PDF Version

April 3, 2023 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 23

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

I rise on a point of privilege.

I rise at my earliest opportunity as I was waiting for the video or Hansard recording to be made available for the evening sitting of March 22, 2023. The point of privilege relates to two sets of comments made by the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port – statements misrepresenting what I said.

I left the Chamber because I was mad after the first set of statements and I later heard that there were further comments, so I was waiting for a record of the conversation to review prior to deciding whether or not to make this point of privilege here today, Speaker.

So why do I feel as though my privilege has been impacted? One of the five principles of privilege is freedom from obstruction, interference and intimidation. The House of Commons website talks about privilege including matters that have been found to be prima facie, including damaging of a Member’s reputation and the provision of misleading information.

On March 22, the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port provided misleading information to this House and in the public in his remarks related to statements he alleges I said in speaking to Bill 22. So the Member misled this House on two instances and I’m just going to handle them sequentially.

The first one, if you look in the video, is at 6:34 on the feed. The Member talked about, it started this morning with the minister talking about housekeeping updates and said it’s much more than housekeeping updates. The Member was suggesting that I was classifying all the changes to Bill 22 as housekeeping updates.

Speaker, in presenting legislation to this House, it’s very important that I do tell Members and the public about all the changes we are making to

an act. In addition to creating a very important legislative duty to document, I did say that we are making housekeeping amendments, but I categorically did not tell this House that all the amendments were housekeeping in nature nor did I suggest that the whole of the changes proposed were housekeeping in nature.

The second set of misleading comments, I think, are a more serious breach of my privilege, Speaker. At 10:11 on the morning of March 22, if you look in the video, I was explaining how we gave full and fair considerations to the Privacy Commissioner’s feedback. The Privacy Commissioner asked for extra responsibilities and I was explaining that, firstly, it falls outside his mandate of ATIPPA, secondly that the Auditor General provides independent oversight and thirdly that we are also reviewing the statutory offices.

I said – I quote – we did not feel like it was necessary at the time. If you want to go have a look, it’s at 10:11:55. I said: We did not feel like it was necessary at this time.

So then later that evening, we were continuing our debate and at 6:35, the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port accused me of saying that I didn’t follow all the Privacy Commissioner’s recommendations because I didn’t feel like it. The Member said I didn’t feel like it, very enthusiastically and flippantly, Mr. Speaker, and he said it six times. I did not say I didn’t feel like it. I said: We did not feel like it was necessary at the time.

This is very different from saying I didn’t feel like it. You can go back and watch with the spirit that the Member said it; I encourage anyone to go and watch the video.

The Member proceeded to say if that’s the attitude you have, no wonder – referring to the Privacy Commissioner’s further discussions with us – insinuating that I have a flippant attitude towards the work the Privacy Commissioner, which could not be further from the truth.

So my purpose here is to correct the record. This is the second instance where Members opposite have fabricated things that I’ve said or done to portray them in a negative and malicious light. So if anyone is watching, don’t take my word for it, review what I said on March 22 at 10:11:55 and have a look at what the Member said at 6:35 on that same day. You can watch the video online.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port is disrespecting the residents I represent when he is twisting and emphasizing my words, completely mischaracterizing what I said and how I said it. He’s trying to negatively impact my reputation and spread misinformation.

I would prefer not to be holding up the House with this matter. I feel strongly, though, that it is important that as a House we recognize that this type of behaviour is not appropriate. Let’s debate the policy, the legislation, the timing, absolutely; but we cannot allow the precedent to continue in this House that Members can so enthusiastically maliciously misrepresent what other Members say and spread misinformation.

Speaker, I ask that you review this matter. If you find my privilege has been breached, I ask that the Member apologize to this House and, if appropriate, that this matter be examined by the appropriate Committee.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.

During the heat of debate, at that particular date, that evening I also looked directly at the Member which I’m not supposed to do. I apologized at that time and directed my comments back to you as Speaker.

I also want to stand here today and unequivocally and sincerely – if any of my actions or my words offended the minister opposite and the Member opposite, I want to apologize for them and withdraw my remarks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Today in the public gallery, I’d like to welcome Kelly Vodden’s Masters Environmental Policy class from the Grenfell Campus, Memorial University.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Also, in the public gallery, welcome to past and present members of the Outer Cove Marines. They are visiting us this afternoon, also for a Member’s statement.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

SPEAKER: Today we will hear statements by the Members for the Districts of Terra Nova, Bonavista, Exploits, Ferryland and Cape St. Francis.

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in standing today to congratulate White Hills Resort in Clarenville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: On Saturday, after a long process with a great team effort, they won the Mackenzie Top Peak top award of $100,000. This process started in late January with the nomination process from the board, staff, a great group of volunteers, and continued from there to rally votes as a province and as a country. We all jumped into the process, voting daily, up until March 8.

Everyone jumped on the challenge and helped secure the top three ranking, which was announced on March 25. The team effort was tremendous. After a few weeks waiting, with the judges making the final decision, the announcement was exactly what we all joined in for: a win.

Please join and congratulating the staff, board, volunteers and supporters of White Hills Resort.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Shannon Holloway is a carpenter by trade from Bloomfield, Bonavista Bay. This is an area of the District of Bonavista that hosted many schooners back in the day for freight and fish transfer, as well as motor boats which were used primarily for the inshore fishery. It was a bustling bay in its day.

Shannon was determined to do his part to recapture history and showcase our heritage. He put his skills to the test and built a motor boat, an exact replica of the motor boat of the past with a 1940s make and break gas/kerosene engine, the putt-putt. When time came to launch in Holloways Cove in Bloomfield, over 200 locals showed up to view.

Shannon’s wife, Bernice, says: “We have tourists stopping by there all the time admiring the view of our motor boat and the scenery.” Shannon has constructed a wharf in the cove and is currently working on another fishing vessel to adorn the waters of Bloomfield, Bonavista Bay.

I ask the Members of the 50th House of Assembly to join me in celebrating the skill set and passion of Shannon Holloway, who is determined to preserve our marine history and enhance tourism in the

Bloomfield area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Thank you, Speaker.

I rise today to recognize Mrs. Betty Saunders, a name everyone in the Town of Norris Arm will recognize, from young to the old. She is a member of the BGC Norris Arm and helps with the New Horizons for Seniors Program run by the club.

For many years she was the executive director with BGC Norris Arm and has volunteered with every community organization for over 60 years. She was a business owner in the town and was part of the town staff when incorporation happened. She was also the town manager and assisted with countless community events over the years.

Speaker, to this day, she still helps lead and consults for many organizations in the town including local churches and the BGC. She’s a strong pillar in the community and now passes her knowledge and her expertise to younger generations who can continue providing services to children, youth and seniors in Norris Arm and the surrounding area.

Speaker, I ask all Members in the House of Assembly to join me in thanking Mrs. Betty Saunders of Norris Arm for her contributions to her community and surrounding area.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O’DRISCOLL: Thank you, Speaker.

I rise today in this hon. House to recognize two individuals of the Ferryland District who were selected to play wheelchair basketball and represent Newfoundland and Labrador in the Canada Winter Games in PEI from February 18 to March 5, 2023.

Brothers Alex and Jack Kennedy from Bay Bulls attended the first week of the Canada Winter Games as part of Team Newfoundland and Labrador wheelchair basketball team. The Kennedy brothers are avid basketball players since a young age and this is the first time they played together on the same team. Alex joined the team in 2017, attending the 2019 Winter Games in Red Deer, and Jack joined the team in 2020.

Alex has mild cerebral palsy and Jack is an able-bodied player. There’s a mix of both disabled players as well as able-bodied players on the team. They joined forces with Nova Scotia for these games as neither province had enough players to make a team. They played under the banner of TeamNL.

Please join me in congratulating Jack and Alex Kennedy for representing Newfoundland and Labrador in the Canada Winter Games.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. WALL: Thank you, Speaker.

I rise today to recognize the return of one of the original teams involved in the Avalon East Senior Hockey League from its inception in 1966, the Outer Cove Marines.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. WALL: Now, the Wexford Estates Outer Cove Marines hockey club is a non-profit organization comprised of local players, coaches and volunteers who call the Jack Byrne Regional Sport and Entertainment Centre home. This franchise has a storied history in the senior hockey circuit in our province, with connections to individuals who paved the way for hockey and sport in my district, like Ronnie Cadigan, Leo Cole, Gerry Cadigan, Owen Devereux, the Roche brothers and Campbell Feehan.

The return of this team to the league in 2022 has focused on community, providing leadership and to support and celebrate youth involved in sports across the region.

Speaker, I ask all Members of this 50th General Assembly to join me in congratulating the players; coaches, Alex Snow, Jay Cole and Jason Powell; general manager, Tommy Beckett; and all volunteers of the Outer Cove Marines and wish them every success next season.

It’s certainly great to see the blue and gold back on the ice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m hoping I have it here, Mr. Speaker, because I think I forgot it. I may have to do it tomorrow. I apologize.

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

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can’t imagine saying that I was almost saved by the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the amalgamation of four former regional health authorities and the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information into one health authority effective April 1.

Now known as the Newfoundland and Labrador Health Services, this new entity is aimed at streamlining programs and services, as well as associated corporate services such as human resources, payroll and finance. It was a recommendation in the Health Accord NL and it will help us ensure consistent and quality health care delivery across Newfoundland and Labrador.

While there is now one health authority, a focus on specific regional issues will be maintained through the five regional health councils. These councils will be responsible for advising the provincial health authority on the particular needs of regions, informing health care delivery at the regional level. Work is underway to appoint these councils, using a merit-based appointments process.

While transition work continues, patients, clients and residents can continue to access care in the same way they always have. There are no immediate changes to health care services, facilities or contact information as a result of this step in the transition.

I would like to congratulate the individuals recently appointed to the Newfoundland and Labrador Health Services Board of Trustees. Their effective governance will help support the new health organization moving forward.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. DINN: Thank you and I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

Speaker, I join the minister in recognizing the amalgamation of the four former regional health authorities and the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information into a new singular entity.

