PDF Version

April 5, 2023 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 25

The House met at 10 a.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

Government Business

SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 8, to move 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, seconded by the Minister of Education.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

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. Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 7, to move:

WHEREAS the Commissioner for Legislative Standards issued a report further to an inquiry under subsection 42(2) of the House of Assembly Act entitled the Tibbs Report on September 14, 2022; and

WHEREAS the Speaker of the House of Assembly tabled the Tibbs Report in this House of October 12, 2022;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House concur in the report of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards entitled the Tibbs Report .

SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I don’t have a lot to say on this motion that I have called, other than I just want to thank the Commissioner for doing the work on this report that was tabled back in October. As a government, and I believe as a House, that we accept the report as elected officials, the 40 of us that sit in this House that represent the area. There are certain rules and codes of conduct and different things that we have to follow so we certainly must abide by things. We accept the report and we thank the Commissioner.

Speaker, I did not give a seconder, that motion is seconded by the Minister of Education, I apologize for that.

With that, I’ll take my seat.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Seeing no other speakers, is it the pleasure of the House to accept the report?

All those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay.’

Motion carried.

The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 1, the budgetary policy of the government.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s pleasure to get up and speak on this budget. I say this every time and I’ll repeat it again, it’s always a pleasure to get up and speak in this House of Assembly and when I stand in my place I’m standing for the people that I represent in the District of Conception Bay South. That’s always a pleasure and it is always an honour and that bears repeating, too, because I think sometimes we go through the motions of this House of Assembly, the tos-and-fros and the debates and the disputes and the agreements and what have you, but I think we may sometimes lose the fact of what we’re actually doing in here, what we’re really here for and who put us here.

When I drive home a lot of evenings, and some evenings are not so pleasant as other evenings but I try to be as pleasant every evening when I leave but some days are draining, I always drive and I hit the crest of the hill going towards Manuels. Anyone who has every had the pleasure – and I know people in this Chamber that know what I’m talking about – when you see Conception Bay, it is a peace, a calming. It’s always foggier in St. John’s, colder in Mount Pearl and when you get to CBS the sun is actually shining the majority of times. I kid you not, if you lived there and you drove there; that is a true statement.

My wife is from St. John’s so I have an affinity for St. John’s as well, don’t get me wrong. I’m a dual citizen, so to speak, but CBS is near and dear to my heart. But you can’t dispute the beautiful weather up there. It’s a place that I am very proud to represent. I have had the fortune to be there since 2015 and the people of CBS have shown me great support and I sure hope they continue to.

Part of the reason I think they continue to support me is sometimes – I was never a Star Trek fan but they said to boldly go where no man has gone before. Sometimes I take that to another level and I think people in this House can attest to that. But it is passion, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes you get into a debate in the House and you leave and you question some of the comments that you make. Sometimes it’s a phone call after and you might say you’re trying to – it is not meant to be in a certain way but it is all – in this Legislature we see a lot of that.

It’s something that I’ve given a lot of thought to and it is only the last couple of days that I am thinking a lot about it because we get in the House, and I listened to the radio coming in this morning. There’s a good debate going on and there are a couple of people who lost their speaking privileges and you say, God, you know, to the person who is not really in here, I don’t think they really appreciate what’s really happening. They’ll say, oh, there they go again.

You’re dealing sometimes with child custody issues, support enforcement – I deal a lot with issues like that. Those are not fun issues. A lot of them are very sad. A lot of times you don’t realize the effect that it has on you as an individual because sometimes you go home and you find yourself supposedly relaxing and your mind is off into other places thinking about those things and you’re trying to process it. You’re wondering was there something I could have done better. Was there something I’m missing here?

I mean, 10 o’clock or 11 o’clock in the night there’s no problem for something to pop in my mind and I email someone because it’s fresh in my mind and I think I have the solution or I have a way around it. A lot of times you don’t have a way. A lot of times you’re struggling to find that answer.

So when we get into this Legislature and you get to debate and the heated debate, sometimes you get to that debate and passion comes out. That’s why I say it’s a job to make apologies when everyone is passionate. I’ve heard a lot of Members on the other side of the House, sometimes when they get the to and fro, they come back and they get their, I call it, juices flowing, everyone is into it, but that’s something that never ever really fazed me because I appreciate where they’re coming from.

The general public sometimes will question what we’re doing, but I think that’s the point that a lot of people miss. I don’t see nothing wrong with a bit of banter. I think it’s healthy. I think it’s healthy debate and in our Legislature it’s quite a common practice. I see in Ottawa. You watch the House of Commons, because this past week it’s unbelievable. It’s unbelievable, the Speaker stood up there and it’s beyond – now, that’s probably a bit too much the other way, yet it’s our Parliament, it’s our House of Commons, it’s our federal – that’s where the federal government operates out of.

So I think sometimes we have to find a balance, but I’ll say it again, I think banter is good and it shows passion. It shows we’re real, but most importantly, Mr. Speaker, it shows we care and I think that is the (inaudible) message here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: Speaker, there are a lot of things I can talk about and I probably will be talking about as the morning goes on, but I guess the question that comes to mind is the other day during budget debate, the Minister of Finance and the Premier and Members opposite were offended when our leader said that we would not be supporting this budget. Then I hear people, so you’re not supporting the $500 home rebate or you’re not supporting affordable housing or you’re not supporting this or you’re not supporting that.

Every budget has good things in it, every budget, this budget included. But it’s not all about the good things, it’s not all about the money you’re going to pour into different areas or you’re giving doctors extra funding here or a retention bonus there.

In isolation those things are fine. No, some are not fine. It’s how you change the lives. Are you better off after budget day? Were we better off after budget day? Were the emergency rooms opened? Were seniors better off? We say you might be better off. I’m not talking about by the dollar. Is their cost of living or is their lifestyle better off?

My colleague for Bonavista, who, I would say eloquently, talked about Sandra in his district, and great admiration for his delivery and I admire it. Behind all that – and we had our little laugh – he was making a very important point. There are seniors that are getting $609 a month, if I’m not mistaken, and that’s the cost to fill up the oil barrel, that’s all their money.

Two or three months ago, I think it was, I had a constituent of mine who reached out and they didn’t know how they were going to fill their barrel, the minimum fill-up was $500. They only had $350. A father called, a father with a wife and two children, he was desperate. I reached out actually to the Minister of Industry as a courtesy to ask for any advice and we kind of shared our views that we’re dealing with this problem on a day-to-day basis with all constituents throughout the province, this minimum fill. But beyond that minimum fill is a problem. That’s pretty well, for a lot of people, almost their monthly income. Those people need help.

If you accept something, this budget, for instance, if you’re going to accept that because we like certain parts of it and ignore the glaring problems, are we any better off by doing that? I don’t think we are.

Is the emergency room reopened in Whitbourne? No. We still have problems in Bonavista? Absolutely. Go over to the Health Sciences Centre or go to St. Clare’s – two weeks ago at St. Clare’s a family member of mine went in there, there were no seats to sit down. They didn’t want any support people with them if they didn’t have to. Seventeen rooms inside the emergency area were filled with patients. But they even had minor stuff taken inside because they had nowhere to put people. Everyone was at wit’s end. That was just on the eve of the budget. I would hazard to guess you go over there today and you’re going to find the same thing.

Are we better off? No. Are there plans? I know a budget on Thursday is not going to fix the problem Friday. Are there long-term plans that are really going to address this stuff? I don’t think so. It may offer some form of interim relief. But is that going to fix things? No. Is the new St. Clare’s going to fix things? It would be nice to have a new hospital. I think we would all like to go in to a modern building, hospital, whatever it may be. You go into your districts in a new school, if you’re fortunate enough to get one, it’s nice, no doubt it, but does that fix your educational problems? Does that fix your health problems?

Infrastructure will only go so far. By the announcements you hear day in and day out, everything is an announcement. Everything is an announcement, everything is a news release, everything is an in-person announcement wherever and it all sounds good, but is that fixing your problems? No. It creates a façade that you’re out there; you’re wondering really, the alternate universe effect hits you, what world we’re in.

When my family member leaves St. Clare’s after bearing through eight hours of torture, and they’re lucky to get through in eight hours. It was only because their situation, they were pretty sick and then you flick on the news, or you turn on the radio and you hear the Premier telling everyone things are really good, we’ve never been better, things have turned the corner. We’ve made a massive improvement in the last two years. It’s foundational, it’s transformational. Everything is wonderful.

Then I look around and what’s wonderful? What am I missing here? Then in the same breath, you flick the next station on the radio and there’s someone on CBC radio talking about their near life and death experiences, waiting in the emergency room over at the Health Sciences Centre, waiting for life-saving treatment. A family member nearly died – some unfortunately have died, we’ve heard of that, most recently in Bonavista.

So I may seem facetious or being a bit too critical, but isn’t that really what we’re dealing with? So when I say the alternate universe, what are we dealing with? On one side, we’re being led to believe that life has never been better; on the other side, life is not better. Life is pretty bad. So what’s what? What do you believe anymore?

But these people who occupy these roles and the Premier of our province and we have ministers, they have very important roles. I got started with how important our role as MHAs are. We all have our role in our districts, but they’re the executive of government, they run it. Like this year, we’re into a $10-billion budget. That’s a lot of money that this government are entrusted by the people to spend wisely, but, ultimately, it’s to look after Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It’s meant to look after every single man, woman, child in this province. That’s the ultimate responsibility.

I don’t know if anyone reads their Code of Conduct when you sign it, but you’re supposed to do whatever you can to help the people in your district. That’s written there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: Doesn’t matter if you’re Liberal or NDP or you’re independent, your obligation is to help every single person in your district regardless of political affiliation, regardless, whatever the case is, that is your responsibility.

So when I look across the way and I read budget documents and I hear announcements, government has a responsibility to look after, not just Liberal districts, but every single district in this province whether you’re PC, independent, or Liberals, not just Liberals.

There’s a reason I’m saying this, because I feel you throw pittance around to this side of the House to kind of say well, we gave you something, because they have to have a speaking point, oh, yeah, I give this district this much or I give that district that much, but do the math and go and look – you don’t have to do math, just drive around and look around, it’s not hard to find.

Some of these collaborative care clinics were announced in a couple of Opposition districts no doubt. I’ve been lobbying for years now for improvement in health care in CBS and there last week the Premier, after the budget, went to Deer Lake and made an announcement proceeding with the collaborative care clinics for Deer Lake. That’s fine. I think it’s wonderful for the people in Deer Lake and it’s wonderful for the MHA and the Premier to go out to his districts, I applaud, I have no issue with that.

That’s what he’s supposed to do; he’s supposed to make life better for people in his district, that’s the Code of Conduct. But, as Premier, it’s meant to be the 500,000-plus people in the province as well. But in separation and isolation I’m okay with that.

Deer Lake, it’s proximity to Corner Brook, pretty close to CBS proximity to St. John’s. Not a lot of difference. There’s no public transit in Deer Lake to Corner Brook, nor is it from CBS to St. John’s. Twenty-eight thousand people live in CBS, I’m not sure what the approximate population out in that area is when you look at the surrounding areas, I mean it might be close, I don’t know it might be less, it might be more.

