PDF Version

April 23, 2024 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 66

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we begin this afternoon, in the public gallery, I'd like to welcome Tyler Hynes and his parents Beth and Eugene Hynes. They're here this afternoon for a Member's statement.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

SPEAKER: Today, we'll hear statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Terra Nova, Torngat Mountains, Bonavista, Exploits, Topsail - Paradise and Fortune Bay- Cape La Hune, with leave.

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to congratulate athletes from the Terra Nova District.

The Royal Newfoundland Regiment Memorial High School Hockey Tournament started last Thursday. This is the largest high school tournament in our province, dedicated to the memory of those fallen comrades who never made it home.

This tournament plays 80 games in seven days, which, for the players, officials and volunteers, makes for an unforgettable weekend of hockey.

The Discovery Collegiate Destroyers, with the help of five female players from the Clarenville Minor Hockey system, won the girls battalion division.

The Glovertown Eagles, in combination with J. M. Old Collegiate of Twillingate, won the female bronze medal.

The defending champions from last year, Clarenville High Cougars male team, came up a little short this year, but they played well and enjoyed their weekend thoroughly.

A member of last year's team, Jaden Peddle, returned in a reservist role with the Royal Newfoundland Regiment to volunteer. We thank him for his service.

Long may their legacy live on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

The late Cecil Jacque of Postville left school at Grade 9, when his father took ill. He had to help his family. Cecil's first paying job was building roads in Postville using a pick and shovel. Man, they sure made you work too. That was Cecil, a hard-working man, always providing for his family.

Cecil shared stories about caribou hunts, fishing at Aillik and the Brinex days. His stories kept memories of Elders alive: George Sheppard, Fred Decker, Aunt Birdie, Uncle Johnny and all those who are now gone. Good stories told in a gentle voice about hard work, a bit of fun and caring for each other. Cecil's sense of humour may have got him into a bit of trouble in residential schools. Get a strap every morning, I used to, I think, Cecil would laugh.

Cecil's legacy, a decent hard-working Christian, caring for his community and those around him, especially his children and his wife Matilda – Tilley. Love birds they were, still in love after 55 years of marriage. His children: hard-working, kind, respectful, traits they learned from Cecil and Tilley.

Cecil was a man worth listening to. He lives on in our memories. A man loved and respected is never forgotten.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Speaker, this past weekend saw the clashing of 16 of the province's male and female high school hockey teams compete in the 7th annual Royal Newfoundland Regiment Memorial High School Hockey Tournament in Paradise and Mount Pearl.

I would like to congratulate all who participated in this tournament and congratulate the male team from Holy Heart high.

While the District of Bonavista has much to celebrate, we were over the moon this past weekend with the D. C. Destroyers from the Discovery Collegiate High School in Bonavista, winning the female division. This school from rural Newfoundland, along with some players from adjacent schools, competed against much larger schools and performed admirably.

In the quarter finals, they defeated the reigning champs, Queen Elizabeth Regional High and the path to the gold medal was opened up.

In the finals, captain Jordyn Piercey, assistant captains Hannah White, Klaire Hayward and Jada Mouland, led the team against Corner Brook Regional High, winning 5 to 2.

Bonavista has a storied history of hockey success and this past weekend's tournament indicated that the skill set of our athletes remains amongst the province's best.

I ask Members of the 50th House of Assembly to join me in celebrating the female Discovery Collegiate hockey team.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Thank you, Speaker.

Today, I would like to recognize and congratulate Mrs. Ella Humphries of Northern Arm on 38 years of service to the town. Ella will be retiring on June 28, after serving as town clerk. During this time, Ella has been a staple to the community with dedication and commitment. She has also worked with multiple mayors and councillors and has shown she has the knowledge and passion to achieve enhancements and projects to carry the town forward.

Speaker, I would like for all Members of the House of Assembly to join me in congratulating Mrs. Ella Humphries on her retirement and to thank her for her many years of service.

Thank you.

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

P. DINN: Speaker, every tab counts as Topsail-Paradise resident Tyler Hynes collects pull tabs from aluminum cans and donates them to the Ronald McDonald House Charities here in St. John's.

Tyler was two years old when he was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia and remained in treatment until he was five. Tyler, now 13 and cancer free –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. DINN: – did not stay at the Ronald McDonald House but sees the importance of giving back.

Since 2019, Tyler, with the help of his stepfather Eugene, has been collecting pull tabs. Each December, they donated them to Ronald McDonald House Charities to be recycled and Ronald McDonald House Charities Newfoundland and Labrador is then paid for the weight of the aluminum.

This year's goal was to reach one million tabs, and this was possible with the tremendous support from caring people in Newfoundland and Labrador and across Canada. They estimate that this year's collection was over 850 pounds, which translates to between 1.1 million and 1.2 million tabs collected. And they are not stopping there, as Tyler hopes to get a million or more again next year.

We do thank the Speaker's office for starting on that as well. Thank you for the donation.

Speaker, I wish to congratulate Tyler on his amazing dedication to fundraising to help others and wish him continued success.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, with leave.

Does the Member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

E. LOVELESS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, April 18, I had the pleasure of participating in a ceremony of the documentary of The Forgotten Warriors at the Miawpukek First Na ti ons community centre in Conne River. First-time filmmaker Noel Joe created the documentary and to use his words: “It is a story of hope and pride …. The sacrifice that was made and the determina ti on.”

It was an evening of many emo ti ons that included laughter, tears and anger as we watched the hunger for jus ti ce in this story of a nine-day hunger strike by Mi'kmaw ac ti vists in 1983. That protest was led by re ti red Miawpukek Chief Mi'sel Joe, alongside of his four brothers: Andy Joe, Billy Joe, Ches Joe and Aubrey Joe and friends Wilfred Drew, Mike Benoit, George Drew and Rick Jeddore. Three of them, Ches Joe, Wilfred Drew and George Drew are now deceased.

Reconcilia ti on with our Indigenous leaders and communi ti es is very important and we have come a long way since 1983 and we will con ti nue to strive to be inclusive in all that we do.

I ask all Members to join me in congratulat i ng Noel Joe on this documentary and please take the ti me to watch The Forgotten Warriors .

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

J. ABBOTT: Thank you, Speaker.

I rise today to highlight our commitment to advancing improvements in transportation infrastructure throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, supported by our government's unprecedented multi-year funding commitment.

With close to 10,000 kilometres of provincial roads and highways, we have once again developed a balanced approach for this year's highway construction season, supported by an investment of $288 million in Budget 2024 .

The Provincial Roads Plan is based on input from departmental engineers and the travelling public. Other significant factors in determining the list of highway construction projects include the impacts of climate change; commercial, industry and tourism impacts; traffic volumes; and populations serviced.

Speaker, in recent weeks, we have already issued tenders for significant road improvements in areas including Jackson's Arm, Cormack, Bay de Verde, Trepassey, Witless Bay Line – repeat, Witless Bay Line – Bay d'Espoir, Labrador West, Burgeo and the Northern Peninsula, with much more on the horizon.

It's going to be a busy construction season as we prepare to upgrade many roads, highways and bridges all across our province. The work we are all doing will support communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador and will help drive social and economic activity in rural and urban areas.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Speaker.

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

Speaker, road infrastructure is a crucial part of this province. Not only is it the mechanism for economic growth across the province, but the key lifeline for residents' daily activities. It's our hope that as we kick off tourism season, tourists who are actually able to rent a vehicle or drive their own don't leave our province with horror stories caused by the neglect of our rural roads.

The minister appears to be working toward the top recycling award, as the 2024 budget reannounces many road improvements previously committed to as far back as 2022. We hope that the Liberal Furey government is fully engaged in completing the mentioned road improvements, unlike the trend they have set thus far. And it's pretty good that Witless Bay Line has made the list. It must be some bad to get in the Liberal book.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement.

Roads are the links to keep our communities together and support our economy and help it grow. As a key element of infrastructure, we want them to remain in the public hands.

That's why we're calling on this government to cancel plans of the twinning of the Trans-Canada as a P3 project. Reinvest the money that is used towards private profits and put it back into regional transit and a regional transit plan to bring down cost of travelling throughout our province, as it's so expensive right now and there is no plan for regional transportation.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Are there any further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.

During Estimates on Friday, the Minister of Health and Community Services was unable to provide a final cost for 2021 cyberattack.

So I ask the Premier: Three years later, how much taxpayers' dollars did the largest cyberattack in Canadian history cost this province?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As we know, the cyberattack was quite a disruptive period of time in the health care system across the province. We struck a committee to ensure that it would not happen again and that we would have a robust cyberattack prevention system.

The Minister of Health and the former minister of Health had put together a plan and we intend to enact that plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Again, Speaker, this was an attack that shut down our health care system and impacted many people across Newfoundland and Labrador.

I once again ask the Premier: How much was the final cost of this cyberattack?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We committed, during Estimates, to get some figures for the Members opposite. In 2022-23. it was almost $4 million spent on enhancements; almost $15 million last year; this coming year, it will be almost $12 million spent on enhancements; and there will be continuous funding in future years to enhance IT to ensure that it is as secure as possibly can be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, I'll try again.

NL Health Services now has a credit line of almost $600 million that has been maxed out. How much of that debt is related to payouts for the cyberattack? I want to know, how much money have we paid out for this cyberattack?

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

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure if the information on what has been paid out is available. I know that international agencies and federal agencies have indicated to us that there is certain information that should not be put into the public realm to help prevent future cyberattacks. This is one of those pieces of information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, during Estimates on Friday as well, it was confirmed that the new Western Memorial Hospital will open later this year without a PET scanner. This was a promise made to the people of Western Newfoundland by the former Liberal premier, so way back, in writing in 2014.

I ask the current Premier: Are you breaking this promise?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As you are aware, we are quite happy that the new Western Memorial is going to open.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. FUREY: It's going to be fabulous. It was announced by the Members opposite but completed by this side. We're happy that it's going to be open. We're happy that it's going to serve the people of Western Newfoundland. It's going to offer a diverse set of services.

