Newfoundland and Labrador's official coat of arms and

contains the legal authority for use of that emblem. It surprised me, too, that

has been around since 1637, the patent, and we're just now adding Labrador.

We've seen the call for Labrador to be added to the MUN act, for example, and

there are other things that are unfolding.

We've

been a long time working toward taking our rightful place, but I think – and my

colleague is nodding; he understands. Some of us have spent years advocating on

the ground for things and it is just coming to me now that he was on the western

end and I was on the southern border when we flew the Labrador flag, and that

was also a proud moment for us.

Also,

Speaker, when I look up over where you're sitting this morning and I look at the

coat of arms and then you read the description – such racist and colonial

it speaks to the savages and the attire for war when, really, what we have is

two Beothuk people and they're basically in their ceremonial dress.

So it is

long overdue that we're changing the language, and it is a part of a bigger

picture. As a government, as the first minister in this province responsible for

Indigenous Affairs and truth and reconciliation, it is both a privilege and also

a weight that I feel with that. We've been taking a number of steps. First of

all, to acknowledge the pain, the trauma, the harms of the past. We have to

atone, but then people need to see action.

It was

just last week in Corner Brook – the Premier and I, and a number of my

ministerial colleagues were present, as well as the MHA for Corner Brook – we

held a third annual Premier-Indigenous Leaders' Roundtable. Some very good,

meaningful discussion.

Every

week, the Premier and I meet with the Indigenous leaders in the province.

Because how can we represent a people, how can we understand their unique

history, their perspectives, how do we get to a place of advancing their

interest if we don't have good, solid communications? That's what this regular

dialogue has been about. Building on these relationships, developing a greater

understanding and then moving forward on some of our shared action items.

We did

have a great day in Corner Brook. I'll also add that, as a government, we

recently declared September 30 as a Day for Truth and Reconciliation. I got to

spend that, again, with my colleague from Corner Brook. We participated in some

events by Qalipu First Nation. I was going to say it's a wonderful day. We don't

say a holiday. It's a day of reflection. We encourage people to use the day to

reflect, to learn, to educate, to maybe watch something about residential

schooling, to take a walk, to read a book, to give some depth to their current

understanding.

I was

pleased to be a part of a government that took those first steps. Also, just

mentioned here in the House this morning, Speaker, were the apologies for

residential schools. This government did make a commitment to apologize. I was

actually in Happy Valley-Goose Bay – testing my memory now – it might have been

November '17, I'm not sure, when the prime minister came in and did the

country's apology for residential schools. A very emotional day; people that had

had a very painful past, things suppressed for decades. There were supports

around and it was a very emotional day.

We made

the commitment and we are definitely following through on that commitment. As my

colleague, the Minister of Health, sometimes says: A tiny thing got in the way.

So we were moving forward on the apologies and then COVID hit and there was a

mutual statement, a shared, joint statement that went out – some folks would

recall – from Nunatsiavut Government in that case and this provincial government

saying we will delay. We are now actively working, moving forward with the

apologies. They're going to look a little bit different. We're working closely,

so the wishes and the desires of Nunatsiavut, for example, may look a little bit

different than what NunatuKavut Community Council would like. But make no

mistake, I say to this hon. House, that we are honouring that commitment and it

is very much an active file.

I don't

think I need to keep speaking for the sake of speaking, other than to say I'm

tremendously pleased to see these amendments come to the coat of arms. My

colleague, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, did a fantastic

job. She's new in her role, but she's doing a great job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

L. DEMPSTER:

When she outlined that this

is not maybe a be-all, end-all, this is a step and it doesn't mean that we're

not going to make further changes down the road. However, in the consultation

process we did receive feedback; 85 per cent were in support of changing the

coat of arms.

In terms

of action items, you know, this is just one step. Sometimes in here when we're

bantering back and forth and we have lively spirited debate – and that is as it

should be; that is democracy – we'll often hear why did it take so long and why

are you only there now. We can't go back and change the past, but every day is a

chance to make a new beginning. You've heard me say it here before in this

House. One of the Indigenous leaders in our province said it a number of times:

Never, in their history, have they had an open door at the Premier's level like

they have now. I believe that is where reconciliation starts.

Will we

always get it right? No. Will there always be more to be done? Absolutely. Our

Liberal caucus, as a part of giving depth to our understanding of our Indigenous

peoples and their history in our province, we had a day of cultural sensitivity

training. I had a number of colleagues sitting around me that were saying: I

never knew that. I never knew. So it made you feel good that yes, this is

worthwhile doing and we need to do more of it.

When we

know better, Speaker, we do better. With that, I'm very happy to support the

amendments to the coat of arms and I look forward to listening to continued

discussion.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Lake

Melville.

P. TRIMPER:

Thank you, Speaker.

It's

indeed an honour to represent a district in Labrador, Lake Melville, and to work

with my colleagues from Labrador and across the province on such an important –

maybe some would say small, but incredibly significant and incredibly

representative of so much of the challenge that I think we face as

representatives whether we're political leaders, Indigenous leaders, municipal

leaders and so on to try to bring this province together.

As my

colleague from Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair just said, in looking at the coat of

arms over the top of your head, it's quite striking when you reflect back

hundreds of years how attitudes and times have changed.

I just

wanted to put out a few thoughts. This concept of adding “and Labrador” has been

something I've noticed since I first arrived in the province back in 1987. I

remember a reporter saying once: Premier and Ms. Peckford will be out of the

province the next week touring Labrador. That was when it first struck me, and I

said: Oh my gosh, we have a lot to overcome.

Here are

just some of the things I think about a lot in my day-to-day routine. I like to

get up early in the morning and listen to the radio, and it's really interesting

to listen to, for example, the CBC broadcast out of Goose Bay, the

Labrador Morning , versus the Morning

Show here in St. John's. Both good-quality shows, but they start very

differently.

Here in

St. John's there's a

preamble and then there's that beautiful song the “Ode to

Newfoundland.” It's very well done, they use a variety of performers and they

sing those beautiful words. In Labrador – I'm looking at my colleague from

Labrador West and others – we hear the “Ode to Labrador,” and it's sung in

different themes, nevertheless, still very reflective of the passion and the

support for the land that they call home. I'll throw out that thought.

There's

a friend of mine – I won't mention her name because she probably wouldn't

appreciate that, but she will appreciate this comment. I'm aware of many who

have tried to find ways, for example, to how can we combine a provincial theme.

I was born in Nova Scotia. “Farewell to Nova Scotia” is that song that we

developed, but Nova Scotia, with the exception of Cape Breton, is basically a

contiguous piece of geography with lots of development. That's very different

for Labrador and for Newfoundland. Two quite different histories, two quite

different demographics, advancements in progress and infrastructure and so on,

and you often see a lot of the themes that the four of us who represent Labrador

will be talking about versus those here on the Island. Anyway, small moves like

adding “and Labrador” are very, very, important.

I also

just wanted to put out another comment and it's a personal experience. Back in

the '90s and through into the early 2000s, I was working a lot in Russia and I

convinced the community of Happy Valley-Goose Bay to twin with a community in

northern Russia. At the time the mayor was a fine, fine elder, name of Harry

Baikie. Harry was very well known in Labrador. He was just that solid-Labrador

statesmen that we all recognize, the strong leadership who really think and then

say something very wise.

Anyway,

I said one time to Harry during this trip: Your Worship, have we ever thought

about calling Happy Valley-Goose Bay – why don't we just officially move it to

the term “Goose Bay”? A lot of people refer to the municipality of Happy

Valley-Goose Bay; they call it Goose Bay.

He sat

me down and gave me a very good, detailed explanation of how Happy Valley-Goose

Bay came together. I don't want to belabour it in this Legislature, except to

say that Happy Valley and Goose Bay were two separate communities who came

together. The struggle that the folks who occupied the area called Happy Valley,

they went through a lot. It was during the war and people came in from mostly

coastal Labrador, some from Newfoundland, and the idea of “happy” was really an

oxymoron because it was anything but happy. They had to live six miles from the

base where they were working, while they were switching to a wage economy. They

had to build a home and make sure that their family was actually in a safe,

secure situation.

It was a

struggle and those first few families are annually recognized for their

contribution to establish a community against amazing hardships. He said: That's

why we say Happy Valley-Goose Bay. As we say “Newfoundland and Labrador,” it's

reflecting the effort and the hardships of both pieces of geography. This is a

huge piece of geography that we occupy in the Canadian Federation, and

recognizing it in our coat of arms is so important.

In terms

of the word “savages,” it goes without saying; attitudes have shifted

dramatically. I'm sure there are many other examples as we are doing with

yourself, Speaker, in dropping the pronouns of Mr. and Mrs. I think it's just

the whole realization of the steps that we can all do to accommodate and

recognize the struggles that so many are dealing with and do what we can to

support them.

If I can

just throw this out, after we left here last night, I have this little – how

could I say it? I'm a Survivor fan. I

like watching this crazy TV show Survivor .

I'm not sure why, but I think it's interesting to watch people under stress and

how they make decisions. I was catching up on an episode last night when I

should have probably been sleeping. But I watched the episode last night – and

if anyone's a fan you might know where I'm going. Jeff, who came out to the

show, he has everybody gathered there and before he gets going with the show

last night – I'm going to just bring up something here now – he said: What is

the phrase always used to invite you all in for whenever there's a competition

and so on? The phrase he always uses: Come on in, guys.

