PDF Version

May 5, 2022

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. L No. 49

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett):

Order, please!

Welcome

everyone. Good afternoon.

In the

Speaker's gallery today, I would like to welcome Dennis Goodland. Dennis is the

subject of a Member's statement this afternoon.

Welcome

Dennis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Also in the public gallery, I

would like to welcome Alicia Mason-Quinton who is

going to be recognized in the Ministerial Statement.

Welcome Alicia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Statements by Members.

Statements by

Members

SPEAKER:

Today we will hear statements

by the hon. Members for the Districts of Placentia - St. Mary's, Humber - Bay of

Islands, Mount Pearl - Southlands, Conception Bay East - Bell Island and

Bonavista.

The hon.

the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Thank you, Speaker.

On a September day in 1933, Catherine Linehan was born

in North Harbour, St. Mary's Bay to Frank and Ida Power. She attended school in

her tiny community until the age of 16, after which Catherine worked in St.

John's as a nursing assistant at the Waterford Hospital.

She might have ended up with a long and storied nursing

career, but instead she met and married Edward Linehan and moved to John's Pond

to start their family. After her fifth child was born, and John's Pond was

resettled, the family moved back to North Harbour. Catherine went on to have

five more children.

Her life was riddled with many hardships, culminating

in a tragedy in 1980 when the family home was destroyed by fire and five of her

children died: Barry, aged 10; Harold, 12; Sharon, 14; Richard, 19; and Francis,

21. The family rebuilt metres from where the children were laid to rest.

On May 1, Catherine returned to North Harbour for the

launch of a book about her life, If I Cry,

I'll Fill the Ocean , written by her daughter, Ida Linehan-Young, which is an

account of the hardships, trials and tribulations she faced before and after her

grievous loss.

Today, I honour Catherine Linehan.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

JOYCE:

Speaker, I rise today to recognize the late Hedley John Saunders of Curling, who

went to his place of rest on April 16 at almost the age of 98.

Hedley

was born in Greenspond, Bonavista Bay. He was a kind, gentle man, who loved life

and had a kind soul.

He spent

many years fundraising for various organizations including the Autism Society,

Bay of Islands search and rescue and Special Olympics, raising over $100,000 for

these charitable organizations.

For many

years, in celebration of his birthdays, Hedley requested no presents for himself

but requested donations be made to charities in recognition of his birthday.

After

his last two daughters said their goodbyes, Hedley decided it was time to cross

the rainbow. He had everything arranged for his funeral, including instructions

that when he was being taken out of the church, he wanted everybody to celebrate

his life by clapping and singing and, if you didn't, he would haunt you. I can

assure you he got his wish.

Speaker,

I ask all Members to join me in extending condolences to Hedley's two sons,

eight daughters, three stepchildren, his grandchildren and his

great-grandchildren, his step-grandchildren, his step-great-grandchildren and

extended family. I ask all Members to give a final hardy applause to his fine

man.

Rest in

Peace, Hedley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This

past week, communities throughout our province took the opportunity to reflect

upon and formally celebrate the tremendous contribution that volunteers make in

our society. Whether it be through volunteerism in our schools, faith community,

service clubs, sports organizations, youth and seniors organizations, arts

community, emergency services, or on an individual basis, we are truly blessed

to have so many community-minded citizens in our province who are willing to

step up to the plate whenever and wherever they are needed.

As I

reflect on the volunteer activity in my district, I'm truly blown away by the

tens of thousands of hours of time and talent that is given by our citizens each

and every year.

This

selfless contribution to our community is truly what makes Mount Pearl and the

Southlands area such a wonderful place to live. No doubt, government has a

significant role to play in shaping and guiding our society, but they can only

do so much. So I ask: Where would we be without our volunteers?

I would

ask all hon. Members to reflect on that question and please join me in

recognizing the tremendous role that volunteers play throughout our province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Speaker.

I stand

today to acknowledge the passing of a constituent from my district, the late

Michael Laurie. Mike was a loving husband, father, grandfather, brother and

uncle. A former Royal Canadian Air Force member, a former member of the RCMP, a

former member of the RNC, a lawyer and supporter of the communities he called

home as a municipal elected leader.

graduate of a number of universities across the country, Mike took great pride

in education. Mike was a man that you knew where he stood on every issue and who

was very positive, passionate and engaged about the province and the potential

of its citizens. He would challenge everyone who worked for him to give an

honest effort and he would reward them handsomely.

He loved

working on his farm and his garden; it was the one thing that relaxed him.

Myself and Mike had many a debate about politics and society and may have had

different views, but we always respected each other's opinion. Mike did much

more for people than people realize.

Speaker,

I ask all Members of this House to join me in passing on our condolences to his

wife, Alexa, and his family.

Rest in

peace my friend.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista.

C. PARDY:

Thank you, Speaker.

It is an

honour to celebrate the exemplary service to country of Bonavista's native son,

Dennis Goodland. Dennis, one of our own esteemed security detail here at

Confederation Building, served 30 years in the Canadian Forces with three tours

of duty in Afghanistan from 2002 to 2007.

Dennis,

like his grandfather before him, Oliver Goodland who served in World War I,

joined the military at the age of 20. Oliver served in the Royal Newfoundland

Regiment and was awarded the military Medal of Bravery in the field serving as a

runner.

January 2002, Dennis was deployed to Afghanistan and spent several years of his

life making a difference in that troubled land, rebuilding schools, installing

wells, building roads and the very memorable occasion of providing treats to

children. Dennis served as a sergeant in charge of a unit of six soldiers and

created lifelong friendships with other Canadian and American soldiers.

Unfortunately, he experienced tragedy as well, with many colleagues paying the

ultimate sacrifice. There were far too many ramp ceremonies to repatriate fallen

soldiers, Dennis has stated. The soldiers, like Dennis, made a huge difference.

I ask

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

outstanding service of our House of Assembly's own Dennis Goodland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education.

T. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Speaker.

It is a

pleasure to recognize in the House today the winners and participants of the

inaugural Newfoundland and Labrador High School Short Film Festival 2022.

The NL

High School Short Film Festival is a place for young Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians to creatively express themselves through film.

Awards

were presented to almost 30 filmmakers from Grades 7 through 12 across the

province. The grand prize, the Premier's Short Film Award of Excellence, was

presented to Alicia Mason-Quinton of Holy Heart of Mary High School for her film

Young at Heart . Alicia shared her

family's relationship with dementia, highlighting the positive sides of her

relationship with her grandparents that often are not mentioned when discussing

this affliction. A full list of winners are online.

Speaker,

I would be remiss to discuss this festival without mentioning Allan Hawco and

Paul Pope, who helped create the festival for these awards. There was no bigger

advocate for filmmakers young and old in this province than Mr. Pope. His

recent, untimely passing is felt deeply, especially amongst his colleagues in

the film industry. His legacy will live on though for years to come,

particularly as he spearheaded the recently announced Film and Media Production

Centre at College of the North Atlantic.

Speaker,

I ask all Members of the Legislature to please join me in congratulating this

year's 28 Short Film Festival award winners. They are all shining examples of

young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians creatively expressing themselves through

film. I cannot wait to see what they produce in the future.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN:

Thank you, Speaker.

I'd like

to thank the hon. minister for an advance copy of his statement.

Speaker,

all Members on this side of the House join me in congratulating all participants

and winners in the inaugural Newfoundland and Labrador High School Short Film

Festival.

Speaker,

as the minister notes, our province produced award-winning, internationally

acclaimed filmmakers. This festival is a wonderful opportunity to get in the

schools and foster the creativity and passion among the next generation of

filmmakers who will, no doubt, bring our province to the next level.

special congratulations to the overall winner, Alicia Mason-Quinton, of Holy

Heart of Mary H igh School, who addressed the difficult

issue of dementia in a family, as a lot of us are familiar with.

Lastly, I note

and share the minister's comments on the life and career of Paul Pope who

recently passed away. Perhaps, Speaker, the festival could be named after Mr.

Pope, whose life's work will long cast a shadow over the filmmaking industry.

Thank you.

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 we also take this

moment to commemorate the work and legacy of Paul Pope.

As we

congratulate these 28 award recipients, especially Alicia Mason-Quinton, let us

take a moment to recognize what a difference government support to education can

make in the lives of students. And we urge government to invest further in

adequate supports for our newly arriving students so that they too will be one

day able to develop their talents fully and to thrive in our province.

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.

Today is

Red Dress day across Canada – a solemn day of commemoration to the memories of

the missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls lost in violence.

Intergenerational trauma experienced by our Indigenous population continues to

ripple today. Indigenous women and girls still face violence in our community.

It has to end.

I ask

the Premier: What is this government doing to end violence experienced by

Indigenous women and girls in Newfoundland and Labrador?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

And

thank you for that important question from the Member opposite. We all recognize

and I think we all should recognize the importance of today and the significance

that it plays in the social fabric of who we are as a people, Mr. Speaker.

This

government has recognized that it is important for us all to ensure that we are

doing everything we can to prevent violence against women across cultures but,

in particular, in the Indigenous communities. It is something we talk about

frequently on the weekly Indigenous calls, Mr. Speaker, and this government is

committing to doing everything we possibly can to end such actions, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

agree. There has to be not only talk, there has to be programs, services,

investments and education to ensure that these women and girls are protected.

Last

night in Estimates we uncovered that while the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

are faced to pay more than just the cost of living, the Liberal budget gave

their own Premier extra money for staff and travel costs.

Why did

the Premier feel it was important to increase spending in his own office while

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians struggle to afford home heating fuel, gasoline

and groceries?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

And, of

course, we know that my office is spending less than real money compared to 2014

under Premier Marshall. So it is important to continue to invest in travel and

to ensure that the relationships are built to get good returns on investments,

like a $5.2-billion deal to mitigate rates across the province, Mr. Speaker. I

won't apologize for that. I don't think the people of the province should expect

me to apologize for doing good business with our federal partners, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Mr. Speaker, we're not asking

the Premier to apologize, what we're asking for is to be frugal with the money

that is owned by the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL:

– and while they're

struggling, he should set an example and do the same.

The

Premier will spend $155,000 more on staff for his political office in Central

Newfoundland, but he's also increased the budget for his own transportation

costs.