With respect to the PET scanner, we did transfer a sum of money to the Western health authority to secure, to ensure that when it was necessary, as the doctors proclaimed it to be necessary, that there would be at least a financial downpayment available to them to be spent. That was the commitment of the last election campaign and that's the one that we maintain.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, I'll ask the question one more time, again, to the Premier: Are you committing to a PET scanner for Western Newfoundland?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I just said, during the last election campaign, we agreed that we would transfer money to the Western health care foundation to hold in trust, should a PET scanner be required. Then we would be there to support a PET scanner implementation, but that we had discussions with the radiologists out there, Mr. Speaker, the doctors out there. That is a medical decision, a clinical decision – I know they don't want to hear it, but an operational decision.

We did commit to making sure that the money was in trust with the foundation and, as I understand, it still sits there today, should and when it is needed to secure a PET scanner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, I'm not so sure that that's a commitment at all, but we've been hearing that government is waiting – quote – for recommendations from the cancer care professionals that the government has not been able to hire yet. The cancer clinic still has a lack of radiation oncologists, radiation therapists, medical physicists and others.

So again, Speaker, I ask the Premier: Is the new cancer care clinic in Western Memorial ever going to open?

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

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our recruitment initiatives have secured a number of positions for Western Memorial, Mr. Speaker. The health authority continues to recruit for other positions. In terms of the PET scanner, we have provided $2 million to the foundation in Western to ensure that when they need that unit, it will be there.

We ensured, through Transportation and Infrastructure, that the new Western Memorial hospital was outfitted with space that can accommodate a PET scanner. The decision to put in a PET scanner is based on the health authority and health care professionals who will determine when and if that is needed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Again, Speaker, no firm commitment. Again, we've been told that the new clinic, if it ever opens, will only offer very basic services such as prostate and breast cancer treatment. More advanced care will still have to go to St. John's.

I ask the Premier: Can you confirm this?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a modern facility. It will offer modern treatment options for the people of the West Coast. This government is committed to that, unlike the Member opposite who is committed to taking services away from rural Newfoundland. We want to make sure that we're investing –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

A. FUREY: A paved road, though.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

Premier, you have 20 more seconds.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Som, as we have been committed to finishing that hospital, we're committed to the people who are going to serve in that hospital. We're committed to the patients who are going to receive services in that hospital, including a modern suite of available services for cancer, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, what I have continued to ask is the commitment there for the PET scanner, when – when is it going to happen? That's the question that needs to be asked.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: Secondly, what does the new cancer care clinic look like? Is it only going to be the basic services or will advanced care actually be carried out at Western Memorial?

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

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure how much more committed you can be than putting the funding in place and the space in place to ensure that if a PET scanner is needed on the West Coast, if the health authority determine and the cancer health professionals determine that it is required on the West Coast, that it is there.

The money is there, the space is there, the commitment has been fulfilled to put the funding there and the space there. The professional judgment on whether or not that should be put in place is up to the provincial health authority, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

So obviously, there's no commitment.

One thing the minister left out is the staff are not there. That's the problem; they're lacking staff.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: It has to be more than smoke and mirrors and photo ops, Speaker, there needs to be action and we don't see any action across the way.

Speaker, during Estimates on Friday, the minister also confirmed the health authority is seeking legal advice on the appropriateness of the travel nursing contracts.

Speaker, is the legal advice the result of findings of the Comptroller General?

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

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I have to address the

preamble. The Member said smoke and mirrors and unfilled commitments. I remember sitting in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, in 2007, when that side committed to the Western Memorial hospital. Again, announced it in 2008. Again, they announced it in 2009. Again, they announced it in 2010. They announced it again in 2011. They announced it again in 2012.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. OSBORNE: They announced it in 2013. They announced it in 2014 and in 2015. Mr. Speaker, it was actually done when this party came to power in 2016.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

Maybe the minister while he was a Member of that party and that caucus for all those years, maybe he should have delivered instead of sitting in the back, keeping his mouth quiet. Maybe he should have spoke up for the people of Western Newfoundland –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: – instead of getting up now.

I ask the minister once again: Is the legal advice the result of findings from the Comptroller General? Is this legal advice you're seeking now a result of some findings from the Comptroller General?

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

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, again, I have to address the

preamble.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the Member recalls, but I left that party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. OSBORNE: I left that party because of unfilled commitments.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: In 2012, Speaker – all those other years he was a happy Member of the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador. One of the happier Members – his full family used to be here. Not just him; his entire family used to be here. That is a wild, big divorce.

Minister, can you answer the question? Is this legal advice a result of the Comptroller General? Are you avoiding that answer?

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

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the advice that the provincial health authority is seeking is based on information that was brought to light, obviously, based on discussions between the department and the health authority.

The review by the Comptroller General, which has now been passed over to the Auditor General, the subsequent and full review by the Auditor General, Mr. Speaker, will look at the appropriateness of spending, the contracts and a number of other issues. The health authority is looking at whether or not the contracts have been fulfilled to the letter of the contract, which is something we asked them to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: So we finally got confirmation that the Comptroller General did find some things, they forwarded it on to the minister and the minister called the AG in to get cover for the Comptroller General. This is what we see happening here.

So, Minister, we also learned Friday that an investigation is under way whether someone at the health authority may have signed off on something that was inappropriate.

Can you table the basis of these findings that the Comptroller General obviously forwarded to you before you contacted the AG?

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

T. OSBORNE: See, Mr. Speaker, again, we have the Member on the other side trying to create a story and put words in somebody's mouth that never actually came out.

Mr. Speaker, we've indicated that the Comptroller General's review was in the initial stages. The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board has indicated that there were no findings, Mr. Speaker. The investigation was passed over to the Auditor General because the Auditor General made the decision to start a full and comprehensive review.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Speaker, the minister just said in the previous question that through conversations they had with the health authority and the Comptroller General's office, they decided to bring the AG in. That's basically what he's saying. We all know what's going on. They found things that are not up to scratch. It's his words, not my words. It's the minister's words. Maybe you should tell us why.

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

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I think Hansard will clearly show what I said versus what the Member opposite is trying to say I said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Some people try to be funny, but I'll reserve judgment on what they actually look like, Speaker.

Speaker, based on these new revelations, does the minister believe there was fraud or criminal misappropriation of funds?

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

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I know the opposite side has asked us to call in the RCMP. I've asked them to tell us what it is we're calling the RCMP in for. I think the investigation and the review will tell us whether or not there are areas to be concerned with, Mr. Speaker, or what those areas are.

We look forward to the Auditor General's review. We also look forward to the piece of work the provincial health authority is doing to determine whether or not the contracts have been followed to the letter of the contract.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Speaker, I ask the minister a question: Why was the AG called in?

He asked the Comptroller General to come in originally. If the Comptroller General found anything untoward, they were going to forward it on to the AG. This process got skipped entirely because there are things that have come up. Now, they have legal advice on the (inaudible) misappropriation. There are a lot of moving parts here, Speaker, and it's confusing.

But it shouldn't be confusing for the minister to tell us: Why do you have the AG called in now? Why did we skip the Comptroller General? Why do you have the AG called in now? Answers the questions instead of getting on with your theatrics.

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

T. OSBORNE: Again, Mr. Speaker, in an effort to try and take the words out of my mouth that the Member is trying to put in, which never actually came out, I can't call the AG in. I was very clear about that the first time the Member asked me to call in the AG. The AG is an independent, arms-length agency. The AG made the decision to do a review of the provincial health authority.

Mr. Speaker, I did have correspondence and discussions with the AG to raise my concerns, but the AG, quite capably, in her own capacity and in her professional judgment, made the decision to do a review. At that point, it was no longer necessary for the Comptroller General to carry out the review.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: One final wrap-up on that, Speaker.

Does the minister think 18 months is an acceptable time period for an AG to come in to do an investigation of this nature? I'd say no.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: Second answer to a question he just cut up to mistruth. This House has the ability to call the AG in on any issue. On my last count, this government owns the majority of seats in this House, so this House and this government have the ability to call the AG.

Why didn't you do it? Why don't you get the report done quicker than 18 months? Simple question.

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

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I recall the Member saying we should call the AG in, which we can't because she is independent and arm's length. Now, he's asking me to usurp that independence and arm's length agency by saying you should do it faster than 18 months.

Mr. Speaker, I think that's the choice of the AG to do a comprehensive review, which does take time, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: On Friday, the premier of Nova Scotia accepted the resignation of his Justice Minister for statements the minister made diminishing the impact of intimate partner violence on people in that province. The premier took this action, despite the public apology of his minister, because he knew how important it was to signal to victims of violence that the government will not disregard or diminish their experiences.

Will the Premier of our province do the right thing and hold his Justice Minister accountable and ask for his minister's resignation?

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

I spoke on numerous times about how I feel, how important it is to address domestic violence in this province. In fact, the words that she's referring to from another minister from another province are not the words that I used. In fact, I've said the exact opposite.

I said it in a letter here that I wrote the federal minister and I'd be happy to table this: I write this letter to express my concern over the ongoing epidemic of intimate partner and domestic violence, which continues to plague Canada with too frequent catastrophic effects. This was written about a month and a half ago, Speaker.

This has been my position for a long time. This government is taking steps to deal with it. I'm proud of the words I've said. I've apologized for one incorrect statement I said in this House, but I continue to work with individuals. I stress how important it is to deal with this epidemic, not only in the country, but specifically in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Speaker, our Justice Minister said he never, at any point, thought of resigning in the wake of this. Retired Crown lawyer Mike Murray called this minister unfit to be Justice Minister and the executive director of Corner Brook Status of Women Council condemned the minister's behaviour.

I'm asking the Premier to take leadership here and demand his minister's resignation, as Nova Scotia's premier has demanded of his.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, as I said, I continue to work with all the individuals who have been affected by this in the province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN: Again, I've said I've made a mistake in this House with the comment that I made. I've withdrawn that comment. I've publicly apologized for that comment.

I'm very proud of the work that I, as minister, have accomplished in the last few years in the department, including working closely with the police, with the courts, with Fire and Emergency Services, with Search and Rescue and Corrections. I look forward to continuing that work as long as the Premier has faith in me.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: This is beyond just a mistake. It's more than that. It's about attitudes. I asked the Premier to answer this question, but he continues not to take the leadership.

On Monday, April 15, when I questioned the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality about the Justice Minister's statements, she decided not to stand with women's groups and women across the province who are outraged by the minister's conduct and those calling for his resignation.

I ask the minister again: Instead of defending the minister and his statements, why did you not stand with the people of this province and ask as well for his resignation?

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

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Speaker.

