PDF Version

May 31, 2022

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. L No. 59

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett):

Order, please!

Before

we begin, in the public gallery today, I would like to welcome Ailish Slaney,

who is the subject of a Member's statement this afternoon. She is accompanied by

her mother Cathy and her father Rodney.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Also in the public gallery, I

would like to welcome Elijah Gillam, his parents John and Sheri, and the

Safianiuk family from Ukraine. They are also joining us this afternoon for a

Member's statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

And also joining us today in the public gallery Skye

Taylor, the executive director for the Association of Early Childhood Educators

and she is also the subject of a Ministerial Statement this afternoon.

Welcome Skye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

During Question Period, yesterday, the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and

Agriculture said I was – quote – a little misleading – unquote – when I asked

questions about his decision to overrule the Fish Processing Licensing Board on

licensing. The minister was not found to be out of order in using that phrase so

perhaps I would not be out of order to use the same phrase to describe the

information the minister provided in answering my questions yesterday.

The House of Commons Procedure and Practice

2009 said it would amount to contempt to be deliberately attempting to mislead

the House and by the same token refusing to answer a question or provide

information or produce papers.

don't want to say the minister has shown contempt, but I would like to give him

the opportunity to produce the paper he cited to contradict the findings in a

report of the board. The board wrote in their decision on April 12-14, 2022 that

“Overall, the outlook on the snow crab fishery is positive in most areas during

the next 4 years and beyond ….”

The

minister wrote in his decision on May 2022 that “the outlook on the snow crab

fishery is only projected to remain positive in most areas up to two to four

years.”

When I challenged the minister on this contradiction, the minister stated, “I

wish I had that report at my fingertips. It's on my desk. I would gladly share

that with the Member opposite, in which the DFO actually said the next two to

four years, but one year being done now puts us down one to three years.”

the Speaker ruled on November 21, 2013, and on other occasions: “ If

you are reading from a document, you are responsible to table that document.

That is the content that is extracted from that document, so you table that

document”

If the minister refuses to accept the decision of the board because of a

particular report or reports that he is citing, a report or said reports from

which he quoted the figures two to four years and then one to three years, then

I believe the rules of the House say it is incumbent on him to table the report

or reports that he cited to back up his decision.

I ask that the minister be instructed to table the report or reports that he

referenced.

Further

to this, the minister used the word misleading when I said the board worked over

a year on the report, but in fact the board does say this in their report.

I ask

that the minister take the opportunity to acknowledge what the board actually

wrote and withdraw the term misleading.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture for a response.

D. BRAGG:

Thank you very much.

What a

great opportunity to get up and respond to what was perceived yesterday as

inaccurate information. In my hands today, I have the report of the 2HJ3KLNOP4R

Snow Crab Fishery and Survey

Summary, of which I have underlined – and this was

on my desk yesterday – and it goes on to say: “There have been improvements in

most Snow crab assessment divisions in recent years, which are likely to

continue in the short-term.”

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

D. BRAGG:

“The last four years have

shown an overall trend towards warmer and potentially less favourable

environmental conditions for future productivity and there are indications that

abundance indices of pre-recruits (2-4 years until commercial size) may have

peaked.”

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I heard

the point of order; I want to hear the response.

D. BRAGG:

So this is the actual report

that would've been presented to the board by DFO, which is what I quoted from

yesterday. I brought it into the House today. I'll gladly table it. I only wish

I had made 40 copies so everybody could have one.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

There's no point of order

there. It's just a difference of

interpretation.

Also,

I'll remind Members that point of orders have to be made at the point when they

occur.

Thank

you.

Statements by

Members

SPEAKER:

Today we will hear statements

by the hon. Members for the Districts of Terra Nova, Ferryland, Mount Pearl

North, Bonavista and Burin - Grand Bank.

The hon.

the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I stand here today to thank and commend two very active community-based

volunteers that have brought together a group of like-minded people pulling

together to help others.

Alice

White and John Gilbert are fondly known in my district and the surrounding areas

as the people going around with a yellow dory attached to their car encouraging

people to get on board to support the Salvation Army and food banks and to help

load the dory.

They

have been seen in various parking lots in the surrounding areas from Clarenville

to Arnold's Cove to Bloomfield, and with the increasing price of groceries and

the demand at food banks we need to do our best to help people get on board.

They

have recently added “on board” to their campaign. These collection bins,

currently at 14 various locations and they are adding more daily in businesses,

churches and community groups all because they saw a need to help others that

are in need. The generosity of these volunteers, their time and community giving

has been overwhelming.

Please

rise with me in thanking John and Alice for their community initiative. As Anne

Frank said best: “No one has ever become poor by giving.”

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Speaker.

I rise

today to recognize and congratulate a group from my district that organized a

Strides for Melanoma walk this past Sunday to raise money for the Melanoma

Network of Canada. This organization is an organization that depends on donors

to allow it to continue to offer programs and services that are so important in

educating and supporting patients and families living with melanoma and all

types of skin cancers.

May is

Melanoma Awareness Month and we all know that awareness and early detection is

the key factor in cancer diagnoses. An event such as this is a great way to help

promote and spread awareness of melanoma and other cancers. I was honoured to be

able to attend such an important function, especially as you know that cancer

has impacted each and every family in some way.

Speaker,

I ask all Members in this House to join me in congratulating the organizers of

Strides for Melanoma fundraiser on such a successful event.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

L. STOYLES:

Speaker, in 2010, Linda Ryan

was diagnosed with breast cancer. While recovering from treatment, she

established Pink Days in Bloom, a high-spirited awareness and fundraising

initiative to bring together breast cancer survivors and newly diagnosed

individuals.

The

group started raising money in support of the Canadian Cancer Society. Pink Days

is a movement grounded in the healing power of gardening, their connection to

nature and to one another.

Linda

has many volunteers helping her raise money for breast cancer research to enable

cancer patients from across Newfoundland to travel to St. John's so that they

can stay at Daffodil Place while recovering from treatments at no cost.

Linda

has been recognized provincially, nationally and internationally, receiving many

awards for her volunteer work; plus, the Canadian Cancer Society has given the

Pink Days in Bloom its own logo.

The past

year, she worked with the Cancer Society to knit socks in aid of Daffodil Place.

Socks in the City was a hit, raising spirits and funds to support people

fighting cancer during the challenging days of the pandemic.

Speaker,

I ask all Members of this House to recognize Linda Ryan, and thank her for her

community work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista.

C. PARDY:

It is a privilege, Speaker,

to celebrate and publicly recognize the recent achievements of seven-year-old

Elijah Gillam of Bonavista.

One

rainy day in March, Elijah, with the assistance of his family, launched a hot

chocolate fundraiser in support of the Ukrainian people. With the generosity of

their community $2,000 was raised and donated to the World Central Kitchen,

helping thousands of displaced Ukrainians as a result of the war.

Elijah,

who sings beautifully in church, taps maple trees in his spare time, starred on

Rock Solid Builds , has yet another

achievement to add to his list. Together with his parents, Sheri and Johnny – in

attendance – they reached out to extend employment for a Ukrainian family in

their Sunset Kitchen cabinet shop. With great fanfare and community support, the

Safianiuk family of five will be moving to Bonavista tomorrow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

C. PARDY:

It is through such great

humanitarian acts, such as these, that we make our mark in the world. Proof was

on Sunday past, when Elijah, along with 13 like-minded friends, operated a hot

dog and lemonade sale for Ukraine – which I just recently heard netted $1,300.

I ask

Members of the 50th House of Assembly to join me in celebrating the outstanding

act of kindness of Elijah, his family and friends, and extend a warm welcome to

the Safianiuk family to our wonderful province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Burin

- Grand Bank.

P. PIKE:

Speaker, today I proudly rise in this hon. House of Assembly to recognize

15-year-old Ailish Slaney of St. Lawrence. The Janeway Children's Hospital has

selected Ailish to be the outstanding philanthropist volunteer.

In 2014,

when Ailish was seven years old, she was diagnosed with a malignant brain

tumour, medulloblastoma. Her oncologist at the time said she had the attitude

of: “Well, let's do this, we have to do what we have to do.”

This

attitude carries over to volunteerism and fundraising with the help of her

family. In 2014, while battling surgery and months of treatment, Ailish started

her fundraiser called the Ailish Pancake Breakfast. This effort basically turns

her residence into a restaurant for the day and friends and family and the whole

community all enjoy a great day celebrating with Ailish.

Ailish's

goal is to continue her fundraising efforts for the Janeway. She has also added

recycling and ticket sales, all while balancing school and athletic activities.

Ailish

Slaney motivates not only her family, but an entire community. To date, Ailish

has raised over $73,000 for the Janeway –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

P. PIKE:

– and we thank her parents,

Rodney and Cathy, and her sister, Abby, who couldn't be here today, for their

support.

In 2020,

Ailish rang the bell to recognize she was cancer-free. We thank Ailish who is

here today with her family for giving all of us the strength and courage to

preserve and to do our best to help others.

Thank

you, Ailish.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Industry, Energy and Technology.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

A. PARSONS:

Speaker, I am pleased today

to inform Members of this House of Assembly and residents of the province that

Cenovus and the project partners have announced the restart of the West White

Rose Project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

A. PARSONS:

This is great news for

Newfoundland and Labrador. This project will generate and maintain up to 1,500

more direct and indirect jobs during construction and create roughly 250 new

permanent platform jobs. I'm pleased to reveal that employment at the Argentia

site will ramp up immediately, and increase through next year.

Speaker,

as we look to the future, we have to acknowledge the important role that oil and

gas projects, like West White Rose, continue to play. Over its 14-year lifespan,

this project is expected to generate nearly $20 billion in gross domestic

product, and over $7 billion in labour income for the province.

The

revised fiscal agreement will bring the province increased royalties if the

price of oil is over $65 US per barrel, with first oil expected in 2026.

As a

government, we have a responsibility to the industry, to the province and to

residents to plan for the future. Through this revised agreement, the province

obtained a $200-million royalty abandonment credit against decommissioning costs

and $100 million to establish a Green Transition Fund to support the energy

transition and other renewable initiatives.

Speaker,

we will continue to foster an environment that supports our economy by embracing

renewable energy, while maximizing our low-carbon oil and gas advantage.

Restarting the West White Rose Project is a great decision, and I thank the

project partners for their role in this agreement. Today is a great day for the

province and those who work in the industry.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

L. PARROTT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I'm extremely glad to hear

that construction of the West White Rose will continue. There are many

tradespeople in this province who have been waiting anxiously for this news and

who are looking forward to getting back to work on these job sites in our

province.

