PDF Version

June 16, 2021                                  HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                                          Vol. L No. 18

The House met at 10 a.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Government House Leader ready?

House Leader ready?

Admit strangers.

Order, please!

Orders of the Day

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 2, Bill 14.

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 on Ways and Means to consider a resolution and Bill 14.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: The motion is 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.'

Carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Warr): Order, please!

We are now debating the related resolution and Bill 14.

Resolution

“Be it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:

“That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the imposition of taxes on personal income.”

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

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

S. COADY: Good morning everyone.

I think this is an important discussion and debate. It falls out of the budget documentation and the budget information that was presented a few weeks ago now. The budget did pass last night; we finished the Estimates process, which I much appreciate. One of the things coming out of the budget and built into the Estimates, of course, is change to the personal income tax rate. It's a rate increase but only for those that fall into the category of earning $135,973 and above. An individual who earns $135,973 or above will have their personal income taxes changed.

As I said, Budget 2021 announced increases to personal income taxes for higher income earners and new brackets for those with taxable income greater than $250,000 in personal income. The tax rate on the current fourth bracket is increasing – this is the fourth bracket – meaning above $135,973 will change from 17.3 per cent to 17.8 per cent. That's obviously 0.5, half a percentage point.

The fifth bracket rate is increasing from 18.3 per cent to 19.8 per cent. Three new income tax brackets are being introduced, so the $250,000 at the $500,000 and $1-million level. If you personally earn $500,000 a year or a million dollars a year, your income tax rates are going up. At $250,000, you'll have an income tax rate of 20.8 per cent; at $500,000, 21.3 per cent; and at over a million, 21.8 per cent.

Now the combined total of the new revenue for the province is $15.3 million. The income tax changes for those that earn above $135,973 individually per year, when you take all the tax changes for anyone in those categories or above, it will bring in about $15.3 million per year.

Again, no change in personal income tax rates on anybody who earns less than $135,973. The tax brackets are indexed to the provincial consumer price index. For 2022, the threshold will be adjusted for the change in annual CPI for September. All the different brackets are indexed. They go up with the consumer price index, but that won't be known until October 2021. That's based on the consumer price index.

I will say, Mr. Chair, this is now bringing us in line with the rest of Atlantic Canada. For those that will have the budget documents, the Budget Speech before them, there was what I thought was a good chart that indicated what the personal income taxes were for the rest of Atlantic Canada for the thresholds that we're talking about. You will see in that chart that Newfoundland and Labrador is on par or, actually, in some categories, still below the rest of Atlantic Canada.

It was important to us, I think, as government and to people of the province, to remain very competitive with Atlantic Canada in particular, but even in the country, we want to make sure that we remain competitive in our taxes. We want to make sure that we continue to focus on what I'm going to call fairness in our tax system. We want to continue to focus on ensuring that we remain a very competitive place to live, work and raise a family so that people make the right decisions to stay in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We think that this will have some impact on the higher income earners, but if you look, Mr. Chair, their tax rate was lower than the rest of Atlantic Canada previously. We've now made some adjustments to ensure that it is now a little bit more competitive in Atlantic Canada.

We have not changed and, again, I'll repeat that. Anyone earning less than $135,973, personal income taxes are not changing. I've indicated the tax brackets will move with the consumer price index. I've also indicated that we're still very, very competitive in Atlantic Canada. Even at 21.8 we're more inline with Atlantic Canada, especially when you look at the brackets.

I do know, again, I'll reiterate it, that if we changed all of the entire brackets and the percentages and made them comparative to Nova Scotia, for example, we changed all of the brackets and we changed the bracket percentages, we would take in about $180 million more into this province from personal income tax. We are not doing that, Mr. Chair. We believe that we're very competitive in Atlantic Canada. We believe that we have from – what I'm going to call – a wholesome view a good tax system as it relates to competitiveness and as it relates to fairness. Therefore, we will be remaining as we are with our overall tax brackets. But I will remind Members in this House that if we did change completely, carte blanche, to take in the tax brackets and the percentages that are in Nova Scotia, we would bring in approximately $180 million more. So I will say that just so you understand how competitive our tax system is, Mr. Chair.

I'll conclude my remarks now because I want to listen to debate. I'll take whatever questions there may be. Again, this is about being competitive, it's about being fair and it's about ensuring that we have the monies in this province to address, not just the services that are required around the province and have the money to have the services that are required in health care and education but also to remain competitive and to ensure that families have a good quality of life here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

On that note, I'll adjourn my discussion and listen to debate.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll start off by, I guess, an overall indication. Again, this particular budget seems to focus heavily on revenue generation as opposed to expenditure reduction. Increasing taxes, whether it's personal income tax, gas tax or any other tax, does not help grow the economy. It takes more money out of people's pockets. We find ourselves, again, faced as a province in somewhat of a precarious situation. We are projecting, according to the economic documents, a 0.3 per cent decline in population, which ultimately means that we're going to have less people paying more tax. The fundamental principle should be more people paying less tax. How do we get there?

There are lots of different initiatives that could be untaken to achieve that. For example, maybe what we should have is a hiring tax credit where businesses are given a credit for hiring additional employees. Once they hire additional employees, we all know they will pay taxes on their income.

I think that there was an opportunity to look a relocation tax credit. We've talked about Newfoundland and the success we've had in the IT industries here and the fact that COVID has proven to us that there is an opportunity for people, not only to work from home but to literally work from any location anywhere in the world. If we're going to promote our province as a place to work, to come to, to come back to, or to move here and set up your business or work from here, then I think we have to be competitive in our tax bracket. Not only competitive, I think we have to be better than.

While I understand the rationale and, yes, we're competitive with Atlantic Canada, I would argue that we need to be better than. In order to do that we need to look at ways of encouraging people to come to Newfoundland and Labrador, maybe looking at a relocation tax credit. Again, if you accept a new job here in certain targeted growth sectors then there's a tax credit available to you.

I think those are some of the things that we need to start looking at. It simply can't be about increases all the time. Because increases simply turn around, add revenue, yes, but do we really, at the end of the day, improve our fiscal situation because of it? If more people wind up leaving, then the end result is less tax.

We've talked about the Terra Nova extensively for the last couple of days and I think there are currently 461 people that are still employed with that project. Depending on the outcome of that, there could be a significant loss of income to this province and a significant loss of tax income to this province. Again, there are lots of things like that that could happen. We haven't heard any news, as I have said, and sometimes no news is good news. I look forward to, hopefully, the companies will be able to come to a resolution and that project will continue to be a part of our business here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I know there are monies factored into the budget for that project, from both royalties and other tax revenues. Again, I look at it and I look at the – this is a bracket, the higher income tax brackets and that's fine; but, at the end of the day, it still comes down to the point of: How do we encourage more people to come here? As I just said, we need to be not only competitive; we need to be better than.

We seem to have a shortage of nurses these days. We seem to have a shortage of physicians in certain parts of our province and specialists, higher-income people that if we're going to recruit them to come to Newfoundland and Labrador or work in the territories, as the Minister of Health likes to refer to us outside of the Avalon Peninsula, then we need to make sure our tax brackets are not only competitive but better than.

So I think it's important for us to not just simply rest. We have to go out and be creative and find different ways of focusing on what we charge people. Again, it is not just the personal income tax piece, it's all of the other taxes. I think and I hope that the government this year is undertaking that cost-benefit analysis of all the taxes and fees that they collect and, at the end of the day, maybe there will be some that will be eliminated simply because they're ineffective, because it costs us more to collect them than we do in actual payments received.

Those are the things that we should be doing. Those are the type of programs we should be looking at. The whole principle is: How do we get more people paying less tax? I look at the first bracket (a), it says in the bill: “if the taxable income does not exceed $38,081, 8.7% of the taxable income” – so in other words they pay 8.7 per cent. Perhaps we should be looking at lowering that, perhaps we should be looking at eliminating it for everyone. So the first $30,000 and whatever it is, you pay no tax on. Maybe then people at the lower income levels would have an opportunity to have more money in their pockets. That money then translates into the economy and they spend it. They will spend it on goods and services in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I think those are the cost-benefit analyses that we need to be doing. We really need to be seriously looking at how we can make ourselves, not just competitive but better than. How we go about that will require sitting down and not simply taking what you always did and add a per cent to it or add another cent on or another increase, those are easy things to do.

The tougher things to do are to get into it and look deeper and find out what creative solutions we can arrive at. Because changing that population trend and getting more people here will make us a better province. At the end of the day, we will certainly be in the position to afford to do a lot more things and people will have more money in their pockets. At the end of that, they will spend more money and we can grow our economy. Because that's the way out of this. We can't tax our way out of this. We have to grow our economy and we have to be as efficient as we can.

Again, I think that there's lots of opportunity left. I'm a little concerned with some of the recommendations in the Premier's Greene report and what the future holds for them in the next couple of years, because there are some serious things in there that certainly recommended collecting that $180 million in taxes – in personal income tax. I'm glad to see government did not go with that. I hope they will not go with that. I hope they will look at different ways of stimulating the economy, as opposed to simply increasing taxes.

With that, Mr. Chair, I will end my remarks.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's a pleasure to speak again, as we always say. It might be a cliché, but it is a pleasure and we always appreciate it.

Mr. Chair, this bill we're debated here now, the personal income tax increase for the over $135,000, I don't think anyone's going to really complain too much. You're supposedly hitting the higher tax bracket. The vast majority of middle-class people and lower-income people, it doesn't affect them. We always say if it doesn't affect you, you don't really care.

But my colleague, the Finance critic, the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port, he makes a good point. He talks about attracting – we want to attract people here.

I know in my district, family doctor shortage is probably the greatest issue I'm dealing with, outside the norm. We always have roads and infrastructure issues and what have you. The family doctor shortage is by far the number one issue. It's an issue that I've taken on and I've committed to my constituents to lobby for. I've petitioned and I'm active on the social media accounts. I'm active on speaking of the issue. I'm not pointing fingers, it's no one's real fault. It's like everything. It's a problem, maybe a societal problem.

The Minister of Health always points out we have enough family doctors. I get that. I've spoken to him many times about it. He's always been open to having that conversation. We've been told 640 is the number that could facilitate enough family doctors that we can operate, that we don't have 100,000 people without a doctor. That's based on a model that they're there five or six days a week and they're probably doing a couple of evenings. They are doing house calls and that, which was the norm in previous years.

In CBS, if I had to wait the second day to get an appointment with my doctor, I found that really odd. Why couldn't I get an appointment the same day? I was calling that morning and had an appointment that afternoon.

I think right throughout the province I think we could attest that was pretty well the common thing. There was no difficulty usually getting in to see your family doctor on a weekday, you'd get in one day that week. I know in CBS now, three to four weeks to get a phone call, maybe four to five weeks to get an in-person visit.

Lifestyles have changed. They've changed. They have families. The demands are different, it's just different and I respect them. More power to them. Quality of life is everything. I mean, we go through this life sometimes, it's not all about work. I fully support all the family doctors out there and whatever lifestyle they choose, more power to them and kudos. But we need to find a way of getting past that issue because I'm not saying they need to work more hours. The minister's analogy is, basically, we should be forcing them and give incentives to force them to work more hours, to be in the clinics more. But that's probably not fair. That falls into family life and personal life.

We talk about mental health. There are all kinds of variations that we can't decide why. Maybe it's a mental health issue. Maybe some doctors just mentally can only handle working half a week, and I support that. But until we deal with the root cause of the problem, we'll always have this problem. We'll talk in words and we're going to bring in some nurse practitioners, we're going to do that. That's another complicated matter. Some models are not working. That's a different dynamic between family doctors and nurse practitioners.

If we're going to increase personal income taxes on the higher income brackets, it's going to get you some revenue no doubt and it's going to play well to people who say you need to tax the rich. No doubt about it. You play into a group, publicly you'll get credit for it. But, at the end of the day, if you're doing that, are you not deterring the family doctor from coming here, that we're short on, and many other professionals? We can list down the line who are going to be affected by this.

I've never been a believer – and I guess it's a Conservative policy and we went through this in 2016 on taxation – you never tax away the prosperity. Taxation is not the answer. It can give you short-term benefits; there's no doubt about it. Again, I'll come back to analysis, I said in this House, I don't know, last week or the week before when I spoke on the budget, what we kept coming back to was they don't know. That was turned into a bit of comedy and whatever. My point was – and our leader said it yesterday – we really don't know what the full details are, what the full analysis is. This is probably another case.

You're going to get monies and we're going to raise money by raising the income tax, obviously revenues, but what analysis has been done? What's the deterrent? You look at tuition and you're looking at raising things. We froze tuition to increase enrolment and attract people to university. We've done so for many years. Right now, it's coming to a cost of upwards of $70 million a year, I think. The minister can correct me. But enrolment increased; national and provincially, the enrolment increased because we reduced tuition. Obviously, money talks.

We love Newfoundland. We all love it. Native Newfoundlanders, we love it. People who move here love it. If you're up in, I don't know, Ontario and you have a nice climate and you have a pretty decent lifestyle and what have you and you're a family doctor or you're any other professional – I use family doctor because that's my number-one issue, but there are all kinds of other professionals – what's attracting you to come here? Not the weather. We like the scenery; we like the fishing; we like the hunting; we like the country. I love all that stuff. I love the fresh air. That's not attracting them here. Usually, the bottom line comes down to money, and somewhat lifestyle.

Those things need to be put into some of the analysis when you do a lot of these budgetary items. I've thought about this many times. I've sat in this Assembly for a few years now listening to a lot of debates over stuff like this – income tax change, a fee hike or what have you. It's no slight against any staff or anyone, really; it's probably more of just thinking outside the box.

I'll use probably one the Premier has used sometimes: You're moving a lever. If you're doing that and you're increasing your taxes and you're increasing your revenues, what's the downside? I guess, in life you look out – and I always say the best decision-makers sometimes are the ones who can see the fifth or sixth step down the road. There's a domino effect: you're taking that decision there but it's going to have an impact down the road somewhere. It will always have an impact no matter what decision you make, and especially governments, because it's not affecting all of us, it's affecting certain groups, and a tax increase affects that group. But there are lots of other things that are impacted by those decisions.

In one avenue we're trying to increase our population growth, that's a big issue, trying to attract people here; you have to create an environment that people want to come here. We'll never be able to change the weather. As much as we would like to get up and shift our global – this is who we are. We love who we are. I love who we are. But we have to create other environments. If we're going to increase personal income tax, we're going to increase the cost and fees – back in 2016 – we're still living in a pretty expensive – the cost of living in this province has gone very, very high.

I go to supermarkets sometimes, Mr. Chair, and I wonder how people can survive, how people can actually survive. A family, a young, working, average-income family, how they can survive in this province. They're the people who are here. If you talk to them, they don't want to go anywhere else. Newfoundland, this is where they want to be because it's where they're from. That's in your blood. We're native Newfoundlanders and that's what we'll always be.

Any cost of living increase, and this is a cost of living increase, and it doesn't affect those families, they could care less about that. But what they don't realize is it's affecting getting a family doctor. I can bring out 10 different examples. We're looking for psychiatrists, a big shortage on psychiatrists. Mental health: I have a constituent with a three-year wait – a three-year wait. That's real; that's not made up. I was just reading the email here, actually, just before the House started, and I'm not even fished reading the email. A three-year wait. Most of them are making over $135,000, so that's a good example. We have extra bonuses of psychiatrists outside of the province, what's going to bring them here?

That's the sort of analysis that needs to be done on a lot of these decisions. I'm zeroing in on my issue and my concern, but you can take that and you can plant that everywhere you want to. These are the analyses not done. A lot of this budget, we never supported it because we didn't know those details. What is the impact? What will come? What's the endgame? If you don't know the endgame, you can't support it without knowing the result. I think this is another case of an analysis that you have to look at down the road and see what the possible fallouts will be before you can support something like this.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm glad to have the opportunity to speak to this bill.

Mr. Chair, I see two sides of the argument, and I do appreciate what the Member for Conception Bay South is saying. I totally understand his concern. I really, really do. But I'm kind of looking at it from the perspective of, again, trying to be realistic about where we're to in terms of our year-over-year deficits and our debt and so on, which is growing year over year over year.

Something has to be done. There has to be something done to reduce – I believe the biggest part is we have to try to reduce costs wherever we can. But there also has to be, perhaps, on the other side, a little bit of raising of revenue as well to try to somehow create some kind of a balance to get ourselves on track. To eventually get ourselves to a balanced budget and hopefully then we'll have our balanced budget legislation and we can stay on that road, God willing.

Nobody wants to see taxes go up. I don't want to see it go up. Raise your hand who likes paying taxes. There won't be any – okay, apparently my colleague here from Bellevue, he likes paying taxes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can't do nothing without it.

P. LANE: I agree we can't do nothing without it but that doesn't mean you like paying them. I don't like paying them. None of us likes paying them is my point. But it's a necessary evil. It's something that has to be done in order to provide essential public services for people, including ourselves, at some points, depending on what services you avail of.

It's about trying to create some sort of a balance in terms of raising revenues and reducing expenditures. That's what we need to do. I see this as sort of part of it. Again, I don't like the idea of raising anyone's taxes, but I will say this, and this is what I like about this one the most, I suppose, is that at least we are targeting the individuals who are most able to pay.

I remember the budget of 2016, I don't know if we all remember it, not many of us were here, some of us were here, a lot of us were here I suppose; I remember that budget. I remember up with the gas tax, up with the HST and the levy. That was the sore point for most people; that levy, that was brutal. That was beyond brutal and everything else. That combination of taxing everyone to death. And when we're taxing everyone to death, that was the average working person. That wasn't the elite; that wasn't someone who was making a six-figure salary – I mean, they were paying it as well, of course. But it was just average families who are trying their best to survive; they got hit with all these taxes. It was just totally unbearable and thank God most of it got reversed, eventually.

I would not want to see us going back down that road again. So if there is going to be any kind of a tax increase, I would prefer that those who are most able would be the ones that are going to pay a little extra in taxes, if that's what's required on the revenue side as opposed to the average, everyday family who are trying to survive and keep their head above water. I would support it in that regard.

I do agree with the Member for CBS, there are concerns, you have to look at all sides of it. There is no doubt that when we look at – and when we look at it and we can cherry-pick a profession, as he did being a physician, and he's right; he is not wrong in what he's saying. But I am not sure that we can't address – if we have recruiting issues with family doctors, just as an example – I'll just pick that as an example because it was the one he used – I think that could be addressed through the recruiting process. Because even though we have raised the taxes, there is nothing to say the government can't say: Well, in recognition of the fact that we raised the tax bracket, we're going to offer family doctors an extra $10,000 or $20,000 more than we did before. That way they're not out any money, they're still receiving the same compensations as they would have, but then others who are in a position to pay more can. In the recruiting process, we can still have the ability to deal with doctors by raising the amount that we would offer them: if that's what we want to do.

Now, I'm not necessarily certain that we even need to be raising the amount of money that we're giving to doctors, per se, because the Member is right: this is a reality as well and he sort of captured it beautifully, I thought. If you are from Newfoundland and Labrador, if you are born and raised here and your family is here and your parents are here, your grandparents, your siblings, and so on are here: you're going to want to stay here. Now, not everybody. Some people choose to leave, some are forced to leave but there is a much greater chance that if you are born and bred here that you will be more apt to stay here and so on, and the money may not necessarily be the big motivator.

Now, obviously, if you're getting someone who is not from here and all they're in it for is just the money and the best offer, I don't know if we can ever compete with that. I don't think we can compete with the bigger provinces or compete with the United States, who are paying ridiculous amounts of money to some of these doctors. I don't know if we can compete with it.

I do know and I can give this as an example: I had a constituent of mine who contacted me about a year or two ago. His son applied for medical school at MUN. I can't remember the exact, but something in the back of my mind tells me it was like a 96.8 average, something like that. It was somewhere in the neighbourhood of around a 96 per cent or a 96.8 per cent average. He couldn't get into MUN medical school, couldn't be accepted because there were only so many seats and a number of those seats were going to international students.

This is nothing against anybody coming here for an education; I don't want to turn it into that. The point is those international students who are coming here, what is the likelihood of them staying here versus someone who was born and raised and all their family are in Newfoundland staying here? He couldn't get in with a 96 per cent average because there were others; they had a quota of so many locals and so many international students. The father said to me: I can't believe it. It's Memorial University. My son has these high marks. He wants to stay here. He wants to be a family physician, open a practice, live in Newfoundland, his life with his family and he can't get into medical school.

There's a problem with that. That's not a money issue, but there is a big problem with that. That's something I would say to the Minister of Education, who is responsible for post-secondary. I can see he is listening intently and nodding his head in agreement. That is an issue. If we're talking about recruiting doctors and retaining doctors, if we have people who are born and raised here and their families are here, and they want to stay here and live here, then we have to find room for them at that medical school.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. LANE: Assuming they're qualified and able to do it and so on. To have a student with a 96.8 per cent average in all the science courses – biology, chemistry and all this kind of stuff – and wanting to be a family doctor and couldn't get in to MUN medical school, and now he's gone to the Mainland. He had to go away to get into medical school and I don't even think he's coming back here. That's sad. That would address that issue that taxes wouldn't. I'm sure he would be willing to stay here even with this tax regime.