The point being, what makes those people in that part of the province any different than people in CBS? Shouldn’t you look after the people of CBS as well as the people of Deer Lake? I’m not pitting one against the other, I think it’s a good thing that Deer Lake got what they’re looking for and I credit government for doing it. They needed to do it, but what happens with CBS? Are we lesser? Are the people in CBS lesser than anywhere else in the province?

There’s one big glaring problem with it there, the colour of your affiliation. It’s easier to say no to a Tory district or an NDP district or an independent district, a lot easier. That’s what I find sometimes with all of our politics that irritates me, because you can’t punish the people for putting the person in the seat that they feel is the best person to speak up for them. Sometimes you have to be a Liberal to get elected here, you have to be a Tory to be elected there and in a couple districts you have to be NDP to get elected there, a couple. But my point being, you should not be punished for that because as politics moves on, people are voting for the individual as well.

They’re voting for the person that they think will represent their rights and their interests best in this House of Assembly on the issues that are important to them. That’s where politics are evolving to, but for some reason we still digress down into this – gutters not the word – you have to be the right political strip and it is easier to spend money in a Liberal district as opposed to spending it in a Tory district.

When you’re dealing with health care, education and transportation, that’s offensive. I think we all should be offended but I think the people of the province should be equally as offended. So it’s fine to spend money, but are you spending it where it has the greatest impact or are you spending it where it has the greatest political impact? I hazard a guess and I’ll go out on a limb but I may not be too far off, this is all political; this is not personal, most of this is political.

What makes one group any different to the other? There is more than a bona fide case for CBS to have a clinic; there is no doubt about it. Then you go to urgent care clinic and lo and behold, CBS is excluded. The mapping is excluding CBS. We’re metro. CBS is a metro region; we’re a part of metro St. John’s when it suits you. We’re not metro. We’re not Mount Pearl. Even Paradise has more services than we got. Up in CBS, we’re not metro. But when it suits you, we’re metro.

So when there are programs, oh, yeah, you’re all looked after. It is like an afterthought. I said to a minister opposite yesterday when I was over having this conversation because I find that I’m talking about it a lot and it frustrates me: we’re not metro.

If that’s the case, why is Deer Lake getting a collaborative care clinic, if you’re using that mentality, when they’re building a billion dollar hospital in Corner Brook? Sure drive to Corner Brook; that’s what you’re telling people in CBS. Drive out to St. John’s; we’re going to build a new St. Clare’s. We have the collaborative care clinics; we got the urgent care centre. We’re going to build that in Mount Pearl. We’re not going that far out in CBS, you can drive in to come to that.

So what makes them lesser than anyone else in this province? That’s what I find offensive and my pride of representing my district comes out loud and clear on stuff like that. That’s where my passion kicks in because I find that stuff is beyond offensive and it offends everyone in my district. I will make people in my district aware of the wrongs –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: – this government is doing.

They’ll know why I’m voting against this budget. That reason alone had me last Thursday – and I heard good things in the budget, but that reason alone had me voting against this budget. That was one reason alone there, what I just explained, that was my reason for voting against the budget because that’s what I was put here for.

You’re not supposed to be status quo, you’re supposed to better your district, you’re supposed to do what’s right for the people of your district, do it to the best of your abilities. That’s your obligation. That’s your Code of Conduct. I’m not righteous, trust me, I’m not righteous. I’m probably more off the rails than anyone else. But I do take things seriously and I take those things very seriously. They’re very important.

Mr. Speaker, my remaining minute I have a non-confidence amendment.

I move an amendment, seconded by the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island, that all the words after the word ‘That’ be deleted in the motion before the House, Motion 1, and the following words be substituted: ‘this House faults the Liberal government for its failure to do enough to retain nurses and other health care professionals, its failure to reopen emergency rooms and eliminate backlogs with the urgency warranted, its failure to fully implement the Health Accord, its failure to lower the cost of living in this province for seniors and families, its failure to invest properly in students from early childhood to K-12 to post-secondary, and its failure to deliver a solid economic plan.’”

Thank you very much, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: This House will stand recessed to give us an opportunity to review the proposed amendment.

Recess

SPEAKER: Are the House Leaders ready?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

Upon review of the proposed amendment by the Member for Conception Bay South, we find that the amendment is in order.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s always that concern, is it in order or is it not in order? If it wasn’t in order I had nine seconds to get someone else to their feet.

The Minister of Environment, he wants to get up again. He hasn’t gotten up yet. The government opposite, I’m encouraging, I hope they get up sometime throughout the budget debate to express their support for their budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

B. PETTEN: Do you see what happens when people talk to me, they get me in another frame of mind. I wasn’t even going to say this, but I’ve been here for a lot of budgets, since 2015, and I always questioned why – I say if I’m on that side of the House, one of these days I might be, you never know.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh you will be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: Not my words.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: I guess we’ll just have to wait. Stay tuned. Stay tuned.

AN HON. MEMBER: Change is in the air.

B. PETTEN: Change is in the air, stay tuned.

I’m digressing. But do you know what? I’ve been in this House for a nice while now and my colleague, our leader, myself and him have been through a lot of wars together over the last decade or so. We’ve had a lot of good times, but you know we were in this House in 2016 debating that budget of 2016, the infamous budget, austerity budget of 2016. We were sitting here. There was seven of us going around the clock for four days. It was a pretty incredible experience but we did it, we managed to do it.

I remember the Member for Mount Pearl North was here –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

S. COADY: (Inaudible.)

B. PETTEN: Exactly, and I give you credit, they delivered the pizza, but the one thing that stood out to me, we were here and they were sitting opposite, you were doing shifts. They were taking turns, we had less opportunity, but no one would stand up. We’d stand up turn after turn after turn, stand up and speak to the budget. Why won’t you speak to your budget? Why won’t you speak to your budget? I understood why they wouldn’t speak to the budget, Mr. Speaker, I understood, I really did. Because there wasn’t a lot to stand up and speak to.

So I like to refer to it as – there are two terms on this one. The budgets have improved over the last couple of years. They’re still not where they need to be, but from your side times are good, so I refer to that as they implemented LOP. It’s the Liberal outreach program.

You’re not allowed to use props, and I know that. You know I know that. But there’s a prop here, I’m not going to lift it. This circulated in a district throughout and I know, Mr. Speaker –

SPEAKER: No props.

SPEAKER: No props.

B. PETTEN: No props. This is actually a prop. I seen this circulating. It was brought to my attention and I said now, unless I have a crystal ball, I foreseen this. I don’t see a lot of things but I said this was going to happen. Lo and behold it happened. There were ministers rising on streets throughout the province, throughout the city spreading the news, going to the doors. They had good news.

But there is part two to this, Mr. Speaker, and we’ll see what their comment is to part two.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

It’s hard to hear the Member speak.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN: I’m going to turn back the clock so anyone listening to me speak, I tie it all together believe it or not, if you really want to follow me.

In 2016, there was no LOP. You would drive the Parkway and there used to be resign signs on all the lights. There would be pictures of the premier of the day – resign. I thought it was pretty harsh. It was bad. There were protests on the steps. There was extra security around this building. It wasn’t a great time to be in this Legislature, it was pretty frightening for all of us.

There was no LOP. It wasn’t a lot of uptake to this program, but I discovered in recent weeks, and I did a bit of research, it was the LIHP. It was a very low uptake so it was discontinued after a year or so because part B of the budget never even came that following fall. It was the Liberal in hiding program.

Now, that’s a fact. I didn’t see any Liberals with red jackets on and props knocking on any doors in this province. There were no streets of St. John’s or in CBS or throughout the province – well, you’ll never see them in CBS, thank God, promoting that budget. Not the one.

D. BRAZIL: They weren’t on Bell Island.

B. PETTEN: And there was none on Bell Island, my colleagues says. Yeah, that’s right; there was none on Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe that’s when we had health care that was actually working for the people. Maybe some of that deficit was fixing the schools that were dilapidated in 2003 when the former administration took over and every school in the province or every second school was full of mould and mildew. That’s what they hung their hat on. So they pride themselves on criticizing where you spend your money.

Speaker, I got lots of notes; I don’t know if I’ll get the chance to read them. I got piles of notes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

B. PETTEN: You don’t want to read this stuff. You’re never going to be able to read this stuff. Here it is; we spent like drunken sailors –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I know it is all in good humour and everything else, but it is very difficult to hear the speaker.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

All the Members opposite will get lots of opportunity to speak to the budget, and I encourage it. I asked the Government House Leader would he put up a couple of speakers because I say this, with total honesty, I enjoy the banter. Whoever wants to hear it, I like the banter; I have no issue with it. I know the Minister of Energy sometimes, he’d get ready to roll, when he was Government House Leader, and I liked it. Believe it or not, people thought it bothered me. Actually, I think it is a healthy debate. I like it.

Sometimes you stand there and you feel it is a form of, you know, just attack, attack, attack, because we have a message to deliver. We have a role to play. This is what we do. It is what we need to do. It is what you call a healthy democracy.

Opposition is needed in this province. Can you imagine without this Opposition where we’d be as a province? Can you only imagine if government – any government, now – were not held in check? And as Members opposite were on this side and they did a great job in doing exactly their role, it is a role. It is a responsibility that I take seriously and all my colleagues take seriously and we’ll continue to take seriously until that day when, stay tuned, we’ll be over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: And then there will be a group on this side doing the exact same thing we’re doing. So when we stand in the House and we question government – again, I heard a clip on the radio this morning. Because I get more information from listening to stuff, listening to conversation than I ever would in reading because that’s who I am. But trust me, I don’t miss many points.

I hear this morning, and the Minister of Finance – and I have a lot of respect for the Minister of Finance, I really do. We have our debates, but I do fully respect her. But she was offended by the questions from my colleagues. That’s where I question. I don’t understand why would you be. What they’re saying, they’re not being personal, they’re speaking for their people in their districts. My colleague for Bonavista, who I spoke earlier about too, he gets up and he’s very personal. He’s after listing off pretty well every resident of Bonavista. They are in Hansard . His stories are accurate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

B. PETTEN: But I say to the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture, when I sit down I’d love for you to get up for 20 minutes. I say to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, you take your 20 minutes. I say to everyone opposite, I’d love to hear you get up for 20 minutes. I am looking forward to it. Just trust me, I enjoy the banter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I enjoy the banter to some degree too, but when it comes to a level you can’t hear the Member speak, I ask both sides to bring the level down a little tiny bit. As much as the Member speaking enjoys it, it’s hard to hear.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You know, respectfully, my group here are being pretty respectful. They like to listen to me, see. I don’t know why. But if you talked to my wife, she would not agree. Fortunately, these people listen to me. They don’t always follow what I say but they listen.

The point I’m trying to make is you have to believe in what you’re standing up for. If you’re standing up for something, you have to truly believe in it. If government opposite believes in this budget, believes what’s in this budget and they want to stand in their place and support it and they take offence to some comments and questions across the way – and we hear it. There are some good things. Again I’ll say, there are some good things in the budget, no problem. But stand up and talk about it. Be proud of what you’re standing for. Be proud of what you do.

I’ve always believed you should stand for something. I’ve always said that. It doesn’t matter if it’s the most popular thing in the world or in the room, but stand for what you believe in. I would never – and I say this, and I again, there’s a time I may be over there and I know it’s going to be hard to keep the shackles on me, because I’m not the type that can be easily contained. But if I’m told by whoever’s in charge of the day if we’re over there and say you’re not allowed to speak on this and we don’t want you to get up on this, it’s probably better for me to go home.

