May 12, 2022
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. L No. 53
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
Before
we begin our session, I'd like to take a moment again to thank all Members for
joining us this morning to participate in the Moose Hide Campaign.
A
special thank you again to Inuit Elder and respected healer, artist and
educator, Dr. Jean Crane, who led us in reflection this morning. We are one of
two legislatures across the country that are participating, and this year marks
our fifth consecutive year involved in the Moose Hide Campaign.
Moose
Hide Campaign is an Indigenous-led initiative that stands up against violence
towards women and children. It is a valuable opportunity for learning and
reconciliation. While it is an Indigenous-led initiative, it shows all Canadians
how to add their voice to the call to put an end to domestic and gender-based
violence.
Today,
the Members are wearing their moose hide pins to signify our commitment to
honour, respect and protect women and children in our lives and to work together
on this important initiative.
So thank
you again, Members, for participating.
Statements by
Members
SPEAKER:
Today we will hear statements
by the hon. Members for the Districts of Placentia West - Bellevue, Topsail -
Paradise, Labrador West and Humber - Bay of Islands.
The hon.
the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. Chamber today to recognize and congratulate Mr. Ross Murley and Mr.
George Shave from Marystown in our beautiful District of Placentia West -
Bellevue, on receiving the Emergency Medical Services Exemplary Service Medal.
Ross
Murley has dedicated 30 years of his life to emergency medical services. Ross
has given so much of his time to his neighbours, community and province
throughout the years. His pride for his community and his willingness to help
his neighbour is always on full display.
George
Shave has dedicated 35 years to emergency medical services. In addition to
working on the ambulance, George also dedicated many years of service to the
Marystown Volunteer Fire Department and the Burin Peninsula Ground Search and
Rescue.
The
vital service that our paramedics, like Ross and George, provide cannot go
unnoticed. They are always ready and willing to take on any call that comes
their way, as it may mean saving somebody's life.
I ask
all hon. Members and colleagues to join me in thanking Ross Murley and George
Shave for all their years of service to their neighbours and community and
congratulate them on their well-deserved Exemplary Service Medals.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I would
like to congratulate the Kin Club of Paradise for all the good they do within
the District of Topsail - Paradise. Last week, during a ceremony at the Paradise
Double Ice Complex they were named Volunteer Group of the Year. Kin member Mary
Anne Dillon was also named Volunteer of the Year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P. DINN:
With a current membership of
seven dedicated volunteers, they have made a huge impact and are well known and
respected within the community. They raise funds through various ticket draws,
online auctions, bingo and other various activities. All monies raised go back
into the community in the form of food hampers, school supplies, clothing, gift
cards and anywhere that there is a need.
In the past few months, the Kin Club of Paradise has
provided over 50 food hampers, and the need continues to grow. They are also the
proud major sponsor of the 905 Viking Royal Canadian Air Cadets.
Besides being known for their service work, the club is
big on fellowship. Having fun through service is what keeps them motivated year
after year and they form lifelong friendships.
Speaker, I wish to thank the Kin Club of Paradise for
all the good they do and continue to do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Labrador West.
J.
BROWN:
I
rise today to give recognition to Colette Pickett-Beals of Mission Kitty Inc.
Mission Kitty was started in 2016 in memory of her cat
Jingles. Mission Kitty is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to helping the
control of overpopulation of cats in Newfoundland and Labrador. Over the last
six years, Colette has helped a number of rescue groups and shelters across this
province with vet bills, purchasing medical supplies and food.
Thanks to Colette, she has raised over $200,000 through
online auctions and different events. She's helped over 300 families in Labrador
adopt a rescue cat and helped countless animals who need medical attention.
Mission Kitty started as a small Facebook group and continues to grow every day.
Colette is an inspiration and a kind member of our
community, and we are excited for Colette and watch her with admiration as her
passion for helping rescues shines through with each mission she accomplishes.
I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating
Colette Pickett-Beals on her accomplishment and thank her for helping countless
rescue animals and rescue groups across this province.
Thank you, Collette.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, as we all know, volunteers are the heart of every community and
their continued dedication and commitment is immeasurable. Today, I would like
to recognize one of these great volunteers.
Audrey Park of Gillams has been a long-time volunteer
with the town. Over the years, she has been involved with the Girl Guides and
Brownies, a member of the Gillams Winter Carnival Committee and participates in
the annual Canadian Cancer Society's Daffodil Campaign.
Audrey is an active member of the St. James Church and
has served in many roles, including churchwarden and a member of the ACW. She
has been involved with the Sunday school program and confirmation classes. She
helps with fundraising for the church and, heading into the Christmas season,
she collects knitted goods for the Jesse Tree, which is then delivered to the
Women's Centre before Christmas.
One of Audrey's treasured causes is doing her part for
Operation Christmas Child. Every year, she collects shoeboxes filled with little
gifts for the children in developing countries. In Audrey's words: “This is a
big part of what Christmas means to me.”
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in recognizing Audrey and thanking her for
her contribution to her town.
Well
done, Audrey.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Speaker, I rise in this hon.
House today to highlight significant investments this year of approximately $140
million to improve housing affordability and prevent homelessness throughout
Newfoundland and Labrador.
These
investments will support the operation, repair and renovation of our public
rental housing and provide affordable homes as well as heat subsidies for almost
12,000 low-income individuals and families.
Rental
assistance programs will also support over 2,000 individuals and families find
safe, affordable homes in the private rental market. Over 50 per cent of these
clients are seniors. Launched this past November, the new $74 million
Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Benefit will expand portable rental
assistance in the private market for an additional 800 households over the next
six years.
Our home
repair program will support low-income homeowners throughout the province, most
of whom are seniors, by assisting them to complete needed repairs and
accessibility modifications to remain in their own homes.
Investments will also provide emergency accommodations and supports for those
experiencing homelessness or fleeing intimate partner violence.
In this
regard, recently, we announced a significant cost-shared investment of $20.2
million to support the construction of 132 affordable housing units here in the
St. John's area.
Speaker,
we remain committed to working in partnership with federal, municipal and
Indigenous governments, as well as our many community partners throughout the
province to ensure all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have a place to call
home.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
I would like to thank the
minister for the advance copy of his statement.
Minister, I join you in recognizing the need for affordable housing investments;
however, it's only a band-aid on a large cut.
I
welcome the monies for repairs and renovations of public rental housing and heat
subsidies for 12,000 low-income individuals and families; however, is it enough
to allow people to remain in their house during the winter?
It's
great monies that are available to assist with needed repairs and modifications
to remain in their own homes; however, remaining in their own homes will require
a home heat rebate program.
I
commend you for providing emergency accommodations for those experiencing
homelessness or fleeing intimate partner violence, and I also commend you for
constructing affordable housing options.
In
closing, Minister, I agree, all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador should
have a place to call home and government needs to ensure necessary measures are
taken to allow our seniors, our homeless, our single moms, our low-income
families and our hard-working citizens to afford the place they call home.
Thank
you, Speaker.
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. We welcome these
investments into affordable housing, but we also call on government to go much
further to meet the staggering demand.
Please
renovate the many vacant publicly owned units and expand the existing NLHC
housing stock across the province instead of expanding the portable housing
benefit. Also, please bring in legislation that enforces standards on landlords
to whom we pay money for on behalf of our constituents.
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.
Yesterday, the Premier said, and I quote: “… I believe we are doing a good job
….” These are the Premier's words.
Does the
Premier believe that the senior who is thinking about giving up her car and her
independence because she cannot afford gasoline thinks he's doing a good job?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Of
course, we empathize and sympathize with the individuals and the anxiety that
the cost of living has provoked for them around our province, Mr. Speaker, but
specifically to seniors. We've provided a 10 per cent increase. We've offered
$142 million to address the cost of living. Unfortunately, the cost of living is
beyond our control, whether it's the push and pull of the externalities of
inflation or the war in Europe. Every jurisdiction across the country and indeed
around the world is facing the price of gas and the inflationary pressures
coming out of the pandemic.
We are
always looking at other creative levers and we'll continue to do so, but we
empathize and appreciate the anxieties that this is causing in the people and
across the province, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
And I
appreciate the Premier's view, but empathy won't help this lady, action will
help this lady.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL:
Speaker, yesterday we heard
the shocking news from NAPE president Jerry Earle that there are only 87 open
hospital beds left in the province. Between the health care crisis and the cost
of living crisis, the people of our province are at their breaking point.
Does the
Premier believe that people who are waiting in a hospital hallway because there
aren't enough staff to put patients in acute care beds feel the Premier is doing
a good job?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
We have
seen significant challenges in health care delivery in the acute care sector,
among others, exacerbated by COVID. We have worked with NAPE, with CUPE, the RNU
and the NLMA about solutions to address this. We have a recruitment and
retention ADM starting in the short and immediate term. We have worked with the
RNU to stabilize nursing supply on the floors with the aim of giving nurses
who've worked very hard for two years a break this summer.
We
recognize there are people on hallways. We recognize there are extras on units.
We're working to bring those numbers down.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
For
seven years the people of this province have asked the Liberal administration to
be proactive, not reactive and that's where we are again. That's why we're in a
crisis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL:
Speaker, the House sat late
into the night debating another Liberal tax on fuel.
Do the
people of the province who have to pay this additional tax believe you are doing
a good job?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
understand there was a robust debate last night, and one that's appreciated by
everybody in the province. As the Member opposite knows, this was an instrument
that was created three or four years ago. It was a made-in-Newfoundland solution
that prevented the carbon tax from going on things like agriculture products,
fishing vessels and home heat. So if we don't do this, Mr. Speaker, it triggers
a backstop. It kicks in; the feds are going to do it anyway, Mr. Speaker. This
is, again, beyond our control, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
Yesterday, the Finance Minister said, and I quote: Is it enough? Of course, it's
not enough, when speaking about her cost of living plan.
Does the
Premier agree the budget does not do enough to help people cope with the rising
cost of living?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you, Speaker.
I think,
Speaker, all of us recognize in this House how difficult it has been on the
people of this province. How difficult it has been on the people of Canada. How
difficult it has been on the people of the world. The cost of living is a
concern and so there is not enough that we can do to alleviate all the concerns
around the cost of living, but we have made a significant attempt at helping
people – $142 million.
Speaker,
we have lowered fees. We have lowered taxes. We have provided increases in the
Income Supplement and provided increases in the Seniors' Benefit. We have
provided, in the St. John's area, free bus passes. Speaker, we have done a
tremendous amount and we would always wish we could do more.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
Many
people are living paycheque to paycheque. Many are one-step away from not being
able to pay their bills. So many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are struggling
with the soaring cost of groceries, home heating fuel and gasoline. The people
of the province want action.
Why does
this Liberal administration only offer excuses?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the
minister said before, we are coming up with creative ways. We believe that we
have addressed this in a holistic way with $142 million. The Member opposite
talks about bills. We did look specifically at bills: electric bills, Mr.
Speaker.
We did a
$5.2-billion deal to ensure that those electricity rates, those bills to the
people of the province, to the businesses of the province, didn't double, Mr.
Speaker. So talk about mitigating the cost of living, that is a mitigation of
the cost of living.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
Well,
what was negotiated was our own money, parts of it coming back to us – not
everything that we should be entitled to – from his friends in Ottawa.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL:
Yesterday I asked the Premier
if there would be a freeze on freight transportation rates for coastal Labrador
this summer, but he refused to answer. The province is facing a cost-of-living
crisis and coastal Labrador is particularly vulnerable.
I ask
the Premier yet again: Will residents on the North Coast be forced to pay more
for essentials because of this cost of living and their inaction?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation, and Labrador Affairs.
L. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I am
pleased to see the Member raise Labrador and the issues in Labrador; it is
something that is near and dear to my heart and I always look forward to working
closely with the leadership in those communities for the betterment of
Labradorians.
What I
can tell the hon. Member is the rates this summer will be the same as they were
last summer and that was the same as they were the summer before and the summer
before.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Speaker, it would take
changing four words in the legislation to prevent sexual assault victims from
having to reveal their identities in a civil case. The minister says he will
consider it; we, in the Opposition, want to see it happen now.
I ask
the minister: Will you commit to getting this legislative change done before the
end of the House sitting?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you, Speaker, and thank
you for the question.
Yes, we
have committed to looking at that issue; it is a very important issue. We don't
want to see victims have to be retraumatized as they go through the court
process. Court processes are difficult on any day; trust me, I have been through
a lot and it is hard on people, and I can only imagine how hard it is on
individuals who have been victimized through sexual assault or other domestic
violence situations.
We have
also said that we need to talk to stakeholders, members of the bar in this
province, the judges' association and other groups to talk about how best to do
this. I can assure you that it is not as simple as words in the legislation
because there is rules of court that need to be changed as well. There is a
committee of the Law Society that deals with the rules of court. So we do need
to be a bit more expansive rather than just rushing it tomorrow just to change
four words; it is much more complicated than that.
But I
don't care that it is complicated, we're still going to look at it and we're
going to do it right when it is time to do it.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Speaker, consultations
have already happened with the Intimate
Images Protection Act. This is all about gender-based violence. Surely, this
issue, we know it has been raised for years. Any more time left waiting for
change means keeping barriers in place for victims. We have the political will;
I am more than willing to work with the minister on consultations. There is no
reason this can't be done quickly.
Why is
the minister allowing barriers for sexual assault
survivors to remain in place?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
J.
HOGAN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I guess I'll just repeat what I said to the question.
It is the same question. It does take some time to make sure we do it right. It
is not as simple as just snapping your fingers and adding a couple of words to a
piece of legislation. We have seen that happen in the House before when
legislation is rushed through and it can end up in a disaster. I don't want any
disaster to face any women who deal with this court process and it is very
difficult for them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
J.
HOGAN:
It
has been hard enough – it is unacceptable that it happened in the first place
and it is unacceptable if they have to go through extra traumatization in the
court system if we can do something about it and we have committed to looking at
it to ensure that they don't have to. And it is their option of how they want to
deal with the situation and I think the women's groups as well, who have been
victimized, should have a say in this matter as well and not just me and one
Member in this House of Assembly.
Thank you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T.
WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Speaker.
Yesterday the Minister of Finance said she was
considering a home heat rebate for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I say to the minister: No more excuses; when will you
implement the home heat rebate?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S.
COADY:
Thank you, Speaker.
As the Member opposite knows and as the people of the
province know we do have a program called Income Supplement, as well as the
Seniors' Benefit, that the home heat rebate was rolled into back in 2016. That
program was, in 2014-15, worth $60 million. It is now worth $137 million,
Speaker. So we are returning double the amount of money back to people.
What I did refer yesterday is yes, we will always
consider programs to support the people of the province. We recognize that the
cost of living is continuing to be a challenge. As I have said publicly for the
last week, as the Premier said publicly we will certainly look at everything
that we can do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T.
WAKEHAM:
Speaker, as we have said in the past, the time for looking is passed. It is time
for actually taking some action and doing some stuff. So, again, people need the
price of gasoline to go down.
I ask the minister: She has many tax experts in the
department; has she consulted with her tax experts to find ways to reduce the
tax on gasoline?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S.
COADY:
Thank you, Speaker.
As the Member opposite knows and the people of the
province know, we have put in $142 million of measures to help address the cost
of living. We are still seeing this as a concern and, as we move towards fall,
we will see what our fiscal situation is as to whether or not we can do a little
bit more, Speaker.
We are borrowing the $142 million that our children and
our grandchildren will have to repay, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
S.
COADY:
So
we have to be very responsible. I will say yes, I consult every day with my
officials in my department. We discuss the tax system and how we can work it. I
have said in this House before that the lever of the provincial gas tax, we have
already provided back to the people of the province. We collect $141 million; we
have provided back
$142 million.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Speaker, the minister has
admitted that what she has in her budget right now is just not enough. The
people of Newfoundland and Labrador say it's just not enough, and I'd be more
than willing to come over and sit with the minister and her officials and go
through the $9-billion budget and find ways to address the issue without
increasing the deficit.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
T. WAKEHAM:
So I ask the minister: No
more excuses, listen to your own advice when you said it's not enough, and talk
about when will we have home heat rebate program for the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'll not
be schooled by the Member opposite, who said in this House that he would take
the $70 million that we have in employment in this province, the $70 million
that we're waiting for positions to be filled, and he would take that money. So
imagine, Speaker, $70 million in employment. How many jobs that would be? And
he's already said he would take that money and use it elsewhere.
I would
say to the Member opposite, we're doing everything that we can do, $142 million
we've already returned, and no, I'm not in favour of losing jobs in this
province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Speaker, I feel obligated to
correct the minister.
I'm not
talking about eliminating jobs. The $70 million she has is a surplus for the
last three years because the people find the public service no longer to be an
employer of choice.
Why has
she failed to fill the jobs in the public service for the last three years?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Speaker, in core government,
we have 7,500 skilled professionals. This is a very honourable profession, and
I'm very proud of the 7,500 individuals who are in the public service. I'll say
that again, very proud.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
S. COADY:
I will say that what I will
not do is remove from the boards the advertising positions that may go unfilled
because we're advertising for them – someone retires, we have to put them up on
the boards, we have to put them out there for the people of the province to look
at and see whether or not they would like to apply for those positions. Yes,
it's a timing issue. If I take them off the board, if I do not fill those
positions, that is a job loss.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
our office is hearing from post-secondary students who are finding it
increasingly difficult to travel to school due to high gas prices. Specifically,
students who cannot afford to pay rent in St. John's are travelling back and
forth to MUN and CNA from elsewhere on the Avalon, and have seen their fuel
bills double.
Speaker,
why is the minister supporting another tax increase that would place more
hardships on these students?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education.
T. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Any
student in this province from Newfoundland and Labrador can apply for student
grants –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
T. OSBORNE:
– or student loans. Mr.
Speaker, we have one of, I would say, the most attractive grant and loan program
in the entire country. We've enhanced it in this year's budget starting for
students this September. In fact, the loans that students get in this province,
once they graduate, they qualify for full forgiveness on those loans.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
So I guess students have to
get student loans now to get to school – pretty good. I think they should invest
in peddle bikes for everybody.
Speaker,
tuition is up, food costs are up, rents are up and gas prices have exploded,
with the minister ready to impose more Liberal taxes on fuel.
Why is
the minister not offering students in this province anything other than further
tax increases?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education.
T. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, we've enhanced,
again, the grants and loan programs this year. It is, as I said, the most
attractive in the country, with student loans being fully forgivable. So yes, a
student would get a loan, but if they complete their course load and they
graduate, they are entitled for full student loan forgiveness in this province.
That is an incentive to ensure that they complete their course load and
graduate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
If for some reason they don't
complete it, they're still on the hook for all that money, so it's still
conditions.
Speaker,
yesterday the minister blamed towns and Metrobus for lack of a bus pass program
outside St. John's. Many small businesses provide communities with daily bus
service to St. John's, which has increased substantially in cost due to higher
fuel expenses.
Why is
the minister making excuses for not supporting rural transportation services?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Thank you, Speaker, for the
opportunity to respond to the Member.
Following from yesterday, a couple of things: Obviously, we expanded the bus
program here in the St. John's-Metro area, including Paradise and Mount Pearl.
We also have a community bus transportation program, and we are supporting
communities in Bay St. George, Benoit's Cove, also in terms of Twillingate,
Happy Valley-Goose Bay and other communities throughout the province. We are
open to more applications from more communities to make sure we can support them
in their transportation needs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Nearly 200 communities in
this province; that's not a very long list, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker,
it's disgraceful the minister is picking and choosing which seniors can avail of
this program, yet here they are voting to place additional Liberal taxes on a
fuel, which will then be passed on to consumers.
Speaker,
does the minister realize there's life beyond the overpass?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Well, Speaker, a very simple
answer to that would be –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
J. ABBOTT:
– yes, I do, and yes, we do,
and I can continue on with the list of communities that we are supporting with
our Community Transportation Program.
The
point I want to make here is that as communities are addressing their
transportation needs for the seniors and others, we're there to support them and
we have an open application process. We will be out very soon to make sure we
get those applications and we'll support them. That's the direction we're
heading.
As I
said yesterday, I'd like to see Conception Bay South address their
transportation needs and we'll support them in that as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Speaker, many seniors in our
province are at the breaking point: Having to decide between turning up the heat
and putting food on the table. As these seniors struggle with the soaring cost
of living, they only get excuses from this Liberal government.
I ask
the minister: Has he asked the Seniors' Advocate to look at options to offer
more help to our seniors?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Again, Speaker, thank you,
and I thank the Member for the question.
A couple
of things here: One, is we have our seniors' policy office. Obviously, it's
working closely with the community in identifying and addressing the needs for
our seniors' community. We have our Provincial Advisory Council on Aging and
Seniors who I meet with regularly to make sure we get a good sense of what is
happening for seniors and getting the advice and recommendations from them. And
obviously, we have the Seniors' Advocate office and we'll be in a position, I
think, shortly to make sure the Advocate is in place. Meanwhile, we're working
with that office while we can address the issues coming forward.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Speaker, I just got the
answer I guess I was looking for, because without a Seniors' Advocate appointed
this Liberal government is ignoring the impact of high prices on seniors. It's
been almost a year that this office has sat vacant. This government clearly does
not want to hear the concerns of seniors if they keep the office they created
vacant.
When
will a Seniors' Advocate be appointed?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Speaker, thank you again for
the opportunity to respond.
Again,
in the five-point plan we are addressing the current needs of seniors when it
comes to cost of living, and the Minister of Finance is committed to looking at
other options as we go forward during the course of the year.
When it
comes to the appointment of the Seniors' Advocate, which is a valued Officer of
this House, that will be addressed in very short order.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
municipalities across the province are struggling with higher fuel costs –
everything from furnace oil to diesel. But municipalities currently have their
budgets in place, and they're not allowed to run additional taxes during the
year. They're also not allowed to run deficits.
Speaker,
what are the struggling municipalities supposed to do?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Thank you, Speaker, and I
appreciate the opportunity to answer the question.
We fully
recognize the impacts that the current economic situation is having on
municipalities, and with that in mind, we were pleased to be able to secure $22
million – actually, not less than $22 million for the next three years to
support municipalities. And in such a volatile environment that predictability
and stability is going to give municipalities the ability to move forward with
projects that matter to them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
K. HOWELL:
In the big picture, Speaker,
we are working on initiatives that can create sustainable communities and keep
communities viable. And that's part of our plan for regionalization. We're
working on that as we speak; the analysis is still being conducted because I'm
not prepared to come forward with a plan that's half-baked, I do want to have
something that's reasonable and appropriate and it's going to take some time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Speaker, I wouldn't expect a
plan that's half-baked, and I know the minister wouldn't put one forward. But I
do know that MOGs have not increased for the past number of years. So there's
many communities facing staff layoffs; they are currently having service
reductions, and are cancelling programs at a municipal level.
Again,
when is the minister going to offer additional assistance to struggling
municipalities?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Thank you, Speaker.
Again, I
reiterate, we understand the struggles that communities are managing at this
time, and we've done work to make sure that we have this stable funding in place
for communities. In addition to that, we're also working with $2 million in
special assistance grants; we have $4.9 million for community enhancement
programs; we have $112 million in a Canada Community-Building Fund; $73 million
for infrastructure projects; $32 million for provincial municipal infrastructure
projects; and along with that, we have a number of measures that have been
identified in the Budget 2022 that
ensures money stays in the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
And any
money in the pockets of community members is money in the pockets of the
municipality.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
a paramedic on the Connaigre Peninsula is speaking out about hospital diversions
in the region, which is adding hours to emergency trips. She said – and I quote
– “… if you could get them to Harbour Breton, they had a chance.” She further
says, “… your patient's chances of survival is diminishing ….”
I ask
the minister: Does he agree with this paramedic that a patient's chance of
survival is now diminished in the Harbour Breton area?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
We have
certainly seen significant challenges in recruitment and retention of health
care personnel; paramedics and family physicians have been chief amongst our
concerns, as well as nurses. We have taken steps to address them.
I am
pleased to inform the House that the emergency room in Harbour Breton is no
longer on diversion. In terms of paramedics in communities, they have the
ability to contact Online Medical Control Services for advice and can arrange
intercepts from higher skill levels from regional centres.
I take
the Member's point, the diversion is over and the service has been restored.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
NAPE
president has stated – and I quote – “Despite what the Minister of Health says,
our healthcare system and the workers that make it happen are at a breaking
point.”
I ask
the minister: Does he agree with NAPE that our front-line health care workers
are at a breaking point?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
Certainly, over the course of the last few months I have had several meetings,
personally, with Mr. Earle and some of his members, some of whom were
paramedics, as well as the Registered Nurses' Union and other Allied Health
Professionals. It is very clear that COVID has taken a toll on them,
particularly this last wave.
We have
taken significant steps to try and mitigate that. We have increased the number
of graduates in our paramedic program. We have increased – actually repatriated
the ACP program. We increased the number of LPN seats by 90 per cent two years
ago, so those classes have graduated and are now all employed. We increased the
number of PCA enrolment by 70 per cent; they have had two classes graduated and
they are all employed.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
many people in Newfoundland and Labrador are crying out for help, real help,
including those who do not fit the narrow criteria for the supports that this
Liberal government have put in place.
I ask
the minister: Will she commit to putting in place more measures that help a
larger range of people who are hurting in this province right now?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you, Speaker.
I will
say that we tried to create a broad brush of the supports that we provided. We
provided 10 per cent increases to the Income Supplement, 10 per cent increase to
the Seniors' Benefit and we've provided additional monies for income support. We
sent them a cheque for either $200 or $400. That roughly impacted about 160,000
individuals in the province, 160,000 people.
Then we
went further and we added anybody who has a vehicle in this province has a 50
per cent reduction in the fees. Anybody who has, for example, either home
insurance, they get a 15 per cent reduction or the elimination of the tax on
insurance. So we created a program that was a wide swath.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Speaker, I ask the minister:
Will she commit to rising the home heating rebate, offering it to more people
and then removing the HST on electricity for those who do not heat their homes
with oil? Will she actually commit to actually helping more people?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you, Speaker.
I think
I've been very clear that we're trying to help as many people in the province as
possible. That's why the measures that we've brought in, first of all, help the
most vulnerable. Then, we wanted to help more people in the province. Certainly,
we'll take it and see what we can do as we progress through this year, but we've
already provided $142 million in assistance to the people of the province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Speaker, the minister spoke
yesterday about securing the future for our children and our grandchildren.
I ask
the minister: Since our province has the lowest effective corporate tax rate in
all of Canada, will she commit today to raising and increasing the taxes to help
future generations and help more people?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm not
sure where he's getting his information from, but we don't have the lowest tax
in the country. I wish in a lot of ways we were able to lower our taxes and
create and stimulate more job opportunities. But I will say that we are
balancing within our fiscal framework the provision of taxes to provide for the
provision of goods and services and support to the people of the province. We'll
continue with those measures, Speaker. We'll continue to work very, very hard to
generate growth in our economy.
We've
certainly seen that growth with increased employment in more retail sales, I
mentioned to you most recently, and, of course, the work that my hon. colleague
has been doing in the Industry, Energy and Technology has been outstanding.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Speaker, I ask the minister:
Will she commit to bold solutions such as regional transportation programs, even
a subsidy for taxis for people coming in from outside of the city or any other
needs for transportation? Will she help more people?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
I thank the Member opposite
for his passionate question. We're trying to help as many people in this
province as possible.
I listen
to my hon. colleague Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development talk
about expanding transit programs and he will be happy to speak about expanding
transit programs around the province. It is something that I think he would be
very interested in discussing with other jurisdictions.
