PDF Version

October 31, 2022 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 10

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

I would like to welcome guests joining us in the public gallery this afternoon. Visiting us today are people representative of three Members' statements: Melissa Slaney, Executive Director, and Chantelle Bennett, Resource Development Coordinator for the St. John's Boys and Girls Club; Emily Power; Jennifer Fitzpatrick.

In addition, joining us for a Ministerial Statement are new employees to the public service who are part of the Graduate Recruitment Program.

I would also like to welcome Coraline Toomashie-Brown, daughter of MHA Brown.

Welcome, everyone.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

SPEAKER: Today we will hear statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of St. George's - Humber, Terra Nova, Stephenville - Port au Port, St. John's Centre, Topsail - Paradise and also St. John's Centre with leave.

The hon. the Member for St. George's - Humber.

S. REID: Speaker, recently I attended an event in Stephenville to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the auxiliary to the Sir Thomas Roddick Hospital.

The first meetings of the STRH Auxiliary was held in 1972, as Hospital Administrator Harold Wells and several community leaders came together to form this organization. Since then, these volunteers have fundraised approximately $285,000 for the hospital.

This group of volunteers operates the gift shop at the hospital which not only generates funds, but also provides a service for the patients and the staff. In 1993, the auxiliary branched out to Bay St. George South and formed the three Rivers Branch in the fine community of Jeffrey's where donations are made to the Jeffrey's clinic as well as the hospital in Stephenville.

Over the years, the auxiliary were involved in providing lunches, organizing social activities, providing pyjamas and other items to patients who came to the hospital. They also provide a quiet room and a kitchen area for family visiting loved ones.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of this House to join with me in commending the Sir Thomas Roddick Hospital Auxiliary for all the comfort and care they have provided to the people of the Bay St. George area.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Fry Family Foundation and its founders, Darryl and Marlene Fry, on their 25 years of community service in and around our province, country and beyond.

The foundation strives to provide support for the disadvantaged and support for the development of leadership skills within the student population through activities that include scholarships, entrepreneurship, community education and social enterprise.

While they have supported a wide variety of organizations such as MUN, CNA, Salvation Army, the Genesis program at the Marine Institute and the Community Alliance, I would like to focus my appreciation today on the foundation's contributions to a community in my district

Glovertown is a thriving community and developing tourism hub in the Central region. Much of this success can be attributed to the foundation's partnership with the Town of Glovertown.

The foundation has partnered on various projects in Glovertown including the development of the Diamond House, the Art Studio, as well as the picturesque Ken Diamond Memorial Park as their very first project.

I commend this family for their generosity to the community, to the province and to the country and continued support, specifically to Glovertown.

Please join me in recognizing and congratulating the Fry Family Foundation for their contributions over the last 25 years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.

Kristen Cooze, who hails originally from Port au Port, and later Kippens, is a name that is well known on the sport scene in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Kristen has displayed a lifelong passion for sports, starting with ice hockey at the age of four, and continuing on to compete in every sport available: softball, basketball, volleyball, et cetera. Kristen's sportsmanship and athleticism has been recognized with many awards throughout her young career.

In 2011, Kristen was named to Team Canada's women's ball hockey team and, at that time, her goal was to be the first Newfoundlander to win a goal medal in women's ball hockey as a member of that team.

Well, in June 2022, that dream became a reality with a 3-2 win over the Czech Republic. Kristen didn't just come home as a 2022 World Ball Hockey Champion; she also scored the game-winning goal to secure the victory. Kristen was inducted into the International Ball Hockey Hall of Fame and became the first female to do so.

I ask the hon. Members of the House to join me in congratulating Kristen in her future endeavours.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Irish poet, John O'Donohue said, “Compassion is the ability to vitally imagine what it is like to be another ….”

For Melissa Slaney, Chantelle Bennett and Vicki Doyle of the Buckmaster's Circle Boys and Girls Club, the ability to imagine what it's like to be another underpins their compassion for the children they serve.

This is evident in Warm Bellies, a staff-led supper initiative which provides children with a nutritious meal so they leave the club with warm, full bellies.

Several years ago, staff noticed that during their supper break between the after-school and evening programs, when the club was closed, many of the children waited outside and did not go home. In many cases, there was no supper to go home to. They returned to the evening program hungry.

The BGC didn't have the resources to provide meals; staff brought in food from their homes so the children would have something to eat. It grew, and BGC turned to corporate donors for support. Today, Warm Bellies provides hot meals to 25-plus children one night a week.

Now I ask Members to join me in recognizing the Warm Bellies project and the BGC staff who created it.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, the World Karate and Kickboxing Commission World Championships are an annual martial arts competition where competitors from all over the world assemble to test their skills against the best of the best in their particular discipline. To be eligible to attend the world championships competitors must be selected to represent their country by their respective national team president by competing at either national championships, training camps or a series of regional tournaments.

Back in May, Emily Power travelled to the World Karate and Kickboxing Commission National Championships in Ottawa and secured a spot on Team Canada. Earlier this month, she travelled to Killarney, Ireland for the World Karate Championships, along with six other athletes from Newfoundland.

Emily did very good in point and continuous sparring events, earning her three gold medals and one silver medal. In total, the athletes returned home with 20 medals including five world titles.

Speaker, the performance of Emily and that of her Team Canada friends was outstanding. I am very proud to rise and to extend congratulations to 16-year-old Emily Power, three-time world champion from Topsail - Paradise and I wish her continued success.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre with leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Leave.

SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Williams Saunders, Bill Saunders, a World War II veteran who died last week at the age of 101, by reading a few words from the eulogy delivered by his granddaughter Jennifer Fitzpatrick.

To many, Bill Saunders was a decorated war hero who stayed after the war to free POWs and returned to Newfoundland to continue service with the Royal Canadian Legion. To me, this man was poppy. The man who made me breakfast, drove me to school every day. If it was raining or snowing, he would come to school an hour before we got out just to get a parking spot by the door where he would patiently wait reading a book, happy, knowing that I wouldn't have far to run to be in the warm, happy safety of his car. He guided me through my childhood with love and endless patience, always putting himself second. To me, this is what made him a true hero.

The true love of his life was my grandmother, Brenda, who he married after a short courtship during the war. I've often wondered how terrifying it must have been to walk away from her back into battle, not knowing if he would see his young bride again. Luckily, they both survived and created a beautiful life together; a life that I don't think was ever the same for pop after her passing.

Now, he is happily reunited with the love of his life. I can just picture my grandmother puttering around the house singing the Vera Lynn song that has finally come true for them.

We'll meet again,

Don't know where, don't know when,

But I know we'll meet again

Some sunny day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. DINN: And with permission, I would like to ask for a moment of silence for this veteran of World War II.

SPEAKER: All those able, rise for a moment of silence.

(Moment of Silence.)

SPEAKER: Please be seated.

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Public Service Commission.

S. COADY: Thank you, Speaker.

I am pleased to welcome to our public service our first new employees through the Graduate Recruitment Program, many of whom who have joined us here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. COADY: These recruits are highly educated and skilled. Among this team you will find a doctorate in sociology and a host of masters' degrees, including public health, science management, economics, marine studies and health ethics. We have graduates with backgrounds in nursing, criminology and business, just to name a few.

These new employees bring their knowledge and skill and drive to collaborate and enhance development in fiscal, social, immigration and health policies, as well as Indigenous affairs, business analysis and human resources, among many others. These talented recruits are very eager to make meaningful contributions to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and through it to the people of the province.

The Graduate Recruitment Program provides an opportunity to gain valuable experience in one or more work assignments, expand skills and knowledge, network and connect with professionals and receive ongoing mentoring, coaching and learning opportunities. The goal is to develop a career path to management and executive roles within the public service.

I invite my colleagues to join with me in wishing our new graduate recruits well as they learn from and enhance our strong public service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Speaker.

I would like to thank the Deputy Premier for an advance copy of her statement. Speaker, the Official Opposition joins the government in welcoming these highly educated and skilled recruits to our public service. It's an exciting day. The skills that these individuals possess will be valuable to the people, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

While we must celebrate our successes, we must also prepare and be ready for retirements in our public service. There are so many young and energetic recruits out there who are willing and able to join the public service if just given the opportunity. With so many possible recruits out there, we must ensure that no vacancy is left on the table.

Once again, welcome to these new recruits and we wish them all the best in their new roles.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. The work of the public service if beyond invaluable. We encourage this government to be proactive with these individuals and the skills they offer to the public service. Find the big, bold ideas that we were promised in the youth of this province and these new individuals. We hope that they, like many other public servants in this province, aren't left scrambling to put government initiatives forward without – read about it in the news. We ask that you ask for their input as well.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Any further statements by minister?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, the Premier has now had almost two weeks to produce receipts for his fishing trip with billionaire Liberal owner John Risley.

I ask the Premier: Will you table those receipts?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said before, I always have and always will follow the rules and will continue to do so well into the future, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I've gone beyond the standard rules and set up an ethical wall, as it exists right now, between me and the person in question. That was done months and months and months ago, Mr. Speaker.

As the Member opposite knows that means that I have no decision-making when it comes to the person in question, Mr. Speaker. We have a robust, open and transparent system created by the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology. It's open and transparent for all to see, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

I guess you can't table what you don't have.

Speaker, the Premier has talked about his ethical walls when dealing with the private business interest of his friends.

I ask the Premier, first question: What is an ethical wall and will you table documents outlining each time you use one of these, quote, ethical walls?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Sure, I'm happy to answer that question, Mr. Speaker.

An ethical wall is established such that any decision-making or any information surrounding any of my friends, Mr. Speaker, doesn't come to me for decision-making or influence. No different than the NLMA when they were negotiating salaries, Mr. Speaker. It would have been a conflict for me to have been involved in that as I am a physician; my wife is a physician; I have lots of friends who are physicians. I didn't weigh in on that and I won't weigh in on this, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the minister has created a robust, open and transparent process that every proponent has to go through, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

This screams that we need an ethics commissioner. Those comments really scream we need an ethics commissioner. Why don't you table the documents and we can move on?