I ask

the Premier: How much more money have you given your office to subsidize your

travel expenses, and how much would it cost to have a monthly Zoom account to

talk to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once

again, I suggest that this is a good investment – building relationships to

ensure that we're getting valuable returns for the people of the province, Mr.

Speaker. An example of that, like I pointed out, is the $5.2-billion rate

mitigation deal. Another example, of course, the Members opposite were shouting

that I deliver on Bay du Nord. Guess what? That travel returned a deliverance of

Bay du Nord to the people of the province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

I have to remind the Premier,

it was a lot of other people who had input in to make sure that Bay du Nord was

a project that went forward, I guarantee you that, in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL:

The Liberals have not given

one cent to the people in this province to offset the rising costs of gasoline –

not one cent, Mr. Speaker. Yet, the Premier plans to spend $79,000 more on

travel this year compared to last year. That's a lot of travel paid by the

taxpayers.

Is it

fair that the Premier has been given extra money to offset the rising costs of

fuel while people can't afford to drive to work or their medical appointments?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

course, $142 million is a lot of pennies, a lot of cents towards the cost of

living, Mr. Speaker. I'm quite proud of the Minister of Finance in making sure

that they are giving back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Mr. Speaker, with respect to

travel, of course, the Member opposite is anchoring this debate in an incorrect

position. The cost of travel last year, during COVID, that's an unfair

comparison, Mr. Speaker. I would argue that the cost of travel that we are

assuming right now is relevant to the people of the province. It's one that

we're prudent with, and it's one that we've already shown in a short period of

time that we're delivering results on, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Speaker.

We, in

this House, have to set an example. We have to set the bar. The people of

Newfoundland and Labrador here are making sacrifices; we have to do the same

here. We have to be frugal with the taxpayers' money, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker,

we're nearing the six-month review period for the government's policy on

vaccination. Can the Premier update this House on this review and whether any

changes to the existing policy are being considered?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

In terms

of vaccination for staff in health care facilities, the situation is revised on

a regular basis, based on the science from NACI and the input from Public

Health. Currently, there is discussion about further boosters, but, as yet,

those are reserved for our vulnerable and elderly and not directly for staff. As

soon as there are any changes contemplated, we would obviously let the workers

and the public know.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Speaker, as we know this

is Mental Health Week and a story in today's media provides an illustration of a

serious situation which exists at Her Majesty's Penitentiary regarding the great

need for enhanced mental health services. It's commonly stated that prison is

not only a place you go to, but a place you come from.

I ask

the minister: What steps are being taken to address serious mental health issues

in Her Majesty's Penitentiary? Why is it that individuals are returning to our

society worse off when their sentences are completed?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was

recognized, prior to and certainly as part of

Towards Recovery , that mental health as well as physical health in

Corrections was better located within the health care system rather than within

the penitentiary system.

We have

worked diligently to bring those services into Eastern Health in the first

instance, as far as HMP is concerned. Those are under way. We have a director of

health in Corrections and Eastern Health has done a gap analysis to see what

services need to be supplied that currently aren't.

As soon

as we have done some more diligent work around recruiting, which we have

addressed in a separate forum, we'll be in a better position to provide those

services, which are indeed needed.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Speaker, not enough is

being done now. I ask the minister to commit today to immediate attention being

given now and not wait for a new prison to be built.

Surely

the minister has to agree that individuals, correctional officers, their

families, victims and society at large can no longer wait for mental health

supports in HMP.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

Eastern

Health are not waiting for further recruitment; they have actually supplied

additional resources to HMP in terms of counselling services. We are in the

process of taking over the counselling contracts that exist with psychologists

and physicians from Justice and Public Safety and, as I said, Eastern Health is

looking to see how those need to be enhanced. We have taken steps and we will

continue to build on that, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

Thank you, Speaker.

Yesterday afternoon in this House we presented a PMR, which the Liberal

government amended and, much to our relief, they have actually amended it in a

very positive way. We were very glad to support it. But it also called for an

introduction; they recognized there wasn't enough in the budget and they

actually said they voted to introduce immediate relief measures to address the

cost of living.

I ask

the minister: When will you amend the budget to include further cost of living

measures?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

I'm

happy to say that yesterday in this House of Assembly the Members opposite voted

to support the government's efforts to provide immediate relief measures,

including but not limited to those outlined in

Budget 2022 , which include financial relief along with the measures

– and I'm reading directly from the resolution.

So I

thank the Members opposite for their support for the financial measures; $142

million is being returned to the people of the province. Money in their pockets

to address the cost of living.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

I am so glad the minister

quoted from the resolution, because I want to do exactly the same thing because

the key words the minister just read out –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

T. WAKEHAM:

– the key words the minister

just read out: but not limited to. That implies we're going to have more.

So I ask

the minister: When will we see more relief for gas taxes? When will we see more

relief for home heating fuel?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

The responsible thing that

this government does, that this Liberal government does is ensures that we are

always monitoring our financial situation and the financial health of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Of course, we will continue to monitor the

situation and as funds are available we'll return them to the people of the

province.

The

Member opposite likes to talk about the home heat rebate program that they had

under their administration back in 2014-2015. Allow me to advise the Member

opposite and the people of the province that the home heat rebate and the HST

rebate back in 2014-2015 was worth $60 million. Today, it is $134 million,

double the amount that we are returning to the people of the province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

Speaker, I'd like to remind

the minister that the cost of home heating fuel back then was 70 cents a litre.

It is three times that now so there is a big difference: You need three times as

much money.

Speaker,

last night in Estimates we learned that $4.4 million has been spent on the

Rothschild report.

I ask

the minister: Who exactly is reviewing the Rothschild report and are you

planning on spending more money on the Rothschild in a future effort?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

Thank you very much.

As we

have said in this House and have said publicly, the Rothschild report is the

first time in the province's history we have had a thorough review of the assets

that are held by government on behalf of the people of the province. We want to

make sure that we are maximizing the value of those assets and returning that

money to develop –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

S. COADY:

Again, a respectful workplace

is hard in this House.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I heard

the question; I want to hear the answer.

The hon.

the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

Thank you for your respect,

Mr. Speaker.

I will

say that, as we have said back in December, when we first announced the

Rothschild report and again updated the people of the province, that we're

looking at a phased approach here. Phase one: we did the full review of the

Rothschild report and now we're looking at the results of that report. Should we

make the determination that we are moving forward, there would be a phase two.

SPEAKER:

The minister's time has

expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

Speaker, it's concerning that

we're talking about phase one and then potentially phase two, which all involve

more spending of taxpayers' money with all these reports being secretive.

When

will the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador hear from their

government about what's in this report and what action they plan on taking to

sell off the assets of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

Speaker, it is too bad

further due diligence and external due diligence wasn't done on other projects,

such as the Muskrat Falls (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

S. COADY:

If it had been done, it would

have been known that the project was not in the best interest of the people of

the province.

I will

say that we have received the Rothschild report, that we have a team of people

within government and across government that are reviewing that report. There

will be determinations as how best to proceed from here.

It is

reassuring to the people of the province that we are doing the due diligence and

work to make sure that any assets that are held on behalf of the people of the

province are being exercised to their fullest potential and making sure that

they return the investments that are required by the people of the province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista.

C. PARDY:

Speaker, Saturday past, I

heard from residents at two public meetings in the District of Bonavista about

the budget: one in Lethbridge and one in Bonavista. It was clear from the people

that the cost of living is a huge concern and that government has not done

enough.

One

senior, a widower from Bonavista, who continues to dedicate her time towards

humanitarian causes in the region, told me that it costs her almost $2,200 to

fill up her oil tank, and she simply does not have the money and is concerned

that there is no end in sight.

I ask

the minister: What does she say to the senior from Bonavista who is struggling

to heat her home?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board

S. COADY:

This is extremely difficult

on the people of the province, and we're very concerned about the rising cost of

living, as people across Canada and around the world are concerned. We're seeing

what's happening with inflation; we're seeing what's happening with the price of

fuel. This is very, very difficult. That's why we did allocate $142 million to

return to the people of the province to help.

We'd

love to do more, Speaker. We would, of course, like to do more, but the people

of the province realize that we're actually borrowing money in order to return

money, and that's very, very difficult on future generations.

I will

say to the Member opposite, we're going to continue to try and support the

people of the province as best we can. The $142 million and the increases that

we've made to the Seniors' Benefit and the Income Supplement help. We recognize

it won't fix it all.

SPEAKER:

The time is expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista.

C. PARDY:

Speaker, these are real

examples from the people in the District of Bonavista. I would ask that maybe

it's time to revisit what we're doing and just to know that there are people out

there who are hurting.

Speaker,

another senior said – quote – makes no wonder our health care is in the mess it

is in, and went on to say that people are getting sick because of the stresses

they are under, in juggling medical bills, heat bills, food bills and gas.

Speaker, this senior wants to know why government did not adequately address the

soaring cost of living in its budget.

I ask

the minister: What does she say to this senior?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

Thank you, Speaker.

Again,

it is very, very difficult on people. Everyone recognizes how challenging it is,

and that's why we had balance within the budget. We returned $142 million to the

people of the province. We made sure we increased the Seniors' Benefit. We made

sure we increased the Income Supplement. We tried to help everyone in the

province.

touched just about everyone in the province by returning money to them. Is there

more we can do into the future? It depends on how the economy is and how monies

are received by government, but we certainly look to continue to support the

people of the province. We have more than doubled the amount of money that we're

returning to the people of the province in just the Income Supplement and the

Seniors' Benefit, Speaker, and we're going to continue to look to see what we

can do.

SPEAKER:

The minister's time has

expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista.

C. PARDY:

Thank you, Speaker.

The snow

crab trip limits have been imposed on inshore crab fishermen. We know crab

fishing is a dangerous job, and fishers are expressing concern about more time

on the water. This new measure comes when the rising cost of fuel puts

additional pressure on inshore crab fishermen who must make additional trips.

We ask

the minister: What is your position on trip limits in the fishery?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.

D. BRAGG:

Thank you very much, and it's

always a great opportunity to talk about the fishery and right now crab is king

on the Northeast Coast and I guess around the coasts of this province.

Trip

limits have been imposed for the production part of the industry, so we can't

possibly produce 111 million pounds of crab in a week, so we need to spread it

out. The season is from now, early April until mid-July. We have ample time to

catch it.