He asked

them all: Do you find that acceptable? There was a woman who identified herself

as a homosexual, others were different persuasions and so on and he said: Do you

find this offensive? I thought, wow, this is interesting, the realization across

the world, in so many walks of life, of the incorrect use of so many of these

terms. Anyway, they decided to go and continue on with the phrase last night,

but it was a good, healthy discussion that they were dealing with that, as we

are dealing with here today.

I thank

the government for making this move. I understand that there were efforts to try

to fix this years ago. I'm not sure what the hesitation or delay was, but I'm

very happy to see it here today.

Thank

you very much.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

George's - Humber.

S. REID:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just

wanted to take a few minutes to speak on this bill,

An Act to Amend the Coat of

Arms Act, and to reflect on some points that I think are important here. I won't

take my full time, I don't think.

It's

important to look back, I guess, at the history of coat of arms, if we are to

look at why this is important. Coat of arms have their origin in the Middle Ages

when people would wear a tunic in battle and it would have a symbol of who they

were, what family they were from. It would help identify people in a battle or

after a battle, probably.

That's

the origin of the coat of arms. From there, they sort of evolved into a symbol

of a group of people, a family, a university or a group of people, a guild of

workers and things like that. Coat of arms became symbols of things, of groups

of people and states adopted coat of arms as well to represent who they were and

what they stood for.

That's a

little bit of a quick history of coat of arms. Ours was established back in 1637

and, as others have said, a lot has changed in the world since then. I think

it's good that we look at the words used to describe our coat of arms and how we

look at them.

Some

people may say: Okay, these are minor changes. But the words we use are

important because it reflects and influences the way we think about things. That

is why I think these changes, although they may be small, they have a big impact

and they are important.

The

district I represent has a high portion of Indigenous people, maybe one of the

highest in the province. I've had an opportunity to sit down with some elders

and with some young people as well to talk about, in particular, Mi'kmaq culture

and the suppression of Mi'kmaq culture in our history as a province, and even

before we were a province. I think it's important to realize that we have some

hard truths, I think, to face as a people and as a province in terms of the way

Indigenous people have been treated throughout our history and I think it's

important to recognize these.

As I

talk to some of the elders, they told me of a time when parents and grandparents

would not talk in the Mi'kmaq language in front of their grandchildren or their

children because they feared that there was such a stigma attached with being a

Mi'kmaw that they feared it would impact their children if they went to school

and spoke Mi'kmaq. So there was a severe suppression of culture and cultural

practices in this province. That is part of our history and part of the truth

that we have to recognize.

I think

it has been encouraging the last few years in particular, I've seen a revival in

Mi'kmaq culture in my district and other places in the province. For example,

one of the cultural things in my district is the Flat Bay powwow, which is held

each year in the summer. It's a great opportunity to learn more about Mi'kmaq

culture. It's open to the general public to come. I would encourage people who

are interested in learning more about our Indigenous cultures to attend a

powwow, either the one in Flat Bay or there's also one in Conne River. I just

attended a couple of weeks ago a powwow that was held at Grenfell Campus in

Corner Brook.

there's been a rebirth in the Mi'kmaq culture, revival, people are learning the

language and we're seeing a lot of activity in those regards. So that's good to

see.

I think

in conclusion I just want to say the things that we're doing, they are

important. In terms of the symbols that we have in this province, it's important

that we change the wording that we use, because it represents the way we think

about issues and the way we think about culture and the way we are more

inclusive. Because I think we can all learn a lot from each other, we can learn

a lot from the Indigenous cultures in this province and I think we should be

open to doing that. I think changing the language that we use is an important

part of changing the way we think.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to voting in favour of this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm just

going to take a couple of minutes now for Bill 20, more so just for the record

for Hansard , I suppose. I'm sure

everybody in the House of Assembly is going to support this bill. I can't

imagine anybody who would not. I certainly will.

As has

been said, there are only a couple of slight changes from the perspective of the

bill itself and what's written here. But the meaning behind it is obviously

huge.

As has

been said, there are two aspects to this. One is to remove the term in the

description of the Beothuk people, I guess, and arguably, Indigenous people in

general that described them as savages, which we all, I'm sure, agree 100 per

cent that that may have been the view back in the 1600s or whenever this was

established under colonial rule and so on. But it's certainly not reflective of

any of the Members of this House of Assembly I'm sure and I believe society in

general. It's unacceptable.

Newfoundland has certainly changed over the years, like everywhere I suppose, in

terms of our culture, in terms of our attitudes, but even now, more so than ever

before, people are more open about who they are as a person, about their

sexuality, how they identify which is a good thing. We have people coming here

from all over the country, all over the world, different cultures, different

religious beliefs and customs and so on, and it's important that Newfoundland

and Labrador – we do have a reputation, certainly across the country, for being

a welcoming province, for being, generally, good people, always there to help.

Certainly, we've seen that, we celebrate that through the efforts of 911 as an

example, and the Come From Away

productions that sort of celebrate who we are as a people, always out there to

help others and so on.

It's

important that throughout our province, throughout our communities and certainly

here in this Legislature and certainly even when we look at things like our coat

of arms that they are reflective of our values; that they are reflective of an

attitude that we want to be the prevailing attitude here in Newfoundland and

Labrador, that everybody is welcome; that we are totally inclusive to all; that

we're welcoming to all; that everybody is valued; that everybody should be

afforded the same level of dignity and respect and opportunity regardless of

race or religion or sexual orientation and so on.

Removing

what is, obviously, racist – I mean, there's no denying that – that word

“savages” there in the description of our coat of arms is obviously the right

thing to do. And as has been said, it's kind of amazing it took this long to get

it done. I'm not being critical of this government, in terms of taking them so

long; I just mean in the sense that it's amazing that it took us until 2021 for

someone to finally look at that and say: My goodness, this is wrong; it needs to

go. So it's obviously good that we're doing it now and, certainly, I'm glad to

be able to vote for this and be a part of removing that blight on our province,

because that's what it is.

The

other piece of this is to include Labrador under the name of the coat of arms

because we are one province of course. I was a little confused in that I was of

the impression – and someone, maybe the minister, can correct me on this one,

and maybe my memory is not serving me properly. At one point in time – I think

it was under Premier Williams; I wasn't here at the time – I thought we renamed

the province “Newfoundland Labrador” and we took out the “and” part. Because I

thought at the time there were people saying that Labrador is not an add-on;

Labrador is just as equal as the Newfoundland piece. So I thought that the

province was actually called Newfoundland Labrador, versus Newfoundland and

Labrador.

I've

heard people say “and Labrador,” so I'm not sure why the word “and” is here in

terms of the amendment and why we're not just adding “Labrador” as opposed to

“and Labrador.” If we removed it from the terms of the province, I don't why we

would want to have the “and” here because the meaning is the same. If we're

trying to establish the fact that we're all one province, we're all equal,

Labrador is, indeed, not an add-on, or an afterthought or whatever you might

want or someone could construe it as, that it's Newfoundland Labrador. So I just

wanted to point that out. Maybe there's a reason why “and” has to be there, I

don't know what it is, but I wanted to point that out.

Because

obviously Labrador, as we know – and I hear this from people from Labrador all

the time and I understand why they would feel that way. I mean, much of the

benefits that we derive here in this province, like, as an example, when oil

prices plummeted and the oil industry was in great distress, it was actually the

mining industry that was really, you know, contributing in a huge way to our

provincial coffers, to our economy and so on, and that continues to be the case.

I'm sure my colleagues from Labrador would agree that Labrador has and will

continue for a long time to contribute to our province, whether it be our hydro

resources or whether it be our mining resources and so on. Also, even from the

perspective of outfitters and stuff like, anyone who's into those types of

things.

There's

a lot of ways in which Labrador contributes to our provincial coffers, to our

provincial economy, and it is important that we do everything that we can as a

province and as a Legislature to try to close any divide that may be there in

the minds of the people because, clearly, there are many people – that divide is

still there in many ways. Many people I know in Labrador, it's a sensitive issue

and I get it. I really do. We need to do whatever we can in this Legislature to

promote the idea that we are, indeed, one province and that no one part of the

province is any important or any less valued than any other part of the

province.

Adding

Labrador to our official coat of arms, I think, is a good step in promoting

unity and so on. But, again, the only point I would make once again for the

record is that I'm wondering about the “and Labrador” part. If there's a

legitimate reason why it has to be that way, fine. If not, then I would

certainly recommend an amendment – I'm not making an official amendment; maybe

the government wants to make an amendment – to take out the “and,” and just add

“Labrador” as opposed to “and Labrador.”

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

Any other speakers to the bill?

If the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs speaks now, we will close debate.

The hon.

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

K. HOWELL:

Thank you, Speaker.

It's

encouraging to hear people have the same perspective here. As often as we meet

and how enjoyable it is when we don't always see eye-to-eye on some of our

issues, it's very encouraging and it makes me very proud when we stand together

on an issue and move forward. I think we can all agree wholeheartedly that this

is good for our province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

K. HOWELL:

To your point there, to the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, I do have an

answer for you. The province is actually called Newfoundland and Labrador. The

government was renamed Newfoundland and Labrador in the

Labrador Act of 1964. Through a

constitutional amendment in 2001, the province is named Newfoundland and

Labrador. The “and” was actually removed from branding efforts. So much of the

promotional materials and stuff like that removed the “and.”