As recommended in the Health Accord, the Official Opposition looks forward to the streamlining of services within the province’s health care system, but more importantly to see how residents of this province will have greater access to health care.

With a new amalgamated entity, much work still needs to be done and questions remain around the protection of individual medical records.

Our province continues to experience an unprecedented loss of health care workers that desperately needs to be fixed. Approximately 135,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are without a family doctor and there are currently 750 nursing vacancies, a 22 per cent increase over a six-month period.

We look forward to working collaboratively with the new amalgamated health authority and to provide real solutions for our worsening health care crisis.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. This amalgamation lacks clarity and reflects failure to consult with stakeholders. New regional health councils have no real power or influence, muting, excluding expertise and experience from local regions.

This contradicts what was called for in the Health Accord. This framework doesn’t improve rural health care and binds regions to the will of decision-makers in St. John’s who lack the context and understanding of the realities local people face.

Thank you, Speaker.

SPEAKER: Any further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

D. BRAZIL: Speaker, I’m sure the Premier has taken the time to review the human rights decision involving systemic discrimination for Carter Churchill during a four-year period while the child attended school.

I ask the Premier: Would you stand and apologize to the Churchill family for the ordeal that they have had to endure?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, it’s a complex problem when it comes to human rights and certainly recognize the wrongs of the past. It was previous to my administration, Mr. Speaker, in 2020 and certainly we’ll continue to work with the Churchills to ensure that their son gets the best education possible, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Speaker, the Churchills have endured significant legal costs during the six-year ordeal fighting for educational equality for their son.

Speaker, will the Premier order the Department of Education to cover the entire legal costs the family has to pay out?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Speaker.

We have followed the case with interest. It is between the school district and the family concerned. My understanding is there was a settlement adjudicated by the Human Rights Tribunal. My understanding is the financial elements of that were stipulated and have been honoured or will be honoured over the course of coming weeks by the school district.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: What I read into that, Mr. Speaker, is that, at the end of the day, the Churchills have had to endure financial loss for something that has been proven was out of control from them and was the blame of government and the school district in this case here. That’s not fair in our legal system, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker, in 2019, the government established a steering committee on deaf and hard of hearing education which lacks parental representation of a deaf or hard of hearing child – truly remarkable.

Speaker, will the Premier correct this mistake and, in a gesture of good faith, appoint the Churchills as parent representatives?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

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

For clarity, the committee that the Member opposite refers to, as was undertaken by the Premier, does actually have parent representatives on it. We sought opinions from the Newfoundland and Labrador Association for the Deaf and the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association and two representatives of families of people with hearing impairment or deafness sit on that committee.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Speaker.

After what we found out has happened through this ordeal here, I think it would only be appropriate that the particular situation that the Churchills found themselves in would be beneficial being members of this committee, for sure.

Speaker, the Seniors’ Advocate released a report on the biggest challenges facing seniors. It is a sting revelation of the failures of the Liberal government to address the needs of seniors.

Why is the Premier content that seniors cannot afford food, to heat their homes or take their medication?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Of course seniors are an important element to society, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the most important because they have shared experiences to share with all of us and help make society better. That’s why we’ve concentrated on seniors, whether it’s with respect to increasing their Income Supplement, whether it’s ensuring that they have a supplement for home heat or ensuring that we are looking after affordable housing through the announcement of last week with 850 new additional units, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Obviously, Speaker, this is not enough for what the seniors are facing in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thirty-two per cent of seniors don’t have enough income to meet their needs; 60 per cent are going without food; 57 per cent are not purchasing medical supplies or devices. The budget failed seniors.

Does the Premier agree with the Seniors’ Advocate who says your government did not do enough?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.

J. ABBOTT: Thank you, Speaker, for the opportunity to respond.

Interestingly in reading through the Seniors’ Advocate’s report, many of the findings we certainly concur with. The interesting thing is, even based on recent reports that the office had done, we have implemented 90 per cent of those recommendations. So we will work with the Seniors’ Advocate on each of those findings, particularly as she develops her recommendations for implementation.

In the meantime, the budget has addressed quite a number of issues in terms of cost of living, increasing the Seniors’ Benefit, also providing further supports, as the Premier said, in terms of seniors housing. So we are very focused on making sure we address their needs because they need to be addressed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: I would think if you’re going to address the needs of seniors, you would listen to the representation from those seniors themselves.

The Seniors’ Advocate stated that this year’s budget failed seniors. She called for indexing of seniors benefits and help for seniors who do not have enough money to make ends meet. The Seniors’ Advocate said the Liberals refused what she had asked for.

Can the minister or the Premier correct that, whether or not you listened to the Seniors’ Advocate?

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

S. COADY: Thank you very much, Speaker.

I am proud to say the amount of effort that we put into this budget to address the cost of living, including increasing – again, for the second year in a row – the Seniors’ Benefit. Remember, Speaker, that this Seniors’ Benefit, now increased by 15 per cent over last years budget and this year’s budget – 15 per cent – is stackable. So a senior may receive the Seniors’ Benefit. They may receive the Income Supplement. As the Premier said, we have indicated in this year’s budget, 850 new affordable houses with a special focus on seniors.

These are the types of things that we are doing, plus the $500 we’re able to give to support those that have oil heat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Speaker, we’re not hearing it from seniors that they’re reassured from this budget that they’re going to be better off next week, next month or next year for sure.

Let me quote the Seniors’ Advocate: “Seniors in this province are struggling not just with accessing health care, but also financially.” As the Advocate notes, a 5 per cent increase in the Seniors’ Benefit will only provide a maximum $72 per year.

Does the Premier believe $6 a day will lift seniors out of poverty in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

S. COADY: Thank you, Speaker.

I will say to the Member opposite, to the people of the province, we have put a tremendous number of measures in this budget to help with the cost of living, including increasing the Seniors’ Benefit, including increasing the Income Supplement for the second year in a row, including having a $500 home heat supplement, including adding $70 million – $70 million, Speaker – to ensure that there is affordable housing in this budget.

Speaker, I ask the Members opposite to vote in favour of this budget, to vote for seniors –

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

S. COADY: – to vote for the Income Supplement, to vote for the record investment that we’re making in health care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Speaker.

I guarantee you we won’t vote for this for two reasons. I just did my math again, it wasn’t $6 a day, it’s $6 a month. That’s the increase for Newfoundland and Labrador seniors who’ve contributed so much to this province. That’s what they’re worth to the Liberal government over there, Mr. Speaker.

The Seniors’ Advocate said: “… from a social determinants of health perspective, think about what that will mean for our seniors as they age. They will be sicker if they don’t have the resources they need.”

We now have both the Seniors’ Advocate and the Health Accord warning that this government has to take more action to support seniors financially with their health care and to find stable, affordable housing.

When does the government plan to get around to acting on the Seniors’ Advocate’s recommendations?

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

S. COADY: Speaker, I think I just heard from the Leader of the Opposition, the interim Leader of the Opposition, say he will not be voting for this budget. So he’s going to be voting against record investments in health care. He’s going to vote against record investments in provincial roads. He’s going to vote against an increase to the Seniors’ Benefit. He’s going to vote against an increase in the Income Supplement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

S. COADY: He’s going to vote –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, you have 20 seconds left.

S. COADY: He’s going to vote against seniors receiving medicals, free medicals, to allow them to continue to drive. He’s voting against Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Speaker, I tell you what I and my colleagues here won’t be voting for is the value of the seniors only being –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

D. BRAZIL: – $6 a month. That’s what that government puts on the value of seniors in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Over here, we feel –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I can’t hear the Member speaking.

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House seniors are worth more than $6 a month. That might be their value of seniors, to us here they’re worth unbelievable amounts of courage, what they’ve contribute to this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: Mr. Speaker, I ask again: When are you going to really put a budget that really helps seniors in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

S. COADY: I have to correct the Member opposite, Speaker. What he is voting against is he is voting against an increase in the Seniors’ Benefit and that’s stackable with the Income Supplement, with other things that are happening. He’s voting against $70 million to affordable housing, 850 new housing with emphasis on seniors.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

S. COADY: He and his party are voting against $500 assistance that will go to help seniors that use oil for their heat. He’s voting against seniors receiving free medicals to ensure they continue to drive. He’s voting against personal care home increases. He’s voting against more supports than we’ve ever done, record levels of support –

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister’s time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Speaker.

I’ll tell you what I’m voting against. I’m voting against no plan for health care, to make sure emergency rooms are open, to make sure that paramedics are planned –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: – and that there are ambulance services. That family doctors are not available in this province here. That emergency rooms themselves are 24-7, that’s one of the things we going to be voting against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

D. BRAZIL: We’re also going to be voting against the fact that senior citizens are not given the value they should be by that administration here. We can talk about all the things.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: We’re also not going to vote for three, four, five or 10 years down the road before there’s any housing for seniors who now need it immediately and need interventions here. We’re not voting for an administration or a budget that has no plan for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

S. COADY: The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it. That’s a Chinese proverb.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. COADY: Alexander the Great said: There is nothing impossible to those that do not try – nothing impossible, Speaker.

I’m saying to the Member opposite, when he says he’s voting against this budget, he’s voting against the implementation of the Health Accord. He’s voting against a tremendous outpouring of support for the Health Accord. He’s voting against it. He’s voting against transformation and modernization of our health system. He’s voting against family care centres. He’s voting against acute-care centres. He’s voting against new infrastructure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Speaker.

What we’re voting against here, it’s not stopping anybody over there with a plan to do anything good for Newfoundland and Labrador. For eight years, we didn’t see a plan and there’s no plan in this budget again as part of this whole process.

We’re voting also against a sugar tax that’s supposedly was going to increase and make people healthier –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

D. BRAZIL: It hasn’t done it. Do you know what they’ve done? They’ve taken money out of people’s pockets to spend on some additional (inaudible) –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I can’t hear the speakers. On both sides, I ask all Members to respect the Chair and keep the level of conversation back and forth.

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Speaker.

We’ll be voting against the fact that there’s no plan here to really address the needs of the people of this province. Putting a tax on sugar, that obviously takes more money out of people’s pockets without doing anything to provide healthier food for people, but do nothing to help our industries around agriculture, the fishing industry and these types of things.