We're

going to have a month in which plants would struggle, but if we brought it all

in at the one time the product would rot on the wharf, thus nobody would get any

money out and the industry would be destroyed. Last year was a billion-dollar

industry thanks to crab. The proper management of crab, the proper way to deal

with it and bring it in has to be supported.

SPEAKER:

The minister's time is

expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL:

All they're looking at is to

get out and get their crab and get in as quickly as they can, not spend extra

time out there, Minister.

Speaker,

MyGovNL has been offline for days with no explanation from the minister about

what happened. Was there a cyberattack or a security breach?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY:

Thank you, Speaker.

Monday of this week, we were aware that there was a MyGovNL outage. And just to

let the members of the public know, maybe five or six months ago we kind of

upgraded our platform to a more secure platform which allowed us to expand

functionality, so we signed an agreement with a new vendor.

unfortunately, the vendor is having some issues at the moment. It's completely

unacceptable. I spoke with them yesterday. There's absolutely no cyberattack;

there's nothing at risk. It's a technical issue with the design of our new build

and we have our best OCIO experts working with the company to resolve it as soon

as possible.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL:

Speaker, MyGovNL stores tens

of thousands of personal records, including MCP and driver's licence numbers.

Has any information been compromised as a result of that?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY:

Thank you, Speaker.

Absolutely no information has been compromised. We're having a technical error

with the company – the platform that built the new MyGovNL. There's no risk of

any data whatsoever. Our experts are working with the company to resolve the

MyGovNL online services as soon as possible.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL:

Minister, you'd think they

could make a press release to let the people know that it's down and that it's

not a cyberattack. People are trying to get in and they spent two or three days,

so it's certainly something you should do. Speaker, as a result of the closure,

there have been appointments cancelled which risk more backlog.

I ask

the minister: Will motor vehicle registration be open this weekend to help

accommodate people who are affected by the outage?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY:

Thank you, Speaker.

We've

issued multiple press releases about the MyGovNL outage, we've posted on our

communicating it; I do apologize to residents of the province for the

inconvenience.

We have

added phone numbers to MRD and MCP, for example, to our website, and we've

augmented staff and moved them around to make sure that residents are able to

get through on the phone lines. This morning we had a three-minute wait at MRD

to get on the phone, Mr. Speaker. So we are trying our best to help accommodate

all residents of the province.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker,

according to the most recent Canadian Cancer Society report, our province is

expected to have the highest rate of cancer for women in the country. The report

points to the lack of screening, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.

What is

government's plan to deal with this crisis?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

Certainly from the point of view of screening activities, COVID has had an

impact on diagnostic services and screening services. We, through the regional

health authorities, are endeavouring to address that. There is a plan. The issue

around cancers of all kind, let alone gender-specific ones, is close to my heart

from my previous career and I was involved in the original setting up of the

colon cancer project here.

From our

point of view, there is a backlog and this will be addressed as part of our task

force with the procedural physicians.

Thank

you.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

That's

all good, but people are dying – people are dying. Speaker, mortality rates for

colorectal cancer and stomach cancer are the highest – this didn't just happen

yesterday – the highest in Newfoundland and Labrador.

What is

government's plan to address this critical issue?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We've

said in response to other questions that we have – various governments over

decades – spent a fortune doubling if not trebling the amount of money that's

gone into the health care system. And we have seen little or nothing in the way

of benefit in terms of measurable outcomes. That is why we, the Premier and I,

commissioned Health Accord NL. It is time to stop thinking in old ways, and it

is time to – in the words of the Accord – reimagine health care.

We start

with the determinants of health at a young age and by making healthy children,

healthy youth, we will make healthy adults. We need to address on the back end

the treatment issues, and we are working through those with Quality of Care NL

and this will make a difference. It did not happen overnight; it will not be

fixed overnight, but we're working on it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

It is

interesting the minister mentioned other provinces not having measurable

results. So let's talk about British Columbia. British Columbia has almost fully

cleared their COVID-19 surgical backlog.

Speaker,

why can other provinces like British Columbia hire more staff, add additional

operating time while this government is just now beginning to meet with health

professionals via a task force to address this crucial issue?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you vey much, Speaker.

Wait-list management has been part of a clinician's role for decades. We have

and continue to support the NLMA and others in wait-list management. We are not

alone in this problem. There are 35,000 individuals in Regina who are waiting

for surgical procedures. There are one million British Columbians without access

to primary care; 25 per cent of Quebecers have no regular primary care; 25 per

cent of ICU nurses in Alberta have left, Mr. Speaker.

We have

a plan, we are working through it and we will make progress.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Exploits.

P. FORSEY:

Mr. Speaker, cervical cancer

screening in Central Newfoundland remains a challenge that is only getting

worse, according to local physicians.

I ask

the minister: How can the people of Central Newfoundland be sure they can access

cervical cancer screening when they need it?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

I know

from personal knowledge that Central Health, for example, now runs nurse

practitioner-led Pap smear clinics. Those are widely advertised through Central

Health. They may not be in your particular community, but they are accessible.

The

answer to cervical cancer long term was completely addressed by HPV vaccination.

This province instituted HPV vaccination in schools for girls. This government

brought it in for boys. That's the answer for the next generation. It will

disappear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

J. DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

In a

guest column in the March 21, 2022, edition of

The Telegram ,

Bridget Clarke, an advocacy coordinator for the St. John's Status of Women,

states: “In line with the 2004 federal task force and national experts, the St.

John's Status of Women Council recognizes that pay equity is a fundamental human

right.”

I ask

the Premier: Does he agree with this statement?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I

thank the hon. Member, of course, for this question.

I will

again express my pleasure in the attention that these issues are getting this

sitting. I think it's well deserved and it's long overdue.

I think

it's safe to say that we're all on the same page here when it comes to the

matter of pay equity legislation both in public and private sector. It's

something, of course, that we all want to see happen. I'm happy to say that we

do have reactive pay equity legislation in place, of course. This is made

possible through the Labour Standards Act ,

as well as the Human Rights, which is a recourse if anybody feels that they are

being discriminated against because of their gender, they can certainly use this

channel.

We're

committed to doing much more than simply just pay equity but, again, it's the

concrete steps that we're taking such as investments in venture capitals for

women and gender-diverse people, child care and the list goes on, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The minister's time has

expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

J. DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

I would

say that advocates would only hope that the minister is giving the attention to

it that they want to see.

Ms.

Clarke goes on to say: “To further deny or delay proactive legislation is to

infringe on the human rights of many women and marginalized workers in

Newfoundland and Labrador.”

Does the

Premier agree that further delaying pay equity legislation is an infringement on

the rights of women and marginalized workers?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I

thank the hon. Member. To his comment earlier, absolutely, it's something that I

personally give attention to daily with my staff, my team. We are a small team

but a mighty team in the Office of Women and Gender Equality. I will say that

every one of those women and gender-diverse people in my department work hard

every day to reach out and communicate with members of communities, stakeholders

such as the St. John's Status of Women.

A very

important topic, and we're doing everything that we can every day to advance all

matters pertaining to women and gender-diverse individuals across Newfoundland

and Labrador.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS:

Speaker, the executive

director of Planned Parenthood is quoted in the media today saying that access

to abortion services here is pitiful at best and, in Labrador, there is

virtually no access to abortion services.

I ask

the Premier: What action is being taken by this government to ensure that all

residents have equal access to safe abortion services?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you for the question.

It's an

important topic; reproductive rights for women are a crucial key of reproductive

health. From the point of view of abortion services, we have stabilized and

secured the funding for the Athena centre, which, for several decades, has

provided this service across the province.

With

that, we're looking forward to working with them to address what gaps there are

in the service, and we recognize that Labrador is a challenge. We need to

recruit interested primary care providers to provide that service much more

closer to home and that is part of an effort the department will continue to

pursue.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS:

Rights but no, or limited,

access.

Planned

Parenthood is asking the government to provide abortion services in hospitals

run by the four regional health authorities. Having these services in hospitals

throughout the province would make care safer and more accessible for women in

this province.

I ask

the minister: Will he look into this request?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

Historically there was a provision of abortion services, principally at

hospitals, then the Athena Health Centre came on and that resolved significant

amount of the access issues. Currently only 10 per cent of terminations occur in

a hospital setting and that is usually simply for medical reasons.

With the

advent of Mifegymiso, which we added at no cost to the formulary for all

Newfoundland and Labrador residents, that has made medical termination a viable

option and, indeed, that is now how 50 per cent of this province's terminations

occur. We will leave how those procedures are performed and where to the

clinicians and will continue to work with them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The time for Question Period

has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN:

Thank you, Speaker.

I give

notice that I will on tomorrow introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act, 2015, Bill 59.

SPEAKER:

Further notices of motions?

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

I give

notice that I will on tomorrow move, in accordance with Standing Order 11(1),

that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, May 9, 2022.

SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Speaker.

I give

notice that I will on tomorrow move, in accordance with Standing Order 11(1),

that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 10, 2022.

SPEAKER:

Any further notices of

motions?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Speaker.

These

are the reasons for this petition:

Whereas

there have been numerous concerns raised by inmates, family members,

correctional employees and many members of the general public regarding the

supports for mental health and addictions at Her Majesty's Penitentiary, which

are woefully inadequate.

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

provide more access to counselling and treatment programs for mental health and

addictions in Her Majesty's Penitentiary.

Furthermore, until the new prison is constructed and operational, devise an

immediate plan of action to implement new ways for inmates to obtain the

appropriate mental health and addiction supports they require to live as fully

functional and respected citizens of society.

Speaker,

I've mentioned before and it needs to be repeated: Prison is not only a place

you go to, but a place you come from. Why is that important? It's important,

Speaker, because individuals that go into prison come back into our society.

When they go in, they may be suffering mental health issues, so it's an

opportunity for the overall benefit of society. We need to ensure that there are

proper mental health diagnoses and that there are subsequent treatments for

individuals who are in these institutions.

We know

that the penitentiary is housed with so many individuals that have mental health

issues. Whether it's PTSD, whether it's fetal alcohol syndrome, whether it's

ADHD, we know that there are serious problems in there and people that are in

there suffering from these mental health disorders need to get the proper

treatment and the proper supports, and that's not happening now. We have to look

at what's important here. It's about recidivism; it's about repeat offenders.