To that

point, we do want to include Labrador and I think we all recognize the

importance and the value added to our province. Most of the comments did add

that and dictated how important it is to include that in part of our history and

the contributions and uniqueness that the Labrador portion of our province

brings –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

It's

getting hard to hear the speaker. Thank you.

K. HOWELL:

– in the challenges that they

face, their culture, their resources, their history, it certainly is a portion

of our province that we must continue to support and identify.

I know a

lot of the comments were about why it's taken us so long. I think, when we know

better, we do better, to quote a lady that gave some training from First Light.

As we move forward and recognize that these things have to happen, we take

appropriate actions when we can. The journey of 100 miles begins with a single

step, so here we are. As a government we're taking this first step forward, so

we appreciate the support and agreement together.

I look

forward to how we progress and how we move forward on the path to truth and

reconciliation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Is the House ready for the

question?

The

motion is that Bill 20 now be read a second time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Coat Of Arms Act. (Bill 20)

SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

second time.

When

shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?

S. CROCKER:

Now.

SPEAKER:

Now.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Coat Of Arms Act,” read a second time,

ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill

20)

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Speaker, I move, seconded by

the hon. Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that this House resolve

itself in a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 20,

An Act To Amend The Coat

of Arms Act.

SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the

Whole to consider the bill.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt them motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker

left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Warr):

Order, please!

We are

now considering Bill 20,

An Act To Amend The Coat Of Arms Act.

A bill,

“An Act To Amend The Coat Of Arms Act.” (Bill 20)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

The

Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis.

J. WALL:

Thank you, Chair.

As I

said, our caucus welcomes this change, but I do have some questions.

Can the

minister outline the external consultations held, aside from the public online

process, and what Indigenous groups were consulted?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

K. HOWELL:

To my understanding, the

consultations went out online as you mentioned and everybody had equal

opportunity to comment on that. I do know that letters of consultations were

sent out to the leaders of the Indigenous groups. I don't know specifically

which ones, but I can get that information for you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

J. WALL:

Were community stakeholders

in Labrador consulted, such as the Combined Councils?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

K. HOWELL:

To my knowledge, the letters

went to the Indigenous leaders and their involvement. But, as I mentioned, the

Combined Councils did have opportunity to contribute their information or

questions, concerns, via the online portal.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

J. WALL:

After speaking with my

colleague from Bonavista who has informed me that there's a plaque on the

courthouse in that town that includes references to savages, what will be the

estimated cost to making these changes when we're looking at printing of papers,

modification to plaques, uniforms, et cetera?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

K. HOWELL:

At this time, I don't have

that information to provide to you, but I will get back to you with that

information as it becomes available. I know that there are significant steps

that are going to have to be taken. This is something that's been used in our

history for a long time. So we're going to have to evaluate where it is, what it

is and how we take it back.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

J. WALL:

Thank you.

Former

Premier Ball announced a review of historic monuments and statues in June of

2020. Was this decision part of this particular process? If so, can you table

that review?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

K. HOWELL:

The interdepartmental working

group is reviewing all of the emblems, the statues and all the holidays or

associations as we move forward. We're consulting heavily with the Department of

Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation on that one.

If you

need more information on that we can certainly give you what the

interdepartmental working group has.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

J. WALL:

Thank you.

Can the

minister explain – I know this is a necessary first step and we applaud the

government for taking this but why is it taking so long? Why is it 2021?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

K. HOWELL:

I can't speak to that. I

imagine that this is certainly something that has come up lately in our

government that has become a priority. We have committed to truth and

reconciliation moving forward and certainly put it top of mind so now there is a

focus on it to move forward and certainly putting it on the forefront of

everything that we do.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

J. WALL:

My last question, Chair.

Indigenous groups have also spoken out about the Corte-Real statue across the

street from this very building as it being insulting. Is there any update on

that?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

K. HOWELL:

I'll defer to my colleague

here.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In my

role our department has been tasked to do a review of all observances and

inventory in the province. We'll work, not only along with the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs but, certainly, the Minister Responsible for

Labrador Affairs, and Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation in our entire

inventory as we move forward.

It's my

understanding the inventory has been completed and we'll work our way through

that inventory.

CHAIR:

Any further questions?

The hon.

the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

question is: Are we doing a complete review of all current legislation that is

currently active adding “and Labrador” to at this time?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

K. HOWELL:

To my knowledge that's not

something that we were focused on, at this point. We picked certain emblems and

statues that we wanted to move forward with. But we're on a path of

reconciliation here so all these things have to be part of our consideration.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

J. BROWN:

I'm good.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

Shall

the motion carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the

Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative session convened, as

follows.

CHAIR:

Shall the enacting clause

carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The Coat of

Arms Act.

CHAIR:

Shall the title carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, title carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report the bill

without amendment?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion,

the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

I move

that the Committee rise and report Bill 20.

CHAIR:

The motion is that the

Committee rise and report Bill 20.

Is the

pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

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 the Whole.

B. WARR:

Speaker, the Committee of the

Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to

report Bill 20 without amendment.

SPEAKER:

The Chair of the Committee of

the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them

referred and have directed him to report Bill 20 without amendment.

When

shall the report be received?

S. CROCKER:

Now.

SPEAKER:

Now.

When

shall the bill be read a third time?

S. CROCKER:

Tomorrow.

SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I move

that this House do now recess.

SPEAKER:

This House do recess until 2

p.m. this afternoon.

Recess

The

House resumed at 2 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett):

Admit strangers.

Order,

please!

The hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN:

This is a moment.

privilege concerns the lighting here, which is really making it difficult even

to look to the other side or to focus on work. It's three days now trying to

adjust to it, and there's no adjustment to it. Even looking straight across,

there's a glare coming at me, and I'm assuming that it's the same for a lot of

other Members. When it comes to anyone who's light sensitive or prone to other

headaches, migraines and so on and so forth, this is not making a conducive work

environment.

Personally speaking, if there's a way, as a remedy, to dim the lights or to

soften the effect or to reposition them so that they are actually downward, not

an angle – because I would assume when it's on this side here, the angle is

going this way, that's coming down this way and it's right in our line of sight.

I don't

know who put them up there, but maybe they need to be brought back and

repositioned or to scatter them in a place so that it's actually facing down and

not on an angle.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

I thank the Member for the

point of privilege. There is a process. We do ask that point of privilege does

get brought before myself an hour or so before the House opens. But I will

definitely take your concern under consideration.

If other

Members have a similar concern, please drop me an email just to see if it's a

general consensus among all Members, or if it's just Members with light –

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

understand the process, but I would agree with the Member that there may be a

remedy. I don't know if it's angle or if it's every second one or something just

to try. I know from this vantage point, we can't read the clock on the other

side even.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

We will

take that under advisement. We can look at different things with regard to

dimming or potentially changing the angles.

Before

we get started, I'd like to first of all recognize and congratulate the new

interim Leader of the Third Party, the Member for St. John's Centre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Also, now the Third Party

House Leader will be the Member for Labrador West.

Congratulations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Today we also have a new Page

here, Emma McIsaac. Emma is from St. John's and is studying science at Memorial

University.

Welcome,

Emma.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

SPEAKER:

Today we will hear Members'

statements from the hon. Members for the Districts of St. John's Centre, Topsail

- Paradise, Placentia West - Bellevue, Torngat Mountains and Ferryland.

The hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In 2002,

members of Rotary St. John's East began a partnership with the teachers and

staff of Bishop Abraham Elementary to enrich the lives of its 200 students and

their families.

Rotary's

Christmas hamper project provided full hampers – well beyond the turkey dinner –

to 10 families most in need. This initiative transformed into Project 365 to

provide food support to families year-round. Steve Wedgwood even visits with

Santa each year with milk and cookies for all students.

The

annual Slam Dunk Basketball Tournament, organized by the school and sponsored by

Rotary, raises between $5,000 and $8,000 annually and is the largest fundraiser

in the school.

Rotary

International Global Grant and Rotary St. John's East installed a $75,000 school

playground dedicated to Rotary's past president, Brian Martin.

With the

help of other community partners, Rotary Club essentially adopted Bishop Abraham

Elementary and arranged for donations of SMART Boards, band equipment, a new

piano and books for the school library, in addition to an annual payment to

support curricular and extra-curricular activities.

I ask

Members to join me in celebrating Bishop Abraham Elementary and St. John's East

Rotary for their enduring partnership to offer more to students, from all walks

of life, and their families.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

I am

honoured to congratulate two talented young musicians: Summer Bennett, 13, and

Mackenzie Critch, 16, from the District of Topsail - Paradise who were first-

and third-place winners at the Newfound Talent Contest at MusicNL. Talented

musicians 19 and under from across the province performed at the event in front

of a panel of three award-winning judges.

Aimed at

being a catalyst for propelling the careers of young musicians in Newfoundland

and Labrador, the purpose of the contest is to discover, develop, encourage and

showcase young entertainers. The competition offers professional development

prizes valued at over $6,000 to aid talented young performers so they can take

their song writing and performing skills to the next level.

One of

the judges, Evelyn Jess, said: Watching these young performers felt like I was

watching artists well-beyond their years. The superb talent in our province

remains rich and vibrant and I cannot wait to see how these brilliant musicians

will excel in their future careers.

Speaker,

I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Summer and Mackenzie and

wish them continued success in their music endeavors.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER:

Thank you, Speaker.

I sit in

this hon. Chamber today to show my appreciation for all candidates and their

teams during the 2021 municipal elections.