We’re going to be voting against a number of things here. I’ll get an opportunity for three hours to outline the couple of things that are good here but the many things that are missing, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great privilege to be able to perhaps offer the evidence that we’ve been asking you to look at so much with respect to the sugar-sweetened beverages, Mr. Speaker. Don’t trust me; look at the University of Cambridge who studied recently in the UK. It prevented 5,000 cases of obesity in Grade 6 children.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. FUREY: Those aren’t my numbers, Mr. Speaker, evidence-based, the British medical journal, I didn’t make that up. It comes straight from journals.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: I can stand up all the rest of the afternoon. Either the level of the conversation is going to go down or I can start recognizing Members.

The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

It’s obvious from the sugar tax, where they’ve gone up from $9 million to $12 million, it’s not working. There are more people drinking sugar drinks.

Last week, the president of the Registered Nurses’ Union, Yvette Coffey, compared retention incentives in this province to Nova Scotia. In comparison, she said that retention incentives here are – quote – a slap in the face of registered nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask the minister: Why do nurses in our province continue to feel so disrespected and undervalued by this Liberal government?

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

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, addressing the issues for registered nurses, part of it is about money and, yes, compensation is important. What’s also important is getting at the workplace issues.

During the Nursing Think Tank, Mr. Speaker, there were a number of issues put forward by the Registered Nurses’ Union and through consultations. We are acting on those.

We have the Health Human Resources Plan, Mr. Speaker, that is now through the RFP process and awarded. We’re looking at a core staffing model, we’re looking at mental health for registered nurses that are working and we’re looking at early learning and child care for registered nurses as well as other health professionals.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

I was waiting to hear “stay tuned,” which seems to be the answer to everything here.

Yvette Coffey also said that nurses are – quote – very upset with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Health Sciences emergency department has lost over 50 per cent of their staff in the last two years.

Why do nurses continue to flee the system under this Liberal government’s watch?

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

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, if you look at the statistics for five years ago, four years ago, three years ago or today there are the same number of bodies working as registered nurses, but they’re working differently. We have registered nurses who are going casual. We have nurses who’ve gone to the agencies. There is the same number of nurses working on the floor, but they’re doing it in different ways.

We are working on recruitment, Mr. Speaker, because nurses are overworked; they are mandated overtime. That is something we’re working on. The mission that we have to India and the interest that we have in India speaks to just one of the areas that we’re looking at in terms of recruitment to help address those issues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

I suggest to the Member to go back eight years in statistics when this group over here came into power. There’s been nothing done – nothing done.

The Registered Nurses’ Union also expected to see a retention strategy in this year’s budget, but they were left disappointed again. Nursing vacancy rates increased 22 per cent between April and October of last year.

How can the minister continue to abandon nurses in Newfoundland and Labrador for so long?

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

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you we are not abandoning nurses. We are certainly working at recruiting registered nurses, practical nurses for this province. We’ve worked hard at recruitment of nursing to help deal with some of the issues in terms of staffing models. We are also working on the Health Human Resources Plan, the core staffing review, mental health services for registered nurses, early learning and child care. We are focused on the issues that were raised during the Nursing Think Tank. It’s not just about money, although money is an important aspect to respecting nurses.

I do know that the RNU is in the middle of collective bargaining now and some of those issues will be dealt with through that process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: The inquiry into the mass shooting in Nova Scotia found: “Gender-based, intimate partner, and family violence is an epidemic. Like the COVID-19 pandemic, it is a public health emergency that warrants a meaningful, whole of society response.”

I ask the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality: What funding increases were made in this year’s budget to address the gender-based violence epidemic in our province?

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

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member, of course, for the question.

We, too, concur and our condolences, of course, and our thoughts go to the people of Nova Scotia for the horrific mass shooting that was experienced back in 2020 in the community of Portapique.

That said, we’ve also heard the calls that Ms. Breen, our lawyer, has been making. She’s been part of that inquiry. I’m happy to say that this House, my colleague and I, we have a meeting actually arranged to meet with Ms. Breen to work with her on ways that we can improve.

I’m also happy to say that more than $3 million will be going to gender-based violence from my department alone. We’re always looking for a way across government to do this to combat gender-based violence, as well as working with our federal counterparts.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Speaker, we need to see not nominal increases, but epidemic-level funding. That’s exactly what the Nova Scotia inquiry called for, was epidemic-level funding to the anti-violence sector, which must include stable core funding for programs that support survivors of gender-based violence, as well as for preventative programs, including intervention for abusers.

Violence Prevention Avalon East is one of the many organizations in this province who work towards violence prevention. This organization, like others, has not received an increase in funding since 2012.

Will the minister commit to further funding the work of this very important organization?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Speaker.

First of all, I’d like to sincerely thank our community stakeholders, the experts who are on the front line for the work that they do, working directly with the people who need these supports. I’m also happy to say that there have been increases of about $5 million in core government funding, across government actually, to help organizations in our community-based grants and programs such as this.

Again, we’re always looking for ways where we can improve. As a matter of fact, my staff are constantly talking with our stakeholders. As a matter of fact, I have directed my staff, actually, to take a closer look on operations for community-based organizations to ensure that the funding is spent the way it is supposed to be to meet the needs of people who need these services.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. WALL: Speaker, the current residents of Gaultois are dismayed that people who have already abandoned the community are now being allowed to vote on the fate of those who have stayed for a resettlement vote.

I ask the minister: Why are you allowing people who have already moved on from Gaultois the ability to vote in a resettlement vote?

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

K. HOWELL: Thank you, Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to discuss such a vibrant issue that’s in the media and on the hearts and minds of the residents of Gaultois these last couple of days.

We certainly understand that this is a very difficult decision for the residents of Gaultois. It’s a time in their community that they feel they’re faced to make with making this decision. This was a community-driven initiative that came forward out of the community of Gaultois where they had questions and an expression of interest on how government could be there to support the residents who chose at that time, or think at that time that they have to make a choice now whether or not they want to leave their community.

Right now, we’re working with the residents. We have a vote that was initiated recently and our –

SPEAKER: The minister’s time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. WALL: Thank you, Speaker.

The question was the residents who have moved on from Gaultois.

Speaker, one resident stated in local media there are – quote – too many questions surrounding the process – end quote – for them to have confidence in the outcome of this particular vote. They cannot even access a voting list to see who was eligible. There could be people who own part-time property in Gaultois determining the fate of that community.

Minister, do you feel that this is acceptable?

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

K. HOWELL: Thank you, Speaker.

As I was saying, the policy that was initiated by the community is it picks a particular date in time and the expression of interest vote came in on April 26, 2022. Our policy then indicates that the time frame for 365 days prior to that date in time are the residents who are considered permanent, full-time residents in that community. Everybody who was a permanent, full-time resident in that community, at that time, has a right to a vote. It is their right as a citizen to be a participant in this voting process. That is the timeline that was specified.

In terms of speaking about information and releasing a voter’s list. We are protected under the ATIPP legislation from releasing that information because it would compromise people’s personal privacy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. WALL: Thank you, Speaker.

In a newsletter to its members, Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador have spoken out about its disappointment that regionalization was not specifically included in this year’s budget.

I ask the minister: When can municipalities, unincorporated areas, Local Service Districts and others expect further consultation by your department on regionalization?

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

K. HOWELL: Thank you, Speaker.

A very timely question, just earlier today we had the opportunity to sit with Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador and discuss the many initiatives that they have in place and the ways they are working to advocate for communities all across this province. There were questions about regionalization that came up, but the biggest point that they were appreciative of and they kept resounding was the fact that our Municipal Operating Grants had increased this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

K. HOWELL: In this year’s budget, we’ve increased the Municipal Operating Grants, $3 million this year and $3 million next year to continue to provide that support for municipalities who do the work on the front lines, who are the boots on the ground, as we say, in our communities and we certainly do appreciate all the work that it is they do.

With regard to the regionalization report, we’ve identified over the last few months that there are some challenges that we’re looking at addressing in terms of population density and geography –

SPEAKER: The minister’s time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. WALL: Thank you, Speaker.

These residents do deserve a platform to ask these very important questions. In the Budget Speech, the Minister of Finance states there will be funding projects for “a regional, shared-services approach.” Many smaller communities and Local Service Districts have limited abilities to do so.

I ask the minister: Which programs will be funded under this shared-services approach, and how do smaller communities with limited services qualify for that?

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

K. HOWELL: Thank you, Speaker.

I have so much good stuff that I want to say today that I can’t get it all out in time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

K. HOWELL: As mentioned, there are a number of initiatives that are highlighted in this year’s budget that have regional service-sharing models. We have examples all across this province of how communities have come together, how they figured out how to make things work when they work with their neighbours and we can support each other in community-based sharing services.

So that’s an avenue that we’re certainly interested in highlighting, interested in exploring and as we move forward we’ll be there to work with communities to figure out what it is that makes sense for them and how they can better access the funding available from the government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, government’s retention announcements in health care seem praiseworthy at face value; however, we have heard from health care workers that the retention efforts fall short and are creating tension because workers do not feel valued.

I ask the Premier: Why does this government continue to leave our health care system in perpetual crisis by failing to take the retention of workers seriously?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, we value the people who are on the front lines of the health care system, Mr. Speaker. We’ve been listening to them. We understand the anxiety that they face. It’s not unique to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the health care professionals on the front line here.

That said, we are employing local solutions for what can be argued as an international problem, Mr. Speaker, whether that’s a retention bonuses that have been offered to GPs, $25,000, Mr. Speaker. We have offered a come home package to people, including nurse practitioners, $50,000; RNs, $50,000; LPNs, $50,000; paramedics, $50,000; primary care paramedics, $50,000.

We continue to encourage people to come to Newfoundland and Labrador. We encourage them to stay in Newfoundland and Labrador and we will continue to do so, Mr. Speaker, by not only offering incentives, but, unlike the Member opposite who doesn’t want to create a modern facility for these people to work in, we will give them that too, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: I think the people who work in the facility want actual people there.