Today's

announcement also means that work, which has not taken place in this province,

will resume. With that being said, and with the Bay du Nord Project on the

horizon, I must urge the Premier and the minister not to give away any

Newfoundland and Labrador jobs. As much work as possible must be done in this

province on the Bay du Nord Project, including construction, engineering, design

and maintenance. It's not good enough for us to continue to let jobs leave this

province while many tradespeople wait to go back to work.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

J. BROWN:

Thank you, Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I'm glad to hear that the

workers of this project can now have some clarity of their future. I hope that

this government takes the future seriously and commits to a comprehensive just

transition plan that will be ready for when these projects reach their end of

life stages.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Education.

T. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's an

honour today in the House of Assembly to recognize the week of May 29 to June 4

as Early Childhood Education Week.

This

week acknowledges and celebrates the crucial role early childhood educators play

in the lives of children in guiding their early learning and development through

well-planned, play-based learning and exploration of the environment.

Our

government, in partnership with the federal government, is implementing an Early

Learning Action Plan that will significantly expand affordable, regulated child

care in this province. At the same time, this plan will increase opportunities

for career advancement for early childhood educators and will see the

implementation of a wage grid that will see most early childhood educators

receiving a wage increase starting in 2023, to better reflect the important work

they do.

Last

week, we announced more than 30 locations for a pilot prekindergarten early

learning program that will open in 2022-23. The pilot will result in

approximately 600 new regulated spaces in communities throughout the province,

as well as significant career opportunities within the sector.

I would

also like to extend congratulations to Nicole Hall of Portugal Cove-St.

Philip's, recipient of the second annual Joanne Juteau Early Childhood Education

Scholarship as presented by the Association of Early Childhood Educators of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Ms. Hall

is graduating from the College of North Atlantic full-time ECE diploma program

this spring with a 4.0 GPA, while volunteering at the college as a tutor,

helping her peers reach their own success in the ECE program. Ms. Hall also has

experience in the field and hopes to open her own child care centre.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Ms. Hall, and thanking early

learning and childhood educators for their dedication and commitment to

providing essential support to families in Newfoundland and Labrador and

encouraging others into this very special profession.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN:

Thank you, Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement. On behalf of the Official

Opposition, I would like to recognize this week as Early Childhood Education

Week. In doing so, I would like to thank the compassionate ECEs in our province

and the work they do in caring for and educating our youngest residents. I

especially recognize Ms. Hall on graduating the ECE diploma program with a 4.0

GPA. I wish her all the best as she endeavours to open up her own child care

centre.

Speaker,

the things you hear about the need for more early childhood educators in this

province, this week is a great opportunity to bring attention to the profession

and seek out ways to encourage more students to undertake the training that's

required.

encourage government to continue working on this initiative because we do have a

shortage of spaces.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

J. DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement and join him in

recognizing Early Childhood Education Week, congratulating Ms. Hall on the

winning of the Joanne Juteau Early Childhood Education Scholarship and in

recognizing the valuable work and role of early childhood educators, that they

play in the lives of our children, our most precious resource, and their

families.

Speaker,

early childhood educators, the majority of whom are women and earn an average of

$30,000 a year, will continue to struggle to make ends meet through record

inflation. 2023 is too long to wait; we ask that government look at implementing

this wage scale earlier.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Are there any further

statements by ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Speaker.

the heels of the minister overruling the Licensing Board and issuing more

licences, companies have slowed or stopped buying crab altogether. The FFAW has

warned this could be catastrophic for plant workers and harvesters.

Does the Premier agree with his minister's decision to overrule the Licensing

Board?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and

Agriculture.

D. BRAGG:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

It's a great question. Indeed, today, I had a conversation with the president of

the FFAW, Keith Sullivan, as well as many owners of fish plants throughout this

province. I also reached out to counterparts in Atlantic Canada. Right now, we

are at a time in our industry where we have an abundance of crab supply. All

cold storage are full and indications are that production will be slowed to

allow the market to catch up for it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Speaker.

While there are ministers who are overruling agencies that are put in play to

offset the process for making decisions, I would like to have the minister

offset or overrule the PUB to help the people of this province with the price of

gas.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL:

Speaker, harvesters have already struggled with

declining prices, skyrocketing operation costs and trip limits. The minister

interfered by issuing more licences when no one is buying – the first time it

has happened in our province's history. Now our billion-dollar crab industry is

at a standstill.

How

will the Premier fix this mess?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and

Agriculture.

D. BRAGG:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

think that maybe there is a little fear mongering on the go there. Our industry

is as big as what it was last year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

D. BRAGG: We have an increase of 30 per cent overall within that

industry. Price remains strong. It was negotiated down – I think is was $6.19

from $7.69. It is still strong. It is the strongest it has been in the last

number of years and it is unfortunate the way the markets are.

The

Members opposite keep talking about the cost of living. I guess this is a factor

of the cost of living, that people are not buying high priced quantities right

now. We hope that the market recaptures itself and gets back to the right size

and we get some sales on the go.

have lots of producers and lots of buyers. One indication this morning was

someone brought in 17 tractor-trailer loads of crab and sold –

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

minister's time is expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Speaker.

are not fear mongering. What we want is to ensure that there is a process here

that is followed that ensures harvesters and plant workers are taken care of and

there be a proactive approach here instead of a reactive approach, Speaker.

Last week, residents on the Labrador South Coast and the Labrador Straits saw

their gas prices rise by 69 cents. Central Labrador and the North Coast will see

similar spikes in the coming future. Residents of Labrador already pay

exceptionally high food prices.

How

does the Premier expect Labradorians to survive if they cannot afford fuel and

food?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service

NL.

S. STOODLEY:

Thank you, Speaker.

The

Petroleum Products Act , I guess to the

former question and this question, is a quasi-judicial body. They are kind of

entrenched in law, unlike the Fish Processing Licensing Board, which is advisory

in nature.

address the question about Labrador and the price of gas, Speaker, I think

that's an excellent question. Two years there was a review of how the gas

pricing process in Labrador works. The theory, the spirit of the regulation and

legislation is that when the tanker comes in, the price is set based on the

price at that time, and that's how it manifests itself throughout the year.

department has been working closely with the Public Utilities Board and the

Department of Labrador Affairs, and I look forward to speaking about this again

later today when we talk about gas prices again.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Mr. Speaker, we're hearing

from hundreds of Labradorians who are saying that the impact right now is having

a detrimental effect on their ability to put fuel in their vehicles, or their

Ski-Doos or their boats, and also to have access to good, healthy food.

There

are seniors who do not drive, who do not heat their homes with oil. The only

thing the Liberals have given these seniors is an extra $131 a year. That's a

measly $4.30 a month, not even enough to buy a box of tea bags. Seniors are

being forgotten by this government.

Why does

the Premier continue to do little for seniors who simply cannot afford to go to

the grocery store anymore?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

course, we recognize the stress and strain of our seniors. That's why one of the

first measures that we did was increase their Supplement by 10 per cent, Mr.

Speaker. We also realized that not every senior, as he correctly points out,

heats their home with furnace oil. We appreciate that. That's why we're

mitigating their rates of electricity heat by $2,400 a year, Mr. Speaker.

We'll

continue to look for creative ways to look after our seniors. We have one of the

most robust plans across the country, and we will continue to be dynamic and

flexible and responsive should other needs arise, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Speaker.

But

we've also heard that it's not enough to help people, particularly seniors here,

and there are more things that could be done here.

I've

heard from a senior who likes to volunteer at a local food bank, who is now

struggling to afford meat and vegetables. Now she's relying on the very food

hamper she used to distribute.

Why is

this Premier not doing more to keep seniors from needing to rely on food banks

to eat healthy?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

course, we're always looking at more ways to help people in this province. We

have to recognize the fiscal restraints of the province, largely because of

Muskrat Falls. No one wants to talk about it, but it is a reality that we have

to deal with every single day. They don't want to deal with it. Unfortunately,

we have to deal with it, on behalf of the people of the province.

I wish I

had $500 million year after year, in perpetuity, to help seniors in a more

effective way, Mr. Speaker. Right now given the fiscal constraints of this

province, we've offered them 10 per cent extra. We've offered them $142 million

of this five-stage package initially and now, hopefully today or tomorrow, we'll

cut the gas tax in half even further.

This is

a healthy plan, it's a robust plan and I would argue it's more than any other

jurisdiction across this country has done per capita, and we will continue to

look for more creative ways, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN:

Thank you, Speaker.

Obviously, your plan is failing, because seniors are struggling. So mission not

accomplished, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker,

communities around the province continue to speak about the failed roads plan.

Placentia and Bay Roberts are the latest to complain about zero investment from

the province over the next two years.

Why does

the minister continue to ignore the needs of these communities?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Infrastructure.

E. LOVELESS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and

thank you for the question.

In terms

of the roads plan, I've said it before and I'll say it again that we believe

this year we struck a real balance in terms of bridge replacement and

improvements in our roadways. Unfortunately, I have a $151-million budget.

Believe it or not, it's still a tough task in terms of what need we have in our

roadways in this province. It is a tough task, and I believe, as I said before,

we have to replace bridges and we have to pave roads. We've struck a great

balance for this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN:

Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker,

the deputy mayor of Placentia is speaking out about the lack of action, noting

that the Argentia ferry will soon push thousands of tourists over our roads,

which he says are filled with potholes and craters.

Is this

the kind of welcome the Premier wants to give visitors during his Come Home

Year?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Infrastructure.

E. LOVELESS:

I would ask him the question:

Where is he hiding his money tree? Because there is only so much that we can do

with the financial envelope that I have. I understand the challenges of that

deputy mayor, like other deputy mayors in parts of the province –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

E. LOVELESS:

We're trying to be

responsible with the financial envelope that we're given. We believe a good

balance has been struck. We're investing in bridges, which is a very important

piece of our roadways. And it will be in the years to come. It has to be done.

There is investment there and investment in our roadways, and we struck a good

balance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN:

Speaker, I would say that

probably the money tree is lost in one of those P3s – about $1.5 billion and

counting and we know where that's going. And it might be behind door four. Maybe

door four has the money tree. We're not really sure; there are a lot of doors.

It's all smoke and mirrors, remember that. It's smoke and mirrors; that's what

this government operates on.

Speaker,

the Bay Roberts town council notes Route 70 is in deplorable condition – it's

actually unsafe. Yet again, the minister has refused to listen to the community

and take action.

Speaker,

I take this question directly from their press release: How bad does it have to

get, and how long will it be ignored?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Infrastructure.