Speaker, an order-in-council to lift the wind moratorium was issued on April 5, just one day later the Premier's friend applied for a permit.

Did the Premier recuse himself from this Cabinet decision?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm certainly happy any chance I get to stand up and talk about the wind process that we have established here in the province.

Now, when it comes to applying for permits, in fact, I think anybody is able to apply for a permit at any time, especially as it relates to the Department of Environment. Certainly my department would see a lot of that in the sense of people applying, whether it relates to mining; whether it relates to oil; whether it relates to anything as it relates to resources.

So, again, this is something that happens all the time. I'm not aware of when these permits are applied for, but what I can say about the process is that everything, so far to date, as people would know I have been talking about it in the House quite a bit, is moving above board, everybody is seeing it is fair and transparent.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

We're not looking for an explanation of the process.

One simple question: Premier, did you recuse yourself from that Cabinet decision?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't believe, actually, when somebody applies for a permit that it is a Cabinet decision; it would not go to Cabinet. The people would actually apply to the Department of Environment and Climate Change and it would go through that process there.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

B. PETTEN: I guess the answer is pretty clear, Mr. Speaker; order-in-council, I guess he never recused himself.

Speaker, the Health Accord details what the next decade and beyond will look like for health care in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Can the Premier tell us which page of the Health Accord recommends replacing St. Clare's?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I have to go back to the

preamble of the question because it is leaving the viewer or somebody watching with the impression that something was done wrong, something was not transparently, and that is offensive to me because the reality is this would not have been a decision made with Cabinet. Anybody applying for a permit would go through the department. That happens every single day.

B. PETTEN: (Inaudible.)

A. PARSONS: I say to the Member –

B. PETTEN: (Inaudible.)

SPEAKER: Order, please!

A. PARSONS: – wait until I answer the question before you get up and ask the question.

So, again, I would say this is not something that would have gone through a Cabinet process, that happens every day and I think the minister could talk about it at length.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

B. PETTEN: Mr. Speaker, the minister is playing games with words here now. It's an order-in-council when the wind moratorium was lifted. It happened in the Cabinet room.

I ask the Premier: Did he recuse himself from that decision?

We're gone into another rabbit hole here, but I asked him a clear question. The Minister of Industry, Energy don't have to answer that question, I'm asking the Premier that question.

Speaker, bricks and mortar are not causing the health care crisis in Newfoundland and Labrador. The failure to recruit and retain health professionals by the Liberal government is the cause.

I ask the Premier: Why make this announcement when we can't keep our existing emergency rooms open due to lack of staff?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's simple; the complexity of the health care system requires investment in infrastructure as well as human resources, Mr. Speaker. It can't be done in tandem. They have to be done in parallel. We have to build both at the same time. That's quite clear.

The metro region, which the Member opposite is a part of, has grown by 25 per cent since 2000, yet the acute care beds have not allowed for that capacity to be absorbed, Mr. Speaker. We have to be planning with respect to human resources, but we also have to be planning with infrastructure, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If it was your plan 27,000 people in CBS would be getting more than blood work they have to pay for.

Today, emergency rooms in Whitbourne, St. Lawrence and Port Saunders are closed due to shortage of staff. Whitbourne has been closed for 19 straight weeks.

Why does the Premier continue to ignore the health care crisis facing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians today?

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

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I take exception to that comment. Yes, there are emergency departments still on diversion in this province, Mr. Speaker, but we've had a number of those emergency departments who were on diversion who are no longer on diversion. We've significantly reduced the number of diversions.

We introduced just a week or so ago, the Medical Act , Mr. Speaker, in this Legislature to allow us to better attract physicians to the province. We've got a number of incentives and initiatives put in place to attract health care professionals to this province.

You will hear later this week, my colleague, the minister responsible for Immigration and the Premier announce a very direct initiative. We will have shortly after that, another very direct initiative to attract health care professionals to this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

B. PETTEN: Speaker, we all take exception to emergency rooms being closed in the province. I'm glad the minister agrees with us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: Speaker, the issue of inappropriate photos being taken of seniors in government run, long-term care facilities is nothing short of horrendous. The minister knew for weeks of one particular case but the serious patient event was not disclosed to the public.

I ask the minister: Why are you failing in your duty to disclose these serious events?

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

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the issue that happened in Western Newfoundland was brought to attention of the department in late July. The issue in Central Newfoundland was brought to the attention of the department last month, Mr. Speaker, and the issue that the Member is referring to was brought to the attention of the department on Friday of last week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

B. PETTEN: I'll remind the minister, I'm talking about the issue in Western Health that he told the media that he knew two weeks in advance. So it wasn't about the one that was last week.

Seniors in long-term care facilities are vulnerable and may find it difficult or unsafe to report incidents. Imagine trying to blow the whistle on an abuser who is due to deliver your next meal.

What additional safeguards have been implemented in long-term care facilities since these revelations so residents can safely report incidents and not worry about repercussions?

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

T. OSBORNE: If there is any incident in a long-term care facility, Mr. Speaker, it is unacceptable – absolutely unacceptable. Any staff member who brings an issue such as this forward will not have any issue in doing so, I can assure them.

Mr. Speaker, these issues are not acceptable. We fully expect seniors to be treated with respect and dignity and compassion. We've sent a request to all health authorities to ensure that training is up to standard for all staff. While I do believe that the vast majority of staff dealing with our seniors, Mr. Speaker, are doing so in the most appropriate way, we do need to deal with the situations that are not acceptable, I can assure you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

The minister owes it to the families and those residents in this home to be more forthcoming with those issues because other residents in that home have families that are unaware of these issues.

The Seniors' Advocate, in our 2019 report Long May Your Big Jib Draw: Setting Sail , called for a significant review of long-term care facilities and personal care homes. The new Seniors' Advocate has repeated this call as recently as last week in response to these incidents and our letter.

When will this review be completed?

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

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I've had discussions with the Seniors' Advocate, who herself has said she understands and accepts the fact that the majority of staff in the department during COVID were focused on COVID. However, it is time to get to this review, I agree.

Mr. Speaker, I've had discussions with the Seniors' Advocate. We've written to her last week and again this week, Mr. Speaker, to indicate that this review will take place. It is important. It will be in-depth. It will be comprehensive.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, the Janeway is now reduced to one psychologist. Child development is no longer accepting referrals, and the lone psychologist is not providing counselling. Speaker, families are in desperate need of supports for their children.

I ask the minister: Why is this government failing families and their children who need these services?

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

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, it doesn't matter which province you look at. I saw news reports from almost every province last week talking about the shortage of health care professionals and the challenge in recruiting health care professionals. This province is no different.

This is an important issue, Mr. Speaker. We absolutely do need those health care professionals in these positions, and we are undertaking recruitment efforts in a very challenging globally competitive era to attract these health care professionals to this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

I'm very much concerned about this province – the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians of this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. DINN: Speaker, Kristi Allan has been protesting for 100 straight weeks for better long-term mental care supports in our province, even showing up on her wedding day.

In June it was reported that there had been – quote – a mass exodus of psychologists in the province.

I ask the minister: When will long-term mental health care get the attention it deserves, or will Kristi have to protest another 100 weeks?

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

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, this government, under the Premier and the former minister of Health, have put in a number of initiatives to reduce wait times, improve mental health care in this province, and those results are clear.

Have we got all of the work done? No, certainly not. There is much more to be done. The psychologist that the Member speaks of, Mr. Speaker, there is an issue. We do want to attract and recruit these health care professionals and we are working on that.

I can assure him and all of the people of this province that this is a priority for this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

But this government's been here seven years – seven years.

The new mental health and addictions facility is scheduled to open in 2024, yet we have seen a mass exodus of mental health care professionals in this province.

I ask the minister: How does he expect to provide long-term mental health care supports in this facility when he can't even staff the current facilities?

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

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, it is this province we are trying to recruit for, I can assure him. But when you're dealing with a globally competitive era for recruitment and every province in Canada – he was saying just a couple of months ago, touting all of the doctors recruited in Nova Scotia, until he found out most of them are locums.

He no longer says that, Mr. Speaker, because the reality is our neighbours in Nova Scotia, in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, in Ontario and Quebec are all dealing with the recruitment issues that we're dealing with. We are focused on overcoming those challenges. We've put a number of initiatives in place. We have very direct recruitment initiatives about to be announced, in addition to all of the incentives –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

T. OSBORNE: – and initiatives that we've put in place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Speaker, while the Minister of Health continues to state things are good in the area of mental health care in the province, the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development has now admitted to shortcomings in government's approach admitting – quote – there are gaps.

When can the residents of Rabbittown and the province expect to see solutions?

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

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, we have put in place Bridge the gapp, which is an award-winning program in this province. Other provinces have taken up the same sort of programming, learning and implementing the Bridge the gapp program that we have in this province. We have Doorways. We have a number of initiatives – 811 with mental health services available to individuals 24 hours, seven days a week.

Mr. Speaker, the issues that the Member raises are important issues. They deal with prostitution with illicit drug sales. It is a very complex issue involving a number of departments and a number of agencies. These issues are not easy to resolve or to solve, but we are focused on helping that community and the people involved.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of CSSD, in his own words to the media said: Mental health can be addressed by more resources in the community. We could not agree more. Advocates have been pushing for more wraparound services or supports for years.

If his colleague won't, will the Minister of CSSD now put his own words into practice?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the FACT teams that are in place across the province, the ACTT teams that are in place, Bridge the gapp, Doorways: all of these initiatives have been put in place and funded by this government.

They are dealing with – I take exception to the Member for saying that they're not working because they are, Mr. Speaker. Yes, there is much work to be done in the area of mental health, but we have reduced wait times – eliminated wait times in many cases – for mental health services in this province.