I thank the hon. Member, of course, my colleague for the question and her attention on this matter.

As we know, intimate partner violence is not just an epidemic here, we see this across the country and ultimately across the globe. Look no further than what's happening in Russia and Ukraine and, of course, the West Bank.

We take this very serious and I'm very proud of the work that we have done across government as well as negotiating a $13.6-million bilateral agreement with the federal government to support our stakeholders, the people on the front lines. We continuously work on them, not just to help prevent violence but, of course, to educate and to be in a position of prevention as opposed to response.

We take this work very serious. I'm glad to see that the Member also wants to give this her attention. I say she's always welcome, of course, to come and to be part of the resolution, Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Speaker, I'll ask the Premier one final time here today. His Justice Minister stood in this House and stated that “lawyers in this province are not retraumatizing sexual assault victims, whether it's a Crown or a legal aid or a private lawyer in this province. It's not the way it works. It's actually impossible for it to happen.”

Are we expected to believe that a minister who believes this to be so true and was adamant just weeks ago, now no longer holds this view?

I ask the Premier: Why doesn't he demand this minister to step aside so his continued presence is not compromising the oversight of justice in this province and further silencing victims of sexual assault?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Intimate partner violence is certainly an epidemic here and across the country, Mr. Speaker. It's something that we take very serious.

With respect to the specific comments the Member opposite is addressing, the minister said with, I believe, sincere remorse and compassion that he made a mistake and he's apologized for that. We're all human. He's fallible. He's owned it and he's committed to working continuously with groups and stakeholders to ensure that this government continues to address intimate partner violence in a respectful way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. WALL: Speaker, Thursday in this House, the minister admitted there are only 13 individuals residing at the airport inn. Again, government signed a lucrative sole-source contract with a Liberal friend for $21 million.

Does the minister think that $1.6 million per resident is a good value for our taxpayers?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Housing.

F. HUTTON: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member opposite for the question.

The 13 individuals, which I believe is now 12 individuals, were all living at the 106 Airport Road, a former hotel location, prior to the signing of the agreement. We have engaged with End Homelessness St. John's, as I've reported to the House and through a media release, to do the operational aspect of 106 Airport Road. They have finished their outreach for staff. We have said that there is going to be a phased-in approach to allow individuals with complex needs to come to the 106 Airport Road location, our Transitional Supportive Living Initiative, and it is one that is going to be successful, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. WALL: Speaker, the reality is that no one new has moved into that facility yet, although all these millions of dollars have been spent.

The Liberals went out last fall and signed this contract with no staff and no solid plan to actually run the facility while spending millions, and the proof is at the tent encampment, which is rapidly expanding.

Will the minister now admit that his plan is failing?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Housing.

F. HUTTON: Mr. Speaker, it takes a little bit of time to get the appropriate staff in place. Our community partner, End Homelessness St. John's, funded by the federal government, we have reached an agreement with them. They are going to run the operation at 106 Airport Road. They are currently seeking staff. They put out a call for staff. We are going to have addictions counsellors. We are going to have mental health advocates there. We are going to have staff members through NL Health Services so that on site, there will be these supports available.

It is a Transitional Supportive Living Initiative there, what it requires is the proper staff. Putting somebody in a house is not the only thing we're doing. We are offering these wraparound supports, which these folks need.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. WALL: Speaker, I heard: It takes time and we're going to do …. Well, tell that to the people at the tent encampment who are waiting day after day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. WALL: Speaker, the chair of the housing task force, which is the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, was going to have all encampment residents placed by Christmas – his words: placed by Christmas.

Now months, and millions of dollars later, the number of people continues to rise. When is this Liberal government going to be accountable to the people at the tent encampment?

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

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

The task force continues to do its work. We met just Friday past. We got updates from each of our agencies involved. We are working towards some of the things that the Minister of Housing just addressed. We are making sure that the services are identified for each individual at the tent encampment, and we will continue to offer those services.

At the same time, both the minister, myself and other ministers and MHAs visit down at the tent encampment. I was there yesterday talking to the individuals and talking to some of the protest organizers to make sure everybody knows how the government is approaching this very important and significant issue.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Speaker, on November 8, the Premier and the Minister of CSSD announced a new – quote – targeted seniors' reduction poverty plan.

Minister, when can the seniors of this province, living in food insecure homes, expect to see this plan?

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

P. PIKE: Speaker, our province, of course, is home to an aging population and we realize that that requires targeted intervention to ensure that people age well and are able to live in their own communities. That's so important.

Budget 2024 provides $10 million for a comprehensive Seniors' Well-Being Plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. PIKE: Mr. Speaker, this plan will prioritize home repair modifications for our seniors. It will support caregivers who are taking care of individuals in high need and provide income and grants for low-income seniors.

SPEAKER: The minister's time is expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

In my district, people are being refused access to timely and adequate mental health care; not just adults but children are being failed as well. Last week, I asked the minister, does it take someone dying before people in my district can access mental health care? Now I have a 14-year-old child on life support and her mother tells me that this child has been failed by the mental health care system.

So I rephrase: Minister, how many people must die before people can access adequate mental health care in my district?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Health and Community Services.

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We cannot speak to individual cases in the Legislature or in public, as the Member knows. I can say that that particular case, Mr. Speaker, the COO in the area has been dealing directly with the Member on that particular case.

I can also say that Towards Recovery and the 54 recommendations have been accepted by government and are being put in place. Many of them are already in place. There's an All-Party Committee that continues to meet to build on the mental health and addictions recommendations in Towards Recovery .

There is much more work to be done. We recognize that, which is why we put an All-Party Committee in place, Mr. Speaker. There's significant money, again, in this year's budget to carry on the work of mental health and addictions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

This government must do more than just talk about reducing the negative stigma attached to mental health care. I have a 16-year-old child who can't return to school until they have their psychosis diagnosed. This is the fourth week of missing school and having to live with the growing burden of stigma.

I ask the minister: Where are those wraparound mental health services I was told in the All-Party Committee that you referred to on mental health and addictions? Where are those wrap-around services? They're not in my district and they're not in Labrador.

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

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of entry points for mental health and addictions which are available in Labrador as well. There is Doorways. There's 811, Bridge the gapp. There are FACT teams in Labrador. There are also mental health and addictions beds in Labrador. There are a number of investments we've made.

Again, Mr. Speaker, the COO for Lab-Grenfell has indicated that there is a complement of psychiatry and psychologists available to provide services in Labrador. If someone falls through the cracks, that is concerning. I know the Member has spoken directly with the COO on this particular case, but there are supports available in Labrador and we look to continue to build on those supports through investments in this year's budget, as well as the All-Party Committee and the recommendations that I look forward to receiving.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

This weekend a fire destroyed a tent on the grounds of the Colonial Building. Fortunately, no one was in the tent at the time and no one was hurt.

I ask the Premier: What measures will his government take to prevent such incidents from happening in the future?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Housing.

F. HUTTON: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member opposite for the question.

We, too, are thankful that nobody was injured in the weekend incident. But I think, Mr. Speaker, that punctuates, it underlines what we have said all along. Living in a tent with open flames is unsafe, which is why this government and our community partners provide, on a very regular basis, options. We have many options that are offered to people to live either in staffed shelters, private shelters and, when necessary, hotel rooms.

We have said from the beginning that this protest, which it is, it is not a safe place for people to be. Which is why we offer these solutions and will continue to. Including investing millions of dollars in our Transitional Supportive Living Initiative.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Speaker, people wouldn't be in tents if there were adequate options. This is not a protest – this is not a protest and that belies what he really believes.

Speaker, with much expense, the government recently installed video surveillance cameras on the outside of the building.

I ask the minister responsible: Will his department also install electrical outlets so people, who are really there because they don't feel safe elsewhere, will not have to rely on propane to heat their tents? Will you install electrical outlets? Simple solution.

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

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

I know that question was asked previously. The cameras are there for the Colonial Building and that's why they're there. In terms of any other services that we're providing, the Minister of Housing identified and itemized those.

But I have said, when I've been down at the tent encampment, we will provide services, but we will not be bringing services to the campsite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Oral Questions has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

SPEAKER: I do have one.

In accordance with

section 19(5)(

a) of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act , I hereby table the minutes of the House of Assembly Management Commission meeting held on January 24, 2024.

Any further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move in accordance with Standing Order 11(1) that this House will not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, April 29, 2024.

Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move in accordance with Standing Order 11(1) that this House will not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 30, 2024.

Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move the following motion, that notwithstanding Standing Order 63, this House shall not proceed with Private Members' Day on Wednesday, May 1, 2024, but shall instead meet at 2 p.m. on that day for Routine Proceedings and the conduct of Government Business and that, if not earlier adjourned, the Speaker shall adjourn the House at midnight.

Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move in accordance with Standing Order 11(1) that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 2, 2024.

Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow introduce a bill entitled,

An Act to Amend the Limitations Act, Bill 74.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: F urther notices of motion?

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Speaker.

I give notice to the following private Member's resolution:

WHEREAS the House of Assembly currently has an annual budget Estimates process allowing Members to complete a line-by-line examination of the annual budgets of core government departments and ask questions to ministers and relevant senior staff concerning estimated departmental revenues and expenditures; and

WHEREAS no such process currently applies to government agencies, boards, commissions and other government entities such as NL Health Services, Memorial University, College of the North Atlantic, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, OilCo, the Newfoundland Labrador Liquor Corporation and others; and

WHEREAS Members of the House of Assembly are elected by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to, among other things, be stewards of the public purse; and

WHEREAS a significant portion of the provincial government's annual budget flows through agencies, boards and commissions without examination by elected Members of the Legislature;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House direct the government to initiate a process and allocate the required time and resources to allow elected Members the opportunity to review budgets and question appropriate senior staff of government agencies, boards, commissions and other similar entities on an annual basis similar to the process utilized in budget Estimates.

This will be my private Member's resolution to be debated tomorrow.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: Any further notices of motions?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, 2000, Bill 35, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

SPEAKER: We'll move directly to Orders of the Day.