The other thing, which hasn't been discussed I don't believe, and I'm hoping the Minister of Finance, when she speaks – I think she will have to speak again. I'd like for her to address it, if she hasn't already. I was a couple of minutes late coming in, so maybe she did. I'm wondering where these taxes fall in line with other provinces and other Atlantic provinces, because my understanding is that we're still competitive. It's not like this tax bracket is going to make us totally out of whack and all of a sudden nobody is coming to Newfoundland because the taxes are so high. My understanding is with this increase we are still competitive with the other provinces and Atlantic provinces. I think we have to – as long as that's the case I think it's reasonable.

We can't simply be of the mindset that says nobody wants to come to Newfoundland and everybody has to get a break. We have to have the lowest of everything, the lowest taxes and the best offers of anywhere else because nobody wants to come to Newfoundland. I really don't believe that. We have a lot to offer. We have a great lifestyle to offer here. We have safety here that you don't have in a lot of places around the country.

So there are a lot of reasons why doctors want to come here. I don't think this is going to prevent it from happening and I will support this bill.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's a great opportunity to talk about this bill today. As I talk about it, I'll take a little bit of a different approach. If I could tell the people of this House – I'm sure I could put a lot of smiles on people's faces here – that we could bring in 25,000 people that make over $100,000 each and we don't have to create one job here; they're just going to bring their money to the province and spend it and live here, my God, can you imagine how beneficial? That would be great for the province. Like I say, I'm sure it would put a smile on everybody's face here.

What I'm talking about are rotational workers who are estimated anywhere between 20,000 and 30,000 people. We'll cut that in half and say 25,000 rotational workers. Now, these rotational workers don't go away for $12.50 an hour. These rotational workers, I guarantee you 90 per cent of them are making over $100,000-plus, and they are up there, which would equate to about $2.5 billion being brought back to our province, and we don't have to supply one job to these people. That's a huge revenue. That's a lot of money. I don't know what it equates to in taxes, but it comes with a big price tag if we lose these people. So we have to ensure that we do everything we can to keep them here.

Now, it's not just the rotational workers. The rotational workers, they're a lot of young families. They have spouses – husbands and wives. They have kids that avail of certain things here in Newfoundland and Labrador. So if they go away and we end up losing them, we end up losing their spouses and their kids too. That's a big blow. Now you're not talking about 25,000 people, you're talking a lot more. You look at the spinoffs of that. You look at what it would incur if we start losing our rotational workers who have had a very, very tough year and a half – almost two years now – with COVID. I mean their lives are pretty tough as it is anyway, but they've sacrificed a lot.

The airline industry, we talk about we want to have more people flying in and out of Newfoundland and Labrador. We talk about the tourism industry. We talk about people coming to visit. We talk about families coming home from away, who after years come home for their Come Home Year or just to visit family. But what people don't realize is the rotational workers have to get back and forth across this country, across this globe. They put a lot of money; they put a lot of butts into those seats of the airlines and the planes. If you take those away as well, again, the airline industry is going to hurt. We know about supply and demand. If the demand isn't there for seats, well, guess what, the airlines are going to start pulling out again, they're going to start cutting routes again. That's not something that we want.

If we start losing rotational workers – and we're approaching this from a tax bracket as well. I know the tax bracket is a Catch-22 sort of thing. We want to ensure that there are legitimate taxes for people that can afford it to pay for goods and services throughout the province and for those who may be the most vulnerable that can't. That's the way our society works and so it should. But there's a tipping point there as well where we want to ensure that people realize they can pay their fair share of taxes, but they don't want to be overtaxed because there are options to go to other places. We want to let them know that Newfoundland and Labrador is the place to be. We want to make it as attractive as we possibly can to keep them here or to get more people here, new people here.

The goods and services bought: I was a rotational worker; I bought a house here. One hundred and twenty-seven more payments and it's mine. It's great. Vehicles: Myself and my wife own two vehicles. Most rotational workers, they and their spouse have to own two vehicles as well. When you add that up it's great revenue for the province.

Toys: I know as a rotational worker you put in your 20 or 30 days and you come home. You want to enjoy yourself with your family. The RVs, the camping sites, the quads, the snowmobiles: The rotational workers have the money to buy these things and they enjoy buying them because that's what they want to do. They want to enjoy their time at home after being away for so long. One of the sayings on the rig – it's been everywhere of course – is work hard play hard and that's one thing we did. I worked hard in Alberta, Saskatchewan and BC, but I made sure I played hard in Newfoundland and Labrador too. That's the way I wanted to live my life and that's the way I lived it.

Food: We heard some hon. Members talking about food a little while ago. It's absolutely insane. Obviously, there's no finger pointing; it's the way that we've gone. Just in the past year alone, the food prices are absolutely crazy. We all make a great wage here, but I find myself, going to the grocery store sometimes, I get absolutely defeated when I walk out after spending $100 and I have one grocery bag. I'm not an extravagant eater, by no means. I eat a lot, but I don't eat very extravagantly. I can only imagine what somebody who doesn't make our income – somebody who's working very hard, by the way, making their $35,000 a year – how hard they find it to buy food.

Tourism: When the winter, summer comes, a lot of rotational workers – I know when I came home, every single hitch I got off, myself and my wife, we would pick a different place each month here in Newfoundland and Labrador, whether it be the Riverfront Chalets in Grand Falls-Windsor or some place in Deer Lake or Corner Brook, some place on the Island to go and spend a night or two because we wanted to get away.

Tax revenue: The money that's brought into the province by rotational workers, it's a substantial amount and it can't be overlooked, which ties me back to the whole bill itself. A lot of these workers, they are making over $135,000, $140,000. I'm sure a lot of them are just happy enough to help society and help those, again, that are vulnerable and the social programs we have in Newfoundland and Labrador. I know I was. I was happy to pay my fair share of taxes.

As things start to erode a little bit or degrade – doctor shortages, roads, and we talk about it every single day – sometimes people are going to think that the incentive to be here is going to get smaller and smaller. We need to make them bigger and bigger. Again, without jobs and employment, the immigration and the population growth, it's going nowhere. We want to ensure that we have an environment where they can grow and they want to be.

The doctor retention, we just come back to that. Like I just said, that's one of the incentives that are going to keep people here, within that tax bracket. At the end of the day, it's what we want to do: We want to keep the people here inside that tax bracket, to make sure that they don't want to go anywhere else.

Tuition fees for doctors that leave: I don't know how to do it and I guess that's the big question. Somebody who wants to stay here, they should get every incentive in the world. We have a great deal of homegrown Newfoundland and Labrador doctors as well that I'm very proud to call friends; as well as doctors come from different countries that want to stay. Dr. Cheriyan out in Grand Falls-Windsor, he's been there now for 22, 23 years. God bless him, he loves it here and we're only too happy to have him. There's that as well.

Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans, for instance, we have a lot of incentives there to keep people. We're about to open a long-term health care centre. There's an announcement coming with the Lionel Kelland Hospice this coming Friday. I'll be there for that and I look forward to it. Marathon Gold is another one. We have great mining projects now out in Central where people are going to be making over $100,000 a year, probably up in that $135,000 tax bracket.

The whole goal to keep people here and the incentive to keep people here should offset whatever tax increase we have. It doesn't go hand in hand. We can't say in one hand that we're going to raise the taxes, but the incentives are going to get lower and lower. I'm not saying that's what's happening but we have to ensure that we are very careful of that. Because if I'm going to pick somewhere in this world to live and I'm going to pay a little bit extra to live there, well by God they better have some good incentives for myself and my family to be there. I'm sure that in Newfoundland and Labrador we do have lots to offer.

The Member for CBS talked about the weather. Well, the weather sometimes a lot of people don't like it, but one great thing about Newfoundland and Labrador, and for anybody that's watching that might want to live here one day, we actually have seasons. We do. We have a transition of seasons and it's fantastic. It should be an incentive. I enjoy the seasons. I enjoy the summer. I enjoy the winter, the fall and the spring. It's something that we have. Sometimes the winter spills over into the summer, but we have seasons –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

C. TIBBS: Exactly, we do. We have it out our way and a lot less fog.

We're happy about that. Again, I just want to reiterate – it's not just $135,000 when we talk about $500,000 or a million dollars, you're getting up there. Well, we have to make this place as attractive as possible. Let these people know that, you know what, we want you here in Newfoundland and Labrador. There is something here for you as well. You're not just here to pay for other people or pay for other things or programs, but there should be something in it for them as well. Not just the humility or the intention of helping out the province in any way they can. There has to be something here for them as well.

In closing, Mr. Chair, I just want to talk one 15-second blurb here about what happened in Mount Pearl and the homophobic incidents that have happened across the province here lately. I just have a message for those people. Phobia is an irrational fear; it's absolutely irrational. For those people who are doing stuff like this, be better human beings, please.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you.

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

S. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's great to have an opportunity to participate in this budget process this year. For the purposes of people watching, we've completed the vote on the budget a few days ago – yesterday actually. That process starts off with the minister bringing forward the budget and the documents. We have the Estimates, the motions come before the House and usually there are amendments, so there is a lot of speaking.

These are finance bills so there are usually wide-ranging debates and a lot of discussion, and now we're at the stage where we're looking at the related legislation. Last night we dealt with the Supply bill, which allows government to spend the money that was allocated, and we also dealt with the loans act, which allows the government to borrow money, and that was discussed in the budget as well. Today, we're looking at the Income Tax Act, so that's a broad debate as well.

It was interesting to listen to the two previous Members who spoke. The Member for Mount Pearl asked a question: Who likes to pay taxes? I guess, most people don't, and that goes back to – yeah, there was only one Member who said he liked paying taxes. But I think that's an interesting question: Who like to pay taxes? That goes back, really, to some of the early philosophers about government and what government means. When the Member said that I sort of thought back to my first years in political science doing a political philosophy course. One of the items that I found interesting or thought about when I heard the Member say that was Thomas Hobbes; he made a statement and said that taxation is a cruel, terrible punishment that government exercises upon the people.

If you think about it, people go out, they work and they earn money and then government takes some of their money – takes some of that money they've earned away from them. How do you justify that? How do you justify taking money that people have earned? The only justification, I guess, that government can have for doing that – and I think this is what the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor was getting at – is that the only justification you can have for doing that is government takes the money and uses it for something productive. They take it and use it for something that collectively makes us all better, stronger and better off. I think that's the basis of taxation and why people allow governments to tax them, so that's the genesis of this whole idea.

It was interesting to listen to the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans as well. I have a number of rotational workers live in my district as well, so his points are well taken. I think when people choose to live here in Newfoundland and work away, the fact that they choose to continue to live here, we have to be competitive in the rates of taxation. We also have to provide them with a lifestyle and in the way that we spend the money that we take from them, make something that is good for them and their families. I think that is what we have to do.

As the minister said in her opening comments on this bill, I think it is important that we be competitive. The two things that I like about the taxation – as I say, no one likes taxation, but the things I like about this bill is it keeps us competitive and it focuses on taxing the people who can most afford it so that we can do some good things for the people who can less afford it, and that is good for our society as a whole.

Those are some things about the piece of legislation. When I talked in Interim Supply, a little while ago, I said there were three main questions that we're faced with as a province today. The first question is: How did we get into this situation that we're in? The second one is: How do we get out of this situation? What choices do we have to make? What changes do we have to make? The third question is: How do we build a sustainable situation again in this province? How do was build a prosperous future that doesn't allow us to go back into the situation we're into today?

So those are the three main questions that we have to talk about. Usually, I start off with these three questions and I only get to talk to the first two before my time runs out, so I'm going to start off with question number three this time and talk about that a bit: How do we build a sustainable economy and a sustainable future in the province?

I must say, I have been encouraged by the type of debate we've had here in this budget. Some of it has been non-political, recognizing the fact that we have to make some changes. Changes to the way we've done things; that we're facing a situation where we have to make some changes. I've listened to some of the Members from the other side and I'm really pleased that there seems to be a consensus that we have to do some things to get ourselves on the right track.

In terms of building a sustainable economy, recently I had opportunity with the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture to visit the Marine Institute. While we were up there, it was interesting to have a look at the type of work that is happening there at the Marine Institute. One of the things, in the past, I think we haven't maximized the benefit of our resources. We've allowed some of the benefits to go away out of our province. But I was really encouraged by some of the research that's happening up at the Marine Institute in terms of making us leaders in the field of fisheries. It was interesting to learn some of the research that's being done up there. One of the things that research was being done on was crab pots and how we could build a better crab pot.

Fisheries, agriculture are not always sectors that we think of as technology sectors or tech sectors that involve a lot of science. But the people at the Marine Institute were doing research on developing a better crab pot that allows the people to catch the individual quotas that they have in a more efficient manner. It allows them to make less trips, burn less fuel, to do it more economically, to be more competitive with other places in the world.

One of the things they were doing was looking at how do they attract crabs to the pot. One of the things they were doing research on is lights. What they've found is that if they put a light in the crab pot, it attracts more crab. From there, they said: Well, what else can we do to attract more crab to this pot? The next thing they started to look at was sound. Can they make a sound that attracts more crab to the pot?

They were able to do that as well, so they were able to increase the efficiency of the crab pots and they decided they were going to make florescent crab pots as well because they were cheaper. Basically, the point of this story is: I think that is the sort of thing that gives me hope that we have a bright future, because people are doing these sorts of things. It is the area where educational institutions come together with our resource industries, and that is one of the ways, I think, we can build a stronger future for this province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, the Minister of Finance made a comment this morning that was so true and there are so many people in Newfoundland that would argue about what we pay for income tax versus the rest of Atlantic Canada. She is bang on in her statement that we're on par or less. A lot of people would argue that point, but it is a true fact. We sit here and we question all the time about our income tax.

What is misleading about that statement is that we probably pay more taxes than anyone in Canada based on geography. All you have to do is look back at the 2016 budget and look at the 350 additional fees or taxes that were added. We can sit here, shake our heads and disagree, but the reality of it is that if we look at the cost of getting goods to this province and we look at what we pay – as an example, you look at a piece of chicken and you think we pay $17 for a pack of chicken thighs and someone will say: Well, that's not taxed. Well, back up the bus; it is taxed because it is processed in a plant, where taxes are charged. It gets on a truck and it comes across the country, where taxes are charged. People put gas in that truck; taxes are charged. People pay way more for gas here in Newfoundland – way more, especially in taxes that comes back to the province. It gets on a ferry, in some instances, and we pay way too much for that.

If you take a comparison of a good from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, PEI and you compare it to what we pay for it here – especially goods that are taxed. As an example, we'll use a taxable food product – I don't know, like one of those little Schneiders meat packages. We pay $4.99 when it is not on sale at Sobeys or No Frills or wherever you go. You pay 15 per cent tax on that $4.99, so you pay 60 cents tax. It doesn't sound like a lot but you go to Nova Scotia, you buy that same product; you pay $2; you pay 30 cents tax. We pay double the taxes on goods – we pay double the taxes on goods. We can argue all the time about what we pay in personal income tax. The minister is right: We do pay on par or less in some instances. With regard to other things, we pay quite a bit more. It's an unfortunate truth. I don't know that we can afford to pay more.

Certainly, the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port had some great points. I listened to this budget debate and one of the things that we talk about is our ability to generate revenue through taxes. Very little discussion about generating revenue through an economy. Very little discussion about ways to create jobs and a path forward. We need to do that. If we want to attract people, we have to find a way to get people to come here and work. We have to find out how we do that.

One of the numbers that was floated was $15.3 million in revenue created from this additional tax. Well, I'd be curious to know if that $15.3 million is actually factual based on the fact that we're losing 1,100 jobs on the Terra Nova, possibly. Those 1,100 jobs could be a lot more than 1,100 when it spins over into the rest of the economy, if you look at the indirects.

Then you look at rotational works. The Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans made a very good comment about the 20,000 to 25,000 rotational workers and whether or not they decide to stay here. I'll give you a stat that nobody considers: One rotational worker leaves; it's probably two people who have very good jobs leaving. It's not just the person that goes away and works. In most families today, both the husband and the wife or partner work. If they're doing well, we lose that revenue as a province. Not just the revenue from the direct income tax, but from the goods and services they buy.

We miss the boat on that all the time. One normally equals two, and it also equals two or three children. It's families that are leaving; it's not just individuals. It's families. One per cent doesn't sound like a lot. The reality of it is that we have to find a way to generate revenue. I guess if the best we can come up right now is through taxation, then it's where we have to go.

There are a lot of other places. Actually, the Member for Lake Melville brought up a very interesting – several times, actually, in Estimates and he brought it up in one of his speeches this week about stumpage fees. Why not?

Self-checkouts: Think of going to the store. Me personally, I refuse to use them. I won't go to them. I won't go to them because it's jobs. It's people not working and it's businesses making more money. We get nothing for it, not a cent. Why not tax self-checkouts? Why not find a way to make people pay for non-service?

Secondary processing: All you have to do is look to the marijuana industry, aquaculture and different stuff that we have going on here. Even our fishing industry, per se, and a portion of our forestry and mining. Everything leaves to be processed. Those are things that we ought to be looking at here. As a province if we want to become a self-sustainable province, based on geography and population, we have to find a way to do more. More means secondary processing and doing things ourselves.

We can. We've proven it. We've done a lot of stuff here that is a marvel to the rest of the world. You look to the Hebron Project; you look to Verafin. From a technology – every portion of the sector, everything we touch we do well at. It's just that we have to get into it and get at it. For some reason, we don't find ways to do that.

Like the hon. Member for CBS said, I agree. There is no incentive to come to Newfoundland from a tax standpoint if you look at the big picture. The big picture isn't necessarily personal income tax. It's everything. It's the whole package. We have to look at the whole package.

We have to look at what it costs to live here. The cost of living here is absurd and going to go up. If we don't do something about rate mitigation, it goes up. We're at a breaking point with people. I get calls all the time. I said it yesterday when I spoke. I get calls from people all the time who don't eat steak anymore. Who don't buy certain groceries unless they're on sale. Who don't have the ability to take their children out to see and do things. Who have foregone sports because of – it's dire times. Our solution to create revenue is to raise taxes.

In 2016, the plan was five years. Five years we're going to have that fixed. This is what this is. The budget is so in five years we're going to be on par. In 2017, yeah, we're on target; we're going to be there. In 2018, we're here; we're going to have a balanced budget in 2021. And 2021 is here, guess what? Five-year plan; 2026-2027, we're going to get there. We're going to raise taxes. It's not austerity this year, but buckle up, it's probably coming.

P. DINN: CHANGE starts here.

L. PARROTT: Yeah, CHANGE starts here. Change started five years ago, apparently, and nothing has changed. Part of the 350 additional fees and taxes that were entered, some of them have been rolled back. The levy and a couple of other things. But most of it remains.

You look at certainly the price of fuel. We look at the price of fuel and we added five cents – and for a reason. There was a reason. But we ought to have been questioning that reason from the day it was put on there. How long does it last? How long does it go for? Why didn't the other companies apply for that same credit? It didn't happen.

When we tax people extra money, it sends a message about what's to come. Oddly enough, I have had several high-income earners come to me and say: I am more than willing to do my part. I don't disagree; I'm with it. I've had several.

I've also had several come to me and say: I'm already taxed to death. Their comment was never about their personal income tax. Their comment was about fuel. It was about timber. It was about groceries. It was about sports. It was about car renewals. It was about every fee that they pay for everything in this province that's taxed. Insurance: Talk to the bar owners, ask them about their insurance. Ask them the best way that you could help tourism right now: business insurance, get rid of the tax. We hear it all the time. These tourist operators, they yell it all the time.

House insurance: taxed. Everything is taxed. While I understand the 1 per cent and I agree with the Finance Minister that the 1 per cent tax increase puts us not on par – I think we're still a little less than a lot of the jurisdictions in Atlantic Canada. If you look at the full tax scheme and what we pay for goods, services and the fees that we have, it's not acceptable and we need to find ways to be better.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.

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

I'll take a few minutes now and talk about a few things from Budget 2021. First and foremost, it's always a privilege to sit here and represent the people of Carbonear - Trinity - Bay de Verde. Something I've had the pleasure to do now for four elections and seven or eight years.

Anyway, I want to start off, Mr. Chair, by congratulating the Class of 2021 who are going through, again, what was not, I'm sure, the graduation ceremonies and conclusion of high school that they would have wished, similar to what would have happened to the graduating Class of 2020 as well. We all know that this is a milestone in their lives and, unfortunately, COVID has altered that.

I wish them all great success: the graduates of Baccalieu Collegiate in Old Perlican, the graduates of Carbonear Collegiate in Carbonear and the graduates of Crescent Collegiate in Blaketown. That's where my constituents actually attend high school, in those three schools. Some of them spill over into neighbouring districts. It's important that we recognize them in this important time in their journey.

Mr. Chair, I've heard a lot in the last two weeks about a vision for the province. I think, in fairness, we all share the same vision. I have been lucky enough to have two children in post-secondary and I can assure any Member in this House that every day I sit here and think about their futures. I can assure you that I will do everything that I can, not only for them but for any child in this province to have the opportunity to stay here. But that comes with choices, and hard choices at that, and choices that we've made in this budget and choices we will have to make going forward.