Mr. Speaker, there is much more work to be done, but nobody can deny the fantastic work that's been put in place. All you need to do is reach out to stakeholders, such as the Canadian Mental Health Association and others, who indicate that the work that has been put in place in this province is having a very positive –

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The minister's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Mr. Speaker, last week the federal Liberals voted for the carbon tax. The Premier talks about a letter that he had sent to the federal minister, but clearly that letter didn't work.

I ask the Premier: Did you speak to our six Liberal MPs before the vote?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I made my position on the carbon tax quite public. I've spoken to the MPs about it in the past. It's not the right instrument for this time in our province, given the inflationary pressures that exist and the fact that there are 40,000 to 50,000 homes, Mr. Speaker, still on furnace fuel. We've made it very public. We've made it very clear. I'm not sure what else to say. It's a federal tax, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, so the Premier didn't speak to the MPs before the vote. I ask him why he didn't call those MPs before the vote.

AN HON. MEMBER: He did.

T. WAKEHAM: No, he said he spoke in past. He didn't speak to them before the vote.

Did the Premier speak to the MPs before the vote?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This has been an ongoing conversation for months, Mr. Speaker. So I have spoken to the MPs over the last several months with respect to this pertinent issue and how it impacts Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: So clearly, the Premier's influence on the MPs is about as good as he has with influence over the prime minister, his friend. The Premier's friend, the prime minister, is forcing carbon tax to be charged on home heating fuel.

I ask the Premier: Who is getting the revenue from this carbon tax on home heating fuel?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, my friend the prime minister has been here for Newfoundland and Labrador with $5.2 billion –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. FUREY: – to clean up the mess from the other side, Mr. Speaker. Without that, Mr. Speaker, the electricity rates would have doubled – doubled.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: So the prime minister has been there for this province, Mr. Speaker, and he will continue to be there, I'm sure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, it's amazing how the prime minister of the country can take an equity stake in a pipeline but can't take an equity stake in a project like ours that's good for clean, green energy in this province.

Now, let's talk about –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

T. WAKEHAM: The Premier didn't answer the question, so I ask again.

Given the fact that the revenue from the carbon tax is going to come to Newfoundland and Labrador, will the Premier commit that his government and his Finance Minister will rebate that money paid by people back to the people who are actually paying that tax?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It remains to be seen what the federal government is going to do with their position with respect to Newfoundland and Labrador. We put our position forward. What they do will be up to them. If they implement a backstop, as I'm sure the Member opposite knows, it will be their money to distribute, not ours, Mr. Speaker. That's how it will work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Speaker.

It's now been a year since the worst cyberattack in Canadian history, crippling our health care system, yet this government remains silent on the details of what happened.

I ask the Minister of Digital Government: Why do you refuse to be transparent with the public on one of the worst cyberattacks in our country's history?

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

Cybersecurity is very important to our government. We have a range of initiatives that we're undertaking to review and make sure that everyone's information is as secure as it can be, Mr. Speaker. We're looking at all of our ABCs to see how we, as core government, can help support them in their cybersecurity initiatives, Mr. Speaker. It's very important.

I would recommend that everyone do the training that's available in PSAccess for all of our Members here in the House to make sure that you're personally making sure that you understand what to do with emails that you get and all that kind of stuff.

Cybersecurity is everyone's responsibility, Mr. Speaker, and I encourage all Members of this House to do the PSAccess training.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Again, 20 minutes wasted and no answers.

When Ireland faced a cyberattack on their health care system, their government launched a full public inquiry within six months. The public knew about a ransom request and about changes made to protect the health care system in the future.

I ask the Minister of Digital Government: Why do you refuse the transparency?

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

We note that cyberactivity is on the rise, Mr. Speaker. We get millions of attacks to our core government every year and we have a very dedicated team. We're working with lots of third-party vendors to try and make sure that we're protecting the data of the people of the province as best we can, Mr. Speaker.

I would recommend that everyone in this room do the PSAccess training on cybersecurity, make sure that you have very complex passwords, use a different password for each of your systems, don't open email attachments from people you don't know, don't click on links, make sure you check that the link is unique, Mr. Speaker, before you click on the –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

S. STOODLEY: Thank you.

SPEAKER: I've heard the question. I want to hear the response, too.

The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL, if you want to finish.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

There are lots of actions that I encourage everyone in this province to take to protect their own information and their own security.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Speaker, 14 days ago when asked about the long wait-list for hip replacement surgeries, the Premier, in reference to the new program responded: “There are some hiccups along the way.”

The Premier made the announcement in May, yet still no action.

I ask the Premier again: When can the people of this province expect single-day outpatient procedures for hip replacement surgeries?

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

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that the Premier has taken a great deal of interest in, I can assure you.

As far as I am aware – I have not been notified otherwise – Eastern Health is still on target for November to start same-day joint replacements. Mr. Speaker, I know that physicians are taking appointments now. I also know, as the Premier had indicated last week, that we're looking at two other locations in the province for joint replacements, which is an initiative of this government to expand that service. Mr. Speaker, we're looking at Carbonear and we're looking at St. Anthony.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Speaker, it is nice to hear that the Premier has taken an interest, yet we see no action. A constituent from Clarke's Beach in the District of Harbour Main was told back in May that her surgery would be a priority due to the severity of her condition.

Today, this woman is a hostage in her recliner. Her family is watching her suffer in agony every day. Our office has reached out to the minister's office looking for answers, only to be told that client relations will be calling her. There have still been no calls.

Speaker, what action is being taken to help this woman and so many others who are suffering while waiting for the call?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, there is action being taken, if same day replacements are supposed to start in November, I would say that is action.

Mr. Speaker, it does take time to get these things up and running. From May to November is not an extraordinary long period of time. We just went through the approval process today to have Carbonear approved to have joint replacements take place in Carbonear. I know we're in the process, Mr. Speaker, of putting the pieces in play to have them done, as well, in St. Anthony.

So there is concrete action being taken in this province. I can't change the scheduled appointment time, but we will make sure that we address client relations again so that individual gets a call.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Speaker, a recent ATIPP request revealed that during last year 50 per cent of our aircraft maintenance positions were vacant.

Is this why water bombers weren't available over 28 times this summer while some of the worst forest fires in Newfoundland and Labrador history threatened families and their homes?

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

D. BRAGG: Speaker, I'm proud to announce that with our capacity of our four air tankers is better than the six we had in previous years. They were ready for the call in Central Newfoundland this year; they were assisted by outside people. Quebec came in with four more air tankers. We were well equipped for the forest fire that happened this year in Central Newfoundland.

We're about to do a debrief on it now and see if there is something else we needed, like maybe an early response team, I may be letting the cat out of the bag here. We may want to just drop people down on the sites early in the game.

But this past summer our four air tankers and our crew, I can't thank them enough for the work they did to keep those ships in the air, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: The minister's time has expired.

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, while the announcement of a new St. Clare's hospital and investments in health care infrastructure are welcomed, bricks and mortars don't check your vitals, won't prescribe treatment, won't care for you while you're hospitalized and will not relieve the crushing demands on our health care professionals.

I ask the Premier: What's the plan to staff this and other health care facilities in the province?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Member opposite should know, the delivery of health care is quite complex. It can't be just one stream versus the other. Human resources and infrastructure resources can't go in tandem. We're recognizing that the metro region has exploded 20 to 25 per cent since 2000 and we have to make sure that we're looking at human resources and infrastructure in parallel, not in tandem. We are growing both, Mr. Speaker, to meet the demands of the metro region and, frankly, these hospitals serve the rest of the province as well, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: I think health care professionals would prefer that they are a priority first.

As part of government's accelerated plan for the new hospital, the Premier announced his preference for the use of P3s. We know that P3 build models cost more, cut corners for profit and saddles future generations with debt. This government said debt is a birthright for people of this province.

Speaker, what is the cost of this build and which government friends stand to profit?

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

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, we announce the process is starting today. There will be consultation, Mr. Speaker, with all stakeholders on what this design needs to look like, how many beds are required, what services are required. Then we go to an RFQ, Mr. Speaker, which will give us an indication of the costing of this and then we go through the budget process.

This is no different than any other process where government will announce the intent to do something and then the process starts.

Mr. Speaker, we'll know soon what the cost of this is. We'll know soon how many beds are required, what services are required and, hopefully, even the design of the build, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Speaker, this government promotes the importance of social determinants of health. Education is one of them. It's a fact that Inuit youth have different cultural learning needs. This makes online learning a barrier for most Inuit students.

Will the minister return in-class teaching for Grade 12 students in Nain, a step, a real step, towards reconciliation?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you very much for the question, Speaker.

Hands on, in-class education is the standard we wanted to return to. This year, we made that a priority with reopening the schools the way we did and is near back to normal as possible.

The previous education action plan reference specifically the need for culturally appropriate, contextual education and under that, there was an Indigenous group formed to advise the department and the school district.

Indeed, on the basis of subsequent discussions, teacher allocation review and the like, this need for culturally sensitive education continues. We'll continue to work with the First Nations to do that, Speaker.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, for 100 weeks a group has stood out in front of this building demanding the Liberal government do better to deliver long-term mental health needs. In Labrador West, you have to prepare up to 100 weeks before you get your first call with a psychiatrist or a psychologist.

Do the minister think that a two-year wait for this type of mental health service is okay? When will the access to this type of service improve for Labradorians?

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

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, I don't think it's okay. Mr. Speaker, the key element here is recruitment of more psychologists. That is something we're focused on. We will look to recruit more individuals which will shorten that wait time, Mr. Speaker.

We need the health care professional to deliver the service. We are recruiting the health care professionals.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party, no

preamble, please.

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Premier, at the nursing rally they are pleading for relief. The Premier announced an accelerated plan to get this new building up and running.

I ask the Premier: What is the accelerated approach for our human resource plan for health care or should we expect self-checkout terminals with WebMD prompts for triage?