Take the fine every day for not being in the House. It’s no good to be sitting there because I wouldn’t be able to follow the rules. Because even if it’s not so good, I think you owe it to the people who put you here to stand in your place and say what you really feel. I know you’re not voting against government. It’s a monetary policy, I know that. You’re not bringing down your government. But there’s nothing wrong with the Members opposite to stand in their respective places and speak for the people they represent. That’s what they’re here for. That’s what you’re here for.

Ministers are not appointed to run specific departments solely. You’re still an MHA. You’re still put there by the people. The Premier put you in that Cabinet position, the people put you in that MHA role and they’re the people you should be speaking for.

I’ll tie it back to a comment I said earlier, because everything has a connection with me. Your Code of Conduct says you’re supposed to help every person in your district, no matter what political stripe. So if you’re not going to stand in your place and you’re going to say this budget is great and you’re going to sit down and wait until the Opposition runs out of gas and hopefully we shuts up eventually and we get the budget through, are you doing justice to the people who never voted for you in your district? Better still, are you doing justice for the people who voted for you?

Because I’m sure there are Liberals in the province who are not happy with some things in that budget. They’d like to know what their Member thinks of it.

What about the seniors we’re talking about over here? The mere fact that poverty was not mentioned in the budget, think about that. The word “poverty” was not included in the budget. That’s incredible. It’s incredible.

Like my colleague from Bonavista said, it was breaking news. We had breaking news yesterday. It wasn’t in the budget. If it was, I hazard to guess some would have pointed out to us because I trust that he’s read the budget more than anyone in this House, including the Minister of Finance.

S. COADY: I don’t think so.

B. PETTEN: I would hazard to guess that would be a big challenge, Minister, with all due respect. I know you’ve read it several times yourself, but I challenge that it would be a very close call. This is the Member, when he got the Health Accord, he was the happiest person in Confederation Building that he had something to do for the weekend.

Now, I had the Health Accord too, but trust me, not the first thing I read that weekend and it would take me a lot longer than a weekend to read it. So this is the person. So that’s why I hazard to guess, I don’t know if anyone else here gets – and I know it’s through his educational background being a school administrator – so much joy out of reading, but he does and I trust that if poverty is not in the budget, I take his word for it. I take his word. Now there might be an off chance, but I doubt very much it’s there. So I trust what he’s saying.

S. COADY: May I ask him a question?

B. PETTEN: She wants to ask you a question. We’ll get to that this afternoon during QP. Stay tuned.

I remember a couple of years ago, I stood in my place and I was talking about a budget that wasn’t so good, but it was the curve. It was the leaving the austerity measures, trying to get to a better place. I spent my entire time, in speaking about the budget, it was they don’t know, because every question we asked they couldn’t answer it – not the one. They couldn’t answer any questions. They’ve gotten a bit better because there was more review done on the budget, which is good but they still won’t stand up and support it.

They’ll stand up and vote for it when the time comes to vote, but they won’t stand up and support the budget. Why not stand up and talk about the good things? Why don’t they talk about their district?

When we get up here and we speak – and a lot of the times we speak the truth because sometimes I find when you speak the truth, it resonates with people opposite sometimes. That’s why you get some of the banter back because it resonates with them and deep down in their soul they’re saying there is a lot of truth to what is being said. So when we heard yesterday, my colleague from Placentia West - Bellevue talk about the lack of supports for seniors, Bonavista talking about poverty, my colleague for Ferryland talks about ambulances, that matters.

I’m talking about health care in my district; we all have that issue. But that is what matters to the people. So you don’t think Members opposite don’t see that when you’re giving them clear examples.

It is not like I come here and I’m saying the Liberals are all bad; that’s not what I am saying. I can be facetious about my LOP and LIHP. There is merit to what I’m saying there, too. You can go out on the street and support the budget, but you won’t stand in the House and support it. Why? This is the people’s House. This space here is your workspace. This is where I represent Conception Bay South and we all represent our individual districts. This is your place. We all take our place. Why not support it? It is beyond me.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I don’t know if I am going to get through my notes but there are a couple of things that I want to talk about. I’ve talked about child care –

B. DAVIS: (Inaudible.)

B. PETTEN: I’ll give the Minister of Environment some notes after to help him along with his 20 minutes. It’ll help him bridge the gap.

Child care: I speak about child care in this House a lot and I spoke about it publicly and it has been a big issue in the last month or two. As a matter of fact, I think the child care licensees are going to be attending this afternoon up in the Chamber for Question Period and taking in the House’s sitting.

It is hard to relay in a sitting of the House, a Question Period or even a scrum area to get out really what the fundamental problem is and what is going on. You have child care providers in the province, 70 per cent of the child care providers in the province are private – 70 per cent. You have this program that is being implemented by the federal government: $10-a-day child care. It is more designed for the not-for-profit sector, which these people are not; they are for profit. So you are being told, you charge $10 and we’ll give you the remainder to a certain amount. They’ve capped it off to how much you can charge per child.

Now they’re telling them how much they can pay the ECEs, the early childhood educators. So they’re providing all this funding. But you turn back the clock; these are private businesses that invested their own monies. They started off privately. They started charging their own rates and you shopped around to get the best rate for your child. When my girls were younger, we shopped around because you could get cheaper daycare and there were lots of spaces. My girls are in their 20s now. There was no real issue to get daycare spaces at the time – we called it daycare. There was no problem to get them. The demand wasn’t there.

In our administration, in the latter few years or whatever we started subsidizing spaces, which is not a bad thing. But that’s the reality. We started subsidizing spaces. It was well accepted. It created more affordability. It created more spaces. It created more opportunities because the demand was getting higher. But you start a slippery slope then. Because all of a sudden, you have to realize these are private businesses. They’re not government operations; they’re private businesses. They’re not not-for-profits, they’re for profit.

Now you’ve took that to the next step and the subsidies have increased and the operating grants have increased and what have you. So government is taking more and more ownership of these operations. But now we’ve come up with this $10-a-day child care and a minimum wage for ECEs. You’re implementing this on private operators but you’re tying, you’re handcuffing the operator because all of a sudden now, who’s going to buy this business when government are basically controlling it? They’re not going to expand and create more spaces because they really don’t know what the future holds.

Yet, it’s their equity into this. Government don’t own these buildings. This is their own equity. This is their own sweat – their money. People have over millions of dollars in these daycare operations, but now they’re left with a situation of what do I do and it’s really hard to explain this out, but under the program – this program is designed for not-for-profits, where you would provide your audits and you provide all the information of the workers. There are set rules in place because they’re not-for-profits and there are totally different guidelines for them.

These people have investments. You invest in your business. You want to get your own profit. You want to make your own decisions. If you want to expand that business, you want to be able to do it in your own right. If you want to retire, you want to be able to sell it. That’s not so cut and dry with this situation, not at all. If you’re selling an existing operation, it has to be approved, but who’s going to take something over when government are basically controlling you? You can’t increase your fees.

So instead, really what needs to happen is you need to subsidize the children or the families. Let the daycare operator charge what they’re charging; government should be dealing with the parents and the children. These operators should be left to operate privately. So if it’s $50 a day, they can work out some kind of agreement that they’ll subsidize the remainder to give them whatever affordable child care they want but these daycare operators should be left to run their own business as they see fit and government should be dealing with the families. They can negotiate with them, too, but there has to be a better process.

Right now, it’s dysfunctional what’s happening. It’s really, really hard to get that out in a QP. It’s hard to get it out in a scrum. It’s hard to get it out any time. Call Open Line – because it’s a bit complex, but the bottom line is you’re trying to get a square peg in a round hole. This program was never intended for for-profits. It was never intended for for-profits.

It’s really dysfunctional when you think about it because government are coming in and saying every child that comes in here, they only have to pay $10 a day, we’re going to give you the remainder, but we’re also expecting all these conditions and we’re going to tell you how much you can pay for your employees. Now we want to do audits and we want all the personal information of all your employees. You have to say for a second stop, because those daycare operators, child care operators could get the $50 a day which is more than what they’re getting now, if they just opened the doors and they said, we’re not bothering with this program.

People would pay $50 a day for their child to get a space, because there’s that big of a demand. They don’t have to be prescribed to this program. They really don’t have to prescribe. This is what government is heralding. Government don’t own these operations.

My colleague from Baie Verte - Green Bay, who I have a lot of respect for as well, me and him visited a child care operation in my district a couple of years ago for an announcement, and he witnessed it first-hand with me. It was a big investment. It’s a well-rounded operation. In my own district it’s one of the staples. It’s one I’m very proud of actually and good people run it. It’s their investment. This is on them.

I commend government – and I’m not knocking affordable child care. I think it’s a wonderful concept, but the government needs to look outside the box and realize every province in the country are not like Newfoundland. I believe it’s Saskatchewan and the federal government has actually done a one-off with the province – and this is what I think our province needs to do too – because there were a lot of private operators there. They’ve created a different funding mechanism to deal with this issue, because it is an issue and it’s a big issue.

These people are coming to us. We’re talking to them. Government, I don’t think, are talking to them as much as they should be. I’ve given it a lot of thought and where it’s in my role, in my critic role, I’ve actually given it a lot of thought and talked to them a lot and I got my head fully around it. I think I do. It always came across as dysfunctional to me. I kept thinking this will make sense and the more I thought about it, it is a great program. But you can’t just push this on a for-profit operation. Again, it’s for not for profits, so you need to find a different mechanism.

You could still give your affordable child care, but you have to cut the leash, you have to cut the restraints on these operators. They have to be able to run their businesses.

I have a couple in my district, they’re 58 years old and they want to retire but they can’t get clear answers if they’ll be able to retire because they want to be able to sell their business. They have over $1 million invested in their operation. They want to retire. They’re hitting 60. Their goal was to retire at 62 but they don’t know if they can because they’re not getting a clear indication: Can I sell it to you or you or you? You may have to sell it to the Y or another not-for-profit sector. They’re not getting a clear answer.

I don’t know if government can give them the clear answers either because this is tied to the federal funding. Under the federal funding, they list not for profits as being the key. That’s what that model was setup by.

So you try to put a one-shoe-fits-all approach to child care to the country when you set out this program. When the federal government implemented this program, it was meant to be an overlay; this was going to fit everyone in the country. But that’s not the way it works, one shoe don’t fit all; we know that. These operators are struggling and they feel really handcuffed. They don’t know how to do it. They don’t want to bite the hand that is feeding them because, ultimately, government is basically funding their operations.

I mean, they’re collecting $10 a day from families per child; the government is giving them the rest. But you can’t increase your amount. You can’t go to $50; you have to stick at this amount of $42 or $43 depending. You can’t go to $50 or $55, which you’d like to go to and you feel it is more than adequate.

So that is in a nutshell why I have stood in my place and I have asked many, many questions this session already and I will ask some more today on this issue. You know, government can answer and do as they please and ministers can respond as they please, but sometimes the flippant, dismissive response is not helpful to any situation.

On this matter, I find that is what I have received. Again, I will come back and say, it’s not what I have received. They listened. You’re asking the question for the group that you are advocating for or the industry you’re advocating for, that’s who you’re speaking for so when a minister is dismissive or a premier is dismissive or an MHA is dismissive, you’re dismissing them. Remove personalities from it, you’re dismissing them. I’m only the messenger. A lot of us, we’re messengers to a lot of this stuff. We’re advocating for change.