April is Dental Health Month, Speaker. My office is managing multiple cases of people who are unable to access dental care in this province. Thankfully, the NDP federal initiative is going to bring relief at the end of this year.

At every turn, they’re met with barriers and hoops they cannot jump through to satisfy the mess of approvals required by this government because these constituents lack money or to pay for examinations.

Will this government take immediate action to improve access to dental care and remove these barriers now?

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

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a timely question. I know the federal government has announced their dental program; we don’t have all of the details of that program, Mr. Speaker. We are awaiting those. Once we get those details we can evaluate, analyze and determine how it will have a positive impact on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador across the spectrum of ages.

Mr. Speaker, I have had some discussion with the federal minister and I am looking forward to the details.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

The Liberals will always do the right thing when they have the NDP nipping at their toes and pushing them towards doing the right thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

J. DINN: The social determinants of health account for the majority of a person’s overall health. The government knows this, as it was outlined repeatedly in the Health Accord.

I ask the Minister of Health: When will his government focus on what needs to be done and prioritize treating the causes of poor health instead of the symptoms?

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

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As outlined in our provincial budget, we are looking at the recommendations of the Health Accord, Mr. Speaker. It has been highlighted; we will continue to focus on the social determinants. There are a number of departments involved in looking at the social determinants of health, Mr. Speaker, whether it is housing or the Department of Health and Community Services, income support, other measures that this province is looking at to assist the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to improve the social determinants of health and to improve their overall health.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

This government has merged the regional health authorities into one provincial health authority.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Local regions are now left without any real power or influence, relying solely on appointed health councils who have no real decision-making powers.

How can the minister reassure people outside the Avalon Peninsula that their access to adequate and timely health care will not be further eroded?

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

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the board of trustees that have been put in place for the new provincial health authority have individuals from across the province on them. The health councils, Mr. Speaker, will have people from the local regions as part of the health councils and each health council will have a seat at the table on the provincial board, Mr. Speaker, so the local voices of each region of the province will be heard at the larger table by the provincial health authority.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.

D. BRAGG: Thank you, Speaker.

I’m pleased to stand here today to table the ’23-’25 activity plans for the Fish Processing Licensing Board, the Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board, the Appeal Board of the Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board and the Chicken Farmers of Newfoundland and Labrador.

These activity plans are being submitted, along with the required written statement, as per

section 16 of the Transparency and Accountability Act .

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Are there are further tabling of documents?

The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

In reaction to the press release the Information and Privacy Commissioner put out in relation to Bill 22, I table a letter that I sent to the Information and Privacy Commissioner as well as his response, particularly clarifying the debate around Cabinet records.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Any further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move the following motion:

That notwithstanding Standing Order 8(3)(b), at the conclusion of proceedings on Wednesday, April 5, 2023, that this House do adjourn to Tuesday, April 25, 2023.

SPEAKER: Are there any further notices of motion?

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Speaker, I give notice of the following private Member’s motion, which would be seconded by the Member for Torngat Mountains:

WHEREAS our health care services are in crisis and government is making more space for private profit in our publicly funded, publicly administered system as a quick fix; and

WHEREAS US-style private health care draws workers and resources from our already strained public system, leading to a further erosion of service and patients’ well-being; and

WHEREAS private deals for health services and infrastructure lack transparency, often come with significant strings and risks attached, and cost citizens more than a publicly provided and managed equivalent;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House urge the government to say no to any further privatization of our health care system, roll back current privatization, and invest in a publicly funded, publicly administered public health care system.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you Speaker.

This will be the private Member’s motion that will be read this Wednesday from the Third Party.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Are there any further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: Thank you, Speaker.

These are the reasons for this petition:

The closing off the Canning Bridge in Marystown has had a devastating impact on residents, fire and emergency services, and the local economy.

The department was well aware of the poor condition of the bridge, most recently documented in a bridge inspection report completed in January 2020 which confirmed the Canning Bridge was in poor condition.

Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately begin the process of replacing Canning Bridge.

Speaker, this particular petition that I’m presenting today is actually signed by His Worship, Mayor Keating and Deputy Mayor Walsh. There were a couple of things. The reason why we prepared this petition is because we came in, we had a meeting with the department and the officials and the minister, which was a very fruitful meeting, but the thing is that there have been some communication errors, I guess, out of the gates.

What I would like to ask of the minister now is that we have a look – and I think the mayor waited on seven days for a reply to an email, which I don’t think is good enough, especially the fact that this bridge has now been deemed impassable, type of thing, other than for an emergency. The thing is it’s affecting a lot of things.

What I’m here to ask today and the reason why I’m presenting the petition today is to ask the minister and his department to be open and transparent but also to give us the hard copies of any reports that have been filed or anything like investigations so that the town and myself are very well aware of what the process is going to be. Then we can get some hard timelines on what the process is going to be. Right now, we’re only a couple of months into this and the mental health anguish and the economic anguish that’s been caused in Marystown because of the closure of this bridge is just unbelievable. It affects everybody on the Burin Peninsula, really, to be honest.

I will present this petition again and take it from another different angle, but today I am asking the minister to make sure that we’re being open, transparent and very communicative with myself, the mayor and the council in Marystown so that we can all find a solution to this problem. We’re not here to lay blame or anything like that. We just want this solution to be seen to fruition as quick as possible.

Thank you, Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure for a response.

E. LOVELESS: Mr. Speaker, I’m a little baffled by that petition today to be honest with you. And not understanding really what the Member is up talking about today in terms of that petition because the petition encourages government to do something. When we received the report about it, I believe – I can be corrected – within 48 hours I was talking to the mayor. The mayor was extremely pleased by the response from government and that same Member that just stood there then was into a meeting and patted me on the back for the response that we were doing as a department.

So I don’t know where it’s coming from, but in terms of a seven day no response to the mayor, I don’t know what he’s referring to because there has been constant contact. Plus, our officials even met this morning to clarify some of the comments that were made in the media by the mayor.

It’s not to confuse or to leave the impression with the people of Marystown that something is going to happen sooner rather than later. I’m not going to make an apology to do due diligence to replace a bridge in Marystown. We’re going to take our time and do what’s necessary, but I have not received from the town that they’re unhappy with the consultations that we’ve been doing to date. So I don’t know where that’s coming from in terms of the Member presenting that petition today. We are doing what’s appropriate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John’s Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

I have a petition here: Retention Bonus for Hospital Support Workers.

Reasons for the petition: Hospital support staff have been inexplicably passed over for retention bonus given to other classifications; and

WHEREAS other and varied classifications received their retention bonuses in January 2023; and

WHEREAS the glue that keeps the place together during the pandemic were passed over for a retention bonus because we do not fit into the parameters as defined by the Newfoundland and Labrador government; and

WHEREAS hospital support staff are unable to get holidays, days off because there is no one to cover them and it has been this way for at least three years; and

WHEREAS the Newfoundland and Labrador government made an unprecedented move for clerical by offering a 30-seat, two-year free tuition at Keyin Tech to address the shortages in clerical at Eastern Health.

THEREFORE we petition the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to provide a retention bonus to all eligible hospital support staff.

Speaker, I’m pleased to present this petition on behalf of the administrative group of workers who are employed by Eastern Health today. During COVID, these workers were described by the government as the glue that keeps the place together. I have here in my possession approximately 600 signatures and more are coming.

But now they feel that they are being treated as if their hard work doesn’t count. They make up about 25 per cent of employees who did not receive a retention bonus. For years, government has ignored the looming crisis in health care and is now making a firehose of announcements to try and stop the bleeding of health care workers from our system.

Government has been announcing bonuses. We heard a litany of them here earlier. Obviously, they’re not accomplishing what they set out to do because they’re haphazard. What are they accomplishing other than creating strife and tension in the workplace?

So support for these workers is long past due. Front-line workers and unions have raised the problems with retention and recruitment for years, government is scrambling to try to compete regionally and globally for health care workers. What would we do here in our party? Certainly what needs to happen and the only way to find a solution is start talking with front-line workers, Speaker.

We would have listened to them, they’re the ones that know the health care system intimately and they will be the ones finding the innovative solutions to the health care system.

So, if anything here, we believe that everyone has their role to play in health care and workers should be treated with the respect and all should be recognized for being the glue to hold the system together.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Thank you, Speaker.

The list of the number of people in need of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing in the Central area has increased in the past couple of years. This leaves people in vulnerable situations and most time out in the cold while waiting for placement.

Therefore we, the undersigned, encourage the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade and increase the number of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing units in the Central area.

Speaker, I’m still getting calls, actually more this year and beyond. I know there are over 300 people on the list of housing for units in Central Newfoundland; the list is getting longer and longer. Only this past week when I was home I had to deal with a couple that are left out in the cold. I’m getting calls from single moms with children needing places to stay. The situation is getting dire. There are some housing units out there that desperately need repair that probably we could utilize to get some of those people off the street and into the housing units.

We need more housing units. I did hear the minister get up and talk about some money getting into the budget, but my problem is what do they do at the immediate time? I’d like for the minister to address that, to let me know. What would I tell people who need housing in the immediate time? Where do they go? What do they do?

Thank you, Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Speaker, this is a petition for adequate health care for Postville.

We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador who urge our leaders to ensure that residents of the Northern Labrador community of Postville have access to adequate health care.

The community of Postville, Labrador, has only one Labrador-Grenfell Health nursing position in Postville at the single community nursing clinic. This means there is only one clinic nurse physically present in the community. This nurse does not have access to RCMP support services during a medical emergency because the community does not have RCMP stationed in their community.

The community of Postville is isolated with no road access to the outside world. The only means of year-round transportation is by aircraft. Often inclement weather prevents air services, including medevac, medical evacuation services, from getting to Postville. Also, if the lone nurse becomes ill and inclement weather prevents nursing relief from reaching the community, Postville will be without a nurse.

Speaker, this petition is really, really important because the community of Postville is a law-abiding community, but it’s very, very vulnerable. In actual fact, the signatures on this particular petition that I’m presenting on behalf of Postville is signed by the residents in Nain, in the community of Nain, our most northern community and they too see the merit in actually expanding the clinic in Postville to two nurses so we would ensure that the nurse has support.