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

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, for physicians we have the start-up program of $150,000; new family physician income guarantee; a family practice renewal program; a 20 per cent family physician enroll premium; a remoteness bonus; obstetrical bonus; rural retention bonus; royal community comprehensive care bonus; salaried physician geographic retention bonus; oncology and pathology bonuses; 20 per cent rural fee for service; psychiatry premium program; travelling fellowship programs. Mr. Speaker, I'm speaking loud because it's a long, long list.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, physician management and leadership program, one of only a few in all of Canada; the Ukrainian physician licensure support program; housing allowances.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The minister's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker, pursuant to

section 9 of the Transparency and Accountability Act, I am pleased to table the 2021-22 Annual Report of the Marble Mountain Development Corporation.

SPEAKER: Other tabling of documents?

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

S. COADY: Thank you, Speaker.

In accordance with

section 60 of the Financial Administration Act ,I'm happy to table the 2021-2022 Public Accounts. I'm proud to say we again have an unqualified audit opinion from the Auditor General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Any further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move the following motion: that notwithstanding Standing Order 61, this House shall not proceed with Private Members' Day on Wednesday, November 2, 2022, but shall instead meet at 2 p.m. on that day for Routine Proceedings and to conduct government business and, if not earlier adjourned, the Speaker shall adjourn the House at midnight.

SPEAKER: Any further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Speaker.

The background of this petition is as follows:

Witless Bay Line is a significant piece of infrastructure; and

WHEREAS many commute outside the Avalon on a daily basis for work, as well as commercial, residential and tourism growth in our region has increased the volume of traffic on the highway.

Therefore we petition the House of Assembly as follows: We urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade this significant piece of infrastructure to enhance and improve the flow of traffic to and from the Trans-Canada.

Speaker, I've done this a number of times for sure and it's certainly worth repeating. It is used by a lot of fishing companies and truckers in the area transporting crab to and from across the Island across this piece of infrastructure.

On one end there are probably four or five kilometres done, on the other end there are probably six or seven, but in between it's horrific to be truthful. You have to go on the opposite side of the road to drive in there. It's very dangerous. More dangerous in the nighttime and this time of the year. The potholes are not seen when you're driving there and you haul out and go across to try to avoid one and you're right into another, causing some damage on wheels and stuff like that.

It's something that we'd certainly love to see done and taken care of. Again, lots of times I see people and they say to me don't forget to bring up motorcycles driving across. It is a shortcut going across Witless Bay Line to go across the Island. When you leave and go out around it's an extra hour.

This is an important piece of infrastructure that should be completed and should be finished. We certainly look to the minister to have that in his budget next year.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

I present this petition, a request to return Nain High School courses back to in-class learning.

The reasons for the petition:

WHEREAS the Internet wasn't adequate in Nain for students to do online classes, and Nain students have never done CDLI courses in the past as well; and

WHEREAS the removal of in-class teachers in the community without the capacity or experience to deliver effective online education has deprived students of equitable access to education; and

WHEREAS limiting Nain students' academic options impacts their potential for post-secondary education opportunities, perpetuating the socioeconomic marginalization of the Labrador North Coast.

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to advocate for the return to in-person education to the students of Nain High School now.

Speaker, this is a very important petition. It was petition that the parents decided should be placed, basically calling attention to the gaps that their students, their children were falling into. One of the biggest things that we know about the Labrador Inuit cultural ways of doing things is their way of learning. It's very, very true and it's been proven in the past that in actual fact online learning is not the best way for our high school students to learn.

The students in Nain, first off, have never done online learning before. They're all honour students. They're there, they're actually quite interested in education and they have a lot of hopes and dreams. A lot of them are looking now – most of them are looking at going away to post-secondary. If they get bumped down to the general, or if they have to actually switch down to general courses on their own, it's going to actually create a lot of hardship.

In actual fact, this decision that the school board made was so wrong. First off, we all knew the Internet was really slow. So why didn't they try to improve the Internet and make it more acceptable? Also, another thing is the Minister of Education talks about cultural differences and trying to make sure that decisions are made so that the students can have the best education. Well, in actual fact, this decision flies in the face of that. Really it's an insult.

Now to turn around and say, yeah, we're going to fix the Internet just like that. Well, where were those changes in the beginning of September? Also, the teachers, the high school core academic course instructors, the teachers, were in Nain in September, so why did they take them and put them into the junior high? Why didn't they try to solve the recruitment issue for the junior high –

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member's time has expired.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Speaker.

Crown Lands' enforcement of the provisions of the Lands Act abolishing squatters' rights against the Crown has created an undue hardship for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who honestly, and in good faith, have occupied and developed their lands. Historical title in Newfoundland traces back centuries and people have developed their land for generations based on an informal title.

There is a significant disconnect between Crown Lands positions on private land claims and the reality in communities throughout the province.

The District of Bonavista is one of the oldest settled areas of the province and its residents find themselves unable to sell or mortgage or develop their lands because they cannot get clear title.

We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to make a legislative amendment to allow for a mechanism to resolve existing private land claims on Crown land and revisit the 1976 legislation to abolish squatters' rights against the Crown.

On Thursday, I was called to attend a residents home, it was the Diamond homestead in Catalina, because CBC News were doing coverage of the problems that they have in trying to be able to sell their property. I would expect that the story by Darrell Roberts ought to air tonight or tomorrow night, but certainly, early this week.

I just want to reinforce, which I stated some time ago, the Diamond situation. They built a house in 1983 on the land that was owned by Pauline's father in the Town of Catalina. Her father had bought it from the Keel family in 1981. They had affidavits of possession registered and all filed with the Registry of Deeds. Mr. and Mrs. Diamond were paying the municipality for four decades – over 40 years of admissible tax on their property.

She was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. Her and her husband moved to a senior's complex and wished to sell their home. They had affidavits but when they got to the courts, the only objection in that court system came from Crown Lands. There was nobody in the community who disputed their title to the land, but Crown Lands did.

Where it is now is that it's costing them legal fees and they're hoping to get it resolved sooner than later. Maybe the minister can speak to that.

Thank you very much.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador introduced a 20 cent per litre tax on sugar-sweetened beverages at a time when many families, seniors and residents of the province are struggling with the already skyrocketing increased cost of living in the province.

We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to encourage the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to cancel the sugar-sweetened beverage tax at the earliest opportunity.

Speaker, I'm getting this from my district every day and we're getting it here and throughout the province. The cost of living wasn't bad enough; even buying groceries, buying fuels – it was tough enough as it was for seniors, even other people on low incomes and throughout the province. Everybody was hurting because of inflation and now we have the carbon tax, we have the sugar tax and fuels are gone skyrocketing.

Speaker, this sugar tax right now is a tax that people just can't absorb. They want it axed; they want it taken out. Actually, in my district every time I go back in district and especially last weekend when I was home, this is almost becoming a joke to them. This is serious, this is becoming a joke; they're laughing about it. The sweetened-beverage tax on foods, this is a tax that they don't need and people of this province and especially in my district want the government to certainly cancel that tax.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

S. COADY: Thank you.

In response to that petition, I'll tell you what's not a joke, Speaker, is the high levels and high rates of diabetes, cancer and heart disease in this province. The Member opposite well realizes that there is a choice; you can drink the sweetened or you can drink the non-sweetened and we would encourage people to drink the non-sweetened beverage.

I'll quote from a former leader of the Progressive Conservatives, who formed the Official Opposition. I'm going to quote from him from Hansard : “I know from the studies and the evaluations and the results that I've read over the last few months … is that they've proven beneficial for a number of reasons. It shows that there's a reduced consumption of sugar which we know is not good for healthy growth, especially for young people.”

That is from a former leader of the Progressive Conservatives, Speaker. I know that the Member opposite is concerned about higher prices of consumables; this is one way that people can make an informed choice of deciding to drink non-sweetened beverages.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 1.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Education that under Standing Order 11(1) this House do not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Monday, October 31, 2022.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 7, second reading of Bill 7.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Member for St. George's – Humber, that this bill be now read a second time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 7,

An Act to Amend the Schools Act, 1997, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act to Amend the Schools Act, 1997.” (Bill 7)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Speaker.

It's great to stand in this House with what I believe is my first piece of legislation with a new portfolio.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HAGGIE: So here it goes.

We, in the department, took very much a student-centred focus about how to move the dial here. One of the things which was agreed and, in actual fact, has been referenced by other outside reports, was the idea of integrating the school district into the department.

This is done with the idea of essentially creating a generation of lifelong learners, but the focus initially had been on K to 12 which was obviously where, at that point, most of the responsibility of education as a department lay.

In terms of movement, it is anticipated that some of the functions of the school district could be absorbed into the department as early as January or February but, in any case, within the next six months or so. This is not the end of the process. It's an intermediate step along the way. Under advice from the Integration Board, this intermediate step with this bill, these amendments, allow us to do several permissive things.

One is to confirm the replacement of an elected school district board with the Integration Board. That would simply exist as long as it was necessary for the integration process. Board function has two roles. One is governance and further down you'll see, in the act, that there are specific requirements. We have to have director of education and we have to have an associate director and specifically named assistant directors.

This is kind of governance oldspeak. What we are proposing in the amendment is simply to change the title of director with superintendent and whilst depending on your perspective, that may have some different connotations, it seems to be generally the accepted term for such an individual across Canadian jurisdictions.

The other removal will not simply mean these functions go, but it allows government, the Integration Team and the Integration Board an opportunity to change the governance structure to align with what will ultimately be the case when the final stages of integration occur.

The other piece around an elected board is that of representation. What is proposed in this act is to establish a Provincial Advisory Council on Education, which will take on an advisory role for the minister and ensure that there is adequate regional and sectoral representation from, if you like, the end-users, the students in the school.

The governance structures for that, the appointment mechanisms and so on and so forth would be addressed under LGIC regulations should this amendment go through. There is some other kind of more mundane aspects to the act. The bill here – the bulk of it, in actual fact, is gender-neutral language.