Again, I've been sitting through budgets since the budget of 2014, I guess, in some ways, and this is one of the best, balanced budgets – unfortunately, it's not balanced in fiscal terms – that I've seen in my time and it lays out a plan. I can assure you our government is committed to that plan, to get us to where we need to be through these difficult times. Nobody would have ever predicted four years ago or five years ago we would go into a pandemic that would last, for all intents and purposes, two years.

I'm going to use two years to segue into the next part of my comments because I'm going to talk a little about the tourism industry and the devastation that that felt from COVID-19, and that is one industry that will not recover until 2022. An excellent plan of Together.Again, and I thank Public Health officials, Minister Haggie, the Premier and everybody involved in that for the work they did around Together.Again. We went into a phase of it yesterday on June 15, which expanded some of our restrictions, loosened, and next week we open up to the Atlantic bubble, which is great to see, and I guess one week later we open up to Canada. I can tell you from talking to tourism operators the enthusiasm and the amount of activity they're actually seeing is, I would say, better than expected.

It's still going to be a challenging year. That's why in this budget, Mr. Chair, we put aside $30 million for the Tourism and Hospitality Support Program. It's very important to us that we bridge that. I express it every opportunity that I can to my federal colleagues. We typically meet every second Thursday with the provincial ministers and federal minister. One of the things that we all request of Ottawa is that when they look at the tourism and hospitality industry going into 2022, the wage subsidy and the rent subsidy programs are something that we feel should be extended for that industry. This industry is without doubt the hardest hit and it's one that programs like this ending in September will cause challenges, maybe more than on some other industries. We will continue to advocate for that.

The Premier's Advisory Council on Tourism brought in any number of recommendations. We've been fortunate. We've been able to actually meet most of those recommendations and we will continue to work towards meeting the ones that are outlined that we haven't been able to achieve just yet. There are so many. It was great to see, yesterday, when Air Canada released their summer schedule, the level of activity that they've committed to already to come back to this province.

We know air access is a tremendous challenge to this province. Access to this province is always a challenge; I'll focus on air right now. Air access has always been a challenge, but never so as it is right now, because the first thing we have to do with regard to air access – and the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans mentioned it earlier. Air access is not only about tourism. Tourism helps, but air access is multi-faceted. That's why there has been a lot of work done interdepartmentally when it comes to air access by government, realizing that in order to fill up those seats, there are so many different components.

One of those is business; one of those is people travelling for work; then it's tourism and all of those. That's how we fill the seats. We're going to advocate to the airlines to get our capacity back, and then some. It's going to be a very competitive market in doing that. We're working with the Department of Finance; with IET, who is the lead, actually, on air access. We're working with them. We're working with our airport authorities, Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador and others because it's important we get that back. That will be one of the challenges going forward.

One of the things next year that we're really looking forward to – and there will be a lot more, I guess, said about this and a lot more announced around Come Home Year 2022 early in the fall. We want to make sure, first and foremost, we get everything we can out of this tourism season. It's going to be very important next year that we actually all rally around bringing as many people to this province as possible – our expats, our families – and showing them.

The Department of Immigration and Population Growth has been out now advertising the ideas and people's ability to come and work from home, work remotely, come back and work somewhere else in the world, but actually do it from here.

Again, one of the things from this year's budget, for someone from a rural district that has challenges with cellphone coverage, it was really great to see the $25-million commitment. That is unprecedented, Mr. Chair. We've gone from a program that we instituted back in 2017, maybe 2018; we're in to phase three of the now, on cellphone coverage. That leveraged, I think, practically 4-1 on $1 million, so just imagine what we're going to be able to do with the commitment of $25 million to connectivity when it comes to cellular and broadband. That is so important for people who want to work remotely.

It is also amazingly important for the tourism industry that we will have that connectivity and people will be able to enjoy those things on a level. This is not really a Newfoundland and Labrador problem that is unique to us. I have a brother that lives 45 minutes outside of Calgary and he doesn't have cellphone coverage. It is a Canadian challenge when you look at our geography and the way we are built as a country. It is important and the commitment that we've put forward in this budget is, I think, to be commended, the amount of activity that this will provide and expansion.

One other thing in my remaining one minute, would be, again, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and how we have always rolled up our sleeves to do what is needed to be done. I think, quite literally, right now we are rolling up our sleeves to get vaccinated. That is so very important when we talk about the tourism industry and we talk about industry in general. As Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we continue to do that; we get our first shot and then we get our second shot. Then as Canada moves there as well, we can lift even more restrictions and we can get back to doing business as normal.

Mr. Chair, I will conclude. I would suspect that in the next day or so I'll get another opportunity.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will certainly echo the minister's comments about the need to get people back into this province and to show off what we have to offer.

I want to take a few minutes to talk about something that I have brought up already: transition and the need for a transition plan. I know we are committed to it and I want to talk about the importance of it, to have one that's nimble. I think it is important, especially when I look at the people in my district, the families, the businesses there; a transition plan is something that is going to benefit them. It is also going to benefit – I look at my daughter. The Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans talked about attracting doctors, attracting people back here. She just passed here OSCE, which, as I understand it, is the Objective Structural Clinical Exam. She is now officially a pediatrician, she can practice anywhere in the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. DINN: That's Sarah. I'll let her know that I mentioned here in the House. She is going away for two years to do her fellowship in Calgary. We're hoping that, obviously, there will be a job for her when she gets back. She does want to come back to Newfoundland and Labrador. This is her home. I'll talk a little bit more about that later.

Which is why I think that I come back to why here, within the House, our leader and our party we've been pushing for a just transition plan to move from fossil fuel to cash in on the green economy that's going to benefit workers, that's going to benefit the communities and going to benefit the people of this province.

I'll ask you this: I'm looking to rent a VHS, can anyone direct me to a store? No one, not really. I have a bunch of VHS tapes at home.

AN HON. MEMBER: I have two in my basement you can have.

J. DINN: I said store to rent.

I've got plenty of VHS tapes, but here's my thing: 1976 was the advent of the VHS tape, that's when I graduated. Let's talk about transition. In that time, we had the advent of the camcorder, Blockbuster Video in 1985 and Jumbo Video in 1987, both of which are now defunct. LCD, the cathode-ray television went to the LED and plasma you name it. The first digital video camera in 1993; DVDs and Netflix in 1997. Keep in mind the rapidity at which change occurred. Because I can remember the debate should I get a Betamax player or a VHS player? VHS won out. It evolved that quickly, and you couldn't afford a VHS machine at first, now they're not even a standalone item. They're a niche market.

DVDs and Blu-ray, again vanished. You couldn't get a computer at one time. Can you get a laptop now with a DVD? Not likely. It's now the stick.

Basically, 2003 was the end of the VHS. In 2002, we had the GoPro. We had YouTube in 2005. Blu-ray, 2006. Blockbuster died in 2010. Jumbo Video last in 2018. In 2013, you look at the rise of social media: Facebook, Snapchat, you name it. You can PVR on your machine, you can delay it, playback and record multiple – that's the rapidity with technology. So if I were going to say we need to invest more in VHS, we'd be out of our minds.

I say this because, if anything else, there's a clear message. It's not the only example, but many examples. In 1903, the first flight of Wright Brothers. Now, we're looking at sending commercial flights for people into space – Elon Musk.

I'll ask this question: Does anyone here believe that oil companies, energy companies don't already have a plan to transition to alternate energies? My colleague for Lake Melville said check out Suncor and what they're planning for Alberta. They're already planning massive green hydrogen for Alberta. Alberta – they're already planning it. They are already three or four steps ahead.

Why the urgency from us is that we need to make sure that we are just as many steps ahead. It's encouraging to hear that the province is already looking at having one drafted for this year, but we need to make sure that we do not leave our workers behind; that we do not leave our province behind; that we do not leave our economy behind. We need to look at diversification and transition.

I listened to the Member opposite talk about the advancements in crab pots. Our university is part of that, they are going to be key. Keep in mind also that the move towards a non-fossil fuel world is going to be driven by a lot of people in this province, across the country who are pushing for it. Let's not forget Fridays for Future and the protest that took place on the steps of the Confederation Building. It's coming. Let's be ready for it. Let's capitalize on it. Let's make sure that we are the leaders in green energy.

If we're going to go with electrification, then if indeed the FPSO is at an end, how do we make sure that the workers there are looked after? Well, let's talk about electrifying this province so that anyone with an electric vehicle, whether they drive here or rent one here, they can go anywhere in this province. Let's build the infrastructure. Let's start capitalizing on it.

So the key thing here is what the Third Party, what the NDP has been pushing for is about recognizing the reality and making sure that we're ahead of the game, much like any energy company – they're not even calling themselves an oil company anymore, it is energy because we will need energy. There is no two ways about it. But is oil now like the VHS or the DVD or the next technology? Let's make sure we're on the cutting edge and that the transition plan in place is not going to disadvantage our workers, our province and our economy.

I have three minutes, roughly, and I want to talk a little bit about taxes. Taxes are like anything else, whether I enjoy them or not – I enjoy a good meal; I don't know if I enjoy painting my house, it's something that I have to do but I love it when it's done.

Why do we stay here? Why do I live in St. John's, make this my home when I could easily move to the West Coast where I could pay about half in insurance premiums? That is what it costs. Car insurance is half the price of what it costs here. It is a different zone of the province.

I had the opportunity to visit some very beautiful communities in this province but I will not live there. They're not my home. I am paying more for living in St. John's in property tax, water tax and so on and so forth, but this is my home. Because I am paying for the services, I want roads in front of me, I want a hospital nearby. I want to be able to go out to a restaurant when I want so I'm going to pay for that. That's the price of living in this democracy.

Scandinavian countries pay a lot more than we do. To the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans, he hit the nail right on the head, you cannot charge taxes and then expect to lower the benefits. That's what we expect, we will pay it.

A friend of mine, years ago, when we were looking at the big decision: Do we raise insurance premiums or do we cut benefits? I asked him: What do you think Leo? He said: For God's sake don't cut benefits, you'll never miss a benefit until you need it. Raise the premiums and pay for it. So, yes, my health insurance premiums, I'm paying a premium for it, but like another friend of mine said: It's like betting on a horse you hope won't win because if you have to use it, it means you're sick or dead. Hopefully, not both.

I'll talk a little more later about this. The fact is that we demand certain services. We want certain benefits in this society and we want a quality of life. So, yes, we pay for the services we need.

At this point, maybe we can't tax our way to prosperity but I know this much: We cannot cut our way to prosperity either. To me, Mr. Chair, taxes are about an investment and I'll talk a little bit more about that the next time.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

B. DAVIS: Mr. Chair, I thank you for the opportunity to speak here today and to follow my esteemed colleague from St. John's Centre. He sort of gave me a little opportunity to segue because I started with – his brother from Topsail - Paradise was what I was going to talk about. I'll get to Topsail - Paradise next because he's my second favourite Dinn, anyway, so I'm going to get to him next.

First, I would like to say thank you to the people of Virginia Waters - Pleasantville for placing their confidence in me again in this election; it's a humbling experience. I know all of my colleagues in this House feel the same way as I do about how humbling it is to be selected by your peers and to represent them in this beautiful House of Assembly.

I'd also like to say what a privilege it is to be asked to join a Cabinet by the Premier, especially in a new portfolio for me: Environment and Climate Change. I do know the portfolio that the hon. Minister of Tourism, Culture and Arts and Recreation has because I had held that and I know how important it is for the industry that we all work towards supporting them. I know that some hon. colleagues have already mentioned that.

The MHA for St. John's Centre: I have a VHS player and if you want it, I can give it to you. I'm in a very good mood today to give you my VHS player. I am really glad, though, that I had the opportunity to follow the MHA for St. John's Centre –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

B. DAVIS: That's for the Hallmark movies, yes.

I am really glad, though, I have the opportunity to follow the MHA for St. John's Centre because he did talk about a great point of how we do have to transition. I do want to let him know that talking about electrifying locations across this province for fast-charging stations for vehicles is a priority of this government and has been for the last number of years.

This past year we've put in – or are in the process of putting in – 14 charging stations right across our Island, and I'll go through some of the locations: St. John's, Holyrood, Whitbourne, Goobies, Port Blandford, Glovertown, Gander, Bishop's Falls, South Brook, Stephenville, Port aux Basques, Deer Lake, Rocky Harbour and Corner Brook. That's the 14 that are in place now and, obviously, we need more than that because we want people to make the choice to move to an electric vehicle. It's an important piece and it's a part of our budget movement this year. We're providing $500,000 to encourage individuals to make that choice, because electric vehicles are a little bit more costly than internal combustion vehicles right now, although the price is coming down; they're becoming more affordable.

The federal government has a program in place to the tune of $5,000; we have a $2,500 program in place, but you need the charging networks across this province. The hon. Member is correct. That's why there's an additional 19 that are being put across the province by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, which is important, but we're going to need significantly more than that. That's a commitment that we're making as a government, as the federal government as well has committed. I know the business community is going to be putting some in place as well.

I had a conversation with an individual – I think it was just last week or it could have been late the week before – about taking his electric vehicle across the Island. I said how much did it cost? He said $6 from St. John's to the other end of the province for charging stations across the province. I mean it's impressive. Is there more technology that's going to be done? Every day technology is improving, as the hon. Member for St. John's Centre highlighted the transition from Blockbuster to Jumbo to where we are on Netflix today. I won't rehash that but I think there are a lot of technology changes that are happening almost minute by minute in that industry. We're trying to be on the front end of this industry. That's why we put a program in place to help make individuals want to consider adopting an electric vehicle, which is an important piece.

In the department that I happen to be the minister of now, I'm very excited about some of the opportunities that we have coming up for creating awareness about and education about environmental protections. That's changing every day. It's getting stronger; more people understand how important it is to make those choices. It's dramatic, in the last couple of years in particular, with the youth movement that's happening to try to make people want to consider what's left for them in the future.

I always go back to a former employer of mine who always used to say to me that change usually starts with the young people. Seat belts: Many people in this House of Assembly that are older than I am remember a time when seat belts weren't the norm. For me, it's always been the norm and for some of my colleagues on my side of the House it has been, as well as over here it's been the norm. But the Minister of Health and Community Services remembers a time when there were no seat belts in the car at all.

From my standpoint, what was always told to me by this individual was that the reason why he moved to wearing a seat belt was that every time he got in the car his daughter would tell him: Daddy, put on your seat belt. So it's always the reminder that comes along with it. I think climate change and the environment is exactly the same way. The more we openly talk about it, the more we transition to that, the more young people are bringing those ideas forward. I encourage them every day to want to speak out with what they believe is important to them, because it's going to be important to all of us. We may not see it ourselves today, but it is going to be important to all of us as we transition, if that's the word of the day.

We've seen some great success from current initiatives that we have in the Heat Pump Rebate Program, Energy Efficiency in Oil Heated Homes Program and energy savings programs that we have through takeCHARGE take action. All of these programs have been successful in their own right. So this year in Budget 2021 we've decided to try to help move that reduction in GHG emissions by investing a million dollars in allocation towards transitioning oil homes to electric homes. Some of those homes would be more costly than others. That million-dollar investment is going to help transition some of those homes to make that decision to become more energy efficient, for one, and hopefully save some money for them, but more importantly for us, help reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that we all want to try to do in this province.

I want to take some time to highlight – because I only have a couple of minutes left – some of the other things that I want people to consider when you're looking at some things to do in preparation for your application process for those individual programs. Now that we have the budget process coming to a close here now, I wanted to make sure when you consider – and we encourage people, when considering electric vehicles, to meet your family need. Start to think about that idea.

Seek purchase opportunities at your preferred electric vehicle dealer. I know one of my colleagues in the House of Assembly was in that industry before getting to the House of Assembly. He knows significantly more than I would ever dream to know about that industry. Consider what charging infrastructure you'd need in your home. Those are some of the things to consider.

When you're looking at the heating system in your home, consider if you can put more insulation in. There are programs for that, both federally and provincially, both in your attic and in your basement. Consider those options. Bring in the professionals to evaluate those opportunities for you. Make sure you take the opportunity to ask those questions to our department or in other areas, through the federal government or through energy auditors that may be in your community. I encourage you to do that.

Mr. Chair, in my last minute or so, I'd just like to talk about my second favourite Dinn and his comments that he made previously. He talked about the menu. I couldn't agree more; that's a great example of how he talked about the budget being a menu. He didn't know what he was sampling.

Well, on Monday, we voted for what they call Concurrence. That is essentially all the items on the menu. That's the Estimates process. We went through line by line, item by item what we could have in each department. I thought it was an interesting use of the word “menu.” Being a guy that likes food, like we both do, I think it was a perfect opportunity for us.

He also highlighted some things that I thought was really interesting. It sort of pivoted me to a particular way of thinking. He talked about the budget titles over the years. I wanted to go back and highlight a couple of my favourites. In 2004: Protecting our Future – I loved that title. In 2008: Securing a Sustainable Future – that was an interesting one. In 2010, and probably one of the most interesting ones there: The Right Investments – For Our Children and Our Future. In 2012: People and Prosperity – Responsible Investments for a Secure Future. I think we can all look at budgets and titles and it's all relative to where you are in the time that you sit.

With the last couple of minutes, I'd just like to say thank you to the both brothers Dinn for helping me write my speech today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR (Trimper) Thank you very much.

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

E. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm just going to spend a few minutes to talk on the amendment here today from the minister. Mr. Chair, when you hear that we are on par with Atlantic Canada, it's true. There is always a balance between what you would do with the taxes and the revenues that come in. I just want to put it in perspective about Newfoundland and Labrador. Of course, it's human nature; I heard one Member talking about you work hard and you play hard. That's so true. I'll just give an example. We always talk about the expenses that are here and, at times, it is high in taxes. I'll just give you an example.

I know a person very well in the US; they live in a compound area. They had to go to the hospital: $1,200 for an ambulance. Colonoscopy: almost $4,000. When you put things into perspective about Newfoundland and Labrador – and people know that I'm involved in a few projects in Africa. Most of the kids can't even afford to go to school. To go to school for a term in Africa, most of the kids can't afford it. Food, lodging and school clothes, $241, and they can't afford it. So, Mr. Chair, when you look at the taxes that's one part, but the life of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I remember when I was with Clyde Wells back in the early '90s and we brought up the Hibernia and the big cod collapse, and it was devastating. Everybody in this House of Assembly knew people that had to move out or had to realign their jobs. But we found a way. We actually found a way in the province. If you really want something done and resilient, ask Newfoundlanders and Labradorians because we are resilient.

When you look around this whole province and look at the beauty we have and the safety we have. There's absolutely no doubt that people say that their taxes are too high, here's what we should do, and you go to the next person and they say, no, here's what you should – and that's human nature. That is human nature, Mr. Chair. The balance for all of this is when you collect the taxes and get the services. Like I said, I'm voting for the budget because I will keep the government accountable on the commitment that they made to follow through, and if they do, that's good.

I go back to '89 when Clyde Wells – and there's always adjustments made throughout the time, throughout the period. But there's something we can't forget in this province, Mr. Chair, what a beautiful province we live in, Newfoundland and Labrador. When you can go and climb the mountains with safety, when you can walk the streets and not worry about who's carrying a gun and when you look at your medical – if one of us took a heart attack here today, it would be just gone and taken care of. That's the kinds of things we have to look at. We have to find the balance between the taxation and the services that we have for the people to live.

To me, this amendment that came in, is a balance. I say to the minister now that I will be voting for it. It is a balance. Of course, no one wants to have an increase in taxes. No one wants it. I know the Member for St. John's Centre said it, and it's so true: You don't mind a service until it's taken away from you. You don't mind a service until it's taken away. But when you look at – if it's Liberal, PC or NDP in government, there are a certain number of roads we have to keep clear, a certain number of roads that we have to maintain and a certain amount of services – water, sewer, health care and education – that we have to maintain. The balance for us in this House of Assembly is how do we do it and do it in an efficient and in the best manner to satisfy the people in the province.

I was in Opposition when the PCs were there. They made decisions also that they, at the time, thought it was the best decision for the people of Newfoundland. They probably were. I'm not disputing that a lot of decisions that were made and I know the Leader of the Opposition has said a couple of times, when they were in government, and the thing that he said was: Which school wouldn't you have built? Which road wouldn't you have maintained for safety? When you sit down and look at that question, it's true. That is true. Which school wouldn't we have built? We put them in, schools that aren't safe and that aren't conducive to study. It is a serious question.

I look in Humber - Bay of Islands, for example. Again, there's the balance for any government, not just the Liberal government now. It's the balance for any government. You take Lark Harbour. They don't even have water and sewer completed yet. There was a bit of an issue back years ago when they wouldn't accept the money. The town at the time had a plebiscite. They wouldn't accept it, but they still don't have water and sewer in the town, Lark Harbour. York Harbour doesn't, but they don't want it because the way they built was more of an acre or a half acre per district. There are services that I'll be standing up and I'll be going to the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure and looking for. Rightly so. But this is where the balance.