Right now, there is only one nurse. So in the middle of the night, if there’s a big fire and there are a lot of people injured, who would you call? People in this House of Assembly would automatically think, okay, that nurse, if she doesn’t have nursing backup she could call the RCMP because they’re professionally trained in crisis management. They have resources available. But in Postville, they don’t even have an RCMP officer for that single nurse and it really, really does a lot of damage to recruitment.

We talk about recruitment all the time, but for a nurse to go into a northern community that doesn’t have road access. In an emergency, if the nurse needs backup, automatically you would think RCMP supports. I already told you no, but in actual fact what about adjacent communities say, for example, Makkovik? Makkovik has a RCMP officer and has nursing. Could they go over to the community of Postville? No because there’s no road access.

In an emergency, that lone nurse has to rely on herself, her own skills. A lot of time the AngajukKâk of Postville, that’s the mayor, actually gets called out to support the nurse. I mean, that’s backward. That was actually things that happened back in the ’70s and now we’re into what, 2023.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, this is an important petition.

Thank you very much.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Speaker.

I gladly present this petition on behalf of 700 residents from the Bonavista Bay side of the district I serve.

Many residents on Route 235 in the District of Bonavista are concerned about the condition of this major highway. Residents from 17 communities petition the government to repair the numerous washouts, replace damaged safety railing and keep the Amherst Cove depot open year round to better serve the roadways on the lower part of the Bonavista Peninsula.

We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to provide the required maintenance and implement a better operational plan to bring Route 235 up to a safe standard.

In talking about roads in the District of Bonavista, I had a conversation with a colleague and I challenged him, saying that I thought that the District of Bonavista’s roads may be in greatest need of attention of the districts in the province. It was a discussion and one that I feel strongly that we need attention.

Just this past weekend we had a family of four, Neil White and his wife, Samantha, from Princeton, whose roadway going through their town is atrocious; it’s terrible, as are many others. It was their five-year-old daughter, Irelyn, who suggested that they go out and fix the potholes and fix the road because Dad is a contractor.

With her suggestion and with her older sister by one year of age, Saylor, they went out and spent the day on Saturday repairing the street that goes through their community. I wouldn’t espouse that we do that because immediately here in the House we deem to say there’s a safety issue that is shrouded in that. But all I would say to you is that they had the pylons up and this one was in low-traffic. As bad as the road was, there was very little traffic. I do give a big shout-out to the White family and know that there is a cautionary note to work on our roads in the district.

Route 235 last year had potholes that were not addressed until October, but not all addressed in October. We have washouts on the shoulder of the roads in 235 which are now breaking away pavement on that same road that we have those potholes. We need a better operational plan in 235.

The petitioners ask that the Amherst Cove depot stay open. Instead of transporting employees from the upper part of the district to the lower, their time will be more spent in the depot down in the lower part being able to address the areas with less travel time.

We ask the minister to take note of Route 235.

Thank you, Speaker.

SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 6.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Member for Placentia - St. Mary’s: That in accordance with Standing Order 65, the Public Accounts Committee comprise the following Members: MHA for Harbour Main; MHA for Placentia - St. Mary’s; MHA for Baie Verte - Green Bay; MHA for Exploits; MHA for Labrador West; MHA for Mount Pearl North; MHA for St. George’s - Humber.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay.’

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 1.

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Speaker.

It’s an honour to stand in this House and for the next period of time have what I would hope will be an open and frank discussion around the needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the budget that has been put forward by the Minister of Finance and the Liberal administration this past week.

This is my 41st budget as a civil servant, being able to watch and dilute what’s happening and hopefully seeing the benefits to the people of this province. It will be my 14th one of speaking in this House of Assembly to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador about the budget. I’ve been on both sides in a government position, as a backbencher and a government position as a minister and as a Member of caucus in the Opposition and as leader for the last number of years in this side of the Opposition itself.

I want to outline to people in Newfoundland and Labrador the role of the Opposition here, so people understand that it’s not solely about opposing for the sake of opposing. We had a fairly robust discussion during Question Period, myself and the Minister of Finance, and that’s healthy because we’re always going to have differing of opinion on the approach. I don’t think there’s a difference of opinion on wanting to have the right outcome. The approach, how we do it and the priorities are obviously going to be some of the challenges that we have from a different perspective.

That comes from a different philosophy on how it’s to be done or outlining where the priorities are, or the timelines that should be put in play as part of that. I’ve made it fairly clear on this side, and my colleagues have done it and shown through true respect for the House and for the responsibilities of the minister and other ministers and the government themselves about acknowledging, when there’s something good being done, we want to acknowledge that. I’ll note some of the good things in this budget as I go through my discussion over the next period of time.

There are things there that we like, very much so. While myself and the minister had a discussion back and forth during Question Period, this isn’t about that we don’t agree or don’t support certain things in the budget – opposite, 100 per cent. What we’re saying in certain cases, if you’re going to spend nearly $10 billion, we want to make sure that the best outcomes, the best way to improve the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and that the priority issues are being addressed so every Newfoundlander and Labradorian can feel reassured that their challenges that they’re facing are going to be addressed.

I know we can’t be everything to everybody, but we do need to find ways of prioritizing the approach, coming up with a plan of action that addresses that and having it in timely fashion that people can feel confident that there is going to be a solution to what they’re doing.

I also want to talk about our objective and our role and the role before us when the Liberals were in Opposition with the Third Party and even my independent colleagues, our objective is to scrutinize policies, procedures, programs and, particularly in this case, a budget that outlines the fiscal support for our citizens, outlines the plan of action that would secure economic viability for our province and outlines what should be the blueprint for future development in Newfoundland and Labrador as part of that.

So if we see things we don’t like, our objective here is to hold government to account, to ask for clarification, to challenge us to why that was a priority, to challenge why or how other entities are involved in this and who will be the pure benefactor of this as we move forward.

It’s also to offer alternatives and not that we always got all of the answers here but the luxury that the Opposition has, it has the ability to openly have discussions with those who feel they’re not getting the ear of government or that the programs or services being provided are not in direct benefit to those people.

So we get the chance to sit with another side to have a discussion on what their challenges are, what their issues are or what they see are some shortcomings in a particular program or a particular policy being put forward. It doesn’t necessarily mean we’re always going to agree with these individuals. Maybe 100 per cent will agree with government. Maybe we’ll agree that there has to be some manoeuvering or some tweaking. Maybe we’ll agree 100 per cent with the individuals that government missed the mark on providing a program and a service.

But I will guarantee you, when we have those discussions over here, we will be open, we’ll be transparent about it and we will ensure that what we’re putting forward is from our belief and the discussion we had with people in the best interests in the people that we represent.

In principle, when we speak in this House, we hope that we speak for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They may not all agree with our approach to it nor would they all agree with the government’s approach also as part of that.

We’ll offer a constructive criticism here. I would hope we go a little bit further than some of the past Opposition parties. When we do talk about what we feel is not being done, we’ll give an alternative and we’ll outline why we think that alternative is viable. We’ll even outline what we think is the financial plan to make that viable and we’ll also outline what we feel would be the benefits, short term, medium term and long term for the people of this province as part of that.

So there are a number of things here that the Opposition has a responsibility, has a privilege, but more particularly in the House has right to ensure that the voice of the individuals in Newfoundland and Labrador who feel it may not be getting directly to government officials or to ministers or to the delivery of a program, is given that opportunity that we can bring it to the forefront of the House here.

Also, I want to note that people in Newfoundland and Labrador, all of us, need to be reassured that we’re not being dismissed. That no matter how insignificant we may think, or somebody may think, a government Member may think, or a bureaucrat may think, or a minister think is not a priority or important to that individual, it is to the people who bring it forward. Everybody has a whole dynamic of different needs and responsibilities and priorities.

We may not be able to relate to them all because none of us have had full life experiences that we have experienced everything that somebody may experience, no matter what their situation is. We need to be cognizant of those issues in not dismissing when people bring something forward. Even if it sounds outlandish, even if it sounds financially not viable, but there are merits in listening because in every conversation, in my opinion, there is information that could be beneficial to solving an issue down the road. So I think there are merits in that.

For the most part, I think this House of Assembly has been fairly open and I’ll note some of those issues around how the government in this budget has listened to the people, has listened to the Opposition here, in some of the things that they have implemented and we’ll acknowledge those as we move forward.

Our objective over here, even as we debate this budget for the next number of weeks, is about ensuring that government listens to find ways to improve on what we’re saying. There may be immediate things that can be done. There may be medium timelines and there may be long-term timelines, but our objective here is to bring forward what we felt was beneficial and acknowledge you and say please, continue to do that. Enhance it if you can. As matter of fact, expedite it because what you brought forward is beneficial to the people and we agree with it.

If there are gaps in services or if there are only half measures, we want to encourage you to move that in a different manner and make that a bigger priority. If there is a full missed opportunity here, we’re going to bring that to the forefront. We’re going to challenge you to make sure it becomes a priority. Because if we’re labeling it as a priority from our prospective, I can guarantee you it didn’t come from just the people here.

It came from the thousands and the tens of thousands of people that we’ve spoken to, the emails the we’ve gotten, the organizations we’ve met with as they outline exactly what they feel are their priorities necessary for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to have a sustainable income, to have hope in this province and ensure that their lives are better in the future than they are right now.

To accept we have unique challenges that we probably haven’t faced to the same degree in our past that we’re facing now. Access to health care has never been in the same category as it is right now, we understand that and we understand it is not just our jurisdiction, but we do want to emphasize our priority is about addressing the particular issue here in Newfoundland and Labrador, to address that particular issue.

Our objective here also is to make sure we all aim in the House of Assembly to do better. To do better for the people of the province, to do better from a financial point of view, to do better for the future Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and to make sure that the next generation themselves feel comfortable, welcomed and want to stay here. Be open for immigration, be open for expats to come back to Newfoundland and Labrador, be open for business so the global world understands that we’re open, we have a lot of resources. We have the most skill set people anywhere. We have the most beautiful scenery in the world. But if you want to come and do business, you do business with us on our terms.