It is moved and seconded that the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce Bill 35 and that the said bill be now read a first time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, “An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, 2000,” carried. (Bill 35)

CLERK (Hawley George): A bill,

An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 35)

SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

J. HOGAN: Tomorrow.

SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 35 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Motion 5.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that notwithstanding Standing Order 9, this House shall not adjourn at 5 p.m. on Wednesday, April 24, 2024, but shall continue to sit to conduct Government Business and, if not earlier adjourned, the Speaker shall adjourn the House at midnight.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Motion 6.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that under Standing Order 11(1) this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, April 25, 2024.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Motion 1.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

We're debating the amendment.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's always a pleasure to stand in the House and speak on behalf of the fine people of my District of Terra Nova.

The District of Terra Nova is no different than most districts in this province. We all have our own unique issues and we all have issues that are very similar to everywhere else. My district is made up of 42 communities and those 42 communities make up 11 municipalities and 11 LSDs.

They see the same things that we all see in here on a daily basis, whether it's issues with the roads or health care, financial burdens, troubles within the fishery.

I mention the fishery and, I guess, I'd be remiss by not offering up my condolences to the families in Lark Harbour after the tragic incident out there yesterday. It highlights the danger associated with people inside of our fishery, what they face on a daily basis. I offer sincere condolences from the entire House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Mr. Speaker, our districts are near and dear to each one of us and I believe everyone in this House is here for a reason. The initial part of that reason is to represent the people who put them here. When I think about my district and I think about the minister over there talking about all the multitude of upcoming roadwork, I've invited him out a couple of times to come see the inadequacies I have St. Jones Within , South West Arm and Random Island. I would argue that you can't fly over the roads in Random Island in a helicopter, they're that bad right now. It's absolutely ridiculous.

As someone drives down over that road and they have a near-death experience, because we hear that all the time. I mentioned here in the House back in March, I lost two tires on that road a few weeks ago driving to the road conditions, because that's what Transportation and Infrastructure will tell you if you call and say you had a blowout and where you had it. They'll say you were speeding or you need to be driving to the road conditions.

So I'm talking about two brand new tires that I put on my truck in October. It happens all the time and it's happening to individuals who leave these communities to drive to go to work. They have legitimate fears and concerns about the conditions of the roads. To be quite honest, the minister knows, this past winter in my district, in one day, we had a situation where we had three snowplows go off the road, two of them went off the road because the plows hooked into potholes in the road as they were going and the icy conditions made them depart the highway.

It's just fortunate, just fortunate, that the operator wasn't injured. At the same time, while the minister's department is directing people from other districts to go to St. John's and work on the equipment in here, because they don't have the manpower and the stuff in Transportation and Infrastructure to do the work on the existing equipment.

We have serious problems inside Transportation and Infrastructure right across the whole province and, at the end of the day, when we look at what's happening here in every district when it comes to snow clearing, when it comes to maintenance, when it comes to pothole repairs, all of those things, it quite simply just isn't happening, whether it's brush cutting or any of those things.

One of my colleagues mentioned today about the massive uptake in the budget for roadwork. Well, if you talk specifically to the road builders, they'll tell you that it's not as massive as this government will try to make you believe. The increase in budget is because of the increase in cost. The increase in budget is because fuels have gone up. Carbon tax has affected that. The increase in budget is gone up because the price of tar has gone up. Carbon tax has affected that. The increase in budget is because every single part of work that happens in Transportation and Infrastructure has increased from a price standpoint.

So what is the end result? The road that was going to cost $8 million to do last year costs $12 million to do this year. What's government left to do? Increase the budget. What do they do? They increase the budget and tell everybody that we're going to pave way more roads.

Well, if you look at the announcement – and I agree with the Member from Ferryland; it was a lot of recycled announcements. It was announcements from 2022; it's 2024 now. In 2022, 2023 and some new announcements in 2024; it's not all new work and you can be rest assured that it's not all going to be done in this fiscal year, no doubt about it.

Do they put out some new tenders? Absolutely. The problem we have is the amount of maintenance that doesn't happen. It just simply doesn't happen. I've got St. Brendan's – and the minister, I hope he's listening, because the island of St. Brendan's hasn't asked for a whole lot. They've written the minister on three occasions, as have I, and we haven't gotten a response. Not only have we not gotten a response, they're not asking for anything.

The other thing I'll add is that they haven't asked for anything since 2019. They've got dirt roads out there that are continually graded with no material. They need a substantial amount of Class A in order to upgrade those roads, and they deserve it. At the end of the day, instead of addressing it, the minister ignores it, and those are the types of things that we need to see.

If you go down Southwest Arm, as you drive down Southwest Arm – and you can ask the Minister of Health. He goes down there; he knows it. As you go around the S-bend, you can see the guardrails that have been lid down; they're asleep. They have been asleep for five years.

The guardrails are literally on the ground, broke off, in one of the most dangerous turns on any stretch of road in this province. They have been on the ground for five years – five years under successive ministers, this has been brought up and not a thing done about it. It's not sad that it's not done. What's really sad is that they don't listen. What's even sadder is I don't think they care.

The Member for Ferryland – I wish the minister lived in my district or the Premier lived in my district. There was $30 million in his district. Witless Bay is getting done; the Minister of Transportation lives in that district. You look at all the black asphalt and we just had the by-election out there, you go out, the previous minister, lots. The minister across the way – all paved. If you don't have those individuals in your district, it just doesn't happen.

You come to the District of Terra Nova – and it's the gateway to the Bonavista Peninsula. It's the gateway and it includes Terra Nova National Park, so the government doesn't even have to do that. That's the federal government that does that. Then you go down to Eastport Peninsula, again, two of the hotspots in the province for tourism – and I just listened to the minister, to a PMR a little while ago where he said one of the key indicators in their decision-making process was uptake in tourism. Well, guess what? Obviously, it's not because if it was, I would not have those issues with the roads. They would be done – period.

I've got two of the hottest spots for tourism in the whole province in my district and I guarantee the roads aren't touched. Does the minister care? No. He doesn't even listen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) move out there.

L. PARROTT: Yes, it would be great if he moved out there.

Secondary to all of that is we have a conversation in this House a lot about firefighters, what they bring to the equation, what they mean to Newfoundland and Labrador. Most Members here, I hope you're aware – right now there are Scott Air-Paks in this entire province and they're all expiring and they're not going to be fixed. The letters have been sent and I can tell you, right now, that the fire departments cannot afford to replace them. They cannot afford to replace or repair them.

All, in amongst that, we get the Premier out with his pork-barrel politics promising 10 sets of bunker gear to one fire department. I've got five fire departments in my district that don't get one set. How does that work? It doesn't make sense, but I would assume that that promise will be kept and kept very swiftly regardless of the fact that they didn't win the district.

Seeing how it was a promise made by the Premier, I guess no different than the ER that was promised in my colleague's district that never happened, but the Premier made that promise too, and the PET scanner, made that promise and we hear today that it may not happen. We heard today that it's not even their decision to make which is very unfortunate when you think about it.

You talk about firefighters. One of my colleagues had an unfortunate accident in his district the other day and it was the firefighters who had to sit there with the injured individual for an hour and 32 minutes waiting for an ambulance to show up. You go throughout most of rural Newfoundland and you will quickly find out that the first responders for all accident scenes are volunteer firefighters.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: In most instances, driving vehicles that are inadequate, if they even have the vehicle. In most instances, they don't have the modern training that they require, not because they don't want to do it but because they don't have the funding to do it. You take a fire department now, in rural parts of Newfoundland, if they had to respond to an electric vehicle, an EV fire and tell me how many of these fire departments have not only received, but have been offered the training to respond to those situations. If one of those vehicles goes up and goes bad, it's terrible for everyone. The fires that they cause compared to a regular gasoline combustion fire are totally different.

So we have volunteers that are doing this and continually asking for support. Upgrades to the 911 system that were announced in last year's budget, we still haven't seen it – or maybe that was two years ago they took $21 million away, I think, if my memory serves me correct and now all of a sudden nobody knows where the money went. It went back to general coffers; it was supposed to be upgrade our telecommunications and none of it has happened. Yet, in amongst all of that, we're still being charged for it. It's an interesting question: Where does it go? How do they manage that? General coffers, $21 million that was raised for specific reasons and now it's gone.

You talk about the firefighters and what they do and what they mean to us, everyone in here. I know in my district, the volunteer fire departments, if we didn't have the volunteer fire departments throughout the District of Terra Nova, as I said earlier 11 municipalities, 11 LSDs, 100 per cent, we would be lost. Not only would we be lost, but the cost of insurance on an individual's house would be astronomical. The ability for people to respond to any kind of an incident would be gone and, in amongst that, in government's cleverness, they're now looking at getting rid of the rural ambulances, the only lifeline that some of these communities have to help.

Now, I'm not suggesting that it's not going to work, but I can tell you we're not prepared for it. There are no answers to the questions that are being asked. The individuals in these rural communities that depend on these ambulances, the ambulance care providers who've been established for 40 or 50 years, they feel like they're being brushed to the side, left out in the dark and this is being forced fed down their throats, and that's pretty much exactly what's going to happen. That's exactly how it's happening. No different than the failed regionalization plan, I guess. We'll come out.

We'll make an announcement. We'll tell you how we're going to do it and if you don't like it we'll change our minds, we'll put the report back up on the shelf with all the other reports that are sitting on the shelf. Sounds pretty typical, doesn't it?

Well, just think about it. Nine years in, it's the same MO. For nine years, it's been report after report going up on a shelf, collecting dust, lots of these ideas, lots of announcements, most that don't happen, all kinds of photo ops and here we are today in the exact same situation.

Budget day, it's kind of peculiar; we listened to one of the ministers here talk about how we weren't here for budget day. We weren't in this building for budget day, no, and we went outside – we didn't have the opportunity afforded to us or it was never mentioned to us to come in. That's the first thing I will say. While this government snuck in through the doors with their sleeping bags and their big fire truck red pyjamas, they came in and they went to sleep. They stayed here for the night. They never mentioned it to us. They were all cozy.

As a matter of fact, I seen the Premier sneak out of here with his pyjamas and his sleeping bag last week to go out to the by-election for the results. I seen him loading up the vehicle out there. I don't think he unrolled the sleeping bag that night. I think there was a high level of disappointment, but all of that aside, they came in for the budget.

Now, that's all good that they came in and we didn't come in and all the comments were made to us. I get that. I understand the whole idea that you should be here. I can tell you, from my time in my previous life, I know what civil unrest looks like. The reality of it is, nobody should have crossed that picket line. That's the reality.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: I can tell you exactly what civil unrest looks like.