These individuals come back into our society. So, surely, it's in our best

interest to ensure that they are treated properly when they're in the jail

system, in the penitentiary. That is the way that we will protect our society in

the long run is if we ensure that they're rehabilitated, and that's not

happening now.

Speaker,

we know that there needs to be more access to treatment programs. There needs to

be supportive counselling. There needs to be addiction counselling. There needs

to be educational programs. We know that there are some there; we're not

disputing that, and they have important value, but they clearly need to be

enhanced. We saw the story today, in the media, about the father with his son;

they're pleading for help. He didn't get the help in the mental health system in

the penitentiary.

So,

Speaker, we need to address this important issue.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

L. PARROTT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the reason for this petition is that senior accessible housing and home

care services in Labrador West is steadily increasing. Lifelong residents of the

region are facing the possibility of needing to leave their home in order to

live or receive adequate care. Additional housing options including assisted

living facilities, like those found throughput the rest of the province for

seniors, have become a requirement for Labrador West.

So the

petition is:

WHEREAS

the seniors of our province are entitled to peace and comfort in their homes,

where they have spent a lifetime contributing to its prosperity and growth; and

WHEREAS

the means for increasing the number of senior residences in Labrador West to

happily age in place are not currently in that region;

WHEREUPON we, the undersigned, your petitioners, call upon the House of Assembly

to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to allow seniors in Labrador

West to age in place by providing affordable housing options for seniors and

assisted living care facilities for those requiring care.

Mr.

Speaker, I grew up in Labrador and I would say my mom who is there, who is a

senior, would be a pioneer for that region. I mentioned here in the House a few

weeks ago my situation with my dad when he passed away in care. They were moving

him to a Level 3 facility and what that meant was that he would leave Labrador

West and have to go to St. Anthony or Goose Bay. To put it quite frankly, to

travel from Labrador, as a senior or any member of a family, certainly in the

middle of the winter, 500 kilometres over a road or a flight to St. Anthony,

it's just unacceptable.

Labrador

West has contributed to this province in a way that I believe gets overlooked

very frequently. Between Wabush Mines which is now Tacora, IOC, the amount of

tax money from the people working there, they have contributed substantially to

this province. Yet, the people that live there don't get the level of care they

require.

Right

now there is a movement in Labrador West; it is called We Are All Cheryl Hardy.

Well, everyone in this room is Cheryl Hardy. Cheryl Hardy is in a hospital. She

requires Level 3 care. Her daughter has moved back from Ontario, sacrificed her

own job in order to try and help and they are trying to move Cheryl out of

Labrador West into a Level 3 facility. There needs to be something for these

people.

It is

quite simple. Government, I urge the Premier, I urge the minister to reach out

to the people of Labrador West, to talk to Angela Hardy, to understand that you

need to pay home care workers more money in order to get them because of the

competition with the mines; to understand that if a home care worker is to go in

there and work then they have to be subsidized at a higher rate because, guess

what? It is more expensive to get people to work there. It's more expensive to

offer the services.

There

are solutions. This government can provide them. They are not looking for them.

They can talk to any home care provider. They are willing to go in there. They

just can't afford to do it. They cannot afford to build a home in there and it

is not because people don't need it. It's because government doesn't subsidize

in the same way. It's not Newfoundland.

Mr.

Speaker, the government has a responsibility to the people of Labrador West.

They need to talk to them. I urge the Premier and I urge the minister to reach

out to the Hardy family and I urge them to reconsider moving her from that

hospital.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS:

Thank you, Speaker.

We, the

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

leaders to ensure that residents of our Northern Labrador communities of

Postville have access to adequate health care.

The

community of Postville, Labrador has only one Labrador-Grenfell nursing position

in Postville at a single community clinic. So one nurse, one clinic. This means

that there is only one clinic nurse physically present in the community. This

nurse does not have access to RCMP support services during a medical emergency

because the community does not have RCMP stationed in their community.

The

community of Postville is isolated, with no road access to the outside world.

The only means of year-round transportation is by aircraft. Often, inclement

weather prevents air services, including medevac – which is medical evacuation

services – from getting to Postville. Also, if the lone nurse becomes ill and

inclement weather prevents nursing relief from reaching the community, Postville

will be without a nurse.

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 ensure the community of Postville has adequate

health care in the form of two clinic nurses stationed in the community.

Now,

Speaker, this is about access. This is about access to essential medical

services. Postville is at risk of having no nurse present if the nurse gets

sick, if anything happens, if she's already on a call-out. Also, access to RCMP

supports – most people think about RCMP as law enforcement. But, in actual fact,

the RCMP in a community provides additional professional supports. For example,

if the nurse was involved in a vehicle collision such as an ATV or a snowmobile

or a fire where she needed additional resources and supports basically what

would happen is people would suffer and people may even die.

But this

goes back to what I talk about. We don't actually have the same level of access

to supports and infrastructure that other communities have. It's so important,

Speaker.

So, in

actual fact, the mental health toll that this takes on the citizens, including

the AngajukKâk of Postville, is great. During COVID, there was a lot of stress.

In actual fact, there have been times when the nurse has been called out at

night, worked through the night, and then has to go to work in the morning.

I want

to point out now something that's happened in Postville, actually. A couple of

years ago, a family friend was suffering a heart attack. Instead of being

medevaced from Postville directly to the hospital in Happy Valley-Goose Bay –

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

Member's time is expired.

The hon.

the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY:

Thank you, Speaker.

This

might very well be the first petition on this topic in the House of Assembly,

but maybe not. At least in my three years, this is the first.

There is

a desire of the Newfoundland Pony Society and individuals within the District of

Bonavista to grow the population of our native Newfoundland pony. This historic,

stately animal, once a staple for hard-working Newfoundlanders, has seen its

numbers greatly diminished over the years. To facilitate the collective desire

to grow the population provincially, the assistance of the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador is desired in making Crown land available for

Newfoundland pony ventures.

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 permit Crown land to be used for viable

Newfoundland pony ventures and thus enhancing the impact of tourism and culture

in regions such as the District of Bonavista.

attended the Newfoundland Pony AGM in 2021 with President Jack Harris. The

current Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture addressed the society

and did a good job with that. When he left and went off on his Zoom, President

Jack Harris had stated that the Newfoundland government had seen making lands

available for Newfoundland ponies. In fact, he had said they were pony friendly

for such ventures. But the minister may speak to it in a short time just to

confirm.

We have

a young couple in Bunyan's Cove, started out with one horse last year. This

year, they will have four Newfoundland ponies in Bunyan's Cove and myself and

them realize the potential for tourism and the attraction it would be in the

District of Bonavista.

The

Member for Fogo Island - Cape Freels can probably talk a little bit about Change

Islands, which I have never visited but I hear a lot about. I am sure we get

tourists going to Change Islands to see the Newfoundland ponies. I know that we

have in Carbonear as well, in the House Leader's district, one coming up. We'd

like to be able to have the same opportunity in the District of Bonavista.

These

were stately animals that roamed freely in Newfoundland and Labrador once upon a

time. I'm not sure now about them roaming freely back in Newfoundland and

Labrador, but it would be sure nice to see them in our areas and see them in the

District of Bonavista. I look forward to hearing from the minister.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

I can't see the minister. I

don't think he is responding.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER:

No, I'm going to respond, Mr.

Speaker, because I think the minister had the opportunity to meet with them and

we sort of had a little debate to see who was going to respond because I wanted

to respond (inaudible) –

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader for a response.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I couldn't agree with the Member opposite more. The Newfoundland pony

has an awesome place in our history. I look forward to actually probably having

a little sidebar on it later because I think there may be even something here

that we can do as a part of our Come Home Year. Because I tell you, one of the

exciting projects that we have coming this year for Come Home Year is we

actually have a Newfoundland breed dog show and talking about our heritage of

dogs. This is going to take place in Harbour Grace, I think, in late August. And

we're going to show Newfoundland and Labrador dogs. It's an important part of

our history.

I can

tell you, from our Come Home Year committee and I think we talked about Mr. Paul

Pope here earlier today. Paul was a Member of our Come Home Year host committee.

One of the things that he wanted to see in one of our first meetings was some

type of link this summer to our history when it comes to our dogs. And very

happy that we're going to do that. I look forward to the opportunities that the

Newfoundland pony certainly brings as well, 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, Mr.

Speaker.

Speaker,

I call Order 4, third reading of Bill 53.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, that Bill 53,

An Act To

Amend The Judicature Act, be now read a third time.

SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the said bill be read a third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Motion

carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Judicature Act. (Bill 53)

SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the

Order Paper.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Judicature Act,” read a third time, ordered

passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 53)

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I call

from the Order Paper Order 3, third reading of Bill 44.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Speaker, I move, seconded by

the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, that Bill 44,

An Act To Amend The

Provincial Court Act, 1991, be now read a third time.

SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the said bill be now read a third time.

Seeing

no speakers, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Motion

carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Provincial Court Act, 1991. (Bill 44)

SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a third time and it

is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991,” read a third

time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 44)

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, Motion 5.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

WHEREAS subsection 6(3) of

the Independent Appointments Commission

Act provides that five members are to be appointed to the Independent

Appointments Commission by Lieutenant-Governor in Council on the resolution of

the House of Assembly; and

WHEREAS

subsection 6(4) of the act provides that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council

designate one of the members of the commission to be chairperson; and

WHEREAS

subsection 7(1) of the act states that the commissioner may be reappointed for

one additional three-year term to be served consecutively; and

WHEREAS

the terms of the following members have expired:

Earl

Ludlow, Chairperson

Cathy

Duke

NOW

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the following persons be reappointed as members of

the Independent Appointments Commission for a term of three years:

Earl

Ludlow, Chairperson

Cathy

Duke

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

Thank you, Speaker, and thank

you to the Government House Leader.

Today I

am proud to highlight two individuals whom we hope will receive unanimous

consent of this hon. House for reappointment to the Independent Appointments

Commission.

Speaker,

the Independent Appointments Commission

Act was the government's inaugural legislation back in 2016, and through

this act our province has been the most accessible and open appointment process

for agencies, boards and commissions in the country, I would argue.

The

Independent Appointments Commission is an independent, non-partisan body that

has the responsibility to apply a merit-based process to recommend qualified

individuals for appointments. In 2017 we made changes to the Independent

Appointments Commission to expand the roster of commissioners to a minimum of

five and a maximum of seven.