I would
say here in the City of St. John's, Mount Pearl and Paradise we were able to
give bus passes to those who are most vulnerable. That has been, I think, a big
help to those families but we will continue to do what we can to help as many
people in this province as possible.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I ask
the minister: Will she commit to using the revenue the government receives from
the sugar tax to put directly towards subsidizing healthy food for the people of
this province? Will she help more people?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you, Speaker.
We
certainly have committed to using any money that is raised through the sugar tax
to support healthy living in this province. It is the goal of this government.
That is one of the big levers that we want to move in the next five to 10 years.
We have very poor outcomes for our health in this province, we realize that and
we are trying to make it better.
I hear
the Members opposite talk about diabetes in this province. One of the big
drivers of diabetes, of course, in Type 2 is sugar consumption. That's why we
have introduced this tax and we certainly have committed to putting it back into
improving health.
Like,
for example, in this budget we have doubled the budget for, I think it is, the
School Lunch program.
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 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
this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, May 16, 2022.
SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
reason for this petition is as follows:
Roads in
our province are in various states of disrepair and it is throughout the
province. Many rural communities are concerned that the deplorable conditions
will keep visitors away from this year's celebrations for Come Home Year.
We are
inviting the world to come to our province this summer, yet many rural roads are
unfit to travel and many vehicles are damaged by huge potholes, unrepaired
washouts, uneven shoulders, and the signage is deplorable. This is a real
deterrent to the tourists and the family members from our province who wish to
join in our celebrations this summer.
Therefore, we petition the House of Assembly as follows: To urge the Government
of Newfoundland and Labrador to increase the Provincial Roads Program budget to
address the need for repairs of many rural roads in our province.
Speaker,
this is coming to me daily. I mean, I've got 36 towns in my district, 16 fire
departments that all have to travel over these roads. A lot of them got pavement
many years ago and haven't got so much as a culvert replaced since. Places like
Jean de Baie, places like Rock Harbour, Spanish Room, Terrenceville, Grand Le
Pierre, English Harbour East, Chance Cove, Fairhaven, just to name a few.
Like I
said, I'm just going off the top of my head of ones that are almost impassable.
Like I said, it's nice to see that we're inviting the world, but I've got a
world-renowned trail down in Chance Cove and the most challenging part of the
trail is getting your car to the base of the trail in order to enjoy the trail.
The
roads are deplorable, they need fixing and they need some work. Like I said, I
went through the engageNL process on behalf of the residents of my district and
the towns of my district, and I had 186 submissions, Mr. Speaker – I had 186
submissions.
So to
say that our roads are in good shape is far from the truth. While I do commend
the workmanship that is done by our depots, I appreciate the fact of the work
that they are doing, but they are overburdened and we need to get some of these
contracts out, get the roads repaired before we start inviting people to our
province.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure for a response.
E. LOVELESS:
Just a quick response. The
crowd across the way always talk about doing it different. I say to the Member,
you got up; you listed everything that was wrong. You should have had on your
list what we've gotten right. Because we've invested a lot of money into your
district, so I just want to point that out. If you want to do it right, say it
right.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Exploits.
P. FORSEY:
Thank you, Speaker.
Residents of the Exploits District have great concerns from the result of the
24-hour emergency service cut to the Dr. Hugh Twomey Health Care Centre in
Botwood. All residents feel that the 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
P. FORSEY:
– service does not adequately
and efficiently address the emergency requirements of this district affecting
both patients and residents to receive adequate care when needed.
We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to restore the 24-hour emergency service at the Dr.
Hugh Twomey Health Care Centre immediately.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
It's
hard to hear the petition.
The hon.
the Member for Exploits.
P. FORSEY:
Thank you, Speaker. Again,
thank you for your protection.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P. FORSEY:
In 2016, the Liberal
government, of course, stripped the 24-hour emergency service at the Dr. Hugh
Twomey Health Care Centre. Two more elections after that, two more promises to
reinstate the 24-hour emergency service at the Dr. Hugh Twomey Health Care
Centre. They can come out and make promises during the elections; they can't
keep their promises.
Now they
have the Health Accord and the health authority and they can divert back to
those people and use those for fillers, but they did not promise the 24-hour
emergency service, the Liberal government did. The minister knows himself that
the emergency service at the regional hospital at Grand Falls-Windsor right now
is busting at the seams. They have people out in the hallways.
Please
open the 24-hour emergency service at the Botwood Hugh Twomey centre and take
the stress off the Grand Falls-Windsor health care centre so that people can be
looked at in adequate times and efficiently at the Dr. Hugh Twomey Health Care
Centre.
We'd
like to get a response from that minister and I'd like to see you come out –
I'll go down with you – to cut the ribbon at the long-term care unit at the Hugh
Twomey centre and we can officially open the 24-hour service.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Once
again, I present a petition on behalf of the seniors and the residents of
Labrador West to support them.
The
reason for the petition:
The need
for 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 homes in order to afford to live, or receive adequate
care. Additional housing options, including assisted living care facilities,
like those found throughout the rest of the province for seniors have become a
requirement for Labrador West. The requirement is currently not being met.
WHEREAS
the seniors of our province are entitled to peace and comfort in their homes
where they spent a lifetime contributing to its prosperity and growth; and –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
It's
almost impossible to hear the Member speak.
The hon.
the Member for Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
WHEREAS
the means for the increasing number of senior residents in Labrador West to
happily age in place are currently not available in the 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 and provide affordable housing options for seniors and
assisted care living facilities like those elsewhere.
Mr.
Speaker, once again I have to say the people of Labrador West are looking for
this. They want this; they've been asking for years. There have been reports
done. This is something that needs to be done, and it's something that's
extremely serious. It needs to be taken seriously by the government.
Once
again, we're just asking that we be treated equally like the rest of this
province, and have seniors not have to move 600 to 1,000 kilometres away, away
from their families, their children, their grandchildren, their friends and
family. You don't expect it anywhere else in this province, but it happens to
us, and we just do not feel that we're being treated equally when it comes to
seniors' care.
So I ask
that we take this seriously, take a serious look at it because, you know, we're
all going to age at some point in time. I don't plan on leaving Labrador West
and, at some point; I am going to need care, my family and my parents
eventually. As I said, family moved away, unfortunately, when they reached their
senior years and other families too. We hear the stories, it is in the media and
they talk about it. So just start treating our region equally like the rest of
this province gets treated when looking for care.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I ask
Members again, it is next to impossible to hear the Member speaking so if you
want to have conversations, take them outside, please.
Thank
you.
The hon.
the Member for Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
Thank you, Speaker.
I think
the hon. Member for Labrador West has a little bit of time yet before he is
worried about the environment but good that he advocates for the seniors in his
area.
I have a
petition that I have presented before and it reads as follows:
With a
population in excess of 6,000 in the Bonavista area, there is a severe shortage
of child care options for young working families, which is leading to absences
from employment and a deep frustration that is being expressed far and wide.
We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately address the lack of regulated child
care facilities in the Bonavista area by being more respondent to the proposals
already submitted and creative with underutilized spaces that already exist
within the current K-to-12 system.
I don't
think, and I stand to be corrected, but to my knowledge and what's stated, there
are no regulated child care services on the Bonavista Peninsula. I know there
are other areas and I know that the government is intent on achieving, growing
and creating as many of these spaces as we possibly could. One indirect fallout
from it is that we have health care institutions in Bonavista with some young
staff and these young staff have children that they can't find child care
services for.
The
petition was presented to me and I would think there were probably as many as 60
to 80 signatures, many from the long-term care home, at the Golden Heights
Manor, and there were many from the Bonavista hospital. These people with young
children cannot find child care in the area. I know it is not as easy as that,
but we have two proposals submitted from the Bonavista area that maybe we can
give attention and work with those two proposals and bring it to fruition that
at least there are no work interruptions and there are no undue absences from
these working environments.
Both of
these environments I mentioned are not, I don't think, fully staffed or don't
have the support staff, the substitutes, to avail of. So if we want to keep
younger families in areas, which is a big centre in the Bonavista area, again
serving over 6,000 people, we need to make a good, strong, concerted effort in
the area. I do note in that, too, that we do have space at the local K-to-12
schools which may be able to be utilized in some capacity.
So I
present that again for the second time by just the fact of just bringing it to
the attention of government. Hopefully, it's something that we can do in
relatively short course.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
background to this position is as follows:
Route 10
on the Southern Avalon forms a large section of the Irish Loop. This is a
significant piece of infrastructure and is the main highway along the Irish
Loop. This highway plays a major role in the residential and commercial growth
of the region.
Therefore, we petition the House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned,
call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador that immediate brush cutting is required on Route 10 on the Southern
Shore Highway as large sections of brush along this highway are a significant
safety hazard for the high volume of travelling motorists who travel this
highway daily. This work is essential in the prevention of moose-vehicle
accidents along Route 10.
Last
week, I think, I was up in the Trepassey area to a meeting and when I was
driving through the district – and Trepassey was one area that I drove along –
the alders were growing out over the guardrail right now. And those alders
growing out over the guardrail, they don't even have any leaves on them yet. So
when they get the leaves on them the signs will be in the trees as well for
turns or sharp turns, they're not going to be visible in another two or three
weeks. Hopefully, we can get the minister to get up and to have a look at it.
The minister's not going to look at it, but somebody in the department to get up
and look at it.
Brush
cutting makes it easier for motorists also to spot moose along the highway. You
have to invest and do stuff in the area to keep this safe, not just when you're
paving roads. There are more areas that you could just cut some brush to make
the areas more visible and safer to drive. When you're cutting the brush you're
cleaning the ditches, you're clearing the drains and you're causing fewer
washouts. So we need to see some more maintenance in the area. Hopefully, it's
something that the minister can look at and try to solve.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
Speaker,
I call from the Order Paper, Motion 5.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Deputy Government House Leader, that under Standing Order 11(1) this House
not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Thursday, May 12, 2022.
SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion
carried.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Speaker, I call from the
Order Paper, Motion 4.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Deputy Government House Leader, that notwithstanding Standing Order 9 on
Tuesday, May 17, 2022, this House shall meet at 3 p.m. for Routine Proceedings
and to conduct Government Business and, if not earlier adjourned, the Speaker
shall then adjourn the House at midnight.
SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion
carried.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Motion 3 that this House concur in the report of the
Standing Orders Committee dated May 9, 2022.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'll
just speak to this very quickly. We previously concurred with a report of the
Standing Orders Committee in relation to Standing Order 63.
I move,
seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that the House concur in the
report of the Standing Orders Committee dated May 9, 2022.
SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion
carried.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
House has previously concurred on a report of the Standing Orders Committee in
relation to Standing Order 63, Private Member's Day. What we did was change
section 63(5) of the Standing Orders
and changed how long Members can speak to a private Member's resolution. We
reduced it from 15 minutes to 10 minutes for each Member, with the thinking
behind that, obviously, the fewer minutes each Member can speak, would allow
more Members to speak to each Member's private Member's resolution on
Wednesdays.
But we
made a mistake when we did that. We should have also amended section 63(6) of
the Standing Orders as well, which allows for debate to close right now at 4:45.
The person who introduces the private Member's motion is allowed to speak at
4:45, but, obviously, then if we have it at 4:45 and now only allowed to speak
for 10 minutes, we'll lose five minutes of debate.
So this
updated report, which we're asking the House to concur with today, the Standing
Orders Committee report dated May 9, 2022, will just simply change Standing
Order 63(6) from 4:45 o'clock to 4:50 o'clock on the day of the debate.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Yes, Speaker, that really
is just an administrative error, I believe, that had occurred and by redressing
the error that will provide the proper efficiency in the House.
So we
certainly have no issue with that. We think that's a necessary issue that has to
be addressed. So we agree and concur.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Lake
Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I was
just going to make sure that we had enough elaboration on it, because I think
it's a very good move. It's a good catch. As someone who watches closely the
PMRs on a Wednesday, I would like to say I think that the moves have been very
good, the 10-minute allocations, because we're often very limited, especially
the Independents in having an opportunity to speak. So by taking that five
minutes off each of those sessions and then catching it up with the wrap-up on
whoever's leading the PMR, I think is a very good move. I just want to thank all
those involved on the Standing Orders Committee.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
Seeing no other speakers, is
the House ready for the question?
All
those in favour of the motion, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion
carried.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper second reading of Bill 54.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Government House Leader, that Bill 54, An Act To Amend The
Income Tax Act, 2000, be now read a second time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 54, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, be now read a second time.
On
motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000.”
(Bill 54)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you, Speaker, for the
opportunity to speak today on this important bill.
We're
trying to achieve three things in these amendments to the Income Tax Act. The
first I'll just say generally is to introduce two new tax credits that were
outlined – and I'll get into details of them – in the budgetary process. The
second is really technical amendments to make sure that we have gender-neutral
language in this act. The third is, of course, technical amendments that have
been identified through the Canada Revenue Agency, which administers this act
for us, that we're both aligned federally and provincially in our acts.
So
that's really what we're trying to achieve in this bill today. Let me get into
the tax credits that were involved, that were available in
Budget 2022 to assist the business community. Of course, all of us
in this House of Assembly would like to ensure a robust economy and job creation
and that's why we've brought in these two new tax credits that
the
bill speaks to and then I will also speak about a third tax credit that was also
announced in budget.
The first of which I will talk about is the new 20 per
cent Green Technology Tax Credit for Canadian Controlled Private Corporations
that invest in equipment for energy conservation and clean energy generation,
use fuels for waste or make efficient use of fossil fuels. The maximum annual
credit is a million dollars per company, of which up to 40 per cent is a
refundable tax credit.
This is to purchase equipment that improves energy
consumption for example. And, as I said, it is an annual credit of up to a
million dollars and this is available to Canadian-controlled corporations that
are housed in Newfoundland and Labrador. We want to make sure that we are
enticing and encouraging people to move towards more green technology. For
example, if they are using wind or solar as part of their energy generation now
or if they are putting in place any kind of technology that will assist them to
ensuring that a clean energy generation or energy conservation within their
company.
So it is a good Green Technology Tax Credit. We have
been talking about in the last 24 hours, quite substantively, the need to
address climate change and the need to continuously ensure that we are greening
our companies and our technologies to ensure that they have an impact on climate
change and making sure that we are doing everything to address that very serious
issue.
The second is a new 10 per cent Manufacturing and
Processing Investment Tax Credit. That is for manufacturing, fishery, farming,
forestry sectors. Actually, it is to improve productivity and competitiveness,
employment – there is about 1,700 manufacturers and processors in the province,
Speaker, and they have been asking for this tax credit to help stimulate capital
investment. It also supports local competitiveness, productivity, exports,
employment and the transition to net zero.
This credit will be up to 40 per cent refundable for
Canadian-controlled corporations. So another really good tax measure that will
help ensure the competitiveness of our manufacturing and processing sector. I
know the Canadian Manufacturers' Association was very pleased and spoke quite
highly of the introduction of this tax credit when the budget was first
released. I appreciate their words and I appreciate the fact that they came to
see me and we worked together to be able to introduce this tax credit. It will
certainly be of help.
Now,
Speaker, in the budget I did speak to an All Spend Film and Video Production Tax
Credit. There are no changes required to the Income Tax Act. The changes are
already enacted under the Income Tax Act because we already have a tax incentive
program – besides this one, we have an equity program and another tax credit
program, and now an all spend program.
This is
to attract the larger foreign location and services productions to the province
and support local industry growth. That's why we've now introduced an All Spend
Film and Video Production Tax Credit. I will say it's kind of bittersweet for
me, because Paul Pope, who recently passed unexpectedly, was the one who was
instrumental in bringing this forward and saying, look, if we want to have more
Disney-like productions or any kind of a big productions that we've seen now,
this is how to attract them.
This is
common across jurisdictions. This 30 per cent tax credit will apply to total
qualified production costs incurred in the province. It is refundable for a
maximum annual amount of $10 million per project. Again, I will say this is not
in the legislation, but I wanted to bring it forward because these new tax
measures that we're talking about do help to improve our economy and to ensure
job creation and economic activity.
If you
combine the first two credits, the 20 per cent Green Technology Tax Credit, as
well as for companies operating in Newfoundland and Labrador, they could see as
much as a 30 per cent of their investment returned in tax credits. So quite
significant in terms of the Green Technology Tax Credit as well as the
manufacturing and processing investment.
Those
are the new tax credits that we brought forward in budget, very widely
appreciated and well received, I will say, and important, I think, for our
continued growth and diversity of our economy.
Also, in
this bill, we're going to see a number of technical amendments to align the
provincial act with the federal act. We have an agreement with the federal
government for the administration of the province's personal and corporate
income taxes, and the corporation's capital tax.
This tax
collection agreement requires the province will ensure, where appropriate, that
the provisions of the provincial Income Tax Act and regulations that relate to
the administration, enforcement and collection of these taxes are similar to the
provisions of the federal act, and its regulations.
These
are generally routine amendments to the provincial tax act, as requested by
Canada Revenue Agency. They are technical amendments to the tax legislation that
are routinely made by all provinces subsequent to amendments to the federal act
to maintain alignment. They really have no financial impacts and no impacts on
taxpayers; so I will make that clear and make sure that no one is concerned
about that.
Several
clauses in the bill are being introduced retroactively to ensure consistency
with the administration by the Canada Revenue Agency as they have been
administrating as though the changes were already in place so that there was no
impact on taxpayers. Also, because the tax system has been operating as though
these amendments have been made, there are no financial impacts for the
province.
As I
mentioned earlier, we are also taking this opportunity to incorporate
gender-neutral language into the provincial Income Tax Act and we have to
modernize and improve our legislation on an ongoing basis to ensure that we are
following best practice, as well as ensure fairness and equity. The use of
gender-neutral language reflects the diversity of our province and will stand
the test of time.
Speaker,
that is what the changes are in this act – the amendments that I am making to
Bill 54, to amend the Income Tax Act. Our provincial income tax is quite
substantive, as you can see. We're making some technical amendments and we're
also introducing two new tax credits and expanding another tax credit at this
time as well in the budget 2022-23.
The
amendments to the Income Tax Act are being introduced today to allow us to align
the provincial act with the federal act, incorporate gender-neutral language and
implement two new tax credits announced in
Budget 2022.
Thank
you, Speaker.
I look
forward to the debate.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Speaker.
I want
to thank the minister for the overview. I think she has done a good job of
explaining exactly what's happening here in this particular piece of
legislation: a combination of technical language changes and Manufacturing and
Processing Investment Tax Credits.
Certainly, the technical language changes are necessary in order to align with
the federal Income Tax Act and most of
that particular piece is simply, as the minister has suggested, housekeeping.
The language piece, again, is another housekeeping piece that needs to happen.
On the
tax credits, of course, those of us on this side of the House are always glad to
see tax credits being provided, and certainly to the manufacturing and
processing industries, to the green technology and to the film industry these
tax credits are very, very welcome. If we're going to be competitive in this
world, we have to have a tax system that is competitive with other provinces and
with other countries. So these credits, I feel, are a move in the right
direction and something that we can support, and the changes in the bill.
However,
I would like to add that I think it's also very important for us to recognize
some of the challenges we have as a province in retention and recruitment. One
of those issues is in order for us to remain competitive when it comes to health
care professionals or IT professionals or other industry professionals is to
ensure that we have a competitive tax system.
Recently, the Fraser Institute talked about the fact that a couple making over
$100,000 in this province would face some of the highest personal income tax
rates in the country. So that is a deterrent and I would suggest that, as the
minister goes forward and looking at further changes to the Income Tax Act, I
think they really need to start looking at what can be done to ensure – it just
simply can't be about being competitive. In some cases, we need to be creative
and we need to find additional measures that will allow people to want to stay
in their home province, because we are competitive with others. It's not simply
about being competitive on the salary; it's about being competitive on the tax
structure as well, because that's critically important.
So as
they go forward into next year looking at things, I think tax credits are an
opportunity for government to find ways of encouraging people to move to this
province, but also to stay in the province. We've heard lots of talk and
discussion about the shortage of health care workers. We've heard lots of talk
about the shortage of IT workers. Some of that, of course, goes back to ensuring
that we have the right programs here offered in our schools, in our education
system to make available that workforce that is needed by our health care system
and that is needed by our IT system. That's part and parcel of that.
Again, I
think, COVID, if it taught us anything is that there are lots of opportunities
for people to work from home, but when I say home it means that they can work
from literally anywhere in the world. The idea of people, professionals having
to be in an eight-storey tower in downtown Toronto, for example, doesn't apply
anymore. They can actually work from an office in St. John's, Newfoundland, or
Stephenville, Newfoundland, or Bonavista, Newfoundland.
Technology has given us that opportunity to create those advantages. And I
believe that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has a distinct advantage
over many other provinces when it comes to quality of life, in terms of where
you choose to live, in terms of safety, in terms of fresh air, in terms of land.
There are so many advantages that this province has over others. I won't say
weather because that's not what attracts people to Newfoundland and Labrador.
In some
cases it does, because you come and you avoid the – you know, we don't
necessarily have the extremes that we see in other places. But I think part of
that challenge is to remain competitive, as I said, not just on the salaries
that we offer, but on our tax structure and finding ways – and I know they've
done some good things, but I think there are other things that can be done,
because we need to retain our young professionals here and we need to attract
others to come here.
Using
your tax system and your tax credits is one way to do that. So I believe there
are, from the personal side of things, additional measures going forward that we
would look to see next year, as we move into next year what additional changes
we might make to make it even more attractive for people to want to stay and
want to live. As I said, it's not always about the salary; it's about your whole
tax structure, that's part of that process.
Again,
today's bill will do a lot for those industries that the minister has
identified, because it will make them competitive and if they're competitive in
Newfoundland and Labrador, then that means they will be able to hire more
people. So there's a trickle-down effect.
Some
people think: do not give industry any credit. Well, hold on a second, we've all
talked about that. Government's role is to provide the environment so that
businesses want to invest in Newfoundland and Labrador and these tax credits go
as part of that; that's part of the whole process of how we become and how we
make it attractive for businesses to invest in Newfoundland and Labrador.
As I
said, on the other side, on the personal side, again, finding ways to make sure
that not only are we competitive on the salary side, but we stay competitive
and, in some cases, find creative ways of making our tax system more attractive
to people who want to move here and to people who want to stay here.
That's
what it's about. We'll support these changes and look forward to further debate.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I never
thought I'd be standing in the House and speaking to income tax. It's a word
that makes you shiver. But I commend the minister on her overview of this act,
of these changes. Condensing it down for us so that we knew exactly what's new
and what I would call housekeeping or routine changes or amendments to this act.
I just
want to look at them individually, what the minister spoke to. The first one she
spoke to the introduction of the Green Technology Tax Credit, 20 per cent tax
credit. We've had some wonderful debate in the last number of hours, last night
and yesterday, and I suspect more today, on the carbon tax and climate change.
Of course, we've all agreed climate change is real and we need to so something
about it.
Now,
there'll be some argument over whether a tax such as a carbon tax is an
incentive or if it's a negative reinforcement. I tend to think that kind of tax
is a negative reinforcement because you're forcing people to do something that
they may not want to do, and that's pay more taxes.
But when
we flip it over, this introduction of a green technology tax, that's a positive
tax. When you think about it, it's actually not a tax; it's a tax credit. But
it's positive reinforcement. It's an incentive. It's an incentive that
encourages Canadian-controlled corporations that are operating here in
Newfoundland and Labrador to invest in green changeovers however they operate
their business. That's very positive and I think that will result in more and
more businesses in the province considering going green.
There
will come a time that it won't be a consideration. It will be time that you have
to do it. You're just going to have to do it. Now, we'll argue that was
yesterday. Some will argue that it's in the future, but it doesn't matter.
We
are here now so, I think, moving forward, this is an incentive and it is a good
incentive, and I hope many businesses and corporations take it over. I think the
minister mentioned up to a million dollars. I mean, that's not chicken feed.
That is a substantial incentive to get companies and corporations to go green.
So I applaud that for sure.
The second new tax or incentive was the manufacturing
tax credit, 10 per cent. As the minister alluded to, if you have a company that
goes green in manufacturing, they could have upwards of a 30 per cent tax
credit. That's huge for companies and corporations to try and encourage them to
set up here and to stay here and, like I said, help the environment.
The minister also spoke to the All Spend Film and Video
Tax Credit. And, look, we have a beautiful province here and just to go home and
turn on some of the shows that are done locally, I know people who probably
don't follow the plot of the show but they look for – oh, look, I know where
that is and I know where that is. But regardless, I think word of mouth is what
promotes our industry here and I think the tax credit here is going to increase
more and more productions here and more and more word of mouth and you are going
to see more and more bigger film industry here in the province.
A lot of these are routine changes to the act. But I
looked at the one here: to ensure continued availability of education credits.
That is a huge tax credit and to continue to do that. That's very foundational
to where we are in terms of dealing with many of the issues here in the
province. If you dig deeper into that – our population decline, we are losing
individuals. We have an aging population. When we are dealing with health care,
we are talking about increasing seats in our education institutions. So if you
can continue to do that educational credits, that's a plus, especially when we
see tuition fees going up.
So you are building on your foundation. That is a
foundational tax credit without a doubt because if I am looking at our human
resources here, that's our biggest resource and our most valuable resource is
our people here in the
province.
As we
know, the cost of not just tuition, but the cost of everything is going up.
Getting back and forth to school, extracurricular activities, all that for our
youth and young individuals who are going to school, and want to train and be
professional, be an apprentice, be whatever they want to be. To ensure that
there's a tax credit there for them is a big help. So that's a plus.
Like I
said when I started, I said I never thought I'd be up talking positively about
income tax, but I relate to my three wonderful daughters who have gone to
school. They've all got either dual diplomas, or degrees, and hopefully my
middle daughter will be working very soon; she graduates next week.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P. DINN:
She'll be the third of them
all.
But
here's what you've got to applaud; I'm hoping then that the money will come
back. That's my dream. Everyone has a dream and my dream – my dream – Speaker,
you're out of order, shaking your head. I'm hoping, b'y, every week I get a few
dollars back. Well, first I got to get them out of the house, but anyway that's
another story.
But it's
interesting. We live in a world, and especially where we've got – everything's
happening in the world; you've got it here. But when my kids – I call them kids;
they're young women – when they went to work, and they're doing the math, okay
20 bucks an hour, 40 hours a week, oh, that's how much I'm going to get. And
it's interesting, they come home, and they come home with their pay stub, and
they say: Dad, what happened to my money here? And what's this – INC? What am I
paying there, CPP? I'm supposed to get 800 bucks.
So I
hope they're watching – I know they're not, but I hope they're watching and
we'll talk about income tax – but anyway, it's very interesting how we look at
taxation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
level of conversation is getting loud again.
The hon.
the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
But it's
just very interesting how we look at income tax and any kind of taxation. But
this piece here that we look at, even though it's titled the Income Tax Act,
it's tax credits. It's a very positive piece of legislation. The changes were
happening that need to be happening.
Before I
sit down, the one piece that I have to talk about, which is extremely important
in what this brings forward in terms of amendments. I take it back to maybe last
year or maybe a year and a half ago when a piece of legislation was presented in
the House and I proposed some amendments. We were updating and doing some
housekeeping and administration on some of our acts. That was around
gender-neutral language.
I know
it was an oversight at the time, but I've been glad to see that every piece of
legislation that now comes in is looking at gender-neutral language. That's
timely. In fact, it should have probably been in years before, but that's an
important piece of this act as well: making sure that everybody in this province
feel represented when they read our legislation and read our acts.
I
applaud the minister on this. I think any tax credits that help our economy,
promote people coming here and staying here, helps our young people through
education and becoming professionals, stay here and work here, is a good act.