It allows business there to continue as normal. We have an excellent relationship with them. I would imagine that over the course of the next little while, as we contemplate maybe, I would hope the final changes to the Schools Act that would finally see the dissolution of the entity of the school district as otherwise come in, that would then disappear as a legal entity. We'd be happy to talk to the Conseil, and actually are doing it on a regular basis, to make sure if there are any tweaks, kind of thing, that they'd like, we would like to do it with them.

So as I say, gender neutral maintains the status quo. Essentially, those are the pillars of this fairly straightforward, I would argue, amendment. I look forward to discussions in Committee. We have plenty to talk about if people want to, but, again, I don't know if I necessarily need to beat this to death in second reading.

We are working on moving our students essentially to be the best in the country.

There is absolutely no reason why, when we make these changes around curriculum and we do it in a collaborative way, in a consistent way and empower teachers and principals to have some flexibility within that curriculum – there is absolutely no reason why a graduate from Grade 12 in Newfoundland and Labrador with their certificate should not be ready for whatever they choose to do, whether it's to go into a private training institute or CNA for a trade or an applied degree, or to go into Memorial or other universities and become degree qualified.

Or, indeed, simply want to take a pause and come back to learning as a habit that we've been able to bring to them through a tweaking, an improvement of the system that we currently have.

So that's the big overarching picture here, is how we get to that vision at the end. This is another step on the way. It doesn't take us all the way but it takes us a considerable way further than we currently are at the moment. I'd look for support across the House.

Thank you very much, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Speaker.

Thank you to the hon. minister on presenting his first piece of legislation in his new portfolio. Every time you get a chance to present a piece of legislation on education it's always a good time and a great, great debate.

I stand as the – in case those viewers watching – elected official from the District of Bonavista, and why I say that to the viewers and to the House is that, the first-known school in Newfoundland and Labrador was in Bonavista. So it is where it all began, was in Bonavista.

I would thank a good friend of the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay, Eliza Swyers for directing me to Newfoundland Studies for that little tidbit of information, and very proud of that.

I was looking forward to an amendment of the Schools Act and, again, I fell victim to wanting and expecting more than what was presented. I do think that this is pretty straightforward, as the minister had stated, because it does cover what the intention would be. We are bringing the NLESD into the Department of Education, that's where we are and the parameters around that generally that's where the legislation is.

The minister, he'll massage that after and give a reply to that, but from me looking at the way it would be, ultimately, it will be the minister who will serve de facto as the director. I would say until you see the organizational flowchart and the effectiveness, then I would think some may be concerned with that. That's the whole purpose of the debate. We'll have that within Committee that we can look at that.

We're going to establish PACE, which is a Provincial Advisory Council on Education and this is going to come from school councils. At the schools that we have in Newfoundland and Labrador, I'd be interested, when the minister goes to Committee, to be able to share how many of these schools have a council. How many go through elections in order to have a council? If we find that 50 per cent of them do not have elections then I would say sometimes we may not be getting the representation that we had celebrated in the past as voices representing the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

That's a question that we would have in Committee. I'm not sure, and I ask that question because I do not know the answer.

When I was the principal of Clarenville Middle School, we didn't have elections for school council. We struggled to get people to serve on school council and once we had them, well, we didn't want to part with them. We kept them and they stayed on and on and on, almost in perpetuity because we never had people knocking on the door to serve on our school council.

So in my estimation on this amendment, we're giving a whole lot of weight to this Provincial Advisory Council because they are now going to be the body that's going to meet before the director or the minister makes the decision.

I will confess, and not on behalf of the Official Opposition, just me, the Member for the District of Bonavista, there seems to be a lot of transition away from decision-making by officials that will be elected by the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador into the political realm, Cabinet or the minister. This is another case where the minister will be making the decision. It seems like any decisions that are going to be made in education now will be by the minister and the Cabinet and, again, that would be something that we'd have a conversation on in Committee. So I would say we'll have the minister with full control of the education system.

I want to take the opportunity – the one thing that wouldn't be in the legislation, Speaker, that I was hoping would be in the act probably had to do with the teacher hiring. I'd like to think that we probably looked at the teacher hiring. If we look at the report that came out and the report they had that looked at the teacher allocation Learning in a Time of Change , they mention the hiring of teachers and what we've done here.

For those viewers and for those people in the House, during negotiations when this government negotiated back in, I think 1819 with the teachers, they slipped in a clause and they presented a clause to the bargaining unit where full-time teachers can be transferred on seniority and seniority alone if their qualifications are the same. That is something that I was looking for in the Schools Act to be amended to see as to where it was, because the authors of the report surely did state that we may have an issue.

If I can present a situation that we would look at so that we can all collectively get our heads around, we have rural areas and we have urban areas in Newfoundland and Labrador. So let's say we have an urban area and a rural area and teachers apply. Everyone in this House will say that the most applicants you're going to have for a teaching position ordinarily would be in the urban areas. The more remote areas it would be, you would have little competition. You would have some, but minimal competition for those positions. We don't need to get into the reasons, but I think we can understand that.

Teachers apply in rural areas; they probably have 150 other candidates. They apply in those remote areas and there may be two others, three others, a couple may not be qualified, but that's how slim it is. So a person joins the system in the rural area – not the urban but the rural area. They spend 10, 20 years in a rural area. They gain seniority. They have a science degree. An application to Holy Heart of Mary comes up and they're looking for a person with a science degree.

If the teacher that was in the urban area that had to compete with 140, 160, to those in a rural area that had to compete with two or three, they are on a level playing field by what this government negotiated back in 1819. Based on their degree and their qualifications, they can now transfer by priority, by seniority, to a position in a metro school. I would say to you, based on what the qualifications would be a science degree being a science degree, there are a whole lot of other elements that need to be looked into.

If I were, Speaker, in my capacity within the Clarenville Middle School, we'd look at eight teachers and we'd hire who we think to be the best fit for our school – the best fit for the teaching and learning within our building. Under this current system that this government negotiated in in 1819, that is a moot point. As long as the qualifications are there, they go in.

So when we look at the Schools Act, I was hoping that we would have had something in the Schools Act that would have reflected that. And, remember, the authors of the report brought it out, even though I know it wasn't in the terms of reference.

Just continuing on that point, I had asked two years ago questions to the NLESD. I had asked how many applicants in these small rural areas that we would have generally in our system and would they have competition. They said very few of our competitions have only applicant, unless it's in a specialty area.

So if we're thinking about our system to make sure, I would like to think that in the Schools Act, we would have the assessment evaluation of staffing to be a little broader than what we would have in the Schools Act. So again, I'll certainly leave a lot of discussions or questions that I would have for the minister in the Committee and allow somebody else to be able to speak to that further, and I'll wait for Committee.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

The minister had talked about how the outcomes never seem to match up to the levels of expertise we had in the school system. I want to put the discussion of this amendment to the Schools Act in some context because I'm really not sure if this is going to make this system any better, especially if we're not addressing the social determinants of health. That's a discussion for later on.

I will tell you that that decision at that time came out of the blue. There was no consultation, but it is the year that I assumed office as the NLTA president. It caused a tremendous amount of disruption, Speaker, to a lot of principals and schools, especially those in Labrador and the remote areas on the West Coast.

It also led to some rather interesting arrangements because, at that time, there were perfectly good school district buildings in areas which had to be sold. Then when it came for any PD days, schools and districts were renting out space in local hotels, which they otherwise would've just had the use of their own building. I cannot say to this day if that made the education system any more efficient or put the resources in the classroom, because that was the idea of it – it didn't happen.

Move ahead then to 2016 and we have a Liberal government in this time who brings in Budget 2016 . Where I'm going with this is that often by putting it into the department it's not necessarily the best thing here. Because I think the structure that exists right now needs tweaking, but certainly part of the problem is the government control.

So 2016 introduced full-day kindergarten and combined grades and that's the issue. It introduced full-day kindergarten at the expense of the rest of the system. What you're seeing there, that meant that 140 teachers were taken out of the system at that time to bring in the full-day kindergarten initiative. Great idea, full-day kindergarten, but when you suck the resources from the rest of the system it's a zero-sum game. And that is a policy that fits in with this government as well, of zero-based budgeting, a zero-sum game that, in the end, benefits the budget but does not benefit the school system.

Flash forward ahead to this year and now we find that there's a consultant's report that was written on this very process. First we heard of it; heard it during Estimates. Didn't even know such a creature existed. We asked for the report, we were told at that time, yes, we'll get that to you. Now it's become a Cabinet document, so it's protected. We did an ATIPP; it was protected.

Now we have a consultant's report, which is going to guide this process, which the public cannot see: What was recommended, who wrote it, what they looked at, whatever, we cannot see it.

So here we are now, we're about to bring the NLESD under the auspice of the ages, I guess, of the department and I've got to ask myself why would I trust this process when there's such a lack of transparency here? My other fear is the political nature of it.

Earlier this year, we had the announcement of a new school in Portugal Cove-St. Philip's. New schools just like new hospitals are wonderful. Every teacher likes going into a shiny new school with the best of – with the SMART Boards and everything else that will work, as long as they work. But it's always going to come down to the human resources to make it work. It's like beds in a hospital, if you don't have the nurses to keep them open they're not going to stay open.

Yet, here we have a decision, by the way, which is now going to – if it follows through – take 300 students out of Prince of Wales Collegiate and what will that mean? It'll cut the population in half. But what it will have an effect on is on the services that are offered, whether the schools now have a full-time or a part-time teacher librarian, access to programs, access to a full-time school counsellor.

The question that's never been asked: Well, how are we going to resource these? Yet, it wasn't something that was identified by the school district. And whatever the school district's faults are, the one thing that when they're looking at decisions like this, is that they are looking at the growth, the needs and how do they maintain resources.

I taught at Holy Heart and I can tell you in a population of 1,200 students, the resources or the programming that you can offer students is phenomenal. That's the advantage of a larger school. There are disadvantages but that's a key advantage.