But here's the other thing. We sat here in this building, right here, all of us, with all of these seats full – they were full with fishermen and guess what? We had fishermen calling out Members of government for being asleep – asleep in the Legislature while debate was going on – asleep. And we're getting heckled for not being here.

I tell you now, the reality of it is, that when you're a sleepy Member, you probably shouldn't be doing the heckling. You should probably leave you pyjamas on and stay home in bed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

L. PARROTT: H e got the red pyjamas, I guarantee it; it's a onesie.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

L. PARROTT: I'm being disrespectful, I'm being told. But that's okay, I'll take that. If she wants to stand on a point, she's more than welcome to stand on a point of order and say I'm being disrespectful.

What's disrespectful is how we treat seniors in this province. What's disrespectful is how we treat people with disabilities. What's disrespectful is a whole lot of other things than the way that people in this House talk. The disrespect that is shown to our seniors and people with mental health issues. And if you don't believe me, I'll tell you what, I listened to the minister over there today talking about Doorways and FACT teams and 811.

He should call the people that were on Open Line Friday morning. He knows who they are, I don't need to say their names. He should call that family whose 23-year-old son had a mental breakdown over two years ago. He's gone the Doorways. He's called 811. He's been in the Waterford. As a matter of fact, he was in the Waterford at the lowest time of his life – at the lowest time of his life – and guess what happened to him? They put him in a cab and sent him home.

We don't have the ability to address those issues, so if you want to talk about what's respectful and what's not respectful, I'm hear all day. I got no problem doing that. We can talk about it all day long.

You should go to Clarenville and talk to the young man that just did a threat in the Clarenville High School, who didn't have the support he required, who went to Doorways, who called 811, who associated with the FACT team, who can't get the carry-on continual help that he needs. We can talk about carry-on continual help after when we talk about the false announcement of the 50,000 people rostered into community care clinics, because the minister knows how many of those actually have continual care. Not very many.

So if we want to talk about respect, we can have that conversation. We can talk about the respect that this government affords people in Newfoundland and Labrador with their fake announcements, their photo ops and their misleading way of governing because that's exactly what it is. So when we're finished, after the amendment, we can talk about respect for another 20 minutes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Mr. Speaker, I am going to table right now, a non-confidence subamendment. Me, as the Member for Terra Nova, move the subamendment, seconded by the Member for CBS:

That the amendment that was previously presented, the non-confidence motion, be amended by changing the period at the end of thereof to a comma and, also, by adding immediately thereafter the following words: and that this House also faults the government for failing to guarantee people access to a primary care provider; for failing to retain health care professionals such as nurses and doctors while wasting a fortune to replace those they have driven away; for failing in all its years to introduce a comprehensive poverty reduction plan, like the one they cancelled; for failing to address the social determinants of health such as affordable food, housing and medicine; for failing to address serious mental health and addictions needs; for failing to address violence and crime in our communities; for failing to provide proper resources to police; for failing to rehabilitate inmates; for failing to address the housing needs of our people; for failing to ensure women are paid equitably for the work they do; for failing to protect homeowners from court action by Crown lands to seize the homes they live in; for failing to review and reform all taxes, fees and income support programs; for failing to cut red tape and other impediments to business growth that have worsened on their watch; for failing to hear and include persons with disabilities; for failing to hear and include Indigenous communities; for failing to plan ahead and to make early childhood education available; for failing to listen and to support teachers and to make our schools safe places for our youth to get quality education they need; for failing to listen to the students and make post-secondary education affordable; for failing to be transparent and accountable about its dealings on energy and other matters; for failing to diversify our economy and derive maximum community benefits from the development of all of our resources, from oil and gas to minerals; for failing to raise the bar on food security by driving local agriculture; for failing to prevent to raise the bar on food security; for failing to multiply the value of our fishing industry; for failing to make the case for joint fisheries management; for failing to manage the finances of the province responsibly and sustainably; for failing to make the case for fair health transfers based on a need; and for failing to fight early or effectively enough against the Liberal government's carbon tax that the Liberal government of Newfoundland and Labrador repeatedly endorsed and rammed through the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, this is the subamendment by me, the Member for Terra Nova, seconded by the Member for CBS.

SPEAKER: This House will stand recessed while we have time to consider the subamendment.

This House is now in recess.

Recess

SPEAKER: Order, please!

Are the House Leaders ready?

Upon review of the subamendment, I do find that the subamendment is in order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think, given the subamendment and the amount of conversation inside it about failures, we should probably talk about some successes. It's a good segue into it.

What have we done successfully? The one thing that we say we haven't done successfully that we have is this Liberal government has supported the carbon tax. They were very successful in that endeavour. As a matter of fact, every single one of them, with the exception of one Member who voted for it, a couple of times.

Now, the argument was it was a made-right-here-in-Newfoundland carbon tax back then, so they could support it but when it became a federal carbon tax, they could no longer support it. As a matter of fact, the Premier wrote a letter and he wanted it paused. Well, a pause doesn't do anything good. We need it stopped. There's no question about it but the whole idea of flip-flopping – as a matter of fact I thought that the MP McDonald was in the House they were flip-flopping that much. It was like a big feed of seal flipper pie.

The carbon tax hurts everyone, and we all know that. The easiest way to say it is that we talked about roads earlier and how carbon affects our roads building and our budgets. We talked about taxation and we talk about the cost of goods getting to the province. You know, it's funny the government talks about Muskrat Falls all the time and the cost of Muskrat Falls and the Premier made an interesting comment earlier. He said, you announced it and we built it. He was referring to a hospital and Muskrat Falls was not a whole lot different. Don't lose sight of that. We didn't build it. They built it.

I'd love to ask the Minister of Finance, when it's her turn to speak, to get up and tell us what we would be paying for electricity if we only had Holyrood. If we only had Holyrood and we were paying their buddies carbon tax on the oil that fuels Holyrood, what the cost of home heating would be. Because Muskrat Falls, they touted, was going to double, which it hasn't. Smoke and mirrors because we're used to the smoke and mirrors. There is all kinds of that. It hasn't doubled.

But I can guarantee you, if it was Holyrood, with the amount of maintenance and with the expansions that had to happen and the cost of the bunker C that fuels it and the carbon tax on top of that, our home heating cost wouldn't have doubled. They would have tripled.

So now tell me that Muskrat Falls is such a bad idea.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: For you people at home who can't see this, she's over flashing around her book like this.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

No props.

L. PARROTT: That is not a prop. That's a book.

SPEAKER: She's not speaking.

Order, please!

L. PARROTT: She's flapping around –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: So I'll ask all the Members over there, if we didn't have Muskrat Falls, would we have hydrogen? If we didn't have Muskrat Falls, would we be developing or looking to develop Labrador West for green iron? If we didn't have Muskrat Falls, would the Premier have gotten his picture taken with Peter Pan? Not a chance. The Premier never would have seen Peter Pan or Captain Hook or any of the other things that were so important to him. It never would have happened because it was Muskrat Falls and our green-ability.

Hang on now, because the Member for Cape La Hune talks about it all the time that we don't have a green plan. We don't have an environmental plan, but he's against Muskrat Falls. He thinks it's no good. All you've got to do is listen to him talk. Every single time they talk it's Muskrat Falls, Muskrat Falls, Muskrat Falls, and guess what? They don't support it, so in 2017 –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: In 2017, the Minister of Finance stood up and said we're going to bring it over the line. Muskrat Falls, we're carrying on with it. This government had the opportunity to cancel it if they believed it was so bad.

Not only did they have the opportunity to cancel it, they had an opportunity to manage it in the way it should have been managed. Instead, they chose to bring in helicranes and in the middle of the winter, dig down through 18 feet of snow to put up towers when they knew that they could not polarize those power lines for two or three years. They spent billions of dollars rushing a project that they couldn't complete. It's 2024 and it's still not operational and they know that, and that is their fault – their fault.

I challenge the Minister of Fisheries over there who is always doing that, call an inquiry into Muskrat Falls now and see what they'd say. See how they talk about the construction and the completion and see what they'd say now versus the inquiry that was called back in 2017.

We know what they'd say. It was a high level of incompetence. It wasn't managed properly. It should have been done in a different way, and anyone who understands construction would understand that. At the end of the day, when we came in here with Muskrat Falls, the constructability portion was the largest failure. It wasn't the idea; it was the constructability failure.

There is no question the inquiry found lots of stuff, but like I said to the Minister of Finance, have another inquiry and tell me what they'd say. They would talk about how it was built and exactly what happened.

AN HON. MEMBER: They did a report.

L. PARROTT: How old is the report? I challenge you, get up and talk about the report and how old it is and what happened since then. It's pretty simple.

At the end of the day, you can't have it both ways because they stand up in one breath and say Muskrat Falls is no good, and then they go around the world – as a matter of fact, I believe if I'm not wrong, the Empire Club is hosting the Premier next week, and what's he going up to talk about, green energy and Muskrat Falls.

He's going up to tout it, yet his caucus Members are all over there saying no good, nope, not here; but we support carbon tax, we voted for it. We all voted for carbon tax. We think that's great. No, we don't support it anymore. The Premier asked for a pause, so we don't support it anymore. We're not allowed anymore, but we used to support it. We voted for it. It's a totally different world now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

L. PARROTT: Sugar tax, there you go, my colleague just said sugar tax. There is no question that people can get up and talk about the high rates of diabetes and obesity and all the things that this province has. Well, guess what? This province has the highest rate of a lot of things: unemployment, obesity, childhood poverty, all kinds of things; yet, carbon tax, sugar tax, all those things are going to cure it.

We are going to tax people into prosperity. We are going to tax them into a healthy living style. It just simply isn't working. If it was working, our bills would be going down. The money they take in would be less, not more.

It's funny how they come in and they talk about the unemployment rate and they say it's the best its been in years. Well, I would say this, bring home all the rotational workers and tell me what our unemployment rate looks like. Bring them all back. Pretend that we don't have any and look at our unemployment rates. It would be astronomical. We'd be in such a bad place.

At the end of the day, we know exactly what that looks like. But this government has been very successful in their stickhandling – that's what I'll call – of carbon tax, because one day they thought it was the best thing. When the money was going into their pockets and it wasn't going back out, they wanted carbon tax, they supported it. Now they're going to say, but that was different back then, fishermen weren't paying carbon tax and agricultural and all those other things, they weren't paying carbon tax.