We’re fair. One thing about Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we’re fair with people, we’re fair as long as we’re being treated fairly also. That maybe unfortunately in the past, and that’s not a slight on any government, but in the past maybe we’ve been taken advantage too often. I would have hoped and think and I’m cautiously optimistic that we have learned from our past mistakes and that we dig a little bit deeper. We do a little bit more research.

We’ve become a little skeptical until we’re really comfortable that people are negotiating in good faith with us here in Newfoundland and Labrador and that the federal government owes us a responsibility here of being better stewards and better partners with us in Newfoundland and Labrador. Again, I want to make this clear, that’s no slight to any administration anywhere at this point. This is about us correcting the wrongs so that we have a brighter future for everybody involved and that starts with our budget process here, so that it reflects exactly what we’re looking for here.

I want to have quick chat about some of the things here that we like. One of the headlines noted that the Leader of the Opposition says he’s optimistically hopeful that this budget will improve people’s lives. I still stand by that. I’m not convinced of it at this point because I don’t know exactly what the plan is to address that. But at least when I heard the budget and the minister presented it, there were heading there that were in tune with what we were hearing from people. A lot of the same issues were being brought to the forefront.

Maybe not being addressed to the degree we would like or I would think the people we’re hearing from would like. Maybe not prioritized in the same manner that we would have liked, but at least it’s a starting point.

I said it to one of the media outlets: when a budget doesn’t have tax increases and layoffs, it’s a good start. It’s a good start. So I’m willing to give credit there. It’s a good start. I’m probably one of the few who would say around fiscal responsibility, it’s a responsibility and we have to take it seriously, but I’m also a believer people need to be serviced, they need to be taken care of. You need to spend money to ensure you’re going to have a healthy society, an engaged society, a productive society, a taxpaying society and a society that is very diverse when it comes to its ability to generate revenue.

I think to do that we need to invest in the right areas. The first thing we need to invest in is people and people’s health, people’s education, people’s well-being, people’s sustainability, people’s social development. They’re key things that we need to do in Newfoundland and Labrador or any jurisdiction, but our concentration needs to be in our uniqueness that we have here: our demographics, our geographics, our health challenges, our aging population as part of that.

But I do want to touch on a few things here and talk about them. The amount of money put into health funding, I think it’s a good start. It’s a good start. The fact that there are additional monies put in from a budgetary point of view to start addressing the health issues here, that’s welcomed. People could challenge and say now more than a third of your budget is going to health care. But do you know what? Health care is our biggest crisis in Newfoundland and Labrador; it has to be resourced properly. It has to be done a manner that’s going to work for the people of this province.

We’ll debate the plan of action here, whether or not it goes far enough, or its outline. But the fact that there are additional monies invested is welcomed from this side of the House as part of this.

We will have weeks to debate, and I know my shadow minister, my colleague here, will have a multitude of questions about how are things going to be implemented? How is this going to improve access as we move forward in the near future?

I want to reassure the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and those in the medical profession, we will be asking questions to get clarification. No doubt, in Estimates those questions will be asked, they’ll generate questions then in Question Period so that way it can be clear for the whole of the province and every Newfoundlander and Labradorian if they want to tune in here should get a clear, precise understanding of what’s happening in the budget.

I know they’ll get a clear, precise question being asked. I’m hopeful they’ll get the answers. That’s all we’re asking. We’re very hopeful they’ll get the answers. It doesn’t necessarily mean everybody’s going to agree with them, but if they get an answer they’ll know what almost $10 billion means to improving their lifestyle.

Medical transportation, another welcome investment. We’ve been lobbying for this for a number of years over here. See the value from somebody in Labrador, the additional costs that it costs there, to somebody on Bell Island, what it means, or anywhere else in Newfoundland and Labrador, the medical transportation.

People shouldn’t be burdened with trying to figure out how they can handle or the costing to get to a medical appointment from a financial point of view; having to borrow money from family members, from friends; having to try to arrange rides because they don’t have the money upfront; if it’s an airline ticket from one of our more remote places, the thousands of dollars that are tied up for periods of time and then only part reimbursement as part of those things; the bureaucratic nightmare in a lot of it in being able to access that.

A lot of people may have some challenges about understanding the bureaucracy and the red-tape process. They may have challenges in having access to viable Internet as part of that process. So we want to make sure that is streamlined and it’s in the best interests of people being able to access it.

We welcome the improvements, or at least the commitment to improve the medical transportation. As we go through the next number of months in the House, hopefully we’ll get clarification so that Aunt Jane who’s in Nain, Labrador will know exactly what it is that she’s entitled to when, in her hour of need, needing medical attention and having to fly out to be able to access the medical transportation funding.

The same way as anybody if they’re in the Connaigre Peninsula, the Baie Verte Peninsula or out on the West Coast of Newfoundland, wherever they are, that they would know here’s the clarification on how to access it. So if they need supports from their neighbour or their grandson or granddaughter, whoever, that can be done very easily.

Glucose monitoring: It’s been in our Blue Book for four years, at least; two elections that I know of, for sure. We’ve asked a multitude of questions. My colleague only recently asked questions about glucose monitoring. We had hoped, in the last budget, it would be there and the budget before that, but it wasn’t a priority as part of it. We welcome it here now.

I am a bit dismayed that the rationale is because we have sugar tax money to spend on that. I would have hoped this would have been a priority prior to that, but I’m not going to go down that road right now. I’m going to talk about the fact that it’s a glucose monitoring program there that’s beneficial to the people of this province. As you know, anybody who goes through challenges like diabetics and some of the other challenges around those health conditions understands the value, the financial costing or just the stability of knowing that you now have access to this resource.

We welcome that. I’m proud to say that we didn’t let it go. For four years, we did not let it go. Members on this side, for four years, advocated for it, met with a multitude of organizations. We lobbied on particular days for it. We put petitions into the House of Assembly to outline why we thought this should be a priority and I’m glad, through people who’ve lobbied for us, that we could be their voice in the House of Assembly and convince government to do what’s in the best interest from a health point of view and using some of your money for the right investment here.

So that’s another thing that we do welcome and acknowledge that it should be a benefit to the people of this province in this budget. Hopefully, again, and in timely fashion that administrative processes are not so encumbering that people can’t access it and people get frustrated. We’re hoping it’s clean, it’s clear, it’s precise and it’s quick. That’s what people need in this province right now from program services and from the whole of society.

Gas tax relief: As you know, we’ve been lobbying. I’ll go back seven, eight years when gas tax was dramatically burdened on the people of this province here, the travellers of this province and what that meant. As we lobbied and as the general public protested and challenged it, as trucking companies and suppliers, the general public and cab owners and all them talked about the impact it was having on them, how we needed to do something to alleviate that extra pressure. I’m glad, through lobbying again, that government listened to this side of the House, listened to the general public here, and have continued to do something for gas tax relief.

I still think there is maneuverability there to do more. We’re cognizant of the fact you need to have a certain tax regime to generate revenue. You have to have that; we get that. So there are people who would say there should be no taxes on anything. That’s not a realistic way in the society that we have right now.

I would hope one day, with the resources we have in Newfoundland and Labrador, if we can generate the right partnerships, get the right deals that benefit the people of this province, we could be at a point where taxation is minimal in this province and it only goes on to certain things that, perhaps, we’re trying to force your hand to live a better lifestyle versus needing it just for money in the pocket.

So things like that, the gas tax relief, good. I’m hoping to see maybe next budget it doesn’t exist. It’s gone, not necessary. Particularly the amounts of money that were put on it a number of years ago.

Home heating relief, I accept that. We know what people are facing now. We know what they’re facing when it comes to how dramatic the last 16, 18 months have been in the cost of home heat fuel, what that meant. I get that nobody in Newfoundland and Labrador could control that. I get that that was set and done by entities outside of here, but we can control the taxation on that or we can control some supports to get people over the hump as we try to transition away from fossil fuels and away from that costly way of heating people’s homes as part of that. So home heating relief, it’s accepted.

I think in some cases, unfortunately, it’s not enough for certain people, depending on where they live, the age of their home, the issues around what’s needed for heating as part of that; but at least it’s a start to offset some of the pressures financially that people themselves are facing as we go through that.

Investment in seismic activity: The minister will know himself and I had debates about it last year – I acknowledge this year that it’s back in there. I met with the industry over the last couple of years about the value of it. I saw the value of it when we brought it in as an administration decades ago or a decade and a half ago and saw the value of it. We saw how it changed the value of the parcels of land that would be up for auction because we now knew, to a fairly accurate degree, that no company could come in and underbid. We knew the values of parcels of land. We knew what the potential would be for the return on their investments. That became a very important process.

It is a bit disappointing it was taken out. I’m hopeful it didn’t do much damage. I’m hopeful that there was enough seismic information on file that it still kept the parcels up. But I did notice that it looked like we weren’t getting the bidding last year because we didn’t have it. Back here now I think it’s a valuable tool for government to be able to negotiate and for the industry themselves to know exactly what the value is here and that this is an asset that we have and it should not be dismissed or undersold because people can speculate that it may or may not be of a certain value. Well, in this case, we’ll know that it’s of a certain value.

Tax off home insurance, another valued thing. While it may be a small proportion of people, it puts money back in people’s pockets. There’s already enough stress and financial burden when you look at your insurance bills, but it’s stability, it’s a piece of mind, it’s a support mechanism you have to have. Even taking that 15 per cent off is a valued asset for the people of this province. People need a bit of sense of hope.

We all know – I mean, how many people wait until Wednesday evening to see what’s going to happen with gas the next day? It might be minor if you only have to put in a quarter of a tank of gas or half a tank, depending on what you have left. But from a financial point of view, we all would like to know that we have a few extra dollars or we’re saving. Because, at the end of the day, you’re knowing that’s your money that you now can spend on something else that’s beneficial to you or beneficial to somebody else that you’re connected to. Any savings like that is very much welcomed in this budget. I won’t be criticizing those. As a matter of fact, I’m hoping to get clarification on a lot of it.