We'll be supporting this.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just a
few minutes, and maybe there might be a couple of questions that the minister
might be able to address later. I don't ask them for any other reason than I
just don't know, and I'm sure she will enlighten me in due course.
The
minister had stated in her preamble that there was no impact on taxpayers. I
noticed in her answer to her question she had stated that she wishes that she
could lower taxes and stimulate the economy, which is all our desire. That
always has to be our goal going forward. But I notice in the budget, in personal
income taxes, there's an $82-million increase projected this year over last
year. I just throw that out to see what would account for that increase of $82
million this year compared to last year. Was it something that we had passed in
the past of doing some adjustment? I can't recall in the past. If it is, that's
wonderful and that's good.
So I do
share that these things are good. I weighed in to give comment, because in my
capacity in the Environment and Climate Change, which I am a climate change
advocate –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
C. PARDY:
I've come to realize that
it's very dangerous at times in this House, because something that may come
across the floor, some labelling, can be pretty precarious and troublesome in my
district.
But it
does call for a 20 per cent green tax credit, which is wonderful. I would think
that in the Canadian energy efficiency policy scorecard it states that our total
energy for industry was 39 per cent, the greatest component of the six divisions
that they had. It surpassed transportation, it surpassed buildings, and industry
was the big one. This will address that. It should help; it should assist. And
when I say address, yes, move it along.
In that
ranking, which I'm sure the minister is aware of and my hon. Member for Lake
Melville would know that in industry we rank last in Canada in that component.
So this will move us along that continuum, which I fully support. For the other
ones and all of the thousands of viewers watching: 39 per cent industry;
transportation is 29 per cent of our total energy; and buildings is 28 per cent.
I know that doesn't add up to 100.
Moving
along and trying to keep to my time frame, which I set was the all-spend video
and film industry. I am a big fan of the film industry. Anybody watching now,
Son of a Critch, which is a big hit
nationally, maybe internationally. But I know it sure is provincially.
I've
always wondered in the Premier's Greene report when she filed her report she
said that $46,000 for every actor and actress that is hired in Newfoundland and
Labrador for these film ventures is what it cost taxpayers in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Now, the
people in Bonavista would be unsettled by that. We've now moved to a $10-million
tax incentive, which is we are adding more. So maybe a comment in your address
about your viewpoints in relation to the Premier's Greene report just to see as
to where that is.
So on
those questions; the technical side is straightforward. My Member for Topsail -
Paradise mentioned the gender-neutral language, right on. And I think to make
sure that it is in every legislation that we have – and we have a lot of work to
do with that, too, but we will get there. So if those questions could come up at
some point in time, just for clarity at sometime during the debate, it would be
wonderful.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker, as always.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'll
speak briefly to this here now. One thing we have to do, and I think we all need
to do, is give credit where credit is due and to the Member for Topsail -
Paradise who put in that amendment that time to start adding gender-neutral
language in bills. I don't know if it was the beginning of this current sitting
or the last sitting of the House, but he did put in that amendment. I see that
now it's added into every other bill we've seen now, about adding gender-neutral
language to bills. So that is an important thing and it means a lot to a lot of
people as we move forward as a society. So I do thank the government for that,
to start realizing those things and making those changes so we progress as a
society.
I do
want to mention, too, the tax credit on green technology and innovation. That's
a good move. You know, there are a lot of businesses out there that can really
avail of that help. There are businesses out there who would love to do their
part but sometimes they need that extra help to do it and we move things along
to help move towards a society where we encourage environmentalism and to
protect the planet. We only get one planet, so we've got to do what we can to
protect it while we're on this side of the sod.
Also,
the adjustments to the tax credit for education and things like that. We want to
encourage more people to go to school, we want to encourage more people to seek
higher education and better themselves and their lives. Because an education is
lifetime, it follows you everywhere and it's important that those who want to go
to school and those who want to better themselves, we encourage everything that
they want to do.
Another
thing I do want to say is also the film credit, which is great, too. I know we
have a very massive quickly growing film industry in this province; we're the
envy of it seems to be a lot of parts of Canada right now with filming. We've
got beautiful scenery around us and wonderful talent – obviously, maximize that
to the best.
I do
like the changes. I do think there's some stuff there that is wonderful. I'm
sure we'll have more to say about it when we finally go to Committee of the
Whole.
So with
that, I'll take my seat.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
I see no
other speakers so I call upon the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board to close debate.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
I really
appreciate the interjections and the comments that have been made by my
colleagues opposite, the Member for Bonavista, the Member for Stephenville -
Port au Port, the Member for Topsail - Paradise and the Member for Labrador West
and their encouragement toward, especially, I think, the tax credits for
business to encourage business development and, of course, the move towards
green technology.
Allow me to just have a couple of words because there
was some questions that I will just say before we conclude and go to the line by
line and the clause by clause.
First of all, the $82 million in the personal income
tax that was mentioned by the Member for Bonavista that is not rate related. It
is more related to a stronger household income and the strengthening of the
economy, the strengthening of the employment numbers and that is we are
expecting to collect –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
It is hard to hear the Member speak.
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board.
S.
COADY:
–
more in the personal income tax. That is a very positive, a good indicator of
our economic resurgence.
The second question you asked about: Will it help
address industries impact on climate change? Yes is my short answer. I will say
that the idea here, from the 20 per cent Green Technology Tax Credit, is to
ensure that Canadian-controlled and Newfoundland-based corporations will invest
in equipment for energy conservation or clean energy generation.
So if you have a company, for example, and you are
utilizing any type of what I am going to call the new technologies for energy
conservation or, for example, you put in technology that reduces your
consumption of electricity – very positive for environment, helps eliminate that
big impact.
Of course, the federal government is doing an awful lot
around this as well for industry to help them lower their greenhouse gas
emissions and their impact on climate change. It is positive.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
It
takes more money.
S.
COADY:
This isn't federal money. This is provincial money. Yeah. This is provincial
money for our tax credit, but there is further money from the federal government
to assist businesses to lower their greenhouse gas emissions. So it is very
positive.
I am particularly glad to see so much support for the
tax credits. I did hear from my colleague from Stephenville - Port au Port
saying this would be something to consider in future years how we can utilize
tax credits to entice and ensure that we attract either newcomers or young
graduates to the workforce here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Certainly
something to consider. We are always looking for ways to ensure that the youth
of our communities remain vibrant and strong
economic contributors.
I will
also say that, as I said earlier, I think one of the best things we can do –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
It's
very difficult to hear the minister speak. I ask Members if they want to have
meetings, take them outside, please.
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much.
– is to
help ensure we lowered our tax rates when possible, because that does help
overall. So we'll keep an eye to that and see how we can do that as we move
through, as our economy strengthens and rebounds, as we diversify our economy.
As I've said in this House, there's a lot of strength in our economy that we're
seeing coming out of COVID and the work that the Minister of Industry, Energy
and Technology is doing as well. That's very, very positive.
I thank
Members opposite for their support of this bill and I look forward to the clause
by clause.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is Bill 54 now be read a second 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
Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 54)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?
S. CROCKER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000,” read a second time,
ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill
54)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that this House resolve
itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 54.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the
Whole.
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.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Trimper):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 54, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000.” (Bill 54)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The hon.
the Member for Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
I just wanted to pose a
question to the minister in relation to the all-spend video and film industry. I
notice we are donating $10 million per project, I think allocation that we have
in the budget.
I
referenced earlier, it had talked in the Greene report that it was clearly
stated that the cost for the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chair,
was $46,000 per actor/actress. I want to go on record to make sure that I am a
supporter of the film industry, but I know that what helps in the support is
knowing that we have a cost analysis done, which informs our decisions.
So I
just want to throw that out to the minister to get a response to see where we
are with that comment in the Greene report.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.
S. CROCKER:
I appreciate the question
from the Member opposite.
With
regards to the comments in the Greene report, I respectfully disagree with them.
When you really drill down in this and you think about if you really drill down
into this industry and take a long, hard look at it, the benefits go way beyond
those who are actually on set: it is the servicing of the sets, it is the
catering, there is so much involved in this.
The
industry is growing in this province now to a $100-million industry. Our goal,
right now, is to stabilize that industry. So if you think about the refundable
tax credit, the maximum on that is $10 million per project. We would only be
fortunate enough to be able to get to a point someday to actually have to use
that $10-million ceiling. That would mean that we're doing a $30-million or
$40-million or $50-million project.
Your
other reference, there is a $10-million equity investment in the Estimates from
this year; that is a separate program. That program tailors more into some of
the local productions. Really, the benefit of the all-spend tax credit is what
we would have seen last year and you would have seen it, first-hand, in your
district in Bonavista with Disney. Disney was here, I don't know I think they
were in Bonavista for seven or eight days. If you want to talk about intensity
of spend, in the amount of time that Disney was here, they left over $10 million
in the local economy.
And
there's also a value in the film and television industry that we really have no
way to capture and that's the value of tourism. We still have people visiting
the Duke of Duckworth because of Republic
of Doyle.
The
Member for Harbour Main referenced, I think in a Member's statement last week,
the value of Rock Solid Builds and how
much traffic that's bringing in to Brigus in her district. It's an ad. Do you
know what I mean? When we go out and buy these ads, they cost us a lot of money
and the value of what a lot of the exposure has done, there's no way to truly
measure the effect it has on the tourism industry as well.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
Minister, thank you very much
for that answer.
I know
that when the department embark on these investments, I know we had talked about
NASCAR, we had talked about the film industry within your department that we
would look at and I know that in the PUB last night we talked about
transparency. But would the department be able to readily provide a cost-benefit
analysis that would be out there? And I know –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Can I get a little order,
please. Sorry, over in the corner.
Hello!
Hello! Can I have a little order, please, over in the corner.
Thank
you.
The hon.
the Member for Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
I don't know if I need to go
back, minister?
S. CROCKER:
Yeah, I think I got the crux
of it.
C. PARDY:
Oh yeah, the gist of it. So
the only thing on the cost-benefit analysis, I know sometimes you might talk
commercially sensitive that you put out there, but I know a lot of people may
not truly value the investment unless they know what they can see.
I'm sure
your department must be doing post-Disney, because I don't disagree with
anything on Disney. It was great for the Bonavista Peninsula, it was a beehive
of activity and I can name the accommodations of which that were there and it
pulled a lot of people in the District of Bonavista. So we were huge
beneficiaries. But the only thing I ask is that do you have a cost-benefit
analysis that could be tabled or presented?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.
S. CROCKER:
Yeah, every project goes
through its own analysis through the stats division.
You
referenced NASCAR. With something like NASCAR, we work with Destination St.
John's, the DMO here in the city, because they have a tool and the expertise
around that analysis. So the analysis you would've seen on NASCAR of about $6
million, a return, that analysis would've been done by Destination St. John's.
As a
department, as we expand – because one of our goals right now is to do even more
and more in event attraction – is to actually acquire our own tool. But, right
now, we typically use Destination St. John's as our partner in estimating what
the spend will be. Anytime, if you think about Disney, that would have been an
analysis done by the Department of Finance.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
Would those analyses be
public? Like you're talking about Destination St. John's, would they be
attainable to have a –?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.
S. CROCKER:
Yeah, I think quite frankly
they were laid out in the news release. The estimated return on NASCAR I think
is around $6 million over three years. Yeah, so we typically lay those out.
Obviously, I think the Disney spend was around $10 million. So it's easy to
derive from that what the benefit is.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
And my last question. The
number wouldn't show up in the news release unless your department would have
had a cost-benefit analysis, even though how rough it would be, for that figure
to end up in a news release?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.
S. CROCKER:
That would be the information
that we would use. Again, in the NASCAR, we would have used Destination St.
John's. We have a great relationship with them and they have a tool for that.
They're the ones that are constantly monitoring hotel nights, as an example. I
can tell you NASCAR alone filled one hotel, now they're gone to second hotel.
We work
closely with Destination St. John's, in this case, and we'll work with – I don't
mean to just say we work with Destination St. John's, we'll work with all of
destination management organizations around the province, but a lot of the key
attractions and that economic value, because even though the NASCAR event is in
Avondale, metro will be maybe the greatest beneficiary of that, simply because
of accommodations.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Chair.
I just
want to follow up now on a comment from the minister – from my hon. colleague to
the Minister of Finance, because he brought up an interesting point. We talk
about the benefits like, in this particular case, the $10 million of Disney, the
$10 million of benefit to the province.
Do we
actually have that post-analysis somewhere that could show us how this $10
million – because that's a real benefit to have, that you could actually show
that, yeah, we' re not just saying it, here's the actual analysis that was done
to show. Here's the value of what we're doing. I was just wondering, because it
was a good point that he made, and I just wanted to follow up with you on it.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much.
It's a
very interesting discussion that we're having here this afternoon. Of course,
we're looking at the overall economic benefit, and I think that was what the
Minister of TCAR was actually speaking of. It may not necessarily be a benefit
to the Treasury, but it's a benefit to the economic generation, right? And that
economic analysis, of course, the division of the economics and stats would do
that kind of analysis with the Department of TCAR to ensure that there is value
there as well.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
So there would be some kind
of analysis that would have been done by – and that's something maybe we could
follow up and try to get a copy of her analysis that was done.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much.
Of
course, every year – every six months – we publish the economic forecast and it
would be contained in there as well. So all the information would be contained
in there. Also, as the Minister of TCAR said, it would be in the press releases
as well as the economic generation that is forecast, or anticipated, and then
reviewed to see if it actually progressed from there.
But that
would be in those reports that would be contained on the economy that is
published twice a year, once with budget and once in the fall fiscal forecast.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Minister.
We'll
follow up and have a close look at those.
CHAIR:
No further questions?
T. WAKEHAM:
No further questions.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I wasn't
going to really ask questions, now we're sort of veered off into this whole idea
of the benefit of these – quote unquote – investments. I'm just wondering, along
that same line of questioning, I guess, when it comes to, for example, NASCAR,
which we were talking about, and the minister will say, NASCAR is going to
generate X amount of money in economic activity, therefore we're going to more
than get our money back and our investment back and so on.
In terms
of the analysis that is done, is that based on locals, or is that everything –
how much of it is locals? How much of it is new people in terms of these
investments? Because if I have X number of dollars in expendable income to
spend, if there was no NASCAR, I'd probably go and spend it on George Street or
I'd go to Eastport, or I'd go to Gros Morne or wherever I would go and spend my
money there.
So
whether I spend it at NASCAR, or I spend it somewhere else, it's still the same
money. So that's not really generating anything in additional new money. So the
only way that this really gets the big payoff, to my mind, is a combination of
the people that are working for NASCAR, so to speak, that are coming, that are
going to be spending money, bringing their money, and if – and that's a big if –
there are people that are going to leave wherever they are living outside
of Newfoundland and say I am coming to Newfoundland for NASCAR.
Now, again, even when we say someone who wasn't from
here and they went to NASCAR that could be someone – that could be my daughter,
theoretically, who is living on the Mainland, who is coming home to see her
mother and father and while she is here, oh, I think I will drop into NASCAR.
But she never came here for NASCAR. She just happened to go to NACSAR.
So in doing this analysis, what I'm trying to get at
here is unless it's actually new money coming into the economy, then I question
where the value comes from.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.
S.
CROCKER:
Well, yeah, when we release our number at the end of the year, for example,
prepandemic, we are at $1.12 billion in tourism. There is a Statistics Canada
formula that we use that mixes non-resident versus resident.
I am disappointed that you are concerned about NASCAR
because the reality is we are working with an industry that has been most
devastated by COVID. This is a small investment for the return; hundreds of
hotel rooms being rented and it also brings, as I said about the film and
television industry, really what we are doing with the NASCAR event is our money
is going into marketing. We are buying ads during that event that will air on
TSN. It's a new market for us.
We have approximately a $12-million marketing budget
each year. This is where that will come from. This is money that we would have
used for marketing. This is an approach to marketing.
We need to remember, generating and getting people out
to events. If you think about it – I actually drove through downtown the night
before last and there was a Growlers' game and you just see the beehive of
activity that creates.
You know, there are 20,000 people in this province
employed in the tourism and hospitality industry and we are going to do what we
can. Over the last two years, we have stood with that industry. We have made the
investments to improve it. We will continue to do so.
If you think back to an event like the Brier and what
that actually generated for this city. There are still people coming to St.
John's because of the time they had at the Brier.
So we are going to continue to do this. We feel it is a
good way for us to help, not only offer these events to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador, it offers the opportunity for people to visit
Newfoundland and Labrador but it also offers an opportunity for us to support
those that have been most affected by COVID.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S.
COADY:
Thank you very much.
There
are economic forecasting models that are used by the department that really do
look at investments that are made, organizations that may – and you mentioned
NASCAR – come to deliver a tourism-type product. The economic forecasting model
will talk to what kind of economic generation would be developed because of that
particular project. Those are published twice a year, once at budget time and
then once in the fall for the fall fiscal update.
You can
see where we are in terms of the economic generation, the impact on tourism and
those types of things. So there is a modelling for this type of activity that
indicates what the value is to the economy.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Minister of
Finance. I do appreciate that.
This is
not about being against tourism and against the tourism industry. I just want to
make that very clear. The only point I'm trying to make is that when we talk
about the economic benefits, all I'm suggesting is that if – and I just look at
it from the point of view of just one person. You can multiply that times
everybody, I suppose, or most people.
People
have X number of dollars in expendable income to spend. All I'm saying is that
if all you're doing is spreading around the same money, i.e., locals, if there
was no NASCAR – and, again, it's not about picking on NASCAR now – maybe the
money would have been spent at the movie cinemas. Maybe it would have been spent
on George Street. Maybe it would have been spent up in Gros Morne or whatever
the case might be. That's all I'm saying.
The real
benefit, as I would see it, would be if this is actually bringing new dollars
that wouldn't be here, bringing it in, or, conversely, if it's keeping money
here. In other words, there is so much wonderful stuff to do here I'm not going
to go on a vacation out of province because I have lots of stuff that I could
spend my money on here.
So
either A: locals are keeping their money here, when they would have taken it
somewhere else, or people not from here are bringing their money here. That's
all I'm saying.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.
S. CROCKER:
No, that is a good point. The
new money is obviously always the best money.
I'll
just deviate a little. If you look at our tourist, the true non-resident tourist
in this province leaves about $2,800. A VFR, which is your relative that you
mentioned that's home and goes to the ZZ Top concert this weekend or NASCAR,
they'll leave $1,300.
So
without a doubt, we know that the greatest beneficiary is that. But I can tell
you one of the things that's certainly – and I don't mean to harp back on
NASCAR, but their contingent alone I think is between 200 and 250 people. They
are bringing a very large contingent with them. All these things are factored
in.
These
events have a legacy. We feel that it's somewhere that we need to get back,
because it's a very competitive market and it wouldn't be – if this didn't have
economic benefit, there wouldn't be this level of competition to attract these
events. If you think about the Brier, that's a tremendously competitive event to
get the event.
So I
think your point is well taken, new money is always the best money, but it's
important, I feel, that we build this sector of our tourism and hospitality
sector.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you.
I thank
the Member opposite. This is a very good point. With regard to this bill, the
Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, 2000, these are tax credits that we're bringing
forward. So they have to spend money to get a credit back. So from this
perspective, just from this act – and I know we kind of went off and talked
about NASCAR – they would have to spend the money to get money back. So I just
want to make that clear with regard to this act.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
(Inaudible) I was aware of
that. The only reason why – it never even would've occurred me to even bring up
NASCAR except you were talking about NASCAR. So I said, well, everyone else is
talking about, I'll ask about it as well. That's all.
Anyway,
that's all I have.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
No further questions, anyone
else?
The hon.
the Member for Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Chair.
Just a
quick question to the minister on that reinstating limitations respecting an
individual's ability to claim the equivalent of spouse amount, the caregiver
credit and the infirm dependent credit. I know we're reinstating limitations. I
want to make sure that there's no person that would probably be negatively
impacted by that that we might not have foreseen, because we're tightening it up
a bit. I just want to make sure that we're not going to leave somebody out that
actually does deserve it.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much for the question.
What
clause is that, just so I can –?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
(Inaudible) it's tax stuff,
it gets a little – the caregiver amendment.
S. COADY:
Okay, I got it.
J. BROWN:
You got it there, perfect,
thank you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you.
This is
clause 3. So it's the amendment to reinstate the limitations for an individual
to claim the equivalent of spouse amount, the caregiver credit or the infirm
dependent credit. This clause is retroactive, basically, to January 1, 2017, and
it's to align with changes in the federal act that were introduced when they
introduced the Canada caregiver act. So, basically, it's reflecting the federal
amendment and ensures you can only claim one of.
So this
is the way it's already administered, so it shouldn't have impact.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Chair.
I just
wanted to make sure of the clarity of that, because it is kind of an important
thing for some individuals, especially low-income individuals.
Another
thing I do want to ask about, Minister, is with the Green Technology Tax Credit.
I know we have a definition of what that means there. Will this expand over time
to include newer technologies or phase out other things that are kind of on the
border of green and not? Just curious on that.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Well, certainly this is a
newly introduced Green Technology Tax Credit and right now this is for any kind
of energy conservation, or any kind of clean energy generation, so it's pretty
broad from that perspective. We'll continue to monitor and look to how companies
are bringing forward their tax credits and if there's change needed we'll
certainly look to make the change.
But,
right now, it's pretty open. It includes use of fuels from waste, to make
efficient use of fossil fuels, so there are a number of avenues and a number of
things that a corporation could do to ensure that they are focused on energy
conservation or clean energy generation.
CHAIR:
Seeing no further speakers,
shall the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
On motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 32
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 through 32
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clauses 2 through 32 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative
Session convened, as follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act,
2000.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill
carried without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment,
carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move
that the Committee rise and report Bill 54.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 54.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Lake Melville and Deputy Chair of Committee of the Whole.
P. TRIMPER:
Speaker, I am pleased to
report that the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them
referred and directed me to report Bill 54 carried without amendment.
SPEAKER:
The Deputy Chair of the
Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to
them referred and have directed him to report Bill 54 carried without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
S. CROCKER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the bill be read a third time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, second reading of Bill 51.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Government House Leader, that Bill 51, An Act Respecting Access To Health
And Educational Services, be now read a second time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 51, An Act Respecting Access To Health And Educational Services, be now
read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act Respecting Access To Health And Educational
Services.” (Bill 51)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
I am pleased to speak to this
proposed piece of legislation this afternoon. I'll just say in my opening
comments that this government is committed to ensuring the safety and well-being
of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. As part of that commitment, we are
establishing safe access zones to ensure safe, unimpeded access to health and
educational services in the province.
The
proposed bill prohibits interference and intimidation of service providers and
users near health and educational facilities. Over the past year, public
demonstrations took place at or near health care facilities and schools where
COVID-19 vaccine services were being provided. Several groups and health care
stakeholders have released public statements denouncing the public rallies at or
near the Health Sciences Centre. These include statements by the College of
Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Registered Nurses' Union of
Newfoundland and Labrador and the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions.
We
acknowledge the importance of the right for peaceful protests, which will remain
permitted in these access zones. The legislation balances the rights of some to
peacefully protest or express dissent with the right of others to access health
and educational services unobstructed.
We also
will account for the fact that health and educational facilities include diverse
workforces, including union employees represented by different bargaining units.
The proposed legislation provides an exception for persons participating in
lawful strike activities. Also protected are activities of the RNC and the RCMP.
The
access zones extend 50 metres from the boundaries of the land where schools and
health facilities are located. Contravention of the legislation can result in
imprisonment or a fine of up to $10,000.
In
December 2021, the federal government introduced amendments to the
Criminal Code to enhance protections for health care workers, those
who assist them and those accessing health care services. The amendments protect
them from any intimidating conduct, including threats, provocation and impeding
access to services.
Newfoundland and Labrador is aligned with the federal government and other
provinces by introducing this legislation to protect health and service
providers, and users, and has extended that protection to service providers and
users of facilities providing kindergarten to Grade 12 educational services.
Nova
Scotia, Saskatchewan and Quebec have introduced legislation in response to
anti-vaccine protests. Alberta has amended its existing legislation in respect
to trespassing.
More
specifically, this proposed legislation will create an access zone that extends
50 metres from the boundaries of a facility where health services are provided,
that a regional health authority is responsible to deliver and administer,
including under the Regional Health
Authorities Act, and a facility where education program and services are
offered, that a school board or private school is responsible to deliver and
administer, including under the Schools
Act, 1997.
The
Lieutenant-Governor in Council would also have authority to prescribe another
place, including an access zone, by regulation. The proposed access zone will
not include a private property outside the parcel of land on which the facility
is located other than the private property that the owner or operator of the
facility owns or has an exclusive right to use or occupy, or any portion or
parcel of land on which the facility is located that a person other the owner or
operator of the facility has an inclusive right to user occupy.
In
conclusion, individuals receiving health care services or attending an
educational facility must be able to do so without fear or intimidation. This
proposed legislation is about balancing the right of some to protest or express
dissent with the right of others to safely access health and education services.
Thank
you Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm very
pleased to speak on this important piece of legislation, Bill 52, the
Access to Health and Educational Services
Act.
First of
all, I would like to say that this act is important because it reflects, I hope,
a balancing act, in a way. We definitely need to ensure that the rights of
individuals to peacefully protest is protected. But we also have to ensure that
the rights of people who wish to attend at health care facilities and
educational facilities, that their right to access these public services, that
they can do so freely, uninhibited, safely and without fear of being affected in
a negative way as far as their safety.
We know
that the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, under section 2, it guarantees the right of freedom of expression,
freedom of association, freedom of peaceful assembly. So that is an important
fundamental right that is protected by our
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
So the
question can of course be asked: When we see legislation as this implemented,
are our rights to peacefully protest – the ability of us to peacefully protest,
is that right disappearing? Is that right going to be impacted in a negative
way?
From
what I understand from reviewing the legislation, and we've heard from the
Minister of Justice and Public Safety on it, this proposed legislation is
supportive of balancing those rights of the individual and balancing that
particular right of section 2 of the Charter.
So there
does not appear to be any kind of interference, for example, with the lawful
right to engage in strike activity. The 50-metre access zone around facilities,
such as schools and education services, appears to be an amendment or
legislation which is, perhaps, in the best interest of us as a society.
We need
to ensure that our health care workers, for example, when they are providing
important health care services to the people and to the citizens that they are
able to do that unimpeded and not interfered with by individuals who may be
trying to restrict them access or restrict their ability to do the work that
they have to do.
From my
understanding, this bill does not preclude protesting, peaceful protest, and
that I think is the key here. We need to ensure that the important fundamental
right that is guaranteed in section 2 of our Canadian Charter of Rights, that
right which has been guaranteed, and it's entrenched, Mr. Speaker, in our
Constitution. That ability to have freedom of expression, so that citizens can
do that, they can express. We know that protests are a way for people to express
themselves for or against decisions of government and other powerful
institutions.
We need
to ensure that is not inhibited, that there are not restrictions that allow
people to do that. The same thing goes with educational facilities and the right
of students to lawfully protest and to have that ability to express dissent,
express disagreement. That is a fundamental piece and hallmark of our democracy.
I don't see that that is compromised in this legislation.
When I
look at the facilities that will be impacted here, I believe, from what I
understand, that it will be the K-to-12 system, as far as educational
facilities. Also, vaccination clinics, as well. I do note that the minister also
referenced the federal legislation, which is similar, that was imposed in
January of 2016, I understand.
I think
what's important about this legislation – it is similar to legislation with
respect to the abortion clinics. It means that we cannot have people who are
working at these facilities – they can't feel intimidated or threatened when
they're working at health facilities.