My colleague for Bonavista who does a great job with the shadow portfolio for Fisheries, he’s the messenger and he’s the advocate for them. That is what you do; that’s what we all do in all of our roles here. Our Health critic there, our shadow minister for Topsail - Paradise, he advocates for those people. We’re really advocates. There are 40 advocates in here – there’s supposed to be. That is what we do.

But the questions need answers. We ask questions and government’s responsibility is to provide answers. It’s always been that way. Whether they’re offended or not offended, again, there are no apologies for that, because it’s what we’re supposed to do, it’s what we’re elected to do and what we’ll continue to do.

Speaker, I’m going to get to it eventually, there are a couple of things I want to read eventually, but I have to branch off into one other area now while I have some time.

Crown Lands: In 2015, there was a Crown Lands review done by the former administration. There was a review done, there were lawyers involved, there was real estate involved. I believe there was – yeah – general public, too. There was a full-on review done of the problems with the Crown Lands. We thought it was a great concept, in theory. But government changed. I think it would’ve solved a lot of problems. I talked to a lawyer who was on the committee at the time. He was the head of the Newfoundland association, the bar. He was very favourable of the changes that were coming, very optimistic, because in the legal world a lot of these rules are archaic and they need to change.

But when the current administration or the Liberal administration took over in late 2015, that report stayed where it was to because they never ordered that report. That was the PC’s report. There was nothing we touched that was fit; they wouldn’t go near it. But they did nothing in place of that. They’ve had lots of reports that you can go write your name on the cover now with the dust that’s on them. There are lots of them kicking around, or there are reports we’re not allowed to see. We’ve had a lot of reports, millions of dollars in reports we can’t see. We’re not allowed to see. No, no, no, eyes off.

But we stand in this Legislature, we’re all part of running the operations and we vote on a lot of things, but dear show us a report. No, we’re not worthy of that.

That’s fine, that’s fine, I guess one of these days, like I say, stay tuned and we’ll get to see all those reports and see what they’re worth. But, I hope, I truly hope when the time comes when we go over there, whatever report we do see, we’ll make it public. Do you know what? If there are reports there the Liberals commissioned that we think are good, I don’t see any problem whatsoever in implementing them. Why not?

I’ll go back to a theme: it’s in your Code of Conduct. No matter who supports you, do what’s best for the people in your district and the people in the province, regardless of what stripe you are. That’s my go-to . I look at themes and everything, I can tie it back to that because, ultimately, you can stand here and we can debate and we can laugh and we can do all the rest of it, but that’s your ultimate goal. So forget about there was a PC report. If the NDP comes up with something that we think is nice: no, we’re not going to agree with them. Oh we’re not going to agree with them, they’re not with us.

How foolish, how silly. If it’s good, it’s good. I don’t mind saying it; I’ve said it. I’ve complimented government lots of times on stuff they’ve done and stuff they felt – sure why not? People respect that.

I’ll tell you something that’s just come to my mind as I’m saying that. I was out at an announcement, the federal MP was there, and it was an honest oversight. He introduced people and I was in the crowd. He missed me. Now, the MP is Ken McDonald, or I probably shouldn’t use his name, but he’s a good friend of mine. Me and Ken are friends. It was an honest oversight. There were three or four people around me that were enraged and they spoke out. They were actually a bit loud about it. I was trying to say this is not intentional, which it wasn’t intentional. But it was a lesson.

Me and Ken actually spoke about it after, it was a lesson. He said to me there was no harm intended, and none taken, none given and we were fine, but the message is the public sees things. That was an example of just imagine if it was intentional. You don’t have to say anything, people see stuff.

So the people see it up there when the announcements are being made on these health care centres out in Deer Lake, when you’re 30 minutes or 40 minutes from the new billion-dollar hospital and you’re building a new collaborative care clinic in Deer Lake. Once again, wonderful for the people in Deer Lake. What about CBS? What about CBS? If you’re going to follow the rules of the game, if you’re going to be righteous and be proud and say you do what you do for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, what about us?

When you’re fortunate enough to sing the “Ode to Newfoundland,” there’s a lot of pride in that. There’s a lot of pride in that song, because we’re paying tribute to the province we love. No difference in your districts. We’re all equals, we all should be treated as equals, regardless of what you vote for and always remember it’s actually in your Code of Conduct.

I was sitting in this House in 2017, I guess, 2018 and there was a Member – there was a report done actually because somebody violated the Code of Conduct by telling this person at the time that they weren’t doing anything to help them because they never voted for them. That ended up in this House. Members at the time might recall that ended up in this House of Assembly because they violated the Code of Conduct.

It was a mayor at the time of a small community; they actually violated the Code of Conduct. So history repeats itself at times. How do you bring the Code of Conduct for some of this stuff I’m talking about? Because I’m talking about a bigger, fundamental issue.

But my issue should not be lost in partisan politics, either. I really truly believe that there’s a lot of merit in what I’m saying if you really want to separate yourself from there they go again and listen to what is being said, because it makes a lot of sense. I’d like to think, and I hope I do, if and when we get over there, I’m going to sit down sometimes and I truly believe I will, because I can’t see it any other way, if I hear stuff that makes sense, appreciate it and accept it. Acknowledge it. Probably make change yourself. Because do you know what? We should never be averse to change.

I think change is a good thing. Change is one of the hardest things you’ll ever do in life in groups because people don’t like change. That’s a natural thing. But it’s never a bad thing to change your thoughts. Maybe you’re not channelling your thoughts in the right direction. We say, and my colleagues say and I can hear the whispers coming there, change in the air. Maybe it is in the air. But change will be in the air because people are listening to the right people.

Again, I repeat, when we get over there, it won’t be because we’re just listening to PCs. It’ll mean that we’re listening to PCs, the Liberals, NDP and independents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: That’s (inaudible).

People want transparency, they want openness and they want accountability. Back in 2019 when we nearly got over there, we had a minority government. I heard it over and over and over again how people thought that was a good thing. From our perspective, it was challenging. I know from government’s perspective it was really challenging operating a minority parliament. But that’s what people wanted. They wanted us to get along as best we could. I think they all understand there’s a level of passion and compassion or empathy, whatever you want to call it. We all have that in our blood and that’s why we’re here.

But they wanted us to work together better. If anything, since 2021, the divisions have never grown bigger. They’ve never grown wider. I see it and a lot of it is reverting to what I consider to be old-fashioned politics. I’ve been around and I’ve followed politics all my life. I’ve seen a lot of governments come and go. I’ve seen a lot of styles come and go. But it’s old-style politics that if you’re not the same stripe as the party in power, you better get cap in hand and hope for the best.

That is so unfortunate. When I say about codes of conduct and that, the most blatant violation of a Code of Conduct you could ever imagine. How do you put a complaint in – because you’ve got to put a complaint in against a government and it’s designed for Member to Member? But it’s a violation in my mind. We move away from the Code of Conduct there; it’s a moral violation that you would do that to every person in this province. Because 90,000 people voted for us, on this side of the House. So you want to turn your back on those people, because that’s what you’re doing.

This is not humorous; I’ll get to my humour in a bit. This

part is not humorous. I take great offence to it. I’ll say it again: I think everyone should take great offence to it. Because little do you realize this is what’s happening in this province right now. That’s how we’re being governed. That’s what’s going on.

You can smile and take all the pictures you want, and everything is wonderful but, trust me, that’s not the real story. People are suffering. People are struggling. I tell you now photo ops will not get you a family doctor.

E. LOVELESS: TikTok (inaudible).

B. PETTEN: The Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure is talking about TikTok videos, so I guess he’ll talk about TikTok. We’re not allowed to do TikTok any more, but he’s so in tune that he wants to talk about TikTok. I know when I kind of get their dander up, because they start talking. When I keep to a lower tone, to a serious nature, they stop talking. So when I turn it up, they start talking. It’s just like this, the volume is this and that and up and down and you got her. It’s just the way it is.

I’ll repeat myself: The Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure is welcome to get up and finish 20 minutes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

B. PETTEN: And I will sit and listen to every word, every word I’ll listen to because I will repeat it: I enjoy the banter. I think it’s healthy. It’s a healthy part of our democracy to stand in your place in this House and banter back and forth. But never lose sight, when I stand in my place and I’ll make my shots back and forth, and I repeat again I don’t have no problem with it, but ultimately never lose sight of what I’m really talking about here. I think I make that clear time and time again. I am talking about the people that live in this province that we’re responsible for.

We’re not responsible for people in any other province. It’s the people in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That’s who we are responsible for and our districts primarily but as a whole.

When I talk about child care operations or educational issues, or I talk about energy issues, we talk about health care issues, it affects your district but this affects everybody. We’re talking on our feet and we’re talking about Whitbourne emergency rooms. It affects my colleagues from Burin - Placentia West. It affects all of us. We talk about issues that could affect you, Mr. Speaker. This is not isolated to CBS or Conception Bay East - Bell Island; it’s what we do. But it’s what our role is in Opposition and I keep repeating it and saying, where are the voices to on the other side?

You know, you almost feel like a broken record; you’re getting up and speaking. If anybody is watching they’re going to say by, what happened to government?

The Minister of Finance got up there two weeks ago and we haven’t seen her since on the budget, outside of QP. They’re not getting up and speaking on this. Where are all the rest of the ministers? They’re out taking

part in LOP, but they won’t come into the House of Assembly and defend their budget. So I am at a total loss and I guess I’ll never get that answered this afternoon or this morning; it is beyond me.

I got some things – I’d like to say a few of them, but I’m not going to get a lot of them. In my final bit time, I go back to – and it is not about the Premier. It is the office, not the person. But the Premier has been out, he’s the head of government, and it is about this picture you’re painting. We dealt with Moya Greene. If I am not mistaken to save the province, you might have to amputate a limb.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

B. PETTEN: That’s not funny. It was a side thing there, Mr. Speaker. They’re making me digress.

But it was very serious times; we had serious times and serious measures. We had Moya Greene come in and it was cut and slash. It was no live interviews out there; there was a recorded one. Do you know who went down on the live interview response that evening after the Moya Greene report was released? This man here, the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: The media were out in the lobby waiting – out in the scrum area waiting – no show. That report was pretty nasty, but we were led to believe right until the report was issued that it was the way out. That was going to solve all our problems; we had to do what we had to do.

A year prior to that, the Minister of Health, who was the minister of Finance of the day, and the former premier, they wrote the federal government because they didn’t think they could make payroll. They didn’t know if they could actually survive. We didn’t know if we were going to have to fold up. Just imagine, that’s not so long ago.

Go over and knock on the door of the Health Sciences Centre or St. Clare’s and ask me how great it is. Go talk to people in Whitbourne and Bonavista. Go talk to people in Central Newfoundland, how great is it. Go talk to people in CBS who are up there today trying to find a way to get to the Health Sciences Centre because they have no family, they can’t afford a taxi, they have no one else, they have no vehicle. How are they getting there? They’re not getting there. They can’t get there. They can’t get to a family doctor because they have no family doctor. One of the highest per capita in the province, CBS is, for no family doctor.