Myself and Heather walk a lot and we do a lot of hiking. If she never said it once, she never said it a hundred times: There's no better place to live than Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

E. JOYCE: When you're up snowshoeing on First, Second Pond and you have the dogs with you and she looks at you and says: This is my beach; we're safe. We're in an area. We're out in the wilderness.

Mr. Chair, I'm just trying to put a perspective that Newfoundland and Labrador is a great place. It's a great place. Labrador, been up there many, many times as a young fella with Mom and Dad and (inaudible) many, many times. People are beautiful.

I just want to put this in perspective because we hear so much. When was the last time any of us walked in St. John's and worried about someone else with a gun? We haven't. We actually haven't.

I know there's a lot of bantering back and forth and I'm probably one to banter back and forth.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

E. JOYCE: I know, Mr. Chair, people don't believe that, but sometimes I do speak my mind.

There's something I'm going to bring up, a bit of tongue and cheek that I hear. The Member for Torbay –

J. WALL: Beautiful Cape St. Francis.

E. JOYCE: Beautiful Cape St. Francis. What he said the other day is we have to start respecting seniors: When am I going to start getting respect?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

E. JOYCE: I'm the only one in this place – and I agree with the Member for Cape St. Francis, that seniors are a big part of it.

Mr. Chair, we have to look at all the great initiatives that are in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I understand the Opposition's role and I understand the independent's role; I understand that, I've been there. I have been on both sides, I've been lucky. A couple times I've been on both sides. I've been lucky, Mr. Chair, because you see the perspective. When the Opposition stands up and asks questions about the budget, that is their role. When government is up standing and saying that they have all the information in front of them and they say here's the best decision that we can make: we have to trust that is the best decision.

I can assure you one thing – and I speak very positive here today about it all – except for one or two major incidents – and we don't need to get into none of them, Mr. Chair – the majority of people that have ever made a decision in this Legislature believes it's the best for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I'm a firm believer in that. That is what we have to trust in the government, have to hold the government accountable, but government will make the best decision.

Mr. Chair, when you look at Newfoundland and Labrador, we will find a way to get through all this. We will find a way. All of us will give advice, the government will take some of it. The people, who are very genius themselves of finding ways to get through things, but Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chair, is a great place to live. We just have to make it a bit more affordable.

Mr. Chair, if there is anything I can urge the government is the most vulnerable – the seniors and the most vulnerable. We in this House of Assembly, Mr. Chair, we're privileged. We are privileged to be in this House of Assembly – it is a privilege for us to be here, Mr. Chair, but I always encourage the government, whichever government it is, make sure your programs take care of the seniors and the most vulnerable.

It's like mom used to always say: Except for the grace of God, there goes I. If there is anything I could say to the government, we have a great place living in Newfoundland and Labrador, we will find a way to get through all the trials and tribulations that we have, but don't forget the most vulnerable because they are the ones that will lose out more than anybody else.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Any further speakers?

No? Okay.

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

S. COADY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank you all for your engagement this morning and debate and for your consideration of the points that have been made.

I will say that I know a couple of Members had questions. One was the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands and he asked about comparators to Atlantic Canada. I will say that our bracket and rates are very competitive in Atlantic Canada. In fact, in the Budget Speech there is a very significant graph that really does indicate how much lower we are in some categories in Atlantic Canada. I will say that if we did adopt the brackets and rates of Nova Scotia we would collect $187 million more in personal income taxes. So it is significant.

I'll just give you a couple of examples. If you earn $150,000, for example, in Newfoundland and Labrador, you pay $19,625 in tax. In Nova Scotia, you pay $21,561. Just to give you an example. In Quebec, they're even higher than that.

I will say to the Member for Terra Nova who did question whether or not we're taking into account all of the taxation levels, not just the personal income tax. I will say that there was an independent study done in 2018 – and I'm going to quote from the independent committee's recommendations. The report goes on to say – and I'm quoting from it: “Overall, taxation in our province is reasonably comparable to many other parts of Canada. When provincial, regional, and municipal taxation (including local fees for essential services such as water, waste water, storm sewer, and garbage disposal) are combined and compared, Newfoundland and Labrador's taxes are not unreasonable.”

So just to make sure that people understand that we are competitive, we should remain competitive, because that does encourage people to locate and continue to remain in the province. It does help to fund health, education, transportation and supporting the most vulnerable. I know we all know how important it is to keep our taxation rates low. We'll continue to ensure that we do everything that we can to make sure that we remain competitive.

On that note, I'll say thank you, Mr. Chair, and look forward to moving on to other pieces of legislation, and to the vote on this one.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister.

Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

A bill, “An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000.” (Bill 14)

CLERK (Barnes): Clause 1.

CHAIR: 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: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 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.'

It is 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.'

It is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 14 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 resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move that the Committee rise and report the resolution and Bill 14.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report the resolution and Bill 14.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee 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: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Ways and Means have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

SPEAKER: The Deputy Chair of Committees has reported that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report that the Committee have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

When shall the report be received?

S. CROCKER: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that the resolution be now read a first time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the resolution be now read a first time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK: “Be it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:

“That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the imposition of taxes on personal income.”

On motion, resolution read a first time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that the resolution be now read a second time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the resolution be now 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.'

Carried.

CLERK: “Be it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:

“That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the imposition of taxes on personal income.”

On motion, resolution read a second time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, Bill 14.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, Bill 14, and that the said be now read a first time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion, that the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000,” carried. (Bill 14)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 14)

On motion, Bill 14 read a first time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that Bill 14 be now read a second time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now 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.'

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 14)

On motion, Bill 14 read a second time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that Bill 14 be now read a third time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 14 now be read a third time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 14)

SPEAKER: The bill has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill “An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 14)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I call from the Order Paper, Order 6, Bill 15.

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

S. COADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Government House Leader, that the Bill 15 be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2.” (Bill 15)

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

S. COADY: Thank you very much.

I am pleased today to introduce Bill 15. This deals with tax credits. There is a Dividend Tax Credit contained therein, as well as the new Physical Activity Tax Credit, which is section 17.5 of the Income Tax Act, 2000. I am going to deal with the Physical Activity Tax Credit first and then I'll move to the Dividend Tax Credit.

This is a new tax credit that we've just put in place, Mr. Speaker; the introduction was part of Budget 2021. The Physical Activity Tax Credit is estimated at approximately $7 million. It will be a helpful incentive for families and individuals as they look to access sport and recreational activities. It's part of the narrative of this government to encourage people to have physical activity and health.

Households are able to receive a tax credit up to $2,000 for physical activity expenses, including memberships, online or in person, and registration fees. Funding will help improve access to activities, helping to create a culture where Newfoundlanders and Labradorians place a greater emphasis on healthier living. It also holds the added benefit of supporting the local health and wellness industry.

Households can claim the Physical Activity Tax Credit on their personal income tax return, beginning with the 2021 taxation year. Please do keep your receipts in order to claim your credit.

An eligible fitness expense must be the cost of registration in an eligible program of physical activity or membership in an eligible organization. Generally, such a program must require significant physical activity contributing to cardiorespiratory endurance plus one of either muscular strength, muscular endurance, flexibility and/or balance. Activities such as hockey or soccer or golf, even horseback riding, wheelchair sports, sailing, bowling, as well as others that require similar level of physical activity will be consider eligible for the credit.

I encourage everyone to get active, whether online or in person, participate in physical activity they enjoy and take advantage of this tax credit. I look forward to seeing the benefits of increased participation in physical activities in the years ahead.

So that's the section of the bill that deals with the physical tax credit. Now I'm going to talk about the Dividend Tax Credit. This is all part of Bill 15, so it's two different tax credits. The Dividend Tax Credit includes technical changes that are related to the Dividend Tax Credit rates. This is related to changes that we just did in personal income tax.

There are currently two provincial Dividend Tax Credit rates for dividends received by an individual: non-eligible dividends and those dividends received from small business corporations at 3.5 per cent, and eligible dividends and those dividends received from large corporations at 5.4 per cent.

The Dividend Tax Credit was designed for the purpose of tax integration for individuals. Tax integration occurs when the owner of a corporation has a choice to take income from that corporation through a dividend or a salary, and it's not influenced by tax treatment. This means that the total income taxes payed by the corporation, plus those paid by the owner, should be the same, whether the owner is paid by salary, dividends or a combination of both.

For example, at the current Dividend Tax Credit rates, the owner of a small business corporation who receives remuneration, say, of a $100,000 from a company, would pay $292 more provincial income tax than if they were paid in salary rather than dividends. So we're fixing all this. This bill will restore integration for non-eligible dividends and change the rate for eligible dividends to ensure the effective tax rates remain the same as the rate for non-eligible dividends.

So just for clarity and for certainty, this is only to work in conjunction with our personal income tax. So if you own a business, you can either take your remuneration in dividend or by salary, but you'll be treated the same under the tax act. The non-eligible Dividend Tax Credit rate, i.e. dividends received from small business, would decrease to 3.2 per cent from 3.5 per cent, and the eligible Dividend Tax Credit rate – dividends received from large businesses – would increase to 6.3 from 5.4 per cent. Again, this is to integrate so that there is no disparity and ensure that we have equality between both the personal income tax and the Dividend Tax Credit.

So this bill does speak to two tax credits. The Physical Activity Tax Credit, which I think everyone here would celebrate, to encourage people to be involved in physical activity. Anything that's receiptable, Mr. Speaker, pretty much, is qualified. We'll get into some of those nuances, I'm sure, during –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The level of conversation is getting too high.

Thank you.

S. COADY: I'm sure we'll get to those during debate if there are any, as we go clause by clause. Then, of course, the Dividend Tax Credit, which I just explained, is to ensure that we have what I'm going to call tax integration for individuals.

I hope that was clear, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to the discussion and debate this afternoon.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move that we adjourn debate and recess until 2 p.m.

SPEAKER: This House does stand recessed until 2 p.m.

Recess

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Are the House Leaders ready?

Admit strangers.

Order, please!

Statements by Members

SPEAKER: Today we will hear statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Lake Melville, Bonavista, Cape St. Francis, Baie Verte - Green Bay, Conception Bay East - Bell Island and St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, with leave.

The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

P. TRIMPER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I'm pleased to recognize the staff and volunteers who operate Apenam's House in North West River, Labrador. For the last five years, this facility has supported those who struggle with addictions and other mental health illness.

Thanks to the dedication of those involved, the treatment centre has continued to operate during the pandemic and other crises for the people of Sheshatshiu and surrounding communities. Hard work has ensured that their clients do not have to leave Labrador to receive their needed care.

The facility is named in honour of Apenam Pone Sr., the first Innu man to attend treatment at the Brentwood Recovery Home in Ontario. When he returned home, he was determined to use the knowledge gained to help his own people with their addictions. He recognized the challenge of having to leave Labrador to access mental health care and then return home without the necessary support. Apenam's House overcomes this problem. It is directly modelled after the lessons taught by this respected Innu elder.

I would like to ask the House of Assembly to join me in thanking all of the team at Apenam's House and for the support of those most vulnerable in our society.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to acknowledge the community outreach from Rex Parsons of Bloomfield. Rex, 88 years young, served in the Royal Canadian Air Force for a short period of time and is a descendant of a marine family.

His father, Skipper Jim, and grandfather, owned and operated the schooner the Millie Ford that fished off the Coast of Labrador and transported freight to and from Labrador and the Northern Peninsula. In 1945, without ship-to-shore nor radar, they travelled to Hudson Bay.

Since 2007, Rex and his wife, Rexine, began calling people in the Bloomfield and Musgravetown area to wish them a happy birthday or anniversary. Often, they would sing their greeting. Upon Rexine's passing in 2009, Rex continued the tradition. He will often contact others within the communities to track down phone numbers for those celebrating their special day. Many eagerly await Rex's annual call. One recent recipient commented, I was waiting for your call, when they answered his phone call.

I ask the Members of the 50th House of Assembly to join me in issuing a sincere thank you to Mr. Rex Parsons for his thoughtful, considerate and commendable community service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. WALL: Mr. Speaker, the Pouch Cove Volunteer Fire Department was formed in June 1975, and over the past 46 years has provided outstanding fire and emergency services to Pouch Cove and Bauline. Currently, the department has 32 members, of which 29 are trained in Level I and Level II offensive and defensive response.

On June 1, 2017, the department expanded their response criteria to include Code 4 medical calls, greatly improving response times to medical emergencies in both communities. Ongoing weekly training, including American Sign Language and autism first response, accompanied by modern firefighting equipment, including a 2020 Freightliner Pumper added to the fleet in August of last year, makes the department very capable to handle emergency needs from both towns.

Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to recognize Chief Derek Sullivan on his 30 years of service to the department, the last eight years as chief. His dedication and daily attention to his department's needs is unparalleled, which is shown by the level of respect his members and the residents of the communities have for him.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in thanking the Pouch Cove Volunteer Fire Department for their outstanding service and dedication to the residents of Pouch Cove and Bauline.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay.

B. WARR: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate all 2021 high school graduates of the District of Baie Verte - Green Bay.

Cape John Collegiate, located in La Scie, MSB Regional Academy in Middle Arm, St. Peter's Academy in Westport, Dorset Collegiate on Pilley's Island, Valmont Academy in King's Point and Indian River High School in Springdale have each held their graduation ceremonies. Graduates of Copper Ridge Academy in Baie Verte are planning their celebration this upcoming weekend.

Due to COVID-19 restrictions, high school graduates were unable to celebrate in the traditional manner, including gatherings with parents, families and friends; however, students and teachers alike were creative in ways to celebrate this momentous occasion. Students have proven a pure will to succeed, studying virtually and adapting to protocols and electronic tools to complete high school requirements.

I ask all my hon. colleagues to join me in congratulating the 2021 high school graduates of Baie Verte - Green Bay District and the very best in their post-secondary education and future endeavours.

Baie Verte - Green Bay, Mr. Speaker, is in the greatest of hands.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my honour today to recognize and congratulate the 12 national medallists from Team Newfoundland and Labrador that competed in the first ever Skills Canada Virtual National Competition.

I speak of Julia Keefe, bronze in Workplace Safety; John Bugden, bronze in IT Network Systems Administration; Emily Reynolds, bronze in Electronics; Olivia Taylor, bronze in Public Speaking; Emma Lucas, bronze in Photography; Lee Peters, silver in Job Skill Demonstration; Greg Abbott, silver in Plumbing; Stacey Frost, silver in Architectural Technology & Design; Kelly Whelan, gold in 3D Digital Game Art; Brianna Russell, gold in Job Search; Nick Clarke, gold in Industrial Control; and Brendan Smith, gold in Refrigeration & Air Conditioning.

This couldn't have happened without dedication from parents, coaches, committee members and the board and staff of Skills Canada Newfoundland and Labrador. I would be remiss not to mention Mr. John Oates who recently passed on May 12. John dedicated much of his life to Skills Canada in our province, country and at the world level. Combined, these efforts helped Team Newfoundland and Labrador take their place on the national stage yesterday.

I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating these difference makers in this province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, with leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Leave.

SPEAKER: Leave granted.

J. ABBOTT: Mr. Speaker, today I wish to congratulate the St. John's Amateur Baseball Association as it celebrates 75 years of baseball in the City of St. John's.

Many of the city's finest athletes have had the pleasure of participating in the league since its inception in 1947, and that would include our own MHA for Virginia Waters - Pleasantville.

St. Pat's Ballpark – which was built by the American servicemen stationed in the city during and after the Second World War – has been home for the league for most of its 75-year history, which includes Holy Cross Crusaders capturing the first-ever championship in 1947.

Thanks to the dedication of the many volunteers who have given unselfishly of their time, baseball has been elevated to one of the premier summer sports for youth and adults alike here in the province.

I would like to congratulate Mark Healey for offering himself as president of the board for the past 12 years.

Last Saturday, I was joined by MP Jack Harris, Mayor Danny Breen, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, and other guests, including 94-year old Jack Janes who played with the 1947 Holy Cross Crusader champions, to celebrate the opening of the 75th season.

I ask Members to join me in extending best wishes to the St. John's Amateur Baseball Association, its players and fans for this year and subsequent years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Pride Month is a time to recognize and celebrate the diversity and inclusion of the 2SLGBTQQIA+ people.

That's why it was deeply disturbing to hear recent reports of pride flags being stolen from schools, with at least one reportedly trampled and burned.

There is no place for such intolerance in our province, Mr. Speaker.

Several years ago we saw the presence of the rainbow crosswalks causing disturbances in some areas of the province. It is important that we move past this as a province to ensure members of the 2SLGBTQQIA+ community feel welcomed wherever they are.

Today, displaying the rainbow is seen as a symbol of support, safety, strength, inclusion and pride. We see rainbow crosswalks and flags throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, including here at Confederation Building.

We must all promote safety and inclusion in our communities, including our schools, so people are free to be authentic versions of themselves.

We are richer as a province because of the diversity of our people who live here. There is room for us all.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me today in calling out hate and intolerance when we see it, and celebrating 2SLGBTQQIA+ people all they add to our communities, our province and our great country.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

Mr. Speaker, the acts of hatred and intolerance which we have witnessed have no place in this province. We cannot and we will not tolerate hatred toward any group in society.

As this is Pride Month, I want to take this opportunity to recognize and celebrate the inclusion and diversity of people who identify as two-spirit, LGBTQQIA+. As the risk of repetition, I want to be clear, members of the 2SLGBTQQIA+ community are welcomed in this province.

Mr. Speaker, our province is a better place because we have so many people with different life experiences and differing backgrounds. I support the minister when she says there is room here for all of us.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement and join her in condemning the stealing and the desecration of the pride flags.

These acts are abhorrent and speak to the education gap in our society. When someone questions why we have pride events, this hate is why. Right now, one of our neighbours is at home thinking they don't have a place in our society. We're here to tell them that nothing is further from the truth.

The Third Party is proud to be a team of talented and dedicated individuals, 60 per cent of whom openly identify as members of the queer community.

To those at home fearful of living their lives as open, proud individuals because they feel they don't belong, you do belong, you are loved, and there is a place for you in our society.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

E. LOVELESS: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud today to inform this House that one of our government's infrastructure projects has been recognized with an international award.

In March, the 164-bed acute care hospital, which is currently under construction in Corner Brook, was named the best social infrastructure project at the 2020 P3 awards.

The judges were impressed with the cost-effective approach of the project and that it had achieved savings of 12 per cent compared to a traditional procurement.

They also remarked about it's co-location with the new Corner Brook long-term care home next door and how its integrating operational capacities between the two buildings.

Finally, judges noted that the project demonstrates a long-term value for money through its geothermal heating and cooling system, which will provide savings over the 30-year lifespan of the contract.

Mr. Speaker, Corner Brook Health Partnership's proposal to design, build, finance and maintain the hospital projected 1,000 jobs would be created over the course of the construction.

Hundreds of tradespeople from Newfoundland and Labrador have worked on this construction site and local contracting companies have secured work.

In addition, due to the collaboration between our government and our industry partners to encourage the hiring of local workers, Academy Canada and the Cahill Group is launching a sheet metal worker program to help meet the demand for local skilled workers required at the site. Their students will also have access to work term placements there.

Mr. Speaker, we congratulate all employees working on this project and we look forward to the day when this hospital opens, leading to a better health care facility for patients and better working environments for health care workers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I welcome the infrastructure that will improve the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. This new Corner Brook hospital will be a significant asset for the entire West Coast.

Mr. Speaker, we have continued to speak out about the number of outside workers brought in to work on this project. Surely there are unemployed Newfoundlanders who can do much of this required work.

I commend the hundreds of Newfoundland and Labrador tradespeople who have played a role in this construction. I also think the sheet metal worker program is a great initiative to help meet the demand of local skilled workers.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

I understand the importance of accessible access to health care. So I first want to congratulate the residents of the West Coast for their new facility. However, a P3 award established to promote P3s, giving a P3 project a pat on the back rings a little hollow endorsement to me.

Government reduced itself to an accessory role in negotiating the contract with the Corner Brook hospital by hiring a legal firm to act as the public authority. So every financial aspect of the deal is covered by a veil of secrecy, untouchable by the access to information legislation.

We have no idea what the long-term costs of this facility are going to be. We could've had the jobs, we could've had the trades programs and our hospital, along with a much clearer understanding of the true costs. If this project had been funded through a traditional public process we would've been proved just as successful.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Are there are any further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, was the deadline for the deal to save the Terra Nova FPSO and the thousands of jobs associated with it. Nothing has been publicly reported.

I ask the Premier: Does he have an update?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As mentioned yesterday, that's not our deadline; that was the partners' deadline, as I understand from the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology. There have been regular discussions ongoing and still ongoing. We don't control the deadline. We're hopeful that they continue to push the deadline until they get a deal done to get the value back for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So with no news, did the Premier convene a meeting this morning with the project partners to ask for an update and encourage the asset life extension?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister responsible has been in touch with the operators – again, twice today, I believe – to encourage continuous discussion and dialogue to ensure that the private sector comes to a solution for this private sector problem, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Premier, you as the Premier of this province have an ability and a responsibility to do everything possible to ensure this project moves forward. Last week, the Nalcor CEO said that the Atlantic Loop was his idea and now was the time to develop Gull Island. The Premier's Greene report also calls for the Churchill River to be packaged together.