But here we have what was, in many ways, a political decision that did not address or did not take into consideration the needs. That's a problem. If that's something that – and now, as we bring the district into the department, are the decisions going to become more political, more opaque?

From the very beginning here, we talked about zero-based budgeting, budget based decision-making. It's been a factor for education all through my career and even when I was president of the NLTA. We always fought that.

I'll just give a few other examples here. I do want to get into one key piece of evidence that really drives home for me why I'm truly, truly cautious about this.

We had an allocation committee that was commissioned. Now, I will tell you that one of the members who was chair of the Western school district, Speaker, we ended up with, when I was president of the association, there were more grievances filed against that district than all the other districts combined. Yet, that's the decision, that's the person who we put on this allocation committee. What's the information we're going to get out of it?

Or 2006, the Atlantic Accord – love this one – we put $2 billion of Atlantic Accord money into the pension, that was under the PCs at that time. Then they failed to derisk the plan – 2008, gone. The plan was in almost bankruptcy again. So you'll forgive me on both sides if I'm a little bit leery about decisions made by a government, regardless of political stripe.

I want to go to the Carter Churchill human rights tribunal, which, if anything else, comments there that deal with the whole issue around the resourcing which get to the nub of it. It has basically nothing to do with the case, but comments: How are we going to resource the schools in our system?

It was said by the assistant deputy minister that never, while I was there either as a director of school services or as a deputy minister, did the district come to the department and say we need more deaf- and hard-of-hearing itinerants, and haven't got anything left.

Here's the neat relationship, because I heard it from principals at the time: Don't come asking because you're not getting it. That came from government. That comes down from the department. The district does not generate money. It does not set its budget. It's given to it, for the most part. Here are your needs, here's what you're getting; don't come asking. I can tell you more than once in the school system that's exactly what would happen.

But here it is, you've got a former ADM saying, look, no one ever came to me. No one ever came to me to ask. Yet, it was quite clear here from the CEO of the school district, the culture of don't ask for more; yeah, that's right because it's pointless. And the other resources within the province – very clearly that government is saying we never hear any issues; no one in the district ever came to us looking for these resources. The district is making quite clear, well, that's because we were told repurpose, cycle, redeploy within the system.

There was no new sources coming. There's no new allocations. Yet, I'm going to have to believe here, Speaker, that in this new and improved system that somehow, magically, these resources will now come into it being. All the while, we're going to remove a democratically elected school district –

S. CROCKER: (Inaudible.)

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: (Inaudible) under Standing Order 48, this bill is not a very broad bill, and I just ask you, Mr. Speaker, to look at relevance in this case.

J. DINN: I'm asking – I'm trying to –

SPEAKER: One second, please.

Order, please!

I will ask the Member to stay relevant to the bill. We have been giving lots of leeway there.

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: It goes to the heart. This is supposed to be about, Speaker, that this is just a simple matter. We're going to basically make the system better by bringing the NLESD under the Department of Education and it is going to streamline it. My argument is clearly that no, it will not and there is ample evidence, ample history to show that this is not the case. The fact that this issue was brought up tells me that I'm making the point.

But it comes down to this. In the end, it's not necessarily the district that's the issue; it's the fact that the government of the day that controls the purse strings, that is the issue, regardless of who it is.

I seen too many examples of it where you can bring it to the district and it comes back, no, we can't do anything because it's not getting any traction with the department. So I will say this, while this bill may be put forward as somehow we're streamlining it, we're going to actually help make the outcomes better, I'll argue, until government decides to put more money into the identified deficiencies, I can tell you what happened throughout my career, what I saw, will continue to happen because the district in many cases was strangled by a lack of funds.

They had no ability to do anything. The district is not the problem. The problem is across the floor here and it comes down to that. My fear is that bringing it in, the decisions will become more political and less focused on the needs of the schools, of the teachers and the students and more focused on political expediency and that is not going to be good for education. If nothing else, the fact that now that they removed, sort of, democratically elected boards or trustees is a warning sign. It's a signal. It's a red flag for me.

That, combined with what I've seen in the past and experienced myself, would suggest that if we're going to do anything, let's see what we can do to make the current system better and talk about that first before we decide to throw the baby out with the bath water.

I'll go with this route. If this is such a good process, why hasn't the Francophone school system signed on? Seriously, why haven't they signed on? If this is such a good approach, you'd think they're be jumping at the chance. I think they know something that we know – that this is not going to be beneficial to their students, to their teachers, to their district because what it's going to do, I think in many ways, is make the decision-making less transparent, more opaque, less democratic and certainly, in the end, it's not going to result in more resources going into the school system.

I've got too many examples to show how that's the case. I can think of one school in particular – I won't mention the name of it – that won an award for its inclusive practices. Only the following year, they had an influx of students, no extra resources, and they had to dismantle their award-winning program because, again, not the district but the department was not going to provide the extra resources it needed. In the end who suffers with that are the students and the teachers who teach them.

Until we get that straight, you can amalgamate the district into the department all you like but if it comes down to starving resources and suiting your own political ends, we're not going to get any further.

Thank you.

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

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

I just want to talk – I don't know how long I'll talk. I'm hoping to be brief but we'll see what happens.

I've always said in this House, whenever I got up to speak about resources, our most important resource is our children, our youth – those who have to be educated and trained. Those, as the minister said, creating a generation of lifelong learning.

Whenever I see education as a bill, it doesn't matter what it is, but the end result of any bill dealing with education has to be to improve the outcomes of our students and ensure our students, our youth and our children are getting the education they need to be successful and participate in the labour force in this province and abroad. Hopefully here, but sometimes abroad.

I'm not sure if it's how it should have happened or how it has happened, but it's only recent that a new school was announced in Portugal Cove-St. Philip's. That new school was announced by government. It was announced by government and nobody begrudges Portugal Cove-St. Philip's with a new high school. No one begrudges that.

So now it's all coming in under government, which leads me to question what other decisions will be made that are not on the radar and that are not supported by proper data and statistics and numbers that justify it and make it accountable.

That's become an issue for me in Topsail - Paradise, because for many years – for at least 10 years – there's been promises of a high school and an intermediate school in Paradise. The intermediate school was postponed for a few years when this government came in, but it's there and it's a great addition to the community and a great addition for the kids there and the parents.

The one piece that's on hold is the high school. That's been deferred indefinitely or long term. I think we're there now and I'm hoping to meet with the minister when we can come up with some common time to meet and have a chat on that.

But I can tell you because of the decision made to put a school in Portugal Cove-St. Philip's – again, not begrudging them that – it raised big concerns for parents and students in Paradise.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I'll remind the Member to stay relevant to the bill, please.

P. DINN: Yes, thank you, Speaker.

That's where I have some issues with this bill in terms of the district falling under government. How are these decisions going to be made or do we expect more of the same? That's a valid question, and that's a valid question that I get from residents about how did they get that and how come we didn't? Again, I don't know the answer.

If I look at the Explanatory Notes here on this bill, it's interesting to see – this is one point I picked up on – it would “update the powers of a board to require employees to undergo assessments by medical practitioners, registered psychologists or other professionals approved by the board.” The clause itself makes sense, but I then question how is that done? When only today I asked questions on psychologists and the lack of psychologists and we talk about the lack of medical practitioners.

When I see that, when you're updating those powers to allow for assessments by medical practitioners and registered psychologists, I have to question, well, how is that going to happen? How is that going to happen? Especially if we go back to the minister's comment on student-centred focus, creating a generation of lifelong learners. We know that 70 per cent of mental health issues originate in adolescence and in schools and they don't have educational psychologists.

When I look at this note I question, okay, how is this implemented? Well, the main question I have – and I'm hopeful the minister will address this when he gets up at the end – I really am not convinced as to why this is happening. I'm very cognizant, or I guess wary, of if this puts too much control with the department, the minister and government, especially in light of some recent decisions we've seen.

Hopefully, when we go through Committee a lot of these questions will be asked and I'm quite confident we'll get some good responses that will clear up some of this grey area. At the end of the day, when we're dealing with education legislation, no matter what, the end goal, the end focus has to be on the kids, the children, the student-centred focus as the minister has stated.

I do hope that this bill, at the end of the day, does improve the resources and educational supports that are put forward that will help our students. But, again, I'm still out on the why – why this is coming forward.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I'm a little bit divided, I guess, on this bill, because on the one hand I like it in one sense. I like it in the sense that I've always felt, and not just this administration, in general, I've always felt that the school boards were simply put there as a buffer and were used or misused, whatever way you want to say it, by government of the past and possibly present and future, as a shield when things went wrong. But by the same token, when there were good announcements to be made, the minister of the day would be there front and centre.

Just as an example, all of a sudden we need some new schools. The minister is there front and centre, cutting the ribbon, doing the media coverage, flanked by all of his other MHAs for the area and so on. It's a great news story. We're opening up a school. But if a school had to close, or if there were issues in a particular school whatever, no, that's the school board, that's not me, that's the school board done that. That's their decision.

That said, as others have sort of alluded to, I do have some concerns about, in doing that, giving that absolute power to the minister, to the Cabinet and so on. Particularly when we look at other things that have happened, certainly even over the last year or so in this House of Assembly where there have been questionable things, questionable decisions and when you try to obtain the information, everything is under a cloak of secrecy. Everything falls under Cabinet confidence.

One of the things that jumps out at me, as an example, we're going to establish a Provincial Advisory Council on Education. Well, it's an advisory council, so they're not making any decisions. They're just giving advice. Now, at least, when we look at the decision that was referenced here for the school in Portugal Cove-St. Philip's – and God love the people. They got their school. I've got no issue when them having their school. That's not the issue. But the fact of the matter is that the CEO came out and said he didn't even know about it. He was shocked that it was even on the list.

So, at the very least, there was something going on behind the scenes. There was something obviously political going on behind the scenes if the CEO of the school district didn't recommend this school, was shocked that it even happened. But if we had this Advisory Council on Education, my question would be: When they give advice to the minister, how do we know what advice they give, and how do we know if the minister accepted that advice or chose to ignore that advice?

