May 30, 2022
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. L No. 58
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
Before
we begin, I would like to welcome some people in the public gallery. First of
all, Mayor Maisie Clark from the beautiful District of Lewisporte - Twillingate,
the mayor of Campbellton.
Welcome
Mayor Clark.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Also, in the public gallery,
I would like to welcome Danielle Morin, vice-president of the Fédération des
francophones de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador; and Gaël Corbineau, executive
director of the Fédération des francophones de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
They will be here for a
Ministerial Statement today.
Also,
I'd like to recognize one of our pages, Leisha Toory. Leisha is helping the
community through Period Priority Project. She collects donations of menstrual
products and delivers them to local charity groups such as the women's shelter,
food banks and Indigenous groups. In just four days, from May 16 to 20, the
Period Priority Project distributed more than 400 menstrual products to the
various groups.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
SPEAKER:
Today we will hear statements
by the hon. Members for the Districts of Exploits, Placentia - St. Mary's,
Humber - Bay of Islands, Baie Verte - Green Bay and Ferryland.
The hon.
the Member for Exploits.
P. FORSEY:
Thank you, Speaker.
On May
26, 2022, I had the opportunity to attend a volunteer barbeque in the Town of
Point Leamington in the beautiful District of Exploits.
The Town
of Point Leamington held its barbeque to show appreciation to its local
volunteers and volunteer associations. Some of the volunteer organizations that
were honoured at this includes: the town council, fire department, recreation
and heritage committee, amongst many others that serve the Point Leamington
area. These volunteers are an amazing asset to this community and all throughout
the Exploits District, and indeed our province.
Speaker,
I would like for all Members of this House of Assembly to join me in thanking
all the volunteers in the Town of Point Leamington, and all of the volunteers
throughout the District of Exploits, and Newfoundland and Labrador for their
hard work, dedication and contributions to our society.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia - St. Mary's.
S. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Speaker, in 1779, the Battery
was erected in St. Mary's to protect the coastal areas and the prominent fishing
grounds from privateers. The Battery remained active until 1815 through the
Napoleonic Wars and the War of 1812.
The
Battery volunteer restoration committee has worked hard to restore the site, an
important regional artifact. They have created a park, which attracts visitors
to St. Mary's as they travel around the Irish Loop on the Southern Shore.
The park
has cannons and various benches to enjoy the waterfront view. There are picnic
tables, if you wish to bring a snack and lots of interpretative panels to learn
more about the history of the area.
There is
a copy of the HMS Proteus, where you
can get your photo taken and a number of directional arrows of local communities
and those far away. The playground is dedicated to Sister Elizabeth Bonia. The
park is also a starting point if you wish to hike the coastal trail to the Gulch
Beach and Gaskiers-Point La Haye.
Join us
on Saturday, August 6, as the Gulch Beach committee along with the St. Mary's
Car Club hosts the annual Gulch Beach Festival, followed by a week long of Come
Home Year festivities.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
I rise today to recognize the
Templeton Tigers boy hockey team who won the double A provincial boys ball
hockey tournament held this past weekend at Templeton Academy in Meadows.
Coached
by Barry Park and Fabian Lovell, the Templeton boys won in the final
championship round against King's Academy from Harbour Breton, nine to five.
Seven teams participated in the tournament including Fogo Island Central High,
Canon Richards Memorial from Flower's Cove, J. M. Olds from Twillingate and St.
Michael's Regional High from Bell Island and Labrador Straits Academy from
L'Anse au Loup. All teams displayed great sportsmanship and team spirit, but the
Labrador Straits Academy received the team sportsman banner.
Templeton Tiger players included Kalan Murrin; Evan Janes; Joshua Hann; Marcus
Wells; Carter Burton; Curtis Murrin; Wade Mullins; David George; Reggie (RJ)
Ruth; Nick Greening; Jordan Blanchard; Ben Brake, who received the sportsman
award; and Ethan Janes who received the most valuable player award
I
ask all Members to join with me in extending congratulations to the Templeton
Tigers on their gold medal win and to all the teams for a great tournament and
the great group of volunteers, coaches, referees and parents who made this such
a successful event for the seven teams and all high school students.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay.
B. WARR:
Speaker, I rise to acknowledge a constituent of
Jackson's Cove, a published photographer,
Within Wild Shores: A Photographers Ode to Newfoundland by Mr. David J.