On March

14, 2019, we made two new appointments to bring the Independent Appointments

Commission up to seven members with the appointments of Mr. Earl Ludlow and Ms.

Cathy Duke. Mr. Ludlow and Ms. Duke advised me that they are open to continuing

on, if we would consider reappointing them.

Their

incredible professionalism and dedication to the Independent Appointments

Commission is unquestioned. It's proven by the fact that Mr. Ludlow and Ms. Duke

have agreed to accept a reappointment, thus allowing us the time needed to

undertake recruitment for additional members. This is a recommendation of Mr.

Earl Ludlow, who this House appointed to the Independent Appointments

Commission, unanimously, as chair.

His

career with the Fortis Group spans nearly 40 years. He has an extensive career

as a community volunteer. He served two terms on Memorial University's Board of

Regents and two terms as the honourary lieutenant colonel of the Royal

Newfoundland Regiment 1st Battalion.

In 2018,

through a recommendation of the Independent Appointments Commission, Mr. Ludlow

was appointed to The Rooms board of directors. He is a member of the

Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Newfoundland and Labrador and a

member of the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador. He has also been inducted in

the Atlantic Province's CEO Business Hall of Fame by

atlantic BUSINESS magazine, was designated as the Humanitarian of

the Year by the Canadian Red Cross in 2010 and is a fellow of the Canadian

Academy of Engineering. Mr. Ludlow earned his Bachelor of Engineering,

Electrical in 1980 and a Master of Business Administration from Memorial

University in 1994.

Cathy

Duke is currently the chief executive officer of Destination St. John's where

she directs sales and marketing efforts in attracting meetings, conventions,

travel leisure and sport tourism. She previously served as deputy minister with

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in the department of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation, as well as the department of Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development.

Ms. Duke

has served as the vice-chair of the Independent Appointments Commission since

2019. She also serves on the Memorial University Board of Regents. She has also

served as vice-chair of the Stella Burry Foundation. These are highly reputable

people. Ms. Duke earned a Bachelor of Social Work in 1979, a Master of Business

Administration in 1982 and acquired her director designation for the Institute

of Corporate Directors in 2017.

Speaker,

I believe all Members of this House will agree that these candidates are more

than qualified for the roles that they will undertake. I look forward to the

continued success of the Independent Appointments Commission as they ensure

positions within our agencies, boards and commissions are filled with qualified

candidates.

Thank

you.

SPEAKER:

Any other speakers to the

resolution?

Any

other speakers?

Is the

House ready for the question?

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Motion

carried.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I call

from the Order Paper, Motion 1.

SPEAKER:

Any speakers to the motion?

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Speaker.

Again,

it's an honour to stand in this House and speak to the budget. This is my third

opportunity; I had an opportunity on the main motion. I'll just explain for

those who may be watching at home. The main motion is the motion on the budget

itself: what has been debated, what is continuing to be debated in Estimates and

through the course of the last couple of weeks and will continue for the next

couple of weeks. Then the process that's been put forward by us in the Official

Opposition, our amendments.

We put

an amendment to the budget and had some debate around that relevant to what we

felt was missing in the budget. Then we put a subamendment and we had a full

debate and a vote on that. The subamendment was that we were lobbying the

government, collectively, as Members of the House of Assembly, we would

diligently argue, outline the rationale why Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and

the people of this province and our economic needs should be met with a proper

equalization process from Ottawa.

Unfortunately, after a fairly lengthy debate, that motion was defeated by the

government. But what we were asking for in that, as part of the subamendment,

was that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were looking for a fair shake in this

Confederation. We were looking to offset what should be, and is, necessary to

make sure that the people of this province have a quality that is equal to

people across the country. We weren't asking for anything unique. We know that,

unfortunately, there's a caveat in the federal administration when it comes to

our revenues for offshore oil; that it's clawed back. Yet, we have other

jurisdictions that that's not the case when it comes to other types of

revenue-generating energies.

So we

were asking, first and foremost, the discussion has to be around: What is fair

for Newfoundland and Labrador? I mean, our offshore oil that we produce, that

the skilled people in Newfoundland and Labrador, that the partnerships we

develop in this province with international and national companies, should also

be used to benefit the people of this province.

We do

realize and we do accept that the people of this country should benefit from it

also. And we know of the tens of billions of dollars that the Canadian

government, regardless of what administration was there, have benefited from the

revenues that have been generated here. We accept that. We've gotten to a point

where, when our revenues were at a point where we could handle the expenditures,

we could invest in infrastructure, we could invest in programs that benefit the

people of this province, that we felt then we were in a good place that the rest

of the country should also benefit from it.

So we

didn't receive any equalization. And that was fair, fair across the board. But

the minute that, obviously, our biggest industry, one of our biggest key factors

for generating revenue gets hit very dramatically, no fault to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, perhaps no fault to the people in this country, we

then become the people who have to take the brunt of it. And that's the

unfortunate thing here. That's the formula there that shouldn't be accepted and

none of us should accept that now.

I get

that it was done, you know, decades ago in a different light and it was probably

a rationale to be able to get support on one side or the other. But with that in

play, that's one argument that needs to be re-addressed and, obviously, put in

play in the right manner. And that has to be done. So whatever lobbying that

needs to be done, collectively, we need to do that. And if there is some favour

that we can pull in with whatever

part is necessary, I think that needs to be

done.

The

issue then becomes, because of that miscue a number of years ago, we get hit

twice because not only are we not receiving what we could, when we do make

money, we don't get an opportunity to catch up on the debt load that we have

incurred because of infrastructure or demographics or age or needs in other

areas because we don't fit the criteria for equalization.

So we

lose on both ends of it. That's not fair. I mean, if you are going to be a

benefactor on one end and that falters, there should be some balance there to

keep it level. That's what the equalization process is about. The stability

around the revenue generating for a province should dictate that a certain

quality of programs and services across this country should be delivered.

doesn't mean we're going to have the exact same ones as they do in BC, nor does

BC expect to have the same ones that we may have in Newfoundland and Labrador in

a different level. But there's a pendulum there that – there's a balance between

all the programs and services and what the expectation should be. So that's

where we went in the subamendment.

Unfortunately, it was defeated. I thought we gave some extremely good rational

arguments to it. I commend all on this side, because I know the Third Party and

the independents supported what we were talking about there and the rationale

that, you know, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should be benefactors of our

own resources while supporting what is happening in this country.

We were

just asking that, collectively, why would we not want to push for a concept

that's more relevant to equal for the people of this country, and particularly

for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

That was

one part of it. We've since then, prior to that, put in an amendment to the

budget because as we went through the debate on the budget – and I'm not

faulting the budget for not addressing a number of key issues. Very much so,

there are a number of things in here that address issues that are improving on

some of the things that we have, that actually are going in a direction that

would be beneficial to the people of the province.

The

issue we had with this one and why we give it a failing grade is because we're

in a unique economic challenge for the people of this province. We're coming out

of a COVID challenge, and we know what impact that's had on people physically,

socially, financially, mentally. So we think that we were outlining a strategy

that should at least make sure we eliminate, as much as possible, or alleviate

the stresses and the mental strains on people. We've already talked about a

health care crisis. We know there's a multitude of reasons for that:

programming, COVID, finances, geographics, out-migration, attracting the medical

professionals, all kinds of things that we know have contributed to putting us

where we are when it comes to a health care crisis.

Because

if it was only one sector of the health care, well then that wouldn't be a

crisis. That would be a challenge that we need to come up with, but we know – we

hear it from everybody. If it's an ambulance driver to the pharmacist, to the

physicians to the nurses, to the staff who work in our facilities here, we hear

it from all sectors here that we have a crisis. Will it be solved overnight? No.

But do we need to start things immediately? Sure, we do.

So part

of why what we talked about there is this is what Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians have been facing for the last two years. That's a challenge now,

and I give credit; it only speaks to the volume of the resilience of the people

in this province that we've managed to stay here. I know some people have gotten

disheartened over it and wanted to give up in this province, but we've stayed

here. The business community have stayed here. The people haven't given up. The

people have tried to get back to a sense of normality as much as possible.

The

education system tried to modify how it would address that. Our health care

system, the workers in the health care system have tried to do their part to

ensure that people were as safe as possible. But what we're feeling now, we're

into another crisis. We're into a cost-of-living crisis right now, particularly

for those middle income, on fixed incomes and the most vulnerable.

We know

we're not going to solve all the other problems, but we thought and we were

hopeful that the priority in this budget would be about addressing the immediate

crisis that we're facing right now, and that's the cost-of-living increase. We

know, again I'm going to say, as I said at the beginning, there are things in

this budget that do help alleviate some categories, but the one consistent issue

and costing effect here is around the cost of fuels, because that has a direct

impact on everything else that people have to avail of.

you're fueling costs are increased, so does the cost of that shipping it, so

does the cost of that product when it gets here. And that gets passed on to the

consumer. Unfortunately the most vulnerable and those on fixed incomes don't

have the flexibility to shop around as the rest of us might have, or to put off

for certain things. Particularly if you have health issues, particularly if you

live alone, particularly if you live in rural or remote areas.

So there

are a lot of other challenges here. We, honestly, didn't flippantly just say

we're not going to support this budget but we have some challenges with it. We

actually analyzed it, we looked at it, we looked at what we thought should be

the priorities, based on what we've heard from the citizens of this province. We

asked a multitude of questions. I think well over 100 questions directly on the

budget itself. In Estimates every night we're asking for hours, particularly

around efficiencies, how could we do things better, how could we invest in a

program that will generate more revenue or provide a service more equitably.

And

unfortunately we're not feeling confident that this government has a handle on

how you can address those things. It's not a slight; it's a perspective from us

that we're hearing from the general public. My colleagues and I have had a

multitude of meetings over the last number of weeks, particularly since the

budget has come down, to ask people what they think. Because maybe we were

missing the boat here. Maybe we didn't get the perspective, because maybe you

live in a silo when you're in here, your perspective is based solely on politics

versus based on fact and rationale and what would be the best approach. But

we're hearing it constantly. And if you listen to the open-line shows, if you

listen to people that are being interviewed by the mainstream media, you'll hear

the exact same thing.