E. LOVELESS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad

he asked that question, because the MHA who does a real good job for her

district advocates very hard for that piece of highway. And we met with the

town, and I instructed to the town that we will be investing on that roadway.

But we have preliminary work to do this year. We are investing this year for

work to be done next year.

It's not

announced in the roads plan because we haven't determined yet the extent of what

we will do. So there will be investment in that road because of the advocacy and

the great work done by the MHA.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

Thank you, Speaker.

Last

week the Liberal government finally realized that the Minister of Finance does

control the finances of the province and actually made a reduction in the gas

tax, which we have been calling for since November.

So I ask

the minister: Now that you control the taxes, will you eliminate the sugar tax?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

I have

to say it is very interesting that they are convoluting cost of living, lowering

the gas tax and now not implementing a plan that will help make our province

healthier. We have set a plan for this province to be one of the healthiest in

the country by 2030. One of the ways that we are doing that is by the Physical

Activity Tax Credit. We are also implementing –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Do you

want to waste your Question Period arguing back and forth? I'll allow you to do

it.

The hon.

the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

It is quite interesting to

have the chirping in the House and from the other side, Mr. Speaker.

I will

say that we will be moving forward with the sugar-sweetened beverage tax. This

is one way in which we are bringing to the people's attention how important it

is to reduce the sugar in their diet. This is about choice, Speaker. You can

choose something with lower calories.

SPEAKER:

The minister's time has

expired.

S. COADY:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

Speaker, if the minister was

truly interested in healthy choices, she'd reduce the cost of healthy food and

not increase the cost of living, which is exactly what is going to happen when

we implement a sugar tax.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM:

So I ask the minister, once

again: Would you introduce an amendment to push back this sugar tax

implementation? Certainly the minister understands that the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador do not need another tax.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

I wasn't aware that the

Member opposite was an economist, Speaker.

I will

say that the people have choice. They can choose a sugar-sweetened beverage;

they will pay a slightly different rate for that. Then they can choose another

beverage that has lower calories, that has no sugar, that would be better for

their health outcomes.

Speaker,

this is about choice of drink and we're suggesting to the people of this

province to choose wisely. We will be imposing a tax on sugar-sweetened

beverages. It is logical; it is all about choices, Speaker.

So, no,

I will say to the Member opposite, we will not be pushing back the

implementation of that tax.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

Speaker, this is just what

the minister said. It's about introducing another tax; it's about taking $5

million out of the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It's not about

healthy choices.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM:

Yesterday, the minister

justified leaving people in the cold when she said: We are going to wait until

September when we know people will be filling their tanks getting ready for the

fall. I've talked to many people who are trying to pay off their current oil

bills.

I ask

the minister: Will you please get those rebates out now so people can afford to

pay off last year's bills?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

Thank you, Speaker.

With

regard to the sugar-sweetened beverage tax, the prelude to the question, I will

say to the Member opposite that this is not about tax at all. We have taken the

money that we will be collecting and we've increased, for example, monies that

we're paying for the children's food programs in schools. We've taken that money

and put it towards active living and active healthy living put towards seniors.

We have reinvested that into our communities because we want a healthier

environment, we want healthier opportunities for all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

As the

Member opposite knows, we will be coming into a fall where it will indeed get

cold. We are getting information from the Canada Revenue Agency so that we can

produce those cheques. This is all driven by an application based, as well –

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

minister's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

S. COADY:

Thank you.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL:

That's not bad, Speaker,

yesterday, they were playing baseball. Now they're playing hockey, stick

handling around all the answers. Maybe they should end up in the penalty box.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

L. O'DRISCOLL:

Speaker, every day we see

reckless driving on our highways and excessive speeding often recorded at 150

kilometres an hour or more. Way back in November 2019 amendments were made to

the Highway Traffic Act to allow speed

cameras as another tool of enforcement.

Why has

the minister not done anything in three years to put these in action?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY:

Thank you, Speaker.

Speed

cameras are an incredibly important policy instrument for me and this

government. We are working on speed cameras. As you can imagine it's incredibly

complex.

there's the technology, then we have working with the municipalities. We have

working with the RNC system; we have working with the OCIO system. So there are

lots of things that we currently have an intergovernmental team working on.

We're working very hard to get speed cameras in the hands of government and

municipalities as soon as possible.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Speaker.

The same

government bureaucracy that slows everything down.

Speaker,

the minister loves committees and studying the issue, but precious little done

in the way of action. Again, she has the legal authority to make highways safer

for years, yet has failed to advance this important safety measure.

When is

the minister going to stop making excuses?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY:

Thank you, Speaker.

It is

currently fully legal for someone to have a speed camera. It is a legal

instrument in our laws, Speaker. Right now, we're working on the technology

implementation side. We need something that a municipality or a town – the Town

of Paradise, the City of St. John's, the Town of Ferryland – that they can plug

into and if they so choose on the streets of their towns and cities. We need to

make sure that they talk to the RNC systems and the OCIO systems.

There

are a lot of working pieces there and a lot of other things that the government

is trying to figure out, but this is a very important piece to me. I have been

driving it. I can't say when we're going to have it ready, but we're working as

fast as we can.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Grand

Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS:

We look forward to that.

Speaker,

yesterday the Minister of Health said: “It is difficult when you have

professionals who are tired and frustrated and burnt out, airing their views in

public.”

I ask

the minister: Will he continue to disrespect the doctors of this province or

will he stand and apologize to Dr. House, as I am sure she can air her views

without assuming that she is burnt out?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much for the

question, Mr. Speaker.

Again,

it's a question of selective quotation, because immediately following that I

acknowledge that these were difficult conversations and we needed to hear them.

It is

the case that physicians are tired and frustrated. We've heard that. It is the

situation that nurses and LPNs are tired and frustrated. We've listened to that.

As a

result of those conversations, we have put in place initiatives: the family

medicine initiative from last October; the nurses' think tank; we've met with

NAPE on paramedics; we've had discussions with allied health professionals on

respiratory therapists and perfusionists. These conversations are difficult but

important. I said nothing that Dr. House had not said herself in public media.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Grand

Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS:

Well, that's about the worst

apology I've ever seen.

Let me

tell the minister something, the doctors in my district work very hard; they do.

Maybe if we supported them instead of chastising them for every time they speak

about something, we might not be in this mess.

Speaker,

the CEO of Central Health in an interview yesterday said that over the next few

weeks they plan to work on retaining the physicians that they do have in the

region. Very important.

Does the

minister think that branding physicians as – quote – difficult will push

physicians out of the region or keep them there?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

Again, a

lecture in selective misquotation from my colleague opposite.

The

conversations are difficult. The physicians have genuine feelings of fatigue and

exhaustion. I sympathize with that; I've been there. We have put in place an ADM

for recruitment and retention of all health professionals. We have approaches

through conversations with nurses, with physicians about what it is we can do to

make their working life easier and their work life balance suit them better.

These

are important issues for us. We are putting money there. We're putting resources

there and the results will manifest themselves in time.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Exploits.

P. FORSEY:

Emergency room closures in

Central Newfoundland are causing severe disruptions at the Central Newfoundland

Regional Health Centre in Grand Falls-Windsor with more patients needing

emergency service, longer wait times and patients forced on stretchers in

hallways.

How long

will Central Health be practicing hallway medicine?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

We're

aware of the situation in our emergency rooms. We have, and we brought to this

House, measures that we have in place to attempt both short-, medium- and

long-term fixes for this. There will be stabilization of the hubs in Grand

Falls-Windsor and Gander. We put $1.8 million into each of those this year in

the budget that we've recently passed. We have committed an extra $2 million for

virtual ER support in Central Health. Central Health is actually pioneering the

use of virtual ER services. These are short term.

Long

term, I'm pleased to announce, that the entire family medicine seat program at

Memorial is full and we are on track to make further enhancements to that

program.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Exploits.

P. FORSEY:

Well your short term is not

working, Minister. It's time to get at the long-term one because they're still

in the hallways.

Residents in Central region are concerned with the future of their health care.

Many residents can't get access to the health hub, don't have a family doctor

and are driven to emergency room for their basic medications.

I ask

the minister: Why is government forcing people to go to overcrowded emergency

rooms to access basic medications?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you, Speaker.

Several

elements packed up in that question, but, essentially, we have put in place

short-term measures to deal with medication refills; 811 can do that for you.

Pharmacists can refill prescriptions for stable patients with medications.

In terms

of putting in place good, solid primary care, that is the foundation for Health

Accord NL. We will be opening up Patient Connect NL to Central and Western

regions of this province within the next few weeks to identify those people who

need a primary care provider, just as we have done in Eastern Health. There is

capacity in the Eastern Health clinics and we look forward to people being able

to register.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER:

Thank you, Speaker.

Residents from Chance Cove, Blaketown and even as far as Arnold's Cove are

relying on the emergency room in Whitbourne, because there are simply not enough

family doctors in the area.

How long

will residents have to worry about not having access to a family doctor?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

Indeed

access to primary care is our primary focus currently. We have in place, through

Eastern Health, Patient Connect NL, which I have referenced earlier. Those

individuals should register for primary care through that portal. Currently

we've had just north of 12,000 registrations. You will be prioritized on the

basis of clinical need into how rapidly appointments are provided.

continue to work to expand those services across Newfoundland and Labrador in

line with what we believe the blueprint for the Health Accord NL plan will be.

Look forward to providing further – my colleague over there looks as though he's

ready for his next one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER:

The reason why I stood,

Speaker, is because that was another non-answer. I asked about the specifics of

Whitbourne clinic and you're talking about asking a senior to go to St. John's

to see a doctor to get medications – come on.

With so

many emergency room closures in the province, many residents are worried that

the Whitbourne clinic will be next to close its doors. Without family physicians

and without an emergency room clinic, where will residents of the area seek

medical care?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Again, Mr. Speaker, it seems

that selective misquotation is the order of the day with my questions. The

gentleman opposite misquotes me and misinterprets what I did say.

Patient

Connect NL is a primary way of registering for primary care access in Eastern

Health region. From the point of view of those physicians, Whitbourne clinic is

experiencing – as other clinics have – some staffing challenges which Eastern

Health are working with the local physicians to attempt to resolve, as well as

local staff.

Our

long-term and medium-term solutions lie on recruitment and retention of

Newfoundland and Labrador people who go to medical school and do residency

training here. That is in hand and will bear fruit.

SPEAKER:

Order!