Tilley.
As
portrayed in the Ode to Newfoundland,
photographer David Tilley, captures our smiling, frozen wind-swept land; from
sunrays to sunsets; from wild waves to pine-clad hills; from shortened day to
starlit night; the colours of each season to the captivating sunset following a
gorgeous summer's day; the lobster pots anticipating a great harvest to the
stare of a bull moose showcasing his antlers.
Mr.
Tilley clearly has a unique gift to capture the beauty of our glorious province,
from a spider's web to the rain droplets on a maple leaf. His publication
includes all aspects of our province, including weather-beaten wharfs and
seafaring fishing vessels, the internationally known tablelands, to our
province's uniquely named communities, including Nickey's Nose
I
ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Dave Tilley for his remarkable
undertaking and breathtaking photography of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Speaker.
I
rise today to recognize and congratulate a wonderful group of volunteers from
the Town of Ferryland and surrounding area.
On
Sunday, March 27, I was glad to attend a fundraiser in aid of relief for Ukraine
at the Legion in Ferryland. A great show of kindness from all involved that gave
so freely of their time by donating baked goods and homemade crafts and as well
those who donated gift certificates and cash. Along with people who donated
items, there was a great show of support from some very talented musicians that
performed.
Last but
not least, a big thank you to the Legion in Ferryland for providing the venue.
The event raised over $2,000 that was given to the Red Cross to help with the
devastation that is happening in Ukraine.
Speaker,
I ask all Members of this House to join me in congratulating the Ukraine Relief
Organizing Committee in Ferryland on a job well done.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for Francophone Affairs.
S. STOODLEY:
Speaker, I'm pleased to
recognize today as Provincial Francophonie Day. The Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador has celebrated this occasion since 1999. This morning I was pleased
to participate in a flag-raising event organized by the Francophone Federation
of Newfoundland and Labrador. I was honoured to join students from école
Rocher-du-Nord and members of the community. Similar events are taking place
elsewhere today in places like Port au Port and Labrador.
Je
travaille de près avec la Fédération des francophones afin de déterminer les
meilleures façons pour le gouvernement de répondre aux besoins de notre
communauté francophone.
Also,
the Office of French Services provided critical public health information in
French throughout the pandemic.
Monsieur
le Président, la semaine dernière je suis allée avec le ministre de l'Éducation
ainsi qu'avec des membres de la communauté francophone visiter les nouveaux
locaux de l'École Rocher-du-Nord. Nous voulons les aider à faire de ce lieu une
nouvelle plaque tournante de la communauté.
Today I
ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the francophone and Acadian
community of Newfoundland and Labrador on this Provincial Francophonie Day.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Speaker, I want to thank the
minister for an advance copy of her statement. On behalf of the Official
Opposition I join in recognizing Provincial Francophonie Day. I was honoured to
attend the celebration earlier this morning and thank those who helped organize
the event.
I also
wish to recognize community leaders in my district for planning today's
celebrations in Port au Port. Stephenville - Port au Port has a proud
francophone history and culture. I am equally proud to represent an area of the
province where the first language of many residents is French. These residents
have taught me so much about supporting their culture and language as a way to
help encourage strong and diverse communities.
I
encourage all residents of the province and visitors alike to come visit the
Port au Port Peninsula and celebrate the French festivals that will happen this
summer in Stephenville - Port au Port. You will not be disappointed.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Merci, président.
Je
remercie la ministre de m'avoir fourni une copie de sa declaration. La
communauté francophone est un élément vital de cette province. Des cultures
différentes nous rendent plus forts en tant que société.
My
French language skills are not perfect, but I continue to try and learn. So I
call upon government to ensure that immersion resources are available for
French, but also for our province's Indigenous languages so that everyone has an
opportunity to learn and grow in this province.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Are there any further
statements by ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
In the
Liberal five-point plan, and again in the budget, the Minister of Finance said
she was doing all she could afford to do.
Why did
it take the Premier almost three months to recognize his Finance Minister was
actually not doing as much as she could to help the suffering people of
Newfoundland and Labrador?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Of
course the Minister of Finance was doing as much as she could, with $142 million
within the budget. As I said, and as we have said, we are always responsive to
the situation, the dynamics of the world economy and the Canadian economy and
then, frankly, how it impacts Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Part of
this job is being dynamic; part of it is being responsive. We're listening;
we're trying to absorb the financial realities of our province in the face of
global turmoil and then adjusting the ship accordingly. Mr. Speaker, and I think
the Minister of Finance has done a remarkable job in doing so.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
people of Newfoundland and Labrador have been suffering for the last three
months again, with not knowing exactly how they were going to deal with the cost
of living.