Now, of
course, we know that any legislation, it can't be too broad, Mr. Speaker, and we
have to make sure that the rights of students, the rights of strikers, for
example, that cannot be impeded. With respect to students, students may have a
disagreement with administrative decisions that are made by the university, for
example. We cannot allow those rights to be infringed upon.
So we
understand this legislation does not preclude the right to peaceful protest, it
does not preclude the right to picket; it just means that you cannot physically
obstruct or intimidate people in these public facilities who are working there.
By virtue of that, we also see that people who are attending – not only does it
protect the workers who are, for example, at these health care facilities,
anyone who is attending there, who is coming back and forth to access the
services. They have to be able to do that in a safe manner.
So as
far as this legislation, I do support it. I do make the qualification, however,
that our rights, as guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights – these are
fundamental rights; these are rights that are crucial in a free and democratic
society and in our province – that these rights have to be respected. Yes, there
are times when they're going to be balanced, and as long as that balance takes
place and it recognizes the interests on both sides, which it is my view that
this legislation does, or at least it appears to do, then, I would not be
opposed to this Bill 51, the Access to
Health and Educational Services Act.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Any other speakers?
The hon.
the Leader of the Third Party.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
As we
can tell, this bill was in response to an incident in January 2022, a group
anti-COVID vaccination protestors forced the temporary closure of a booster shot
clinic in St. John's and thereby disrupting service to the public and, more
importantly, to the people who really needed or were depending on that service,
on the vaccinations.
The
spokesperson for Eastern Health at that time, Speaker, said that there were 60
people who were ultimately turned away. You could argue that certainly when it
comes to it, it's a public health issue, not only for them but for their loved
ones as well.
I do remember the protestors at one site and you had,
in some cases, elderly people who were lining up outside to get the shot and
intimidation or interference in this case. I want to come back to the use of the
term intimidation because that's a key concern that I do have.
At some point, I guess, I support the whole notion of
peaceful protests and even, for that matter, raucous protests, especially around
the Confederation Building where each of us here are elected and we make that
public decision and we sign on for that as politicians. That is something that
we should expect, as long as our own personal safety is not threatened. But we
make decisions and we answer for them.
The people who are employed in a clinic or the people
who are going there or the students who are attending the school, they don't
have that option. They are basically public servants. They are directed by their
employers or by the facility: Here is where you must go. Certainly, during COVID
especially, these institutions, whether they are education or health, were
already under tremendous pressure.
I will say this. To me, setting up a safe zone makes
sense. Now, it is interesting, within these access zones a person cannot
intimidate or interfere with service providers or those receiving a service.
Interference is defined in the legislation. However, the legislation permits the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council to set out the meaning of undefined words in the
regulations, and while interference is defined, intimidation is not. What counts
as an intimidation? Because intimidation to one person may not be intimidation
to another, depending on your personality. Who gets to define that?
There is a concern that it could be potentially used as
a tool in the kit of those who would silence dissenting voices and they could
claim that while they respect what they call legitimate protests and they are
abiding by the spirit of legislation, service providers or management could
nonetheless call the police and ask for their removal of peaceful protestors
simply by claiming that they feel intimidated.
I'll use sort of a related incident. What is considered
essential workers? In many ways I would argue that the term essential workers
has expanded significantly over the decades and has been used as a tool,
basically to undermine collective bargaining. But what defines essential worker
and who gets to define it?
More
recently, you might remember the protest by a student at Memorial University,
who basically claimed that the leadership of the university has repeatedly
stifled his freedom of speech on campus by claiming that he has violated the
respectful workplace policies, and that his behaviour left some people feeling
unsafe. Well, what defines unsafe? If you're advocating or inciting violence
against someone, that's one thing, but if you're strenuously opposing a decision
or an action, is that intimidation?
So at
what point does it cross the line, and who gets to make the decision? In some
ways, maybe it needs to be defined in the legislation. Maybe there is a reason
why it's not, and I'd be open to hearing that. My concern, I guess – well,
actually, it's twofold. I'll echo my colleague from the Official Opposition,
which is basically saying that we support this. It's important to make sure that
people are protected – those who are accessing these sites and those who work
there. In many cases, the work they're doing is stressful enough.
But I do
believe in that balance. I do need to have some assurance that the term
“intimidation” is not defined and is now left to government to define that
meaning is a little bit concerning. I guess I'm looking for some reassurance
here that we will not see the scope creep in the definition.
I would
argue that if someone tuning in, some people might consider the debate that goes
on is intimidating. Probably a lot more fun, in some ways, but nevertheless I
would argue here that many people don't necessarily see it that way. So it's
important to figure out the definition in that area, who defines it and how we
define collectively.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Seeing no other speakers if
the Minister of Justice and Public Safety speaks now, we will close debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I thank
the Member for Harbour Main and St. John's Centre for their comments on this
bill this afternoon.
I'm just
going to do another quick review of this before we go to Committee, and I look
forward to the questions in Committee when we do get there.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 51 now be read a second 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:
A bill, An Act Respecting
Access To Health And Educational Services. (Bill 51)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the said bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?
S. CROCKER:
Presently.
SPEAKER:
Presently.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting Access To Health And Educational Services,”
read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole presently, by
leave. (Bill 51)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
My
apologies, Mr. Speaker, we're just waiting for some technical answers here.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I am going to move, seconded by the Minister of Justice and Public
Safety, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider
Bill 51.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve into a Committee of the Whole
to consider the said bill.
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.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Trimper):
Order, please!
We are
considering Bill 51, An Act Respecting Access To Health And Educational
Services.
A bill,
“An Act Respecting Access To Health And Educational Services.” (Bill 51)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The hon.
the Member for Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Chair.
Section
1 is the title of the act. With respect to the bill being introduced, in the
briefing one of the officials noted that the question of why this bill is being
introduced is best directed towards the minister.
So can
the minister outline why this legislation is being brought in now, please?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you, Chair.
Yes, we
did see some protests related to COVID-19 vaccinations. Within the last year, we
had some complaints about people feeling that they weren't able to either get
into the clinics or felt intimidated and, therefore, didn't go into the clinics
or the vaccination sites. Also people who were at the sites as well felt
intimidated as they were trying to do their job.
So
unfortunately, we didn't have this legislation in place at the time which
hopefully would've prevented it or certainly would've meant people who did
intimidate other individuals would have had consequences for their actions. So
having seen that and even though we haven't seen a protest to that level since
then, we felt that we should take a proactive step in the event that it does
happen in the future. That this legislation is in place to protect those
individuals coming and going from the facilities and working in these
facilities.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you.
With
respect to section 2, we see a number of definitions that are set out there: for
example, the definition of health services, the definition of health services
provider. With respect to schools, schools are defined, it is my understanding,
by reference to the Schools Act, for example K-to-12.
I need
clarification because I wasn't sure if post-secondary education locations have
been excluded from this bill. So can the minister clarify that the
post-secondary education locations have been excluded and, if so, explain why?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you.
Yes,
they have been excluded at this stage. Certainly we felt the need at this time
to focus on the K-to-12 system, where the young people in this province are, to
make sure that they're safe. That is a location where we have seen some protests
involved in the vaccinations as well.
I will
note that the definition of school does included, in section 2(g), “a school
prescribed in the regulations.” So we will have the ability, the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council will have the ability to add schools in the
future as necessary, which could include post-secondary schools at that time.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
So do you expect to
introduce post-secondary education locations to be excluded in the future? Do
you expect that?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
I can say right now that I
don't have any intention of putting that in the regulations. As far as we have
gone right now is to get this legislation to the House, hopefully get it passed
as soon as possible and then deal with the K-to-12 system. It might be a bit of
an approach where we look and see if it is needed to add anything to the
regulations at a later date.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you.
Section
3 notes that in an access zone, a person shall not interfere with or intimidate
a person in a safe access zone. This section also exempts the RNC, the RCMP and
labour-related protests from the safe access zone. Noting that labour protests
are possible and that the RNC and the RCMP are able to carry out enforcement
activities.
Can the
minister please give me some description of what labour activities exactly would
be permitted?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
So certainly the one that is
obvious and the one we need to protect due to the Charter, which the Member did
speak about earlier in her comments, was the right to strike. So those groups
will be allowed to continue to strike as they could before this legislation
takes place. We certainly wouldn't want to impede anyone's Charter rights.
I did
speak about the need for balance in this legislation to protect individuals from
being intimidated but also to allow individuals who have collectively bargained
rights and charter-enshrined rights to strike.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you.
I'm
thinking of a scenario where organized labour perhaps does not agree with a
health policy of the government. Would they still be allowed to protest?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
So any individual, including
groups that the Member mentioned, are allowed to peacefully protest within the
50-metre access zones. There's no prohibition on peaceful protests; we're
looking at the definitions. What individuals are not allowed to do is engage in
interference, physically interfere with individuals or intimidate or attempt to
intimidate a person.
We
should go back and look at the definition of interference as well – the
definition needs a definition, which is, you know, only lawyers can do that. So
to interfere it has to be persistent and repeated activities to do it, so
arguably a one-time situation where you might intimidate someone wouldn't fall
under the definition. It's an ongoing, persistent action of an individual that
would fall under the definition here in this legislation.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you.
Finally,
under section 4 with respect to access zone. So section 4 establishes the access
zone extending “… 50 metres from the boundaries of the land on which the health
care facility or the school is located.” So 50 metres. The access zone will not
include private property not used for health care or education.
So the
question is: What about a case where the boundary is not clearly known by
members of the public?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
So like any law, individuals
have the obligation to know what the law is. The 50-metre zone certainly would
have to be known to an individual. That would be something else that may come up
in a court case, about what the individual did know and their ability to
comprehend or understand or know what they were doing, or if there was any
intent at that point in time. Certainly don't want to get into anyone's heads
about their criminal intent, but that's something that, on a case-by-case basis,
could certainly be different.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
So really it goes to mens
rea and whether there is an intent. Okay.
Have you
considered putting a measurement in the legislation based on the distance from
any parking lot or entrance into the building, having a specific measurement in
there? What are you thoughts on that?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Sorry, could you just clarify
that question?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Yes, I'm wondering if you
put a measurement in the legislation based on the distance from any parking lot
or entrance into the building that would be more specific and would give more
direction in terms of the area of the 50-metre safe access zone.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
I guess what I would say to
that, we do have – that might even lead to more confusion about what we mean in
the – we'd have to define it all in the legislation; all building are not the
same. Does every building have a parking lot? Does every building have an
entrance way the same? So 50 metres was the number we came up with. We felt it
was reasonable for individuals to be able to determine a safe distance that
they're allowed to be within or without those zones.
You
know, at the end of the day, I think individuals should focus on not
intimidating and interfering with individuals who come and go from these
facilities and they won't have to worry about a distance.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
I guess with respect to
identifying or restricting to a particular measurement, that would be very
confining and very restrictive. So that would really box in and not give that
broadness that's necessary with the legislation.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Yes, the 50-metre zone is
there. It's established, it's defined, as the Member said, but in section 4(4)
the Lieutenant-Governor in Council can, by regulation, decrease that distance
for specific health care facility or schools. So certainly if something comes up
where we think, or the government of the day thinks, 50 metres is not
appropriate for a specific site, that specific site can be identified in a
regulation to change that.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you.
Just one
final question on the 50-metre piece. Would hospitals and schools have any
markings? I mean, do you think that that would not be perhaps a reasonable
measure to have markings around them indicating to people where the safe zone
starts?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
That might be something that
the facility or the school can do if they feel that it is necessary for them to
do it. But, I guess, at this stage, we didn't want to impose any additional
burdens on them with regard to the access zones.
CHAIR:
Any further speakers to the
bill?
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
J. DINN:
Thank you.
I
understand masks will no longer be required after Saturday. I think I won't miss
this, trying to get them untangled.
Okay, I
just want to start with regard to the use of the word intimidation and why it's
not defined, how it would be defined, and even, Chair, if there's any discussion
around what would count as intimidation at this point.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J.
HOGAN:
I
would suggest that there are probably volumes of case law out there about what
intimidation means and it is up for judges to determine what intimidation is.
Intimidation to one person might not be intimidation to another. So this very
well could be fact specific for when intimidation has occurred.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J.
DINN:
So
the definition then, as I understand it, would be defined on a case by case in a
court, if I'm understanding. Otherwise, it seems it would permit the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council to set out the meaning, but am I understanding
that really the court would decide that?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
J.
HOGAN:
I am not sure what you said about the Lieutenant-Governor in Council there.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J.
DINN:
The legislation permits the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to set out the
meaning of undefined words in the regulations. I just want to be clear as to –
then is it the courts that will set out that definition or determine whether the
definition applies? I am just seeking clarity around that – how that is
determined.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
J.
HOGAN:
Yeah, so the way this is drafted – the way it is now – certainly the courts
would determine whether there was intimidation and whether a person was
intimidated or not. I know that sort of sounds a little bit vague but that is
the way that the system works because that's what the judges are there for. That
doesn't apply to just this word. This applies to every single piece of
legislation that we pass in the House is open to interpretation by a judge.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J.
DINN:
That makes sense. So, as I understand it, let's say the Lieutenant-Governor in
Council says this is a case of intimidation, the judge – ultimately the courts –
will decide if indeed it was.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
J.
HOGAN:
Absolutely, the way this is drafted it will be up to a judge to determine if
there was intimidation or not.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J.
DINN:
With regards to a definition of schools, it is pretty straightforward there, at
least from my point of view, as to schools are defined as K-to-12 schools. Would
that include, though, school board offices or district offices that don't have
students in them? Would the 50-metre rule apply to – you could argue school
district facilities or just the school facilities itself?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
J.
HOGAN:
So,
yeah, currently schools just means the schools as defined in the
Schools Act, 1997. And as I said to the Member for Harbour Main, of
course, a school prescribed in the regulations is something we can add later.
But if it is not a school, if it is not defined under the Schools Act, it
doesn't apply to those facilities.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J.
DINN:
And the definition would apply still then to a school that might house a board
office. There are schools that have some board offices in them. I guess what I
am getting at is if I'm there protesting, I'm not protesting the school, I'm
here at the district office that is housed in this facility.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
J.
HOGAN:
No, if it is not a school, this legislation doesn't apply.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J. DINN:
No, I'll clarify it. There
are some schools out there you have students but you also have board offices or
board space in them. I'm assuming that those facilities, no one could use the
argument that, well, I'm not protesting the school; I'm actually after the board
officials who are housed there.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Again, people are going to be
able to argue want they want in court, but on its face it certainly says you
can't intimidate within that 50-metre zone around a school. It doesn't say
around a school except for if there's a school with an office in it.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
J. DINN:
To everyone, I might be
losing my voice.
However,
if private property within the 50-metre zone is excluded, unless it belongs to
the owner or operator of that school or health care facility. So does that mean
that in a private dwelling or private property, if I wanted to, that's 25 metres
close to the school, I could set up my own protest on my own private property
and have as many people as I wanted there?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
So yes, if a 50-metre zone
can extend onto someone's private property. I think that's the answer to your
question. We are not trying to legislate what people can do on that property.
Now I
will say what you're asking is can people be on private property, intimidate
people, harass people, et cetera, et cetera. Legislation is not saying you can
do that; legislation is just saying what you can't do in the 50-metre zone. So I
wouldn't want people to think you can go and do whatever you want in all the
other zones around the province, because we do have
Criminal Code; we do have lots of legislation around what you can't
do. This is just protecting the 50-metre zones around the schools and health
facilities.
But that
is the correct interpretation there. The 50-metre zone can't extend onto private
property.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
J. DINN:
That's it, thank you.
CHAIR:
No further questions?
Oh,
sorry, the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Chair.
Just
wondering, we passed a piece of legislation or an amendment to a piece of
legislation, as memory serves me, I want to say a year or two ago, similar to
this that related to abortion protests. There was a zone set up that you could
not have an abortion protest so many metres from the hospital or from the
abortion clinic or whatever.
So I'm
just wondering, is that the same piece of legislation, and is that impacted – in
other words, as long as I'm not interfering or intimidating someone, if you had
three or four protestors at the Health Sciences or St. Clare's – I'm not sure
they do abortions theses days, but wherever – and as long as you're not
interfering with anybody, are they allowed to stand up now within that 50-metre
zone right next to the door as long as they don't say anything to anyone while
they're there? Have we just sort of changed what we put in place by putting this
in place? Or is that a different piece of legislation altogether?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
That is a different piece of
legislation. I believe it was the current Minister of IET who brought that
legislation forward with regard to zones around abortion clinics. There is a
difference in that abortion clinics do preclude peaceful protests in their
zones. Peaceful protests are allowed within the zones of the education and the
school facilities that we are talking about (inaudible).
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Okay, I thank you for the
clarification.
My final
question kind of goes in line with what the Member for St. John's Centre was
talking about in terms of intimidation and so on. I know that's open to
interpretation, what intimidation would mean. Some people would think you're
intimidated if you're saying something to someone when they're trying to go in,
like you're threatening them or whatever, but what about intimidating signage?
Again,
you could be totally peaceful, not say a word to anybody, but you have something
written on a sign that's like very intimidating. It could be threatening on the
sign, but you're not opening your mouth, you're standing there and someone could
say that's intimidating. How would that apply?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Your example might very well
be intimidating. I guess the answer I gave to the Member for St. John's Centre
is every situation is going to be fact specific and it would have to look at the
conduct, it would have to look at the situation, it would have to look at the
individuals and parties might have to make those arguments before a judge.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Seeing
no further speakers, shall the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 7
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 through 7
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 through 7 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act Respecting Access To
Health And Educational Services.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
title is carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill
carried without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
I move, Mr. Chair, that the
Committee rise and report Bill 51.
CHAIR:
It is moved that the
Committee rise and report Bill 51.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Lake Melville, Deputy Chair of Committee.
P. TRIMPER:
Speaker, I'm pleased to
report the Committee of the Whole have completed the proceedings with Bill 51
and have carried it forward without amendment.
SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have
considered the matters to them referred and have directed that report Bill 51 be
carried without amendment.
When shall the report be received?
Now?
S. CROCKER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
When shall the bill be read a third
time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow?
The hon. the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
You'd never ever underestimate the value of the Clerk, let me tell you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
S. CROCKER:
I can always trust to just look up and look towards the Clerk and find out what
I'm supposed to do next. It's just like being home.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
S. CROCKER:
Speaker, I call from the Order Paper second reading of Bill 55.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Digital
Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender
Equality, that Bill 55, An Act To Amend The Life Insurance Act, be now read a
second time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that Bill
55, An Act To Amend The Life Insurance Act, be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Life Insurance Act.”
(Bill 55)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Digital
Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm very pleased to open debate on Bill 55, An Act to Amend the Life Insurance
Act. So this bill is going to make a small but very important amendment to
prevent an exploitative investment scheme which could result in losses to
insurance companies and disruption for life insurance consumers. So I'll discuss
and give an overview of the nature of what we're doing with our legislation.
The life insurance
industry offers a product called universal life policies. These products combine
life insurance with an investment account that is exempt from income tax within
limits set by the federal government.
Universal life policies also feature side accounts, which can hold additional
funds. Side accounts are temporary containers for deposit accounts that would
put the investment over the tax exemption limit; however, the money in side
accounts can also earn taxable investment income for the consumer.
The
target of the investment scheme is certain older universal life policies with
side accounts feature a very high contractually guaranteed rate of return of
around 4 per cent, and no limit no how much can be deposited. These policies
were issued when interest rates were much higher than they are now. As rates in
the recent past have occasionally declined to below 1 per cent, these contracts
became a source of potential major liability for insurance companies.
Investment groups have sought to deposit large sums in high interest side
accounts and be paid a guaranteed rate of return by the insurance companies. If
allowed, this would result in potentially unlimited losses to insurers,
threatening the financial stability of the companies and life insurance policies
held by the consumers.
In
Saskatchewan, attempts to carry out this plan by investment groups resulted in a
series of court battles. The insurance companies were eventually successful but
only because of regulatory changes. So, subsequently, to mitigate the risk of
this happening elsewhere, six other provinces have made legislative changes
similar to those in Saskatchewan to prevent investors from using a universal
life side account to extract unlimited returns from insurance companies.
The
Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association has advocated for these changes,
and we had discussions with them in the course of drafting our amendments.
Speaker,
the amendments we have proposed to the
Life Insurance Act here in this province are similar to those in other
jurisdictions. We propose to set a ceiling on side account deposits equal to the
sum of the cost of life insurance and the remaining tax exemption investment
room. This will prevent side accounts from being misused while avoiding
disruption to anyone's existing investments, Mr. Speaker.
The
amendments also provide clarification within the act to ensure that there is no
unintentional application of the
Securities Act to insurance companies. Otherwise, securities regulation
could be inappropriately applied to insurance companies.
The
draft bill also provides an opportunity to reword the act to remain gender
silent in order to respect the gender diversity of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.
Thank
you very much. This is a bit of a loophole, I guess, that we're closing, that
most other provinces are closing. I look forward to answering any questions and
hearing comments from my colleagues.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Speaker.
Again,
it is an opportunity to get up and speak on another bill that we have in Digital
Government and Service NL, I don't know how many we have but we're having a good
many.
First of
all, I would like once again to thank the officials of the Department of Digital
Government and Service NL. The officials in the department are hard working;
they prepare a number of pieces of legislation each session for us to debate
here in this House. I am going to say more than a number, there is a good many.
So I thank the officials for that and I thank them for the briefing that they
provided us.
This
bill amends the Life Insurance Act. So
I first must outline what the Life
Insurance Act does and what the purpose of it is. The
Life Insurance Act provides for the regulation of life insurance in
the province. It is really consumer protection legislation when you think about
it. The act makes sure that when a resident purchases a life insurance policy,
that the purchase is protected. It makes sure that a company cannot run away
with a person's money.
One of
the things which the Life Insurance Act
does is that it allows for the licensing of insurance agencies. This is an
important part of making sure that the industry is safe for residents to
purchase products for. There are different types of insurances: there are health
insurances, there is car insurance, travel insurance and many more.
This act
and the bill we have before us deals with life insurance. Life insurance is
defined in legislation in the Insurance
Companies Act. Life insurance is an insurance that is payable on death, on
the happening of an event or contingency dependent on human life, at a fixed or
determinable future time, or for term dependent on human life.
Life
insurance “(ii) includes insurance under which an insurer, as part of a contract
of life insurance, undertakes to pay an additional sum of insurance money in the
event of the death by accident of the person whose life is insured, (iii)
insurance under which an insurer, as part of a contract of life insurance,
undertakes to pay insurance money or to provide other benefits in the event that
the person whose life is insured becomes disabled as a result of bodily injury
or disease, and (iv) an undertaking to provide an annuity, or what would be an
annuity except that the periodic payments may be unequal in amount, for a term
dependent solely or partly on a human life, and that undertaking shall be
considered always to have been life insurance.”
This
definition is lengthy and complex, for sure, so I will condense it for the
people that are listening at home. Life insurance is a contract between an
insurance policy holder and an insurance company, where the insurance company
promises to pay a designated beneficiary a sum of money upon the death of an
insured person.
I would
like to take a moment to talk about what this legislation before us today is.
This amendment will close a loophole which currently allows life insurance side
accounts to be used as investment vehicles. Side accounts were not and were
never intended to be used as investment vehicles. So this amendment will close a
loophole to ensure that side accounts on life insurance policies are used for
their intended purpose, which is to hold money to pay future premiums.
When
universal life policies – which are called ULPs – were set up, side accounts
were created. People could deposit money into these side accounts which could be
saved to pay the premiums of the universal life policy over time. Unlimited
deposits were allowed into side accounts with a guaranteed rate of interest.
People who figured out this loophole would invest large sums of money into their
side accounts and receive large profits, putting the solvency of insurance
companies at risk.
A farmer
who was also a trained actuary in Saskatchewan found this loophole. He purchased
up these policies with side accounts, invested money into their side accounts
and then tried to get insurance companies to pay out large amounts of interest.
This issue ended up in Saskatchewan court where the law sided with the insurance
companies and concluded that side accounts cannot be used as investment
vehicles.
While
this case was in the court process, Saskatchewan implemented new regulations
which clarified that the purpose of these side accounts was to hold money to pay
premium payments in future years. And they cannot be used as an investment
vehicle. Now we are debating similar amendments, which I note that the Canadian
Life and Health Insurance Association has been lobbying Canadian provinces to
implement.
So how
will this loophole be closed? This amendment will introduce a limit to the
contribution room in the side account. The room in the side account will be
limited to the costs of the insurance policy so that the contributions of the
side account pay for the ULP. No additional contributions will be able to be
made above the contribution limit, but any funds currently in the side accounts
can stay there. People who have money in these side accounts will not be forced
to withdraw.
I
believe this is good legislation and that it's needed. This legislative change
enforces the separation of insurance and securities. The two areas have separate
regulations and governance. The two areas should be regulated separately. A
person should not be able to use insurance for purposes other than its intended
purpose.
So in
closing, I'd like to thank the department for their work on this legislation and
I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
Seeing no other speakers, if
the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL speaks now she will close
debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Speaker.
I thank
the Member for Ferryland for his comments on the legislation. It's very
important, we're closing a loophole, which I think protects consumers and, as
the regulator for insurance, I think it's important to ensure stability in our
insurance system and of the insurance contracts of residents.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The motion is that Bill 55 now be read a second 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.'
The motion is carried.
CLERK:
A
bill, An Act To Amend The Life Insurance Act. (Bill 55)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now
been read a second time.
When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the
Whole?
S.
CROCKER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
Now.
On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Life Insurance
Act,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House
presently, by leave. (Bill 55)
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL,
that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 55.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and
seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole to consider the said bill.
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.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Trimper):
Order,
please!
We are now considering Bill 55, An Act To Amend The
Life Insurance Act.
A bill, “An Act To Amend The Life Insurance Act.” (Bill
55)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Just one question: When will this get into legislation and be enacted, I guess?
CHAIR:
The hon. the
Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
When the bill receives Royal Assent. So no more money will be able to be put
inside accounts once the bill receives Royal Assent – above the limit.
CHAIR:
Any further questions?
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
The motion is carried.
On motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 to 23
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall Clauses 2
through 23 inclusive carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
The motion is carried.
On motion, clauses 2 through 23 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting
clause carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The
Life Insurance Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the
Bill 51 carried without amendment?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Thank you very much.
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the
bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the
Government House Leader.
S.
CROCKER:
Thank you Chair.
I move, Chair, that the Committee rise and report Bill
55.
CHAIR:
It has been moved that the Committee rise and report Bill 55 carried without
amendment.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, that the Committee rise, report
progress and ask leave to sit again, the Speaker returned to the Chair.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Lake Melville and Deputy Chair
of Committees.
P.
TRIMPER:
Speaker, the Committee of the Whole report that we have carried Bill 55 without
amendment.
SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of the Whole
reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have
directed him to report Bill 55 be carried without amendment.
When shall the report be received?
S. CROCKER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
Now.
When shall the bill be read a third time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call from the Order Paper second reading of Bill 58.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Municipal
and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member from Mount Pearl North, that Bill 58, An
Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000, be now read a second time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that Bill
58, An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000, be now read a second
time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning
Act, 2000.” (Bill 58)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Municipal
and Provincial Affairs.
K.
HOWELL:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm very pleased today to speak to the proposed
amendments to the Urban and Rural Planning
Act, 2000. These proposed amendments will improve the land-use appeal
process by establishing a list of adjudicators across the province, increasing
the capacity to hear appeals and creating process efficiencies. In short, the
amendments will provide a timely and balanced appeal process for all areas
across the province.