As we

all know in this Chamber, it takes a team to be elected; this is not a

one-person job. I would like to extend my thank you to all the campaign teams

whether it was knocking on doors or ensuring people get out to vote on the big

day, you all played a vital role in this election.

I would

also like to say thank you to the candidates who were unsuccessful in this

previous election, it takes a tremendous amount of courage to step into the

public eye. Continue to work hard for your communities and I hope to see your

names back on the ballot in the next municipal election.

As for

the newly elected and re-elected councillors and mayors in our beautiful

District of Placentia West - Bellevue, I would like to share my sincere

congratulations. I look forward to working with each and every one of you for

the betterment of our towns during our time in office.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS:

Thank you, Speaker.

Today, I

pay tribute to Rutie Dicker of Nain, Nunatsiavut. Rutie is a soft-spoken role

model with a strong work ethic mirrored only by her compassion for others.

Rutie

started working summers in the fish plant when she was 15 years old. During the

winter months, she and her sister, Rosie, would find part-time jobs to earn

extra money. Her next job was at the Nain clinic where she worked as a nursing

but she also translated across the cultural barriers for the nursing staff,

improving the level of health care in her community.

In 1995,

she started work with the Labrador Inuit Association and continues her work with

Nunatsiavut, 26 years later.

She has

witnessed much change, not all of it for the better. Throughout her life, Rutie

has quietly helped people. Rutie recently told me: When I see people struggling,

to ease my mind, I try to help them in any way I can. That sums up Rutie Dicker.

Today, I

want to recognize her exceptional attributes, her ability to lead by example.

Rutie has suffered great loss. Earlier on, she lost two nieces and two nephews

to suicide and then she lost several of her immediately family, most recently

her grandson. Rutie speaks about her loss and its impact to her and her

community. She recognizes the serious burden that comes with loss and trauma and

the importance of dealing with it head on. Don't ignore your grief and loss

because it just gets buried; that's what Rutie told me just recently.

Over her

lifetime, she's always helped others: that makes her a good role model. She also

advocates and practices self-help and healing when dealing with loss and trauma:

that makes her a leader.

Please

join me today in applauding Rutie Dicker for all she does to make our world a

healthier place.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Speaker.

I wish

to recognize Mr. Bill Guiney for his tremendous work in raising funds and

awareness for mental health. Six years ago, Bill started a push-up challenge as

a fundraiser for the Canadian Mental Health Association, NL chapter. This has

now become an annual event.

The past

summer, Mr. Guiney walked across Newfoundland to raise funds and awareness for

mental health and incorporated his annual push-up challenge. He began his walk

in Port aux Basque on July 20 and finished off on Signal Hill on August 20. He

walked the Trans-Canada Highway until Route 90, then onto the Irish Loop from

there he went to Signal Hill. Mr. Guiney walked a total of 1,059 kilometres and

completed 10 push-ups for every kilometre, for a total of 10,590 push-ups.

Many

people joined him from time to time to walk with him along the way. As they

walked they talked, and each one of them, at one point or another, opened up and

spoke about their own or a loved one's mental health crisis.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all my colleagues of this House to join me and congratulate Mr.

Bill Guiney on his work in raising funds and awareness for mental health.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Environment and Climate Change.

B. DAVIS:

Thank you, Speaker.

I'm

pleased today to recognize October 18 to 24 as Waste Reduction Week in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

The

Multi-Materials Stewardship Board is celebrating Waste Reduction Week through a

popular online composting workshops focused on continued composting through the

fall and winter. They also have a digital public awareness campaign aligned with

theme days and Government House was lit blue and green on Monday past in

recognition of this week.

This

week and every week, we all need to take time to be environmental stewards and

raise awareness about the importance of waste reduction.

The

provincial government encourages individuals, businesses and schools throughout

the province to celebrate Waste Reduction Week and discover alternate ways to

advance waste reduction.

The

MMSB's website contains valuable tips and resources that highlight waste

reduction activities and information that the public can use to reduce waste in

our province.

Speaker,

we continue to work with the MMSB, regional service boards, businesses and

communities to adopt modern waste management practices across the province,

including increased waste diversion programs. We have many successful

initiatives including extended producer responsibility programs and more to

come.

This

week, I encourage everyone to do something with friends and family to help

reduce waste in our homes and communities. We call all do our part to reduce

waste and protect our environment.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS:

Thank you, Speaker.

I join

the minister to recognize October 18 to 24 as Waste Reduction Week in

Newfoundland and Labrador. Waste Reduction Week in Canada is an important

national campaign that helps build awareness around issues of sustainability and

responsible consumption. It encourages choice for more environmentally

responsible products and services and promotes actions that divert more waste

from landfills, reducing air pollution, water pollution and land pollution and

conserves our natural resources.

proudly acknowledge the many schools and businesses and communities that are

leading the way in our province on reducing waste. Important leaders such as the

community of Cape St. George on the Island's West Coast, their backyard

composting program reduced waste tonnage in the community by almost over 50 per

cent while also reducing local garbage fees in the process.

We are

the solution to pollution. I ask all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to do our

part to help reduce waste in our schools, businesses and communities.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

J. DINN:

It's going to take a while to

get used to that one – interim.

I thank

the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I join the minister in

recognizing Waste Reduction Week and commend him on encouraging us to be

environmental stewards and to do our best to reduce waste and protect the

environment. However, if the provincial government is committed to environmental

stewardship and to protecting the environment, then act immediately to stop the

leaking of the Shoal Point oil wells rather than squabbling with its federal

cousins over who is responsible.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.

G. BYRNE:

Speaker, I'm energized to

work with my Premier and my colleagues on a government-wide initiative to

respond to our province's serious demographic challenges by encouraging new

skills, new talents and new people to call Newfoundland and Labrador their home.

As we

know, Speaker, we have our challenges. We have an aging population, we have a

declining birth rate and we have a clear and present shortage of people to fill

job vacancies which are found all over this province. Unanswered help wanted

signs are all around us.

While we

continue to invest over $150 million annually to train and to upskill

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for the jobs of today and tomorrow, this will

not solve our demographic reality.

To power

up our immigration performance, a suite of initiatives has been launched that

extends from promotion to positive resettlement and all of this is meant to

reach our goal of receiving 5,100 newcomers a year by 2026. Speaker, immigration

is finally getting the resources it needs and deserves. But it's smart public

policy that is its strongest driving force.

addition to opening up new immigration pathways, our government is working

directly with employers that are facing skills and talent shortages. We're

promoting more awareness of immigration sponsorship as a human resources option

and we are working directly with international graduates of both MUN and CNA, as

well as other newcomers whom Ottawa has granted open work permits to match them

with eager employers.

Our

Pathways Job Matching initiative has already proven to be welcomed new tool to

advancing our immigration efforts.

Speaker,

when we launched our Priority Skills pathway earlier this year, we knew it would

be a valuable resource in attracting more health care professionals to our

province. Newcomers will not only serve the health care needs of newcomers, they

will help serve the health care needs of everyone in our province. This is a

win, win, win proposition. Now, with our Job Matching initiative, the needs of

our broader business community, our employers, will also be better met.

Speaker,

we are a welcoming place in Newfoundland and Labrador and we shall continue to

welcome newcomers to Newfoundland and Labrador today and in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Grand

Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS:

Thank you, Speaker.

I want

to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

Speaker,

I join the minister in recognizing the need for enhanced immigration to our

province and the tangible benefits that newcomers bring to the table.

Among

the health care crisis in our province, we are also given a real demographic

population crisis. As the Health Accord team has outlined, the monumental shift

in our demographics and population as a result of the cod moratorium is still

being felt today.

Investments to train and to upskill Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is

certainly welcome news. Opening up new immigration pathways to newcomers is

certainly welcome news as well. I look forward to hearing updates from the hon.

Member on the success of these programs and of any potential to improve

population growth right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement and I applaud any effort and

investment to train and upskill Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and support any

initiative to attract and retain newcomers to our province.

A key

strategy – a retention strategy, of course – of newcomers and livyers alike will

be to implement a minimum wage that is also a living wage; otherwise, we are

importing workers who will have no choice but to accept poverty wages or move to

other jurisdictions for a better standard of living.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

People

in our province experience the highest rate of mortality in Canada due to heart

disease and stroke.

I ask

the Premier: Since COVID started, how many people have died while awaiting

cardiac surgery in our province?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't

have that number off the top of my head. Certainly, we recognize that we spend

the most per person for a province on a health care, more than any other

jurisdiction. And we're not getting the results we need. So I share the theme of

that question with the Member opposite. That's why we've recognized this is an

incredible challenge, and it's a difficult one. There is no easy solution.

That's why we created the Health Accord.

But

every single Member here was elected not to fix the easy challenges, Mr.

Speaker, but indeed to tackle the difficult ones. This is a difficult one that

we can all tackle together through using the Health Accord NL to create the

long-term, sustainable future that we know is needed for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

thoughts are with the families who've lost loved ones while waiting for

critical, life-saving procedures like cardiac surgery.

I ask

the Premier: How many people are waiting for cardiac surgery in this province

today?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

We have

made significant inroads in our cardiology program thanks to the provincial

approach that Dr. Connors and his team at the Health Sciences Centre have taken.