Will the
Premier admit the only reason he directed additional measures on Thursday was
because the intense public backlash over the Liberals' failure to act was
becoming a political liability?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As we've
said many times, we need to be flexible; we need to be dynamic. This is a
changing situation, as we've seen, throughout the world. Coming out of a
pandemic, who could have predicted that? Who could have predicted a war in
Ukraine, Mr. Speaker? We need to be responsive, we need to dynamic and those are
real forces at play in the world economy that trickle down to the forces in
Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.
We are
responsive, we have listened and we continue to listen, and that subsequently
added extra measures as you saw last week, Mr. Speaker. And I think the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador understand that, and they appreciate it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, why did the
Premier not act for nearly three months, while the Finance Minister allowed the
people of the province to do without, knowing she had an extra $80 million to
work with?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
I
appreciate the question. I will say to the Member opposite, Newfoundland and
Labrador has done more to help the people of the province on the cost of living
than any other province in this country, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
S. COADY:
I will say to the Member
opposite that we have gone above and beyond this; we have done everything that
we can do –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
S. COADY:
I hear the chirping across
the way again, Speaker, interrupting –
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
S. COADY:
– the response, but I'll
endeavour on. These are extraordinary times. We did provide $142 million of
support within the budget. As we've seen, the price of fuel continuing to rise,
we acted to help the people of the province and that's why we introduced two new
measures last week, including the lowering of the gas tax and a supplement in
the fall for the home heat.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, I guarantee you
the hundreds of thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are suffering
are saying you didn't do enough.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL:
We don't really care too much
about other provinces at this point when it comes to suffering Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians.
The
Liberal five-point plan: strike one. The Liberal budget: strike two. With the
minister now up at bat for a third time, does the Premier believe that finally
this time she has done as much as she can to help the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador? Or is it strike three and you're out?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'll
address that question: $222 million we've returned to the people of the
province. That is over $4 million a week that we're returning to the people of
the province. And we're holding on to our financial measures, that we know we
have to put in place because, of course, we're borrowing $351 million this year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
S. COADY:
I'll say to the Member
opposite, we've hit it out of the ballpark and we're going to continue to work
hard on behalf of the people of the province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
I will
have to note, there is nobody in the ballpark watching you hit it out because
they can't afford to be there right now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL:
When the new sugar tax kicks
in this year, on top of the higher carbon tax, the gas tax relief suddenly ends
at Christmas –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
D. BRAZIL:
– and the one-time heat
rebate is gone, will the Premier continue to tell suffering families his Finance
Minister has hit a home run?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you, Speaker.
I have
to say, the Member opposite is –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
The Member opposite keeps
making analogies to baseball. I'll say this, Speaker, we're working hard on
behalf of the people of the province. I think the people of the province
understand that we are borrowing this money, $351 million this year, and we're
still going to provide support.
That is
because, on this side of the House, we are strong financial managers, Speaker.
We have lowered the deficit; we are going to continue to lower the deficit. We
are going to continue to provide support for the people of the province. Unlike
the Members opposite who gave us things like a record deficit of $2.2 billion,
as well as Muskrat Falls.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Speaker, it does nothing for
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to hear the Minister of Finance stand up
and talk about Muskrat Falls. They're talking about what are you going to do for
them today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
T. WAKEHAM:
In relation to the
announcement –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
If you
want to waste Question Period arguing back and forth, we can.
The hon.
the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
So, Speaker, I will ask the
Minister of Finance: The announcement made last week, is the home heating rebate
non-taxable, and when will the people be able to apply and receive their
cheques?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Finally, a reasonable and
responsible question on behalf of the people of the province.
I will
say to the Member opposite, we –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
S. COADY:
– have to discuss with the
Revenue Agency of Canada. Speaker, they will give the final ruling. But we
understand the $500 that we'll be providing to families, who earn a family
income of under $100,000, will not be taxable. That's what we understand; it
will not be taxable.