The regional appeal boards hear appeals related to land
use and development issues that arise from decisions made by municipalities or
provincial government authorities. This may involve appeals related to an
application for development, a revocation of an approval or permit for
development or the issuance of an enforcement order, something like a stop-work
order.
Speaker, we've all heard of the delays with the
scheduling of appeal board hearings, the majority of which are occurring in the
Eastern region, where there is the greatest volume of appeals. Due to the
unbalanced appeal board workload, current wait times for appeal hearings in the
Eastern region of the province can be in excess of one year. The proposed
amendments will increase the capacity to help make the system work more
efficiently and will likely, hopefully, lead to shorter wait times.
The four current regional appeal boards will be
disestablished and will be replaced with a list of adjudicators appointed across
the province, adjudicating appeals in a consistent and efficient manner all
across Newfoundland and Labrador.
The list will consist of up to 20 professionally
qualified adjudicators appointed from all regions of the province through the
Independent Appointments Commission process. Adjudicators will require a
recognized professional designation, relevant to administrative law and
municipal development, such as a lawyer or a certified professional land-use
planner. They will be selected through the Independent Appointments Commission
process and will be compensated in accordance with remunerations for agencies,
boards and commissions.
While the individual adjudicator cost will increase,
the overall cost of the appeal process will not since the appeals will be heard
by a single adjudicator as opposed to a board of three and there will be an
increased use of virtual technology, the hearing cost is not anticipated to
increase overall. So we have learned some significant lessons from COVID.
Amendments will allow adjudicators to review appeals
and dismiss them without a hearing, any that fall outside of the legal
jurisdiction of the board. This will help reduce the wait times.
So just to elaborate on the amendment – currently and
under the amendment – appeals can be heard largely for development applications,
permits and stop-work orders. There are times when appeals are brought forward
on a decision of council related to, say, a road upgrade, for example, or a
capital works project. These are not currently within the jurisdiction of the
appeal boards and this will not change under the proposed amendments.
The bill confirms that government is responsive to the
need for a timely appeal process and will result in an overall improved land-use
appeal process. The sharing of work more equitably among appointed adjudicators
will help ensure that current appeals are addressed and, going forward, that
appeals are heard within a reasonable time frame.
Speaker, as part of this work the
Urban and Rural Planning Act, 2000, was also reviewed for
gender-silent amendments. This means it will now be without reference to his,
her, she, him or any other gender identifiers.
Finally, a review was also completed for possible
housekeeping amendments. As a result, consequential amendments are necessary to
the Municipalities Act, 1999;
the Public Service Commission Act;
the City of Corner Brook Act;
and the City of Mount Pearl Act as outlined in this bill.
Speaker, to conclude, these amendments will allow for a
more professional land-use appeal process that will benefit all municipalities,
developers and residents.
I'm
honoured to bring forward these amendments because I know first-hand from my
former life as a councillor and a mayor, the importance of having effective and
efficient land-use systems and appeal systems. As we have this week celebrated
municipal governance in Municipal Awareness Week, this discussion is very timely
and it will certainly be a step forward for municipalities.
I'd like
to thank everyone who's contributed to this review. I look forward to debate and
any questions, and the concurrence of my hon. colleagues on this bill.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is
indeed a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 58,
Urban and Rural Planning Act, 2000. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this
bill would be to amend the Urban and Rural
Planning Act, 2000 to replace the regional appeal boards with adjudicators
which would be appointed by the minister.
Municipal and Provincial Affairs employees would have to be appointed to carry
out these administrative and investigative duties related to those particular
appeal processes. They will also have to be preparing materials for these
hearings. Virtual meetings will be allowed and the adjudicator will be permitted
to dismiss a case without hearing any outside jurisdiction in that particular
case. It will continue to allow the existing appeals under the
City of St. John's Act,
Housing Act and Labrador Inuit Land
Claims Agreement, Mr. Speaker, and to incorporate gender-neutral language.
Mr.
Speaker, I thank the minister for her staff, for the briefing that we had on
this. In the briefing it would be explained that it would be cost-neutral. The
appointments will be made by the Independent Appointments Commission. This will,
indeed, professionalize these particular appointments, as they must have the
land-use planning or law degree and experiences in hearings with land-use
planning issues.
The
rationale was to increase the complex nature of these appeals. Individuals have
been known to show up with legal counsel. Some 14 cases have been moved from the
Regional Appeal Board to the Supreme Court, all of which does tie up the amount
of time that they are being used. Of course, that does come out with a
significant backlog moreover in this particular region.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm pleased to be able to stand and speak to this. I do look forward to
asking some questions as we go forward.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm just
going to take a moment just to say that I will also be supporting this bill. No
need to repeat, really, everything that's been said.
At the
end of the day, we're going to take a system that perhaps wasn't as efficient as
it could be. We're going to make it more efficient by having less people
involved, so you don't run into all those scheduling issues and so on. We're
going to make sure that the people that are filling the roles as adjudicators
have the background, the experience and the education and so on required to deal
with the these matters in an effective manner.
Hopefully, by doing so, we're going to reduce the number of cases that may find
its way to the courts. The good news, as the minister has said and my colleague
has said, that it is basically going to be a cost-neutral proposition because
you have less people involved, utilizing more virtual technology, as we have
done through COVID, there will be less travel and, hopefully, it will help get
through the backlog that exists.
So it
makes perfectly good sense to me to do what we're doing here and I will support
it.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
Seeing no other speakers if
the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs speaks now, we will close
debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Thank you, Speaker.
I would
like to thank my colleagues, the Member for Cape St. Francis and the Member for
Mount Pearl - Southlands, who both have extensive knowledge in this area as
well. I think those types of contributions and understanding the implications of
this bill for communities is really what's going to haul us together here as we
move forward.
I look
forward to any questions.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 58 now be read a second 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:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000. (Bill 58)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the said bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole?
S. CROCKER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000,” read a
second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by
leave. (Bill 58)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that this House resolve
itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 58.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the
Whole to consider the said bill.
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.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Trimper):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 58, An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000.” (Bill 58)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The hon.
the Member for the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
J. WALL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just a
few questions, Minister. First of all, the number of backlog of cases per
region: Can you share those with us, please?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Thank you, Chair.
There
are currently 33 outstanding appeals in the Eastern region, with the earliest
received in 2020. Three in Western, received in December 2021 and January and
February of 2022, and they're scheduled to be heard in May, and one outstanding
in Labrador which was received in July of 2021 – that's a Friday.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you.
Minister, you have said there will be some savings; is there any cost-benefit
analysis done to prove this?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
When giving consideration to
the fees that are currently expended to conduct the business in relation to the
expected expenditures, we have decided that there's a cost-neutral process.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you.
Minister, you already have the regionalization plan before your department, plus
a number of other complex files. Are you concerned that your department is being
stretched too thin?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Thank you.
Actually
we do have an incredible amount of work to be done here, but we've been able to
divvy that up accordingly in the department. They are very busy staff, but
they're very competent and they're working very well on all pieces of
legislation that we're moving forward with.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you, Minister.
Has the
department completed a jurisdictional scan, and if so, can you please table it?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Sorry, just a second. I've
got a few notes here that I want to flick through.
We did a
jurisdictional scan, and that's how we came largely to most of the conclusions
that are in this process.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you.
And you
have no issue providing a copy?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Yes, we can. Sorry, I don't
wait for you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With
respect to consultation, did you consult Municipalities NL and the Professional
Municipal Administrators during this process?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
The consultations were
conducted – and these are conversations that we've been having for a number of
years, or a number of months anyway, since I showed up here, about some of the
backlogs and conversations that in almost every community in the Eastern region
has come up. So the consultation has been very widespread even if it wasn't
specifically said we're going out today to do consultation on this issue, we
have heard from communities the importance of making these changes.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Good to hear, thank you.
You
spoke earlier, Minister, with respect to the gender lens. I am wondering about
the geographic representation, First Nation or Indigenous representation.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation, and Labrador Affairs.
L. DEMPSTER:
We will make all efforts to
make sure that all areas across the
province will be represented. In addition, this amendment to URPA, included in
the bill, will ensure that the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement is not
subject to these amendments and we will make sure that any representation that
is available can be achieved on this new board.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you.
Minister, will materials for applications and appeals be available in Indigenous
languages?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation, and Labrador Affairs.
L. DEMPSTER:
I don't have that information right now but I think that is a great idea. If
there is the capacity for the adjudicator to do that, then by all means. So that
is certainly a question that we can take away from here.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you.
Minister, can you lay out a specific timeline over the next 12 months as to when
things are going to happen and will the current cases before the Regional Appeal
Board be completed before disbanded?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation, and Labrador Affairs.
L. DEMPSTER:
Thank you.
The
restructuring won't impact the purpose or the function of the appeals process,
and the appeals will continue to be heard through the current structure until
the new process is established. We do anticipate that there will be about three
to six months for full implementation.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you.
Minister, will there be any job losses at this Regional Appeal Board?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation, and Labrador Affairs.
L. DEMPSTER:
That would be dependent on who applies for these new positions, I guess, and we
have made it such that the applicants now have to meet certain requirements and
a large number of the people that are already sitting on these boards have these
requirements so they would still qualify.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you.
With
respect to training, Minister, the new adjudicators will come fully trained or
any training coming from your department?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation, and Labrador Affairs..
L. DEMPSTER:
I am going to have to refer to my officials for that one, so just give me a
second.
Training
sessions will be offered for all new members and new adjudicators.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you.
So,
Minister, with respect to the appeals under section 40, how many of these
individuals will be paid? Is there a set rate or are there annual retainers? How
is it going to work?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation, and Labrador Affairs.
L. DEMPSTER:
Can you repeat the question?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Folks, just a little quieter,
please.
Thank
you.
J. WALL:
Thank you, Chair.
With
respect to section 40, under Appeals, how will these individuals be paid? Is
there a set rate or is there an annual retainer? How is it going to work?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation, and Labrador Affairs.
L. DEMPSTER:
That will be determined by
the Independent Appointments Commission.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you.
Minister, how will these cases be distributed across the province? Will there be
a head administrator, for lack of a better term?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
The cases will be heard on a
case-by-case basis right across the province. There won't be any specific
designations. One adjudicator will be able to hear the case, so there won't be a
wait-list or a backlog as soon as the process is available.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you.
Minister, with respect to conflict of interest, how can you protect this process
with respect to three individuals on the Regional Appeal Board going to a single
adjudicator?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Sorry, I didn't understand
your question.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Sorry, with respect to the
process to protect the adjudicator from conflict of interest, if something
should come up in an individual appeal, any plan to protect the adjudicator from
that? You're going from three to one.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Thank you.
We will
have a pool of approximately 20 adjudicators that can hear a case. So given the
appropriate training, they'll make the most appropriate adjudicator available.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you.
Minister, under section 41, and I'll read :“A decision of a council, regional
authority or authorized administrator to adopt, approve or proceed with a plan,
a scheme, development regulations and amendments and revisions of them is final
and not subject to an appeal.” Is that subsection currently the case now, with
the wording?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
I'll have to wait for some
assistance.
Yes, it
is currently the process and it will remain the same.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you, Minister.
What
would be the required fee under this section with respect to the appeals
process?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Sorry, I'm just going through
my notes here.
The fees
won't be impacted. The fees will remain unchanged.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Minister, with respect to
section 42(5) it says the adjudicator may enter land or property to do an
inspection. Is this exempt from the trespassing act?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
I will have to wait for
assistance on that question.
My
people must have abandoned me.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible) we can come back,
Minister.
K. HOWELL:
Yeah, fair enough. We can
come back to that one.
CHAIR:
Okay, thank you.
The
Member for Cape St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you.
Shall
all of this process be open to the public?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
We're having some discussions
on how we can present that to the public. I think right now, they allow them to
do written appeals as well; the public can write in to have input. So there is
discussion about that still ongoing.
CHAIR:
The MHA for Cape St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you.
That is
important, Minister, no doubt. I look forward to an answer when you do finally
come back.
With
respect to reports outlined as part of the inspection, will that be made
available to the public as well?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Sorry, we're backtracking a
little bit. There must be a little bit of delay from my crew.
Can I
answer your previous question about the legislative authority? They will have
legislative authority to enter a property, but they won't be trespassing – no
trespassing.
CHAIR:
Do you want to answer,
Minister, the most recent question?
K. HOWELL:
I'm sorry, I'm a little bit –
I have too much coming in to me.
Can you
repeat that second question?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Just a little quieter,
please.
The MHA
for Cape St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you, Chair.
Will the
reports outlined as part of the inspection process be provided to the applicants
and made available to the public?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
The hearings will be open to
the public.
CHAIR:
The MHA for Cape St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you.
With
respect to the right of administrators to dismiss an appeal without a hearing,
as being outside the jurisdiction, can that decision be appealed?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
You're creating a perfect
storm of appeals after appeals after appeals. If it's in their jurisdiction,
then it is, and if it's not, it's not. Once they notice – right now, under the
current process, we have to receive the appeal; they have to make a court date
to tell the proponent that they can't even hear the appeal.
Right
now, as soon as they receive the appeal, they can determine whether or not it's
within their jurisdiction. They'll just immediately notify the proponent that we
don't have jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you.
That
answered my next question.
Minister, section 44 says the adjudicator cannot overrule discretionary decision
of a council. So is this currently the case now under the regional appeal
boards?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Yes, it is.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
And the recourse for that
resident in this case, that can be appealed as well?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
If it's outside their
jurisdiction?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
No, with respect to the
current discretionary decision of council, does a resident have the recourse for
that to be appealed if the decision comes back – is that able to be appealed as
well?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
They can then take that to
the Supreme Court.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
My apologies, Chair, again,
we said earlier about a conversation back and forth and we do have give you a
bit of time.
CHAIR:
We're doing fine.
J. WALL:
Thank you.
Under
section 45, Minister, the charge for fees, what is the price according to the
fees that will be charged?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
I have too many papers here;
just give me one second. Section 45?
The
minister may establish fees for $200 plus tax.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you.
Just a
couple of more, Minister, with respect to section 46, appeal to court. Who will
pay the court costs of the adjudicator?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Sorry, I'm going to have to
refer to my officials.
The
court costs will not be to the adjudicator. If the proponent had to take the
appeal to court it would be on the proponent. The adjudicator wouldn't be in the
process. It would be (inaudible).
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you.
One last
question, Mr. Chair.
With
respect to the legal counsel, will that be in-house with Justice and Public
Safety lawyers?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
No.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
No
further questions, Sir?
J. WALL:
Nothing further, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Any further speakers?
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
With
regard to the adjudicators, their decision is final, correct?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Yes.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
J. DINN:
And if people aren't happy
with that decision, then the only recourse is to take it to court?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Yes.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
J. DINN:
Was there a consideration to
even having an appeal, a tribunal set up so that that would be the final arbiter
instead of going to court?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
We did consider that and it
just became a cycle of repeating appeal, after appeal, after appeal. Given the
nature of the people that we anticipate holding the roles of adjudicators, they
would have adequate knowledge and information to make these decisions. Creating
another layer wasn't really going to be beneficial given that the calibre of
applicants that we anticipate for these roles will be sufficient to make those
decisions.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
J. DINN:
Would there be an
anticipation then that by making the final recourse to court that the cost would
suppress any appeals, and maybe in terms of versus those who might appeal it to
a tribunal? I'm just wondering if there's an attempt here just to suppress the –
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
I think the opposite may also
be true, because if we brought it through a tribunal time and time again, then
the process just gets dragged out and we don't reach a reasonable conclusion
here. A lot of these requests right now are coming in just simply to delay work,
to get a work order stoppage or something of that nature, but by making it a
clear and concise spot, then we eliminate a lot of that delay process.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
J. DINN:
And the qualifications for
the people that you're hoping to get, they don't seem to be establish anywhere
within the bill. Have you determined the type, or the qualifications that you
would be looking for as adjudicators?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Yes, we've identified some of
the quality candidates that we would expect to be adjudicators. They would have
to have some administrative knowledge as well as municipal knowledge, so
land-use planners or lawyers would be the candidates that we would expect.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
J. DINN:
And these qualifications will
be codified in some way, shape or form and transparent, is what I'm looking at
as well.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
They would be in the
Independent Appointments Commission profile.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
J. DINN:
I understand that Bill 58
changes so that hearings can be undertaken by remote means that allow all
parties to communicate with each other during the hearing. Of course, it would
be convenient for people, but it will introduce barriers to others, especially
those who may have limited access or limited understanding or ability to use it,
and that would be the case for many.
So I'm
just wondering what assurances can government give that residents in rural areas
or any area where there are limited technological means won't be disadvantaged
by an adjudicator's decision to host the hearing remotely?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
In any of those situations,
the adjudicators would be responsible to accommodate for that. If a virtual
means is the most convenient manner, then that would be what happens, but in the
event that that's not possible, then in-person hearings can be held.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
J. DINN:
So who would determine the
convenience? Would it be the adjudicator or the people –
CHAIR:
Order, please!
It's
quite difficult to hear the conversation, please.
J. DINN:
Who would determine if it's
convenient? Would it be the adjudicator or would it be the people who are
seeking a decision? So it might be convenient to me, but if the people in the
community are having an issue, would they be the ones who would determine that
convenience?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
The adjudicator would
determine, but under any information that's gathered from the proponent, they
would make the decision.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
J. DINN:
Can the government elaborate
on why paragraph 42(1)(d) of the current act was removed?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
Can you repeat the question?
CHAIR:
Sorry, I need some – we can't
hear the conversation.
The
Member for St. John's Centre, please repeat your question.
J. DINN:
Sorry about that, sure thing,
thank you.
Can the
government elaborate on why paragraph – I think it's 42(1)(d) of the current act
was eliminated or removed?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL:
I'll have to wait for that
answer from my officials.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K.
HOWELL:
Sorry, I am still waiting. I can provide that information for the Member,
shortly.
CHAIR:
You'd seek an answer later? Okay.
The hon the Member for St. John's Centre.
Any further questions for the Member?
J.
DINN:
No.
CHAIR:
Okay. Any further speakers to the bill?
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion carried.
On motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 41 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 through 41 inclusive
carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clauses 2 through 41 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An
Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the
bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal and
Provincial Affairs, that the Committee rise and report Bill 58.
CHAIR:
It is moved and seconded that the Committee rise and report Bill 58.
Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and
ask leave to sit again, the Speaker returned to the Chair.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Lake Melville and Deputy Chair of the Committee.
P. TRIMPER:
Speaker, the Committee of the
Whole report that we have completed our deliberations on Bill 58 and it has been
carried without amendment.
SPEAKER:
The Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee has
considered the matters to them referred and directed him to report Bill 58
without amendment.
When shall the
report be received?
S. CROCKER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the bill be read a third time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I call
second reading of Bill 56.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology, that Bill 56, An Act To Amend
The Condominium Act, 2009, now be read a second time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 56, An Act To Amend The Condominium Act, 2009, be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Condominium Act, 2009.” (Bill 56)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm very
pleased today to bring this Bill 56, An Act to Amend the Condominium Act, 2009,
to the House. I think, Speaker, sometimes some people say that once we have an
act in place, we don't come back and make updates. So I think today is an
excellent example of where we do come back and make updates. We clean things up
and, as things are brought to our attention that should be improved, we are
improving on them. I think that's an excellent example. Today we've had a very
productive session so far and hopefully this continues, Speaker.
The
Condominium Act, 2009 governs the
incorporation, structure and day-to-day operations of condominium corporations
in Newfoundland and Labrador. The act came into force on December 1, 2011.
The 2009
bill introduced consumer protections for individuals looking to purchase a
condominium, including requirements for a disclosure statement, a 10-day cooling
off period following the signing of an agreement of purchase and sale, and
reserve funds.
It also
sought to improve the operations of condominium corporations by prescribing the
duties of the board of directors and the methods of dispute resolution between
unit owners and the corporation. It allowed a unit owner to designate an
individual to act on their behalf in matters relating to the condominium
corporation.
Apart
from amendments in 2020 to allow condominium corporations to meet and vote
virtually, the act has remained largely unchanged since it came into force in
2011. The purpose of this current bill is to clarify the roles and
responsibilities of the condominium corporations and to allow for a board of
directors of fewer than three people in specific circumstances.
Speaker,
a condominium corporation is comprised of unit owners whose property is governed
by the requirements of the act. A condominium development is typically divided
into units owned by separate people. Common elements or areas not owned by a
single unit are maintained by all unit owners in proportion to the percentage
stipulated in the condominiums corporation's declaration.
Condominium developments have grown in popularity in recent years, with 161
corporations currently in the province comprising over 4,000 units. A developer
must register a condominium development by filing a declaration and description
with the Registry of Condominiums in my department. This registration process
creates the condominium corporation. It's a bit of a tongue twister, “the
condominium” over and over and over again.
The
responsibilities of the corporation are to control, manage and administer the
common elements and assets of the corporation; to maintain, repair and renew the
common elements; and to ensure unit owners and occupiers comply with the act and
the related regulations.
Upon the
creation of a condominium corporation, a board of directors of at least three
people is formed to help manage the day-to-day operations of the corporation.
Annual general meetings may be held by a corporation to discuss important
business. A recent amendment to the act in 2020 allows members to participate
and vote virtually. The act also requires the presence of the owners of at least
30 per cent of the common elements for quorum at a meeting.
There is
no specific reference in the act regarding how often a condominium corporation
must hold meetings. So this bill will prescribe the time period in which a
condominium corporation is required to hold its annual meeting. A first meeting
must be held not more than 18 months after a corporation is created and
subsequent meetings must be held within 15 months.
Speaker,
another change in this bill relates to the board of directors for a condominium
corporation. Currently the board must have a minimum of three directors elected
by the members of the corporation regardless of the number of units. This can be
a significant challenge for condominium developments with fewer than three
units. Ordinarily, the board of directors would be made up of some or all of the
unit owners, depending on the size of the condominium corporation.
Corporations with fewer than three unit owners, or whose developer has yet to
sell more than two of the three units must still have a board of directors
comprising of three or more directors. When a sole contractor builds a
condominium structure, they need to establish the condominium corporation prior
to selling any units. Under the act, they would be required to appoint two other
directors to manage the operations of the condominium corporation.
In
addition, it's conceivable that a condominium corporation, typically industrial
or commercial, can be comprised of two units, which again introduces operational
problems for a board to have a minimum of three directors.
This
bill will allow the condominium corporation to have a board of directors with
fewer than three directors – really fascinating stuff – where the property
contains fewer than three units and where no units have been sold. It would also
allow a two-person board where there are only two different owners of the units.
The next
amendment relates to reserve funds. Condominium corporations must hold a reserve
fund for major repair or replacement of the common elements and assets of the
corporation – a very important part of a condominium corporation. Reserve fund
studies are periodic studies to determine whether the amount of money in the
reserve fund and the amount of contributions collected by the corporation are
adequate to provide for the projected costs of major repairs and replacements.
This
bill provides clear direction on processes and timelines for reserve fund
studies, based on the number of units within the condominium, differentiating
between those with fewer than 10 units and those with 10 or more units. It also
removes the now-expired transitional provisions contained in the reserve funds
section of the act. At that time, condominium corporations with 10 or more units
were given two years to complete a reserve-fund study by 2013. As that time has
passed, the provision is no longer necessary.
Finally,
the current act allows the unit owners to withdraw the condominium corporation
from the governance of the act by submitting a notice of withdrawal to the
Registry of Condominiums. While the governance of the property by the act would
be considered terminated, no clause exists to stipulate that the condominium
corporation as a legal entity is now deemed dissolved. This effectively orphans
the corporation so that it may no longer functions but cannot legally cease to
exist. The process of winding up the corporation may be necessary in cases where
the corporation continues to carry debts or encumbrances that may be settled
after the corporation ceases to be a legal entity.
The bill
clarifies that the Registrar of Condominium's acceptance of a notice of
withdrawal formally dissolves a condominium corporation. The changes proposed
have been informed by representation from various law firms in our province. My
department also reached out to the local chapter of Canadian Condominium
Institute, which had no concerns and agreed that these were useful points to add
to the act.
These
amendments clarify the roles and responsibilities of condominium corporations. I
look forward to hearing any other comments and am happy to answer any questions
in Committee.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Speaker.
Again
it's an honour to be able to stand up and go through some legislation again. I
thank the minister and her department for all the briefings; they certainly do a
great job on that.
Today,
in the House, we're debating changes to the Condominium Act. I say that we are
debating changes, but in reality we're debating clarifications. We reviewed the
bill and the act and what we are debating today does not change the intent of
the bill; it just clarifies issues which have been raised, to make sure that
everyone is on the same page and that the legislation leaves no questions
unanswered.
These
changes are being brought forward because of questions raised by the legal
community. So if questions have been raised, it's our job to answer them.
Legislation will allow to answer them. Officials in the briefings noted that
they have reached out to the Condominium Institute, and while they have not been
lobbied for the changes, they have no concerns with the changes being proposed.
With that being said, I'd like to take some time to touch briefly on the
changes, clarifications and anything else that's been included in this.
The
first one is the annual general meetings. The current legislation is silent when
an AGM must be held. Although one would assume that by the nature of being an
annual general meeting, there must be a meeting each and every year; hence, the
word “annual.” But apparently this isn't the case. Questions were raised about
when an annual general meeting must be held.
The bill
specifies that for a new condominium corporation, an AGM must be held within the
first 18 months. It also states that an AGM must be held within 15 months of the
previous AGM. This timeline makes sense. Having an AGM within 18 months of a new
corporation gives time for units to be sold so that the cohort of members of the
corporation is established. Eighteen months essentially allows for greater
participation.
Having
an AGM within 15 months of the previous meeting also ensures there is an annual
meeting, meaning one each year. But that does not provide too restrictive of a
timeline so that the condominium corporations have a hard time meeting their
requirements.
Under
the number of directors, the current legislation specifies that the condominium
board must have three or more directors. For the majority of condominium
corporations this makes sense; however, there are circumstances where it's
difficult to have three directors. An example would be the condominium may only
have two units.
Another
example would be there are two individuals who may own all of the units in the
building. Think about a building that has 10 units; one person owns nine of them
and rents them out, and a different person owns the remaining unit. Or there may
be a condominium building where no units have been sold. In these instances, it
would be hard to find three people to fill the board, given there are only three
owners of the units.
The bill
we are debating provides direct guidance on these situations. If the condominium
has only two units, the board can have two members. If there are two owners of
the units, the board can have two members. If the developer has yet to sell any
units, the board can have one member.
When the
reserve study is required, the reserve study determines how much money a
corporation, which administers 10 or more units, must set aside for future
maintenance and repairs. A reserve study is not required for a corporation which
administers less than 10 units. This bill clarifies that a reserve fund study
must be completed before the sale of the first unit and updated every 10 years.
This is
not a change in practice, but is bringing greater clarity and specificity to the
words in the legislation which questions were raised about. It is our hope,
given the nature of these amendments, that the same questions won't be raised in
the future.
The
final clarification, which this bill accomplishes, answers the question when a
condominium corporation ceases to exist. The bill clarifies that a condominium
corporation is dissolved when the register accepts the notice of a withdrawal.
In
summary, this bill doesn't make any changes to practice but clarifies questions
which have been raised.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
going to take a second; I'll support the bill. As it has been said, there are
three issues at play here. It is nothing really new; it is just clarifying what
practice already exists. I will support the bill.