We have minimum wait times for inpatient cardiac cath of urgent nature, less

than a day – maybe a day and a half. We have had periods over the summer where

there have been no inpatients waiting for a cardiac cath. We are working

downstream now to address the issue of wait times for cardiac surgery and we

have a new cardiac surgeon – the first Inuk woman in the country to practise as

a cardiac surgeon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We're

hearing from people who are on a wait-list for cardiac services that they may

have to wait six to 12 months for a priority cardiac procedure – a procedure

that should be done in six weeks; this is simply not good enough.

I ask

the Premier: What are you doing to address the crisis in cardiac wait times?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

We're

working with Eastern Health, who delivers this service, to ensure wait times are

minimized. We have streamlined the flow through investigations through the

cardiac cath lab and now, with the addition of new surgical resources, we are

starting to address the backlog.

Whilst

the Member opposite asked a question about mortality earlier on, what we do know

is over COVID we have, unlike other jurisdictions, seen no excess mortality this

year and last year with COVID compared to pre-COVID years, which I take as an

encouraging sign, although we will get the data the Member asked for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I look

forward to that data because that's not what we're hearing, unfortunately, for

these families.

We're

hearing that the wait-list for cardiac surgery could be approaching 200 people.

What is more alarming is that the majority of these people are assessed at high

priority and should be done within six weeks but, because of the backlog, will

likely not get surgery until six to 12 months.

Premier,

how is this acceptable?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Once

again, we have added new surgical resources. We have, as I say, Canada's first

Inuk cardiac surgeon who is proving to be a huge asset to the backlog the Member

opposite describes. In addition, we have a surgeon from Ottawa who comes out on

a periodic basis every quarter to provide extra skills.

We are

working our way through the list, Mr. Speaker. It did not get generated

overnight; it will not be fixed overnight. The priorities on that list are

reviewed on a daily basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I'm

sure the Premier knows only too well that specialized surgical staff are crucial

to heart operations. Some of these hard-to-recruit positions are facing critical

shortages that may create further delays in wait times for cardiac surgeries.

I ask

the Premier: What is government's plan to address the staff shortages,

specifically the technicians who run heart and lung machines that are in

critical short supply at Eastern Health?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

That is

indeed a very topical question. As of, I think, four weeks ago, the cardiology

program there is looking at using the perfusionist in a different way, in a way

that matches current best practices. By doing so, we reckon we can increase our

throughput using that new style of working by about 25 per cent. Again, that

will help support the new cardiac surgeons and the extra surgical staff. We're

on that one too, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It still

indicates to me that people are in dire need now for interventions for heart

surgery and it doesn't seem to be a plan that will adequately address that in

the immediate future.

Yesterday, the Premier said, we need to be bold, be imaginative and create the

system for the future of our province. Our Blue Book committed to develop a

cardiac centre of excellence to make our province a leader in cardiac care.

I ask

the Premier: Will you show leadership and commit to a cardiac centre of

excellence so we can improve cardiac care in this province?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and

thank you for the question.

Certainly, for the hard-working women and men, the perfusionist, the nurses, the

cardiac surgeons, the cardiac cath lab, I know them all well. They all work

extremely hard. They are performing excellent care.

Can we

always be better? Certainly, we can be better. Of course, the Health Sciences

Centre, our cardiac program is a tertiary care centre for the rest of the

province, so we'll continue to invest in it to ensure that we're leaders across

the country, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We all

agree that we have some of the best health professionals who give 110 per cent

every time, but we need a new creative, bold approach. The Premier is right, but

he needs to take the leadership and start that immediately. We gave an

alternative that is needed here.

Mr.

Speaker, I first wish to commend our front-line health care workers and the

department for its diligent work on vaccines and the rollout of the vaccine

passport. The vaccine passport has nudged a number of individuals in our

province to scheduling and receiving their vaccine, which is good news.

Our

office, as I am sure others of the government side, have been receiving a large

volume of correspondence from individuals that are not yet eligible for their

second dose, or, for a multitude of reasons, need to consult with a physician

first.

Due to

the lack of physician access in our province and the timelines associated, I ask

the Premier: Will he consider postponing the requirement of presenting the

vaccine passport until December 17, the same deadline which public servants are

required to be vaccinated?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

The Member opposite raises

some interesting points, Mr. Speaker. We are aware that there are some issues; I

addressed those in the COVID media update approximately an hour and a half ago,

nearly two hours ago.

Essentially, the issue of medical exemptions rests with the college, and we have

a dialogue opened with them about the criteria around it.

The

issue of wait times for cards and QR codes is being managed and we have put

extra resources to it, but the bottom line is your vaccine record will act

instead of, and is acceptable in place of, a QR code and they should have that

as they get vaccinated.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

fine to outline that, but the question is there are a number of people who took

the initiative to get their first vaccine, but they're going to be penalized now

while they're waiting for their second vaccine and not be able to be active in

society in the same manner, while we have a deadline for civil servants for

December 17.

cannot understand why you would not extend that to December 17 to give everyone

who already had their first vaccine an opportunity to be collectively healthy

and engaged in our society.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The

vaccine was widely available in this province from June, if not May, of this

year. There has been ample time to get that vaccine. We have encouraged, we have

educated, we have cajoled, we've gone back and we have encouraged.

The

facts of the case are, Mr. Speaker, this is sound public health and we may well

be amongst the middle of the pack. We're not the first to do this, we're not the

last to do this, but we have given ample warning and ample time and there are

vacant appointments at vaccination clinics across the province. There's no

excuse.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

Thank you, Speaker.

Now that

the Minister of Finance has signalled a wage freeze for salary physicians'

budget, I want to ask the minister: How do you expect to recruit and retain

family physicians when they're the lowest paid in the country and you're going

to have a wage freeze for them?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

As the

Premier said earlier, we certainly value and appreciate the hard work of the

many men and women in our health care that are health care professionals, and I

include doctors, nurses, you know, pharmacists and perfusionists in that group.

It's a pretty substantive amount of work they've been doing over the last number

of years, Mr. Speaker.

I also

want to say that a lot of the points that the Member opposite raises are part of

the discussions that we are having with the NLMA.

September 29, we laid before the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association

proposals around the payment schedule, proposals around blended payment model,

around family practice renewal funding, Mr. Speaker; all of that.

We urge

the NLMA to come back to the table. They did pause discussions, Mr. Speaker, and

suspend negotiations. We ask them to come back.

SPEAKER:

The Member's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

Thank you, Speaker.

When the

current Minister of Health was the president of the NLMA, he lobbied hard for

Atlantic parity for physicians in this province.

I ask

the Minister of Finance: Do you agree with Atlantic parity for our physicians?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Mr. Speaker, I think I would go two routes for that questions. One is the pot of

money that is allocated to physician services is $500 million for 1,332

individuals. The quantum is not unreasonable. The way that money is allocated

within that pot is as much down to the NLMA's internal processes as it is as far

as government is concerned.

actual fact, if you look at the weighted Maritime average for salaried family

doctors, ours are above the weighted Maritime average.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

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

T. WAKEHAM:

Speaker, the Canadian Institute for Health Information indicated that our family

physicians were the lowest paid in the country; two-thirds of the physicians in

our province are below the Atlantic average.

I want

to ask the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Health: In 2002, the Minister

of Health said the provincial government is far more interested in the

short-term balance sheet than a long-term future of health care.

I ask

the Minister of Finance: Are you putting a dollar value on health care in this

province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I would

go back to the Premier's earlier comments, we have committed to a 10-year accord

with Dr. Parfrey and Sister Elizabeth. That work is still in progress. That is

not short-termism. In actual fact, that is bold and it spans multiple electoral

cycles, Mr. Speaker.

This is

the time where we need to make the system work, redesign it, renovate it,

rebuild it so we get better health outcomes and not simply throw more money at

it.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

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

T. WAKEHAM:

Speaker, the Health Accord team have talked about a need for investment of

dollars in health care. I'm not hearing that from the minister, who previously

in the House said that health care should not be considered a cost, it should be

considered a service. I couldn't agree more.

I ask

the Minister of Finance: Are you prepared to make the investments in health care

that are needed to ensure that 99,000 people in this province get access to a

family physician?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

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

S. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

These

are important discussions, as the Premier and the Minister of Health has said.

We want a long-term sustainable future for our health care. We want to make sure

that we're making the investments that we need to make. That's exactly what we

are doing, Mr. Speaker.

I can

say to the Member opposite that we have presented before the Newfoundland and

Labrador Medical Association proposals on many of these very key issues,

including payment schedule, leave benefits, rural retention, bonuses and the

family practice renewal. All of those are before the NLMA.

encourage the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association – who suspended

negotiations, Mr. Speaker – to come back to the table so that we can bring

forward more discussions on these very important points.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

In the Minister

Responsible for Women and Gender Equality's mandate letter from the Premier, she

was directed to work on the issue of in vitro fertilization in this province, as

Newfoundland and Labrador is one of only two provinces that does not have access

to a local clinic. It's been eight months since your government promised

increased access during the election campaign.

I ask

the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality: Why has there been no

action on this important issue?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Speaker, and thank

you to the hon. Member for the question.

A very

important topic, one that we're certainly passionate about on this side of the

House. The Member is correct; it is certainly in my mandate letter to work with

my colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services.

As I

said yesterday, I'm happy to say that we have committed to an entire review of

the system and, currently, there is a program under way to provide funding to

eligible recipients who will have to travel out of province to receive this very

valuable service.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Mr. Speaker, work under

way, under development – more rhetoric. It has been months since a funding

package for in vitro fertilization travel was promised. Families cannot afford

to play a waiting game.