Now I know Members opposite may disagree and the Minister of Health, he and I have had this debate many times, that’s the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association’s numbers. I wouldn’t want to argue with them. But we have one of the highest per capita in the province. But no, you’re not worthy of a collaborative care clinic.

D. BRAZIL: Second-largest community in the province.

B. PETTEN: Second-largest community in the province, outside the City of St. John’s. But no, not worthy of that, you’re not worthy of that. No public transit. So do you know what? If you get sick, the best route you can get there, maybe call your MHA’s office, he might give you a run. Call the MP’s office, he might help you. But we’re not doing anything for you. Mr. Speaker, that’s wrong, pure and simple, full stop, wrong.

Speaker, there are a few things, and I’ll finally go to a couple of notes because it’s more impact if you read it from the notes. The Liberals, it’s all big spending, they were promising big cuts. What is it they said? They told us we need to grow revenues, but we need to get spending under control. I think we have seen the size of government explode over the last 10 or 15 years and now we need to right size that.

He also says in 2020: “Incoming premier” – name – “says ‘everything’ is on the table to cure N.L.’s disastrous debt…. In an interview with iPolitics” – the Premier – “said, ‘The people of the province deserve to know the truth. There’s no sense in sugar coating it. We are in a tough financial situation.’”

To that point, there’s no good in sugar-coating it, so we taxed it. His words, Mr. Speaker, not mine. He didn’t want to sugar-coat it, so he said I have the solution, tax it. I’m going to tax the sugar. Where has that got them? Do you know what I listen to every day, every other day when I flick on the radio and flick on the whatever? I hear the sugar tax, the carbon tax. They’re two huge issues this government faces, I don’t know if they realize it or not. They’re two huge issues.

My colleague from Stephenville - Port au Port, he was up yesterday quoting Members opposite of their commentary during the carbon tax debate. I tell you, they were big supporters of it. My God, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change: it was the right thing to do. The Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development: it was the only way to go. The Government House Leader over there, he thought it was the best move: it’s the best until we find something better. They were all in, all in, but we weren’t. It’s shameful.

Now, the Premier stands in his place, no, we’re against that. We wrote a letter. Where were you to? We wrote a letter. We’ve been here for eight years listening to –

AN HON. MEMBER: The wind changed.

B. PETTEN: Yeah, the wind changed. Oh it’s a big change in the wind. But no, change is in the air, Mr. Speaker, and people are listening to the carbon tax and to the sugar tax and this nonsense. But this government and the federal government have walked us through this for eight years; we’ve been listening to this for eight years. Go back in the records you will never find, ever find, this MHA and anyone on this side of the House ever support the carbon tax – ever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: When it was supposedly a federal policy even, guess what? Maybe it was because of ignorance, the concept just didn’t make sense to me, I was trying to learn and getting my head around it –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER (Warr): Order, please!

B. PETTEN: Here we go again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

Order, please!

I’m recognizing the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I’m asking once more. Again, I like to banter. I actually enjoy it, but I have to listen to the hon. Member speak and I’m recognizing the Leader of the Official Opposition.

B. PETTEN: I just got a promotion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

I’m recognizing the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: No offence given, I did fill that role this past fall while my good friend wasn’t feeling well, but I’m happy where I’m to and I’m happy to have him as the Leader of the Opposition.

SPEAKER: I was just going back in time.

B. PETTEN: That’s right, no problem.

Mr. Speaker, we go back to this carbon tax and it’s –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

B. PETTEN: Maybe, you never know.

D. BRAZIL: Never say never.

B. PETTEN: Never say never.

AN HON. MEMBER: Stay tuned.

B. PETTEN: Stay tuned, change is in the air.

Mr. Speaker, on a serious note of carbon tax. So now we see government stand there and they’re highly offended, highly offended, when you question them on their stance on the carbon tax. My good God, I mean, Hansard , you’d need a wheelbarrow to bring in the Hansard records of comments this government made in support of carbon tax. You’d need a wheelbarrow.

As recently as this past few months, and I’m going to say this because it’s something that needs to be said, our Avalon MP stood up against his own government and voted against their carbon tax on home heating fuel.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: It was the right thing to do.

But you know, the only thing I questioned with a lot of that was, these same Members over here, they support what he did then, right? Where were they before that? If that was such a wise decision then, why weren’t they wailing against it when we brought in last spring? We had to enact the carbon tax; it was part of the process. We had no control; it was a federal government issue. We held the debate going on here, going on here, until we got some resolution, some help, cost-of-living help and we got some rebates on the gas and that. It was us on this side that did that.

I was a part of the negotiations as Opposition House Leader. That’s what happened. There was no one out in the scrum area giving you credit for it. No, government decided this is something they came up with on their own. They never came up with it on their own. They came up with to get the legislation through because we refused to let it go through.

To the point that, at the time, me and my colleague, the Leader of the Official Opposition, our leader – you got me stumbling now – we said we’re not letting passage of this go through unless you bring in closure, because we were adamant there had to be some measures put in place to help people with the cost of living because people were struggling. That was during the carbon tax debate.

So like I say, and I’m not being facetious, you can get a wheelbarrow to lug in the papers of comments on that side of the House that supported it. Now, all of a sudden, it’s not my tax, it’s the federal tax, that crowd up there. But they’re still pretty close.

So he had the crowd down here doing the LOP and you had the big dog himself, the Premier, up in Ottawa doing the shed party on the hill with Justin and all his friends. Things are still pretty cozy, pretty cozy.

Are we the only Liberal government in the country now?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

B. PETTEN: Yeah, the only one left.

So when it suits you, no, we don’t want no part of that, no, no.

AN HON. MEMBER: Endangered species.

B. PETTEN: Yeah, they’re an endangered species. That’s right.

But they’re up on the hill, though. Life is good on the hill and everyone is happy and it’s parties. Do you get where I’m going? It’s that illusion that life has never been so good. So while you’re up on the hill and you’re having a bash and the music is playing and everything else is flowing, no doubt, and the prime minister is there and it’s a great time, but if anyone walked over to the Health Sciences Centre, anyone walk into St. Clare’s, anyone drive Witless Bay Line – have you drove Witless Bay Line lately?

E. LOVELESS: Yes.

B. PETTEN: Yes? Did you have to get the shocks fixed after you came off it?

E. LOVELESS: No.

B. PETTEN: You’re the only one.

I dare you to drink a cup of coffee driving across it. You’d be scalded. I tell the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure you’d be scalded trying to drink a cup of coffee on the Witless Bay Line. There’s no way you can do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: I challenge you.

I’m going to go on to another on that note. That branches off – I haven’t gotten through my notes yet. I will save that for another day. But you go Harbour Main and my colleague from Harbour Main who has stood in their place in the House – and I’ve actually helped her as well on petitions on the condition of the road, so much so I said one time you needed to wear a helmet. The former minister, now the current Minister of Tourism was the minister. He didn’t really like it, but you needed to wear a helmet to drive up to Duff’s Straight. What we call Duff’s Straight in the heart of Holyrood, you needed to wear a helmet. It’s that bad. But guess what? Nothing has changed.

So how much money did you announce in the budget, Minister, $1.5 billion? Historic money – historic money, historic. But on a sunny day when you go to the Liberal ministers’ districts, you need shades on. You need to wear sunglasses for the glare of black pavement, glaring at you with the light shining on it. The white lines – you can’t see your way down the road. But now when you go up to my colleague in Ferryland’s district, you need to wear a helmet and don’t drink coffee.

Does it matter what stripe you are? It matters a lot.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

B. PETTEN: Does it matter – the Code of Conduct?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

B. PETTEN: To us it does. Not to them.

Speaker, I know they’re upset.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

Bring it down.

B. PETTEN: I know they’re upset; I know that.

E. LOVELESS: Passion coming through.

B. PETTEN: And it’s passion. The Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure is right, it is passion, and I really look forward to him standing in his place while I take my seat in another few more minutes.

E. LOVELESS: Stay tuned.

B. PETTEN: No, you stay tuned. That’s right. And I like that. I might even sit and listen to him without bantering back at him. I might actually. Now, I never said I will; I said I might.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don’t promise.

B. PETTEN: I can’t promise things. As I told him yesterday morning I’m honest. So I’m not going to tell you I won’t do it; I said I might.

E. LOVELESS: I could be honest, too.

B. PETTEN: I know, but I want you to get up and talk honestly; as long as it’s not personal, then I don’t mind but talk honestly.

So anyway, Speaker, as you see, every time you hit that little nerve, it is like a little jolt, they come to life. If you talk about certain things that are just mundane or they’re not interested, you’ll see them on their phones or they’re reading their documents or they’re doing whatever – they’re probably doing some work and it is all valuable but when you hit that proverbial nerve and they get that little jolt, you can see it. I like to refer to it as the edge; they get right to the edge and then they pull back. That’s what’s going on.

I don’t think anything I’m saying here is wrong; it might be a brutally frank assessment of things, which is what I am known for. I can’t be more frank and honest with you. If you come up to my shed on a Saturday night and we sit down and have a drink or a conversation or a cup of coffee, I’ll be honest with you there too.

I’ll tell you, the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure – I respect him; I like the banter, too. We were out in Grand Falls for the Special Olympics and we were in the line to go out for the opening ceremonies – and, Speaker, you were with us – and he called me by name and said: You’re in Central Newfoundland now. I said: Yeah, and I’m just as saucy here as I am in CBS and St. John’s.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: True words; am I not?

But that is who I am, and I don’t expect everyone to agree with me. I don’t. I run in elections and 6,000 or 8,000 people vote for you – I don’t get 6,000 or 8,000 votes. I don’t think any of us do. But it is what you stand for that I really believe matters. You can do all the frills and put all the hats on you want. You can do everything you want to do, but I really believe people want you to stand for something. I hear it from my constituents often.

There will be an issue that could be so remote or abstract that you’re not even paying attention to, but they want to know what my view is and I’m sure all of us – what does the Opposition think? What do you think? I’m sure we all get those emails; they want to know what we stand for, and I get that. I really get that because before I ever got in politics, I used to wonder how come my Member is not speaking up on something or what their view is or my federal member, what their view is, or what the mayor’s view was or what the councillor’s view was. We are all held to a different standard.

Whether we like it or not, it comes with the territory. If you’re a public figure and we have a role to fulfill, we have to do it in an honourable, respectful manner. We also have to stand up for what you believe in but you have to stand up for the people that you represent.

I come back, in my final minutes, to the budget when I started off from and what stripe you are and the Code of Conduct and all that stuff. I’ve said that and Hansard will show I’ve said the Code of Conduct an awful lot in my speech because there are times when I’ve sat back – lately probably more than ever – and I started thinking we were left out of this funding or we never got this, or this was shortchanged or we never got anything here and we never got anything there. I was talking to my colleagues and we kind of share the same stories. Part of you feels a little touched, not desperate is the word, but you feel the pressures of why is my district being excluded.

When I say my district, it’s my hometown; it’s a place that I’m very proud of. But everyone in that district didn’t vote for me – I almost said my name that time, but I never. There were a lot of people in that district who voted for the government opposite. It was a race to the finish line. I was fortunate enough to have more than the governing party. But that shouldn’t be the guiding principle. It should never be your guiding principle.