The only
question I do have, whether it be Committee or maybe when the minister just
finishes off the debate here in second reading. There is a big similarity
between a condominium and a co-op in terms of how they operate. I know a
condominium is privately owned, of course, and a co-op, it belongs to the
collective. But it is still basically the same process. You have common services
and people would collectively contribute and you would have, I would assume,
reserve funds for repairs for all the units. It is very similar to a
condominium, but it does have a bit of a difference here.
I'm
wondering does this also apply to co-ops. The minister is nodding her head, no.
So with that said, I'm fine with the bill.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Seeing no other speakers.
If the
Minister of Digital Government and Service NL speaks now she will close debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Speaker.
I thank
the MHA for Ferryland and the MHA for Mount Pearl - Southlands for their
feedback.
To
answer the Members question, the
Co-operatives Act has their own separate act and this does not apply to
co-operatives.
I am
happy to answer any questions in Committee.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 56 now be read a second 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:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Condominium Act, 2009. (Bill 56)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?
S. CROCKER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Condominium Act, 2009,” read a second time,
ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill
56)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL, that this House
resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 56.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve
itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the said bill.
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.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Pardy):
Order, please!
It is a pleasure to be chairing this session.
We are now considering Bill 56, An Act to Amend the
Condominium Act, 2009.
A bill, “An Act to Amend the Condominium Act, 2009.”
(Bill 56)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The Chair notices the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
L.
O'DRISCOLL:
I
am safe now. I won't get thrown out tonight. I wouldn't count that out with the
principal.
I've just got one question for the Committee. The
legislation prescribes the circumstances where one or two directors are
permitted. If circumstances change that they no longer fall under these specific
circumstances and will now require more directors, how long until this has to
happen?
So I will just give you an example. It is probably best
to illustrate this question. Two directors are sufficient if there are only two
owners for all of the units in a condominium complex. If one of the owners sells
some of the units so that they are now three or more owners, how long would the
corporation have to amend their bylaws and elect a third director?
CHAIR:
The
Chair notices the hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
S.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Chair.
And I would just like to give a shout-out to my husband
and son who are watching our proceedings live now while they are eating their
supper.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
S.
STOODLEY:
Yes, Alexander is eating a big piece of corn, I think. I just got a video of him
eating some corn.
Thank you for the question.
To
answer the question, the board would have until the next meeting of the board to
make the changes.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
No further questions?
Are
there any other speakers to this bill?
If not,
shall clause 1 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 14
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 to 14
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 through 14 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The
Condominium Act, 2009.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill
without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I
recommend that you're doing a great job.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Thank you.
S. CROCKER:
Mr. Chair, I move that the
Committee rise and report Bill 56.
CHAIR:
The motion is that we rise
and report Bill 56.
Is it
the will of the House?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista and Chair of Committee of the Whole.
C. PARDY:
Mr. Speaker, I'd like to
recognize Alexander and all the others watching this proceeding.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
C. PARDY:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report Bill 56 without amendment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have
considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 56
without amendment.
SPEAKER:
When shall the report be received?
S. CROCKER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
When shall the bill be read a third
time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on
tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I call from the Order Paper second reading of Bill 57.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Digital
Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology,
that Bill 57, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Savings Plans Act And The Pension
Plans Designation Of Beneficiaries Act, be now read a second time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that Bill
57, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Savings Plans Act And The Pension Plans
Designation Of Beneficiaries Act, be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Income Tax Savings Plans
Act And The Pension Plans Designation Of Beneficiaries Act.” (Bill 57)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Digital
Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm pleased to begin our deliberations on Bill 57. I wasn't involved in the
naming of those bills, I don't know how we determine names, but they're also a
bit of a tongue twister.
So designating a beneficiary is the act of naming someone to receive money,
property, investments or any other special benefit. Beneficiaries can be named
in a will, but can also be listed through other instruments such as a registered
savings plan or a pension plan. This bill will allow for the designation of
beneficiaries by electronic means in the case of savings or pension plans. It
also makes amendments to the acts in question to incorporate gender-silent
language. Such language is important in order to respect the gender diversity of
the people of our province.
Today, designating a beneficiary through electronic means for savings plans such
as a registered retirement savings plan, a registered retirement income fund or
a tax-free savings account is not permitted. Neither are electronic designations
permitted for pension plans. This is disallowed as – similar to a will – these
instruments are considered a testament disposition under common law. In other
words, the naming of a beneficiary which takes effect after you die. Therefore,
these are excluded under the Electronic
Commerce Act.
Because of this exclusion, these beneficial designations require a wet-ink
signature – so an actual signature. Electronic signatures are not permitted.
Speaker,
many people who want to name a beneficiary in their savings plan do not want to
physically visit a financial institution or a financial planning provider to
complete the beneficiary designation. This is especially so for those in rural
or isolated areas or who may see this as an inconvenience. Asking them to
provide a wet signature is also inconsistent with trends towards facilitating
electronic activity and allowing more transactions to be completed online.
Six
provinces already allow electronic beneficiary designations; namely, New
Brunswick, PEI, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and BC. These amendments would
increase options for consumers when designating a beneficiary, increase digital
transactions and align with trends in other jurisdictions.
Speaker,
as we move towards digital signatures, and I know we all do more things
virtually, this kind of is in line with how things are moving. These amendments,
there's not really a downside here. So we're updating it to bring it in line
with how people want to act with their institutions.
So I am
looking forward to hearing any Members' comments and happy to answer any
questions in Committee.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Speaker.
Again,
it's a pleasure to get up and be able to speak on this bill. It's certainly not
going to take very long. It's something I'm going to say that's probably long
overdue, the way technology is going and the legislation is just going to give
you the chance to be able to do what they can online and be able to sign a piece
of paper.
This
bill will allow electronic signatures to be accepted when an individual changes
the beneficiary of a savings account or a pension plan. Pretty basic but it just
gives you that opportunity. This change is being brought in to address concerns
brought forward by the Investment Industry Association of Canada. IIAC expressed
concern that their clients have been inconvenienced by having to travel to a
physical office to sign papers when they could sign them electronically from
home.
The
Electronic Commerce Act already
provides provisions where electronic signatures can be utilized. This bill
specifies that the electronic signatures for pension plans and income tax
savings plans must be in accordance with the
Electronic Commerce Act.
Thank
you, Speaker, that's everything I have on that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Speaker.
Just
going to take a second here just to say, for the record, I will be supporting
the bill as well. Anything we can do to make life easier for folks and to
incorporate the new way of doing things in terms of our new digital world, I
will certainly support. The only thing I would point out to the minister is,
whether it be this bill or any other bill, when we're making more opportunities
online for people, we always have to be cognizant of the fact not everybody in
our province, whether it be because of age, education, connectivity, having
computers available and so on, not everybody is in the same boat. We certainly
saw that with Motor Registration. It is a good example of that. We know what
happened there.
I'll
support this, but we always have to make sure that that backup is there for
people who are not tech savvy or don't have the ability to do things online.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
Seeing no further speakers if
the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL speaks now, she shall close
debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Speaker.
Thank
you to the Member for Ferryland and Mount Pearl - Southlands for their feedback
and overview. I certainly appreciate the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands's
feedback around not everyone can do things online, absolutely. So actual wet
signatures, obviously, are still allowed. We have no plans to kind of reduce
in-person services as we expand online; we're just hoping to improve in-person
services by having more people do things online.
I'm
happy to answer any other questions in Committee.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 57 now be read a second 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:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Income Tax Savings Plans Act And The Pensions Plans Designation Of Beneficiaries
Act. (Bill 57)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the said bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?
S. CROCKER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Income Tax Savings Plans Act And The
Pension Plans Designation Of Beneficiaries Act,” read a second time, ordered
referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 57)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL, that the House
resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 57.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the
Whole to consider the said bill.
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.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Trimper):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 57, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Savings Plans Act And
The Pension Plans Designation Of Beneficiaries Act.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Income Tax Savings Plans Act And The Pension Plans
Designation Of Beneficiaries Act.” (Bill 57)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
Any
speakers to the bill?
No
questions?
Shall
the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2, 3 and 4.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2, 3 and 4
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 2 through 4 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Income Tax Savings Plans Act And The Pension Plans
Designation Of Beneficiaries Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill
carried without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
I move, Mr. Chair, that the
Committee rise and report Bill 57.
CHAIR:
It has been moved that the
Committee rise and report Bill 57.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Lake Melville and Chair of Committee of the Whole.
P. TRIMPER:
Speaker, the Committee of the
Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred
and have carried Bill 57 without amendment.
SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed him to report Bill 57 without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
S. CROCKER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
When shall the bill be read a
third time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I have
done that so many times this afternoon that the Clerk doesn't even give me the
cue anymore.
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that this House
do now recess until 6:45.
SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
This
House do stand recessed until 6:45 p.m.
May 12, 2022
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. L No. 53A
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Are the House Leaders ready?
Order,
please!
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I call Motion 1.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Thank you, Speaker.
It gives
me great pleasure and an honour to be here today to represent the people of the
great, vast District of Placentia West - Bellevue and bring their concerns
forward.
When we
look at the budget here, I spoke earlier to an amendment, but one of the biggest
things that are concerning the people right now of Placentia West - Bellevue is
health care. When it comes to health care, obviously Placentia West- Bellevue is
in a pretty unique situation, Speaker, because we rely on hospitals in all our
adjacent districts. We rely on Whitbourne, which is in trouble right now about
staffing issues. We rely on Clarenville, which is overworked and losing doctors.
The Health Accord hasn't bode well for the Burin Peninsula in talking about the
loss of different surgeries and obstetrics, stuff like that.
Like I
said, there are two ways of looking at this when we talk about the budget. I
don't think health care should be looked at as a cost. I think health care
should be looked at as an investment to make our people better. With that being
said, when we see no succession plan for retention and recruitment, then that
obviously would raise some red flags for anybody that's concerned with the state
of health care in this province.
In
listening to my people, Speaker, it's obviously in a crisis mode. We see that
people are making decisions now on if they can afford gas to get to an
appointment. They're making decisions between prescriptions and food. They don't
know if turning on the heat in their house is going to bode well for their
budget later on for the month because, like I said, with a fixed income, it's
just that. There is nowhere to draw the extra money from. If it wasn't for the
good nature, I guess, of family members and community-minded people, then some
of these things wouldn't be able to happen.
When we
look at health care as an investment, we're looking at this green economy as an
investment and a transition, but I don't understand how we can't look at it the
same way in helping our people. In the federal budget, or in COVID times, I
guess, they announced $320 million to help save the oil and gas industry on the
East Coast. The next day they announced $1.8 billion for electric charging
stations.
So, like
I said, it's kind of a slap in the face to the people here that have contributed
so much to the economy of not only Newfoundland and Labrador, but to the country
of Canada since 1949. I really think that it's time that we see the federal
government as our partners and not as our overlord, or our landlord type of
thing. Like I said, a lot of stuff that's being decided on, whether they're
giving us approval for Bay du Nord – it's almost like we had to beg for that to
happen, whereas we should be the purveyors of that and just get the go-ahead, I
guess, or make sure everything is in place environmentally and stuff, and that
would certainly help our cause.
Down on
the Burin Peninsula right now when we look at some of the programing that's
being cut at the College of the North Atlantic, that's not an economic driver to
bring health care workers to the area. Like I said, when you hear about the
deterioration of services, then it's not really an economic driver to draw young
families to the area either to carry on their careers.
Like I
said, it's just one thing after another. When you see the price of gas and the
price of diesel, us being leaders in all of North America on price, that's not a
good thing. I mean, that's something we should be ashamed of. We should do
better for our citizens. As we know, we're here on an island, transportation is
obviously a big concern and a big issue for everybody in the province; but, like
I said, with the degradation of services or anything in health care, then that
just means that people from outside the overpass are just going to have to start
paying out more to make their appointments and to rely on other areas of the
province for their services that they render.
We have
some stuff that can be preventative measures, like the glucose monitors. For
such a miniscule price, the savings are about $25 million down the road if we
look at the fact that it will cut back on some other health care issues that can
arise from anybody that has diabetes or anything like that.
It's one
thing to tax people, but it's a whole other thing to tax them to death. People
are really having to make those compromising decisions. We had a five-step
program, but it just didn't go far enough. Yes, it's helpful for some of the
people that find themselves in those thresholds, but there are still thresholds
and it didn't cover everybody.
The one
thing that would affect about 98 per cent of our province's residents would be
the reduction in the price of fuel. If other provinces can do it – I really
don't understand how we can stand here in this Chamber and say that we have no
will or we have no political voice to be able to do it. I think that we need to
pull up our socks, buckle up our shoes, tighten our belt loop and get at it,
because we're here to represent 520,000 people. This shouldn't be about any
party lines or anything like this. It should be about making sure that our
people are well taken care of. That's what they elected us to do: to give them
that opportunity to have access to their government and have access to a quality
of life and, I'll say it again, peaceful enjoyment.
There's
so much anxiety out there that peaceful enjoyment is just out of reach right now
for a lot of people, and it's very unfortunate. As fighting Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians, as hard-working, honest people, we deserve to be recognized as not
just the 10th province in this country, but a country that came to join with
another country in the Commonwealth. Like I said, it's not about entitlement; I
don't like that word, but it is certainly about getting our just due.
As we
know, with everything that was kind of pillaged from here with our natural
resources, with not only forestry and mining, the biggest one is obviously our
fishery. One thing that we learned from our fishery, over many years, was the
secondary processing is so important to our fishery and to our people. Now if we
have the secondary processing in place, then we're actually looking out to jobs
for the people of the province.
There
are things we can do in a different way. We're not asking for more money in the
budget or anything like that. We're asking to be more efficient with the budget.
Like I said, there are things there that seem to be priorities this time around
that certainly wouldn't be priorities of this side of the House, I can assure
you that, Mr. Speaker. It's not the priority of the people of Placentia West -
Bellevue.
When I
see a five-point plan coming out to help seniors, I was very happy and proud to
see that. But when you take a segment of seniors and you treat them differently
then the rest of the seniors, that's where I draw the line and I have an issue.
A Metrobus pass is not very much good to Mrs. Williams out in Arnold's Cove that
has to get to Clarenville – while Clarenville does have a good bus support
system for their residents it's not currently resonating throughout my district.
Being so spread out and such a vast district that covers 5,503 square kilometres
and goes from seven kilometres outside of Whitbourne right to Marystown, then we
have to realize that there's different demographics and those demographics treat
the residents very different than somebody that's over on Carpasian Road and got
to try to get to the Health Sciences.
It's
about treating everybody fairly and treating everybody with respect. It's not
about picking one sector or another. Even for the little pittance that was
certainly passed along to the people in the five-point plan, then it's probably
welcomed in the short term, but in the long term it really does not help to
clear up anything in their budget or their economy.
What
we're doing is creating a larger, more vulnerable sector, because people are
starting now to realize that that peaceful enjoyment of living, whether it's
groceries, gas, medications, just anything, are becoming more out of reach for
people because obviously with the price of gas going up to the astronomical
price that it is, those, we know, gets passed on to the consumers, and it's very
unfortunate that that's the route that we have to take.
When we
look at trying to do doctor retention, I've been after it now for a couple of
years, trying to get even a nurse practitioner in the Arnold's Cove area,
because we have a doctor there, Dr. Fowlow, God love him, he's been servicing
that area for 50 years. He deserves his retirement. There are no two ways about
that. He's a very well-respected man, very loved in the community, just
unbelievably a treasure.
We don't
want to see him go, but he deserves to go. For the last couple of years, I've
been in consultations with the town, and we convinced to go to Eastern Health
and we'd even build a building to their spec of whatever they wanted. So to say
that those tertiary services are not available to the families and stuff, then I
would beg to differ. Like I said, it's an opportunity for us to focus on some
real issues as opposed to focusing on different sections and segments of the
province that appease more than anything. Because, with the pittance that's
available, it really doesn't go far enough.
So what
we are doing is creating a larger, more vulnerable sector of people that is
bringing the middle-income people back to that level of poverty. And when we
look at the Health Accord that everybody is touting, and I commend Sister
Elizabeth Davis and Dr. Parfrey and all their committees for such hard work, but
the real issue here is that we are creating a more vulnerable sector. One of the
biggest social determinants of health is poverty. Before they go on to any other
points in their presentation, that's the one that they talk about the most, and
that's what makes health care and jobs and all this kind of stuff unattainable
for some people.
Right
now, we got our blue-collar workers that are getting up every day and they still
have to pack their lunch and that's more expensive because groceries are more
expensive. They're still getting in them trucks and cars and still travelling to
their positions and working and trying to provide for their family, but it's
just becoming unattainable. How many times have I heard, in the last couple of
weeks, that it might be better off just to stay home and do nothing, as it is to
put yourself in the hole for going to work.
As we
heard earlier in the week – and my colleague and I have been working with these
people from Southern Harbour for quite some time. They're backlogged with trying
to get reimbursed for medical transportation. When medical transportation is
only covering 20 cents per kilometre, which is obviously more expensive now to
drive, that 20 cents is not going far enough.
Like I
said, if we want to make health care better outside the overpass, I will say, is
that maybe it's an incentive like a northern allowance type of thing that would
attract a doctor to a rural area. Because right now they're trying to get out of
the rural areas, just for the simple fact that there's too much put on them, and
they're covering a lot more pieces of health care in their position, like
dealing with psychological help and stuff like that, when that's not what they
studied. But if we had something like an incentive to keep them there, then that
would certainly be welcomed. Right now what we're doing is we're robbing Peter
to pay Paul. We tout the fact that we had 37 or 38 new doctors hired in the
province, but we lost 46. So it just makes no sense, the situation that we're
going.
Cutting
programs is certainly not producing new grads. For the Minister of Health to
stand here today in Question Period and say that they're hiring 100 per cent of
the graduates from the nursing class, I'd beg to differ. We talked about a
situation earlier this week where three brand new graduates approached Eastern
Health and wanted to be hired, and they were told that there are no positions
available. To me, it kind of flies in the face of what we're hearing here in the
House and what the people of the province are hearing. These three young men did
very well in school; they got very good marks. Now they're working at the QEII
in Halifax. That's just not acceptable.
We need
them here, yet we can't keep them. They want to stay here, yet we can't keep
them. So there's not really a lot of incentive to keep them. I don't understand
that we can sit here and talk about recruitment and retention, hiring new people
to cover an office like that, yet we're telling our new graduates that there are
no positions available. So like I said, talk to them three gentlemen and ask why
they had to go to Nova Scotia. I have it there in an email verbatim of why they
had to go and the response that they got. So there are no questions on that.
When we
look at recruitment and retention, we can go after whatever we want when it
comes to the human resources. But if they're not available, then we have to get
creative. That's the issue is that we have no succession plan on replacing
people.
The
Seniors' Advocate office is obviously an indictment to that. That's been vacant
now for almost a year when we knew that the former Seniors' Advocate had given
her notice, and it's still not filled. Like I said, we can hide behind the fact
that it's a lengthy process and it has to come to the House and all that kind of
stuff, but at the end of the day we have to have the will to want to replace
that person.
It's
such an important office. Seniors really do feel like that they have someone to
go to when that office is filled. The Seniors' Advocate is such an important
piece to our province, right along with the Consumer Advocate and all that kind
of stuff. It's an important entity where people feel that they can bring their
concerns to somebody that's in a position to understand all the legislation that
would be governing what they're asking.
To not
have that Seniors' Advocate in place just shows me that in health care right
now, even in CSSD, we don't have a succession plan to replace people. We're
talking about $70 million that was saved last year, all because we couldn't fill
positions. I know a bunch of people that applied. We're saying we need 200 and
300 people and a couple of thousand people for IT. I know somebody personally
that applied to IT here with government and was turned down. Said no, all our
positions are filled.
It's
just not good enough. It's just unbelievable. I hope it is certainly not because
they're coming from a PC district or anything like that. But, with that being
said, I think we have to have the will to understand that the 40 Members in here
are all equal. There's no unilateral decisions that are made here, but people
need to have their voice listened to.
This is
not about pitting each other against each other, or anything like that. It's not
about helping one segment of the province, and not the other. It's about, we are
responsible to help everyone. Whoever decides that they want to live in this
province, we have to do what we can to make sure that they peacefully enjoy
where they chose to live and work, and what they want to do. That doesn't mean
that it's more attractive to be inside the overpass because there are more
services. Those services are being paid for by the people of the province.
We heard
the Finance Minister today say that we're going to have an extra influx of
income tax this year, then let's make sure that the people are getting to
understand the whole gamut of what they're contributing to.
I see
that my time is running short there, Mr. Speaker. I would be very remiss if I
didn't say thank you to all the nurses, here during Nurses' Week, and say we
appreciate all your service and hopefully we can get you some full-time and
benefits –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
J. DWYER:
– coming soon, because this
retention and recruitment program is going to work.
The last
thing I would say before I go is congratulations to all the graduates in the
province, especially in my District of Placentia West - Bellevue. Once you have
your graduation night, I always say tomorrow is the first day of the rest of
your life.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Environment and Climate Change.
B. DAVIS:
Thank you, Speaker.
Thank
you to the hon. Member for Placentia West - Bellevue. I share his hope for the
future for our students, and congratulations to all those that are going to
graduate this year and the celebrations that will ensue. Hopefully they get to
celebrate a little bit more than they have in the past couple of years due to
the pandemic.
I'd like
to first address the fact, the word of balance. I think balance is really
important when we discuss things in this House of Assembly. The Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue highlighted some things that we differ on here. I will
be the yang to his ying. I'm always look at it from a positive perspective. Even
when it's difficult times, I think we all have to look at that. We can look at
it like the couple of people that sits up in the bandstand at
The Muppets, Statler and Waldorf. We
can look at it that way, or we can look it the way I try to view it, as
positive.
A bunch
of times throughout this debate over the last couple of days, I take great
exception to the – I won't say attack, but I guess marginalizing of the
residents in the City of St. John's and the metro area because we as a
government decided to invest in Metrobus. But that's true though. You say we
shouldn't do it because it's not in every part of the province. If that's the
case, ferries aren't in my part of the province – in my district either, so
that's not what we do as a government. You invest in every district and try to
invest everywhere.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
B. DAVIS:
They're not in my district.
You're saying that investments in one area of the province shouldn't be done
because there's no other comparable service in another district. That's exactly
what you're saying.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
B. DAVIS:
That's exactly what you're
saying. I didn't yell or scream when you were up, I am just saying that's
exactly what's been talked about on a number of occasions during this debate –
exactly what's been said. Why would we invest in Metrobus in the City of St.
John's and the residents of the greater St. John's area, that utilize that
service, because it's not in the District of Terra Nova?
We can
get Hansard. The good thing about
Hansard is everything everybody says
is recorded. It's also the bad thing for some people; like we're going to find
out when you go to look for your Hansard.
You've said it. It's not my words, it's yours. I agree that in every district,
in every investment, in every area of this province, as a government, you have
to weigh. You try to invest everything you can in every district possible. Don't
put words in my mouth, because Hansard
can do that for me; you don't have to put it in my mouth. All you've got to do
is look, and read.
All I'm
saying is I get a bit perturbed –
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I ask
the minister to address the Chair, please.
B. DAVIS:
Thank you.
I get a
little bit perturbed when we don't understand that investment in a particular
area, because there is a public service or a public transit system in the City
of St. John's – and in Corner Brook I might add, and other senior services that
the Minister of CSSD has talked about many times that we're trying to encourage
other jurisdictions, other municipalities, other areas of our province to invest
in. There's nothing wrong with that.
I just
want to make sure that the people in the City of St. John's understand that
they've got an advocate on this side of the House for sure that's going to
advocate for those individuals to avail of that service, because they've
invested in it themselves, and I encourage every other part of the province to
do the same. And that's exactly what we'll do as a government and we'll try to
support them as best we can.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
B. DAVIS:
Excellent.
I'd also
like to highlight a message that I fully agree with. I can't wait until we get
the Seniors' Advocate back in place. I am glad the hon. Member for Placentia
West - Bellevue disagrees with his party's stance in the past, that it was a
luxury. It is really important to us because the PC Party in the past voted
against that office. I am so happy that he is seeing the light with that and see
the benefit that office brings forward because it does bring great benefit and I
cannot wait for it to come forward again.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
B. DAVIS:
I thank the hon. Member for
that endorsement of that office.
Now, in
the last few minutes that I have left, I am going to take the opportunity – over
the last couple of days we have done a lot of talking about climate change and
where we sit as a province and what we can do to be a little better. I'm not
going to go in the same direction because I am going to try to add a little bit
more about what we've done in our department and I think I have tried to hit the
high bar on some of the things that we've done as an investment
Budget 2022.
I will
go a little bit in the lower side of what we announced in the budget. I know
that we all talked about the Electric Vehicle Rebate Program and the Oil to
Electric Rebate Program a lot last night so I am not going to talk about that
today. But I will talk about some of infrastructure that will come along with
some of those investments. I know that the hon. Members are right excited about
the charging stations that are going to be put across the Island. I know how
excited they are. I know the Member for Bonavista is right excited about it.
There are some 200 level two charging stations that are across this Island but
in addition to that –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
B. DAVIS:
And I will say that the hon.
Member for Bonavista is no climate change denier; that is for sure.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
B. DAVIS:
He came around from the
debate last night; I am so excited.
In all
seriousness, I have a lot of respect for the hon. Member and I think that the
hon. Member was making a point by conversation and maybe taking a little out of
context, so I do want to just clarify that and I do know that he believes in
climate change, like all of us in this House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
B. DAVIS:
But I would like to highlight
some of the things. We did talk about infrastructure and the things that we need
to do to be ready for when we make that change to electric vehicles and all
those things associated with that.
Phase
one of that process was the 14 charging stations that we placed last summer and
the summer before across the Island to make sure that between 65 kilometres and
70 kilometres apart, you could get a fast-charging station available to an
electric vehicle. That was one thing to at least knock the initial barrier down
for making that range anxiety that exists.
But the
Public Utilities Board had the ability to go a little further this year as well.
They've also approved the ask for 19 additional fast-charging stations from
Newfoundland Power and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro that will include places
on the Northern Peninsula, the Bonavista Peninsula, the Burin Peninsula – I know
my hon. Member on the other side would like that – and in Labrador.
These
will be installed early this summer. So we're excited about that. I think it's
really important to highlight the 19 sites, because I think anything we can do
to educate the public on things that we're doing to reduce those barriers is
important. We're going to have fast-charging stations in Trepassey. The Member
for Ferryland would appreciate the fact that we're going to be in Trepassey. St.
Mary's, Cape Broyle, St. John's – I know some people don't like us investing
here, but St. John's, Carbonear, Marystown, Port Rexton –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I know
everybody is tired and had a long night last night and a long day today, but I
ask for order.
The hon.
the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.
B. DAVIS:
Bonavista, Port Rexton, I
think I said that – I want to make sure you heard Port Rexton – Lewisporte for
the hon. Speaker, Robinsons, Woody Point, Cow Head, Port au Choix, Flower's
Cove, Roddickton, St. Anthony, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Churchill Fall and Lab
City. All of those are important investments that we're doing to break down
those barriers that people see for buying one of those electric vehicles. It's
new. I completely understand why people have hesitancy; it's new.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Can you charge your phone
there?
B. DAVIS:
Sorry?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Can you charge your phone
there?
B. DAVIS:
Absolutely. You can charge
your phone there for sure.
But the
good thing about what we've done in the budget is we've put a commitment not
only to helping individuals make the transition to an electric vehicle, but
making sure that the infrastructure outpaces the vehicles coming to the
province, which is really important in my mind. I think everyone we talked to
from the Dealers Network to Drive Electric NL, those are important people that
are early adopters that we want to ensure that they can continue to get what we
need out of that.