If you

extreme. Because what we're hearing there are the actual effects it's having on

people, the direct impacts. People having to make decisions around heating their

home or having their medications, or being able to visit a loved one or going to

work anymore. I've had people, constituents of mine, saying price of fuel, the

other cost of living; it's not beneficial to me because I'm a minimum wage

employee. It's not to my advantage anymore to actually be able to travel on a

ferry, pay for gas and that, get in somewhere else, make minimum wage and then

come back, get paid for seven hours, yet I'm travelling for at times 10, 12, 13

hours. And still now I'm paying more money out of my pocket that I just can't

afford. So we have a lot of challenges in this province here.

What

we've been asking with this amendment was simply for government to go back

again. And this has been proposed over a week ago now, before we heavily got

into Estimates, when there's still an ability to modify the budget, to change

things, to priorities in certain areas. We have had debate and we have had a

group of individuals here outline what would be particular recommendations to

make some changes. We talked about the home heat rebate and what that would mean

for individuals. I know the minister has outlined, yes, there is money going as

part and parcel of what would be there but the difference is that it doesn't

meet the needs when the cost of fuel, if you compare it to two decades ago, is

three to four times more. So, yeah, you might up it 10 per cent but that doesn't

make up the gap for the 100 per cent increase that is there.

We need

to find ways to prioritize certain things. Our argument to this was that we

didn't think government were open minded enough to listen to what we were saying

and what we were saying was reflective of what the people of the province were

saying to us. I know you must be hearing it from your constituents also. I know

there is no way a constituent would be negative towards 50 per cent decrease in

the cost of registering your car. I get that; I understand that. But any

constituent who would prefer to have a decrease but who can afford it would be

much more apt for government to find a way to take care of the people who are

most vulnerable. We need those people to actually be productive, engaged and

healthy because that only stimulates the economy and moves everything else in

the right direction.

There

had to be some decisions made there and I know, politically, we try to keep

everybody happy and the minister talked about that. Trying to find that balance,

that it was a little bit for everybody. I know. But real decision-making, real

leadership is about making those harsh decisions that are the right decisions.

In some cases, yeah, we'd probably get beat up because a certain level of

society weren't getting a break and they still have to incur costs and we all do

to incur costs. Everybody cringes when we put that nozzle in that gas tank and

you see it. When it starts hitting past the $100 mark, then you really start

seeing the difference of what the cost of fuel is in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Imagine

what it means to somebody when they are told from a supplier: I can't go to your

house for any less than $500, $600, $700 or $800. At one time, that was their

tank filled for the next two months. Now it is for the next two weeks and they

don't have that amount of money to pay for it. Or they pay for it and something

else gets neglected, something that they need.

So our

argument and our request here was to let us have an open debate around

prioritizing how we address the particular needs that have been identified to us

as challenges to people. There are all kinds of ways of doing that and we have

suggested them. Our colleagues over here have come up with a number of them.

That we wanted to have an open, a rational and a factual debate.

We get

it; we're spending over $8 billion. I know maybe some feel that's too much money

to be spending, some feel it's not enough to be spending, but, at this time, at

this place in history, in the circumstances we're facing, we collectively should

find the best way to use that $8 billion to make sure those who have the most

challenges right now are still going to be able to feel comfortable and have a

standard of living that's equitable. And, more importantly, we don't force them

to leave Newfoundland and Labrador; we don't force them to go live on the

Mainland with one of their family members because it's just not affordable to

stay here anymore.

We need

to send a message that we want people to come here. We've talked about what we

can do to bring expats back here; we've talked about the Come Home Year. A great

idea, great concept, 100 per cent hoping it booms. We're hearing some positive

things about people wanting to come back, because we know the heart and soul of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, no matter where they live, is still in this

province. So they're going to find every physical way to get back here.

But when

they get here, they need to know that their loved ones are being taken care of.

They need to know when they come back here that there's an enticement, that when

they find employment here or if they're ready to retire, they come back to

Newfoundland and Labrador. Bring their skill set, bring their monies that

they've acquired and invest it here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We're 100 per

cent supportive of that concept, but we better be able to send the right

message.

We've

talked about things like the Come Home Year: car rentals, hotel rooms and these

types of things, trying to find ways to ensure that it's not embarrassing when

people come here. I've been doing some work with the taxi industry. I've met

with the minister and the mayor of the City of St. John's and the taxi industry

to try to find ways to ensure when people get off that plane, that there's a

taxi to meet them, if they can't get a car rental or they don't want to be

driving around on their own and that cab driver is knowledgeable of what's going

on in the city, what's going on in the region and what's going on in the

province from a tourism point of view.

But to

do that, we know the taxi industry has three major problems; one, recruiting

drivers, because of the administrative nightmare to be able to do it, the

unbelievable number of courses they have to do. We're not saying anything about

safety and quality of individuals and all that, but we're saying when you need

to do a first aid course and that's not offered for a month, then you need to do

a drivers course and that's offered a month later, when the taxi companies need

somebody next week.

They've

made suggestions around we would administer – I say we collectively, that is

them. They would come in with the certifications from the department and they

would, on a weekend, instead of one here and there, take 50 drivers who are

interested in doing it. They would go to the RNC or the RCMP or to motor vehicle

registration and get the abstract for these individuals to prove it. They even

went further than it's now law; they said they would get a medical for each one

of these drivers.

Part of

what they're trying to do, they're trying to show the process that there are

seniors out there who are retired, who'd like to come in driving cabs. They're

driving in the city. They're not long hauls here as part of that. That's just in

the urban centre, that they would like to have a more streamlined process to be

able to do it and be more affordable.

Right

now, if you wanted to come in, if you're a retiree or you're anyone, and you

want to get a cab licence in St. John's, it's $2,100 before you start and up to

three to six months to get that. That doesn't solve our immediate problem we

have here.

One of

the cab companies here have 133 cars that are dormant. Paid for, the whole thing

– well, may not be paid for in the sense of their registration may not be paid,

because why would you register a car that's lost revenue, if you don't have a

driver to be able to put it on the roads. So there's been some discussion here,

and that's why I talked about it.

Now,

I'll give credit, we did have the discussion. I know the Premier met with them,

and I'm happy to be able to say I helped foster some of that meeting process.

I'm hopeful that part of it, that there's a happy medium there around finding

how the cab companies now can address that issue by recruiting drivers quicker

and the right drivers, the safe drivers, the knowledgeable drivers to get them

in play to be able to work here as part of that process.

But that

doesn't help their bottom line when it comes to the cost of fuels, also. They

have to maintain businesses. If their additional costs are going up, they're in

a quandary, because unlike any other producers of a product or delivering

something, they can pass it on directly to the consumer the next day. They're

regulated. They have to go through a process.

Sometimes it takes years. I think the last one that they got back for January 1

was a four-year process. So they were in a quandary. People may forget this. Any

cab in this province right now, what I've been told, there are 3,000 people who

work directly or indirectly in the taxi industry. That's substantial. They're

paying money. What they're operating generates a lot of money for the provincial

coffers here, through registration, through the taxation when they buy the

vehicles, to the maintenance and the costing on that, to the employment tax

that's being paid.

There's

a very important sector here, at times, that we've got to be cognizant of. So if

we're going to do this, make sure we have all our ducks in line and we find the

ways to do it.

Why I

tell that story is, again, the budget. I want to go back to the fact about being

flexible on the fly, and you have to be. I get that we write this up, and I know

the diligent staff in the Department of Finance and all the other departments

that feed into it. I've been there. I know the process, done months of work.

The

budget didn't start the day that the minister brought it down by no stretch.

They started months in advance, looking at our potential revenues, our

expenditures, the prioritizing, looking at if there's any slippage in a

department, if there's any carryover. All these things that are relevant to the

decision-making process then. But, at the same time, I've seen it and I've known

it as a bureaucrat, I've seen it as a minister, I've seen it in government, the

flexibility to be able to move things when you identify a particular issue.

There's

always been contingency funds and for right reasons. We've had them when Igor

hit. Good thing we did or we'd be scrambling to do things. No issue about the

contingency funds. So when contingency funds are put in departments, or they're

put specifically with the Department of Finance, there should be that

flexibility to say: We've now discovered stuff that we couldn't control. The

minister cannot control what happens on the international market. We have had a

debate, maybe a difference of opinion on what else you can do to offset the

taxation on fuels. And we'll still have that further debate here about what can

or cannot be done.

I know

some will argue now, well, you know, it takes six months. I'm not disputing that

because there is a process, and we can't just divert around the process for the

sake because it's a one-time shot. But our argument has been: we've been having

these discussions for the last 10 months. Had it been a proactive approach at

one point, maybe now we'd have the ability to take the five cents off that was

put there for when the refinery went down. And we're very thankful that the

refinery is just about ready to get up and running. It's going to create 400 to

500 jobs and it's going to be a productive asset to the people of this province

and to the company coming in, a stable company, to activate that.

But that

five cents became a burden to the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador. And do

you know what? The taxpayers reluctantly accepted it. But that was at a time

when it was a minimal impact on them. Move ahead five, six months, look at

what's happened to the people now: five cents going up on a litre when it's

$1.03 to $1.08. Do you know what? It's an extra $2 or $3 on your tank, but you

live with that. Now, let's jump ahead to $2.10 a litre. What does that mean?

That's a dramatic difference.

people now need any little bit of help they can get. That five cents would be

one part of it. The changing of the taxation; we've said it, my shadow minister

here of Finance, our caucus here have said it, I've said it to the Premier, I've

said it to the media, if we needed to come into the House of Assembly to change

legislation that gave the ability to the Minister of Finance or any other

minister over there to change the taxation costing so that the taxpayers of this

province could get a break on fuels, it would be done in an afternoon. Not a

question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL:

Not a question to help the

people of this province.

So we've

made those offers to do that. And we realize there may have been, on the other

side of it, decisions that would mean we're going to pull back on certain other

industries right now because we've only got X number of dollars. I realize that.

I know we're hearing now from other industries, we're hearing it from the Heavy

Civil and the construction industry about tenders. What does that mean for them?

I get government budgeted at one hand and circumstances they couldn't control

dictated costing is going to be more expensive.

But now

I know there are a lot of things that are being held back. Our economy still has

to move forward, this is still part of it. It's one thing for one part of the

economy to be stalled, if you don't be proactive and it happens that all parts

of the economy stalls, we all lose. We have no ability then to make up what

needs to be done for the people and, particularly, to take care of the most

vulnerable here.