Some years ago in my previous life, I worked in a minister’s office – a couple of ministers’ offices, actually – and we were giving out grants. The current premier of the day – I don’t mind saying who it was; it was Premier Dunderdale – we had funding, extra money; they reprofiled some money. It was several million dollars and it was these smaller grants. At the time, my role, I was looking after the grants. I had a call from the chief of staff. The money has been approved, but the premier wants you to be fair to every district in the province, Opposition, no matter what they are, every district in the province.

There were 48 districts at the time, but they want you to be fair to all districts in the province. I’ll never forget it. That came right from the Premier’s office, the premier herself. But I had a lot of respect for that at the time.

I honestly had a lot of respect for that, because even back in the day it was not all perfect. Because we had Members the same way. They didn’t want to see a Liberal Member or an NDP Member get anything. I appreciated where the premier was coming from that time. It’s something that I actually always tried my best to adhere to. I worked with my colleague when he was a minister, too, and we were dealing with transportation issues and roadwork and what have you. It was a hard balance sometimes, and I understand the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure goes through it. Through all the banter we might have, but I understand that.

But you have to have that in your core underneath it. When you don’t feel that’s there as a Member on this side – I know I don’t feel it’s there, and a lot of us don’t – that’s a problem. It’s a problem that I’ll continue to speak about. I’ve spoken about it in the past and I’m going to continue to speak about it in the future and, as time goes on, my stance will never change on that. You have to represent the people you stand for and the people in the province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: I’m recognizing the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you, Speaker, for the opportunity to reply to the previous speaker and to speak to the amendment to the budget.

For those just tuning in, the amendment is a non-confidence motion saying that the Official Opposition does not have confidence in this government. Clearly, they want to go to the polls and to drive an election in this province. While I like elections – I’ve run in seven. My name has appeared on the ballot seven times, Speaker, and while I really enjoy it, I don’t think the people of this province want to go to an election today.

So, Speaker, while the previous speaker – and I have to give kudos to the Member for Conception Bay South for taking an hour and a half to, at times, impertinent comments about the speech, at times amusing comments about the speech, but he made an impassionate speech. But he said one thing in his speech that my theme is going to be on today. He said: if we did a brutal assessment. So, Speaker, I’m going to do a brutal assessment on this budget.

I’ll do a brutal assessment and I’ll base it on 10 years ago. I’ll go back 10 years and I’ll look at when the former Progressive Conservative government brought down their 2013-2014 budget. I’m going to compare it to today, in a few moments that I have.

But before I do that, I want to talk about the financial situation we found ourselves in in 2015 when the Liberal Party became the government, when the Liberals became government, taking over from the Progressive Conservatives. We were $2.7 billion in deficit, Speaker – billion, $2.7 billion in deficit – and we were in the throws of a project that the people of the province were – I think it was called the misguided project by the commissioner who reviewed it.

We were in the midst of a project that would go on, they thought was going to cost $5 billion; it cost $13 billion and really had a serious, very detrimental effect on the people of this province. Now that’s the brutal assessment, Speaker.

But I just go back 10 years ago to the Progressive Conservative budget of 2013-2014. Now, they voted in favour of this budget, but they’re going to vote against the budget that we presented last week that is very financially sound. So go back 10 years ago. They had a deficit of $563.8 million, half a billion dollars in deficit. No cost-of-living measures. No cost-of-living measures. They were laying off over 600 people, 485 employees, 142 fewer teaching positions.

Now, I listened intently to the interim Leader of the Opposition, who talked about one of the reasons why he’s not voting in favour of our budget, Speaker, is because of our investments in education.

I’m surprised, Speaker, that he would have been in favour of a budget that laid off 142 teachers but not in support of $25 million for supports in education that we’re continuing on with, that were put in all because of COVID, like we brought in – I’m just looking up the language from the speech, Speaker, we put in additional supports in schools, additional supports in administration, additional supports in assistance to students, $25 million was put in this year’s budget for that. Plus an additional $12 million to increase teaching services budget.

So here we are in 2012-2013, they took in – if you look at expenses in the year of 2012-2013, you take into today’s dollars, they would have spent more money than we’re spending in this budget, $9.9 billion, if you put it in today’s dollars. Yet, they’re saying we’re spending too much money. We haven’t put the money where they want it and they’re not going to vote in favour of this budget, but they would have voted in favour of over 600 layoffs, a deficit of half a billion dollars. They had over $2 billion in revenues offshore.

We’re going to collect $1 billion, very significant but again only about 12 per cent of our revenues versus it would have been about 30 per cent of their revenues at the time.

So, Speaker, it is perplexing when the Member from Conception Bay South calls for a brutal assessment and you look at this budget, Speaker, and you see that we have wrestled from having significant and ongoing deficits – meaning we are spending more in a year than we were taking in. This year, we had a surplus. In ’22-’23, we had a surplus; ’23-’24 a very small deficit, about 1 per cent of our revenues; and then from there on in a balanced budget. And what we can do with that, Speaker, is we can make more investments for the people of the province. But no, the Members opposite don’t want that.

We said last year that we would have $17.1 billion debt – $17.1 billion in debt. We managed this year – we are at $15.7 billion. Is it low enough? No, I want to do more. We have a strategic plan on financial responsibility that we’re implementing and this House has permitted changes to legislation so that we can address some of the financial challenges and changes that we need, but they’re not in favour of that. They’re not supportive.

It’s strange, Speaker, because one of the bond-rating agencies, DBRS, has actually taken us from a stable watch, which they upgraded us to a stable from negative, negative to stable to positive. But no, they don’t want to vote in favour of that.

Speaker, they talked a lot – I’ve listened. I have copious notes. For those that don’t think that we’re listening, I have copious notes from the Members opposite. I can address everything that they have brought up in this House – copious notes.

But I am going to say this: they said we’re not doing enough in recruitment and retention, $7.6 million for part-time annual commitment pilot project for recruiting physicians; $1 million to support new family physicians; $23 million in total on recruitment and retention. We added five seats to Memorial University’s undergraduate medical education program. Five seats in the family medicine residency program, expanded seat capacity year over year.

Now, Speaker, I’m concerned that they’re voting against this. They spoke favourably about some of the investments that we are making in the new Family Care Teams, $21 million. Now, it’s not enough. This is in addition to the eight we have, the 10 we’re adding. It’s not enough. So they’re going to vote against it. They’re going to vote against it.

We’re going to 35. We’ve already said that. There will be more Family Care Teams. There’s a new model. They said we don’t think you’re doing enough in health care, yet we’re doing a new health information system, Speaker, $15 million; $9 million to consolidate 60 separate ambulance services. They talked about ambulance services and how this was critical and how important it was and we should have done it before, yet they’re not supporting it when we are doing it. Perplexing, Speaker.

We’re adding a new medical flight specialist team for Happy Valley-Goose Bay; $5 million for new virtual care programs to expand access to primary care. We’re increasing the Medical Transportation Assistance Program and we’re moving it to a stand-alone department because it’s that important, but they’re not supporting that.

Then I listened intently when they started to talk about poverty. Yet, they still don’t understand that accessible, inclusive and healthy communities, the accessible, inclusive healthy communities helping with the high cost of living – I can talk about high cost of living. Eliminating the retail sales tax on home insurance, but some of them didn’t like that. Some of them said that’s not of value. Paying tax on home insurance, eliminating it is not of value – unbelievable. It’s $40 million to the coffers of the provincial government that could have been reallocated, but they’re not voting in favour of that.

Sixty million dollars to continue the second-lowest gas tax in the country, but they are not voting in favour of that.

Fifty per cent off the cost of registering your vehicle; home heating supplement, the $500 that we’re providing to people of lower income to help them with their furnace and stove oil, they’re not helping with that. They don’t want to do that. They have now put a non-confidence motion into this House. That means, if it succeeds, we go to an election. That’s what’s important to them; it’s politics. It is not about assisting the people of this province. I think it’s shameful, Speaker – I think it’s shameful.

Here we are in this House of Assembly today debating whether we go to an election versus whether we support home heat. That’s what we’re talking about, Speaker. We’re increasing the Income Supplement; they’re voting against that. We’re increasing the Seniors’ Benefit; they’re voting against that. We increased the income support basic rate by $6.1 million. We’re continuing with the GoBus and Metrobus passes. We are helping with prenatal infant nutrition supplement.

Let me just talk about $200,000 for a Seniors’ Social Inclusion Initiative; they’re voting against that. They want to go to an election. They’re voting against $70 million for affordable housing. Here we’re talking about the social determinants of health, we’re talking about poverty, we’re talking about affordability and they’re not going to vote in favour of 850 new, affordable homes, focused on seniors. I’m perplexed, Speaker. They’d rather go to an election.

That’s what they’re rather do is go to an election. Twenty-five million to support those –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Just bring it down a notch.

Thank you.

I’m recognizing the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: I know they’re just realizing, Speaker, what they’ve done and they’re upset about it, I understand. I understand completely. They should be upset about it.

Twenty-five million dollars will support those in homelessness, but the Progressive Conservatives don’t want to vote in favour of that. They’re voting against it. Seventeen million dollars to maintain, repair and modernize provincial social housing, including vacant units. They’re concerned about poverty, but they’re not voting in favour of that, Speaker.

Ten million dollars in grants to provide homeowners in low income to complete repairs and help with the energy efficiencies, but they’re voting against that. They would rather go to an election. I hope the people of the province recognize that their focus is not on the people of the province; their focus is on an election, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O’DRISCOLL: Thank you, Speaker, I appreciate that.

It’s certainly a pleasure to get up and represent the District of Ferryland. I’m sure they’re going to start but I’ll get through it. I’m sure I will.

I’m going to start with –

AN HON. MEMBER: Witless Bay Line.

L. O’DRISCOLL: No, I won’t start with Witless Bay Line, but we will get there, guaranteed. I won’t have coffee but I’ll get there.

I’ll start on when the minister just said we spent enough in health care and I would say if you go down to the St. Clare’s or Health Sciences and stand up and wait for 12 hours or sit down and wait for 12 hours and go home without being taken care of, then we have to take care of that today. That investment is for the future. There’s no doubt that there are good points in this budget, but it’s a time to look at what’s happening today and how we can correct it in the future and correct it quickly, because that’s the issues we have.

Somebody goes down there, lines up for eight hours – have you ever gone down there and sat there for eight hours or 12 hours and go home? I do the same thing; I’m wondering, how do you go down there and be eight or 12 hours in the emergency department? How does it happen? Are there not enough doctors on staff? I don’t know. I don’t know the issues. I’ve been there. You wonder, are there enough doctors on? I’ve been there for a stretch eight or 10 years ago.

I was there once a week for eight or 10 weeks, and you just go in there at 5 in the morning – and this is before I got into this stuff – with a kidney stone issue and there’s no doctor going to be on until 7:30. Is that happening over there now? I hope not. But for that many people to be sitting in the waiting area – and the other side of that is people don’t go out and sit in the waiting area now; they sit home and suffer because they’re not getting served. They’re not getting taken care of.