Through
Budget 2022, that million-dollar
investment, along with the million dollars we're going to get from the federal
government as well is going to help us grow that electric vehicle-charging
infrastructure.
I've got
a lot more to talk about. I know my time is running short, and I think –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
B. DAVIS:
Oh perfect, good, if that's
the case.
One of
the other things I'd like to talk about very quickly is flood risk mapping. One
of the other things in the budget that we talked about is a $1.2-million
investment, $600,000 from the province and $600,000 from the federal government
for flood risk mapping. I think we all can understand how important flood risk
mapping is in terms of land development, infrastructure investment and
sustainability.
So we're
really excited about the mandate we have in our department to undertake flood
risk mapping under the Water Resources Act.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
B. DAVIS:
I'll answer your question on
a sidebar, if you'd like. I know you're trying to throw me off and it's great,
thank you. And you've succeeded.
But also
to ensure the minimal damage of floods when they do happen to municipalities. So
this information is used by government departments, municipalities, LSDs to try
to make sure, when they do their land developments, they do them outside flood
plains to ensure that when those floods do happen – and they will happen in the
future. As we know, climate change is changing what we see and what we feel from
our water, from our weather systems. I think it's really important for us all to
understand the benefits that it can have.
Hopefully I'll get another opportunity to speak again, Mr. Speaker, and thank
you very much for the opportunity here today and I look forward to all my
colleagues in this hon. House reaching out and standing up for this budget and
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Seeing no other speakers, if
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board speaks now we will close
debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
S. COADY:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
It has
been an honour to be able to table my third budget in this House of Assembly –
third in 18 months. So this House of Assembly has worked very, very hard over
the last 18 months to ensure, what I'm going to call, fiscal security and fiscal
responsibility.
But I'm
going to begin today by talking a little bit about advice that I was given when
I first became Minister of Finance. It's really interesting; I remember in the
early 2000s speaking to Paul Martin. I had been, at that time, moving into being
chair of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. So I was spending a lot of time in
Ottawa talking and dealing with the Minister of Finance at the time, who went on
to become the prime minister. He was the one who encouraged me into politics.
Anyway,
he called me when I became the Minister of Finance and he congratulated me and
said it was a tough road ahead and the difficulties. I had asked him his advice,
because of course he had dealt with a very similar challenging situation in
Canada during the 1990s and was able to ensure that Canada was a stronger nation
when he finished as minister of Finance moving into the prime ministership. He
gave me this piece of advice; he said, you will need a lot of patience and
perseverance. I think that he was absolutely right. It has taken a lot of
patience and perseverance.
But I
will say to the people of the province, I'll say to Members in this House, that
we're making big progress. There's big progress being made. And I've said in
this House, multiple times, that my goal here is to have a stronger, smarter,
self-sufficient, sustainable Newfoundland and Labrador. I think that's the goal
of everyone in this House. I don't think you'd have one argument from one person
in this House. I've listened very, very carefully to the debate and there are a
few things I'm going to talk about in this, but let me first lay out where we've
been and where we're headed, and what the investments and how important the
investments are in this budget.
First of
all, 18 months ago, in the midst of COVID, $1.8 billion in deficit –
terrifically challenging times. We were able to bring that deficit down in June
of last year, so not even a year ago, now. So in June of 2020 we were able to
bring it down to $826 million, so a billion-dollar difference. And then we ended
'21-22 at $400 million in deficit. Still a lot of money, but again, huge
improvement from $1.8 billion to $800 million down to $400 million and this year
we're saying $350 million in deficit.
Now,
that is a big thing to be congratulated. It means we've had to have a lot of
fiscal strength and a lot of responsible actions being taken by this government,
because people have to realize that every cent we borrow, that $351 million,
we're borrowing from our children and our grandchildren, and we have to pay
interest on that. So our cost-to-debt, every year, before we take a pen to
anything, we have to spend a billion dollar – a billion dollars. And that
impedes our ability as the people of this province to make some of the
investments we wish we could all make. It really does impede our ability.
In this
budget, and in the last 18 months, what we've done is laid out a plan, a very
strong plan of how we're going to get to that stronger, smarter,
self-sufficient, sustainable Newfoundland and Labrador. So we're bringing down
that deficit, while making the investments that we need to make. So by '25-'26,
we're going to be at near balance. It's laid out in the budget document, as
here's our multi-year forecast. So by '25-'26 we'll be down to near balance
about $75 million in deficit, and the next year we'll be in surplus. Now, think
of the investments that we could make for the people of the province. Think
about how we can really help the people of the province, once we start to not
borrow from our children and our grandchildren.
I'm
going to just give everybody a kind of a sense of how challenging that is. If
you go back a decade ago, like 2011-2012, the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador took in $1.8 billion in oil royalties. This year, because production is
lower, we're going to take in $800 million. Still a tremendous amount of money
but a billion dollars difference. Yet, the deficit in 2011, a decade ago, was
almost the same deficit we have today. A billion dollars difference in the
revenue numbers from oil and gas, yet we're still focused and really making sure
we're being responsible.
That's
why it's important that we keep on working towards lowering our deficit. We
cannot continue to borrow from our children and our grandchildren. We're already
$17 billion in debt – $17 billion in debt. So for the people of the province who
might be listening are saying, well, what's the difference between debt and
deficit? Deficit is what you don't earn in a year, so that you're in the hole in
a year; you don't take in enough revenues to pay out. Debt is how much you
accumulate of those deficits or any borrowings that you do or any investments
that you make in infrastructure.
So in
this budget we really focused on a few key principles. I think they're
important. I think it's important to focus on principles because that's what
guides us in our discussion. In developing this budget we were guided by a
healthy, educated, growing population. We made investments in each of those
areas. We were guided by responsible financial management, bringing down that
deficit, how are we paying down that debt; clean, green economy, very important;
a modernized and transformed government – we need to refresh and modernize the
way we're providing public services to people because things have changed.
Things have changed in society. We want to have true reconciliation with our
Indigenous. We definitely all want to have that.
We have
not done a stellar job in the hundreds of years that we've been here in order to
have true reconciliation. I think we're doing some really good work there. So,
Speaker, guided by those principles.
I'm
happy to say too, Speaker, that we are really doing well in terms of economic
outlook for this year. We're really focused on growing our economy and improving
our economic opportunity. Our employment numbers are up; our retail sales
numbers are up; our gross domestic product has improved. We have better
restaurant sales; better household income. The economy is rebounding; it is
strengthening.
Then
there a re the recent announcement that my colleague from Industry, Energy and
Technology has made recently that I think that we should all be reflective of
how that is strengthening our economy. Terra Nova Project will be back on stream
later this year. Braya Renewable Fuels, a redevelopment of Come By Chance, an
opportunity to have renewable fuels. This is a part of the new economy and part
of the new opportunities for Newfoundland and Labrador.
My
colleague recently approved the environmental plan for Marathon Gold and as we
move towards a new gold project. IOC is expanding. Vale has gone underground.
These are big mine opportunities in Newfoundland and Labrador. Then we heard
recently, I think it was this week, about how our mineral exploration has
exploded – if I can use that term. There are more investments being made by
companies in mineral exploration in this province. We should be proud, buoyed
and enthusiastic about the opportunities in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I didn't
hear that in the 75 hours that we've debated this budget in the House of
Assembly, and that concerns me because there is a resurgence in Newfoundland and
Labrador. There are opportunities in Newfoundland and Labrador and I think we
have a very bright future ahead of us.
So what
are some of the investments in this budget? Well, first of all, we've spoken a
lot in the House of Assembly about the cost of living and we have done three
things in the budget, I think, around cost of living. First of all, we
recognized and we talked about it prebudget, about helping the most vulnerable.
So we have what is called an Income Supplement that is provided to families and
that Income Supplement we've increased by 10 per cent.
We have
also increased the Seniors' Benefit. Now, the Members opposite like to talk
about the home heat rebate. Back in 2016, when they improved the program, it was
rolled into the Income Supplement and the Seniors' Benefit. And by doing that we
were able to provide more money because we were able to make a more robust
rebate program. Now that program, since 2015, has actually gone from $60 million
right to, I think, today it is close on $140 million we provide.
We
increased both of those. We provided a cheque, an additional amount of money, I
think it was $400 to families and $200 to individuals who were on income
support, and that cheque was in the mail to them in April, so it was help right
away. We also then in the budget said, well, everybody in the province has been
impacted by the cost of living. We knew that if we changed our gas tax at the
pump, that we would run the risk of the federal government coming in and putting
carbon tax on home heat.
So we
didn't change that; what we did was we provided an equivalent amount of money
back to the people of the province. We thought: How can we get this money out as
quickly as possible but as widespread as possible? We provided a 50 per cent
discount on motor vehicle registration fees and eliminated the retail sales tax
on insurance. We've done that for one year, but we're revisiting that as we move
forward.
Speaker,
we also did a third thing, and I think this is equally important. We all realize
that we're in a changing economy. We all realize, and we've spoken substantively
about climate change, about how we're going to have to change the way that we
use fossil fuels. So in this budget we increase the amount of money we are
providing – $5,000 for those that are transitioning from oil heat to
electricity. Now, that can be stacked. The Minister of Environment yesterday,
last evening, talked about the stacking of the programs. If you're a family, I
think, earning less than $50,000, you can get $15,000 to help you transition
from oil to electricity.
That's
important. Because we know the price of oil is worrisome to people. We also know
that transportation accounts for a tremendous amount of our GHG, greenhouse gas
emissions. So how do we start to talk about and help people move and transition
from using gasoline in their cars to using electricity? We're providing a $5,000
rebate for either fully electric or hybrid cars.
Now that
is stacked with the federal government, so that's a big help for somebody who's
going out to buy a car. The price of electric cars are coming down. Are they
hard to get? Absolutely. But there's hard to get vehicles in a general sense. My
husband just waited, I think, five months for his new vehicle.
So we've
taken those three big steps. This is how we're going to help. That took all the
monies that we have in gas tax – all of it. Now, what other things do we have to
do? Well, we've been talking a lot in this House about the provision of health
care. And we know that it's challenged. We absolutely know it's challenged.
Every person in this Legislature today, every person in the province knows how
dedicated our doctors and our nurses – and I know it's Nurses' Week, so I want
to say thank you to all of those health care providers. What they've done in the
last two years, all we can say is thank you.
We've
done things like we've expanded and added collaborative care clinics. We have a
new recruitment and retention office. We put in two pilot projects to attract
new medical graduates. We've facilitated immigration pathways. We have a
retention bonus, new licensed practical nurses. These are just some of the
things that we've done. We've put over $400 million – $400 million. Now, there
are only 525,000 of us. So that's a tremendous amount of money. We've added that
to the health care budget.
We also,
in education, for the first time since the early '70s – what, 50 years ago –
we've had an increase of 1,000 new students. I think that is amazing growth and
it is unprecedented. So we've had to do things like expand the teaching
services. We've had to put millions of dollars towards substitutes, millions of
dollars towards guidance counsellors. We've had to invest in our education. But
again, stronger, smarter, self-sufficient, sustainable Newfoundland and
Labrador. That's our goal.
So
investments in education, investments in health. I'm going to say to my
colleague from Corner Brook, Immigration, Population Growth and Skills, thank
you, on behalf of all of us in Newfoundland and Labrador for the amount of work
that you've done. We welcome the Ukrainians, we welcome the Syrians and we
welcome the Afghans you've been able to bring to this province. We welcome what
you've been able to do to attract Newfoundlanders and Labradorians home again.
So I'll
say we've put some extra money in that department, a million dollars in that
department, because the underpinning of everything that we do is population
growth.
We've
also heard and I heard many Members opposite talk about transportation. We
recognize that we can drive – in Newfoundland and Labrador I think there are
11,000 kilometres?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Eleven thousand kilometres.
S. COADY:
Speaker, 11,000 kilometres. I
think we can go from Newfoundland to British Columbia – to Vancouver on that
length of road. Can you imagine? That's the amount of road that we're
responsible for.
Now,
think about it. We had to put in some extra monies there, so we've been able to
invest $10 million. It's not as much as we'd like. I'd love to give the Minister
of Transportation more, but it is what we could do. So he's got an extra $10
million. Community groups have been challenged. They provide incredible services
to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. So we were able to put in an extra
$5 million there.
I guess
all this adds up, Speaker, to say the budget was about balance. We were trying
to balance lowering our deficit so that we don't take money out of our
grandchildren's or our children's pockets; looking at how we transform and
modernize government so that we can bring down the cost of government, so that
we improve service delivery in government; investments where they are required
the most: health care, education, population growth; investments where there's a
call and a need like in transportation, like in community groups.
Speaker,
I could continue, but I know my time is getting short. So I want to say this: I
want every Newfoundland and Labrador child to be proud of the efforts that we
have made. Because it's going to take all of us in this province to bring down
our deficit, to get the kind of services that we need, to ensure that the people
in the province have a strong and healthy atmosphere and environment. Because we
have so much to offer.
I know I
could turn to any person in this House and they could tell me about their
district and about how important it is and how contributing it is to the people
of the province. I will say that we should rejoice in our determination. I will
say that the amount of effort that we've all placed, that we've all put in –
it's all of us in this House. It's all of us in this province. All of us have
made the sacrifices, have worked hard, especially during the pandemic, who have
made the commitment and we deserve to have the strong, growing economy that we
do, and that we are all focused on that stronger, smarter, self-sufficient,
sustainable Newfoundland and Labrador. And, Speaker, we're going to have it. We
all are working toward it and we are making progress.
I'm
pleased to say in this House, I don't understand how anyone can vote against
this budget because they would be voting against health care, education,
transportation and the investments that we made. I'm confused. I honestly am. I
can understand that we would like to have more. I've listened to the Opposition.
They'd like to have more, but all I can say is this: This is a budget that gets
us to that stronger, smarter, self-sufficient, sustainable Newfoundland and
Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
this House approves in general the budgetary policy for the government.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
SPEAKER:
Motion carried.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division.
SPEAKER:
Division is called.
Call in
the Members.
Division
SPEAKER:
Are the caucus Whips ready?
Order,
please!
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, please rise.
CLERK (Barnes):
Steve Crocker, Lisa Dempster,
John Haggie, Gerry Byrne, Tom Osborne, Siobhan Coady, Pam Parsons, Sarah
Stoodley, Andrew Parsons, John Hogan, Bernard Davis, John Abbott, Elvis
Loveless, Krista Lynn Howell, Paul Pike, Scott Reid, Sherry Gambin-Walsh, Perry
Trimper.
SPEAKER:
All those against the motion,
please rise.
CLERK:
David Brazil, Barry Petten,
Craig Pardy, Tony Wakeham, Chris Tibbs, Loyola O' Driscoll, Lloyd Parrott, Joedy
Wall, Pleaman Forsey, Jeff Dwyer, James Dinn, Jordan Brown.
Mr.
Speaker, the ayes: 18; and the nays: 12.
SPEAKER:
I declare the motion carried
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Just
before we move on to the next piece of business, I just want to raise a quick
point of order, if we can get some clarification. If you look at Standing Order
16 on Division and if you look at 16(2), can we get a review of this? Maybe if
the Standing Orders Committee needs to look at it. I read it to be clear, but if
we could just, Mr. Speaker, have a review of the Standing Order.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Yes, we
will take that under advisement and take a further review of the Standing Order,
as it relates to Division.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Motion 3, a resolution respecting the imposition of carbon
tax, Bill 60.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Deputy Government House Leader, that this House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 60.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair for the House resolve itself into Committee of the
Whole to consider the said bill.
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.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Trimper):
Order, please!
We're
now debating the related resolution and Bill 60.
Resolution
“That it
is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the imposition of taxes on carbon
products.”
CHAIR:
I recognize the hon. the
Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
C. TIBBS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
It's an
absolute pleasure to stand here this evening again and talk about the carbon tax
that's about to be imposed by the federal Liberal government and rammed down the
throats by the provincial Liberal government, unfortunately.
Last
night I had a few words, Mr. Chair, about why we weren't doing a little bit more
up in Ottawa, and I think I was a little bit mistaken. I thank the Member for
Windsor Lake for coming in and talking about the rights when it comes to the
Supreme Court and the rulings they had over other provinces. I couldn't agree
more. I wouldn't want this to go to the Supreme Court either and lose a case and
waste time, waste taxpayers' money. And I want to thank him for that.
But I
was a little bit mistaken because I heard the Premier today say this was in the
making or this was done three or four years ago before COVID, before the
implosion of the economy. My point last night was before this happened, whether
it be three months ago, six months ago, when we knew this was coming down, my
point was not to go to the Supreme Court, but to go to the prime minister, to go
to Ottawa and again put our case out there to say that Newfoundland and Labrador
isn't like the other provinces. Again, our geography puts us in a very distinct
situation; our population disbursement puts as one of the most distinct
provinces in all of Canada. That was my point.
Many
years ago, there was a younger MP by the name of John Crosbie. John Crosbie was
in Ottawa with the prime minister at the time, Mr. Mulrooney, and he was trying
to convince them, the federal MPs, about Hibernia. Well, it didn't go over well
at first, and they had to fight and fight and fight. John Crosbie, God love him
and God rest him, he had to go to Ottawa and he had to convince the MPs and he
had to convince the prime minister to give us a chance here in Newfoundland and
Labrador when it comes to Hibernia. He did it, because he fought, because he had
the gumption to go up there, and he knew what was right. That's what I was
asking about. Who's got the gumption to go against the federal Liberal
government? Who has the gumption to do it? That was my point.
So maybe
go up there six months ago, three months ago, go up there now and let them know
do you know what? This just does not fly. We're not saying don't ever bring it
in. It's a timing issue right now. Let's look at it next year. Maybe give us a
12-month reprieve so the people of the province can actually have a little tiny
bit of disposable income in their pockets and they can move that around inside
the province, inside a movie theatre, inside a restaurant, where it should be,
where that disposable income should be. It should not be back into the coffers
of the federal or provincial government. I just wanted get that straight.
I also
want anybody listening at home – this debate it's not about climate change and
the environment. It truly isn't, it's about a carbon tax. Another tax for the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador and they really can't do it. The people are
absolutely defeated of this province right now.
I heard
the Minister of Finance talk last night and tonight and she said we have to
borrow so much money and our grandkids and kids have to pay for that eventually.
I couldn't agree with you more, of course, that's the way it's going to go.
Unfortunately, the way we're going, we're not going to have a whole lot of
grandkids and kids here.
We're
going to see a mass exodus. I see it all ready. I talk to rotational workers. I
talk to workers – and when I talk about an exodus from this province, God love
our seniors. Our seniors aren't leaving. I'm happy about that. I love our
seniors. I want to ensure that they're here and we take care of them as best way
possible. They're not the ones that are going to be leaving this province. It's
going to be those young families in their 20s and their 30s, who in their words:
I can't wait to get out of here. I cannot wait to get out of here.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
C. TIBBS:
One hundred per cent wrong.
Go to
Alberta and I'm telling you right now, they have shutdown operations in Alberta
that they can't even get enough workers for right now. Those shutdown jobs,
they're not paying $12 and $15 an hour. So, yes, the cost of living is higher
across Canada. My apologies, you're absolutely right, but the wages are not
consistent across Canada.
I've
watched 18-year-old kids come out of high school and go out and finance an
$85,000 truck because the wages are so high. So that's the difference. That's
the difference that we're looking at right now.
So every
little bit of incentive to keep those young families here in Newfoundland and
Labrador, we should be doing. And if that means going up to Ottawa – not the
Supreme Court, but to the prime minister. I'm hoping you guys truly have a great
relationship with the prime minister, it sounds like you do. Well, let's go up
there and talk to him. Mr. Prime Minister is there any way we can defer this for
12 months to ensure Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can have a chance at
survival?
Do you
know how scary it is out there? All day long I've been hearing: seriously,
another tax. That can't be right. I've been called out on it all day. I've had
to send people this bill; absolutely, it's another tax that's going to be
imposed on you. People can't take it. The people of the province can't take it.
Not only the people of the province can't take it, but we're looking at
municipalities once again. My colleague from Cape St. Francis talked about it
today.
Municipalities are going to find it very, very difficult. They're finding it
difficult already. Whether it be this fuel surcharge, trying to get their work
done over the summer. This is their busy time of the year. Come Home Year:
municipalities are going to find it very, very difficult. So it's on an
individual basis, but also on a much higher level as well.
Tour
operators: Do you know what? This is for the Minister of Tourism as he pays
attention quite well there listening to me intently. The Minister of Tourism, I
want to congratulate him. We've got 22,000 bookings for Marine Atlantic this
year. That's fantastic. That's truly a fantastic news for the province. I hope
that the majority of them make it here – hope they all come here – and I hope
there's more bookings on top of it. But tourism operators, they have to pay
these extra taxes, these extra fuel surcharges and it's going to hurt them in
the long run as well.
Just to
see it on the Order Paper, it's absolutely debilitating to the people of the
province. I truly believe – again, I said it last night – if you had your backs
against that corner and you really, really were suffering as well, you would
have fought harder. I guarantee it. You would have fought harder. If you could
take somebody off the street, if you could take somebody that's truly suffering,
put them in the House of Assembly, give them a seat, give them a voice, send
them to Ottawa, they would fight very, very hard. And that's what we're talking
about right now. The comfort level, it's terrible. It's absolutely terrible in
this Chamber.
We also
talk about truck drivers, that's another one. Health care workers: we're trying
to incentivize health care workers to come here. Our geographics say you're not
going to drive eight kilometres down the road in most rural parts of
Newfoundland and Labrador to go to your workplace, whether it be doctor's
office, a hospital, or whatnot. Many of these people have to travel sometimes up
to 60, 70, 80 kilometres. It's just costing too much money. We've got health
care professionals that have to work an extra job now. That's terrible. It's
absolutely terrible. And, again, I'm not saying it's anybody's fault, I'm just
saying they can't afford another tax.
So when
you see another tax coming down – and I know it's all across Canada – it is
going to deter people from coming here. It is going to deter people from staying
here. I'm hearing it all day long and I know you guys are hearing it all day
long, too.
When
they talk about health care: social determinants of health outcomes have the
greatest impacts. Well, that came right from the report. In order to coincide
with that, we need to ensure that we have as many breaks in Newfoundland and
Labrador as we possibly can. When we talk about low-income people and their
determinants when it comes to health, we see how it coincides with each other;
it has been laid out.
Of
course, it's going to have an impact on that. We talked about immigration; we're
trying to get people to come here. All those other provinces out there, all the
other nine provinces and territories, they're trying to get people to go there
as well. What are they offering that we're not offering? What are they fighting
for that we're not fighting for?
I just
want to ensure that we take the time to look at everything that we can do. Do
you know what? By the vote and what not, this is going to come to fruition. But
what we're asking for is a commitment from the government that this tax money is
going to offset home heating fuels immediately – right now. Not in the fall, not
next year, but that is something that needs to be done now. If anything, to give
the people of the province confidence back in the government.
You
know, sometimes I am absolutely ashamed to say that I am an MHA; I truly am. I
thought that this job was going to give myself a lot more pride. Unfortunately,
when I see stuff like this and I don't see us fighting for the same cause, it
really, really takes that pride away from me. I want to ensure we get that pride
back.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you very much to the
Member.
I now
recognize the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
Chair,
I'm a townie; I'm a corner boy. If anything else, I was probably just a little
bit put out by some of the disparaging comments last night about Metrobus and
how it was only serving a segment of the population in St. John's. I mean, I am
used to being put down by anyone outside of the province – I have a complex, no
doubt about it. However, in 2016, the census showed that we had a population
here in the St. John's metro area of some 205,995 people, two-fifths of the
population.
So I
have here, too, an email – because I know that three other MHAs have it, the
Ferryland District and other areas – from a person who said, when this funding –
looking for improvements to transit in the province and not just Metrobus or
GoBus but the school buses, the ferry from Bell Island or Fogo Island or Change
Islands and so on and so forth. The seniors, persons with disabilities,
low-income earners, the most vulnerable population, people who don't drive for
various reasons, rely on transit to get to work or go grocery shopping or to go
shopping, or to a medical appointment or to activities and school. Some people
don't drive and they depend on public transit, wherever it is.
The
other thing too is, in my district alone, I would say I probably have people
from every other district in the province, because most of the people in St.
John's come from other parts of the province. Then there are second- and
third-generation townies such as myself.
When
we're looking at it, when I've been putting forward the idea of regional
transportation, it's got to be across the province in layers. Start with the
Northeast Avalon; the Metrobus is just a starting point for me. But how do we
increase this – and there is funding. There's $14.9 billion in federal funding
over the next eight years to basically build a reliable, fast, affordable, clean
public transit, if we are willing to match it as a province.
We have
another $750 million available from federal funding, and Newfoundland's share of
that is over $4 million. Basically, emergency federal support to address ongoing
COVID-induced transit operating revenue shortfalls, to make up for that, and the
city is asking for confirmation from the Newfoundland and Labrador government
that we'll be applying for that important federal relief.
Now,
that's economic growth, because that means you have to bring the transportation
system in. You have hire people to drive them. You have to hire people to
maintain them. You've got to build the infrastructure. That's job creating. If
you want to look at it, let's take advantage of it, leveraging that money.
We have
made decades of decisions, I would say, that have gotten us to this point where
we basically decimated any regional transportation system, any meaningful public
transit.
Now,
it's only since January that I decided I'm going to – I've been using the bus on
and off; parking my truck. Nothing to do with the gas hike, but back in January
I bought the buss pass to see if I can make it work. Because, in the end, a car
is about convenience. It stays in the parking lot most of the time. It probably
costs me more to own a vehicle than it does to use public transit, but there's a
convenience of it.
Not
saying I'm going to give up my vehicle, but it comes down to that choice. But
how do we make it effective? You're not going to encourage people to use public
transit as they have in other jurisdictions, if we don't build it up and invest
in it.
I will
go to the cyberattack. We can invest now some at the beginning, or we can pay
the price down the road. I don't care what it is, whatever government is in
power. The fact is, if we had invested the $18 million back when the report came
out, we probably could have saved ourselves some issues right now. The same
thing here, Chair. We should have been investing in public transit for quite a
while, and we probably wouldn't be in this situation. We'd probably have a
robust system.
As I
said, we lost the railway, we lost road cruiser and then we lost DRL. It's a
hodgepodge of apparatus. And if we're looking at short term, let's start helping
the taxi systems that are there so that people who need them can get into town
efficiently and cheaply.
Here's
the other thing when we talk about electric vehicles and the need for a long
extension cord and everything else that goes with it. For some of the first
electric planes, 15 minutes flight – now that sounds like, well, that's a long
way, but consider this: That's 14 minutes and 45 seconds longer than the Wright
Brothers on their first flight. They've already got an Israeli plane – they've
already got a passenger plane built that they're using; it can fly an hour.
The
technology is there; it's coming our way faster than we think. I was thinking
the other day – I was teaching at Holy Heart when 9/11 happened, and what
vividly struck me, other than the planes flying in front of the school, was the
fact that just about everyone who got off that plane, the first thing that they
wanted was a phone. They had to get a phone. And the main reason why? Cellphones
weren't as ubiquitous as they are now. Actually, I've got two. I've got an iPad.
But at that time there were no cellphones.
Yet, in
that space of time, they've come to the point; the technology has expanded so
quickly that you'd be hard pressed to find a payphone around this city. It's
basically driven out the technology or the landline. So my point is the world is
changing faster than we think.
So when
it comes to the carbon tax, I will support it. I will support it, not because –
I'm not worried about whether it's imposed by Ottawa or whoever else because
they think in the long run climate change is going to be more devastating to the
vulnerable, to the people who are on the margins, to the people who can't feed
themselves now, it will be more damaging to them than any carbon tax. It's going
to happen.