Some of the things I don’t like and I’m still hopeful – and I say cautiously, optimistically hopeful that I’ll get clarification over the next month or so and my colleagues here as we ask questions, go through Estimates, that some of the concerns we have, some of the things we didn’t see taken care of or prioritized to the level we want or a plan of action put in play that would be beneficial and would outline strategically what’s going to be done may be clarified. Maybe this may be an exercise in information distribution and clarification as we have that open debate and open dialogue. I’m very much hopeful that we’ll have those discussions.

But some things, not that we didn’t like, we didn’t think there was enough emphasis and we’re not clear that there’s a plan of action that will be beneficial in addressing particular important issues or additional important issues. Some I’ve just talked about are very important: putting money in people’s pockets, medical transportation, glucose monitoring. All the things there that are very important to the people are just as a priority to individuals who are facing that particular dilemma.

The lack of support and almost, as we saw it here, from what we’re hearing from industry people, neglect of education from an investment point of view. A substantial investment with a plan of action of how you’re going to improve it. Because we’re hearing the challenges from leaders in the education system. We’re hearing it from the front-line providers of education. We’re hearing it from parents. We’re hearing it from parent organizations about the challenges that we have around education. And I’m talking all levels. I’m talking early childhood development and education. I’m talking about primary education.

We’re talking about secondary education. We’re talking about post-secondary education. A number of issues here, we’re not really clear that the investments that were put in this budget are going to go anywhere to address the particular challenges that we’ve had. These are areas that we have challenges, and I outlined at the beginning of this key areas of challenges that we have.

We have a multitude of challenges across the board. Any small issue for somebody, if it’s a pothole in somebody’s driveway as they’re coming out on a main road and it’s a hindrance for them, that’s a priority for them. And it is a challenge; I get that. But what I’m talking about are the bigger things that generally affect us all in some way, shape or form and that’s, as I’ve outlined, education. I’ve outlined health care, cost of living, the economy, growth.

All these other things are very important here. Housing, for example, the last number of years housing has become a dramatic thing. One time housing would only be a challenge in urban areas. It’s a challenge now – affordable housing in rural areas has become a massive challenge as we expand our population. That’s a good thing, as we expand our population, but we better have the infrastructure and the resources to do it properly so we don’t put people at dismay, or people have to be disillusioned about why certain monies are being spent in one area while they still have challenges.

Neglect of nurses: Unfortunately I couldn’t find a lot of good things in my discussions with leaders from the nursing profession, front-line nurses, those who work in the health care who support the plight of nurses. Particularly around how we’re going to recruit and retain nurses here. Now I’m hopeful as we get in – and I’ve been around Estimates long enough to know that sometimes the devil is in the detail.

Maybe what’s presented on Budget Day and what’s outlined in the budget itself and the documents may not explicitly outline how the priorities are going to be put in play and that there are certain other priorities that may not have been noticed when they were spoken to because you can’t speak to everything in any detail on one particular afternoon.

But we all know the value, the necessity, the importance of having the numbers of nurses we need to train nurses, healthy nurses, engaged nurses and rewarded nurses so that they stay in Newfoundland and Labrador, that they’re willing to go to remote and isolated areas, that they’re willing to change and upgrade on their discipline so that their skill is transferrable and that the scope of practice for nurses can be expanded because we’ll support them financially in training. We’ll support them in child care so that there isn’t a burden on them that’s more than anybody else.

Or when, as mothers, they want to come back to work in the workforce, or as fathers that we support that, that we have that mechanism as health professionals. Keeping in mind they work a different process than a lot of others: longer shifts, nighttime shifts, weekend shifts. It is the whole different process that we’ve got to be cognizant of that maybe if you work in a different environment, you don’t see some of the challenges that they would face.

As we go through the next number of weeks in debate and discussion and even as I talk over the next period of time, I’ll refer back to nurses because we feel and I think they feel and I know I’m hearing it from the general public that there wasn’t enough emphasis on how we are going to ensure that the 750-plus nursing positions that are vacant are going to be filled. I don’t mean filled over the next 10 years.

I mean be filled over the next 10 months because that’s the crisis we’re in that we need them now to provide the services so that the other thousands of nurses who are in the system are not getting burnt out having worked, you know, two and three direct shifts, not having to change their scope in a day’s change because there’s nobody to fill in in emergency and they’ve got to do that and that’s not their most comfortable area because they haven’t done it in a period of time.

So we need to find a mechanism here to ensure that’s done – and we ask the questions in the House and we ask Estimates and I am very hopeful. I hope when I sit in our caucus room and my shadow minister comes back and says, with our staff, here’s what we’ve learned from the respective minister. Here’s how we’re going to address a particular issue and our concerns are going to be addressed because here’s what they’re going to do. We’ll all smile and say good. Now let’s move on to the next issue that we can bring to the forefront for government to address as part of that process.

Lack of solid growth plan: From an economic point of view, what we want to see here and what we would hope is a solid plan that’s outlined from an economic point of view. Solid plans from an economic point of view is stimulating the economy, directing the tax revenue on a downward swing when it comes to coming out of people’s pockets but an upward swing as we develop industries and royalties. So our tax regime has increased but less burden on the individual citizen in Newfoundland and Labrador.

That’s what we want to see in solid growth. A plan about how you grow the agriculture business, the fishing business, the tourism business, the IT business, the aerospace business, the security business, all the things that we do in Newfoundland and Labrador and a multitude of others like the skilled tradespeople. Our commodity with the skill set that we have is international. How do we make that work even more so for the people of this province?

Also, we want to look at where is Ottawa? I’m still convinced we’re not getting our fair share. There are announcements every now and then, but when we look at it, based on what Ottawa receives from Newfoundland and Labrador when it comes to our natural resources, when it comes to our strategic position, when it comes to all the things that they have managed to be able to get from our province over the decades. Why is it we are still not getting our fair share and considered a fair member of this Confederation and this great country of ours?

So we want to know. What does it mean? You can’t just base it on a demographic of population, that’s not fair for a number of reasons. One, our geography dictates that we’re as large as the top two or three provinces in the country and much more diverse because we have a land mass as an island and then we have another massive land mass that is in the northern part of this country of ours with a multitude of other challenges on both sides of it.

So there has to be a collaborative discussion here about some of the challenges: our aging population and our health situations. That should be taken into account when you look at all the other positives. The natural resources, the stuff that we have here that doesn’t exist anywhere else in Canada. In some cases, nowhere else in the world. The readily available workforces, the skilled, trained workers that we have; the men and women in Newfoundland and Labrador, what value that is?

How do we promote that? How do we make sure that what is getting produced in Newfoundland and Labrador or what should be produced is done here? Let’s not go sending oil rigs over to some other European country and then have them come back here a year later. Now it will be sidelined another six months because we have to fix what wasn’t done over there.

We have the expertise here and we’ve proven that. We’ve proven it time and time again. Let’s take advantage of that. Let’s celebrate that. Let’s sell it to the world. If it means that we have to force certain entities or countries or businesses to do business here because we want it our way because we know our way is going to be the best way, not only for the people of this province but for the companies that we’re partnering with.

Sometimes it’s not that bad to be a little bit heavy handed when you’re representing your own people and you see the value of doing it right the first time and not having to correct it after the fact.

There are a number of things there that we feel Ottawa can take a stake in and stand up a little bit stronger to support what we’re doing. Not counting all the other financial needs that I feel they can be responsible for and show good stewardship and good citizenship by supporting what we’re doing here.

The Budget Speech was grand, but a lot of it we had heard before because there were a lot of announcements in advance. I’ve been criticized previously by commentators on open-line shows years ago when we were in government about well, you’re announcing things in advance. It’s just part of the budget process. Fair enough, it is. Part of it is you want to get people to understand there are things coming that may be beneficial.

From our perspective, I like it when there are advanced ones because then we can start diluting down exactly what’s engaged in it. We can also start dividing exactly what we think is going to be medium-, short- and long-term benefits to people, or we can automatically dismiss it after we look at it and say this is not going to really be a benefit for the people of this province. I’m not one who’s adverse to those. I do get the value from a political point of view as part of it. Again, I do understand.

You can’t sit here for eight or 10 hours to explain every program and have the media be able to ask you 200 questions at any given time. I see that. But, again, a lot of it was re-announcements of stuff that already existed.

Keep in mind, yeah, we’re spending at the highest level we ever had, almost $10 billion, but we’re always at the $8-billion-plus in the last number of years, so there’s always money that’s being spent continuously anyway. There are programs that have existed for 30 and 40 years here and will continue forever and a day as part of that.

So some of it was re-announcements. Some of it is old funding that’s been kicking around just regenerated again. Some of it is repetition, but that’s part of the process. When people say there’s a lot of extra money being spent there. Well, it’s a lot of the same money that’s been out there. So I just want to make people aware of that. Do we welcome additional money? Sure, but it’s got to be done in a fiscally responsible manner so that the people of this province are going to really see the benefits in the long term.

Some of the other things here, we talk about choices. I remember the minister mentioned it a couple of times: it’s about choices. We know you can’t do everything at once. I was fortunate enough to be on both sides here. I know while you come in ready to go and you want to solve everything overnight, it’s not that simple. There are a lot of other moving parts that have to be considered. But to do it, there still has to be a priority list and you have to have the will, the desire and a plan of action that is going to move the priority issues as quick as possible.

Because the longer things sit, the longer they’re neglected, the more serious the consequences. So if we’re going to do things in Newfoundland and Labrador, we need to pick the things that are going to have the most detrimental effect on people and solve those immediately.

If it means we prioritize that and we put as much of our resources, human and financial to it, we do it. Particularly if it’s part of the bigger business plan. I continue to say it, and we’ve said it on this side, if you have a healthy society, you have an engaged society, you have a productive society, you have a working society, you have the tax generating society. Simple plan. You start at one where people are engaged. At the end of it, you have money then to put it back into the programs and services to keep them further engaged as part of that.