The

minister's time is expired.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

I've

raised this before; I'll do it again. Route 60 through my District of Topsail -

Paradise has sections in deplorable condition. It is pitted with potholes, has

erosion on the shoulders, and it presents safety issues for both drivers and

pedestrians.

I ask

the minister: What is the timeline to address this issue in Topsail?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Infrastructure.

B. PETTEN:

Wrong colour there.

E. LOVELESS:

That's a good question, and

no, it's not the wrong colour, I'll say to the deputy, whatever his title is.

But in

terms of Route 60 there are conversations to be had about that highway. I have

driven it many times because I live nearby it. I have chatted with the Member as

well in terms of the need there.

It is

not just in the roads plan; it can be an upgraded maintenance plan, as far as I

am concerned, so we are looking at that. It is not like we're neglecting it

because, as he would say, it is a different colour. It doesn't matter, but the

need is there and we recognize it and it is part of our planning in the

department.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS:

Thank you.

Speaker,

on Thursday, many patients from my district were told that they could not travel

home until Monday, a four-day delay, because there was no room on the medical

flight for them. This has become a chronic, ongoing problem which causes

additional mental, financial and relationship stress for patients. It is only

after pleading with the health authority that additional flights were added.

This cannot continue to be the norm, Mr. Speaker.

So I ask

the minister: Will he take action to ensure patients don't have the continued

burden of these huge delays getting home?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

The

skedevac service, the regular medical flights to the North Coast, are managed

and handled by Labrador-Grenfell Health. Certainly happy to take the Member

opposite's concerns back to them. My understanding is that they have built on

their existing contract and increased the number of regular flights as it is.

Should that not be sufficient then obviously there is a need to reassess that.

We would

be happy to work with the Nunatsiavut Government, as well, who have a monetary

interest in supporting that flight too. We have various channels and, again, I

am happy to take that back to Labrador-Grenfell on behalf of the Member

opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

J. BROWN:

Thank you, Speaker.

In a

current response to the PUB from NL Hydro, over the current application of power

supply to Southern Labrador, the PUB has asked NL Hydro to engage external

experts, as the project is over $50 million. NL Hydro refuses to do so. This is

Recommendation 1 from Muskrat Falls inquiry, Volume 1, page 61.

I ask

the minister: Why hasn't this recommendation from the Muskrat Falls inquiry been

implemented?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am

happy to hear somebody else in the House talking about Muskrat Falls besides us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

A. PARSONS:

What I would say to the

Member is that I am quite aware of the dialogue that is going on between Hydro

and the PUB. I guess the first thing that I would say is that I am extremely

happy to see a robust, active dialogue between Hydro and the PUB as it relates

to reliability and stability of power in Southern Labrador. It is certainly a

huge conversation going on.

What I

would say, right now, is they are still, to my knowledge, working this back and

forth . There are a lot of concerns and there have been a lot of concerns

expressed in the community as to the source of power. So they will continue to

do that, but the fact that they are having open, transparent dialogue that is

being seen in the public, I don't think that's a bad thing.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

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

E. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Route 450 is a very important route for the whole south shore of the Bay of

Islands. It is good for tourism, for people travelling back and forth to work.

There is a major split in the road at Coppermine Brook. I know I have been

dealing with the minister on it and he has been very gracious in working with

this.

The

people of the Humber - Bay of Islands would just like an update on that road

because the road is in serious condition and one portion of the road is in

serious condition. I followed up on a tourism bus and it was on two wheels the

other day. I know the minister is working with his staff.

Can

you just give us an update on that so I can pass it on to the residents of

Humber - Bay of Islands – the short-term solution and the long-term solution?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and

Infrastructure.

E. LOVELESS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

important question and, any time that safety is in question, we take it very

seriously as a department. The Member is right. We did have conversations around

that route – Route 450. I did have conversations with the staff this morning

about it. While I don't have anything in terms of what will be done in the

interim, we know that something needs to be done there to address that

situation.

are assessing it right now. Once I have the feedback from the department and

engineers, I will be glad to have that conversation with the Member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

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

E. JOYCE:

I thank the minister for that.

The

Liberal government made a commitment that the new acute-care hospital would have

all of the services currently at the Western Memorial Regional Hospital. We know

now that that commitment has been broken, with a loss of 75 union positions. The

laundry services, with 75 jobs, has been eliminated from the new acute-care

hospital despite assurances from your government during the election of 2021.

There was a request for qualifications that closed in January 26, 2021, during

the election. Then an RFP for services to be done privately.

Can

the minister inform this House on the status of the RFP and the status of these

75 jobs in the Corner Brook area and if this tender has been awarded?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

When the original P3 was crafted, at a time when I believe the Member opposite

sat in a different location in this House, it was agreed that non-clinical

services would be removed, where possible, from the footprint of Corner Brook

Acute Care Hospital on the grounds of economy and quality.

What has happened since then is that Western Health

have gone out to an RFP to assess how best to provide laundry services.

As a result of that RFP, they have gone back to the market for a consultant in

the field of commercial laundry to provide them with further advice. That is the

RFP that is currently out there.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The time for Question Period

has expired.

Presenting Reports by Sanding and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Tabling of

Documents

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

D. BRAGG:

Speaker, I guess this

document will strike a nerve with Members on other side who seem intent on

watering down employment in the fish plant industry. I, on the other hand,

intend to support the people that currently work in that industry.

I table

this document entitled the 2HJ3KLNOP4R Snow Crab Fishery and Survey

Summary.

This will support a question from Question Period yesterday in which I said

something. It was made a point of order today to be contrary of what I said.

This supports what I said yesterday, and I table this document.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Any further tabling of

documents?

Notices

of Motion.

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Lake

Melville.

P. TRIMPER:

Good catch, Speaker, thank

you.

Many

constituents in Newfoundland and Labrador have eye diseases and degeneration

that requires surgical intervention to help maintain vision. One of the

corrective procedures, coronal transplant surgery, is covered under the

provincial Medical Care Plan. However, there is another less expensive and more

effective medical procedure available within the province that is not covered

under MCP that could save the province money and provide improved health

outcomes for the residents of this province.

petition:

WHEREAS corneal cross-linking surgery is less expensive than corneal

transplant surgery; and

WHEREAS

corneal cross-linking surgery is currently available in St. John's, and

WHEREAS

the corneal cross-linking surgery is a one-time surgery with lifelong

effectiveness, instead of being repeated every 10 years as for the transplant

surgery procedure; and

WHEREAS

corneal cross-linking surgery has a shorter recovery time and does not require

anti-rejection medication; and

WHEREAS

corneal cross-linking surgery does not require donor tissue, reducing the wait

time considerably.

THEREFORE we, the undersigned, call upon this House of Assembly to urge the

government to cover corneal cross-linking surgery under the provincial Medical

Care Plan.

Speaker,

this particular issue was brought to me by a resident; I've since heard from

others that are battling and very frustrated with the situation. It's estimated

that some one in 100,000 people in the country are estimated to suffer from this

type of eye disease that would require this kind of procedure to address. That

would represent, by the way, for everybody here, 520 of our residents in this

province.

This

procedure is covered in Quebec, and there are a variety of advantages to it. It

does halt the progression of keratoconus; it prevents vision loss; it has been

approved for young teens; it avoids that very complicated transplant procedure;

it enhances contact lens tolerance; delivers a much faster, more effective

treatment – by the way, the procedure only takes 10 minutes to deal with – is

suitable for thin corneas; serves as a safer treatment and, finally, Speaker, it

provides maximum eye protection.

So,

again, and to sum up, I'd like the government to have a look at this. Certainly

this approach is less expensive, more effective and the citizens of the province

are asking for it.

Thank

you very much.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay.

The hon.

the Minister of Health and Community Services for a reply.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you, Speaker.

Sorry, I

had to wave through the moving bodies.

The

Member opposite's petition brings up a very interesting clinical issue; it is

topical in my department, with the treatment of keratoconus. We have a small

group of clinicians working on that at the moment and may be able to provide

some future comment to the House.

So thank

you for the petition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN:

Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker,

the following petition is one from the residents of Corner Brook and the present

situation out there with the crematorium. As colleagues will do in the House, I

politely agreed to present this petition on behalf of the people of Corner

Brook. I consulted with my good friend the Member for Corner Brook, who is in

support of this.

Currently, there are no regulations for crematoriums in Newfoundland and

Labrador. All crematoriums in Newfoundland and Labrador are currently operating

without regulations, resulting in crematoriums being built as close as a few

metres from neighbouring homes with no emission monitor. Toxic emissions

contaminate the soil, air and water. The World Health Organization stresses that

crematoriums should not be built near neighbourhoods where people live.

The

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador urgently needs to develop and enforce

regulations for all crematoriums. Crematoriums are in fact incinerators and

toxic emissions are very well documented even in the most modern equipment.

Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the

undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately place a moratorium on all new crematorium builds until there are

regulations in place for all of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is signed by

quite a number of people, Mr. Speaker.

table this and I hope the government gives it some consideration.

Thank you very much.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER:

Thank you, Speaker.

The

reasons for this petition or the background to this petition is as follows:

Roads in our province are in various states of disrepair. Many rural communities

are concerned that the deplorable road conditions will keep visitors and family

away from Come Home Year celebrations. We are inviting the world to come to our

province this summer, yet many rural roads are unfit to travel and many vehicles

are damaged by huge potholes, unrepaired washouts and uneven shoulders. This is

a real deterrent to tourists and families from out of province who wish to join

in our celebrations this summer.

Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: To urge the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to increase the provincial roads program

to address the need for repairs on many rural roadways in our province.

have presented this on several occasions on behalf of the people, but, right

now, I guess, to go with this petition, I know that the roads plan is out,

Speaker, but we are in desperate need of some maintenance. The brush cutting now

– like, we'll say, in Petite Forte, the moose are hanging out on the road. Moose

never stay on the road. Caribou do because they lick the salt off the road but

to have moose, now, hanging out on the road means they can't even get through

the brush. So there is something pretty serious there.

have roads that haven't been looked at since they got paved originally. But I

will say this, the work that has been done and the workmanship of, not only our

depots but our contractors and stuff like that – and I was remiss in not

including our contractors last time – have done an excellent job. We just have

to set them out to do the job, I guess.

But

I appreciate it and look forward to the minister's response in giving some

attention to the maintenance going forward for the rest of the summer.

Thank you, Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and

Infrastructure for a response.

E. LOVELESS:

Thank you to the Member for his interest. As for brush

cutting, we will be announcing brush-cutting projects in the next couple of

months. As I told them yesterday, we will certainly be considering his area as

we do other areas. So we will be giving his area due consideration.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS:

Thank you, Speaker.