I ask

the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality: When can families who

rely on in vitro fertilization expect action from the government and not more

rhetoric?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Speaker, and,

again, I thank the hon. Member.

I agree;

I think it's safe to say, as MHAs, we've probably all received calls from our

constituents about this. I know I did on the campaign trail. As a matter of

fact, just yesterday I've had several calls to my office, to the department of

Women and Gender Equality.

But

again, I want to reiterate our commitment. The Premier is very passionate about

this. I certainly am as a woman and as the minister for this very proud office.

Again,

it's important to get it right. Like I said, we care committed. Funding will be

available to those who are eligible to receive the funding who will be

travelling outside to get this service. Again, a full review has been committed

of the entire service. We will certainly do everything we can within our fiscal

reality.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN:

Speaker, in September the

minister was blaming annual leave for delays in opening of new long-term care

facilities in Gander and Grand Falls-Windsor. Yesterday, the minister's story

changed to blaming issues between the contractor and Transportation and

Infrastructure.

So I ask

the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure: When are the doors finally

going to open?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Infrastructure.

E. LOVELESS:

Thank you, Speaker.

I'm not

pointing the fingers at anyone, but I'm disappointed on saying that the doors

are not opened to these facilities. But deficiencies have been identified with

the building, which is normal practice. I'm okay with saying that. We're dealing

with that now instead of when bodies are in that building. We're doing due

diligence. We have strong contracts with those companies, and that's a

contribution to the Public Procurement Act

that we have in place as well.

But I'll

be holding the contractor's feet to the fire to get those deficiencies dealt

with and get those people into those buildings, because that service is badly

needed in Central Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN:

Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker,

the Premier's Green report recommended a moratorium on any new long-term care

facilities in the province. Is this delayed with the opening of new facilities

in Grand Falls-Windsor another initiative of the Premier's Green report?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Infrastructure.

E. LOVELESS:

The assertion there, Speaker,

is that that is not the case, as the hon. Member mentions. But, as I said, in

terms of those facilities, we've been in conversations with Central Health in

terms of those two facilities. I am hoping that, in November, Central Health

will be given a transitional time frame which people won't be moving into the

facility but Central Health will have the opportunity to begin that transitional

period.

We're

hoping that's going to be in November. I'm looking forward to that and I'm sure

the Members representing Central are looking forward to that announcement.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

Last

month, people of our province were made painfully aware of the heartbreaking

situation regarding neonatal medevac flights in our province. Eastern Health has

said that it's trying to recruit and train more teams to ensure that they have

round-the-clock coverage.

I ask

the minister: When was he made aware that the 24-hour neonatal medevac coverage

was not available in this province?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Over the

last few years the neonatal transfer team, which is a highly skilled group,

averaged six calls a year. That is difficult to maintain the skills that are

required, and Eastern Health has endeavoured to try to work to supplement those.

The

unfortunate incident in question with the neonatal transfer was a night when

three neonatal transports were required within a 12-hour shift. Two were

completed; the third received support from the neonatologist virtually at the

Janeway to on-site medical practitioner. We are working to try and fill that

gap, but it's going to be very difficult.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN:

I ask the minister: Is there

any process to inform the public when critical emergency services, like neonatal

medevac coverage, are not available? If not, will he direct health authorities

to issues advisories when situations like this occur?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Mr. Speaker, this is an

anomaly. It relates to one very specialized, almost quaternary-level service.

From our point of view, the emergency services in this province work very hard

and provide complete 24-7 cover.

This was

a transient, temporary issue and is not an institutionalized problem; however,

this particular area will be difficult to cover and Eastern Health has

contingency plans to do so. There will be coverage when needed. If you need

help, call the ambulance. If you are a physician who needs a patient

transferred, make the appropriate call, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can

tell you when you have a baby, many consider it a miracle; it's a joy. Of course

the first hours, the first days, are very critical, especially if the child has

issues. St. John's has only one children's hospital in our province and sick

neonatal children are some of the most vulnerable people in our province.

I ask

the minister: When will 24-hour medevac coverage be restored for sick children?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

To my

knowledge, a team is available around the clock. If it's any different, I'll let

the Member opposite know.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista.

C. PARDY:

Thank you, Speaker.

The

emergency room in Bonavista which services the town and local area, some

8,000-plus residents, are now without any doctors on call. This is the largest

service population in a province to not have a doctor on call for its emergency

room. To be blunt, staff and residents are scared.

I ask

the minister: When will the Bonavista emergency room have doctors on call to

support both patients and their fellow health care staff?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Recruitment and retention has been a real issue for this province, particularly

in rural areas, going back certainly before my arrival in this province – back

to the '50s and '60s. As a consequence, that is where, on Monday, we announced

some significant changes and some significant improvements.

In terms

of 24-7 emergency care, there are facilities that have challenges with providing

that continuity because of staffing shortages, currently. Absent recruitment and

retention that fills that immediately there are other alternatives, particularly

involving virtual care, which have been very successful.

We will

work and continue to work through Eastern Health to fill those gaps.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY:

Thank you, Speaker.

I only

had hoped that those strategies would have started much, much sooner and we

wouldn't find ourselves in the position we do.

The

Bonavista hospital emergency room was primarily staffed by doctors recruited

internationally, but with changes made by the College of Physicians and Surgeons

time has now run out. Government knew well in advance that the College of

Physicians were making these changes, but we are still in this unfortunate

situation.

I ask

the minister: What will be the permanent solution for the people of Bonavista?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken

with the outgoing registrar of the college on numerous occasions about the

issues she and the college have imposed on international medical graduates.

There is nothing I can do, directly. She has the authority and the college has

the authority, in statute, to determine who is licensed in this province and who

is not.

I can go

back on the other question about recruitment and retention. It is really

important that now we, collectively, as leaders in this Chamber, start to sell

this province as a good place to live and a good place to work. It's becoming a

challenge with some of the rhetoric from the other side, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

J. BROWN:

Thank you, Speaker.

The

people of Labrador have to live knowing that they will not receive the same

level of health care as available on the Island. Medical travel is a fact of

life in Labrador. Local charities and crowd funding are used to cover failures

in Public Health. However, if residents accept local help, MTAP is made harder

to access. The form to apply for MTAP states: MTAP is a payer of last resort.

They will not provide assistance to travellers who have received private

donations or other forms of help.

I ask

the minister: Why does the Department of Health direct and scrutinize charitable

donations to a patient who is facing costs related to universal health care?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MTAP is

a universal program that is means tested, that is intended to defray costs of

travel. It was never designed, in fact or in policy, to be a compensation

scheme.

Having

said that, we have recognized Labrador has its particular challenges. On April 1

of this year, after discussion with current and previous Labrador Members, we

altered the transportation program to allow ease of access for people from

Labrador recognizing they have to fly, recognizing some might wish to drive and

avail of friends or family for accommodation and per diems. Those are

innovative, new approaches to make life a little easier for those people who

have to travel from the Big Land, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

J. BROWN:

Thank you, Speaker.

“Courage, my friends 'tis not too late to build a better world.” This is from

the man who gave us universal health care, and we can do the same here: Create a

better world.

This

House voted last sitting, unanimously, in favour of striking a Committee on

basic income to review and make recommendations on developing a BI pilot program

and other poverty reduction initiatives. Initiatives researched by the Committee

could be instrumental in improving the lives and well-being of the residents of

this province.

Will the

Government House Leader honour the commitment and strike this Committee?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

There

are many Committees of this House, whether it's a Social Services Committee or

other Committees and we strike Committees from time to time, Mr. Speaker. I've

had a conversation with the new Leader of the Third Party and we'll continue to

have those conversations as we go forward.

The

thing we have to realize is we always had a Committee structure in this House,

which always can be used. But I will have more conversations with the Member

opposite on the opportunities we may have there around Committees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Lake

Melville.

P. TRIMPER:

Speaker, when a doctor tells

a patient in Labrador that it's urgent that they see a specialist or follow-up

care in St. John's, for example, the patient should not have to go through yet

another approval process.

Unfortunately, the current policy – this is post tweaks from April – in the

Medical Transportation Assistance Program is that that same patient may now have

to wait up to an additional 10 business days.

Minister, can we finally establish an efficient and compassionate means of

supporting those who require financial assistance to access our health care

system?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

In terms

of transportation assistance for anyone in the province, Labrador included,

those people who are on income support with challenged means have access to a

reimbursement or even a payment-in-advance program. We have on-call social

workers, 24-7, who can arrange flights, transportation on their own authority

without going any further.

If the

Member opposite has had a specific instance where someone requires 10 days for

that kind of referral, I need to know about it. I'd love to hear the details,

along with consent, obviously, from the individual concerned and we'll look into

it.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Lake

Melville.

P. TRIMPER:

Thank you, Minister.

It was

last week and I'll send you the details.

Moving

from health care to highways, I recently heard the minister indicate that he was

moving away from the five-year roads plan to a multiple-year plan. While I'm

confused by the statement, I do remain committed to securing a solution to

fixing the deplorable state of highway 520 between North West River, Sheshatshiu

and Happy Valley-Goose Bay. This highway has been identified as a priority and

is not improving with age or extensive use.

Minister, can you please inform this House of your plan to fix this important

highway?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Infrastructure.

E. LOVELESS:

Thank you, Speaker.