Are there any ongoing discussions about developing Gull Island?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I've said before, there are no ongoing discussions right now. Gull Island is an incredible asset; it's one that we responsibly need to look at. It's one that would be, frankly, irresponsible to blindly turn an eye to.

It's an incredible asset, especially in this time of transition in a disruptive energy marketplace. We need to make sure that we're looking at it, but we ultimately need to make sure it returns the maximum value to the people of this province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The outgoing CEO of Nalcor has advocated for developing Gull Island, saying, “If you want to do Gull Island, now's the time to do it.” We have all of these high-skilled people available to us.

Will the Premier be open with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and talk about what the future plans are for Gull Island?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm sure I share everyone's hope and optimism for Gull Island here in this House, but we need to make sure, given the past experiences with two previous hydroelectric projects, that we do this right, we do it responsibly and we do it prudently so that the returns are Newfoundlanders' and Labradorians', Mr. Speaker. Of course, we need to look at the value of Gull Island; we will look at the value of Gull Island, but it will be done on our terms.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have heard the rumours out of Quebec that the Premier has denied, but now new stories have emerged in the media of secret talks with a major Australian company on hydro and hydrogen development.

Can the Premier clarify who in government is talking to this company regarding Gull Island?

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, I can advise the Member there are no secret talks. I just did an interview, actually, with the media talking about a call that we did have with Fortescue, who have expressed an interest. They're absolutely a huge company. We've had conversations with them to listen to what they had to say. It would be irresponsible, as the Premier said, not to listen to people that want to invest in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As it relates to Hydro-Québec or talks in Quebec, I can say to the Member I've literally never had a conversation with anybody in Hydro-Québec in my tenure in this role.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

An email was sent to provincial officials from this Australian company titled: Without prejudice, private and confidential commercial agreement.

Premier: Is the province involved in this commercial agreement on Gull Island?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the minister said in the previous response, there are no active negotiations on Gull Island. We are open to discussing Gull Island. Frankly, all our assets we've been very open about with anyone who wants to come to the table. Again, we will always approach this with the lens that the maximum returns of any assets we have, have to be delivered to the people of the province, Mr. Speaker.

We are certainly open for business; I think it would be wrong and irresponsible to not be open for business. But that business has to have returns to the people of the province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Premier, we may have a difference opinion of what active negotiations mean, because we're hearing all kinds of rumours about what's happening here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: Another email had the subject line: Innu Nation, Fortescue MOU negotiations. Again, this gives the appearance that talks are well advanced and there is an outline of a deal.

When will the Premier share with us, the people of this province, what is happening with Gull Island?

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to clarify for people that may be listening. I appreciate the question from the Member opposite, but I don't want anybody to impugn my integrity and honesty. What I can tell you is that there's absolutely no MOU or any kind of deal with Fortescue or any other company. I can guarantee you that. I'm saying that in the House and I will say it outside of this House as well.

That being said, as has been reported, yes, we've met with them. We're willing to engage with anybody that wants to talk about the resources. I believe in some cases they may go and negotiate with our Indigenous governments, which I encourage them to do. Those negotiations are not with us, nor have I seen any MOU or document like that.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the minister clarifying that.

The CEO of Nalcor has said now is the time to do Gull Island. Greene calls for the development of Gull Island. Companies in Quebec and Australia are interested in the project.

Will the Premier commit to a worldwide open call for proposals on Gull Island development and bring forward the top three proposals to this House for public debate?

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and just to clarify for the record, that's the outgoing CEO of Nalcor who said now is the time for Gull Island.

I'm very happy that this morning I had a call with the new CEO of Nalcor, Ms. Jennifer Williams – actually, we had a conference call with 750 employees of Nalcor – to talk about the value that they bring to this province and to thank them for their time, their energy and their expertise.

What I can say, just to follow up again on the words of the Premier, is that this province obviously does have a history with hydroelectric projects; in fact, we've had an inquiry on them. We have a lot of lessons that we have learned the hard way in this province about this. What I can tell you is that anything we will do will be prudent, well thought out and follow the lessons we have learned and will be in the best interests of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

During Public Service Week, we have acknowledged the hard-working and dedicated public servants of this province. The chair of the Public Service Commission has been filled on an acting basis for three years, and for three years now we have been told it will soon be advertised. Again, this year we have learned that the position continues to be filled on an acting basis by a former Liberal candidate.

When will the government finally appoint a non-partisan, permanent chair for the Public Service Commission?

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

S. COADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This was an important question – not inflammatory in the least, but an important question. Mr. Speaker, as the public knows, as we all know in this House, we have made important changes to the Public Service Commission within the last year. I think it was in the fall of 2020 we made some important changes, moving back some of the roles and responsibilities and increasing the responsibilities of the Public Service Commission.

The Public Service Commission does an incredibly important, removed-from-government job of making sure we have professional candidates for positions. It makes sure that we have, for example, our EAP and things of that nature. We're moving forward with the continued development of that organization and continued strength of that organization on behalf of the people of the province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Mr. Speaker, I just ask: Will this position be put before the Independent Appointments Commission and advertised this year?

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

S. COADY: That is the intent, Mr. Speaker. We have been moving forward on that position. As the Member opposite is well aware, that position has been brought forward.

As we continue to – what I'm going to say – expand and grow the roles and responsibilities of the Public Service Commission, we're looking for the best possible commissioners. Of course, that will be moving forward, I'm sure, with due course and hopefully very soon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation released its fiscal year-end financial results, which showed the Liquor Corporation delivered $195 million to the Provincial Treasury.

I ask the minister: Do these record profits affect your decision to sell off the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation?

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

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

The Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation did provide $194 million last year in dividends. That will actually hopefully increase this year, Mr. Speaker, because it helps to provide health and education for the people of the province. It wasn't a deciding factor in the government looking at the sale of any asset. We are doing the analysis, the due diligence, the requirements to consider the sale of assets, considering the amount of debt this province owed and a lot of it to Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Have you included the revenue from the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation in your revenue projections for the next five years?

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

S. COADY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Mr. Speaker, given that they've included the revenue from the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation in their revenue projections, can we then assume that the sale of the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation is off the table?

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

S. COADY: Mr. Speaker, it was only a short few weeks ago that I stood in this House, read the Budget Speech that talked about the sale of assets in this province – the consideration of the sale of assets, the review, the due diligence, the work that needs to be done on the sale of those assets for consideration of paying down debt and funding a future for Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Member opposite knows that is the direction of government and I think he should accept that is the way we are going to proceed. We are going to look at what assets might be available for us to use to pay down debt. I think the Member opposite has the answer to his question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: So, Mr. Speaker, they are going to sell off an asset that gives them $195 million to the Provincial Treasury which they have budgeted for the next five years and we have no details on which that decision was made. The Greene report talked about and said that it should be privatized.

Can the minister table the information that was provided by her officials or others to inform this recommendation to sell off the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation?

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

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

I will say that the Budget Speech – if he sat and read the Budget Speech, it talked about doing the analysis and review as to whether or not we will move in this direction. It also noted that we'll look at other potential assets: oil and gas assets, Marble Mountain, real estate. We're going to do the full analysis and review. We'll do the due diligence and take the time to consider what is best for the people of the province moving forward.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Mr. Speaker, I have sat and read through the Budget Speech and there are a lot of details that are missing, and that's for sure when it comes to this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: I still find it ironic that on the one hand we are talking about selling off an asset while at the same time we're budgeting for the next five years to have roughly $200 million in revenue coming in from it.

Mr. Speaker, the Finance Minister indicated her revenue projections contained $35 million per year from Terra Nova royalties and an additional $35 million from other economic spinoffs such as personal income tax.

How does the minister plan to address this $70-million problem should the Terra Nova not proceed?

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

S. COADY: First, allow me to address the preamble of the question. This is a fulsome budget, Mr. Speaker. There are financial projections included therein. We are being open and transparent of the transformations that we are undertaking in this government to modernize and improve service delivery in this province.

So I'll say to the Member opposite, if there's information that he requires we'll be happy to address some of his concerns as we move forward with those transformations. The budget, he's gone line by line by line through the entire budget, Mr. Speaker. He should have the answers to the questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. COADY: With regard to Terra Nova, the $35 million in royalty that is contained I'm sure – as we move forward through the forecast – we will see that the asset life extension continues, or if there is other development in the oil and gas industry.

SPEAKER: Time is expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: On top of the $70 million per year loss, potentially, there is also the potential payout – according to the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology – of another $150 million, should things go south with Terra Nova in terms of the royalty regime. That means there could be a budgetary gap of $220 million.

I ask the minister: Given this information, is it even possible to have a budget balanced by '26-'27?

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

S. COADY: First of all, let me correct some of the errors that were in his statements. First of all, the $35 million in royalties is over multiple years, as I stated yesterday. Sometime late '22, early '23 we have budgeted for royalties, Mr. Speaker. Those royalties would continue into the fiscal forecast. So it's $35 million potential gap if the asset life extension does not continue.

Mr. Speaker, always, including in the previous governments, including this government, we always knew that when it came to conclude the projects that are offshore there would be a requirement to do a payback on the royalties for some of the abandonment costs. We will be moving forward, if the asset life extension doesn't continue, if there is a requirement for abandonment –

SPEAKER: Time is expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: So, Mr. Speaker, we're looking at $200 million, potentially, from Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation, gone; we're looking at another potential $220 million, perhaps, as a result of the things that are happening with Terra Nova.

So again: How do you plan on balancing your budget by '26-'27?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

S. COADY: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, everything that the Member opposite just said is erroneous. It's completely off base, and he knows the difference.

I will say to the Member opposite –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

S. COADY: – there is $35 million in the entire fiscal forecast for Terra Nova. Should the asset life extension not continue, that would be in jeopardy? But I am certain that there are other opportunities in oil and gas that may make it up, Mr. Speaker.

With regard to any asset review that we would be doing, all of the information would be considered and contained in any future financial forecast.

He is now making suppositions and he is now making erroneous statements.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: With all due respect, again, these are her numbers, not mine.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: Thirty-five million dollars in royalties, $35 million in taxes, $195 million from Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation, $150 million potential payout if Terra Nova doesn't go ahead. Those are not my numbers; those are her numbers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: Now I will ask the minister, and take her up on her earlier comment: Will she table in the House the actual details on her projections, including all of the assumptions that are being made?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

S. COADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the Member opposite just acknowledged how transparent this government is in providing information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. COADY: So I thank you for finally acknowledging that we are transparent in what information we provide this House of Assembly.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I know he is the naysayer with regard to the asset life extension, I know he's a naysayer about growth and continuing opportunities in our oil and gas, and clearly he's a naysayer when it comes to what potential we may be able to use Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation as an asset in the asset portfolio.

But allow me to tell the Member opposite, and allow me to tell the people of the province, we're going to do what's best for the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have a serious debt problem and we're addressing it. We are making the transformations and the modernizations to improve things for this province.

I ask the Member opposite: Why isn't he supporting it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to hear the minister say that she wants the people of the province to know exactly what's going on. Well, I would say to her: Give the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the details on her projects, including the assumptions, and table them in the House of Assembly.

Will you do that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

S. COADY: Mr. Speaker, we go line by line by line, hundreds of hours in this House – hundreds of hours – ministers available, officials available, talking to the Members opposite –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

S. COADY: – providing the information. We have had multiple Members opposite acknowledge that. Multiple Members opposite acknowledge the information that has been provided to them.

Mr. Speaker, I am saying to the people of the province that we have a budget that we have just passed last night, not by the support of the Opposition, but by the support of the majority of this House of Assembly. I will say, Mr. Speaker, we have a very solid budget. I can say that the bond-rating agencies have spoken in favour of what we are trying to achieve. I can say to the people that we are actually making the advancements and doing the action to finally set this province on a strong fiscal course.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will determine that it is a fair request to table the projections for the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: Tourism operators and, in today's Telegram, the chair of HNL have spoken out about the lack of workers available for the coming season as the province is set to reopen July 1 for Canada.

Mr. Speaker, what is the human resources plan for the industry as we prepare to welcome these travellers?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.

S. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for the question.

It is a very good question and it's one that we've been entertaining for quite some time.

This is something that has been on the agenda of HNL and also on the PACT committee. One of the reasons why we have put such substantial supports in place this year for the tourism industry is around the fact that they need to get up and running again. One of the challenges that tourism has right now is they were the hardest hit industry and retaining those employees was very difficult. I've had conversations with my colleague in Immigration and Population Growth, his department, and there are many things that we're looking at.

One of the most important things here, Mr. Speaker, is the suite of programs that we've put together for the tourism industry this year to help them rebuild. Our commitment to that industry will remain until it's back on its feet.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Mr. Speaker, Brenda O'Reilly says in The Telegram the big obstacle is finding workers. As we discussed, our marketing campaigns and ads are encouraging people to come explore our province; however, if businesses cannot find staff, their doors will have to remain closed or the experience will be less than expected.

What is exactly in the budget that the minister is expressing that's going to help these individuals or these businesses find the workers needed?

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

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

I want to thank the hon. Member for the question and for Brenda O'Reilly's input as chair of Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador. She's done a fantastic job with the entire industry. Identifying issues and working with government for a resolution.

We have a three-pillar plan. One is to invest upwards of $230 million in job training, skills development for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who don't have the skills, who want to enter into an industry to get into those industries.

The second pillar of our plan, Mr. Speaker, is to work directly with the federal government identifying those who have been recently laid off. Our government just signed a memorandum of understanding to identify those who are facing job shortages.

The third pillar, Mr. Speaker, is immigration. Bringing new skills, new talent to Newfoundland and Labrador to fill those needed jobs, and that's where we will be successful.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista

C. PARDY: According to Destination Canada, Mr. Speaker, our province saw 10.8 per cent of active tourism businesses depart the market. I understand that from the $30 million that was out to incentivize businesses in the last year, $12 million remained unspent.

Now, to change course, the Premier announced that we are joining the Atlantic Loop on June 23.

What provisions have been made for travel to and from St. Pierre?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.

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

There was a lot in that question.

Mr. Speaker, we've done tremendous work with the tourism industry. It's unfortunate that there was that loss of 10.8 per cent, but the hon. Member should realize that if we didn't put the supports in place that we did, if he would have went on to talk about what the Premier's Advisory Committee on Tourism said, it would have been much worse this year. That's why we put those supports in place.

Mr. Speaker, our conversations around the St. Pierre borders or St. Pierre, unfortunately, is not one that we control. That is a Government of Canada jurisdiction. We've raised it. I raised it in my talks with my federal colleagues. I know the Minister of Health and Community Services has had it on his. But again, Mr. Speaker, that is a decision forthcoming from the federal government. I think if you look at recent media reports, you may hear something out of Ottawa in the next few days of how they plan the reopening of the international borders.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as we see the world change around us due to climate change, Dr. Robert Way, a professor at Queen's University and Labradorian, has documented that Labrador is warming two times faster than the Canadian average.

I ask the minister responsible for Climate Change: Will he commit to a full study into what this province needs to address this alarming issue and prepare for the future of our residents?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for a very important question.

He's very correct that the global climate is warming; that's why we've taken action on 43 action items out of the 45 that we put in place for our Action Plan. When we get moving with that plan, we're going to see some very big decreases in greenhouse gas emissions over the period of time. We've committed to, with the federal government, making sure we hit net-zero emissions by 2050 and we're going to continue to focus on that.

I look forward for a follow-up question from the hon. Member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, we are seeing more and more violent weather in this province which has taken its toll on our province's infrastructure and its people.

I ask the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure: Has a study been done on the effects of climate change on the province's infrastructure and what, if anything, is taken into consideration in new builds and designs?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

B. DAVIS: I thank the hon. Member for the question, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, obviously when we do flood-risk mapping in this province, we always take into account climate change and factors in climate change – one of the first jurisdictions in the country to do so.

I know that we work with my hon. colleague in Transportation and Infrastructure to ensure that those infrastructure improvements, when they need to be made, are made and ensure they're big enough to handle those climate change facts that are happening as we move forward into this climate that we live in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, climate change has both a physical and a financial impact on this province.

I ask the Minister of Finance: Has the department calculated the extra costs associated with the impacts of climate change on this province and, if not, will she do so?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm very excited that we're talking about climate change. It's a very good opportunity from not just – there is a cost associated with it, but it's an awful good opportunity from an economic standpoint as well. We've got the creation of jobs and 650 direct person-years of employment based on what we're doing under the climate Action Plan we put in place, based on what we're working with – just one fund, which is the Low Carbon Economy Leadership Fund, which we've partnered with the federal government on. We've announced 13 projects just recently at the tune of about $8.1 million.

When those are fully installed, we're going to see some net reduction of about 830,000 tons of greenhouse gas reductions in this province. So that's moving forward and every action we make is a step in the right direction. Do we need to do more? Yes.

SPEAKER: The minister's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. LANE: Mr. Speaker, during the last General Assembly, a Democratic Reform Committee was established by this hon. House with a mandate to improving our democratic and electoral system. This Committee met on a number of occasions and was just about to initiate a public engagement process on campaign finance reform but was subsequently shut down when the Premier decided to call a general election.

I ask the Premier: Will he reinstate this Committee in its existing form so we can move forward with this important work?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.

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

As the Member opposite would know, that was a part of the mandate that was given to me as Government House Leader by the Premier. We will be re-establishing a Committee on Democratic Reform, as we have with all Committees here in this House.

Right now I am a Member of the Committee on the Elections Act and we're doing that piece of work, but we will start to do the piece of work simultaneously in the coming weeks.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hope it will be in the same form and representation as the last Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the recent provincial general election was riddled with many inconsistencies, potential breaches of the Elections Act and resulted in many people in this province being denied their democratic right to vote. Heading into the election, the Chief Electoral Officer stated that Elections NL was prepared to hold a pandemic election. This obviously proved not to be the case. I realize the Minister of Justice has been tasked with updating the Elections Act; however, this has nothing to do with holding an Officer of the House accountable for his actions.

I ask the Premier: Will you initiate an independent investigation of the election and subsequently table a report in this hon. House for debate? Not interested in the legislation, not interested in court cases; will you present a report after an independent investigation and have the Chief Electoral Officer accountable to this House of Assembly?

SPEAKER: The question is not in order. The operation of the elections is not a House matter.

P. LANE: (Inaudible) to the House, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: It is with the Legislative Branch, not within the House.

The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The petition I am presenting on is climate emergency declaration, a petition to the House of Assembly.

We, the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, bring the attention of the House of Assembly to the following:

WHEREAS according to the document, The Way Forward on Climate Change, the province is already experiencing the effects of climate change; Newfoundland and Labrador joined the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change in 2016, but it is not on track to meet the 2020 targets; financial costs resulting from climate change will unequally impact municipalities, due to the responsibilities set out in the Municipalities Act, 1999.

THEREFORE, our petitioners call upon the House of Assembly to urge the government to: declare a climate emergency; establish a task force on decreasing the effects of the climate crisis while building community resilience; consider climate change in all policy and decision-making.

If tabled in the House of Assembly, the petition document will be a document of the House of Assembly and the name and address of every person that signs it will be available to the public.

So, Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of minutes. I just want to talk on the importance of this petition. It talks about declaring a climate emergency. Now, when we talk about global warming, everybody says that something needs to be done. But unfortunately, the impacts from climate change are slow. Sometimes we get torrential rains which cause flooding. We may have heavy rainy seasons. We may have a lot of snow, like Snowmageddon. But most of the population doesn't really feel the impacts of global warming.

Therefore it allows the governments, whether they're a provincial government, a federal government or governments on an international level, to be slow to actually do something. What we fear is that by the time people wake up and start declaring that something needs to be done, it's going to be too late.

When you look at the Northern regions, the Northern regions are an indicator, similar to the canary in the coal mines. When the air in the mines was getting toxic, the canary would stop singing and then the canary would die.

In the Arctic and in Northern Labrador and across Canada, we are like the canary. We see the effects of global warming. We rely on snow and ice for our transportation for our food sources. What's happening now is that we don't get good ice to travel on. We don't get good snow conditions so we can go out and hunt and haul wood to heat our houses. We are the canary in the coal mines. I think that this petition is a step forward to make sure that as a province we are responsible and we start taking steps, Mr. Speaker.

This petition has over 2,000 signatures already and they'll be continuing to collect them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Climate Change for a response.

B. DAVIS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains but also the 2,000 signatories on her petition. Thank you very much, I look forward to that coming over to the office.

I'm very happy that we've had a great discussion today and questions on the greening of our economy but also climate change. I think it's important what the hon. Member has said. There are noticeable changes in certain areas in the country and the globe, faster than others, and she's 100 per cent correct on that. That's why we've taken action on some 43 of our 45 action items, either in part or in full completion.

This is going to stimulate clean energy as well as clean growth in the economy. We've committed to our 2050 net-zero emission targets with the federal government. We're working very closely with them. I look forward to working with the hon. Member as well, because I understand she has a very strong background in this as well.

To all of us, everybody in this House of Assembly has a role to play here in making sure that we move things forward. One of the things in our budget just this past day that has been passed, we put forward investments into EV adoption programs, electric vehicle adoption programs, as well as the conversion of oil heating homes that are primarily serviced by oil to move to electric. That's a start.