This petition is to call to reinstate the marine shipping and service between

the Island portion of our province and Northern Labrador communities.

We, the

undersigned, are concerned citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador who urge our

leaders to return the marine shipping services between the Island portion of our

province and our Northern Labrador communities of Rigolet, Makkovik, Postville,

Hopedale, Natuashish and Nain.

This

marine freight service was removed in the spring of 2019, resulting in freight

having to be trucked to the port of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and then shipped to

our northern communities. Since then, the additional shipping has directly

impacted prices of food, building materials, vehicles, including trucks and

off-road vehicles, household goods and many essential services for our

communities.

Our

Northern Labrador communities are totally isolated, without any road access, and

marine transportation services are limited to just five summer months on

average. With the cancellation of the direct marine freight service from the

Island portion of our province to our communities, residents are witnessing

exorbitant price increases of our basic needs impacting overall quality of life.

So,

Speaker, this petition is really important. In June 2019, after I got elected, I

was only elected for about a month. I called for a meeting with the Department

of Transportation, the minister, the deputy minister and also the deputy

minister of Labrador Affairs and Indigenous Affairs was there. One of the things

that we couldn't understand was why was this freight boat taken off. I was told,

in that meeting, it was because the Trans-Labrador Highway was almost complete

and there was a commitment that once the Trans-Labrador Highway was complete

that the freight boat from the Island potion would be removed.

To me,

Speaker, that was very confusing. That was confusing for anyone in my district

because everybody knows when you go to North West River, which is the most

northern point of Lake Melville region, and you look up towards my district,

there is no Trans-Labrador Highway. The only access we have is by air, which is

very, very costly for freight and passenger travel or by marine, which is

restricted to five months. So really, I think the fair thing for this government

to do is return the marine shipping service.

Speaker,

we don't actually mind where the port would be on the Island. Whether it is

actually in the port of Lewisporte or actually in the port of Carbonear.

Actually, Harbour Grace has a good port as well. In actual fact, we need this,

Speaker.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

Member's time has expired.

The hon.

the Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation, and Labrador

Affairs for response.

L. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Speaker.

I just

like to take a moment to respond to the hon. Member's comments when she talks

about the need for the boat to go back to Lewisporte. Right here in my hand I

have an email from a leader in her district that says some people might say the

reinstatement of a ferry to and from Lewisporte to my community and the North

Coast may be the answer. In all honesty, I would have to disagree. Then it goes

on to talk about other things and moving forward.

I just

want to say to the hon. Member, any time that she wants to meet with me my door

is open. I'm happy to sit down and talk about the issues that matter, but we are

hearing from people in Labrador saying the boat going back to Lewisporte is not

the answer. People in Torngat are messaging saying they don't want the boat to

go back to Lewisporte.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY:

Thank you, Speaker.

This

petition is as follows:

The list

of number of people in need of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing in the Central

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY:

The list for housing has

increased significantly in the past few years. This leaves people in vulnerable

situations, and many times individuals are outside in the cold and homeless

while waiting for placement.

Therefore, we, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to repair and increase the number of

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing units in Central Newfoundland to meet present

need throughout the region.

Speaker,

in the past couple of years, I've been hearing more and more with regard to

housing in Central Newfoundland. There are over 250 applications alone in

Central-West. There's a rising need for housing in the Central region. People

can't afford to get regular housing because of the cost of living and that sort

of stuff. So we need to address those issues right off the cuff and need that

done. I'm talking to people that are living out in the cold. I had one last

winter – I believe I mentioned this before – was living in a shed. We had to

find some placement for him. I've heard of others sleeping in tents.

They

can't afford housing, Mr. Speaker, and there are no units. We'd like for that

housing to be updated with regard to units and more housing created, if

possible. So with this dire need of housing in Central Newfoundland, we'd like

something to address that.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

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 3.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, the following: Standing Order

11(1) that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m., today, Tuesday, May 31.

SPEAKER:

It is the pleasure of the

House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Motion

carried.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

I call

from the Order Paper, Order 12, second reading of Bill 64.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

Speaker, I move, seconded by

the Government House Leader, that Bill 64,

An Act To Amend The Revenue

Administration Act No. 6, be now read a second time.

SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 64,

An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 6, be now read a

second time.

M otion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration

Act No. 6.” (Bill 64)

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

Thank you, Speaker.

appreciate the opportunity to speak to this important bill.

Speaker,

we've talked substantively in this House over the last number of months about

balance, about ensuring that we are fiscally responsible, ensuring that we're

helping people, ensuring that we are funding a lot of the programs that need to

be funded in the province, that we are being responsible in our actions. I would

say, Speaker, that we have done that. We have achieved that balance in budget

2022-2023. Not only on the fiscal side of things and some of the remarks coming

from banks, bond-rating agencies, unions, community leaders, all were positive

about the budget, Speaker.

I think

it's important that we remember – and I can quote from the debate that was here

in the House that these are difficult choice. They are difficult things that we

have to do within any budget, and striking that right balance. The balance of

investments in our economy, investments in our communities, investments in our

people with being fiscally responsible and responsible to our children and our

grandchildren to ensure that we leave them a legacy of strength.

I've

spoken in this House about the goal that we all want. Every one of us in this

House wants. We all want a stronger, smarter, self-sufficient, sustainable

Newfoundland and Labrador.

So the

debate around the budget wasn't as much about where our investments were going,

and I think people understood and appreciated, actually, where our investments

go. We've made a tremendous number of investments not only in our economy but

also in our communities. We've also increased some funding and spread as much as

we possibly could across this province of ensuring – for example, we increased

the roads budget. We spoke a lot today about the roads budget and about how

important that is to communities. I heard, and I know Members opposite heard how

important it is to support community groups. So we were able to put an

additional $5 million towards that.

We know

how important education is and I'm very proud that we were able to increase the

number of children in our educational system. The first time in 50 years,

Speaker. The first time since 1972 we have 1,000 new kids in school. We've made

investments with the Premier's Task Force on Improving Educational Outcomes, we

made investments in terms of more guidance counselors, we made investments in

reading specialists and we made investments in our educational system.

We also

have made investments in health care. Almost $400 million, Speaker, in the last

couple of years. All at the same time of bringing down that deficit. And as I

outlined in budget 2022-23, we have a really robust strategic plan for

addressing and making sure we're being very financially responsible, but also

making sure we're being very responsible to debt management.

I've

talked about in this House, the triangle I call it, you know, one side fixing

Muskrat Falls in terms of the finances of Muskrat Falls, making sure that we're

really focused on financial management and making sure that we're focused on

debt management. We were able to bring down our deficit.

Why is

that important to the people of the province? We spend a billion dollars a year

– one of our top expenditures in this province is on our cost of borrowing. It's

not on paying down our debt. That's just on the cost of borrowing.

I think

the people of the province understand that's not sustainable. We can't continue

to drive debt; we're up to $17 billion, we have to start bringing that down.

Otherwise, the future wouldn't look as bright as it does right now. Again, I

say, everyone in this House wants that stronger, smarter, self-sufficient and

sustainable Newfoundland and Labrador. Not one person, I don't think, in this

House, would say differently.

But it

is about balance and it is about choice. So when we sat here on Budget Day and

we announced $142 million – $142 million – and this is in addition to some of

the other programming that we do, that we've been able to put in place. So that

$142 million are investments and monies going back to the people of the

province. As I said on Budget Day, and I'll say again, trying to put money back

into people's pockets, rather than out of people's pockets.

We made

some very strategic choices. I know that my colleague for St. John's East -

Quidi Vidi was very focused on ensuring that we supported those most vulnerable.

He wanted to makes sure we supported seniors. So we announced programing to

ensure that during these difficult times, globally – they are not Newfoundland

and Labrador's challenges per se, they are global challenges, all across this

country, all around the world. I quoted a couple of days ago, the deputy

governor of the Bank of Canada, he talked about that this is a global problem.

This not just in Canada, not just in Newfoundland and Labrador.

But how

do we support people? How do we give back to people? So in working with my

colleagues, we came up with a plan where we talked about we're going to do some

short-term measures and some longer term measures. The short-term measures

including things like we ensured that we increased the Income Supplement to help

those most vulnerable, the lower income, making sure that they had some

additional money in their pocket; the Seniors' Benefit. We gave a one-time

stipend, a cheque, $400 for all those on income support. We eliminated the tax

on home insurance. We felt that was very broadly distributed across Newfoundland

and Labrador. We also ensured that we cut in half the cost of registering a

vehicle.

These

are just some of the measures. These are the ones off the top of my head. We

gave things like bus passes for seniors, and we did other things. That's all in

addition to the over $200 million that we spend per year in subsidizing and

supporting those most vulnerable. That's in addition to the money that we spend

in housing. That's in addition to some of the other expenditures that we have,

but we felt it was very important that we put in place measures, because we

understood the cost of living was challenging people. We understood that.

Coming

out of a pandemic with supply issues and the global strife with the war in

Ukraine and the rising fuel prices, we wanted to support.

Let me

tell you what the price of fuel was the day this House met for the budget:

$1.85. The day we sat here in this House and read the budget it was $1.85

regular gas price. We also know over the last number of weeks the gas prices

have continued to increase. Why have they continued to increase, Speaker? Again,

it's not a Newfoundland and Labrador centred problem. This is something that's

happening globally and we're concerned. We're concerned about these rising fuel

prices. We're concerned about the challenges they're creating for the people of

the province.

So we

dug a little deeper, we worked a little harder and we have been able to support

– and that's what this bill is about today, lowering our gas tax.

Speaker,

I'm going to get asked: Why didn't you lower it before? Well, let me address

that, as I have in this House on multiple times.

We have

provided $142 million – the House is tired of me saying it I'm sure – back to

the people of the province. We collect $141.6 million in the provincial gas tax.

So we turned the entire amount of it back to the people of the province in

different ways.

I can

tell you that hundreds of thousands of people in this province, hundreds of

thousands of families in this province were impacted by the amount that we were

able to lower home insurance or lower the registration on cars or provide the

Income Supplement or provide bus passes or provide other supports that we're

able to do. So hundreds of thousands of families have been helped.

We gave

back, basically, the entire amount of the provincial gas tax. But lowering the

gas tax was problematic because once we lowered that gas tax there was a

possibility that the federal government would impose the carbon tax backstop.