In terms

of the five-year roads plan, I did make reference to that in the last session of

the House and said I'll be doing away with the five-year roads plan and it will

become a multi-year roads plan. I made a commitment to the Member at the time

that I would be working with him to identify and deal with those issues that he

had, like Route 520, which we made an attempt to do some work there and he's

fully aware of that. I will continue to work with him to address those issues

that he asked about today in the multi-year plan.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Lake

Melville, time for a quick question, no

preamble.

P. TRIMPER:

Speaker, I'd like to see if I can get an update, please, from the minister

responsible for dealing with the caribou poaching issue that has been going on

in Southern Labrador.

Thank

you very much.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture, quick response.

D. BRAGG:

I'm so excited, Mr. Speaker; I can't get the smile off my face.

The

caribou is a major concern, not only in Labrador but also in this province.

We're evaluating what's going on there. We're looking forward, Speaker, to

meeting with the community leaders in Quebec. As everyone would know, COVID this

year, just as we thought we were getting out of it, arranging meetings and

getting back into it, we ran into problems where we couldn't sit down with

face-to-face meetings.

We're

looking forward to when the new federal minister responsible for wildlife gets

sworn in, to meet with the new federal minister so we can talk about this,

because this needs to be a national effort to control this. This cannot just be

done provincially. We need the help of the federal members and our counterparts

in Quebec as well, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Tabling of

Documents

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Digital Government and Service NL.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

S. STOODLEY:

In accordance with

section 10 of the Engineers and Geoscientists Act, I hereby

table the annual report of the Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of

Newfoundland and Labrador on the operations carried out from January 1 to

December 31, 2020.

accordance with

section 6 of the Embalmers and Funeral Directors Act, I hereby

table the annual report for the Embalmers and Funeral Directors Board on the

operations carried out from January 1 to December 31, 2020.

accordance with

section 9 of the Chartered

Professional Accountants and Public Accountants Act , I hereby table the 2020 Annual Report and financial statements –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

S. STOODLEY:

– for the Chartered

Professional Accountants of Newfoundland and Labrador for operations carried out

from April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021.

Thank

you very much, Speaker.

SPEAKER:

Any further tabling of

documents?

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give

notice that I will on tomorrow move a motion in accordance with Standing Order

11(1) that this House not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock on Thursday, October 21, 2021.

SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

Answers

to Question for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Speaker.

The

background to this petition is as follows: Route 10 on the Southern Avalon forms

a large

section of the Irish Loop. This is a significant piece of infrastructure

and is the main highway along the Irish Loop. This highway plays a major role in

residential and commercial growth of the region.

Therefore we petition the House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned,

call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador that immediate brush cutting is required on Route 10, Southern Shore

Highway, as large sections of brush along this highway is a significant safety

hazard for the high volume of travelling motorist who travel this highway daily.

This work is essential in the prevention of moose-vehicle accidents along Route

Speaker,

I drive this route – I'm going to say – weekly and going up and down my district

from one end to the other is two and a half hours. Now, not all the district is

in bad shape in regard to brush cutting, but there are sections when you go from

outside of Tors Cove right to Trepassey, in the Town of Trepassey itself, that

certainly needs to be done. You have brush that's growing in the roads. If you

get in a certain

section it's like the road is coming in on top of you with the

brush.

It's not

the only road in the province, I'm sure of that, but certainly this town, when I

look at Trepassey, you're driving in the town and the Department of

Transportation is responsible for the upkeep of the roads and the brush cutting.

The alders are growing out over the guardrails. You can't see the guardrails.

You can't see the signs. Coming through the park in the La Manche park area

there are sections there that the brush cutting needs to be done.

I'd love

to have an update from the minister to when some of this is going to be done and

when it's in his two-year plan.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We the

undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador bring to the

attention of the House of Assembly the following:

WHEREAS

according to the document The

Way Forward

on Climate Change the province is already experiencing the effects

of climate change.

Newfoundland and Labrador joined the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and

Climate Change in 2016, but is not on track to meet the 2020 targets.

Financial costs resulting from climate change will unequally impact

municipalities due to the responsibilities set out in the

Municipalities Act, 1999 .

THEREFORE your petitioners call upon the House of Assembly to urge the

government to: one, declare a climate emergency; two, establish a task force on

decreasing the effects of the climate crisis while building community

resilience; and, third, consider climate in all policy and decision-making.

tabled in the House of Assembly, this petition is a document of the House of

Assembly and the name and address of every person who signs it will be available

to the public.

Mr.

Speaker, I have a little bit more than a minute to actually talk on this

petition. We know now that climate change is real and that human activities are

the main cause of climate change. I was just looking at an

article in

Scientific American and the title kind

of caught my eye. It says “We Are Living in a Climate Emergency, and we're Going

to Say So.” And the subtitle was “It's time to use a term that more than 13,000

scientists agree is needed.” We are living in a climate emergency and we're

going to say so.

The

petitioners want to declare a climate emergency. So you have to wonder now, if

you look at the media and you look at government decisions and responses to

climate change, why are governments and nations so resistant to using the term

climate emergency? I think it has a lot to do with the actual definition of

emergency. An emergency is a serious situation that requires immediate action.

When somebody calls 911 because they can't breathe, that's an emergency. When

someone dials 911 because their house is on fire, that's an emergency.

Looking

at governments now, we need immediate action to start the process to stop and

reverse climate change. If we don't do that now and if we don't respond as if

it's an emergency and declare a climate emergency, by the time the fire truck

shows up, the house is going to be burnt down. By the time the ambulance shows

up, the person is actually going to have stopped breathing and be dead.

Right

now, we need to actually take action.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

B. DAVIS:

Yes, thank you very much, Speaker.

I thank

the hon. Member for the petition and I share her concern. Obviously, it's an

important topic, not just for us here in this House of Assembly but all of the

future generations, not just in this province or Canada but right across the

global community.

I know I

don't have much time left, and I know you're going to cut me off –

SPEAKER:

You've got 30 seconds. I'll give you 30 seconds.

B. DAVIS:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

We have

started and completed some of the 45 items in our Climate Change Action Plan.

I'll have more opportunities. I look forward to the Member bringing forward a

future petition so I can go through a little bit more of the detail so we can

have a conversation on this. My door is always open for the Members, as they

know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

SPEAKER:

This being Wednesday, I call

upon the Member for Topsail - Paradise to introduce the resolution for today's

private Member's motion.

P. DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

As I

mentioned two days ago, this resolution is being seconded by the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island. So to move the following resolution:

WHEREAS

the Parfrey/Davis Health Accord has described the health care situation in

Newfoundland and Labrador today as a health crisis, and their assessment is

justified: when some 99,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do not have a

family doctor; when emergency response personnel cannot respond to people in

urgent need because of inadequate resources; when front-line health care

professionals are overworked to the point of burnout; when health care

professionals are leaving this province because the government does not address

their concerns; and when the government has refused to enter into meaningful

negotiations with the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, whose

contract expired more than four years ago, but is threatening to split the

association instead of addressing the doctors' core concerns, which are

fundamental to physician recruitment and retention.

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House urge the government to recognize

that there is a health care crisis in Newfoundland and Labrador, and to

immediately address this crisis with the urgency the circumstances warrant.

Mr.

Speaker, I think this PMR is timely. In fact, I would say it's overdue, given

the current lack of action on some very, very key issues.

Now,

today I'm hoping, and I expect to hear some thoughtful and practical responses.

But I also expect to hear some very sad commentaries on what the residents of

our province are facing with regards to health care. I guarantee you – I would

bet – that's it not just this side of the House that are receiving those calls

and those emails. I'm not talking brief emails; I'm talking four and five pages

from doctors, from paramedics and from mothers and fathers talking about kids,

talking about their cancers, talking about their aliments and not able to get

proper care. Nobody in this House is immune to those calls.

I can

tell you since I took on this role as the shadow minister for Health – and we

call ourselves shadow ministers, as opposed to critics. Yes, it's our role to

criticize at times, but our main role is to hold government accountable. Each

and every one of us in this House of Assembly were elected by the people of

their districts to serve the people of their districts. I'm sure that's a role

we all take very seriously and, in that role, dealing with our health crisis is

a huge issue that we have to speak to.

So in my

role as the shadow minister for Health and Community Services, I've taken it

upon myself – and I suspect everyone has done so in their own roles – to reach

out and sit with many of the associations, the agencies and the stakeholders

that deal with health care in this province. It's only to sit down and talk; sit

down and tell us what's happening from your point of view; tell us what some of

your solutions are from your point of view. It's listening. You can hear the

words, but unless you truly listen, that's what you have to be doing, and I sit

down and listen.

I've met

with the Medical Association, I've met with the nurses, I've met with the nurse

practitioners, the paramedics and I'm meeting with a couple more groups along

the way later this week, including the Health Accord, I might say. I've met with

them many times, their town halls; I've attended those. But the common thread,

or one of the common threads because there are a couple, one of the common

threats throughout is the recognition that we have a health crisis, a health

care crisis in the province.

Anyone

you talk to when you're trying to solve a problem you first have to recognize

you have a problem and then you have to recognize the severity of that problem.

I feel like it's an intervention here, an intervention to try and get government

to realize the crisis situation in health care here, the extent of the problem

and to start acting upon it.