By no means is it going to fix all the problems, but those changes that we're making will move forward and continue to go forward. One of those things that we've done is just a recent announcement through the Low Carbon Economy Leadership Fund. Some of those investments have been made in Labrador as we speak. I'm looking forward to getting up there this summer to announce some of those.

They're going to make a meaningful difference in what we see on a go-forward basis. Some 830,000 tons of greenhouse gases –

SPEAKER: The minister's time has expired.

B. DAVIS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, residents of Exploits have a great concern 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. service does not adequately and efficiently address the emergency requirements of this district, affecting both patients and residents to achieve 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.

Mr. Speaker, this has been an election promise now three times. In 2019, the former premier promised the 24-hour emergency service. In the fall of 2020, in Hansard, Mr. Speaker, the minister committed to keep the promise of the previous premier. In the 2021 election, it was announced that the 24-hour emergency service would open. I have a quote here from the literature of the candidate: We delivered on the extension to the Dr. Hugh Twomey Health Care Centre and we will deliver on the 24-hour emergency service at the Dr. Hugh Twomey Health Care Centre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, is this another election promise? It's been done three times. This was endorsed by the Liberal Party. I'm assuming it was. I don't see the candidate just coming out on his own and saying they were going to reinstate the 24-hour emergency service in an election, and the government let him go out and mislead the people. I can't see that, Mr. Speaker. They must be going to do it.

Actually, this week, Mr. Speaker, the long-term care unit, the $6.1-million unit, the minister says that after that was completed, they would reinstate the 24-hour emergency service, not match the needs as needed. They want the 24-hour emergency service opened.

Mr. Speaker, that unit was turned over today and residents are being taken at the long-term care unit in Botwood. I'd like to have the minister's response of when he's going to open the 24-hour emergency service, and not play around with the answer, but give us a straight, direct answer, come out and open the 24-hour emergency service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Any further petitions?

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm presenting another climate emergency declaration petition to the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador with another 590 signatures.

We, the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, bring the attention of the House of Assembly to the following:

WHEREAS according to the document, The Way Forward on Climate Change, the province is already experiencing the effects of climate change; Newfoundland and Labrador joined the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change in 2016, but is not on track to meet its 2020 targets; financial costs resulting from climate change will unequally impact municipalities due to responsibilities set out in the Municipalities Act, 1999.

THEREFORE, our petitioners call upon the House of Assembly to urge the government to: declare a climate emergency; establish a task force on decreasing the effects of the climate crisis while building community resilience; consider climate in all policy and decision-making.

As I said, 590 on this petition and there will be more coming, Minister.

Keep in mind, I pick up on what my colleague for Torngat Mountains said, the book by Shelia Watt-Cloutier, a Canadian Inuit activist on The Right to Be Cold, there are cultures, people who depend on ice and that for their way of living, their culture and their livelihood. There are whole ecosystems that are built on it. We look at the whole notion of permafrost and what that might do to the release of CO₂.

But more importantly right now, I think we need to be doing more. It's great to look at what we're doing; we need to start putting more money towards the transition to clean energy.

What this petition is asking for, Mr. Speaker, is to establish a task force and to start putting climate policy into all policy and decision-making; that's what this petition is calling upon and that's what I'm asking the minister to take action on.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member, similar to what I said to the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains, I look forward to working very closely with you and some 590 people as signatories on this petition, I look forward to getting it.

Some of the things that I ran out of time talking about: we've seen great success in the energy efficiency in oil heating homes program that we put in place. To say that we're not moving fast enough, I would tend to agree. We have to move faster, we have to continue to make investments. The federal government has announced some $18 billion over a number of years in their most recent budget that we're going to wait for some details on to see exactly how we can avail of those and cost-shared mechanisms and, hopefully, 100 per cent dollars coming from the federal government for these initiatives as well.

So working very closely with municipalities is one of the key pieces that the MHA from St. John's Centre had mentioned, ensuring that we have resilient infrastructure in place that can tackle climate change problems that we're facing and he raises a great concern about the way of life of Indigenous people that are being changed by the changing weather patterns and the changing ice flows.

In my previous roles as minister responsible for technology, I looked very favourably on the SmartICE program that was started by – and used very actively. I can see the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains nodding her head. It was an amazing initiative that's worked on by Indigenous peoples as well as people from all over this province to ensure that the ice is safe for people to go out on, and that changes on a daily basis, hourly basis in some cases.

I look forward to working with both hon. Members and every one in this House to make sure we can leave something better for the people that come behind us for sure.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Order 6, Bill 15.

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

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know I've been given an hour. I think our leader was going to speak first but I will speak now. I don't think I'll need a full hour but I could speak for a full hour because while I may have disagreements on some things in the budget, and may have disagreements over certain parts of the budget, I can't help but be extremely pleased to see this type of initiative in our budget. The only thing, I guess, I would have liked more is perhaps to see more money spent on it than less.

I've been involved in sports all my life. I used to tell people that I started off as a player then a coach and then an administrator. I used to say I wasn't good enough to be a player so I became a coach. I wasn't good enough to be a coach so I became an administrator. But, at the end of the day, I certainly benefited from the ability to play sports in this province of ours. As a coach, I've had the pleasure of coaching at different levels, whether it was the high school girls' level or high school boys or the university level.

As an administrator, I've had the opportunity to work both provincially and nationally. When it comes to physical activity, it not only enhances the physical part but it does so much for your mental capacity and gives you the confidence to be able to go out and speak in public and to be strong. Anything we can do to help get people moving in some form of physical activity is a good thing. It always is a good thing and will be a good thing.

I have to admit, though, I was really excited first when I read the Budget Speech about it and heard it because I was looking at it as a refundable tax credit up to $2,000 per family. Families out my way said: Wow, we're going to get $2,000 back. Unfortunately, like I said, sometimes the details aren't there; it's actually a tax credit. Again, on an expenditure up to $2,000, the refundable credit of 8.7 per cent will result in approximately $174 back to a family. Again, a good initiative, the fact that people can get money back.

We talk about health care a lot in our province. Of course, one of the social determinants of health is income. The only concern I have here is whether or not people who can't afford to pay that type of money upfront and how you might be able to accommodate, somehow or other, people in those lower income brackets. I'm sure there's a way of working something to allow them to participate. I know the Premier has talked a lot about the community support groups and the not-for-profit groups.

There's so much benefit to be gained from this initiative. I truly believe that if you want to reduce health care costs, this is one of the ways you have to do it. As I said, I think I'd be ready to vote on any kind of funding dedicated to activity and physical activity that will help our kids and our adults get out.

I think we need to encourage people, too, that physical activity doesn't necessarily have to be about a gym membership. If you're walking to the post office every day to pick up your mail, that's a physical activity. The guy that's out chopping his wood, it's a physical activity. There are lots of physical activities that are going on for people that we can help that will help find a way – I don't know if this fund will apply, but we need to encourage people that there are lots of different things you can do to stay healthy.

We've all heard of the ParticipACTION programs and all of those things but, again, this goes the extra step. This is an extra step because we're now, as people say, putting our money where our mouth is. We're actually giving money back to people to say: If you make an investment, we're going to give you – now, it's not everything, but it's something. It's a good start. That's the way I'd look at this, as a good start.

Certainly, like I said, there's nothing that we would argue about this. The only thing I said I would be concerned about is how do we make sure that the people who perhaps can't afford up to $2,000 find a way. I like the idea that it covers so many different types of physical activity and that it's not limited to a traditional sport, whether it's yoga, whether it's dance –

AN HON. MEMBER: Horseback riding.

T. WAKEHAM: Yes, exactly. It's open to all kinds of different physical activities.

I hope that the first thing, the minister will come in a few months from now and say: B'y, the entire fund that we put in has been used up because everybody is taking advantage of it, and next year we have to double it. That's the type of benefit I see from this.

Like I said, I could go on forever here, but I don't see the need to do that. I can talk about the benefits of sport on physical and mental health, and talk about all kinds of stories that we all have about people we know who have been so impacted by sport and that changed their lives around because of it. I really believe this particular initiative is certainly one that we all support.

Again, I'm not going to spend a lot of time. I just want to say I commend the government for introducing this. I look forward to how it can be rolled out to ensure that we don't leave anybody behind.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to continue on where my colleague left off. Looking at this bill here, it has a lot to do with our overall health of the province. Health actually impacts our mental wellness as well as our physical wellness. It also impacts the health care system. Anything we can do to encourage people to engage in physical activity and recreational activity, we'll see much, much dividends. So this is a really good investment.

Now, one of the issues that I sometimes struggle with is being a critic, because part of my role is to critique what's being put forward, but not from a criticism perspective. Basically, my responsibility as an MHA in Opposition is to make sure that the policies put forward are for the betterment of everybody. One of the groups that I find sometimes falls through the cracks is our most vulnerable, our low-income families. Also, what I'm starting to see now as MHA from a rural district is that rural Newfoundland and Labrador sometimes falls through the cracks. Not intentionally. Not by being intentionally excluded, but sometimes the policies are not far reaching; actually, the policies can't be taken advantage of by rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

This is a refundable credit of 8.7 per cent on an expenditure up to $2,000, which is really, really good. One of the things that I thought when I originally heard it – and I think most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians sort of heard on the surface the same thing – is we will get $2,000. If you have a family of five that's involved in a lot a recreational activities, you're looking at – wow, that's going to be a huge benefit to me and my family. But in actual fact, the information that we were given is that at the end of the day the refund is up to $174. People need to look at that from a realistic point of view and to realize that it's not $2,000.

That can impact a lot of families. One of my sisters has five kids; they're all very physically active. They're involved in sports; they're involved in all kinds of recreational activities. In actual fact, me as a single person – I'm eligible to get up to that $174 just the same as her, so that doesn't appear like a very level playing field. It would be more encouraging if we actually had more for people who had larger families or more participation.

We would also want to make sure that the low-income families have equal access to it. One of the issues with low-income families is they're usually – especially if you have children – living paycheque to paycheque. That's one of the burdens with low-income families. Therefore, for this, to get your $174 it has to be at the end of the year, so you have to put the money up front. A lot of families won't be able to avail of this because they don't have the money up front to put in the investment. That might be something we could look at next time.

It's important for us to make sure we include low-income families, to make sure that they have the same access. If not, it's only people who have more disposable income, which usually are people with more money. Also, a lot of families don't have access to a credit card. Or if they do, it's usually maxed out. It's very, very important.

Another thing, when I attended the technical briefing, I talked about what's eligible. One of the things that were a little disappointing for me is that the fitness equipment is not eligible for this tax credit. Now, a lot of rural Newfoundland and Labrador – rural areas – don't have gym facilities where they can go in and pay a fee, get their receipt and they can work out. A lot of rural Newfoundland and Labrador don't have organized activities. If they are, usually they revolve around hockey, basketball, volleyball, the regular sports. What happens if you or your children are not interested in those particular activities? It can be a form of exclusion. So that's something that we need to be more aware of.

I was very pleased, though, one of the questions that I asked during the briefing was about say, for example, the smaller expenses. Because in a lot of my communities if we're lucky enough to have say, for example, a hockey rink or a gymnasium, a lot of the activities are you pay as you go. So for a public skate, $2. Some people may skate three times a week. The good thing with this tax credit is if you keep your receipts and you submit them or you have them available, you'll be able to get the reimbursement. That's very, very important.

As I was saying, anything that encourages physical activity. Because we are going through also a health pandemic where we're dealing with inactivity of our children now in the schools and through the education system. Through their youth, they're not as active. That's actually going to be a huge burden on our health care system. We're already seeing the increase in Type 2 diabetes. We're also seeing the increase in high blood pressure and other cardiovascular diseases and conditions. So it's very, very important that we actually encourage people to be active.

Like I said, for low-income families and for rural Newfoundland and Labrador, it's going to be difficult for people to avail of these services. When you look at rural Newfoundland and Labrador – and I speak from experience in my district – sometimes programs put forward have good intentions; for example, the construction rebate. This Physical Activity Tax Credit is similar to the construction in some ways. In my district, I don't think anybody actually was able to take advantage of that rebate – the construction rebate – where you actually had some building material, some construction or some repairs and then you got 25 per cent back.

I don't think anyone in my district was able to avail of that, even though they built sheds; they actually put extensions on their houses; they repaired their roofs, all during this time frame. They couldn't avail of it because they didn't actually have somebody in their community or somebody in the district that was registered. Very similar, too, with this tax credit is if there's nothing there that they can actually spend the money on, that they can get a receipt for, then they're not going to be eligible. We need to make sure that all those people don't fall through the cracks and they don't miss out on it.

Even in St. John's – because I remember when I was a university student, I was doing the intersession. When I was going to university, I had no money. I had very little money. During intersession, I was actually doing some jobs building fences. That's how I was making my money, putting me through intersession. I was there. It was in June. I was building a fence down in the area there down where Tulk's used to be.

I was putting in the post and these two little girls came over and they were very mad at me because I was putting up a fence and they wouldn't be able to cut through the yard. The owner came out, who I was building the fence for, and she said: Aren't you supposed to be in school? These two little girls, one was probably seven; the other one was probably nine. They said: No, Mommy is keeping us out – they didn't say mommy; that's my word – Mom is keeping us out of school today. We asked why and she said it's some sort of day.

What it was – I can't remember now, but it was a day where they actually ended school; they had all these recreational activities. There was going to be a lunch, so Mom was going to have pay 50 cents for each of them to go, which was a dollar. Mom didn't have the money. That's what these two little girls said: We can't go. They wanted to go. It was going to be a lot of fun. Going to be hot dogs. Because the mom didn't have a dollar, they didn't get to go.

That's what low income looks like. That's access to recreation. That's access to end-of-school events. For us, a lot of times we lose perspective because we have money coming in; we have regular jobs coming in. We have disposable income. We have access to credit cards; we have access to a line of credit. There are all these things.

At the end of the day, this is a really good program. I'm not taking away from it and I think we need more. But we need to make sure that everybody can avail of it. Rural Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have the same access or a program where they can have similar access. Low-income families, they're our most vulnerable. When we look at nutrition and access to healthy foods, they are also impacted.

Nutrition and recreation activities or sporting events, all of these are important to our health. If we don't look after our children today, they will be our adults that will actually be a burden to the system for health care, for a lot of mental health issues, all of these things. When you look at your access to recreation activities, it actually builds your self-confidence. It builds your physical capability. It also adds to mental health. The thing about it is your ability to participate in these activities has many, many rewards for us. Like I said, it's a great program.

I have to speak a little bit on the gymnasiums in the schools. The Member for Humber - Bay of Islands talked about the school gymnasiums and the fact that, at 3, the schools close and they don't have access to the gymnasiums a lot times – recreation. Also, my fellow Member up there from Bonavista talked about similar issues as well.

There are three communities in my district that has shared access to the school gymnasiums, community access. That's the only access they have to the gymnasiums: Makkovik, Rigolet and Postville. When COVID shut down the gymnasiums in the school, the gymnasium was lost to the whole community. They have not had access since March 2019. In actual fact, the AngajukKâk for Rigolet was on the radio a few weeks ago talking about the hardship that it has created in her community.

In the community of Makkovik, the students were looking at writing letters and doing petitions because they have not had access to the gym as well. When you have community-shared access, it creates a lot of hardship. In Makkovik, we're fortunate enough to actually have a hockey arena, but we actually don't have the capability to make the ice. It's one of those systems where you actually need it to be cold. They do have the Freon in the floor but it's not the same. The ice went on in January, just before Alert Level 5. I don't even know if anyone got a hockey game in, and there was no access to the gymnasiums, so no activities.

In the community of Rigolet, they have an outdoor rink that's not enclosed. I was up there a couple of weeks ago and it was at the time when they could actually go out – the snow was off the rink. I went up there and everybody was playing ball hockey. There were from age five or six up there watching, all age groups was there. There were youngsters there 14 up to 60 years old: all of them playing ball hockey. They were just so glad to be out, engaging – men, women, everybody.

In my district, everybody plays sports. It doesn't matter what age you are, it's not just a young person's game. We have people up there at our age playing volleyball.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: They've always played it. The good thing about it is, when I look at it, they started and continued on through the years. They've had their children and they've continued to play sports. Their children now are participating with them; they are still continuing to play sports. But I tell you, after a year and a half of nobody playing sports, some of these people will not be able to get back to that level of fitness so that they can continue on.

That is a loss, not only for them but it's a loss for the province, because when you're not regularly active your health suffers. When your health suffers, your ability to do things suffers. So we need to make sure the rest of the province does like they do in my district, you continue to be active. It is a normal thing, everybody participates regardless of your age and everyone is accepted. It is very important for us to be able to actually look at that.

That being said, I'm not going to continue to go on just for the sake of talking, but one of the things we have to make sure is that all parties here in the House, when we're looking at our health, when we're looking at our physical health, our mental health, our emotional health and we actually put programs in place to promote healthy lifestyles; when we put programs in place to promote wellness in our communities, we make sure that populations don't fall through the cracks.

With this program I do see some people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador falling through the cracks because they can't avail of the tax credit. Also, I look at low-income families and I see the potential for them to fall through the cracks as well. So when we're looking at policies, especially policies that are outlined in our budget, that's put forward for wellness, that we make sure that we address it for everybody.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

E. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm going to spend a few minutes to speak on this bill. I have a lot of the same comments that I just heard from the two previous Members.

First of all, anything you can do to help out and get people active is a great idea and is a great initiative. When you look at sports yourself, you look at people who played sports over the years and how much it helped you in your life and how many friendships you made and the physical part and the medical part where it helps, Mr. Speaker, it's a tremendous help to a lot of people to cut down on our medical costs in the province.

Also, I always found in sports when you get people who are dedicated, the work ethic that you get. When you have to do sprints in the gym or you have to do some running, Mr. Speaker, it's a commitment that you make that when you do it it's going to help you in whatever career you pursue in life, the work ethic that it will give you.

Any time there's a program like this, which is good for some people and some won't be able to avail of it, of course, Mr. Speaker, I look at the people who will avail of this. Like the people who go cross-country skiing, they're going to go away, most of them, and some won't. But if not, I'll give a suggestion to the minister: If there is someway that you can tie this tax credit into the schools, if you could tie it in someway into the schools, because there are a lot of school programs that can use cross-country skiing and they can use it to buy snowshoes. But they can't use it right now, the way it is, because it has to be an individual tax credit. What you see is you see a lot of people who can partake in their activities but they don't have the equipment somehow and then the families who go outside, the people who can afford it are going cross-country skiing, the 700 people they had last year, they're going to go anyway. If there's some way to get the younger ones who can't afford it, and schools is a primary way.

Another thing is – and this will go with the government and not just the minister itself – the part of physical, there are three or four parts of that. One, it is great to get the exercise. The second part of that is to ensure that you have healthy food to keep you healthy: if I'm going to go out today and I'm going to run five miles, I'll burn off 500 calories. But if I'm going to go eat a bag of chips or drink a soft drink because I can't afford milk, there is not much of a benefit to it.

This is something for the whole government, this is not for the minister herself, this is the part in Newfoundland and Labrador with low-income is that if there was some way that we could help with the healthy food. It is cheaper to pick up a bottle of pop than it is right now to get some milk. If you want to get vegetables, community gardens are a great way to start.

The other thing that I find throughout, and you do it a lot in hospitals but we don't do it enough as a government or as a people, is education on healthy eating and healthy exercise. We do a lot of work but if there is ever an education program to explain to people the difference, and that goes hand in hand with food prices.

I know, Mr. Speaker, a lot of this here – I'll just give you an example – a lot of kids at school when I was coaching before the pandemic, if they're in the basketball program, you have to pay so much for your uniform, pay so much for your registration, if you have travel there is no mechanism here to get a rebate on that. We know the travel costs, the hotel costs sometimes, we know the cost of registration, the cost of the uniforms, but the students then that participate in the team sports that have to put the money into the school. I don't know, Madam Minister, if there is a way that the school can give individual tax credits somehow for what they put into that because that is a great incentive for people in the schools themselves.

I'll give you a good example, if you're travelling to St. John's from Corner Brook – a team, and you have to put the money in – the parents raise the money, put in the money, there is no tax credit back to the kids. That's one thing I would ask to look at.

I know it was brought up earlier about the – open up the gyms in rural parts of – even in Corner Brook. There are a lot of activities, a lot of places, but when people have to go up and pay $50, $60 or $70 an hour it take its toll on it.

I thank God – and I'll bring this up – there was a few of us here that I remember going through Regina High School. Back then on Fridays and Saturdays the gym was open for us; Regina High School gym was open. We went in there Friday nights and Saturdays. Sundays we had to study; that was part of the deal. We went in and we did that kind of stuff, Mr. Speaker.

Those are the great initiatives that we had with the schools; they were open. That's just one. That would help a lot of kids and a lot of parents in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. If there's some way that we can tie into the school program, that they can open the gymnasium and let kids go in. It has to be supervised, of course. It has to be supervised, but have the kids go in and partake in the nighttime, Saturdays, Sundays and Friday nights, some place to go and keep them active, if there's any way the government can do that.