For example, if there are things that are needed in the system or decisions that need to be made and it goes to the Advisory Council and the Advisory Council says, Minister, here is what – and I am assuming there are going to some people, I would hope, from the community, some people with expertise and so on. So if they're going to get together and put in their time and make the best of what they feel is the best decisions to the minister, the minister could simply dismiss all those. They could write a report and they could take and just run it through the shredder and then say Cabinet confidence. We don't know.

We do not know what recommendations were made and if the minister did it or not. There's no buffer.

At least with the elected school board, you have elected people. At least they know if there was recommendations made. At least those people can come out to the public and tell the world, here's what we wanted to do. We think this is a bad decision. This is something that came before us, and this was a decision that we wanted to make in the best interest of the children, but the minister said no.

Under this scenario, this Advisory Council writes a report or whatever, makes recommendations, gives them to the minister and he can say no, I don't want to do that. Right in the shredder. When people say, well, why was this decision made? What did the Advisory Council say? Cabinet confidence, I can't tell you.

So we're back under this whole realm of secrecy again, a lack of transparency, and we've seen a lot of that. We've seen a lot of that recently. It kind of reminds me a little bit of the Independent Appointments Commission where three names vote for it. The minister can take the three of them and run them right to the shredder and doesn't have to tell us that the person I chose wasn't on the list. I threw them out and I picked this person. No disclosure.

From what I'm reading here and from my understanding, the same thing can happen here. The Advisory Council can make recommendations to the minister and the minister can ignore all that advice, even if it's good advice, and we'll be none the wiser. Unlike where you have at least an elected board, those board members who are elected by the people can say, listen, if the minister wants to try to hide these decisions, he can.

As a board member, I'm telling the world what happened. I'm telling people that we did not agree with this. At least you have that ability for some openness and transparency. But by removing it, all of a sudden, it goes directly to the minister and the Cabinet, everything becomes Cabinet confidence, and decisions can be made. Not necessarily the decisions that were recommended for the best reasons, perhaps for political reasons, and we'll never be none the wiser and when anyone asks, it is Cabinet confidence. So I see that as very problematic.

The other thing – and maybe the minister will expand on this and perhaps once we get into Committee and so on, I'm sure there'll be lots of questions. Again, I heard my colleague reference the student-centred focus. I think that was the minister's words. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but as for my colleague from Topsail ascribed to the minister as saying – I think he said that or something close to it at least.

I'm just wondering how making this decision improves educational outcomes. I'm just trying to draw the connection because I didn't see any – other than to say it. We can all say it. I can stand up and say this is going to improve educational outcomes. This is all about the students. It's easy to say it but how? How is it?

Whether we agree with it or not, that's another story but, in the name of efficiency, I could see that being a reason perhaps for doing it. But to say we're doing it to improve student outcomes, I'm really struggling to make that connection. Whether there's a school board or simply the Department of Education, how that improves student outcomes, I hope the minister will expand on that because I don't see it. I just don't see it.

Now, I could understand if this bill said we're going to improve student-teacher ratios. We're going to have additional guidance. We're going to have more resources for children with special needs and so on. Because with our inclusive education model, a lot of people would say that that's very challenged because of the resources and might be a great idea in principle to bring all students together and everybody is included. But if you don't have the supports in place, that's not going to work.

I could understand if this bill was saying better technology, more teachers, more guidance, more student assistants and more resources. If all that was in this bill then I could say, yes, I can see how this is going to improve educational outcomes. But none of that stuff is in this bill. All we're saying is that we're going to get rid of the school district and put it all under the Department of Education. Potentially close more schools – potentially. I don't know if we will or not.

But the bottom line is how that improves student outcomes, which is what the minister said the main focus here is on, that part he has yet to explain it so that I can understand it. I don't understand how that part works, so I'd love to hear how that part works.

I can remember at the time when we used to have the churches run the schools. I can remember my kids had just gotten into the school system at that time. I guess it was in the early 2000s, I suppose it was. I can remember the argument at the time is we're going to bring everybody into the one – get rid of the denominational education. That was going to save a pile of money and all that money was going to go back into the school system. Didn't happen, didn't happen.

Then we got rid of the school boards and collapsed them all into one school board and that was going to save us a pile of money and everything else to go back into education. Best of my recollection, I stand to be corrected, but I think a year or two after that happened we actually spent more. I think it actually cost an extra $1 million or $2 million a year or whatever it was under the collapsed system than it did when we had the four or five school boards. It cost more. That experiment didn't necessarily work. Certainly now, if we're talking about cost cutting, it didn't work.

But at what cost? At what cost do we do that? Do we take a system, which currently exists, which people would argue is not perfect right now, has it's challenges, has it's flaws, but at the very least people can take some comfort, I suppose, in the fact that you do have elected board members, elected from the people of the province that would have some say, some input. And if their input and their recommendations are turned down or not supported by the department, at least they have the ability to speak out and let the people know.

Whereas, with this advisory council of appointed people, my fear is, as I said earlier, they make recommendations, their recommendations are not accepted, not supported for whatever reason, and the department decides to do whatever they feel like doing anyway for political reasons, which arguably we've already seen not too long ago, and the people would not be any wiser. No one is going to speak out and let the people know what's going on. So that's what you give up.

So I'm not sure to be honest with you if this is a good idea or not. I'm not convinced that this is the right thing to do, at this point in time. It's not straightforward, as the minister said. It may be a straightforward bill but the implications are not necessarily straightforward as it lends itself to less transparency and openness than we have now. That's my concern.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I'll take my seat because I know my colleague here want to say a few words and perhaps some others as well.

Thank you.

Speaker (Warr): I'm recognizing the hon. Member for Burin - Grand Bank.

P. PIKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's an honour and a privilege today to speak in this hon. House and represent the people of the great District of Burin - Grand Bank.

I'd like to say a few words about this amendment, this change, Bill 7, mainly because I was involved in education for almost 40 years. If we stick to the bill and what we're proposing to do here, we find that we're going to look at: remove the requirement for elected school board for NLESD, we're going to replace references to director and we're going to remove the requirement for a board to appoint an associate director and assistant directors.

Now, if we look at that, I was part of two school boards in my career. One was the Burin Peninsula and the other was the Roman Catholic School Board for the Burin Peninsula. I found back in those days we had the integrated board, the Roman Catholic board and the Pentecostal board on the Burin Peninsula. We had three boards. But then we had large numbers of students. Some of the schools that I was an administrator at had two classes of kindergarten students coming in every year – every single year. Now, those schools have years where they only have one student or zero students. It's just amazing how the numbers declined.

You'll find that's the case right throughout this great province, that our numbers are declining. We have to change.

I remember as well the number of schools that we had and we still are maintaining a large number of schools in this province. It's so important that we do because we all know schools are the life of a community.

I had the opportunity as well to be seconded to the Department of Education back in 2000. At that time, I was manager of high school certification and I worked with a great group of individuals in here. What you have to realize is that the Department of Education is mostly made up of teachers that are seconded to the department for various projects. The project I was involved in was bringing back public examinations. Yes, we looked at outcomes; yes, we looked at everything. But to me it was like looking at the system in Newfoundland and Labrador as you would look at your own school or your own district.

When I was a director with the Burin Peninsula School Board we had a large number – we had 5,000 teachers. We had plenty of people that needed to be hired each year. Like I say, we had large, large numbers. Once we started to move towards one school board, the Burin Peninsula School Board, there were people out there that doubted that would ever work. How could that work, it's too many students? But it did work.

What I see here happening in this bill is the same thing. We're moving towards being realistic about the number of students that are out there.

The other thing this bill looked at was modernization and expanding the duties of a board to admit teachers. Now, there probably are still a few teachers sitting here today that getting these student teachers into your school was almost competitive. Principals wanted them. We wanted them for a number of reasons. They brought new ideas into the classroom. They helped teachers who had large classes. If we're going to make that process easier, if we're going to say that we're going to allow students trained in the area of education into our school system, then we're doing a great thing for our students.

The bill speaks as well to the idea of school councils and school councils being involved in the Provincial Advisory Council on Education – PACE. Again, a great idea. School councils work; they really do work. They were probably the best thing ever brought in to this province when it comes to education.

Now, they may not have worked in all schools, but those schools that they did work in, you knew that by the successes that they were having in student learning and with the after-school programs, school lunch programs, you knew that that school had an effective school council. When they were created, they represented the educational interests of the school. That was one of the things that they were asked to do – purely advisory.

In the schools, when these school councils were created, the principal stood on the school council, elected parents and a youth representative, if applicable, if there were high schools. They advised the principal and school on teaching and learning. Again, these are hands on, right at the grassroots level, people having a say in the running of a school – a wonderful concept and a wonderful idea.

They facilitated community involvement. I can tell you that the successful schools that have community involvement whether it be the business people in the community, whether it be individuals who can bring something to a school, the seniors in your community who can come and talk about the history of your community, these are successful schools, hands-on schools.

As well, they communicate to parents. Parents were bringing out programs, whether they be after-school programs, like I said, lunch programs or whatever, but parents were bringing those out. That was an easier sell to the community.

So me personally, I support school councils, but I also support the PACE movement because PACE will bring in ideas and so on to this level of government that work in their particular schools.

One of the things that we have to be concerned about, and what this bill will do as far as I'm concerned – I think it was the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands mentioned about teaching and learning and improving the quality of teaching and learning and so on. I think that will happen. We are now entering a phase where that will definitely have a positive impact. The new changes, the new amendments will definitely have a positive impact on student learning.

It's all about our youth. We have to focus on the child, and that's what we're doing here in my estimation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. PIKE: We are creating a teaching and learning environment that will see our students, the youth of our province, who will be us someday, develop into individuals who have a great sense of community and a great love for our province. It will create a school community like no other. As well, it will put the resources, that is human and material resources, it will put those into schools where they are needed.