Now, if you wait there long enough and people say I’m not going out there for eight hours or I’m not going out there for 10 hours, that is happening today. Not later on in the future, that’s happening today and how do we correct the problem is what we’ve got to get at. That’s the issue we’ve got. I will get to – I knew I was going to start on it today – the ambulance issue. I do thank the minister, again, just for having a meeting and right now the ambulance is back in Cape Broyle. We do have an ambulance there and I certainly thank him for that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. O’DRISCOLL: I certainly appreciate it and the people of the district appreciate it because I’ve got a story here I’m going to read and it’s not because, you know, it’s back there. It’s what happens when it’s not there and what could happen in Trepassey is the issue that I’ve got. I’m not reading this to horrify anybody. It’s what actually happens. You sit there and you listen to it and it’s pretty scary. It is scary to read and scary for the person that it’s happening to.

I’ve been in my district now in the last, I’m going to say, couple of days. I mentioned in a talk the last time about an ambulance issue at the arena and I was at the arena, I’m going to say Sunday night, when there was a medical alert on the ice for a goaltender that was on the ice. Thankfully he’s good. He’s okay. He’s still in the hospital, but he’s in the right spot. The first responders that were there were incredible. The fire department showed up. There was a nurse showed up on the ice.

There was a paramedic that was in the audience that came out and helped, the staff of the arena and everybody in the arena. It was incredible, what a great job they did. I’ve got to give them kudos I’ve got to tell you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. O’DRISCOLL: It was scary in the arena. Last night, there was another game there and people said I guess you’re timing the ambulance, how long it’s taking to get there, because they know I’ve been on the issue. But the stone-cold silence that was in that arena for a half hour was scary. We’re waiting on an ambulance. That wasn’t the issue. They did what they had to do and they showed up in approximately a half hour and they did what they had to do and they did a great job. It’s always a concern where it’s coming from and how long it’s going to take. That was a prime example then. There were 1,000 people watching that with stone-cold silence. It was pretty scary.

So this letter here I had from a constituent, she said: I’m writing you this letter about our ambulance services health care allocations for the Southern Shore or lack thereof, at that time. I’m still in disbelief about what happened. Never did I think I would be speaking as a first-hand account of this horrible illusion that we have medical emergency services in our area. On February 9, ’23, myself, my partner of 15 years and our 10-year-old daughter were having a normal morning, with a bit of excitement for our afternoon: a family wedding. As we were getting ready for the drive to St. John’s, my partner said his acid reflux was acting up again.

This was a normal occurrence at times, as he had a weak stomach his whole lifetime. I said you’re just nervous about your son’s wedding this afternoon. I told him I’d drive to the city and he could relax in the back. That was all there was to it.

His morning routine was no different than any other day. That was all there was to it. He said his morning routine was no different, no complaints, no pain, no tightness, nothing. As I was driving, she said, I looked in the rear-view mirror and smiled or nodded and gave a look.

Driving through Ferryland, just between Ferryland and the Calvert border, he looked like he might be sick. I began to pull over but he waved me on. She said I continued on to drive a little more, no more than a tire rotation and he said my name. I looked and he again waved me on to keep going. I pulled over, jumped in the backseat, no response.

Our 10-year-old daughter called 911. I got back in the driver’s seat and rapidly turned the vehicle around to the Shamrock Medical Clinic; 911 was asking questions while we were driving as best we could. They said ambulance and fire were dispatched. I asked where is the ambulance responding from? They said Holyrood. She said I ran into the clinic asking and yelling for immediate assistance and one nurse practitioner came out first with myself. The nurse practitioner pulled him out of the back seat on the asphalt in the parking lot and we began CPR and an assessment.

Another nurse practitioner and the pharmacist came out and they all worked on him. Then an unemployed paramedic driving by saw the commotion in the parking lot and came to offer his assistance. By the way, our 10-year-old daughter was still on the phone with 911 observing all of this.

This scene was continuing for an hour and 45 minutes, waiting for the ambulance to show up. He was still lying on the parking lot for another 20 minutes or so after they arrived. Once he was ready to be transferred to the ambulance, an EMR said some of you medical people have to go with me in the back of the ambulance because I’m not equipped to be able to take care of him.

The unemployed paramedic, a stranger driving by, offered to continue his services. I followed the ambulance to Cape Broyle where a paramedic from St. John’s met this ambulance with my partner and in that way swapped positions. I continued to follow the ambulance to St. John’s and drivers on the road do not pull over. That’s certainly an issue that we certainly experienced.

I’m assuming you know the outcome of this situation. My partner and father of a 10 year old had died.

Now, I don’t want to read anymore of that, but I mean it’s pretty horrific what happened to this family.

I have another email there I could read as well.

But, thank God, we got the ambulance back in the area and it’s served.

Now, we’re looking at a rapid response team, because in Trepassey we had two ambulances and we went back to one. They took that ambulance out of Trepassey, moved it back to Cape Broyle to service the area. Last week, they told me in a meeting, they moved it to Cape Broyle because they probably could get more paramedics to go in that area, rather than further up.

The first I heard of it. It’s like I’m hearing firsts every time. They get briefed, they tell then what they should be saying, and this is what the answer is. That’s not acceptable.

All we know is that there is no ambulance in Cape Broyle. There were two in Trepassey and they moved it to Cape Broyle and they’re not looking at the facts of what the issue is, Speaker. They’re not looking at the facts. It’s the geography in Trepassey, driving across the barrens. They had two ambulances.

If we’re speaking today and an ambulance leaves Trepassey, it’s gone at least, I’m going to say, a minimum of eight hours. I’m not exaggerating, two hours out. If there’s neither one up there they got two to get up, two to get back and two to get back up there again. I mean, there’s a minimum of eight or 10 hours. They don’t just drop them off at the hospital. They got to wait until they’re triaged and checked in. They have to stay with the patient until they’re actually taken care of.

We had an incident during the year that they had a patient there waiting to get triaged and they got another call to go to Cape Broyle. The ambulance that was from Trepassey, and they asked them if they could triage that patient so they could go answer the call and they did. So that’s the kind of circumstances that happen. The same as the weekend up there, and the same that the weekend that your granddaughter was there in the arena, I mean it’s just too long to be waiting. It’s too long to be waiting.

I met with the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development last night. We met with the Town of Witless Bay and we met with the fire department in Witless Bay regarding trying to get some ambulance service. They’re working on getting a new fire department and they’re hoping to be able to put an ambulance in that building as well, which would be a great idea for the district and the area of Bay Bulls. Witless Bay is the biggest group outside in the Goulds area; it’s the biggest group where the population is. It’s a real good idea.

We were speaking last night, the fire department in Witless Bay, because we were there last night, had 295 calls last year, 220 were medical. Now, that’s a big number to have medical calls for your fire department. They’re doing most of the work and they’re triaging these patients until the ambulance arrives. So it’s a fairly big issue. Again, I do appreciate that the minister, for different circumstances that we did get paramedics, we do appreciate your work on it and I certainly do, I can tell you that. I certainly do because the response that I get every time, I can only be complimentary.

We have other fellows here saying the same thing and other people here saying the same thing when they’re calling you.

If the answer is no, then the answer is no, but the call back is what means the most to an MHA because we’re calling you because we’ve got problems in our district and we’re looking to get direction. You might put me on to someone else, but that’s where it’s to. We need to have people that call us back. If I text you, I don’t expect an answer back in an hour but I’ve got them lots of times, I certainly do, but, you know, if it’s the next day, fine. But not getting an answer when you say, can you give me a call. I’ve got this issue or you probably don’t even tell the issue. Can you give me a quick call?

We’re just trying to find out the direction we need to go or how we can get the help and it just doesn’t happen all of the time with everybody. That’s all I’m going to say.

I’m not going to point any fingers, but it’s certainly appreciated when I get a call and I am sure our Members over here can speak the same to that. When we get a call back, if the answer is no, that’s fine. We’ll battle through that and we’ll try to figure that out and we’ll fight and argue with them and give our displeasure for it, but that’s our job to do that. As the Member from CBS said, that’s our job, to act for whoever calls and that’s what we’re going to do. That’s what I’m going to do, whether they take it the wrong way. Never take it personally, never, because it’s not mean to be personal.

Now you might say something that’s out of the way sometimes but it’s not meant to be personal. I can guarantee that. Never. We’re trying to take care of the district.

I’ll go on to daycare and we talk about $10-a-day daycare. I sort of get the gears from my caucus here on this because I started this a few years ago but it’s a bigger issue right now. To them it was a joke because I was talking about it.

My daughter got two kids, one is three years old and the other is 16 months old. She put her name in for daycare in the Bay Bulls region because we had a lifestyle centre there that had a 48-spot daycare. She put her name in before the kid was born. When she was pregnant she put her name in. She never ever got into that daycare, ever.

Now there was a new daycare opened up and she ended up getting a spot in this new daycare. It started in January and our youngest grandson got in in January when he was one year old, which was really great. He got in for a full day, but the oldest grandson, he only got in for half a day. So now my daughter is a teacher, my son-in-law is a teacher and my wife works so who are we going to get to take care of the kid? Now the kid is out at 12 and we’ve got to arrange for someone to pick him up at 12.

That’s a daycare issue, but it’s half a day and they were grateful to get that, but there’s a big issue of giving $10-a-day daycare. It’s just as well you gave it away for free. There are no spots to put anyone, if you paid them all. There are no spots to put anyone.

I listen to the minister there talk about building stuff or putting money towards it – 850 housing units going to be built. That’s great but they’re not going to appear tomorrow. That is well more than a year away, for sure. Look, the investment is good, no question, but as a plan – yes, finally a plan. We’ll see how that goes.

We look at announcements – I’ve been in here and maybe we should do some recruiting because we could call you the spin doctors for what goes on sometimes, it’s unbelievable. Maybe you could recruit them. Spin doctors, going out putting out releases and releasing it today; three months’ time, six months’ time, go back and make the same announcement. How often has it happened? It happened a lot since I’ve been here. It’s just annoying to hear that you’re re-announcing something. It’s just incredible.

Now, I will get on to some construction issues in the department of highways. I will certainly thank the minister for the pavement that I am receiving in my district, the pavement that he is replacing.

E. LOVELESS: This year and next year.

L. O’DRISCOLL: Well, we didn’t get the details. That’s why we asked, what are the details? We’re not getting the details. We need to know what it is. If it’s this year and next year and the year after, I’d be some happy but we don’t know the details, so it’s hard to brag. But I do thank you. I will thank you for that. There’s no problem, not an issue with that. But we have sections of road in our district and brush cutting – we haven’t got it yet. Wait until I gets in to be able to rollerblade or drive a car on it and we’ll see how it is.

I’ll use a sippy cup now when I drive Witless Bay Line but I’ll get (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

L. O’DRISCOLL: But Witless Bay Line is a

section about eight kilometres. You done one end a few years back and the other end was done before we got here, so in the middle there’s a seven- or eight-kilometre

section that once it’s done, it’s done. It’s a 30-year investment for sure.

The roads that we are getting paved are up in the district and I’m happy to say that. The pavement is 37 years old, according to the people in the district up in St. Shott’s area between Trepassey and St. Shott’s. I tell you, it’s not fit to drive on. A sippy cup – you’d need a five-gallon bucket to drink out of, going up over that, it’s that bad. It’s unbelievable how bad it is. But we will get there, and I’m sure that the minister is going to try to take care of it. It’s something that we certainly should be looking at.

I’m running down out of time. I only have four minutes left. I’ll talk about the sugar tax for a second. This has been on here since I came in. There’s no doubt, I think they got $12 million this year. They budgeted for $9 million and they ended up taking $12 million. So it didn’t change anything. Maybe the cost of drinks has gone up and it costs more. Maybe that’s where the millions are coming from, I’m not sure.