I’ve already mentioned this. We’re going to talk about, as we go through, whether or not we’re confident that this budget is going to meet the needs here. I’ve already stated, one thing you’ll hear from me, I’ll be fairly frank and upfront, right now I’m not convinced. I’m not convinced because it hasn’t gone where it needs to go for education. It hasn’t gone where it needs to go for health care, particularly around nursing issues. It hasn’t gone enough around a plan for economic viable growth. It hasn’t gone far enough for cost of living for our society, particularly our most vulnerable.

So there are still going to be a lot of questions to ask and a lot of convincing before myself and my colleagues here are going to be confident that this budget is going to help people and that we would put an x supporting that at this point.

The real question is going to be over the next five or six weeks: Are the people confident that this budget is going to improve their lives? I’m again optimistically hopeful that the questions we ask, that are reflective of what people have sent us the multitude of emails and questions in the general public when people stop you: Can you find this out?

That the minister and the respective ministers answer it, that maybe we can say, maybe we will be confident or at least we can share the information with the general public and let them decide whether or not they’re confident that this is going to improve their lives. Again, I would hope it does, but, at this point, I’m very cautiously waiting to see what the answers are.

In any society, in any entity, no matter what you do, but particularly in politics, people can’t have confidence in you unless you earn it. To earn confidence, you have to show that you have a solid plan, a well thought out plan, a meticulous plan that addresses particular needs and has a timely fashion that people can see at the end of the day how it’s going to improve and move forward. Then they can decide whether or not it’s on the right track as part of that.

Right now, we haven’t seen a lot of that in the previous budgets. Again, haven’t quite seen it in this one, but until we go through Estimates, until we get clarification, until we know exactly how the priorities are going to be implemented and the time frames, as I keep saying the devil is in the details. So we’ll be at least open enough to consider what’s coming, and if those answers are given that we feel represents what the concerns of the people of this province are, well then that changes again what I’ve said previously about our outlook on how we move on this.

We know a number of things here. We have to focus. One thing hasn’t been said a lot here about young people. For a number of budgets here, I remember budgets were focused on young people, keeping them in Newfoundland and Labrador, retaining them, educating them, getting them engaged, making them be proud to be Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as part of that process. We, for years, invested – the first thing you can invest the best in young people is in their education, their safety and well-being, their social development. There were a number of budgets that did that for decades.

As a matter of fact, I’ll go back to give credit to previous Liberal administrations, going back a couple of administrations ago. I was a civil servant, getting the nod from a premier of the day to help develop a strategy around affordable education when it came to post-secondary. I was fortunate enough to be part of a great group of bureaucrats, academics, social agencies, outside entities and students who came up with a student aid process that we felt would make it more engaging. Part of that was tuition relief and a tuition freeze; as a matter of fact, there were a couple of rollbacks in a period of time.

I give credit. A former premier as a former educator was one of the ones who saw the value in it. I still see the value in it. Do I think there has to be a happy medium here, that there has to be a cost associated for education? There have to be other mechanisms, too, to ensure it doesn’t dispel people, or neglect to be able to open it up and encourage all people who want to go on to some level of post-secondary would have access to it and are not refrained from doing it because of financial burdens as part of that.

While I understand certain institutions have challenges economically, I’m not quite sure things were handled right here with the tuition freeze coming off MUN, because, obviously, now the burden is on the students again. I get there have been some changes around the student aid regime as part of that process, but talking to some students in the Students’ Union, they still have a lot of challenges.

I’ll give the minister the ability over the next period of time to clarify how this could be beneficial. If you’re taking $10 out of somebody’s pocket and putting $10 back, okay, we’re open minded here. It balances out; we’re still in a good place. But if you take $10 out and it’s going to cost them $25 more, then, obviously, we’ve got a challenge here that’s not in the best benefit of access to education as we go through that.

We’ve talked about being clear and precise of what we’re doing here. Again, I’ll concentrate a little bit on the university because that has an impact from an international perspective. We were getting, and still are getting, a good reputation for drawing some of the brightest minds from all over the world to come here to study certain disciplines. Who become some of our greatest ambassadors from an economic point of view, from an education point of view, but also choose to live here and use the skills that they got to benefit our own society.

Not counting the multitude of millions of dollars that get invested here through housing and through day-to-day lifestyles as part of that process. But if we start putting a financial burden on them, the choices then would be harder for them to make to come to Newfoundland and Labrador.

I’m not saying we need to give away anything, but if we’re going to cut funding to an institution, and if there’s not a clear business plan with that institution or an agreement that the institution is not going to put the burden then 100 per cent on the students, I don’t see how we’re enhancing education or access to education. There needed to be a better-planned process here.

I’m hoping there are some answers coming to that over the next number of weeks and months about how those industries can still sustain their costing without it being a massive financial burden on the particular post-secondary students as part of that. It’s our post-secondary institutions, our college system and the university system here.

One of the other things – and, again, it’s a business plan and I won’t blame this administration. I will criticize you a bit for touting it too high on the totem pole right now when it comes to the fact about early childhood education access; $10-a-day daycare. In theory, it’s wonderful. As I said about this budget, in theory it sounds like a good budget, but in practicality I’ve got to see the implementation plan.

We know the conversations we’ve had with parents who can’t get in, who, all of a sudden, thought this was going to be an affordable process here. No longer do I need Nan, who’s older and the kids are getting a little bit more energetic and it’s harder on them, that they could now afford – particularly people on fixed incomes, the working poor, could afford to send their kids to a daycare, but there are no spots there. That’s so frustrating for people.

Now, all of a sudden, they sort of have that plan with Nan or Mom, or Aunt Jane or whoever to take care of them, or Dad – now, all of a sudden, those people were thinking, okay, now I’ll have some more free time; I can do other things. Now, all of a sudden, they’re back in the same quandary because they’re saying we don’t have a spot; we can’t find one.

We’re hearing the child care providers saying we weren’t engaged here. This is not helping us to be able to provide more spots. It’s doing very little for that. As a matter of fact, it’s pitting one family against another. There are people coming in offering them money who can afford it, so that they guarantee a seat, at the expense of somebody who’s probably making middle or lower income who needs to have that employment. There’s no ability that both parents can’t be working for them to sustain any lifestyle as part of that process.

So there are a lot of challenges here, a lot of questions. We’re going to have a multitude of questions on early childhood education. We’re going to have it on post-secondary education. There are extra monies put in the budget, which sounds good in principle, but if it’s not concentrated around retention and attracting of teachers and the resources they need and the other special support mechanisms that they need, teachers’ aids and that, then it’s not going to be beneficial. It’s not going to improve our education system.

I know conversations I’ve had from the union leaders, from administrators, from teachers, from parents who volunteer in schools and chairs of school councils, what was announced, they’re seeing that it’s going to do very little – while everything is welcome, every dollar that’s put into a particular program is welcome but they’re not seeing any real value of how this is going to improve access for their children when it comes to education around this process. Now, add in some of the other challenges, special needs students, some of the other challenges around that, what are the challenges around that?

In the House of Assembly recently, I asked questions around deaf and hard of hearing children and the lack of supports that are there for them. One particular family’s plight for the last number of years, to have to fight to try to get accessible education for their son.

So we need to have a plan here. The plan has to be explicitly outlined of how you’re going to resource something, the time frames and what are the expected outcomes that are going to be beneficial at the end of the day. There are a number of things – again, we’re going to have quite a robust discussion over in the next period of time and I know my colleagues here will be doing the same in asking questions in Question Period and in Estimates as we go through.

Again, the K-to-12 system, for a number of years, it’s been neglected here. It’s just flowing through, concentrating on preschool or concentrating on post-secondary. But none of this works. It’s a continuum here. If you don’t have a proper preschool process and early childhood education, you can’t continue in to have a sustainable, good K-to-12 system, which then can sustain into having a post-secondary which trains our people then to be productive citizens in providing the services and expertise that we need in our society.

So ignoring concerns of teachers is not a benefit to anybody. It’s a frustration for everybody engaged, and that’s the unfortunate thing as part of this process. So I encourage you, start listening. I know you’re hearing it in the same districts that we’re hearing it. Teachers have challenges: classroom sizes, not being able to get substitutes because of the process is not in play that works beneficial to them. Not having other resources, if it’s teachers’ assistants with integration of special needs children. Some of the other resources that are necessary there.

You have to start listening to the concerns of teachers. Too long it was ignored not listening to the concerns of nurses and now look what we have, 750 positions not filled. People leaving the industry constantly. Nursing burnout. It’s starting now with teachers also. We have to address it. That has to be addressed and it needs to be addressed through this budget here by showing priorities that are going to be beneficial to people in this province and address what we’ve heard too often.

There are teachers being driven away from the teaching industry because they don’t feel valued and they don’t feel the resources are there. They’re overburdened with certain programs and services that need to be resourced better to provide those types of services. That needs to be taken care of.

I’m hoping there are answers in the budget. I’m hoping certain other programs may be beneficial to the education system. If it’s supports for deaf and hard of hearing children, if it’s supports for special needs children, if it’s supports for administrators being able to do their things, if it’s additional supports for recruiting substitute teachers, if it’s a change in policy and being able to bring back retired teachers to fill in. Whatever those things are, I’m hopeful we’re going to hear the answers that we’re going to have on the multitude of questions we’re going to ask.

Again, outlining an effective policy that’s easily implemented across the province. Roncalli school in Airport Heights should have just the same access or should have no more beneficial access than a school in Nain, Labrador. The policy should be reflective based on the ability and the knowledge of what’s happening there and putting in a strategic plan that would recruit and retain teachers in those particular areas.

Also, there has to be a process here around affecting teachers’ learning time. They need some prep time in addition to what’s going on. Education has changed dramatically. I know we all hear stories and we all joked about our grandfathers and grandmothers would tell us about walking to school barefoot with a cord of wood so they’d be able to heat the woodstove in the thing. But we know things have changed dramatically. The needs of children, the needs of parents, the supports that are not there from a home environment because of all kinds of things.

The family network now with grandma and grandpa are not what it was with 10 or 12 or 15 siblings and uncles and aunts who could support it. It doesn’t exist.

The fact that the majority of people now are two members in the family employed, so the timelines are not there. There are a lot of other things that need to be done there as we look at that.

When we look at things, we talk about – and I’ll stay on the theme of the education proc