They're not wrong when they say that. I'll give them that much, but it doesn't matter, they still supported carbon tax in its essence and what it was doing.

Right now, carbon tax is hurting this province in a way that everybody knows how bad it is. It's hurting us from in grocery stores; it's hurting us in clothing stores; the ferry that crosses the Island; our hydro plants; every mining company we have here; everyone that depends on it. To top it all off, the Member for – I have to get it right because she'll correct me – Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, she knows, she agrees with me. We have thermal generation plants going into her district with our green plan and they're putting back in diesel plants. Now how green is that?

We have so many rural communities in this province that should be looking for different alternatives and instead of going that route, we're going the exact opposite route of what we say is going to work.

L. DEMPSTER: (Inaudible.)

L. PARROTT: Yeah, it's still going to happen.

If we look at Labrador West, if we look at the South Coast of Labrador, the North Coast of Labrador, if we look at St. Brendan's, we look at any of the islands on the South Coast of Newfoundland who depend on these thermal generation plants and we wonder why we're paying so much for our hydro bills. We pay to subsidize those plants and part of that pay is what we pay in carbon fees and that effects everyone.

When the prime minister stands up and he's picking on the Premier, or whatever you want to call it, he's wrong. I will say, the Premier is right when he says that we're disproportionately effected. I agree with the Premier. I agree with him 100 per cent. Where I don't agree with him is the fact that he's asking for a pause and not a stoppage. Where I don't agree with him is that he's – well, in this instance, three years too late, but the rest of his colleagues are far too late, six years too late. So here we are and we're stuck with it.

I have to go back to mental health, because it's an issue that is near and dear to, I think, everyone in this House of Assembly. I mentioned earlier about a couple of instances that happened in my district in the last week. But I tell you one of my colleagues pointed out this morning, the esteemed colleague for Bonavista, he said: Do you notice on the news the uptake in violent crime and missing people and in drug charges? It is astronomical what's happening in this province.

Now, whether it's through a lack of policing or poverty or people's desire to make money illegally, I don't know. But a lot of it comes back around full circle and it affects people's mental health.

When you're living in a community and you have a neighbour that's next to you, you're afraid of him; when you're a senior and you have some punk kicking your door down in the middle of the night to break in and steal stuff; when you have a child who's involved with drugs or who's been involved in crime, through no fault of their own because they can't get the supports they need; when you have crimes and violence happening in schools; when you have teachers crying out that they have issues in schools; when you have nurses saying that they're being assaulted at their workplace, we have a serious issue.

To say we have FACT teams and Doorways and 811 – I'll go back, we put a PMR in this House last year and the PMR was about the mental health crisis and the crisis in our health care system. We had a Minister of the Crown, the Minister of Transportation, stood up and said we don't have a crisis in our health care. A former ADM who stood up here 12 months ago and said we don't have a crisis in our health care.

Well, I'll tell you what, if you don't think we have a crisis in our health care, you haven't talked to any of your constituents, any of your colleagues or anyone else in this province, because everyone feels that we have a crisis in our health care. As a matter of fact, the word crisis is thrown around in this House on an order of magnitude that's incomprehensible. At the end of the day, everything we do is a crisis. It's not fictitious, it's a real thing. We have a food security crisis. We have a health care crisis. We have a fiscal crisis. We have a housing crisis.

Every single thing we do is falling apart. Not to mention the operational crisis in our health care. The crisis that we're not allowed to talk about in the House of Assembly. We can't talk about it because that's operational. Just imagine, operational. I'd say that's what happened with Muskrat Falls. That's why it wasn't built any cheaper, because of the operational issues that the government didn't address.

At the end of the day, when we talk about the crisis in mental health, all you have to do is go out on the front step and look at the young lady who's been out there protesting. All you have to do is listen to the people who are living in the tent encampment, Tent City, whatever you want to call it, who are there by no choice of their own. You had a minister in this House today chose to call that a protest – a protest. It's not a protest, I can tell you, that's not a protest. Those people have no choice.

If they had a choice, that suited their needs, I'm not suggesting that they haven't been given choices, because we all know they have been given choices, but sometimes those choices don't fit and that is the problem; sometimes individual situations are different and we need to look for individual alternatives.

We talk about this province and the issues we face: one of the things we always overlook, and I've said it here several times, population and geography is one of the biggest problems that this province faces. We put a lens on our legislation for everything we do. But do you know what kind of lens we don't put on it? We don't put a rural lens on legislation. We can do things in rural Newfoundland different than we do it in urban centres. We can make things cheaper for LSDs and municipalities. There are ways to do it.

It's been proven in Southern Harbour, it's been proven in Clarenville, it's been proven in George's Brook- Milton. If you don't believe me, I think – again, I want to get the district right.

P. LANE: Humber - Bay of Islands.

L. PARROTT: There you go. If you talk to the Member for Humber- Bay of Islands, back when I was on town council in Clarenville and I believe I spoke about this in the House of Assembly before, I was in the industry at the time, the Town of Clarenville was looking at building a fire department. When they went through government, that fire department was going to cost almost $7 million and when you start looking at the engineering, the lead certifications and all the things that had to be done in order to make that what was required, it was a 50-50 joint project, between government and the town.

The town just couldn't afford $3.5 million, but do you know what they could afford? They could afford $2.6 million. That was their magic number.

So they took that exact, identical blueprint and they went to tender without government. They left government out of the process. They built the exact same building for $2.52 million. They built it for $4.5 million less than they would have if they had done it in co-operation with government. Just think about that. Think of the money that could be saved.

So we talk about the requirement when we're building these buildings and we say they have to last 50 years. I challenge every Member in this House of Assembly, if you want to see something spectacular, go to Clarenville, reach out to John Pickett, the mayor of Clarenville and ask him to do a tour of the fire department. Go in and look at it and you tell me that it's not of the nicest, not only nicest but one of the most modern, technologically equipped buildings in the province when it comes to fire departments and they did it for less than half of what it would have cost had they got funding from government.

Just think about that and tell me that we're doing things right. Obviously, we are not doing things right.

That ability exists throughout the whole province. The Town of Southern Harbour did it. The Town of Southern Harbour built three buildings, a multi-purpose building and two others and they did it for fraction of the cost. Those things are out there, but we don't utilize them.

The big issue is that when we look at rural Newfoundland versus urban Newfoundland, we don't need a steel and brick fire department. Random Island is down there trying to build a new fire department and their doing it with volunteers, doing it on their own. If they went through government, it would have bankrupt them. It would have bankrupted the LSD; they never in a million years could have done it. But they could do it on their own, and government should be helping. There are ways that they can help and they can do it.

When we talk about budgets – and it's funny, because the government always says: Oh, you guys didn't support it, you didn't support it. There's lots in the budget that's worth supporting. Sometimes it's not what we don't support; it's what's not in there for us to support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Sometimes the hard decision and the right decision are the same decision. Sometimes people need to understand you can have all the right ideas in the world, but if it doesn't go far enough, if it doesn't put food on a senior's table, if it doesn't help them pay for their bill, if it doesn't get them a bed in a hospital or if it doesn't get them any of the supports they need, medications, whatever, it don't go far enough.

In my district of Clarenville, we have two long-term care facilities right in Clarenville, in the District of Terra Nova. We've got several personal care homes. But these two facilities have wait-lists as long as the halls of this building. At the end of the day, there are solutions.

O'Mahony manor out there with a wait-list that takes people 12 to 14 months to get in – I've talked to the minister and the minister is receptive to it. If we were to double it in size, the wait-list would be just as long in two weeks. But we have protective care units up above the hill, in behind Kent and there is one there now, but in the blueprint I believe it was facilitated to build four. We should be looking at building the other three units. We should be looking for ways to care for people.

Right now, the hospital in Clarenville is overwhelmed with patients that are dementia, level 3 patients, that are putting a burden on the health care system, that are talking up beds they shouldn't be in, because there's nowhere for them to go.

So you got nurses and doctors stressed out; you've got fights in the halls; you've got people running out of the hospital, people chasing them, RCMP at times; ambulances being tied up because there's no beds. Obviously, there is a pretty big issue and I can guarantee you, it's not just and issue in my district. That's an issue throughout the whole province.

We got a facility out in Central, 29 beds, and they're vacant because we don't have staff, yet we're building all these new facilities. We're going to build facilities – it's like the Field of Dreams with this government: If you build it, he will come. Well, Shoeless Joe Jackson isn't going to show up here, I can guarantee you that. It's just not going to happen. We do it all the time and there is no planning.

The Member for CBS said it the other day and he's not wrong when he says it. It is okay to build; there's places where we need new facilities, there's not question. There are places where we need to modernize and make things okay, there's no question. But there's also places where we need to hirer people, where we need to fix facilities, where we can modernize existing facilities and we can utilize the things that we have now in order to provide the services that people require.

I listened to the Member for Labrador West last week talk about amputees and MTAP, and I asked the minister the other night – I was bit shocked to hear it. MTAP doesn't cover amputees unless it's a prescription to see a specialist and it's a long tale and I get it, but there is only one place in Newfoundland to get a prosthetic.

I'll walk you through something. If you lose your leg or if you become an amputee, a leg, an arm or anything, in this province, MCP doesn't help you. That's the first thing. You're responsible to buy your prosthetic. MCP covers none of it.

Now, if you live in Labrador, Goose Bay, the North Coast of Labrador, St. Anthony, West Coast, anywhere whatsoever, imagine you got to travel back and forth to St. John's for the multiple, multiple, multiple times you have to go to get a prosthetic. First off, the prosthetic is not covered, so a cheap prosthetic is about $14,000. Now you got to travel, you got to stay in a hotel for weeks on end in order to do it. MTAP doesn't cover it; it's not specialized.

I reached out to the Miller Centre and asked them: How many amputees in the province are we currently treating, roughly? There are just over 400; 443 is the number I was given.

There are 443 amputees, so you think about that. Instead of MCP covering it and treating it, here's what we'll do instead. We'll get you a wheelchair, we'll build you a ramp, we'll hire an electrician to come in and lower all your receptacles so you can exist at home, because that's all you're going to do, and we're going to put you on welfare; or we can give you a $15,000 prosthetic and send you back to work. You might even become an MHA.

That's the problem with this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.

G. BYRNE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

(Disturbance.)