But when they had the meeting with these groups like Coca-Cola, Pepsi and all these groups, when they met with them – and this is how it happened; you met with the people and you told them this is what we’re doing. There was no consulting. They went in and said this is what we’re doing with the Pepsi and the sugar tax and Coca-Cola groups. That’s what they said when they met.

When they’re talking to the groups that are doing the drinks, they’re telling them here’s what we’re doing. There’s no say in it. They say they consulted; they didn’t consult. Now they have to go out and these groups that are selling this brand, they have to go to the places that have to change their systems, change the POS systems in their companies, cost them thousands of dollars – thousands. And there was no consultation on that. They went out and told them here’s what we’re doing. They had no say.

We spoke to the people that are there. In my mind, they’re doing their job. They take the sugar, they take a Pepsi or Coke, Diet Pepsi, Diet Coke, no sugar-free. It’s just unbelievable. They are trying to do what they’re doing. They’re trying to improve the area in sugar tax and lower it down. But now they’re going to jump in and put a tax on these people who are trying to run their business to be able to do it and make a profit. Now they’re cutting into that, because they’re responsible now to try different stuff and get tax on it.

We sit here and listen to it day after day on sugar tax, and they just force it on the people. Giving out $500, that was a great idea last year. The people loved it who qualified for it. But why tax them and give it back to them? It makes no sense. It’s like me giving him $20 there now and then give it back tomorrow. What’s the sense of that? Why tax them? Take the taxes off and don’t give them back a cheque of $500. Lower the taxes. That’s the issue.

We sit here and listen to it. I tell you they spin everything around. Every time you say something they spin – yes, there are lots of good things in that budget, but there are lots of things we’re still fighting for, I can tell you that, tons of stuff.

I’m running out of time. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change, hopefully he’ll be able to get up when his turn comes and give us an explanation on the heat pump works for families and how it all affects the families. This $5,000 credit, hopefully he’ll get up and explain how it all works. Because I had a lady and gentleman who are 80 years old that lived in a place that’s not a Local Service District, that’s not a town, they’re living on a road and they were going to avail of it. They’re 80 years old.

When they went to go check into it, they qualified for it. This is where it’s to when the Member for Bonavista said yesterday about costs. When it came to be able to put in this heat pump, it cost her $800 for someone to come in and look at it. Again, hopefully he’ll give us an explanation of how this works. Someone comes in and does an assessment and someone else has to come in – it cost them $800. Do you know what she had to tell them? That she couldn’t afford to do it.

There’s the situation – $800. She couldn’t afford. She wanted the heat pump. It was certainly going to help her but she could not afford the $800 to get that done. Now, the department did call back and said they were going to help her out and put in a loan plan that hopefully she’d be able to pay back but they are the explanations that we need so the people can understand how that works.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER (Bennett): The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

The House do now recess until 2 p.m.

SPEAKER: This House do stand recessed until 2 this afternoon.

Recess

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

Before we begin, in the public gallery, I would like to welcome Penelope Rowe. I guess we all better know her as Penny, who will be recognized today in a Ministerial Statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Also in the public gallery, I would like to welcome members from the Newfoundland and Labrador Childhood Licensees.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: In our Speaker’s gallery, to my left, I would like to welcome Herman Perry, Sheila Perry, Hazen Scarth and June Perry. They are visiting us this afternoon for a Member’s statement.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Also in the Speaker’s gallery, I am pleased to welcome representatives from the Moose Hide Campaign: David Stevenson, CEO; Sage Lacerte, National Ambassador; and Alexandra Armstrong, Executive Coordinator. I also add that today is Alexandra’s birthday so happy birthday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Today, our Legislature is participating in the Moose Hide Campaign. We are one of two Legislatures across the country that are participating and this year marks our sixth consecutive year.

I would like to thank all Members for joining us earlier today and thank you to Todd Russell, President of the NunatuKavut Community Council, who led us this morning in reflection and prayer.

The Moose Hide Campaign is an Indigenous-led initiative that stands up against violence towards women and children. It is a valuable opportunity for learning and reconciliation.

While it is an Indigenous-led initiative, it allows all Canadians to add their voice to the call to put an end to domestic and gender-based violence.

Today, the Members of the House of Assembly are wearing their moose hide pin to show their commitment to honour, respect and protect the women and children in our lives and to work together on this important initiative.

Thank you.

Also, I would like to recognize and bid a farewell to one of our two Pages.

Tanisha has been a Page for the past two years and today is her last day with us. She has accepted a position with the Graduate Recruitment Program of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: – while she continues here Ph.D. studies at MUN on a part-time basis.

Also, another Page, who is not present here today with us, Gala, she’s accepted a summer student position with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. She’s been offered a master’s program scholarship at Dalhousie University starting this fall. Gala has been a Page with us for the last year and a half.

I would like to ask all Members to join me in showing our appreciation to Tanisha and Gala and wish them all the best in their future endeavours.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

SPEAKER: Today, we’ll hear statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Baie Verte - Green Bay, Placentia - St. Mary’s, Placentia West - Bellevue, St. George’s - Humber and Mount Scio, with leave.

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

B. WARR: Speaker, I rise in this hon. House to recognize a U11 female hockey team from my district on their accomplishments at the recent female hockey provincials.

The U11 Springdale Braves joined with the U11 Grand Falls-Windsor Cataracts to create one amazing team. Due to distance between communities, the girls were unable to practise together, only joining together at games and tournaments, but that didn’t stop or hinder them. Each tournament they competed in, they brought home gold. Affectionately calling themselves the Brave Cats, the girls competed in the A/B provincials on the Southern Shore, being graded at the top slot.

They endured some tough competition, but through their hard work and dedication, they came home with the A division banner. I would like to congratulate the entire team and their bench staff on such an incredible achievement.

Special congratulations to the girls from my district of Baie Verte - Green Bay: Peyton Blackler, Jessa Moss, Skye Keefe, Jayda Freake, Lila Rowsell and Alice McKenna-Smith, as well as their coaches Nathan Payne, Sue Ann Rowsell and their trainer Kara Moss.

I would also like to recognize and congratulate the girls from the Grand Falls-Windsor Cataracts and their coaches.

I invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Springdale Braves and the Grand Falls-Windsor Cataracts on winning the female A division hockey provincials.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia - St. Mary’s.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Speaker, on January 26 of this year, Healey’s Store in Freshwater, Placentia celebrated their 65th year in business.

With the resettlement of Argentia, John and Doris Healey and their family moved to Freshwater. John built the store with help from family and friends and he and Doris, along with their son Richard, opened the doors for business.

Richard and Mary Healey have been married for 54 years and have four children. Richard has worked in Healey’s store for 65 years and Mary for 54.

Over the years, each child and grandchild had their turn helping with the family business. Their daughter Suzanne is in her 21st year working in the store. You can find a little bit of everything at Healey’s. From the old-time candy house, chips, deli meats, canned goods and frozen food, hammers, nails, plumbing and even electrical supplies. If there’s something you need and they don’t have it, they will try their best to get it.

There’s a saying in the Freshwater area: If Healey’s don’t have it, you don’t need it.

Healey’s store always had a welcome mat and a friendly atmosphere.

Please join me as I congratulate the Healey family on their tremendous success.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DWYER: Thank you, Speaker.

Today, I rise in this hon. House to recognize the Town of Sunnyside in the beautiful District of Placentia West - Bellevue on the grand opening of their new Wellness Centre, which took place on Friday, March 31, 2023.

The fitness centre has a spectacular view of Sunnyside Harbour. It was officially opened in February 2022 and is equipped with all new fitness equipment. The gymnasium and boardroom opened in July of 2022 and the new gymnasium floor was completed in January 2023.

To date, they have held family reunions, volleyball games, dances, birthday parties, darts and dinners and are fully equipped to hold training sessions.

The new Wellness Centre brings opportunities to not only Sunnyside but for the surrounding areas to come together to get active, reconnect and, most importantly, have fun.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to please join me in congratulating the Town of Sunnyside and to recognize the hard work and dedication brought forward that made this Wellness Centre possible.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. George’s - Humber.

S. REID: Speaker, today, I pay tribute to a group of committed volunteers in the Town of St. George’s who are making a big difference in their community.

Helping Hands – the name of the group – started in 2021 as COVID was starting its impacts on businesses, community groups and individuals. Branch 38 of the Royal Canadian Legion in St. George’s was struggling to stay open. The executive approached Conrad White, a councillor in the town, seeking help from the town.

The town did not have the resources to help all those in need, but they put out a call for volunteers. At their first meeting, 17 people came forward. Their first project was a walkathon where they raised over $5,000. They were able to make a donation to keep the Legion in the community running.

Since then, they have initiated other fundraisers and made donations to other groups such as the cadet corps, the volunteer fire department, the school breakfast program, church groups, the community garden and sponsored a Christmas dinner for over 100 seniors in their community. They don’t intend to stop there either. They are planning to establish a scholarship in the community and to help people in need of assistance in attending medical appointments.

I congratulate Conrad White and the expanding group of dedicated volunteers, the Helping Hands, in the Town of St. George’s.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Scio is requesting leave for a Member’s statement. Does she have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

The hon. the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker, and thank you, colleagues.

I stand today to recognize and congratulate Mr. Herman Perry on the completion of his trans-continental canoe odyssey from Rigolet, Labrador to Emmonak, Alaska on the Bering Sea.

Herman was born in Charlottetown, Labrador and grew up in Daniel’s Harbour. Herman loved the outdoors and when he was 17 in 1967, he, along with his brother and cousin, hiked to Jackson’s Arm on the other side of the Great Northern Peninsula. In 1970, he paddled with a friend from Wabush, Labrador to Seven Islands on the St. Lawrence River. Over the next 50 years, Herman spent 236 days on the water paddling almost 10,000 kilometres across Northern Canada and Alaska.

This is a tremendous accomplishment of incredible perseverance. Herman’s wife Sheila was instrumental in the preparation and completion of his adventures.

Throughout Herman’s journey, he was joined by friends including his brother-in-law Paul Snow. In 2022, at 72 years of age and in 72 days, Herman and long-time friend Gerry Coleman paddled 2,800 kilometres from the Mackenzie River Delta to where the Yukon River meets the Pacific Ocean. This final

chapter of the journey included low temperatures, lots of mosquitos and lifting heavy gear through fast-running waters. Last year’s summer trip included several portages and the traverse of the Rocky Mountains.

Herman’s story is an inspiration and a reminder that, as age, we can live an active, healthy lifestyle. Herman’s journey is admirable and I would ask the House to congratulate Mr. Perry and his paddling friends Gerry Coleman and Paul Snow on the completion of their journeys and to share our best wishes for their future adventures.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

J. ABBOTT: Thank you, Speaker.

It is my pleasure today to recognize the outstanding contributions of Penelope Rowe, who retired earlier this year after a career of over 40 years as the leader of the Newfoundland and Labrador’s Community Sector Council.

As a founding member of the council and as its Chief Executive Officer, Ms. Rowe has been a powerful force behind community development in the province. Her work has helped connect community organizations, build volunteerism and shape public policy through research and advocacy.

From journalism to politics, from early childhood education to supplying computers and iPads to citizens du