Now,

what is that? Basically, when Newfoundland and Labrador made a deal with the

federal government to remove home heat, the oil heat, from carbon tax to ensure

that carbon tax was not applied in the fishery, to ensure it wasn't applied in

forestry, to ensure it wasn't applied in agriculture or in exploration, we made

sure that those were carved out. In doing so, we ensured that the money would

stay in the province as well. But if we did too much with the price signal on

the price of gasoline, the backstop could come in. Meaning the federal

government could come in and impose carbon tax then on home heat. That's the

last thing anyone in this House or anyone in this province would like to have to

happen. We are in challenging times and we recognize we're in challenging times.

Now, in

the last number of weeks, as we've seen the price of oil continue to rise, we

have had multiple discussions with our federal colleagues. And as you know, the

prime minister visited in the last couple of weeks and the Premier, in his good

relationship with the federal government, in his ability to work with the

federal government, has basically ensured that we can now lower the gas tax,

because of the price of fuel, because of the challenges that that's presenting

to the people of the province.

So,

today, I have put before this House measures, ways in which we can lower the gas

tax. We are lowering it by seven cents and that is an actual effect of just over

eight cents because of the HST on that as well. That's the lowest provincial gas

tax in the country next to Alberta. We all know in this House that Alberta,

because of its $500-million surplus – and bless them for having it. They have a

surplus. I wish we did, too. Because of that surplus, they are able to remove

their provincial gas tax until the price of oil comes down.

Now, we are the next lowest. In a province that has struggled financially –

think about this: struggled financially. I can tell you, I have only been

Finance Minister 18 months. I know I have done three budgets in those 18 months,

but in those 18 months we have taken the deficit, which is more spending than

you are earning, more money out of your pocket than coming into your pocket,

$1.8 billion in deficit, and we have taken that down, taken that down to this

year, it will be $350 million.

AN HON. MEMBER:

She is doing a good job, Speaker.

S. COADY:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

S. COADY:

But I will say to you, Speaker, and I appreciate my

colleagues' support, this is a tough task, but it is about balance. It is about

ensuring that we recognize that continuing to overspend is not in the best

interest of this province. So we have been very, very diligent, very prudent,

very responsible.

Now

I will say –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

S. COADY:

I am hearing chirping across the aisles, Speaker.

will say that the deficit has been higher. The highest deficits and the highest

revenues came under different administrations – the last administration.

I will say we are trying to be very fiscally responsible and must be. No one in

this House nor in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador wants our

great-grandchildren and our grandchildren to pay for our mistakes. We don't want

that to happen. So being responsible, being balanced is incredibly important.

Now, I listened intensely during the debates of the Budget Speech and I can say

to the Speaker that what I heard was: Please spend more money – please spend

more money. I have a list. I am a note taker and I made a list on pieces of

paper of where the people opposite wanted to spend. They talked about more money

for roads, which we have been able to provide. They talked about cellphone

service, which we have been able to provide tens of millions of dollars towards

improvement of connectivity. They talked about, you know, ensuring that we

have good economic

confidence. I can tell the Members opposite that – and I will, actually – our

growth in our economy is good this year. But I had to be very fiscally

responsible, too, and make sure that we are not burdening future generations.

We were

able to provide $142 million back to the people of the province. Now, because

the price of fuels has reached 202.22 cents – remember, it was a 1.85 less than

a couple of months ago. So basically a 40-cent increase over the last two

months. We have been able to say, now, to the people of the province, we can

reduce the gas tax – lowest in Canada.

We have

also made a decision that we would provide a home heat, oil heat supplement this

fall to those that heat their homes with oil. We will provide a supplement to

those earning under $100,000 family income, $500, and for those above $100,000

to $150,000 it will be a diminishing – to the lowest amount will be $200. We're

going to provide that in September of this year.

We have

to do an application process; we have to get the information from the Canada

Revenue Agency and provide the cheques. So come September, we'll be able to

provide that; I think it will be helpful to the people of the province. All of

that added up to be another $75 million. So now, we're up into the 220s. This is

the most that anyone in Canada has provided back in the cost of living.

From the

province that struggles financially, we have done the most. Speaker, I have said

in this House, even though Members opposite like to plate me as somebody who's

callous and – I think I wrote it down – not caring. I can tell the Members

opposite, I can tell the people of the province, we are balancing and we are

providing everything that we can back to the people of the province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

S. COADY:

Almost $225 million – $225

million. Now remember, we still have to borrow that money. We have a deficit of

$351 million. That's this year, provided all the things that I've talked about

in budget remain the same.

Now,

Speaker, before I get into other notes, I did want to give some good news on the

economy. I had it here a moment ago, and I just want to reach and give some good

things. You heard today of course about the good news from the Minister of

Industry, Energy and Technology when he spoke about West White Rose restarting

and I am very, very pleased to hear that. It was a very difficult time for the

workers, the people of the province. I have to say it was very, very difficult

when, due to COVID, Cenovus took the decision – or it was Husky at the time,

took the decision to actually close the project and then had to reassess how to

move forward, so I was very, very pleased today.

I can

tell you that the restaurant – the food serving industry is back to 2019 levels.

I can tell you that retail sales in this province are up again. I wish I had my

piece of paper – and I am sure I'll find it as soon as I stop speaking – that

would tell us the percentage, but I can tell you it is well above inflationary

pressures. It is a real, true growth in retail sales. We are seeing a true

growth in new urban housing starts. We are seeing a lot of movement in housing

sales. So these are very positive signs in our economy.

already know that in mining, for example, we're seeing true growth in terms of

exploration and developments. I congratulate, again, Marathon for moving through

their project and hopefully going to a mine very soon. I congratulate those that

are doing incredible work all around this province, not just in the gold

industry. We know rare earth minerals and iron ore is doing incredibly well.

These are investments that are happening in our province and they are helping to

grow our economy, grow our employment. Our employment is up this year as well.

I will

say, Speaker, we're seeing good growth offshore Newfoundland and Labrador. We're

seeing exploration this year and I wish them every success in their exploration.

So,

Speaker, back to the bill at hand. This bill absolutely will lower the cost of

the provincial sales tax. It goes from 14.5, now down to 7.5. Allow me to tell

you what it is in Quebec: 19.2 – 19 per cent in Quebec. In Nova Scotia, it is

15.5 just to give you an example. We will be at 7.5. Our provincial gas tax is

quite low and because of the strength in our economy, we're seeing additional

revenues. And it's not through the HST, because I'm sure I'll hear that from my

colleague opposite, when he says you're collecting more HST.

I've

told the Member opposite that HST won't catch up for a number of years. We will

collect $66 million on provincial gas tax this year through HST. That is the

amount that we collected last year; it remains normalized. Now, in a couple of

years' time we may see a bump because of the price of gasoline, but this will

lower the price of gasoline by eight cents.

So the

bill itself says two things that I'm sure my colleague opposite will remind me.

It says that this will take effect as quickly after Royal Assent, as we inform

the Public Utilities Board and they are able to implement it. The second thing

is there's a sunset clause of January 1, 2023. People will say why is there a

sunset clause? Why can't you just keep your provincial gas tax low?

Again,

Speaker, I say to you, it's about balance. We want to ensure that we are

supporting people as we go through these very high cost of living times, the

inflationary times. We will look at this again this fall. We will continue to

consider how we might be able to support and help people. We will look at the

price, obviously, of gasoline again this fall. But we must have a sunset clause

on this, at this time. Otherwise, we would have to come back with another

amendment to raise the price of the provincial gas tax back to where it is today

or somewhere in that vicinity.

We're

also sending a message to bond-rating agencies and banks, and we want to make

sure that we are clear in our balance. Again, I go back to that word: balance.

If we're going to consider this – and I reassure my Members opposite, they will

hold me to account this fall; I know they will. I know they will. They'll ask me

in this House, I'm sure when the House returns in a couple of months' time and

if the price of fuel remains high, they'll be asking these questions. So we'll

have that opportunity for the debate this fall, as to whether or not we will

sunset on January 1.

But,

right now, we're clearly signalling that we will sunset on January 1 and it's

about budgetary balance. I know the Members opposite understand fiscal

responsibility. I know Members opposite understand really strong financial

responsibility, prudence. They understand that.

understanding that we're coming back in the fall, understanding that we are

offering temporary benefit to people because of the high price of fuel and

understanding that things may change in the next six months. Then we'll

consider, but right now it is January 1, 2023, this will sunset, okay.

Speaker,

I haven't read any of my notes that have been provided for me. I will have a

quick flick just to make sure that I have not forgotten anything that I should

have said.

I will

say, Speaker, we've had a lot of barbs back and forth in the House about some of

the transitionary measures that we put in place on the electric vehicle rebates.

I know the Members opposite, and I know the people of the province, recognize

that as we transition – and we talk about transition quite a bit, moving towards

a green economy – that people will start to buy electric vehicles. That's why

we're putting in – and I commend the Minister of Environment and Climate Change

– charging stations across this province.

I also

will say that we've put in some transition measures of providing, for example, a

rebate. There's electrical vehicle rebates and charging infrastructure money

available. You can get money to assist you to buy an electric vehicle, to bring

down the cost of your electric vehicle, because they're somewhat higher priced,

but that is falling. But because people are starting to move, when you're now

going to look for a new vehicle, you're likely to consider buying an electric

vehicle and that's where we're going in our economy. That's where we're going,

globally.

I will

also say we are providing help for families to get their homes transitioned from

oil to electricity. That's important for climate change, it's important for cost

right now. But it is important for climate change, and we are blessed in this

province with an abundance of renewable energy. We're thankful for it, about 98

per cent of the province right now, once Muskrat Falls comes on stream

permanently, is renewable. So that's a very good sign.

Speaker,

I'm going to pause there and thank Members in this House for their support. I

will also say that these measures cost $225 million, Speaker. It's a tremendous

amount of money in a province that has a deficit of $351 million. But we're

doing everything as responsibly, prudent and timely as possible to assist

people.

I thank

you. I petition the House to support this bill. Once this bill is passed, and

I'm hoping everyone in this House supports this bill, and we have Royal Assent,

we will be able to advise the Public Utilities Board and they will be able to

lower the price of gasoline. I will say we will also be providing support for

those heating their home with oil come the fall as well.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

Speaker, there is lots that

the minister had to say; some of it I agree with, some obviously I don't agree

with. But first, before I get started, just for the minister's knowledge, my

major in university was economics. So I just want to put that out there so she

understands that I have a major in economics from Memorial University.

Now, you

know, it's funny that we find ourselves standing here today talking about gas

tax reduction and a rebate for people of the province. I've been calling for

relief for the people of the province since November. It's not only me that has

been calling for this relief. It's been all of my colleagues on this side of the

House, the PC caucus and other Members on this side of the House. We've been

talking about this since November and here we are, the 31st of May, we're seeing

things.