G. BYRNE: That's a catchy tune.

It's wonderful to be a part of a debate about things that are important in our province. It's wonderful to recap some of the exciting moments in history of our province, whether that be Muskrat Falls or previous hydroelectric projects or things that are a part of our past and part of our future, sometimes for better or for worse.

Mr. Speaker, I think there has been a lot of energy spent on whether or not there has been a jaundiced view about Muskrat Falls right from the beginning by Members and whether or not there was tacit support for Muskrat Falls. Let me put this in, kind of, a perspective.

I don't think at any point in time that the ambition to build His Majesty's steamship, Titanic , was a bad idea. I don't think at any point in time was the drive and the goal to build the Titanic ever, ever perceived to be a bad idea. What was a bad idea was to drive it at full steam ahead, at maximum speed into an iceberg field. That was the bad idea.

So the idea of building Muskrat Falls enjoyed universal support. Who would not want our great hydroelectric assets to be developed? The problem with Muskrat Falls was driving it at full speed into an iceberg field. That's what caused its problem and that is exactly what we now must face to this day. The fear mongering of $15 billion in debt, that is what the hon. Member opposite is now suggesting is fear mongering. When we actually have debt that has to be serviced year after year after year after year after year after year – well, that's called fear mongering.

I'd suggest that all we need to know is being vocalized on the floor of the House of Assembly right now by the Members opposite because what they say is that, trust us – the party that does not believe that Muskrat Falls was ever a problem, trust us to fix it. That's what they are suggesting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

It's hard to hear the Member speak.

The hon. the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.

G. BYRNE: It is so clear, Mr. Speaker. Any reasonable person listening to this conversation right now, the level of vitriol, the anxiety, the level of spite that's welling up inside of the Members opposite, for those who even dare suggest that they may have an accountability problem here, the amount of just anger that wells up within them is palpable, and that is exactly what we are experiencing each and every day.

It's one of the reasons why, Mr. Speaker, in the period when the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador faced its worst ever fiscal circumstance, when the fiscal forecast was totally out of control, when we inherited a $2.9-billion deficit that was left secret, hidden from all, what did they have to say? Well, the people actually said, even though we have one of the most difficult circumstances ever, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador said, we do not trust the party that refuses to accept that Muskrat Falls is a problem to be the party to ever fix the problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

G. BYRNE: And that is what happened. It is one of the reasons why we were successful in 2019 and in 2021, it's because there is a lack of trust.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I say, they argue that the problem could have been fixed, you could have walked away from it; the very notion that after contracts had been signed, that would have by law had to have been paid out, that the smart thing to do was just simply walk away from legally binding contracts with Astaldi and other major suppliers that they signed contracts with.

To suggest that there was ever a moment in time post-2015 that the project could have been collapsed, that it could have been shelved, mothballed, is absolutely ridiculous. That betrays any reasonable person's understanding of basic economics, basic finance, basic law, basic reality.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I'm asking Members on both sides of the House, please keep the conversation – if you guys want private conversations, you're welcome to go outside and have them as long as you want. I want to hear the speaker.

The hon. the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.

G. BYRNE: Thank you for the protection, Mr. Speaker.

It is obviously concerning to the hon. Members to ever want to recount the fact that there was a judicial inquiry into their actions that really resulted in a situation where we now live with a legacy of how these kinds of projects should be developed in the future and we'll follow that legacy era that taught us well how not to do things.

On sanctioning in 2011, when this program was sanctioned, it was sanctioned with absolutely zero safeguards. That is the reality. It was sanctioned with next to no accountabilities or oversights. It was sanctioned without any reasonable opportunity for it to succeed.

When the Titanic left the dock, when it started its transatlantic sail, well then it went into an icefield. The moment that this project, this Muskrat Falls Project, was sanctioned in 2011, it went into an icefield. It was guaranteed what the result would be and so now we live with that legacy.

So I want to say to the hon. Members opposite, if only we could account for the $500 million in cash that is necessary for rate mitigation, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and its people, the projects that we could have advanced, but we have now sunken choices – sunken choices. We must now spend $500 million a year mitigating the impact of Muskrat Falls. Therefore, we have to give up, we have to make choices about new hospitals.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you something, how courageous it is for Members opposite and however awkward it must be for Members opposite to want to talk about the Corner Brook hospital. From 2007 until 2015, living the scandal of perpetuating a falsehood about that project and now simply suggesting that taking individual elements of it and then saying with a critical eye, with a jaundiced eye saying this is what should be or should not be.

Mr. Speaker, there's a reason why the people of Corner Brook and the West Coast really do not have a high tolerance for the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland ever talking about this project. Because if ever there was a shell game sham by the PCs, it is the Corner Brook hospital.

I'll say it and say it upfront. There was decision that was taken. We took a decision to build that, which they refused to build. We took a decision to add additional services that they refused to take. And there was a decision to build a shelled-in space for the PET scanner. It's time to say this and say it out loud. At the time in 2016, when decisions were being taken about the hospital and about the build in 2016, the Cabinet and every Member of the Cabinet, took a decision in 2016 not to include a PET scanner into the build.

E. JOYCE: Not true.

G. BYRNE: That is absolutely true and we will provide any documentation that you want to be able to prove that out.

But with that said, in 2016, when there was a decision that was taken, the shelled-in space was available and then, Mr. Speaker, it is the Member, the Premier, who took the decision – the only one who took the decision to add a PET scanner into the policy of the Corner Brook hospital is the current Premier. That is a fact.

We may not want to actually acknowledge and say that out loud, some of us, as Members, but it is the truth. So I bless the courage of the Progressive Conservative Party for even wanting to talk about the Western Memorial Regional Hospital and its rebuild. I think it's a pretty awkward conversation for them, for obvious reasons. But at least I admire their tenacity.

When you find yourself locked into a room with no windows, bang your head against the wall and maybe you might be able to break the wall down because that's all they really have to offer here.

Yes, this is the administration that built the hospital that nobody else would. This is the administration that added services that nobody else would. This is the administration, Mr. Speaker, that actually is trying desperately and with great competence, great professionalism and great foresight to try to put Muskrat Falls back on track. That is the administration that refuses to admit there's a problem, but still suggests that they are the plausible solution.

It is a fallacy that's worthy of a book on both accounts, Mr. Speaker.

God bless and thank you for the time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

E. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wasn't planning on speaking this afternoon, but when you hear things about the hospital, that's very near and dear to me, since I started advocating for it in 2011, when I was elected in 2011, and to hear the Member for Corner Brook state that the PET scanner was taken out in 2016 is absolutely, categorically false.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

E. JOYCE: I even got it from former Premier Dwight Ball, we had our differences, when this heated up in Corner Brook, when Dwight Ball said publicly, he had no knowledge that the PET scanner was taken out and he was the premier of the province – no knowledge. Here's Dwight Ball in a letter in 2014 saying that there will be a PET scanner at the hospital in Corner Brook. This is the letter that Dwight Ball –

AN HON. MEMBER: Shouldn't he have to retract that?

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Member to –

E. JOYCE: That's what Dwight Ball put in himself.

SPEAKER: I remind the Member to use their title, please – former premier.

E. JOYCE: We announce names every day in this House in Member's statements, b'y. Stop trying to muffle me, b'y. We use the name any time we want to.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Member to refer to their name and their title.

E. JOYCE: God, b'y, you're always trying to do it. It's the truth, you were there.

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

E. JOYCE: You were there for God sake, b'y. We're using Member's names in this House all day. We're doing it all the time.

Anyway, getting back to that, you're not going to sidetrack me. Dwight Ball even said in The Telegram – I think it was The Telegram – that he did commit it and he had no idea it was taken out.

The former premier, how's that Speaker?

SPEAKER: Thank you.

E. JOYCE: Thank you.

It's not right but I'll do it just so I can keep on the point.

Former Premier Dwight Ball stated that he had no knowledge that it was taken out. So if the former premier, had no knowledge that it was taken out, Mr. Speaker, he had no knowledge, wouldn't you think he'd know if they put it in there in 2016, which in the letter he stated it was put in there.

Also, just to talk about the hospital because it's so near and dear to me and the people of the West Coast – I don't mean to be upset, but this is the kind of stuff that if you want to talk about going back to 2007, I understand, I was part of it. But when you go back and start taking out things – and I remember the former minister of Health, I wrote him when the laundry was taken out. I wrote the minister of Health and he wrote me back and he said – I can get the letter. I could actually have the letter. He wrote back and he said: In the discussions with the two ministers, it was taken out.

I wrote him back, I said: There's only one minister there at the time. Then he wrote me back and said: Oh, in consultation with people around.

So the idea that I was part of taking out that in 2017-2018 was false. Do you know what else was in that letter? I could table that letter. If anybody wants to question it, I could table the letter. Do you know what else was in it? The discussion about the laundry was a discussion with other people, except the premier, Dwight Ball. That was in the letter that Dwight Ball didn't even know, according to this letter, that the laundry services were being taken out of the hospital in Corner Brook. That was in the letter.

I say to the Member for Corner Brook, I understand when you go back to 2007. I have no problem with that; that's fair game. But when you talk about the PET scanner not being committed, it was committed. When you talk about the laundry services not being committed, it was committed. If you want to talk about the other stuff that was not committed, it was committed.

If you're going to take it out, let's be honest with the people and say why we took it out. That's what we need to do. If there's a reason to justify why we didn't do the laundry service – and just as we speak, from the latest information I have on the laundry service, was that right now it is out for third or fourth – I can't remember – consultant to see what's the best way to have laundry done for Western Newfoundland.

For two years, it's going to be still at the old hospital, old Western Memorial hospital in Corner Brook. That's as we speak, but it was in the initial agreement on the hospital. The space was put there, and I know a former minister of Health said it would cost over $100,000 a foot, or something. I'm just going off memory on that letter and I still have the letter. I can get the letter; $100,000 a foot, so we decided to take it out.

But I can tell you right now – and if anybody here can prove me wrong, I'll stand here and I'll apologize. I'll apologize publicly. At no time, from 2016 until April 2018, was the PET scanner or the laundry service ever taken out of the hospital. It was never taken out, I can guarantee you that. Then on the PET scanner, it was an agreement to put it in there. There was an agreement. This idea from that government, that premier, to put in the PET scanner is absolutely false – absolutely false.