There's absolutely no doubt that there are a lot of people – and I say the $7 million will be used. Then again, I don't know how to express this, but there are some people who can't afford the $2,000 for the sports. I don't know, Minister, if there's any way you can carve some of that for people for low income that need to participate in sports.

You see it. I know the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port is the same as me: We coach a lot. We've seen a lot of people who can walk in and pay their money and we've seen a lot of kids who can't. We've seen it. That's a reality. Sometimes, other parents chip in and help sell the tickets or help find some way to do it. That's just some suggestions, if there's any way with the program.

When you're out and you see a lot of team sports, when some kid can't afford to pay for the uniform, it's tough. When the kid has to put in the $50, but you know he's not going to get a tax credit or some way to help out, it's a way to – if you want to incentivize the youth and find some way that you can get them involved, the $2,000 maximum is a lot of money. When you get back $175, $180, there's no doubt that they can go up to that amount. There's absolutely no doubt. If you're in team sports at any school or if you're going to any sports after school, it's hard to get a receipt. That would help a lot with the people themselves.

I'll be supporting this, no problem whatsoever. I think it's a great initiative. I just throw it out there to government that one part of it is the physical part, the second part is the education part and the third part is the food, to make sure people are healthy. That's the third part and that's a tough one because I know myself – and I can look around this room – sometimes when we're just sitting around it's easier to grab a bag of chips than go get an apple or a banana. We know that. Sometimes people can't afford an apple or a banana, they can afford chips. Those are just some initiatives I'm bringing out for government.

With this here, there have been many studies. If you're more physical, if you're active, the medical cost down the road is decreased. That is just factual. There is absolutely no doubt about that. I know the School Lunch program; I know there are a lot of breakfast programs that a lot of people chip in and help out, which is a great idea.

I'll just close on that. I think it's a great initiative by government. The ideas I'm throwing out are some that I see in reality. I know it can't be done overnight. I know that. I know that it's going to take three or four different departments, Mr. Speaker, to coordinate that and it's going to be tough. It's going to be something we should set a plan out over a number of years.

It's not going to happen over the next six months, a year, two or three years, but it's a number of years that we could set some plan out and stick with the plan, the education plan, the proper food plan and then the exercise and wellness plan. It will pay dividends in the long run. I will be supporting this. I think it's a great initiative that's in the budget.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

K. HOWELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I welcome the opportunity to speak to this, this afternoon. I would draw upon my past experiences as a swim coach and my involvement with youth in our community to see the benefits that these activities bring to their lives.

I started swimming when I was old enough to be thrown over the wharf. That's the first lesson that I had. I grew up going through the chain of the swim team and the swim lessons; became the lifeguard, became the pool supervisor and had all these experiences in that avenue. I would trade it for none of my experiences as a child and growing up. I learned a lot of valuable lessons. I learned the value of teamwork, co-operation and how you can rely on your teammates when things go sideways. We had a great time as part of the members of the St. Anthony Dolphins circa 1994.

I spent time as a swimmer and then I spent another seven, eight years as a coach. To see how these activities breathe life into these kids, how they work together and find an identity in being part of a team. The ability for them to show up to practice – honest to goodness, they'd be there at 6 in the morning and I'd just barely have one eye open and they'd be ready to swim. They'd be committed; they'd be dedicated. It certainly was a rewarding experience to be part of that. Then to see how they developed and how their skills improved, how their confidence improved and how they became new leaders for our team, new coaches.

My favourite place to swim was Springdale. We had a great time at the swim meets. To see our young swimmers grow into young leaders and then into lifeguards and then into management at the facility, it certainly was full circle. A lot of those individuals have gone on to careers of service in nursing and in child development. I couldn't be more proud of the team that I had as part of the St. Anthony Dolphins.

To speak to that, I would like to remind people that there are other programs. Swimming was my passion and I'm sure others around could share their experiences in certain other areas. But to know that this government has taken a stand to support those activities and to make that available for families and for individuals who want to participate in these activities and get the benefit for doing so, it speaks to the importance of how we want to reshape and transform how we provide services in this province. I think that is a first step that we can make. There's certainly more to come, more to be made. The long road is filled with small steps, so here we are. I certainly would like to encourage everybody to participate in activities.

Then, putting on my municipalities' hat, to see the impact that these activities have in communities. I think we can all speak to that, how communities rally around their events, around their sport teams and around their recreational activities and facilities. How it becomes a part of their culture and part of your community, I think that's certainly something that's important. As we move forward with plans for how we reshape municipal governance and how those things will apply, I think that this is, again, another piece of that puzzle in making important changes and allowing residents the ability to participate in things that will hopefully lead to better efficient and effective services in our communities.

So I would like to commend – and, again, new girl, so this was the first round. When we see how this stuff unfolds, to look at the big picture and then to realize that there are so many little stages that make a big impact, I think this is one of these pieces that we can walk away from here knowing that we've made a difference in these communities, in these lives of these residents and that, in the big picture, it is something that we'll be able to take a credit away from.

When we look at how it will impact our communities, I'd like to think that this is the first step in moving to more accessible resource management for our communities in terms of how we can make programs available. I know that there are often questions about that and how we can get accessible programming, certain levels of different physical activity. That is a question that has come up. And certainly something that has come across our department is how we work to make municipalities accessible for all people of different abilities.

So that's an issue that I've discussed before, and I am pleased to say that there are several initiatives and several playgrounds that I've come across that are accessible for different levels of abilities. It is something that I think we can work towards, as part of this program, is making sure that kids, families, students or whoever wants to participate in these activities has that ability.

When we look at the programs that will qualify, we'll have a broad range of avenues that people can express and take part in to make sure that they're taking advantage and getting these physical activities in and getting the benefits of them. I certainly do look forward to how we can move that along in our province. I am proud to be part of this initiative and I think it is a great idea for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is an honour to speak to this bill. As I have discussed around the budget, there are a number of things there that I think are positive, but I am extremely pleased with this one. Now, I think my former colleagues might have said we would have liked to have more money put into it, but I realize there is a tempered approach to everything. I would hope that this would be the start of continuous budgets where we look at, even if we are in a fiscal crunch, the financial benefits after of keeping our society healthy by having them engage in a physical recreation process.

You can't lose when you put it in as a tax incentive, because there is no costing to you if there is no uptake. But if there is a massive uptake there might be a small costing but, at the same time, you see the value from a health perspective and the social inclusion perspective. I do like them and, fortunate enough, in this House over the last more than a decade I have been part of it on both sides, in government and in Opposition, to see budgets that had certain things in it.

I will note – and it has nothing, obviously, to do with this Finance Minister, but one of the initiatives that we had, that we supported in this province that I thought was enormously successful – I can't say I thought; it's still enormously successful. The only unfortunate thing is we're not a partner in it. I say we, that being the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador that we used to be a partner in. It really is centred around and focuses on recreation, physical activity from every gamut without having to be too administratively complex for people to be engaged in, and that was the Canadian Tire Jumpstart program.

I say that because we looked at, years ago, when there was discussions around how do we engage more people into recreation, particularly those who may be disadvantaged and may not have an opportunity to be engaged in physical activity programs and services, what do we do to make it happen? I do recall – I was a civil servant at the time – that I got a call from the then Premier's office who said, there's a real good program in St. John's called the REAL Program and I understand you have a little bit of knowledge of it – which I did at the time – and we think it does great to include physical activity for individuals, particularly young people and families. But it also targets those who may be disadvantaged. Those who would not have a normal opportunity to be engaged. As the premier was the Member for Corner Brook at the time, he wanted to look at doing the same thing out there and partnering either with the city or developing some kind of program.

He attached a budget to our division or asked that we do that and look at it. The amount of money that would have been attached seemed significant but after you hire staff, you get an office, you do printing and all this type thing, there would have been very minimal amount of money to do any programming to really go to the grassroots level where it would have actually benefited people.

I went back to the premier and the Premier's office and I had said – fortunate enough I was the vice-president of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada at the time. I had been in a meeting in Toronto when the Canadian Tire Foundation for Families CEO came and met with the Board of Directors of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada and pitched a proposal that they were setting up a separate wing of their Foundation for Families that would be solely around engaging young people, particularly those in disadvantaged areas or those who had some challenges financially in their families to be engaged in sport and fitness.

They pitched the proposal to the Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada which fit well in with what Boys and Girls Clubs stand for. On a daily basis, there are 250,000 young people go through clubs in this country, of which seven are in this province, and do wonderful work for people.

There was a new Canadian Tire store opening in Mount Pearl and, at the time, I had got invited because of my role as the provincial president of the Boys and Girls Clubs and the connection we had made just in Ottawa. In my conversations with the new CEO of Jumpstart, who they had just hired for Atlantic Canada and who happened to be a young man out of Buchans, Newfoundland, who was living in Nova Scotia, but had taken on this job, and we had a grand conversation.

I had talked about: If I could leverage some money out of government for your program, what would you offer in return? Their whole concept was they would do all of the administration. They would do the community development by setting up nine regional councils, which are made up of the sport and recreation agencies in those regions, on a volunteer basis, and who could actually leverage money for inclusion around recreation, particularly those young people who may not have access to it. Plus, they said: We would match dollar for dollar anything that's put in. So they went away and I thought that was intriguing.

I went back to the Premier's office and said: Look, you give me this amount of money, here's what I can guarantee you will leverage back and I'll make sure one of the sites is in Corner Brook so that the Premier's district also benefited from it, as would a number of other sites. They gave me the ability or, I guess, the responsibility to take it to the next level and negotiate with Jumpstart.

We were the first entity in this country to sign on with the Canadian Tire Foundation for Families under the Jumpstart program as a partner. That partnership developed into over 9,000 young people in this province getting to be part and parcel of recreation and sport activities. And I don't mean just a show-up-for-an-afternoon-hour thing. I mean, where kids to this day are still getting – they're into their sixth or seventh year of minor hockey, they had never played minor hockey before, who are still getting their registration paid because of a financial challenge and are still getting gear taken care of.

The developed partnership that we ended up getting to, to show how important it would be to have young people engaged, was three-fold negotiated things. When a regional council went to negotiate with a particular sports provider, and it could be a hockey school, it could be a dance studio, it could be an archery club or it could be a basketball thing, we went and said: If we sponsor or pay for the registration of a particular individual, we want you to give something; we want you to match it.

So if we had a hockey school that certain kids had been identified that could move to the next level, or kids who wanted to do power skating because they never been skating before or joined figure skating for the first time, for every person that we would pay to that entity, it could be – obviously, most of these clubs are volunteer-wise, or even ones that are private companies, they would match it. The partnerships that we developed as it moved forward, we're not on a one-for-one match now; we're on a one for probably three or four. These companies give back or these agencies give back and know that the vetting process for the Jumpstart program is all done by volunteers who have a background in the particular communities around the need of engaging people in sport and fitness. It was very relevant to what was happening.

We had gotten to a point where Canadian Tire were putting a 10-1 ratio into Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure that there was access to recreation for young people here as an incentive. It wasn't a tax incentive, but it was in one way, because at the end of the day people didn't have to spend money they didn't have.

The Canadian Tire Jumpstart would start by saying: If you want to buy equipment for a particular agency – if a Boys and Girls Club, for example, or a cadet corps wanted to get their members involved in recreation and wanted to buy a treadmill, Canadian Tire would give them a discount. That went for the first year. By the second year, it was Canadian Tire will give it to you at cost. If Canadian Tire's treadmill was $700 but their cost was $450, you got it for that. By the third year, it was if this agency made an application for it, the treadmill was given for free, not counting all the other administrative parts that they would pay for the organization of these councils.

Government, at the end of it, before it was all said and done, had managed to leverage $375,000 out of the youth services branch to give to Jumpstart. Three hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars a year was getting us back, at one point, $6.1 million in direct or indirect recreation-inclusive services for young people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

It was an amazing partnership that was developed. It was acknowledged nationally that this was a benefit to everybody. So much so that now every other jurisdiction, every province – the federal government are in for substantial amounts of money. Every sports agency, every big entity here are providers and supporters of the Jumpstart, and we see it everywhere – the TV commercials. You don't go in a Canadian Tire and not see some emblem there from Jumpstart and not understand what that means to young people in this country.

It's unfortunate and it killed me in 2016 when I saw in the budget the slash. Of all the things that could've been done, I thought that was the most disheartening. I spoke to it then. I thought it was somebody who had made a decision who had no understanding of the needs of people who would like to be engaged in recreation and sport, but couldn't afford it. The benefit from a partnership, from a business – if you did nothing but you did the business analysis, what a way to invest your money. I think, as I said it at the time, the 2016 budget was nothing but a calculator budget. It was just a cut: take a percentage off, cut it all across the board. That was disheartening.

I say that in connection here that at least I have a spark of hope now that this administration now sees the benefits of engaging people in the sport and recreation. I'm not quite sure the only avenue is the tax break here but I see that as one of them. I think there are a number of other ones that should be engaged in how this is done.

I do want to acknowledge the fact those volunteer agencies are still out there. Those volunteer sports groups – and don't forget, they're also made up of social workers and educators who help assess the application process to ensure that it's done fairly. Priorities are given to those who, first, would not have normal access. Then, if they're successful in the regions – and some of the regions actually do some of their own fundraising to be able to double up.

When you have an agency that is guaranteeing to match what you fundraise, or double it or triple it or quadruple it in some cases, why wouldn't you be incentivized to do more for it and to raise more of it? You'd see more kids and more families being able to be engaged in that process. Keep in mind that in a region, if they're spending money, it's all going back in the same pot. If you now get extra hours in your arena, if it is in St. Anthony, for example, well, that keeps the arena afloat for those kids and families who can't afford it themselves also. So everybody benefits when you do that. It makes sure the municipalities' expenses are minimal because you're maximizing the use of that facility. It has been a very positive move forward.

I'm hoping when the time is right, maybe I'll sit down with the Minister of Finance and have a chat and say, you know what, there are additional monies – there is always some slippage in certain grants in other departments that could be channelled. I would tell you now, Martha Billes, who is 93 years old and who is the owner of Canadian Tire, would be more than engaged to accept support again.

I'll tell this story and I tell it with pure respect because it was the way it was done in respect. In 2009, Canadian Tire, to celebrate the whole Canadian Tire family foundation – I think it was the 20th anniversary of the family foundation – had a major gathering at their building. They have a 50-story building on Yonge Street in Toronto. I got the privilege of being flown up at their expense and put up and invited to this big gala. The gala at the time had everybody: the CEO of Nike Canada, the CEO of Canstar and the CEO of Weber – the CEO of every company that you could think of because they were partners in this. They were bought in to the foundation and to Jumpstart – and the value.

I wasn't quite sure why we were invited there – I'll take a free trip anywhere, let alone if it gets to Toronto, where I lived for a period of time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: I'm a civil servant; I'm smart enough to know that. At the end of the day, we were called. It was a little above, I'd say, my pay grade or anything else, the people who were there, but I did enjoy and had some good conversations. I do remember her getting up and – you have to give credit to this lady now; she is the majority shareholder of Canadian Tire. Her father and uncle started Canadian Tire in 1922, so she has been around the business. She bought back shares that were sold over the years because she is a true-blue Canadian. She believes in this country. She believes in giving back to the communities.

She got up and one of the conversations – she was talking, she's introducing all these CEOs of this and all this and she said: I need to know our friends. She said this with pure respect – whether or not people like it or not – my Newfie friend, Mr. Brazil, where is he? I need to acknowledge him.

I put up my hand and she said I need you to come up here; I need you to come up on these stairs. So I came up and she said we're giving ye, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the first, as it was called, Jumpstart partnership award for your commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the commitment to the youth of Newfoundland and Labrador. I thought that was such a telling story of –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: – how we in this province can be trend leaders. We don't have to follow anybody else. We can start the trend. We took a chance on the Canadian Tire foundation and the Jumpstart, which was nothing when it started; nobody knew what it was. People thought it would be another corporate ploy to pat themselves on the back and raise money at somebody else's expense.

They give a big cheque – as we see from some corporations that I refuse to give five cents to, when we go into their store they say, do you want to donate to a charity? They present a big cheque as if this corporation did a wonderful job and there's not five cents being offered by them to this charity as such. I pick and choose, like I think a lot of us do, where we think the best bang for the dollar that we're going to donate to organizations is. I wholeheartedly saw the value in this; I wholeheartedly see the value in this piece of legislation. I wholeheartedly will be supporting it, as will my colleagues, particularly us in the PC caucus, will be supporting it.

I do encourage the minister and some of the other departments to think outside the box. Thinking outside the box right now might be going back to the way we thought a number of years ago and supporting some of the programs and services and developing partnerships that we gain immensely from and get back tenfold what we invest because the process and the infrastructures are already in place and the mechanism to get a better return on it.

What I say here is we need to use all of our partners, when it comes to social inclusion and recreation and when it comes to physical fitness, because our society has to be based on – if we're mentally fit, if we're physically fit, we're going to be economically fit, because people are going to be able to use their ingenuity to make sure our province moves forward.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you I will be voting for this. I'm glad to see this positive thing in this budget.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

P. LANE: My colleague said talk about the election. It's not a money bill. I'll be talking about that all night tonight though.

Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to get an opportunity to speak to this bill. Of course, this here is about the tax credit for sports and fitness and so on. Obviously, I think every Member who has spoken thus far has indicated that they're going to support it and that they feel it's a good thing. I will obviously support it as well.

I know we have a very active community, certainly, in Mount Pearl and in Southlands. We have a huge sporting organization. Mount Pearl Sport Alliance is, I think, the largest sporting organization in Newfoundland – probably one of the largest ones, certainly in Atlantic Canada, for sure that brings together a whole host of groups and organizations.

We have Mount Pearl minor hockey. We have Mount Pearl Soccer Association. We have Mount Pearl baseball. We have tennis. We have Pearlgate Track and Field. We have the Mount Pearl Marlins, which are swimming. We have ice-skating. You name it. There are associate members – Kenpo Karate and so on, Pat Cochrane and them. So there are huge opportunities for sure for sport in Mount Pearl.

The other thing that we have certainly in Mount Pearl is the recreational infrastructure. We have tremendous recreational infrastructure, whether it be the Pearlgate Track and Field, which was put there many years ago; it's in need of a bit of an upgrade now, but it was put there many years ago. I would give credit to former MHA for Mount Pearl South at the time, Neil Windsor, for getting that there. Neil did an awful lot for Mount Pearl, there's no doubt about it, but anyway.

Of course, we have the Glacier, we have the Summit Centre and we have numerous soccer fields throughout the city. Certainly, one of them at Team Gushue is artificial turf. We also have baseball fields. We have softball fields. We have men's softball and lady's softball. So that's just in the team sports and so on.

In addition to that, of course, we have tremendous walking trails and parks and so on for more leisurely exercise and fitness. There is no doubt that it's a very active community and, as I said, so is the Southlands part as well. There are a lot of people that do avail of the gym, for example, at the Summit Centre and there are people, of course, who go to GoodLife as well.

I have no doubt in my mind that there will be many people in my district, there will be many constituents of mine and there will be many constituents of my colleague in Mount Pearl North that will take advantage of this tax break. When we're in tough times and the cost of everything is going up, of course, not just in taxation, but taxes get passed along. We know the price of groceries, fuel and everything else, so any time there is an opportunity for residents to get a break on something, I think it's going to be welcomed. I'm sure that the people I represent would want me to support this particular initiative, and I will support this initiative, Mr. Speaker.

That said, though, I want to sort of piggyback on what my colleague from Humber - Bay of Islands talked about, because it was something I was going to talk about as well but he sort of beat me to the punch. A little pun there; he was a boxer. Anyway, ba-dum tsh.

The fact that while this tax credit is a good thing for anybody who can afford to pay that money upfront; it's a good thing for anyone who can afford to pay that money upfront, to pay that money to the gym, to pay that money for soccer registration, for hockey because, I mean, we know sports are very, very expensive, it's not just the registration.

If you take hockey alone, my God, when I played hockey many years ago, I guess you could get all of your equipment, your skates and everything for, I don't know, a couple hundred dollars or whatever. Now, you're probably paying – I don't know what the going rate is these days, but I'd say a pair of skates is probably, what, a thousand dollars? There are people paying a thousands dollars for a pair of skates. There are people paying a couple of a hundred dollars or more for a hockey stick. I remember going down to the sport shop and picking up a hockey stick, I think, for $10 or $20 at the most.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you score any goals?

P. LANE: I scored a few, a few. But I was –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

P. LANE: Yeah. I remember every one of them. That's right, I remember every one of them.

Anyway, I digress. The point is, though, the cost to be involved in sport is very, very expensive. I know that the groups and the organizations, the sporting groups, they do try to keep the cost down to a reasonable level. They try to keep it as low as they can. I know they do in Mount Pearl and I'm sure they do throughout the province but there is still a cost to running the programs. If we're talking about hockey, they also have to pay for ice time and stuff like that. As I said, equipment in itself is a lot of money.

Providing this opportunity for people to get this tax break and so on, to get a little bit of that money back on this investment – I think everyone agrees this is an investment. As I said, it's a good thing. It will have a positive impact on a lot of people in my district. A lot of people will take advantage of it. They will welcome it. They would want me to support it and I support it.