Mr. Speaker, thanks for the opportunity to speak. I hope this amendment to the Schools Act goes through for the benefit of all Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

E. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm going to have a few words on this. I just heard the Member speak on that point and he's saying, yes, that it's going to be beneficial for the students, but the question is how. It's easy to say it's going to be beneficial and this is what the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands was saying. He's questioning, show us how it's going to be beneficial; show us the plan.

So when you stand up and say the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands said it's for the students and you say, yes, it is, but how. This is what we're asking: What is the plan and how is this going to filter down to the students? Those are the questions we're asking.

We all agree that the students are the beneficiaries of a good decision. So that's the question we're asking. Hopefully, throughout the discussions on this bill, this will be put forward and say here's the plan. Because the consultant's report, Mr. Speaker, that was put out on organizing the school board, we can't see it, so we don't know what's in that report.

I know the Member for St. John's Centre, the Leader of the Third Party, mentioned earlier that he asked for the report and then, all of a sudden, no, it's a Cabinet decision now, Cabinet discussions, because now you can't see it. So when you make those statements saying that it is better for the students, it may be in that report, but we can't see that report. This is why we're asking these questions. This is a prime example of why we're asking the questions.

Over time, Mr. Speaker, you get a bit cynical when you hear some of those statements: Trust me. It will be done. This is the role of the Opposition. If you look back at the history, there are a lot of times when you should have trusted them much less than you already did. This is why you need to ask the questions, just stand up and say, okay, we're going to eliminate the school boards, we're going to put in an advisory council and everything is going to be good.

I'll tell you one drawback about that right away – one absolute drawback: Any decision that's made, once this is put in place, for a school in Lark Harbour cannot be made by an official in Corner Brook; it has to be made by an official in St. John's. This is one of the drawbacks. This is very simplistic drawback, but it's a major drawback for the student who needs extra student assistance. It's major for a student who needs extra services, who needs extra supplies.

Now, we have to go – and I'll use anybody in this House of Assembly. I'll use this example. If I, as the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands, walks into Topsail - Paradise and I starts telling the Member, here's what you should be doing. You know what they're going to say? Who in the hell are you? You don't know the outline. You don't know the people in this district. You don't know the needs in this district. They'd be right.

Every Member in his district has their role and they know what's needed in their district, they know the priorities and they know their concerns. People contact them. But if you take that role from all the MHAs and say, okay, we're going to put in just one person in St. John's, you'll never get the proper end results.

So that's one very small drawback, because when you have student assistants in an area and there's a special-needs student – and I'll just use that for an example – you have to go to St. John's now to try to get a few extra hours. The local people haven't got the authority now to make that decision. That's wrong. It is just wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to bring up something. You're talking about the advisory committee, and I know the Member was talking about these school councils. There are some school councils that are very active. There's absolutely no doubt. I know some back home, very active. Some they don't even meet. They won't even meet with them. Some they do, some they don't, but the ones that do are very active. I know J. J. Curling, I know Templeton is very active on the North Shore, they're very active and I know J. J. Curling. I know Sacred Heart was very active, I don't know about now, but they were very, very active.

We're going to put an advisory council in who is going to advise the minister. I just wanted to put the parameters around this. Right now, we have a school board with an elected membership, an elected board. So the idea of the elected board is that they would make recommendations to government, right now as we speak. The elected board will sit down with the school board, have all the information, then they would make a recommendation to the government. That's the structure that's in place right now.

What this government is saying and what this minister is saying is it's going to be better if we get an advisory council. I just want to read a part of the ATIPP that came back from an elected school board with the Newfoundland and Labrador school district and it was concerning the school in Portugal Cove-St. Philip's. I want to read the email and show if the elected school board with the Newfoundland and Labrador school district, right now is being overridden by the government, what chance do an advisory committee have? I just want to read the email.

After it was announced in the budget about a new school – this is coming from Tony Stack. Tony Stack, for the people that are listening, is the CEO of the school board, top guy in the school board: “Greg, we have had some internal inquiries on this as it will profoundly affect the PWC feeder system. I expect we will also get external inquiries. It was not one of the three priorities we identified nor has there ever been an infrastructure request for a high school in PCSP. Are you able to provide any background to this announcement that may assist in responses or in planning for a catchment adjustment?”

So that was done with an elected school board – no consolation. So now –

P. LANE: Not even a priority.

E. JOYCE: Not even a priority.

P. LANE: Not even on the list.

E. JOYCE: Not even on the list. And then the minister –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

E. JOYCE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: You heard me.

E. JOYCE: I never heard you.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Same fellow who couldn't find the school buses.

E. JOYCE: It's the same fellow who couldn't find the school buses. That may be. And it's the funny thing I say to the Member, the same one who couldn't find the school buses, but it's the same minister who made the recommendations who found the school buses. So you got to be careful if they're actually listening.

Mr. Speaker, what the current Minister of Education said, here is how he responded to this now: “Stack declined an interview request, but Education Minister John Haggie said Wednesday the decision 'came out of the infrastructure and budget discussions'….” Then it went on under the CBC: “… a town bordering St. John's to the west, does not appear in the district's most recent list of prioritized capital requests. The document was provided to the government in 2017-18 and hasn't been amended ….”

So when the minister says that it came out of an infrastructure and budget discussion – if anybody has been around the Cabinet, anybody has been around the infrastructure committee or the budget committee, you had to have a document to have it discussed on the agenda.

There is an agenda, put out and you know that, Speaker, you know that, you've been in Cabinet. There is an agenda. So what happens is there is an agenda and you bring the agenda forward for the infrastructure or the process in government. So when there's no request put in, how can the current Minister of Education defend the previous minister in saying that oh, we sat around and we decided through the budget consolations that we're going to have now an infrastructure committee, when there wasn't even a recommendation made.

So there's nothing there to discuss, nothing on the agenda, but all of a sudden: boom. Here's a new school against the wishes of the elected school board and the Newfoundland and Labrador educational school district. Now we're saying trust us, we're going to put an advisory committee in place.

So there are a few issues there. I know the Member for St. John's Centre, the Leader of the Third Party, brought up a good point about the report – the consultants report. Release the report. If we're going to have an open and frank discussion, if we are seriously saying that the bottom line for this decision is to benefit the children of Newfoundland and Labrador, let everybody have a copy of that report so we can all have an open and frank discussion.

I mean, that's not a difficult decision. It's not a difficult decision. Taxpayers of this province, through the government, went out and got a consultant's report on the consolidation of the schools, of the elimination of the school board. The report came to government. Government said on this recommendation we're going to eliminate the school boards because it's going to better help the students down the road. We're saying show us that report.

They're not going to show us the report because they said, no, it's for Cabinet decisions. And you want us to trust you? Or there's a good one there, Mr. Speaker, what is that one? Fool me once shame on me. So we've been fooled a couple of times.

So this is why you've got to ask the questions. Like, if it's really and truly – I'll be totally honest, there's people in the Third Party over here and in the Opposition and the same with people in government, who are educators. They can speak much more and with much more knowledge, much better knowledge, on what needs to be done than I can. I can talk about the process, but what needs to be done in the classroom; there are people over here who has a lot of knowledge on that.

When you've got the former president of the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association here on this side, the Leader of the Third Party, who can say I can give great suggestions to help out this process and you're saying – the government is saying no, we're not going to have you involved. We're not going to show you that report. We're not going to have you participate in this discussion with the full information. There's something wrong.

I know the Member for Bonavista, the same thing; he has great insight on the education system. He speaks well on the education system. I know there are Members opposite also, on the government side, who has insight on the education system; but if you want to look at the expertise and if you really want to build a system that's best for the students, you take all the information, use all the expertise available to present a bill in this House that we all can support so that when we leave, we all stand up and agree to that bill, then we can say, yes, that's the best we can do. But right now we can't say that. We just can't say it.

Then the question is going to be asked: How much money are we saving? Are we going to eliminate the whole board? Are they coming into government? Are they all going to be brought into government? For example, the site out in Western Newfoundland, are they now going to be government officials? Do they have to come to St. John's or will there be a satellite out in Corner Brook?

Will they gave decision-making out in Corner Brook or will no decision-making be made in Corner Brook now and got to go in through the system, go through the director, go up now to the ADM, go up to the DM and go to the CEOs, to the minister on something that needs to be done in Lark Harbour for a special needs student? Is that going to be the system?

These are the questions that we're asking. This is the question I'm asking because I just know when you need a decision quick and by the time it goes up and comes back down and gets down and everybody changes it and filters it, needs new information, needs a press release on it, needs a media release on it, the poor students suffer. That's my concern.

I use government again for example. Mr. Speaker, they're talking about the advisory committee. Guess what? The WERAC – the Wilderness and Ecological Reserves Committee – haven't met. They can't even get members on the board and they're the ones here who are going to be looking at the wind power. They're the ones now saying, okay, we'd love to be able to have some great input into this. That's an advisory committee to the minister. Where are they now? When was the last time they met? How many times do they meet in the run of a year?

So when you put a committee in place that's supposed to be advisory who has no teeth, who has no input, who can't hold government accountable, there is going to be no accountability whatsoever for the CEO which will be the minister.

Now we have to sit down and listen to whatever the minister says. He could stand up and we will never find out if it's true or not true. He will stand up and say, oh, the committee recommended that. Now, the committee can't speak. The committee recommended that.

The same as the school in Portugal Cove-St. Philip's – the exact same thing. Until this email was sent out, everybody in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, especially when the former minister of Education went public and said we did all the priorities of the school board – he's correct. He did do the three priorities. But what he forgot to add is that we added one in the Premier's district up there where the Premier's at without proper vetting and proper consultation and without even a request from the school board.

P. LANE: Not even on the list.

E. JOYCE: Not even on the list. Didn't even go through the proper vetting system in government for it. Didn't even go through it.

This is very important, Mr. Speaker, when the government sta