Here we are kicking around making these false statements about the hospital in Corner Brook that needs all the services we can get, needs the radiation unit, we need the PET scanner and here we are trying to make politics of when it was taken out when it's just not true. Yet, people have still got to come from Corner Brook, still got to come from Stephenville, still got to come from Port aux Basques, still got to come from Western Newfoundland to go to St. John's for radiation and treatment.

Here we are, standing in this House taking that hospital, kicking it around like a political football when the statements aren't true and the biggest question is the radiation oncologist. They haven't got a hematologist in Corner Brook yet.

G. BYRNE: (Inaudible) t o apologize.

E. JOYCE: The Member for Corner Brook is saying I'm going to have to apologize. Produce the documents and I will show where Dwight Ball made a statement – and I'll track it down before this day is out – that he was not aware that the PET scanner was taken out. That was in 2019 when Dwight Ball said that. I can guarantee you there was never ever in my 2½ years that I've been in Cabinet, never ever was discussed that the PET scanner was taken out, I'll tell you right now.

So my thing now that – and I wasn't going to get up and talk today. I really wasn't. If we're going to talk about the hospital, let's talk about it in a positive way. Let's stick to something that we're going to put forward. Let's work on, with the Minister of Health, let the Minister of Health look forward and say how we're going to work on getting the specialist that we need in Corner Brook. It's easier to stand here and banter around here, banter here about the PET scanner, about this or that. Let's look at the positive side and speak the truth. If we're going to take something out, let's take it out, but let's explain to the people why we're taking this out. And I will track it down.

I'll just get on the few other topics now that I'll have that straightened out. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, I got a note today that the gabion baskets will be done. I got a note today. I wasn't aware of that because it wasn't in the budget. There was no money put in the budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

E. JOYCE: Pardon me? What did you say?

P. LANE: You owe him an apology, he says.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Member to address the Chair.

E. JOYCE: Let me ask you a question – I'm serious on this. You said it was going to be done later on. There was nothing put in the budget for it. There was nothing put on Route 450, but today all of a sudden there is. So I would say it is going to be done, but any information I had, even from you and from the department, there was nothing being done on Route 450. I'm just saying that your department is saying today that the gabion baskets are going to be done; I'm acknowledging it and that's what I'm doing.

But from the time the announcement was made to that, there wasn't one thing being done on Route 450. Now, I get on the other parts of Route 450 where there are some major concerns. I was going to take a picture.

First of all, to the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, I thank you for the kind gesture for the people of Lark Harbour and York Harbour the weekend. I know there are a few other people, the Member for Burgeo - La Poile, the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, the Premier, a lot more reached out and I know everybody in this House for the tragedy in Lark Harbour and York Harbour this weekend. I know a lot of other Members reached out also, so I just thank everybody in the House for that. The Leader of the Opposition reached out.

I know the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture, I know that your heart and soul was in there that day also. So I just want to reach out and add a few words and I thank people for reaching out for everybody on that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

E. JOYCE: This is something that is a tragedy that happens too much in Newfoundland and Labrador. When you want to talk about the perils of the fishery, this is a prime example, two young men lost into it. I know there would not be a Member in this House that wasn't touched by the tragedy of the weekend. For the Members that reached out to me, to pass on their condolences to the families, thank you all very much on behalf of the families and I acknowledge it all.

Again, I mention that the Premier will cover any cost that they had, that they needed to get people in that needed a bit of counselling and other things. I thanked the Premier last night at the vigil they had, personally for that, because it was a very kind gesture to do, how we all come together on that.

Thank you, everybody, for that and I am sure the family knows that everybody is very appreciative that we're all behind the families in this time. Especially the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture, because I know he probably met a couple of those people out there in his travels in the meetings. So thank you everybody for that, on behalf of the families.

I'll get back to the other thing on Route 450. I say to the minister, I didn't want to take a picture of it, but in talking about Route 450, there is nothing in the budget for any pavement. The Department of Transportation and Infrastructure actually has signs up: Beware of potholes. The department have signs up and I'm trying to explain to them, it's safety concerns. It's about two or three years now and there has been no development there, all patching work. There's one part down Little Port Road whereby the bus won't even turn around anymore, and the minister is aware of it.

So, Minister, the gabion baskets are going to be done, that's great. I hope it's going to be done this year. I was told that they're going to get it done this year, which is great, which is a big safety concern. But I ask the minister to ask his officials about the conditions of a few areas on Route 450 where there are potholes, ruts in the roads, especially, I'll say to the minister – I know his officials are listening and they're agreeing because they had to go fix one pothole, very severe one there from Georgetown Road up to the top of Allen's Road.

That area is where a lot of traffic goes, a lot of school buses goes. The ruts are six inches in the road. There are at least 15 or 20 potholes just from that area alone. Everybody from down the bay – not everybody – about 90 per cent that comes from Lark Harbour, York Harbour, Frenchman's Cove, Johns-beach, Benoit's Cove, Halfway Point, Mount Moriah, half of Curling, they go that route.

It needs to be looked at, I say to the minister, if possible, not even a kilometre of road, to have that done. There are a few areas further down, if you could look at it, if there's any money left over from it, it needs to be done for safety reasons. This is not a luxury; this is a safety reason.

So I'm going to take my seat now and – there's another thing I'm going to say here today is the amendments to that, that the minister put in today, the Limitations Act . I say to the government, that's a good move. I'm glad that's going to be tabled. Let's hope now, when the bill comes out, that the bill will be what we are all hoping it's going to be, it's going to be limitations for physical abuse for the area.

I'll tell you another concern out on the West Coast that – I don't know what the answer is and I'm assuming that the Minister of Health is very aware of it. There are a lot of seniors, not just seniors, but mainly seniors that are in the old Western Memorial hospital that I don't think there are enough beds in the new hospital, so people are wondering and they're anticipating that the old Western Memorial Regional Hospital is going to be open for an extended period of time for those seniors. They're waiting to get a bed in long-term care.

So I ask the minister, when he gets time, to have a few words to explain to the people what's going to happen to the old Western Memorial Regional Hospital now, because there are a lot of seniors in the beds themselves waiting to go to long-term care and there's no room. That's something the minister could take a note on and when he gets a chance to speak, he could bring that up and mention that.

I'll just sit down and take my seat right now, Mr. Speaker, because it's always a pleasure to stand here on behalf of the people of Humber - Bay of Islands. It's always a pleasure here to stand up for the concerns of the people of Humber - Bay of Islands.

To the people of York Harbour and Lark Harbour, to all the families, hang in there. I know it's tough on York Harbour and the Lark Harbour and the extended families in that area. We're all with you. We know the tragedy and how hard it's going to be on so many people in the long term. But may God speed help you all get through it all. May you all find a bit of solace in the time that you had with the children that were lost. It's a tough, tough situation. It shows the perils of fisherpeople in Newfoundland and Labrador, what could happen, how bad it was, the possibilities of just out fishing with people on shore watching, but they couldn't get out to them. It's just a tragic time.

This is the time that I'm proud that all of the House of Assembly comes together to help the families, support the families. The government did it, the Leader of the Opposition did it and the NDP are with us. My friend from Mount Pearl - Southlands was very concerned, calling this weekend.

God bless the people in York Harbour and Lark Harbour and God bless the families. Please hang in there because I know you have tough days ahead.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DWYER: Thank you, Speaker.

I echo the words to the people of York Harbour and Lark Harbour. On behalf of the Official Opposition, our hearts are there with them and that community as well.

Speaker, when I heard the Member opposite speak today, he so pointedly wanted to either chastise us or put us in our place. But I think what we're missing here in the House of Assembly is that we have to deal with the orders of today. Asking the past any new questions, gets us no new answers. But when we don't take responsibility for getting a project over the finish line, then that's not on this side at that point. It's on that side over there for the simple fact that I guess it was another operational issue. It was something that was mismanaged as opposed to putting the best foot forward, because we took a B team instead of the A team we were promised.

When it comes to that, I hear the Member opposite, he referenced the PC side several times, but I find that to be a little bit immoral for the simple fact that we've just gone through two by-elections where the signs are changed. They're not calling themselves Liberals anymore, yet they can call out the PCs. I think it's time to look internally on the other side and realize why you're not calling yourselves Liberals anymore.

So, to me, I will bring up one thing because we know that the Premier has written the prime minister about the carbon tax and pausing the carbon tax. What we would prefer, on this side, is to cancel the carbon tax as it's not the right instrument for the people of our country. In saying that, the Member opposite from Corner Brook that just spoke blamed the prime minister and his Cabinet and his caucus for – I will quote – intellectually and morally bankrupting their decision. I couldn't agree more.

I agree with the Member opposite, but in my impetus to ask them to look internally, maybe they should look at that statement and realize that it applies to them, too, when it comes to the sugar tax because that's not the right mechanism, right now, to throw at the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that find themselves in a crisis when it comes to the cost of living. We've talked about it here earlier today, when we talked about crisis, we're mulling it over like it's second nature all of a sudden.

It's not something that we've got to deal with immediately because, to me, crisis means something that we need to focus on now and we need to get it fixed now. So if that's the case, we've been kicking this can down the road now for almost eight or nine years because from that very first budget to today's budget that we're debating today, there has been no significant improvement in our economy. What we're trying to do is tax people out of a recession, which we know doesn't work. It just doesn't work.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

J. DWYER: Well, again, you're intellectually and morally bankrupt in your decision-making if you're going to double down and keep the sugar tax going.

Should we ask the Premier to write himself a letter? Maybe that's what we should do. We'll ask the Premier to write a letter on behalf of the people of the province to the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador saying that this is not the right mechanism right now due to the cost-of-living crisis that we are currently in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. DWYER: Everything is an operational issue; kick the can down the road; it's somebody else's fault; it's somebody else's problem; this was created long before us. Deal with it, you're the government. You have to deal with it today. You're the government of the day. We are here trying to help. We want to bring forward some initiatives. We need to start the listening process. That seems to be what the problem is here.

I'd like to talk about tourism, as that's my shadow Cabinet role. In my last address, when I talked to the amendment, I talked about all the good things that are happening in tourism, which there are a lot of good things and we're moving in the right direction, but we're certainly not there yet.

This year is the 75th anniversary of Confederation, something great to build on, because I think one thing we can say is that – I don't speak for everybody in the province, but I think I speak for the majority that feel that they're Newfoundlanders first,