As I was about to say before I went off track, as the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands said, there are also a lot of families out there that a tax break is no good to them because they can't afford to pay for the sport or for the equipment or so on upfront to begin with. A tax break is only good for someone who can afford it and then come income tax time, you get your little tax break. What about the families who are struggling, families who are at or below or just above the poverty line, how do they benefit? How do their children benefit?

This is a good thing, but I think more has to be done to look at those families on the lower income threshold, to look at those families and say what can we do to make sure that any child who wants to play sports is able to play sports.

Now, I'm well aware of the Canadian Tire Jumpstart program. It's a wonderful program. I've been around it, involved with it and so on over the years as MHA and on city council. I have a great working relationship with the Mount Pearl Sport Alliance. I'm well up on it and what they do. It's a good program. But I think more has to be done and more support has to be given to ensure that all children have the opportunity to play sports. No child should be left behind.

Again, I'm just looking at the Mount Pearl system. I'm assuming other sports fraternities across the province would operate in a similar manner. I know there are a number of sports, for example, in Mount Pearl – because I've had a couple – where somebody from one of the sports would say: Paul, listen, if you know of a child who wants to play in this particular sport and they can't afford their registration, then you send them my way and we'll make sure they get to play. We're not going to deny them the opportunity, say, to play soccer, for example – I'll just use an example – because that family can't afford it. If Jumpstart or these programs can assist, great. If Jumpstart and these programs can't assist for whatever reason, then we'll make sure the child is looked after.

I know that happens. I'm sure it happens in other sports. I know it happens in other organizations that are not even sports, because I've seen that same type of approach, whether it would be with Brownies and Girl Guides and Scouts, cadets, and so on. I've had that similar experience where the groups have said: Listen, if a child wants to be involved, we'll make it happen, one way or another.

That's all great. I'm just saying, Mr. Speaker, that as we're doing this program, we also have to look at the most disadvantaged as well and make sure that we can do something to make sure their children and those families are also looked after.

The other part, as my colleague and I think the Leader of the Official Opposition talked about as well, is about the healthy eating side and access to healthy food and so on. It's one thing to have sports and recreation and so on, but it's no point in doing that if it's going to be counteracted by a whole bunch of unhealthy eating because families cannot afford to eat healthy. That's another issue, obviously.

Thank God for organizations like Saint Vincent de Paul. Thank God for them. They're angels. They really are. They're doing tremendous work. I know they're doing tremendous work in my community. We have a Saint Vincent de Paul Society at St. Peter's Parish. We have one located in Mount Pearl North over Mary Queen of the World. We also have the Salvation Army on Ashford Drive. They're all doing great work, but it's not filling that gap.

We have to find a way to make sure that children in particular – everybody, really, but certainly children, too – that there's an ability for children to also be able to have access to healthy foods. That has to be part of the equation, somehow, someway. Maybe the community gardens thing has to be expanded.

I mean, I thought about this one time. I don't know why there is not some social enterprise, as an example. Why can we not have a social enterprise where the government hands over – because they have been handing over a lot of agricultural land, which is good. Why can't we hand over some agricultural land and have a social enterprise where we're actually employing people, perhaps who have challenges with getting employment and so on, and have them farm the land and give the food away to the food bank for free so then the food bank actually has fresh vegetables and stuff?

Maybe it can be run by Saint Vincent's – I'm not saying they'd want to go down that road, but maybe there could be a connection to Saint Vincent de Paul or the food bank or so on that somebody is actually growing it and then that produce is going directly to the food banks.

If we have this group that go hunting moose now and getting capelin and all that and they're giving the food to the food banks – Barry Fordham and that group, which I think is a fantastic idea – I can't see why we cannot be doing something similar when it comes to fresh produce. Like I say, what an opportunity for a great social enterprise to actually employ some people and grow crops and provide those crops to the food banks in order for people who depend on the food banks to have access to some fresh vegetables and so on.

Those are the type of things – I'm not saying that model is necessarily the way to go or is going to work, but we have to start thinking outside the box a ways. One thing we got is we got lots of land. One thing we have here in Newfoundland is a lots of undeveloped land. There are opportunities to utilize that. It doesn't all have to be for commercial purposes.

Somehow we look at everything, all of our assets, everything we got, and all we continue to be looking at are using it for commercial purposes, so somebody can make money and so on. I'm not against that either because we need employment, we need economic development and we need all those things. But why can we not also use some of our resources to be able to provide, in this case through agricultural land, healthy food to food banks?

Why can we not have a cod quota, for example? Why can there not be a cod quota that somebody can go out and catch a whole bunch of cod and that goes directly to the food bank? I think the FFAW got their own cod quota to help pay for their expenses and what they're doing. Why can we not do similar? Why can't we have a cod quota through Ottawa, say we want a cod quota that the cod gets caught and it belongs to food banks? It's not going to a processor, per se, but it's going to the food banks. They benefit from it. So then people can have fish, which is a great protein source.

These are the kind of things that I think we have to start thinking outside the box a little more about ways that we can provide that healthy food to people who, otherwise, will never be able to obtain it. I think that goes hand in hand with this thing we're doing today. This is one piece. This is one piece of the puzzle, there's no doubt. It's beneficial and no one is going to knock it. But the reality of it is that a lot of the people who are going to take advantage of this tax credit tomorrow, or next year I should say, are people who already have gym memberships anyway. People who already have their kids in sports anyway.

They'll take advantage of it. If the government is going to give them an opportunity to save some money, they're going to take it. But I don't know that it's going to do a lot for people who can't afford to have their kids in sports today. People who can't afford to join the gym today. People who can't afford healthy food today. This is not going to do anything to help them. I don't think it is. It's going to do very little.

I'm not saying that it won't do any good for anybody. I'm just trying to point out that most people who are going to take advantage of this are already availing of these programs anyway. It's just going to be a little bit of money back, a little bit of an incentive, thank you very much, government. That's what it's going to be. It's not going to get to the root of the problem of people and families who can't afford sports, who can't afford healthy food, can't afford those things.

I think there needs to be more focus on that segment of the society that can't afford it. I guess that's the point that I want to make. I think it was the point that my colleague from Humber - Bay of Islands made; that was part of the points he made. I think the Leader of the Official Opposition sort of raised those points as well. What about the people who can afford it least? That's the question. What about the people who can afford it least?

I would certainly encourage the government and I would encourage the Minister of Finance– and I give her credit; I see that she has been over there listening and nodding her head as she always does. I give her credit. I'm sure she is taking all this into account and I do appreciate that. Like I say, Mr. Speaker, I will support this bill on its own merits because, obviously, it's something that the people I represent will take advantage of and will be happy with.

We cannot forget the people who can't afford any of this to begin with. We can't afford people who are living, as I said earlier, on just above or below the poverty line. Those are the people that we really need to target with programs to achieve the goals, which they're intended for.

The goal of this tax credit, as I understand it, is to make people healthier and to encourage the population to be healthier; therefore, that's going to hopefully result in lowered health care costs. That's the intent. Again, I would suggest that the people that get targeted with this initiative are probably people who already are doing what they need to do, or have the ability to do what they need to do and they've just decided they're not going to do it. It's not doing anything to target the people who would like to be able to do it, but because of their financial situation cannot.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I will support the bill.

Thank you.

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to pick up on my colleague for Mount Pearl - Southlands – especially when he talked about helping out organizations like Saint Vincent de Paul – I want to point out a program that's sort of happening already. I don't know if he's aware or if people are aware of Sharing the Harvest NL. It was a project started by Mr. Barry Fordham; he's with the Newfoundland Outdoor Heritage Coalition. One of the things they're looking at is the whole notion of donating moose meat and game to food banks so that they could distribute it.

It has caught on, and the food banks and the Community Food Sharing Association – this is something that is certainly very popular and received in a very positive way. So it is possible to do that. That's being done. I agree that maybe there are ways to extend this in other areas. Yes, I will support this bill, but my key issue here is still – I want to pick up on the whole issue of affordability and taxes.

If I remember correctly – and I apologize to the Minister of Justice and Public Safety if I've misquoted him, but I think during Estimates, one of the figures that came up was it costs over $130,000 per annum to house an inmate at Her Majesty's Penitentiary. Think about that. That's the amount of money per person per year.

I told you this story before about Brother Jim McSheffrey when he was trying to set up a community centre, I think, down in the east end. One of the things he said: Look, what I can do with $130,000, give me that. You can probably divert people from the correctional facilities. In many ways, I see any form of sport activity along this line. Not only is it about encouraging positive behaviour, positive trends, positive attitudes, it's about maybe, if nothing else, diverting people from one lifestyle into a more positive lifestyle.

I'm not going to belabour it, but I will echo the concerns that my colleagues from Mount Pearl - Southlands and Torngat Mountains raised about the whole notion of affordability as to who the program is going to target. If you can already afford to do that, you're probably going to do it anyway. It is nice to get a tax credit, no doubt about it, but those with the income are more likely to lead a healthier lifestyle in many ways to begin with. What I would like to see as we move forward is that we look for ways to extend this so that all families are included, so that they don't have to wait for the tax credit, that it's not dependent and that it's subsidized in some way, shape or form.

You might remember that back over a year ago I gave a Member's statement on the Avalon Minor Hockey Association; they had just purchased Feildian Gardens. One of the things that they were trying to do was to lower the fees across the board so that it would be more inclusive. Anyone who has had anyone in hockey – and I'm not one of them; I'm about as coordinated as a one-legged stool on the ice, it's as simple as that – it can be a very expensive proposition, tied up with fundraising, selling tickets and everything else. I think you make it affordable for as many so that there is no stigma attached to it as to who gets the charity case or who gets the charity equipment and so on and so forth. There are ways of doing this.

The Member for Humber - Bay of Islands referenced the fact of schools. I think there is an element there that there are some possibilities here not only for schools, but for other organizations who are engaged with this, so that they're recording the best, in many cases, situation to determine who could use the support.

It's interesting with the schools. When I was at Holy Heart and any other school, field trips, overnighters and weekend trips for teams were challenging at the best, Mr. Speaker. I do remember at Holy Heart one of the things that we did was the highlanders at Gros Morne yearly expeditions. It was basically a science – it took all the science students and they brought them out to Gros Morne. We stayed at Killdevil Lodge. They got to see the people in the field doing the electrofishing, the research, the tracking and everything else. I, as the English teacher there, was along for the literary and artistic liaison consultant position, simple as that, but it was absolutely fascinating to see some of the research.

One of the reasons it became difficult, like in many cases, is that the price kept going up of just getting students out to the park. It was a fantastic learning experience. The students got to see parts of the province, Mr. Speaker, they would not normally have seen before. It was all around a very good way, a positive way, to enrich the curriculum.

When it comes to making things more affordable, if nothing else even at the school level, because it's the school level – hop on a basketball team or a soccer team, it's easy enough. The school, in this situation, can indeed make it easier on families. If we're going to look at ways of making healthy living activities more affordable, let's look at the schools.

Secondly, the other part of it is – I see that it talks about here, “support recreation, physical activity, athlete and sport development, as well as encourage active healthy lifestyles ….” I'm assuming then, that there is an opportunity here for anything in terms of whether it's team sport or other. Now, I never had a particularly skillful set of abilities in teams sport, but I did love cycling, skiing and so on and so forth.

I know that when I was in high school it was very much focused on team sports. By the time I was teaching, of course, we had programs such as Healthy Living that looked at everything from outdoor activities, to camping – not necessarily track and field, but all of those things. Because many people were not always going to carry on in team sports, whether it's hockey, soccer or baseball, but you still wanted them to be engaged in healthy activities and a healthy lifestyle.

I would hope, then, if it's not there already that this is not just simply a tax credit for being a part of a soccer club, a swim team, a swim club or anything like that. That if a person decides, do you know what? I'm getting into cycling this year, that there's a tax credit to put towards that if it comes down to it. But, again, going back to the families who are probably looking to purchase that, that there's an opportunity that they have those opportunities at hand as well.

Really, Mr. Speaker, and I'll clue up there in a half minute or so, this is my issue with regard to the tax on sugar-sweetened drinks. No problem with it as long as what it's going to be redirected towards. Maybe if we're thinking about applying a tax like that to other foods that are sugar sweetened or are high in calories and low in nutrients, that maybe we start looking at: Well, how do we take that money and reinvest it into families that may not be able to take advantage of the tax credit so that they have those opportunities as well?

Again, to me, paying taxes in many ways is the price I pay for the privilege of living in this society, in this country, in this province and in this city.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

P. TRIMPER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I'm not going to take the entire 20 minutes, but I did want to weigh in with a couple of thoughts in relation to and following up on the other speakers to this important move, important bill.

First of all, I compliment the government on this. I think that the last 15 months of this pandemic has really stalled a lot of movement. I'm thinking it's going to do much like the home renovation initiative did, which was really stimulate that situation, the economy. I think this one will actually get us off those couches and off those chairs and get us out there moving again, and I look forward to it.

There are challenges of course and, as some have said, some that can't afford it but we're going to do it anyway. I do hope that as many folks as possible, especially those who potentially couldn't afford to avail, now can see their way forward in finding it.

What I wanted to do was just provide a little bit of levity in a couple of stories. I'm sure there are a few golfers in the room and I just wanted to – I could not pass up an opportunity, the Amaruk Golf and Sports Club is celebrating its 50th year in operation this summer. It's quite a club, the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair was with me just recently and I have had others of you who have been in the area, I have managed to drag you over to show you. It is a real showpiece for what can happen in the guise of a pandemic, because the club was really in bad shape. The clubhouse itself was about to be condemned and we all took it upon ourselves, under the leadership of a gentleman of the name of Rodney Roberts –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I can't hear the speaker.

P. TRIMPER: – to go at that building. We have a beautiful newly renovated clubhouse and we have doubled our membership and so on. But a little story for some of you who know golf history and Goose Bay's role, of course, in transatlantic traffic.

The club was started by a guy by the name of Ernie Funston in 1971. He was frustrated because the 13,000 to14,000 Americans who were at the base at the time wouldn't allow the civilians to play golf. So Ernie grabbed his buddies together and they went over to the MOT area and they started hacking out a golf course. That was in 1971, they had three holes made by that time, and over the years they have developed what has become a very nice facility.

Through the mid-70s, gentlemen such as Jack Nicklaus – Mr. Nicklaus in particular – used to stop into Goose Bay, refuel, on his way to the Open – the British Open – or other tournaments overseas and some of the members found out that Mr. Nicklaus was going through the airport so they thought, here is an opportunity to meet a pretty interesting guy. So they sent him – on behalf of the Amaruk Golf and Sports Club – an honorary membership so that the next time when Jack was in town getting his plane fuelled up he wouldn't feel inhibited to come over and we'd give him a free round at the golf club.

So they sent him this membership saying: Jack, just to let you know, you are an honorary member, you are welcome anytime. He wrote back, and we have the letter in the clubhouse, and he says: Gentlemen, great to know that I have fans up there in Labrador. I consider myself a very proud club member of the Amaruk Golf and Sports Club. So we all thought that was pretty cool.

A year or so later, it was 1978 actually, Jack won the Open again for the third time. So the executive got together and they sent Mr. Nicklaus another letter and it said something like: Dear Jack, congratulations on your win. Good to see a local club member doing something with himself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. TRIMPER: We never heard back on that letter.

Anyway, I had to tell the story. It's a great little facility. On Monday, by the way, we are celebrating National Indigenous Peoples Day with a special golf tournament. It's been embraced by everybody across Labrador. Even though we have 300,000 square kilometres and we pursue all matters – everything from dog sledding, snowmobiling, fishing, hunting, hiking, camping, canoeing – there's a variety. A lot of people are taking up what's relatively new for the culture of Labrador, and that is this game of golf.

I also just want to mention a few other sports and very important sports organizations. I can tell you one that I'm missing a lot, and I think most of us who are very blessed to have a Special Olympics team in your district, and that's the Howling Huskies based in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. I can tell you there are a lot of great people that I miss dearly. We are talking by social media, but for a lot of reasons – as we all know – we've not been able to have those together meets with them. I'm looking forward to seeing those amazing athletes out there joining us.

We've just decided to postpone the Labrador Winter Games. It's every three years. What a way to showcase all those winter sports in Labrador – and I've been a big part of it. But we have to put it off until we get a bit more certainty into our life.

A few other key things that are going on. Hockey is king in Labrador, and I'm very glad to see and congratulate Mr. Arnold Kelly on just being appointed in his senior role now at the provincial level for minor hockey. He's a friend and a neighbour in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. I'm glad to see Arnold make it to this level.

D. BRAZIL: He's a CBSer.

P. TRIMPER: Is he? And a Goose Bay boy we think of him as well. So it's good to see those people fitting in all across the province.

One that I started years ago with some other colleagues is the Great Labrador Canoe Race. We're probably going to have to postpone that again this year. But this captures on the role the canoe has played in the development and exploration – and even before Europeans came along – of Labrador. So that great race is usually the first weekend or so in August. We have to put that off.

Many other things are going ahead. Probably the greatest thing that I've been able to play a role in, and many other people in this Legislature, that is in our new YMCA. It's about a $31 million building. It's about to be opened for the public. I've been inside and seen it. I had a tour there with a previous premier, I guess that would've been – yeah, it was last year. We went in with some of the members of the swim team. We have a pool in Goose Bay that's now basically condemned; it's not even in operation. But for the last several years, swimmers at that Melville Mantas swim team have had to swim and then watch for titles falling out of the ceiling.

When I watched them walk into that building last July, August and watched the tears on the faces of some of the coaches and the athletes, it's great to be able to see and be a part of delivering the quality facilities.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, will also do that. I think we'll learn a lot from it and I'm hoping we can all find a way to support future initiatives to get this entire province active.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Seeing no other speakers if the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board speaks now, she will close debate.

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

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

Thank you for a very interesting afternoon of debating and discussing this particular bill. I appreciate everyone's enthusiasm, especially for the Physical Activity Tax Credit. We didn't really focus on the Dividend Tax Credit, but that is perfunctory and follows in line with the personal income tax changes we recently voted on.

I will say, Mr. Speaker, I was particularly appreciative of all of the different concepts and ideas for future development of the program and how we can actually make this even bigger and broader as we move forward. I think many people said this is a good start, but there are other things to be done.

Allow me to just mention a couple of things and I want to make sure I try and address a few of the comments. A number of people of talked about – and I particularly remember the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands mentioned about helping schools and helping to fund equipment in schools. There is a Community Healthy Living Fund that helps to support programs within schools. So I mention it to Members of the House because I think it's an important program and there may be opportunities under the Community Healthy Living program. There's also $6.3 million in the budget for recreation, athletic and sport development and I think that's another particular fund.

Many people talked about food insecurity and supports for low income. I will say you'll note in the budget a million dollars for the School Lunch program and also that we will be updating the Poverty Reduction program and doing more in that area. The Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development has been listening attentively all day as well.

I will also say to Members that there are a couple of important points I wanted to make around this issue. One is that this is a refundable tax credit, not a non-refundable. Let me try and make this a little bit easier to understand. A refundable tax credit is actually there is cash in hand here. So it can provide some financial assistance coming out of your tax return; whereas a non-refundable tax credit only reduces your tax payable to zero. This is a refundable versus a non-refundable, just for those who might be considering making sure they get some dollar value in the rebate back. I think it's important and I'm glad the Children, Seniors and Social Development Minister is here to hear some of the concerns around lower income and how we have to maybe adapt and adjust as we move forward on this program.

I also wanted to note a couple of people did speak about making sure this is a broad program and making sure that we capture as much as possible people all around the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I will remind Members that this is also captured online. If you are in a remote part of the province and perhaps there is no particular program that may be available, you can do an online yoga or jiu-jitsu. I happen to do boot camp online, so I know that that's available and that's eligible as you receive a tax credit.

I will also say that in some places and I think the Member for Torngat Mountains talked about how in her community people get together for volleyball. If they do rent the school gymnasium that as long as they have a receipt for the school gymnasium, that's eligible. You could have people coming together and playing volleyball. If they have a receipt from the gymnasium, the rental of the gymnasium, that's also eligible.

We're tried to make it as broad and responsive as possible, because I think this is an important message to the people of the province that we're encouraging physical activity. Part of the direction of this government is to improve our health and our health outcomes and healthy living. We want to be one of the healthiest provinces in the country by the time 2030 comes around and this is one of the ways.

We'll continue in this vein because I, like everyone, like many, many in this room have been focused on sports my entire life. Everything from rowing to basketball to volleyball to field hockey, you name it, and know the benefits of being part of team sports, know the benefits of being physically fit and physically active. I think it's essential for a good, long life.

So on that note, Mr. Speaker, I'll conclude debate, thank everyone for their interventions and their discussions and look forward to answering any questions as we move forward.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

The motion is that Bill 15 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.'

Carried.

CLERK (Barnes): A bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2. (Bill 15)

SPEAKER: The 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 No. 2,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole presently, by leave. (Bill 15)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole and consider Bill 15.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I should now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider 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.'

Carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Warr): Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2.

A bill, “An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2.” (Bill 15)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: 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 and 3.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 and 3 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 and 3 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 No. 2.

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 Bill 15 without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'