What I

fail to understand is the same items that the minister is talking about now

could have been dealt with in the budget, could have been dealt with in April

when the budget was brought down. But if it wasn't for the tenacity of the

people on this side of the House, in pushing for change, it would never have

happened. It was a force that was put on by the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador who said quite clearly to government that what you announced in your

budget was just not enough.

After a

period of time, the government acknowledged that. The Premier of the province

acknowledged it, the Minister of Finance acknowledged it and we brought and came

looking for additional measures.

It's

interesting that in the revenue sources for the Province of Newfoundland, that

tax – provincial tax sources – accounts for $5.4 billion of our revenue. So it's

very difficult for people to understand.

We all

understand balance; we all understand the need for balance. But what really

upsets the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is when their government chooses

to spend money on things which they may consider to be extra; i.e., did we

really need to give Labatt $250,000 to upgrade their systems that they have,

recognizing that it's a fund that the federal government had and contributed

$250,000.

But

where does that money come from? It comes from taxpayers. Perhaps it comes from

carbon tax. So take it out of the people's pockets and give it to a corporate

giant like Labatt; that's very difficult for the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador to understand at a time when they can't afford to fill up their oil

tanks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM:

Talk about opening up a new

office. They can provide all of the logic and rhetoric around why that was

necessary, but at the end of the day it still accounts for another quarter of a

million dollars. And again, the people of the province are simply asking: Was

that really necessary at this particular point in time? Did we really need to do

that? Because ultimately where does the $250,000 come from? It comes from the

pockets of the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is a problem.

When you

decide to spend $5 million on Rothschild to do an evaluation of our assets – and

the last time, Speaker, that Rothschild were involved in a review of

Newfoundland and Labrador, it was 1953 when then former Premier Joseph R.

Smallwood went to London, England and sat in their boardroom and basically he

gave them the rights to all of Labrador. That's where CF(L)Co and BRINCO came

from originally, in those discussions. We all know what happened at the end of

the day.

Now,

I've heard the minister in this session of the House talking about Rothschild as

phase one, as if we're about to spend more money on another Rothschild report.

Where does that money come from? It comes from the pockets of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. And it's a choice. It's a choice that has been made.

But the real challenge for people of Newfoundland and Labrador is to try to

understand if they have money to do this and they have money to do that, how

does it help me when I try to feed my family? How does it help me when I travel

back and forth?

This

measure that the minister has introduced for effect immediately, once we pass

this, will save taxpayers money. The minister, I think, projected it somewhere

to be $44 million. But she also has said that it will not impact the deficit. So

this action will not impact the deficit. As a matter of fact I don't know if –

and the minister or one of her officials can confirm this. A barrel of oil was

budgeted in our budget at US $86 a barrel. I don't know if it has traded that

low since then. Today I think Brent crude is at $130 a barrel. And in the

minister's own budget, they talk about a difference of $1 making somewhere

around

$13 million or $14 million difference when it goes up by a dollar or down

by a dollar.

Since April 1, it has been well over $86 US a barrel. That is a windfall of

revenue. If production stays the same – I recognize that production has to stay

the same – and with announcements like today, and hopefully more, production

will continue to increase. Because, as we said earlier in this House, if we are

going to transition from oil as a province, as a country, as a world then let

us, in this province, transition away from imported oil first and maximize the

production of our offshore oil resources and maximize the clean – (inaudible)

more clean, never clean but more clean, carbon-friendly oil that we have off our

shore.

those are all good announcements today that we heard. But again, I go back to

choices. The choice can be made. We have heard the minister talk about sugar

tax. You know, they have talked about sugar tax as if somehow or other imposing

a tax – and the Premier of the province, by the way, he has called it behaviour

modification. He has used that term more than once in this House: behaviour

modification.

we are going to try to influence people's behaviour by making them pay more.

That, to me, is fundamentally flawed. Again, I would argue that if you want to

help people shift from non-healthy choices to healthier choices, do something to

reduce the cost on the healthier choices, not impose a tax. I still believe that

the minister has an option to review that before September. I trust the minister

will go back and take another look at it.

think it is $5 million, again, that doesn't need to come out of the pockets of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That is what this is all about. My first

release in November 19, 2021. I just want to read it. I said at the time:

“Living on a fixed income is challenging enough for our seniors, but time and

time again the cost of living continues to increase, whether it's at the gas

station or the grocery store. If the Liberal government does not act, difficult

choices will have to be made in the households of our province. To stand by

silently is not an option.”

That was last November. So we know there have been numerous opportunities to

change things and we know there has been numerous opportunities to make

adjustments but we are here, now, May 31 ,

and we're going to see some of those adjustments.

Again, I

go back to politics should not be about politicians; it should be about the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador. When we stand up here, on this side of the

House and talk about these issues, we're not talking simply about ourselves.

We're talking about the people we represent – the people in our districts that

we represent, who are legitimately struggling with these. I would suggest the

Members opposite have the same concerns and the same people, because inflation

and the cost of living doesn't have a border. It does not have a border; it

doesn't end at a PC district or and independent district or an NDP district. It

is in Liberal districts just as much as it is in ours.

So it is

very clear that this is a very high provincial issue. Every person you talk to,

when you go back to your districts, will talk to you about two things: the cost

of living and health care. Those are the things. I never thought that I would

see the day when the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador would

have to pay to get a prescription because they have to go see a nurse

practitioner because they can't get in to see a family physician. And they have

to pay $35 to see a nurse practitioner. I never thought I would see that day,

but it is here.

Yet, we

procrastinate by saying, oh well; we haven't figured a way yet to pay nurse

practitioners. If you haven't figured out a way to pay nurse practitioners,

figure out a way to pay the people back their money that they've already spent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM:

That is an easier way.

So,

again, as I said, those of us on this side of the House in our PC caucus, we

know who we stand for. We stand for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We'll continue to stand for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. And let me

tell you who they are. We stood for the senior who could not fill their oil

tanks to heat their homes. We stood for families who could not afford to put

food on the table. We stood for the early childhood educator who could not

afford to drive to work.

As the

minister alluded to earlier, this is Early Childhood Educator Week and I

couldn't agree with her more. We have to turn those from being jobs to being

careers, and that is a path that the minister sounds like he's working towards.

We stood

for the small business owner who struggled to make multiple trips to St. John's

for supplies and wondered if they should close their doors. We stood for the

public servants who have to commute over two hours a day, spending over $400 per

week in gas. We stood for the couple that has 40 per cent of their take-home pay

going to pay for fuel just to get to work, having to choose which bills to get

paid and which not. We stood for a four-time cancer survivor who discontinued

treatment because he couldn't afford it. We stood for the grandparents who could

not afford to drive to Corner Brook to see their grandchildren.

We stood

for the senior who already borrowed $500 from friends to keep oil in his tank to

try and stay warm but was too embarrassed to ask them for more money and did not

qualify for any government programs. We stood for the family who stayed home on

May 24 weekend because they couldn't afford the $300 of gas just to tow their

camper to Terra Nova. We stood for the woman scheduled for a medical procedure

in St. John's, only to travel over 400 kilometres and be told that their

appointment had been cancelled because there was no bed available and could not

afford to travel back into St. John's for the rescheduled appointment.

We stood

for the single mother with two small children who could not afford the multiple

trips to the Dr. H. Bliss Murphy Cancer Centre because the price of gas exceeded

the family budget. We stood for the businessperson who is paying her oil bill,

living off canned food and has to cancel physio appointments because she can't

afford to fill 'er up. We stood for the volunteer who, for the last few decades,

has offered free drives to cancer treatments and has delivered food hampers to

those in need and now is questioning whether the cost of fuel is too great to

continue his service.

We stood

with the people, Mr. Speaker. We will continue to stand with them, Speaker, and

demand more from the government. We will not stop. We will be here for the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador; we'll continue to be here for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Speaker,

I also want to touch briefly on the minister's sunset clause. The minister has

said they need a sunset clause because if they didn't have a sunset clause

they'd have to come back in the House and adjust the price, if the price of gas

started to go really low, they'd have to come back to the House and adjust it

down or up. So I would suggest, let's do that. Why do we need a sunset clause?

Why do we need a clause that says on December 31 your gas will go up by eight

cents a litre, no matter where the price is, no matter what adjustments are

made?

We are

coming back to this House in October. We will get a fall fiscal update; we will

have plenty of time to debate whether or not there needs to be an adjustment

upwards or downwards to the eight cents a litre. And given what the minister has

said, it's cost-neutral, why do we need a sunset clause?

It is not going to increase the deficit and with the price of oil trading at $34

per barrel higher today than it was in the budget –now we'll use a pattern on

that, it probably won't trade as high as that forever – there has been a

significant amount of windfall coming into that.

Again, I'm not sure why we need a sunset clause. I think the House is the place

to decide that. The House is the place to debate that. That is where we should

be talking about where we go and how we make these measures. That's why we come

to the House of Assembly, to have open debate, to have open discussion, to go

back and forth and to lay it out on the table and talk about the people in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

I would suggest that the sunset clause does not need to be there. There will be

ample opportunity to come back in the fall and make any adjustments that need to

be made. So let's not have that penalty on people.

Again, I can't sit down without pleading on the sugar tax. There is no need to

put more taxes on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They do not need that

tax. It can be deferred. It could be postponed. If it's your will that you want

to have behaviour modification on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, wait

until next year to do it. Give the people of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador a break. They do not need their behaviour modified at this movement.

Inflation has taken care of any modification of behaviour that is needed,

because at over 6 per cent inflation the cost of all of those products has

skyrocketed.

people are making choices. They do not need government to impose a tax to help

them make those choices. They do not need behaviour modification. They need

their government to be there for them, to continue to be there for them and to

stand with them just as we have stood with the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, just as we will continue to stand for the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM:

We will be there for the people of Newfoundland and

continue to be there for them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

We're

having sort of a reprise of the carbon tax debate in some ways. Years ago, with

the Teachers' Association and the whole debate, Speaker, around the health plan,

we used to say: You can have any plan you want, as long as you're willing to pay

for it. I remember one teacher, when I was teaching up the shore, it came down

to we were debating whether to increase premiums or to decrease benefits. I

remember what he said to me because teachers are always looking at how do we

save money; put money back in our pockets?

But his

comment to me was this: Increase the premiums because you'll never miss the

benefits until you need them. So it's better to have the benefits when you need

them. So I'm thinking here it's the same thing. What is it that we want?