It is

great to make some announcements of what we're going to do – we're going to do,

we're going to do. You hear talk about short-term solutions, you hear talk about

medium-term solutions and we hear talk about long-term solutions. But a key word

in our resolution here is to “immediately address.”

The

Premier talked the other day – I think he used the words: we're ahead of the

curve. I don't know what curve he's talking about. I don't know what curve he is

talking about. We mentioned our health framework that we put out in 2015, how

many of the items in that framework are things that this current government are

starting to take on, which I'm glad they're doing that, because I'm not here for

rhetoric, I'm hear for action.

So it's

great to hear that, but if you're aware of that – the response back from the

Health Minister was, well, that came from a report that came out in 2011, which

makes me ever more upset. If you're aware of that, if you're aware of these

suggestions, and regardless to who put them out – the Premier talks about – I'll

give you the quote: “I ask everyone to have the courage and the imagination to

come up with solutions ….” That was yesterday, and he challenged everybody in

this House again yesterday.

These

solutions have been there since 2015 and before. Now we're talking about a

recruitment and retention plan, when in 2015, in our plan, we talked about a

recruitment and retention committee. Who cares where it came from – act.

We look

at this resolution: when some 99,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do not

have a family doctor – 20 per cent of our population do not have access to a

family doctor. That is huge. That needs to be addressed.

The

minister mentioned when talking to the paramedics: I can't knit a paramedic. I

can't knit a paramedic. Point taken, it takes 18 months to 24 months to train a

paramedic. You can announce all the seats you want for nursing, for doctors, for

Bachelor of Science: all good, but six years too late to deal with it now, to

deal with an immediate crisis now.

When

emergency response personnel cannot respond to people in urgent need because of

inadequate resources – we have heard from many groups, I've heard from the

paramedics, I've heard from nurses out in the Bonavista hospital telling me how

people are triaged in the parking lot. How people are taken in on gurneys, are

the hallway, being restrained, being medicated and being toileted in the

hallways. I've been told by nurses how individuals have passed away in the

hallways on those three-inch mattresses – that's their words. That's not mine.

I mean

what do you tell people? Even today in Question Period when I talked about

Labrador and the issues they face up there. Yes, unfortunate circumstances, and,

yes, it's an anomaly, but it's life and death. It's life and death for people.

Just

even something as simple as saying: We're going to have a system that will

notify people when there's a red alert or when there are no ambulances

available. To me, that's not a huge investment, if it's an investment at all,

but it's common sense. As my father would say: common sense if not so common.

When the

government has refused to enter into meaningful negotiations with the

Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association – I'm not involved in the

negotiations there. There are teams in place for that. But when one party to

those negotiations has to pull away and do further consultation, because zero

has been put on the table, and, again, I'm not involved in the negotiations but

from what they've said, well, that's a concern. That's a concern to me.

When I

look at the primary health care framework – just as an example of what we put

forward back in 2015, it was a plan for 2015 to 2025, which is only four years

away now; yet, we are over six years behind. We talked about fostering increased

attachment to primary care teams, that's 2015. Does that sound familiar? It

should because that's what's being announced now, six years later.

We also

committed to exploring the social determinants of health. When the Health Accord

came out – and I applaud Dr. Parfrey and Sister Elizabeth Davis, doing a

fantastic job –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

P. DINN:

– but it was mentioned in this House like social determinants of health was

something brand new. We mentioned this back in 2015. So it's not. It's been

there. We talked about ongoing collaboration, which was a huge term tossed about

when we had a minority government here and I don't believe we saw anything near

collaboration.

talked about in 2015 in that framework – and look, I don't care who had put out

the framework back in '15. My point is it was out there in 2015. We cannot be

putting blinders on, saying it didn't exist. And as the Minister of Health said,

apparently, there was a report in 2011 with this.

We also

talked about implementing recruitment and retention initiatives. That's what we

talked about then, and here we are talking about it again. Oh, we're going to

start looking at that. It's going to take time. Recruitment takes time,

especially when you're battling against many, many others who are looking for

the same. It is across Canada, there's no doubt about it. So what do we do

differently? What are we doing differently to recruit doctors and keep the

doctors that are here, graduating from MUN, and to retain them?

I just

looked at a quote here, a piece of data here, because it's been misconstrued.

It's been said in this House by the minister how well we're doing on retaining

MUN grads. This is Canadian Institute for Health Information: Retention of MUN

med grads in Newfoundland and Labrador is the lowest of any province.

My Lord,

when you look at headlines, one: “Despite a doctor shortage, this recent MUN

grad won't yet practice family medicine in” Newfoundland and Labrador. “Shortage

of Physicians 'Multi-Factorial,' says Dean of MUN Medicine.”

Mr.

Speaker, 99,000 people in the province don't have a family doctor. That's a poll

that was done. Recruitment must be co-ordinated, Inkpen. That's a headline.

“Family Doctor Fee for Service Model No Longer Viable, says Past NLMA

President.” That's a headline.

“Welcome

to Newfoundland; good luck finding a doctor.” That's a headline. Nova Scotia's

Physician Recruitment Efforts to Further Challenges in NL, say NLMA.” That's a

headline. “The health minister says N.L. is 'blessed' with doctors. The medical

association begs to differ.” And I can on with the headlines.

guarantee you, this has been around for a while. I know we're not ignoring it,

but I'm hoping this Member's resolution will bring some good debate.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

J. ABBOTT:

Thank you, Speaker, and I

look forward to participating in this debate this afternoon on the Member's

motion.

The

question is: Is there a health care crisis, as suggested by the Member opposite?

I know both the Premier and the Minister of Health addressed that in Question

Period earlier in the week. But in terms of this debate, do any of the clauses

in the Member's resolution, in terms of calling our health care system is in a

crisis, when you consider them either individually or collectively, do they

stand the test? I suggest that there's a high degree of hyperbole on the part of

the Member and the Opposition.

The

Member talked about holding the minister and the government accountable, and

that's what I'd like to do with respect to his resolution. Let's start with the

reference to the Parfrey and Davis Health Accord, which the Member suggests that

they describe the health care situation in Newfoundland and Labrador today as a

health crisis.

Well, in

fact, when you talk to Sister Elizabeth and Dr. Pat Parfrey, they are

participating in the Health Accord process to establish and ask us to imagine a

health care system to better deliver services to meet the needs of the people

across the province. They have a mandate to deliver a 10-year plan with short-,

medium- and long-term goals for our system that better meets the needs of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They would not be and would not engage in such

rhetoric. They are being proactive, they are being action-oriented, they are

involving all stakeholders and they are communicating well what they're doing.

addition, I think what is in the resolution is the antithesis of fomenting a

crisis in our health care system in terms of what the accord is intended to do.

They, like most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, recognize the need to address

the well-documented challenges facing our health care system to avoid the crisis

in the future.

Secondly, you refer that their assessment is justified when some so-called

99,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do not have a family doctor. Have you

asked the question: What's the source of that number? Now, there's no doubt

there are many of us without a family doctor. We know what's happened in recent

periods, in the past year or two or three. We have increased retirements by

family physicians. There's a change in practice patterns by our new and younger

physicians, and there are a large number of people, tens of thousands, who have

historically not availed of a family doctor or family practice, mainly younger

men and women in good health. The actual gap is really less than 99,000, as

suggested by the Member opposite.

I would

refer you to some Statistics Canada data, which in says in 2019 – the report

only came out last year – that the percentage of Canadians without a health care

provider, at the Canadian average, was just under 17 per cent. In Newfoundland

it was just under 12 per cent, much lower than all western provinces.

There

has probably been some movement upwards over the past year or two in

Newfoundland's number, but nowhere at the number of 99,000, no matter what way

you do the math. If Newfoundland and Labrador has a crisis as suggested by the

Member opposite, then so does every other province in this country, and we're

not hearing that.

I also

want to refer to, within that number, 47.4 per cent of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians felt, one, that they did not need a family physician or a family

practitioner, but they usually had a place of care or they didn't try to find

one. We have to put the data on access to family physicians in context.

Something I've been aware of in my work over the years.

You also

need to look at the source of that number when a particular professional

organization is in current negotiations with the government and using whatever

leverage it can to maximize its position with the public and putting pressure on

the government.

I want

to go to the next point when you refer to: when emergency response personnel

cannot respond to people in urgent need because of inadequate resources. Now,

I'm not aware of any reported cases were ER personnel cannot respond. There may

be delays, but once they're documented, the department has responded to meet

those needs. The Minister of Health referred to that in his announcement last

week in responding to the situation on the Northeast Avalon, new resources were

provided once there was a documented case to do so. If there was a crisis, there

certainly doesn't prevail now.

I want

to refer to: when front-line health care professionals are said to be overworked

to the point of burnout. That is a concern of mine, if any of our health care

workforce could or would be burnt out through their work. Now, given the

responses required by COVID, we can readily accept some front-line staff, their

managers and others need to be assured that the necessary support services and

human resource policies are in place and that we provide better management of

our personnel so that we can achieve better health. That would not lead to a

crisis in our system.

These

resources are on their way – as, again, Dr. Haggie mentioned – with a plan to

make sure we mitigate further human resource challenges. That's what it is. It's

a current challenge faced by many employers across the province, and not solely

the health care.

I want

to refer to the clause when it says: when health care professionals are leaving

this province because the government does not address their concerns. There has

always been a movement of health care professionals within the province and

across provinces, especially doctors between provinces. There is no acceleration

in this labour movement in or out. There is no crisis when you think of t