But I'm
going to say this, and here's where I'm seeing that – I was thinking a lot about
this last night – because my friend, I think it was my colleague from Ferryland
talked about being comfortable. And he's right. My colleague from Grand
Falls-Windsor - Buchans talked about having your back against the wall. And he's
right, too. Inflation is devastating people. It demands immediate action. It is
devastating to people and it demands immediate action. I compare it to the leak
in your roof. If it's a small leak, you can afford to put it off and put the
bucket under it and we'll take care of it sometime.
But if
the roof gets blown off, regardless of your economic situation, you've got to
fix it. It's got to be dealt with. And right now, for a lot of people in our
province, the roof has blown off. I think in some ways what I do support here is
that yes, we may be $17 billion in debt, for God's sake what's another $500
million or whatever else if it means helping people. Because we do have people
who are struggling right now, who are struggling not now; they were struggling
back in December.
Let's
pass this but if we can find a way right now to help the people who are most in
need right now, and there are – if we can find ways to help them with
transportation, so they don't have to quit their job, so that seniors don't have
to call crying about the fact that they can't afford to eat. It is $2000 to fill
up an oil tank – unheard of. But I've been there, many years ago, so I do think
we've got to address that.
We can't
wait until the fall. Because I don't think there's going to be any respite over
the summer. At one time, the fuel bills, in the summer would go down, the price
would drop, and you'd have a breathing space. I don't think we're getting that.
And it's not our fault, but we get to choose how we react to it – don't worry,
Chair, I can see the time. But I do think we need to have an immediate response
to that, as well as medium and long term.
Thank
you, Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Thank you.
I next
recognize the Member for the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, I
always appreciate that.
It is
indeed a pleasure to stand again to speak to this particular bill tonight on
carbon tax, not to be confused with climate change, we're speaking about carbon
tax.
When I
go back to the list of exemptions that are there, municipalities fall under the
list of exemptions. Well, Mr. Chair, when I go to the regulations, and we've
learned that we've got to be very careful when we're looking at regulations, it
is said in the regulations that gasoline purchased by a council and used in
vehicles or equipment leased or owned by the council and operated is exempt. But
not including vehicles or equipment of contractors or employees and their
vehicles. That's in the regulations.
I've
spoken to several municipalities today who watched the proceedings last night
and reached out to me today with respect to that. That is where we're going to
have the issue. That is where we're going to have the issue for municipalities.
So we
all know that municipalities have the same tax base as the province, as does
Ottawa. However, when the province and Ottawa impose more taxes, municipalities
are pressured to tax less. We've seen that. I've seen that in my district in
this past number of months.
One of
the municipalities in my district were feeling the pressure from their citizens.
They felt the pressure that they were being taxed too much and they looked at
the mill rate that the municipality was imposing. And that council was forced to
go back, because of provincial and federal level of taxes, they were feeling the
heat from their residents and they were asked to tax the citizens less.
So what
did the municipality do? The first thing they did: they cut services. The second
thing they did: they cut professional development. Two important key aspects of
a municipality are the services that they provide and, of course, you have
support your elected officials in professional development. However, that
municipality made the tough decision to make those cuts because the same people
were being taxed provincially and federally. But, of course, citizens can't come
into the Chamber here or into the House of Commons in Ottawa, as they do to the
municipal chamber, and ask for tax breaks, ask for relief.
It goes
back to the point I made last night, the 93-year-old lady who asked me not to
cut off her water because she couldn't pay her taxes. That's reality. That's
what we're dealing with.
So I
wonder, Mr. Chair, how many other mayors and councillors and municipalities
across our beautiful province are having to make those same decisions, because
anyone coming into their municipality to do work, as it says in the regulations,
not including vehicles, equipment or contractors or employees with vehicles. So
we have many municipalities having work done by contractors. If it's paving
byroads, if it's putting in green space, if it's updating their parks and
recreation. If it's putting in heat pumps or energy efficient windows in their
municipal buildings. All of these things are done by contractors, who are now
going to have to pass that extra level of taxation on to the municipalities and
it is back on the backs of the residents.
I spoke
with a municipality today, outside of my district, with respect to waste
management. It's contracted out. On a weekly basis the garbage and recycling is
collected. However, they are now affected by carbon tax when it comes to waste
management. It not only affects people directly, but also indirectly. So this
particular municipality currently has a fee of $200 per household on waste
management collection. That is going to be increased. That increase is passed
back on to the residents.
With
respect to the higher fuel surcharge that the companies and the contractors are
going to be introducing, because they're not making it with the tenders that
were put out a year ago, there's a big difference in the cost to do business
today than it was this time last year.
I speak
to Come Home Year celebrations: we're looking at, of course, many municipalities
doing that across the province this year in recognition of the provincial Come
Home Year. What's going to be the difference for those Come Home Year
celebrations for the municipalities? That's, again, increased costs that's going
to be passed on to the same taxpayer.
Mr.
Chair, I heard my colleague from St. John's Centre speak shortly ago with
respect to inflation. The government has said it has no power to control
inflation and there's no one here on the Opposition side that says that you do.
We don't think that and we're not expecting that. The people of the province
know you can't control inflation. What the people of the province are asking is
that the government use its broad powers to buffer the impacts of inflation.
That's a big difference, Mr. Chair. Buffer the impacts of inflation on the
people of our province through tax policies and other means. It is very
important to remember what we're discussing here and the level of impact that it
has on our constituents, again, with respect to my role with municipalities.
When we
are looking at people who work here in our province – and my colleague for
Stephenville - Port au Port said it several times with respect to working
remotely. You can live anywhere in our beautiful province and work from downtown
Toronto to British Columbia to Beijing, throughout the world. We can definitely
offer a better lifestyle here in our province; that is said without a doubt.
But when
carbon tax hurts our province more than people throughout the rest of Canada
because of our geographical location, the distance of where we live from Ottawa
sometimes has a disadvantage. If you're getting to our beautiful province by
road, sea or air, you're going to be affected. Again, Mr. Chair, it all comes
back to the same people being taxed.
I'll go
back to contractors coming in to the municipalities, and I look at the Minister
of Transportation and Infrastructure, with respect to the high carbon costs with
laying asphalt. That is going to be a major increase for municipalities. I know
I heard the minister speak with respect –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
J. WALL:
Yes, I fully agree. There's
an extra $10 million in the budget.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
J. WALL:
Oh, yes, very expensive. And,
again, there is an extra $10 million in the budget for paving because of the
rising cost of what is going on – acknowledged. Fully acknowledged and fully
appreciated, no doubt.
However,
when we look at municipalities doing their paving – I spoke to a CAO today who
was very concerned that his residents are putting pressure on staff and council
because they have to relook at the amount of paving that they're able to do in
their town. Something that, as the minister knows, everybody wants. Everybody
wants, as my father says, blacktop, asphalt. It goes a long way and it means a
lot in every municipality.
While
I'm speaking to it, I'll recognize the minister and his staff for the work that
was done in my district the last two days with respect to repairing potholes;
that is appreciated. I do appreciate that and pass it along to your staff,
please, Minister.
E. LOVELESS:
I will, thank you.
J. WALL:
Thank you very much.
However,
we do look at what is put back on our elected officials, the responsibilities
that they have, the taxation that's on our same people, municipally, with
respect to what they can handle and what they're not going to be able to handle.
Mr.
Chair, I have a lot more to say, but in the last minute that I have, I want to
speak quickly on housing. Someone reached out to me today, after watching the
proceedings in the House yesterday, with respect to unaffordable housing, rising
heat costs, the inflation that's reducing people's disposable income. I know the
Minister of CSSD is fully aware, no doubt – fully aware. I'm very happy, as I
said, with the business coming on board to provide affordable housing in my
district. More and more people cannot survive the level of taxation, the amount
of inflation, the high costs that we're dealing with and right now, as I said
last night, a further tax increase is the last thing that's needed. I know that.
Mr.
Chair, I thank you for time. I have a lot more to say. I'm looking forward to
speaking again to the carbon tax, and I thank everyone for their attention and,
Mr. Chair, of course, of yours.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Thank you very much.
I next
recognize the Member representing the District of Bonavista.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
C. PARDY:
Thank you, Chair.
I'd just
like to recognize all the people viewing tonight, and those in the District of
Bonavista who are not viewing the pregame of the Toronto Maple Leafs and Tampa
because they know the significance of what happens here in the House of
Assembly, and I think full credit to those in that district. I'm not sure of the
other 39, but the District of Bonavista knows what's important, that I can tell
you.
The
Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board stated a theme word a little
while ago, but I want to give a little story. A little short story that ties in
well with her theme. There were two parents who were taxpayers, and they had
twins. They had two children. One was an optimist and seen good in everything.
One was a pessimist, who saw the negative side of everything. What they wanted
to seek was a balance. Some balance – and here's your key word, some balance –
between the two.
So
here's what they did. Their children, the twins, had gone to school and they
begin to prepare for when they got home. In one room, they filled the room with
brand new toys. As many new toys should get into the room, they filled that
room. In the other room, they filled it with manure because the balance was
important to these parents.
The
children arrived home. They sent the pessimist to the room where all the toys
were and then they sent the optimist to the room with the manure, and they
waited and they waited. After five or 10 minutes they went up, the mother and
father – the taxpayers – and they wedged the door open slightly of the room with
the new toys and when they glanced in, they found their son was crying in the
middle of the floor. They had said: What's wrong? You have all these brand new
toys. The boy's response was: I'm afraid I'm going to break them.
Then
they went to the next room and in the next room, they cracked the door and they
looked in and here was their other son, the optimist, was tossing around the
manure. And they quickly said –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
C. PARDY:
That wasn't the goal of the
story – balance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
C. PARDY:
Minister, it was balance; it
wasn't manure.
Anyway,
to finish the story, the boy was in tossing the manure around and they said to
him: Don't you know what you're playing with? And his response was, yes, I do.
But, he said, there must be a horse in here somewhere.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
C. PARDY:
A Newfoundland pony.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
C. PARDY:
Listen – order, Chair,
because we only got six minutes left.
CHAIR:
I'm still waiting for the
relevant part.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
C. PARDY:
So I share that story because
as those taxpaying parents, they sought balance and I would say that many of us
over on this side, I think we seek balance too. I know the budget is about
choices.
I'd just
like to have a few points and a few words on what people speak to me in relation
to the budget. Now the minister had stated, and she stated very eloquently –
nothing to do ubiquitous – but it was eloquently, she stated about the deficit
was coming down. But the people in the district would say, well, the debt is
going up. There's a significant increase in the debt as well. So I know that we
need to find the balance. We've got to make sure that we try to reduce that
deficit, but we still got to try to arrest that debt. I think that is seeking a
balance.
The most
significant part in the remaining few minutes I've got – we've had the
Environment and Climate Change Minister came out, and one of the questions I
said the other day, when I asked in an Estimates was: Have you costed what the
impact would be on the households in Newfoundland and Labrador of the carbon
tax? We have not yet. But just let me share with you some numbers from the
parliamentary budget office, or officer, and quickly I share with you – they did
it for three provinces. Alberta, they indicate that the cost of carbon taxing:
$2,282. That was the figure, the cost of the households. In Saskatchewan it was
$1,464. In Manitoba it was $1,145.
The only
thing is that we don't know what the impact is in Newfoundland and Labrador. If
they can find it for three provinces, I think we need probably to keep a measure
or to make sure that we've got the data on the household income. So the impact
would be on someone that's earning $40,000 or the household income of $40,000 in
the District of Bonavista, and others that would be much higher. The minister
had to say, which I totally agree with, stronger, smarter, self-sufficient and
sustainable. We all concur with that.
But I
look at the statistics and the Minister of CSSD is looking, when we have 21 per
cent of our children living in poverty and I think the St. John's Centre Member
has stated that too, it goes up to 25 per cent when we're talking about below
the age of give. That is significant numbers. We ought to be looking at a
balance that we have to make sure that we've got a poverty reduction plan and
strategy now. It probably should have been before, because this didn't happen
overnight. So I would say that's another thing that I would look at, I would
look to see what measures we have in place that would reduce the poverty in our
province.
The
other thing that the minister had stated, and stated well, to grow the economy,
but one industry that she didn't mention – and she would, I know she's a big
supporter of it – is the fishery. She stated the fishery with some gusto when
she read it from her Budget Speech, even though I was a little taken back
because I look at it as being only $1 billion, when I firmly believe it should
be $5 billion.
So what
came out today, and I look forward to presenting a petition on Monday, fishermen
Lee Tremblett has signatures with his fellow fishers and the report of the
Atlantic Seal Science Task Team. We know we have an issue. They stated it here
and I think I saw a little clip on NTV news while we were eating our bacon and
eggs there in the caucus room.
The only
thing I would say is that balance is important. The fishery is important.
Growing the fishery will be one of the greatest things that you could possibly
do for rural Newfoundland and $1 billion is only a mere pittance of what it
should be. I think this House, me included, do not discuss the fishery enough.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
C. PARDY:
So if we want to be able to
offset the carbon tax: grow the fishery. Grow the fishery and make it a
concerted effort that you have to have improvements on the fishery side for
rural Newfoundland. I think that would be a good advance for any plan that
you've got going forward.
Thank
you, Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Now, I can't follow that.
That's a bit difficult to follow, I must say, and I thank my colleague for that.
The
Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology, I know he was upset that no one
asked him a question. So I'll ask him a question: How is the new
Batman movie? Was it good? Did you see
it yet?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Good movie.
J. BROWN:
Good movie, okay. I was going
to ask the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology, he never got a question
today and I just wanted to ask did he see the new
Batman movie. Is it any good?
A. PARSONS:
Yes.
J. BROWN:
Perfect. There he got his
question.
My
colleague for St. John's Centre, and I'd be remiss, he did mention trains and
it's a good thing, because as the only place left in this province that has
trains, we talk about the transportation and public transportation. I think one
of the greatest things that did – well, one of the blemishes on our record, as a
province, was Roads for Rails. That was a bad move for this province when it
comes to regional transportation. I think we didn't see the foresight there and,
obviously, that's a massive infrastructure project that was taken up long before
most of our times. But at the same time, it was a step backwards for this
province in the sense that we lost the sense of regional transportation. I think
we never really regained that afterwards. That was something that I think we can
never come back from.
But at
the same time, moving forward, it's something we need to do and look at as a
point for some of the carbon money and stuff that we do get is a study on
regional transportation, on how do we get people from one area to another most
effectively. At this point in time, we see that more people want to move again,
more people want to go places and stuff like that, but now, obviously, with the
costs and stuff of inflation and stuff like that, we're going to be bound by
that.
But
regional transportation also is a great way to do our part in the sense of
commuting as many people as possible with the least amount of possible energy
used. And many other places in the world have excelled at it as a cornerstone of
some of their identity and stuff like that. So maybe something that we do with
the idea of regional transportation and the regional idea of that is take some
of this carbon money look at regional transportation and we look at other
aspects on how do we start moving people around effectively in this province
because it is a big issue.
I
remember growing up I would spend my summers with my grandparents out around
Gander and that. My grandmother lived out in Wesleyville. My grandfather, he
would never drive to St. John's. No, no, no, never drive to St. John's. We used
to take the DRL. So as a kid we used to take the DRL bus from Wesleyville into
St. John's at least once during the summer and it was a great asset at the time.
I'm not sure, unfortunately, I haven't been down there since they passed in a
very long time, but regional transportation is something that people use and
it's a great asset that we need to move forward. It's a great way to start doing
our part and to get people moving and stuff like that again. So that's one
aspect of it.
Another
thing I do want to touch on, again, I've said it before, is we have some very
big players in the world markets right now that are here in our province, that
are making their own strides forward to do their part. And it's because, at the
same time, we look at other jurisdictions who have imposed carbon taxes onto the
market are forced now to reduce their carbon footprint and to reduce their
greenhouse gases in order to even sell their product in certain markets.
So now
we are in a position there that we are going to see billions and billions and
billions of dollars spent in this province on infrastructure upgrades,
electrical upgrades and production upgrades in the next five to six years. We
see that these extra things actually will generate actual work and projects in
this province. So there are good things coming. There are things that are coming
that we are forcing industry to do. And industry hoarded the money to do it.
They have the money to do it and we have to use levers and means to force these
large multinational corporations to actually invest in regions and industry.
There is
good behind this; there is good intention behind this and we have to continue to
use it more and more often. So I think it's going to be wonderful. I think
there's going to be some great things moving down forward.
I want
to say it's important and it's very worthwhile at the end of the day. The thing
that we keep doing is we conflate two things: we conflate the idea of carbon
tax, also the ongoing issues with inflation, but also poverty. I think what is
more or less happening now and what we see is a lot of these issues were always
underlying issues in society that we were not addressing correctly and now we
see them come to the surface.
This is
where we actually have to make real investments and real contributions into
society to start raising people up, so things like this has happening. And with
a global world and a global market and being a part of the global community,
things that happen outside of our own borders have a very big impact within our
borders. It's not that this idea of what one can do; it's how one government
shelters their own people from global issues.
Obviously, we did not do a good job, sheltering our own people right now, but we
can fix that. We should address it as expediently as we can, by finding ways to
shelter the people that are most vulnerable in our society. It's been a
long-standing issue in this province. We know that housing, seniors and other
social issues are not new; it's things that we've known that's been around. It's
just being conflated obviously by the global thing.
Now what
we need to do is actually invest in our people. Invest in ways to help them in
day to day. I've outlined some stuff today, and we should look at stuff that we
can actually do to put money back into people's pockets, find housing for those
who need to be housed and to make sure that there's actual food, affordable
food, affordable living, and affordable life available to people, especially
seniors.
People
on fixed incomes seem to be, right now, the hardest hit people in our society.
Especially those who never had the luxury of having a work punch in, or anything
like that, people who are just on old age, CPP, and stuff like that. They seem
to be ones that tend to be the most negatively impacted right now, and they need
our help. Not just in small gestures, but in larger ways, especially with
housing, medical care. Some of them can't even get the drugs that they need.
Some are pill splitting and things like that.
There
are a lot of things that we could do as a society, and it's one of those
long-term things: pharmacare, dental care, supporting those initiatives from the
federal government; more wraparound supports when it comes to housing. These are
things that would do a world of difference and shelter people from some of the
stuff that's going on right now.
My hope
is that we can do more right now, and we should do more right now. We should
look at the bigger picture of things on, going forward, how do we make sure that
when there is something happening halfway across the world, the ripple effect
doesn't hit us as hard as it did right now. We left ourselves wide open, and we
have no one to blame but ourselves, really, at the end of the day. What we need
to do is invest in people and in ways to (inaudible).
We need
to move forward. We need to find ways to find more long-term needs, more
long-term solutions and make sure it doesn't come back to hit us again and
again.
With
that, Chair, I take my seat.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
I next recognize the Member
for the District of Terra Nova.
L. PARROTT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My House
Leader said I had to follow the Member for Bonavista and while I'll say I'm not
going to talk about playing with manure, I believe there might be a horse in the
room here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
L. PARROTT:
We've said, several times,
that this bill is not about climate change and I will say the reality of it is
that there is nobody in this whole House, I don't think, that doesn't believe
climate change is a very, very serious issue, without a question.
I think
that people who deny that climate change is happening right in front of our eyes
have their eyes closed. I don't necessarily like how it is reported sometimes,
based on per capita, because it is the world we're trying to fix, not
individuals. I think that if we look at it more from a geographical standpoint,
it will give you a better picture of where we are, not only as a province, but
as a country.
We're
here talking about this carbon tax bill; again, not because we don't understand
that this is a federal bill; not because we don't understand where the money is
going and where it ends up. It is about the struggles that people are facing
today and the reality of the struggles that people are facing – I've got oodles
and oodles of messages that I got literally this evening of people struggling
and it is quite shocking what is happening.
So we're
clear, when I talk about what is going on here and we're here tonight talking,
I'm not for one second suggesting that we have to axe carbon tax. What I am
saying is that we have to find a way to do more for people. We can call it
whatever we want. We understand the deal with this carbon tax bill; we know
where it came from.
We sit
here and we bragged about a made-right-here solution; well, I'll tell you the
people in Nova Scotia are paying, I think, 27 cents a litre less on fuel than we
are and they have a made-right-there solution. I can also tell you that it
doesn't cost 27 cents a litre more to get it to Newfoundland than it does to
Nova Scotia because the fuel in Nova Scotia isn't coming from Saint John, New
Brunswick, and we all know that. It is coming from the same place as ours is
coming from, so we need to find a way to do better.
Part of
that is to look at our seniors and our low income and I know we made an attempt
and we're trying to do things and I had an interesting conversation with the
Minister of Environment this evening. I asked a question and he said the
discussion is ongoing. But think about this – and certainly if you have ever
worked on a town council, if you were a mayor, or if you worked as an employee
for a town, municipalities depend, clearly, on gas tax. Pretty much every
municipality in Newfoundland would fold tomorrow if they did not get gas tax. I
haven't heard one person, not one person, say that there is a replacement for
gas tax when these electric cars come on line.
So
maybe, as a government, maybe as a province we have to be going to Ottawa and
saying, why don't we transition the two, and maybe that's something we can give
back to the people. Maybe that's a solution for right now. Maybe that's our John
Crosbie argument. Maybe that's what we do there and we say: How do we come up
with a solution?
But once
municipal gas tax goes away, once we switch from carbon-based vehicles to
electric vehicles, it will have an astronomical effect on municipalities, not
just in Newfoundland, but my concern is Newfoundland. My concern is this
province. I ran to represent this province. When we sit in this House and we
talk about Saskatchewan, Ontario or anywhere else in Canada, I get it, but we're
different. Our population is different; our geography is much different.
I said
yesterday it's disproportionate how we compare ourselves to other provinces, and
that is our biggest problem. We are not other provinces – we are not other
provinces. When you look at us, and you look at – actually, the Minister of
Finance gave a great example today when she talked about the vastness of our
road network. There's no other province has a vastness like that, especially if
you do it based on per capita.
You
think about what we have to upkeep, it's really, really phenomenal. I believe
it's 11,000 kilometres of pavement and 9,000 of asphalt, or somewhere around
that. The Minister of Transportation can correct me, if he knows the correct
stat there, but that's very close. It's huge.
Then we
sit back and we say Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, PEI or Ontario. Everybody has
problems, folks, make no mistake about it. The war the Ukraine has affected –
listen, the war in Afghanistan affected everything. Snowmageddon affected
everything. COVID has affected everything. But what we are supposed to be doing
is trying to look for ways around that and helping the people that are hurting
right now.
When I
get a message from someone and it says, I'm a single mom working, making more
than minimum wage, and I'm at my rope's end. I don't even make it from paycheque
to paycheque anymore. I'm dipping in to a personal line of credit, just to pay
my bills. I'm so disappointed in the way we have to live. Never in my wildest
dreams did I think it would come to this.
Next
one: I'm a single parent working three jobs so my daughter can participate in
extracurricular activities. With gas going up again tonight, I'm wondering how
to make time to get a fourth job. I work for the provincial government and
approximately one-quarter of the staff in my office work from home, saving them
$500 per month. I spend that money just to get to the office. It's simply not
fair.
These
are the types of things that we can solve. I can go on and on and on. As a
farmer in this province, we're at a point now where we are trying to figure out
if we can plant a crop this year, if we can feed our cows from one week to the
next. Our costs have almost doubled in the span of a year. We can't get people
to work, and if we can, then we have to pay them wages most of us can't afford.
You said a couple of times about people not knowing if they can buy milk. It's
to that point now in this province and we don't know any longer if we can
produce milk for people to buy.
Paying
85 per cent fuel charge, which is something I talked about yesterday, on
everything to have to touch on top of the record grain and fertilizer prices, is
making this the scariest time in our farm's history. When you start starving
people that feed your society, you're going to have big trouble. We're parking
tractors and sending people home because the cost of fuel is so crazy. We should
be gearing up for spring and working. But we can't. Animals are leaving the
Island by the truckload because people can't afford to feed them. Our little bit
of food security we were building is quite simply being destroyed.
I've got
maybe 50 or 60 of those messages that I got today. And I suspect that everybody
in this room is getting those same messages. I'll say this, those are messages
that are coming to me personally; I'm willing to bet you that if you go on
people's Facebook pages and you scan the messages that are there, it's
frightening. And it's not people saying that they don't want to pay 11.05 cents
in carbon tax. It's not people saying that it's a two-cent increase in carbon
tax. It's people saying they can't afford to buy milk. It's people saying they
can't afford to go see their doctor.
And that
is what we need to recognize as a Legislature. That's why we're talking about
carbon tax. It's not because we think that we can take the 11.05 cents and give
it back to the people. It's because we know we have a responsibility to find an
alternative to that. That's why we're having this discussion. Quite frankly, I
believe we can find that solution.
Yesterday, the Minister of Finance quickly quipped that she would look at a home
heating rebate. We don't need to look at a home heating rebate; we need to
implement one now.
It's
astronomical what people are going through and we all know it. I'm certain we
all know it. We sit here and we quip back and forth, but that's part of our job.
It's kind of funny when I think about the budget – I voted against the budget
tonight, for the record, and I did it for a reason. I kind of laughed last night
when I was sitting down and the Minister of Environment quoted Ben Parker. So
I'll give him a quote about the budget. My quote about the budget and I'll tell
you exactly who said it: Yabba-Dabba-Doo! Fred Flintstone said that.
It's
absolutely ridiculous. At the end of the day, when we look at what's happening
with people with regard to health care, with regard to child care, with regard
to people's finances, their ability to get the services that they need, it's
just quite simply not happening. When people are working multiple jobs or
quitting jobs – even worse, people quitting jobs because they can't afford to go
to them – it speaks volumes. It speaks in a way to us that it should tug at our
heartstrings, it should make us go home at night and actually be sleepless.
Because we're all pretty comfortable, at the end of the day. Nobody in here is
wealthy. I believe that we're all here for the same reason and I believe that
we're all here for the right reason.
But at
the end of the day, the people that we represent need help and we have an
opportunity in this sitting of the Legislature to provide that help. We need to
plan for the future, but the future for the people that are hurting today is
slipping away from their fingers. And if one single person, one person has a
mental health breakdown, commits suicide or dies because they feel so down and
out, it's our fault. At the end of the day, we need to do better and we have an
opportunity to do it.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Any
further speakers?
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I'll
only take an hour. No, I won't.
Mr.
Chair, I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that this House
do now adjourn, but in doing so, I hope everybody goes home and watches the
hockey game. I think the Leafs might win tonight.
Oh no,
sorry, Mr. Chair, I got ahead of myself. I forgot, I need to rise the Committee.
Then I can talk about the hockey game.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader for (inaudible).
S. CROCKER:
I move, Mr. Chair, that the
Committee rise and report just a little more progress and ask leave to sit
again.
CHAIR:
It is moved and seconded that
the Committee rise and report just a little more progress.
Do I
have the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion
carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
The hon. the Member for Lake Melville and Chair of Committees.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
Committee of Ways and Means have considered the matters to them referred and
have directed me to report that they have made just a little more progress and
ask leave to sit again.
SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that they have considered the matters to them referred and
directed him to report that they have made a little tiny bit more progress and
ask leave to sit again.
When
shall the report be received?
S. CROCKER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the Committee have leave to sit again?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'll
make a second attempt at this.
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that this House
do now adjourn.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
AN HON. MEMBER:
Nay.
SPEAKER:
Motion carried.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
This House do stand adjourned
until tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30 o'clock.
I wish
everybody a safe and enjoyable weekend.
On
motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30 p.m.