So what

we're here doing again is we're encouraging government to have an open

discussion. If we're going to have a discussion around roadwork, well, let's

make sure that those tenders get out on time. I know tenders have been out but

now they're cancelled. What does that mean for the industries? Those industries

also have bills to pay. Those industries have people employed who pay taxes, who

volunteer as coaches, who are part of municipal councils. We want to ensure that

they know that they're going to be safe and confident to be able to stay in

their communities and do what they need to do as part of that process.

So what

I want to make clear to the people at home: we're not up here to argue or to

turn down that the budget isn't good. We're saying there's a good spend of a

little over $8 billion. We're saying what needs to happen now is there has to be

an adjustment of a proportion of that to make sure that it hits the particular

needs that people are facing right now.

It might

mean – it's happened in the past – we have a mid-year update on the budget, so

come back in October, things have changed; the price of gas is down to $1.15 or

$1.20. We come back and say: You know, the breaks we gave you people, it was

done so that we could encourage you to be able to be stable, healthy, do the

things you were doing. But right now things are better, you've gotten back,

we're going to need to take that money back because we now need to put it in

health care or infrastructure or education or something else, or we're going to

keep it where it is now because we need to give people an opportunity to get

back on their feet.

They're

the kind of conversations that we were hoping to have in the House of Assembly.

That's what we were proposing. It wasn't an attack. I don't think any Member

over here attacked for what was being done. What we were saying was here are

some suggestions of other things that need to be done or what need to be

prioritized, even some suggestions on how that could be funded as part of that

process.

We were

even willing to take some of the backlash if a certain industry said, well,

there's less money going into this this year because we're going to make sure

other people are taken care of because this is the specific priority right now.

Because if we suggest something over here, we're going to stand by it. That's

the reality. If we suggest it, we're going to stand by it. Because I give

credit, over here it's analyzed, if you look at our Blue Book, we've not only

talked about what the issue is, we've talked about what the potential solution

is. It's not the be-all and end-all, but we've also talked about what it would

cost and how it would be costed out.

That's

being proactive here. What we wanted to have in this dialogue here, and

particularly the amendment, was about having that open dialogue again. We knew

we had a few weeks, maybe a month or so that we could make some changes to the

budget that would reflect the particular needs now.

Now, I

would suspect everybody in this House – I know I did and I would think the

Minister of Finance was thinking the same way – the minute she brought down the

budget that things would change in a positive right after. That the price of

fuels would go down and all these other things that have an impact on people

would. But, unfortunately, we can't foresee that, nor can we control it. The

only thing we can control: the monies we do have, we spend in the right manner

to ensure that those who need it the most right now are the ones that are taken

care of.

That's

the criticism we have right now with this budget, that it didn't go far enough

in the right areas. It went across, there's a balance and everybody's getting a

little bit out of this budget to offset the extra costs they have in their

pocket. Nobody's disputing that. But we're saying we needed a bit more

creativity, a bit more acknowledgement that there is some suffering – not some –

a big proportion of our society suffering more than others and that part of our

society are the most vulnerable and the ones, unfortunately, that may have to

make choices that are even going to be more detrimental to them and more costly

to us as a society in the long run.

that's what the amendment itself here was about. So I wanted to outline that to

everybody here so people would understand we're not just frivolously getting up

and disagreeing with government or criticizing government or attacking

government on anything. We haven't done that, I haven't seen that from this side

of the House since we got up here. We may disagree. I think we had more open

discussion or more aggressive discussion, for want of a better phrase, on a

piece of policy than we did on the budget here. Because we were all trying to

have a sense of co-operation and let's find what works.

What

we've been doing while the budget's been ongoing, because we were fearful that

we might've missed what were the priorities of people, we've been out engaged.

Last

night, I was in a community sitting with some constituents and had a grand

conversation about what their priorities were. And I got it, I got what they're

priorities were. Health care, the cost of living and, because it was in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador, I got about regionalization. Very much so. It was an

eye-opener for me because it was a different perspective of regionalization from

a community that I wouldn't have thought of.

I'm a

believer there's support for regionalization and it would work to everybody's

benefit, but sometimes geographically that doesn't even work. And the fear

people were having that it would be a taxation grab on people who don't avail of

any other services from government and don't have the ability to, nor could a

government or a municipality be able to support them because the geographic

distances weren't workable.

But the

underlying issue – and most in the room were senior citizens, which is

worrisome, too, because in rural Newfoundland and Labrador – I drove the same

community area or the same region 35 years ago as a civil servant and there

would be hundreds of young people on the streets. I even used to go out and we'd

have meetings with them. To find a young person now in some of these areas in

rural Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly one that's engaged with some of

the issues, it's unfortunately a rare occurrence. That speaks volumes about how

we find a way to sustain rural Newfoundland and Labrador, make it attractive for

people to be there and find ways to ensure that there is a future for these

areas.

Last

night, we talked about health care. There is one community that has, in the

regional area, a cottage hospital, but they're having the same struggles that a

lot of rural and remote areas are having: keeping their doctors or attracting

doctors here. The plan would be that one of the larger health facilities in the

region would send their doctors down periodically. The problem with that is that

it still doesn't solve the issue because now you're just robbing from Peter to

pay Paul. So now the larger centre is without a doctor for a period of time when

they go down to one of the more remote areas. There has to be a full perspective

on what we do here.

I know

there is a whole recruitment discussion process here going. I know we talked

about the Health Accord. I've noted before, we have met five times as a caucus

and I have had two other discussions with the Health Accord leaders and was

fortunate enough to suggest someone who should sit on the Health Accord who has

some background and that to do it.

What we

see in the report extremely outlines what a strategy should be. But there are

some immediate things that need to happen, immediately. I don't see them

reflected in this budget. That's the unfortunate thing there. Not only am I

talking the cost of living, now I'm going to pivot to the health care because

they are all connected. They all have an impact. The cost of living has an

impact and people have to make decisions around the cost of their health care to

the quality of the food that they eat to if they are warm and comfortable and

what impact that has on their mental health. We have had a big discussion around

mental health this week, as it is Mental Health Week in this country.

What we

haven't seen is an approach that says: Here are our immediate interventions,

here's what we're going to do right now on all of these issues, here's what

we're going to make sure we do in the next year and here's what we're going to

do in the next three years, five and 10 years.

We've

have a lot of discussion, and the Minister of Health even yesterday in two of

the questions he answered talked about: Well, we're still in discussions and

we're discussing that and yes that is an issue around mental health and we're

having that discussion. Discussion time should be done. We've come too far,

we've done too many; these issues are not new.

I accept

that and I know it has been said by a number of ministers over the years: This

didn't happen overnight. We accept that. It wasn't caused or not solved by one

administration. Sometimes priorities change and they move, sometimes

circumstances you can't control. But what we're saying now, we know what's

happening right now. We know we have a health care crisis and there has to be an

aggressive approach on how we deal with that. We know we have a cost of living

crisis. There has to be an aggressive way of dealing with that.

We know

we have to find ways to improve our revenues. One of the best ways is to get the

monies that we're entitled to, a better return on our natural resources and

equalization from Ottawa. Being able to get Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to

stay in Newfoundland and Labrador, use their skill set, work here, pay taxes

here and be productive citizens here. That drives the economy.

Invest

in some of our other industries: We have a great conversation here about the

good things that are happening in Newfoundland and Labrador. One of our

industries that could flourish fivefold is tourism. We know that and we need a

strategy. The strategy around tourism also has to do with our ability to connect

to the rest of the world: our airports, our ferry services, even our

communication from basic things like signs on the highway, what that means for

people travelling further and going out to another attraction and spending money

in that area. So these are all things that need to be thought out, need to be

debated, need to be discussed and a holistic approach and plan and strategy

needs to be put in play.

So, you

know, I've heard it a number of times: We have a plan. We have a strategy. We

have a vision. We're ready for change. We seen it in the last budget:

Change starts here I believe it was.

This one is Change is in the air .

Great.

Our

issue, and what we are hearing from the people that talk to us, is we're not

seeing the change in a positive light. We're not seeing the change for the

betterment of the people of this province. We're not seeing the change where

they have hope that there is going to be a brighter future. We're not seeing

change that businesses are going to feel confident to invest in Newfoundland and

Labrador and we're not seeing change that the expats, the people who moved away

because of economics or for education, would have the hope to come back to

Newfoundland and Labrador. That's the fear.

So we

engage change. We welcome it. We'll even work with it. But it has to be change

that makes sense and works for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. And

we're not seeing it in this budget. We're seeing things that at least start the

process but didn't go far enough. A little glimmer there but not a big enough

flame so that it's bright and people can see the light at the end of the tunnel.

that's why we amended, to have an outline about having an open dialogue, to look

at the struggling cost that people are incurring in Newfoundland and Labrador

and the rising cost of living to every Newfoundlander and Labradorian.

So as I

keep talking about what we are discussing here, I want to just touch on some of

the things that are in the budget. I had this conversation in some of Question

Period about certain things that are there. A lot of the things that are

outlined – and I get it, all administrations do it, don't tout whatever the

great things that we are adding into our programs and budgets, but you need to

have something that is so creative, so innovative that it, actually, when you

read it, you first shake you head and say: Can that work? When you read it again

you go: I think it can. That is creative and it's based on something. It's going

to stimulate and get the end result that you wanted.

Most of

the money that's been outlined here as big touted things, really are not

creative enough that they're really going to benefit people in the long run

here.

I'll

just talk about some here: no provincial taxes and fee increase. I have to say

it, from 2016 on I would hope there would have been none, but the sugar tax is

still there. So that's no big incentive here to do anything here. We've been

taxed to death so much I don't even think it's physically possible to put any

more tax on it. People just literally will leave in droves because they'll be so

disenfranchised with what's happening in this province.

A 50 per

cent reduction in vehicle registration. Everybody would welcome more money in

their pockets. We get that. But that's not going to change the outcome

economically for the people of this province. It's definitely not going to

address the challenges that people have now, those on very limited fixed incomes

and those most vulnerable, when it comes to those types of things.

Ten-dollar-a-day child care – a great initiative. Still some challenges with the

daycare owners because I've got two who reached out to me today about some of

these services. Another challenge about that is if we don't have a sustainable

economy for people to stay around, then they're not going to have to avail of

the $10-a-day daycare as part of that process. One of the other challenges where

we need to be proactive when we look at this, because daycares are going to have

to bring this in, after-school programs are becoming a challenge.