Many

people who benefit from the gas tax are not the people I'm necessarily helping.

They are the people who are in need of programs, not a break at the pumps.

Because I look at what we need and who we need to help and who are the

vulnerable and who are the people that call up to my office day in and day out.

I can

tell you that in my district there are a significant number of people with a

variety of issues – poverty is at the root of them; housing is at the root of

them; mental health and addictions, at the root. If anything, I would say maybe

it's time we start looking at how we can increase the funding so that we can

start helping those who are most vulnerable as well. Because in the end, here's

the thing, we're going to pay for it, Speaker. We're going to pay for it in the

visits to the hospital emergency room. We're going to pay for it in crime, in

incarceration.

The fact

is that, in the end, there's no such thing as it's a zero cost. It will cost us.

For example, let's take a look at housing. It's only two weeks ago that a lady

came to me with pictures of the emergency shelter she was assigned to. She had

no place to stay. The mattress was stained. There was plywood up to the wall.

There was no security; the locks were broken.

She left

there. She's been sleeping in her car for the last two weeks. There's not enough

affordable housing there. She is sleeping in her car; working at a hotel. But

that's where she is for the last two weeks, because we don't have enough when it

comes to, even what I would call, safe, affordable shelters – safe, affordable

supportive housing.

I've got

on this page here one, two, three, four, five seniors who are facing right now

no-fault eviction. That's just today. That's just this week. They will have

nowhere to live within a month. Where are we going to put them? I can tell you

that each and every one of them, they're not relying on a car. They're relying

on public transit, or they're walking.

Eight-seven: can't keep up with home care payments, medication; heart attack;

no-fault eviction, too sick to pack and move and has an application in with

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing with no options for an apartment.

Seventy-seven – another person – too sick to move, to find herself in another

smoke-free building; has never smoked before but is suffering the effects of

second-hand smoke. Another person, a senior, 82: multiple debilitating medical

conditions; can't afford to live where he is right now; can't afford food.

Another

senior, in his 70s: multiple illness, diabetic, you name it; not well enough to

pack and move his belongings; cannot find an apartment; lives on OAS only; and

eats at The Gathering Place.

Those

are the calls I get. Now, I don't know, I'm assuming that other people get them

as well, but at times, I've said it here, it's like a game of Whack-a-mole. Just

when I think I've solved one problem, two or three more pop up. You just cannot

keep ahead of them.

Now I've

called here, so I'm not looking – if I thought for a minute that lowering the

gas tax or anything else is going to solve these problems, no. But you know

what? And I do believe this: Paying taxes is what I pay for the privilege of

living in this country. Of having the medical services, of having roads, of

having a hospital. I'm living in St. John's for that reason. I'm paying a lot

more in terms of municipal taxes, as well. But that's what I pay for that

privilege, to live here. To support the schools, to support the various

organizations that I may not even avail of.

But in

many ways, that's what it comes – we've got bigger problems here. We've got

systemic problems that need to be addressed. If we want to help people, how do

we go about making sure that they are mobile, that they can get around? Within

the city, I can tell you: Metrobus. But let's call it something else: public

transit, regional transportation.

Because

there are people who will never own a car. Actually, there are people in my

district, and I've got a number of them, a young professional with family, who

says: I'm writing as a constituent. We're a professional couple, we have one car

and we rely on a mix of public transit, walking, biking and cabs. Other

professional couples are doing the same. I've had several, multiple emails from

people making sure that there's funding provided for Metrobus. Not only within

my district, but within the adjacent districts as well.

So how

do we make it affordable for people to get around? Obviously that's what they

need. How do we make it affordable so that people can live in a decent,

respectful place? Where does the money need to be invested? Now I hear yes, we

want to invest it in getting roads paved and so on and so forth, but I would

argue right now we've got a bigger issue here. And I would suspect it's not just

in St. John's but probably throughout the province. But certainly in St. John's

itself, in the centre of the city, housing is a huge issue.

I think,

and the minister can certainly correct me on this one, but I'm pretty sure that

the emergency shelters are full. That's no fault; that's just the way it is

right now. We've got a problem and I would say that, for the most part, in

speaking to the minister when I do bring a problem forward to the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development, we can usually get things done.

But it's

overwhelming. So to me, I'm looking here, i f

we want to – and I mentioned this last time. There is one gentleman we are

helping. He is panhandling to buy diabetic strips. Think about that: to buy

diabetic strips. Now, we usually think, well, someone is panhandling; what are

they going to use if for? That is usually the judgment that comes with it. But

no, he is using it to buy diabetic strips.

Most people who are on income support, I think the levels have to be looked at

in terms of if we want to help people, the ones who are at the bottom. I

challenge here anyone who can come up with a decent diet based on less than $100

a week, which is what a lot of people are living on, especially if you are a

single individual. That is what you have got to buy food and the other

necessities.

some cases if they fall in arrears, it is down to less than that. I challenge

anyone to see how much $100 will buy. It is not – and you might say, well, we

can't afford it, we are doing the best we can – and maybe we are, but in the end

I can tell you that there is going to be a cost to us. We are going to pay for

it anyway. Either we are paying it for it, Speaker, in terms of the supports we

give people or we are contributing, as we saw in the Health Accord, we are,

basically, undermining those social determinants of health.

some ways, I have heard the argument that putting money into the pockets of

people and they will spend it in the economy – and I agree with that, but here

is where we probably need to go too. One of the things we have called for is a

living minimum wage. And how do we move towards that? Because I do believe one

of the proposals that we put forward is to increase it to $15 an hour right now.

Make sure that all small businesses have a total reprieve on the small business

tax – probably at least what we are looking at in our proposal that we had made.

I think it is– I stand to be corrected – $17 million, if that is what it costs,

but you look at it and it would probably put over $3,000 in the pockets of each

person who is on minimum wage if they are working 40 hours a week. That is money

that is going to go right into the economy, if that is what we are after, if

that is the motivation.

The

people who call me, Speaker, are down to taking prescription medications, in

many cases, for heart, blood pressure and other related issues, maybe every

second or every third day. How do we help them? What's one of the consequences

of not helping them, of not making it more affordable?

I think

in many ways, if we want to look at helping people, let's take a look at some

broad, bold ideas. Maybe it's time to get busy addressing the issue of

pharmacare, either nationally or provincially. Let's start moving towards that.

Let's make sure that maybe electricity rates that there's a rebate on

electricity rates; not everyone uses oil, but everyone uses electricity.

Let's

eliminate poverty. In 1988 or 1989, I think it was, the Parliament of Canada

unanimously passed a resolution to end child poverty by the year 2000. It is

2022 and it's still with us.

applaud the fact that part of the sugar tax money is going into helping groups

that provide meals to schools, but do you know what? That's still a band-aid

approach that still requires a change to the systemic problem that faces us.

We've

got to do more. Maybe that's about looking at improving the rates, reviewing the

income support rates, accelerating the move to a living minimum wage and to look

at what the necessities are and what people need to live with it.

But I

can tell you right now, the seniors I spoke to, the people who contacted me,

what they haven't been looking for was a reduction in the gas tax. What they

were looking for were the supports to make sure that they can maintain a decent

standard of living.

We need

to address our housing. We need to address income support. We need to make sure

that jobs are protected. That we have legislation that protects good union jobs.

We need to make sure that a minimum wage is indeed a living wage.

But,

Speaker, I'm not sure if cutting our way to that will achieve it because in the

end – I'm going back to my colleague when I was teaching up the shore – given a

choice between increasing premiums or cutting benefits and having a savings, his

answer was very clearly: increase the premiums because it is the benefits that

you will depend on.

So I

look around here and I think what is it we want? I want good schools. I want

good hospitals. I want a good transportation system. I want those, especially

those who are vulnerable, looked after. Those that are homeless right now or are

living in a car or couch surfing or in an unsafe shelter have a decent place in

which to live that is safe, that is secure, that has the supports in place.

Expanding the early childhood education; spot on. Putting it into the schools;

spot on. It is about time; it is about providing benefits to – it is about

making sure that parents have the resources that they need. I have no issue with

that. I think that is an investment.

It will

not benefit me. It will not benefit me directly but I think it will benefit

society at large. It will address a lot of the issues. So in many ways, if we

want that, if we want those things, that means that is the price I pay. Because

either I am paying for something like that or I am paying to put up more

prisons. I'm not putting that in your direction, Minister. My point is that we

have a choice; we're still paying it, let's not fool ourselves.

I think

I may have mentioned this. I had the privilege, luxury of spending a night in

the emergency room at St. Clare's and all I can tell you is that you get a

deeper appreciation for the characters of downtown St. John's. But I would argue

that many of them have other issues, whether it's addictions, mental health

issues, homelessness and so on and so forth. They end up there for a lot of

reasons. If you were looking at the cost, they are costing. But is it not better

that we look at ways of making sure that we look after the most vulnerable and

we invest in that. We invest in people.

As I

said, there are couples in my district and several have said do you know what?

What they want to see is – they're looking for more bus transportation. That's

what they're going to need, professional couples, to maintain their lifestyles.

So,

Speaker, I think it comes down to priorities. I'm looking at taxes that help,

and even with the sugar tax, my opposition to that is where the money goes. To

me, if we're going to take that – I'll go back – not into let's say the health

living or my participation in some sort of physical activity, but I think in

many ways if we're going to better spend that let's put it into making food more

affordable for those who couldn't afford it back in the fall. It's gotten worse

since then.

To me,

it's about where we spend it to, but, in many ways, if I want the services, I

must be prepared to pay for them, even if I'm not one who is going to receive

them. Because I think if we benefit everyone, I benefit myself in the process.

But it's something that we raise up all boats, and raise it up for all people.

I'll

finish with this last little fact that I brought up before, that raising the

bottom level, the income level, the bottom 20 percentile to the next level

actually saves the health system some 6.7 per cent. Think about what that means

in Newfoundland terms: over $200 million annually.

With

that, Speaker, I finish.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN:

Thank you, Speaker.

It's a

pleasure, I guess, it's bittersweet to get up and speak about this bill because

several weeks back this bill probably wouldn't have happened. We wouldn't be

here debating this bill only we, as a caucus, united for a cause and it was to

stand up for the people in the province that are struggling. There are a lot of

people struggling in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN:

It was something that we, as

a group, it wasn't one person, it was a group of people, felt there had to be

some more measures put in place for people who are struggling during this

cost-of-living crisis. A lot of seniors, a lot of low-income people, but a lot

of working poor, too, Mr. Speaker.

So I

know when we started debating carbon se