I'm

hearing now from my constituents, and constituents from other districts here,

that now the daycares are cancelling the after-school programs because they have

to prioritize being part of the $10-a-day daycare process. So we need to have

these dialogues. We're not blaming anybody; this is not a blame thing. This is

about we need to be cognizant of some of these other issues.

For

every action there's a reaction, so we need to be creative enough. If you're

going to do this, what would be five reactions down the road? That's where a

proactive government comes into play, and see what the benefit would be for the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

A 10 per

cent increase in the Seniors' Benefit – extremely welcome. Except we've already

talked and my colleagues have talked about it, 10 per cent for a 300 per cent

increase does very little, if anything. It's disillusioned because they'll get a

hundred dollars and then there are other things that are in society now that

went up $400, basic stuff that has to go. Simple things we talked about like the

rapid testing, particularly for seniors and that who are vulnerable and who have

a higher level of anxiety and fear for their health. Now, all of a sudden,

they're using the few extra dollars that they have that should be used for other

things to offset the cost of fuels, which is not even close to what the increase

would be. So things like that, that we're talking about.

Funding

to help homes with transitions from oil to electric heat – a wonderful idea. I

have no qualms about it. The problem is going to be we're in an immediate

crisis. These things are 10 months to five years down the road before people can

implement that. You've got to have some of your own money to put in that up

front. That doesn't exist. The people we're hearing from, that literally is not

an uptake program that can help them right now deal with the challenges that

they have.

Mr.

Speaker, $3.6 billion for health care. We've never argued about the investment

in health care. I mean, we were there, I was in Cabinet, I know what we approved

in the sense of monies for health care. It's where the priorities become in

health care that become the creative way of addressing the issues in

Newfoundland and Labrador. That's what we've been challenging here. We're not

seeing the perspective that actually outlines a plan of action. A plan that

really prospectively takes care of addressing the immediate issues, the

intermediate issues and the long-term issues when it comes to health care, and

shows a plan that makes sure that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are healthier

tomorrow, next year and 10 years down the road.

saying you're spending money, that's not new money. That's part of the budget

process. What would have been impressive to me, and I would think the people of

the province, is saying these are the new programs that we're doing. Here are

the outcomes that are going to benefit you. Not only is it going to benefit you,

but here's how financially the rest of the people in this province are going to

benefit from that investment there. We haven't seen that in this plan.

Mr.

Speaker, $14 million to improve access to primary health care. Again, it sounded

good as part of the primary budget for health care, but we've already heard now,

all we did was shift things around. We really didn't improve anything. People

are still questioning, I still don't have access to a doctor. Now I have to

travel further to get this access. Do we agree with collaborative teams? Of

course, we do.

We've

been saying for years, when I was the critic for Health on this side, I had said

it then, that we needed to look at the scope of work for the health

professionals we have there. We have by far the best trained, the best skilled,

the best committed and dedicated health professionals in this world.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL:

We've got to give them the

ability to do what they're good at. Particularly when we need them to do what

they're good at in areas that can't provide other types of services, because we

can't draw down on other expertise who used to do that in the past. Our

pharmacists, our paramedics, our nurse practitioners, our licensed practical

nurse, our personal care attendants, every other member of the health profession

could do it.

We know

our doctors are overburdened. We know what our doctors are capable of. We know

what our doctors want to do. We've had a multitude of meetings with the Medical

Association. We've been there with their frustrations. We've been there with

their recommendations. We've analyzed and we've challenged them on stuff, but we

see their frustrations. We see why doctors are leaving Newfoundland and

Labrador.

They're

feeling that they're not being taking seriously. That their recommendations are

not being enacted. They're feeling, at the end of the day, that they're

overburdened and they're not appreciated. They're feeling that they're at a

point now where they're not allowed to have a quality of life also, because we

didn't put a process in play that recruits the number of doctors, or sets up the

health care system so that they're not overburdened with either administration

or that they can use their skill set to do what's direct assessment.

Direct

assessment is looking at the serious assessments of the health care situation

that our individual may be facing and assess a particular treatment that would

be beneficial to that person, keeps them healthy, ensures that they're more

productive and saves money for the health care system. That hasn't happened.

Mr.

Speaker, $11.6 million to increase for teaching services: We know about our

education system; we know we need to invest in our young people.

Infrastructure-wise, I think we've done wonderful over the last number of

decades: new schools, state of the art, all of the amenities that they should

have from social recreation to labs, all the things that were necessary, to also

addressing in schools services for special needs children and these types of

things.

Is there

still much more work to do? Without a doubt – without a doubt – but it has to,

again, be done based on the principle of talking to the people who have those

particular needs. We are hearing it from, at times, the NLTA about some of the

challenges that, yeah, money is being invested and that helps a small sector,

but there are other things that need to be done too, or that investment is

really not going to be as productive as you would have liked.

Let's

talk about the $3 million to increase the nursing seats for Memorial University.

That's great. We've been saying it for years, it should be done, it's necessary,

but while that discussion is going on, there is apprehension on the West Coast

about what's going to happened to the nursing school out there and the nursing

program. What's going to happen to the people from Labrador or the North Coast

or the West Coast who want to go to the nursing school at Memorial out in Corner

Brook?

There

have been some very tense discussions out there. I've had them with the mayor of

Corner Brook. I've had them with the mayor of other surrounding communities.

I've had them with health care professionals out there. I've had them with

councillors. They all have the same worry that there isn't stability in what

we're doing here. You don't help your health care system or any system if you

take one from this side and put it on that side. That doesn't add the ability to

perform or address a particular backlog. So there are some things around that.

While it's all welcome, we are again saying it doesn't address particular needs

that may be there.

Mr.

Speaker, $21 million for a province-wide radio systems: We know that. That's

welcomed, but we laughed because we know where the money came from. We know it

was taken from somebody else who sees the value of it, needed it for their

organization and their long-term investment. We know. The money was taken back,

so we're not even going to dispute that. We're disappointed that while that's an

investment, taking credit for that investment, when it's really not, it's money

that came from another pot of funding. We know that.

Mr.

Speaker, $1 million additional funds for Newfoundland and Labrador Search and

Rescue: I will nod that. I talked to the search and rescue people and that is a

welcomed investment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL:

A very much-welcomed investment, long over due. Probably one of 200 things I

could vote for in the budget at this point, but that's long over due.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible) new school.

D. BRAZIL:

We'll get to that new school in a minute. Long overdue.

There is

$25 million for the connectivity incentives, including broadband and cellular –

great. The problem with that is, from our perspective, and I was at the press

conference – I crashed the press conference in Corner Brook, got great play, I

got to thank my Liberal colleagues federally and provincially for inviting me

right up to the front of it, and giving me all the information. I had a grand

conversation; it was good – and welcomed it. And did thank the federal MPs that

it was a good initiative.

Until I

found out that the timelines to have it implemented are going to be years down

the road – years down the road. We've got communities now that are dying for

proper broadband connection – dying for it. I thought we were coming, and there

were 25 companies going to start tomorrow, there were towers going to go up and

there are booster programs and services put in play to do it. And then I find

out, no, no, this is the first stage. Like a lot of things that we've noticed

here, they get announced well in advance of them actually being implemented. And

that gets people's hopes up, like all of it –

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

D. BRAZIL:

I even came out to thank him.

I'll be honest, my own people advised me about not going to it. I said: B'ys, if

it's a good announcement, why wouldn't I go and say well done? Particularly when

I heard one of the communities that is going to benefit from it is one of the

communities in my district on Bell Island: Wabana. I said: Well, that'll be

great; that's wonderful. Now I can't wait to see, so I can go back and tell our

constituents: Hold off, you'll be able to get cell service; you'll be able to

get your broad – you're not spending $350 monthly because you've got sticks and

cards and everything else that you have to buy.

Then I

find out I guess it'll be a long time before they're going to be able to be

serviced at that level. So there were some challenges around that. While we

welcome it, we do ask, there has to be a way to push this a lot quicker. When

you're going to have these partnerships with the federal government, have a time

frame that moves it to the next level. So we need it moved very quickly.

Mr.

Speaker, $4.7 million to advance the cause of reconciliation in Newfoundland and

Labrador. Again, another applauding. As the critic for Labrador and Indigenous

Affairs, very much support that – very much support it. But we need to move that

along. That dialogue, that discussion needs to be done, so that we can have an

understanding and co-operation. So if there areas where we need closure, that we

can get closure for Indigenous communities, and support what needs to be done

there.

So while

there's money being announced, we're not seeing the attachment that here's our

time frames and here's how we're going to move this out. Here's what's going to

happen. So there are things like that we're cognizant of saying why we have some

struggles with this budget.

Speaker,

$27.4 million to continue construction of the Corner Brook hospital. Well, we

know the dialogue on the Corner Brook hospital, and we're not in any way, shape

or form saying that that facility is not needed and not going to be beneficial

to the people of the West Coast, and all of this province, as part of it. But we

know there are some challenges around what's going to be offered in it, how it's

going to be staffed, what are going to be the subcontracts out around, where are

the amenities going to be. Are they going to be four kilometres down; are they

going to be in another community? There are still some struggles around what's

happening there.

So part

of what we're also asking, be a little bit more open and transparent with people

when you're putting the money out there and selling this is what we're going to

do. People will accept it or they won't accept it, but if there's a rationale

for it, it is what it is. And if it can be justified, then it's much easier for

all of us to move on and then go to the next issue that we need to deal with as

part of that process.

Twenty

million in new funding to support our tourism, hospitality, arts and cultural

industries. Not an argument in the world will you hear from this side of the

House about investing in either one of those sectors. From my perspective, out

of all these sectors in Newfoundland and Labrador – and I know other ones

generated a lot more money in certain areas, the oil and gas and the mineral

industry and some of the other tech industries – but the potential to quadruple

an industry in Newfoundland and Labrador is in those industries, in our tourism

industry and our cultural industry. We've seen already what we're doing in the

TV production industry and the movie and film industry, very much so. So you

won't hear criticism on that at all. Very supportive of that, very much so. So

we applaud it.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

D. BRAZIL:

It wasn't your going; it was

your coming back was the issue.

No, we

welcome that. Listen, we know there are investments that have to be done, but

there are also timely investments, and sometimes the timely investment is not

the time to do it, unfortunately. I