In the
coming weeks, we will set up a portal as well as a telephone line to allow
people to apply. The cheques that will be provided will be provided likely the
end of September, early October of this fall.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Speaker, we're glad that the government and the minister have finally realized
that the people need a home heating rebate. But I ask, again: Why do we have to
wait until October? They really need that money back in their pockets now.
So again
I ask: What does it take so long to process this and can people start applying?
How quickly can we make this happen?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you, Speaker.
I will
remind the Member opposite, as I've reminded him in this House, the home heat
rebate is rolled into the Income Supplement and the Seniors' Benefit. We are
giving a one-time supplementary payment for those that heat their homes with
oil. It will be provided in September.
This is
not the time of the year when oil heat is utilized greatly. We are going to wait
until September when we know people will be filling their tanks, getting ready
for the fall. It does take a number of weeks, of course, to get the information
that we need from the Canada Revenue Agency, as this is income tested.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Speaker, I appreciate the
response from the minister again, but I would suggest that the pocketbooks and
the chequebooks and the bank accounts of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador
have already been emptied by the high cost that they've already paid for fuel
over the past heating season. So let's not talk about next heating season. Let's
reimburse them for what they've already spent so far to date.
Speaker,
the gas tax relief is scheduled to end on New Year's Day. The House will be
closed, but gas prices might still be up.
So I ask
the minister: Will you remove the automatic sunset clause on this tax relief so
the relief stays in place as long as it's needed?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
First of all, Speaker, we
have provided relief for the people of the province. We increased the Income
Supplement by 10 per cent. We increased the Seniors' Benefit by 10 per cent.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
S. COADY:
We provided a special payment
this spring to those that are on income support. We provided them up to $400 for
their family. So we have been providing supports.
We also
reduced, by 50 per cent, the cost of registering your vehicles and we also
removed the retail sales tax on your home insurance. Speaker, so we have already
been providing support. This is additional support.
There is
a sunset clause, January 1, 2023; this is an important measure that we have to
put in place. We'll review this in the fall.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Speaker, of everything that
the minister just said, the one thing she failed to say was that the Premier and
the minister both acknowledge that what they had done in the budget was not
enough. If it wasn't for this side of the House arguing for those additional
measures, we'd never have them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
T. WAKEHAM:
So I go back and ask the
minister again: Inflation has no sunset clause so we need to know will you
eliminate that particular date and keep it until the people need it, as long as
prices stay up?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
These are extraordinary
measures and extraordinary times. This government has worked very, very hard on
behalf of the people. We've provided $142 million and the price of inflation
continues to rise. We're concerned about that. This is happening all across
Canada; it's happening all around the world. We've responded to what we heard.
We responded to the increasing costs and we'll continue to respond.
That's
$222 million, Speaker, that we have been able to provide back to the people of
the province. We're working very hard to make sure that we recognize and respond
to people's requirements, because of the high cost of living. We'll continue to
do so.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Last
week, the province learned of the tragic story of Ashley Molloy, a vibrant young
mother of two living in Harbour Breton.
Speaker,
I spoke with her mother. She can see the local hospital from their front step,
but, tragically, the emergency room was closed. If this emergency room wasn't
closed due to the failure of this government, Ashely might be tucking her kids
to bed tonight.
I ask
the Premier: What does he say to this family?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
These
situations are very difficult and I extend our condolences to the family. I
cannot, beyond that, speak to the specifics of any individual case.
We, like
every other jurisdiction in Canada, have been faced with staffing and
recruitment challenges. We have announced in October, a $30-million package to
deal with that. We have an assistant deputy minister responsible for health
professional recruitment starting imminently. We have, in the meantime,
instituted a whole raft of measures included in the budget and outside the
budget to support primary care and virtual ER.
For the benefit of the Member opposite, for the
information of this House, this weekend there were six rural emergencies
departments closed in BC. We are not alone and we are better than managing with
the others.
SPEAKER:
The minister's time has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Maybe the minister is better sent out in BC.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P. DINN:
The one thing I'll agree: It is a difficult situation
but very preventable. Five hours – five hours, Premier. This is important. This
is very important.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Get
to your question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
It's shocking.
P. DINN: It took five hours for Ashley to be transported to
Grand Falls-Windsor. This young mother was failed by our health care system. The
long-term mental health supports were not there. The emergency room was shut
down when she tragically needed it.
I
ask the Premier: Will he take responsibility for the failures of his government
in health care and apologize?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
Again, it is a very tragic situation when things like this happen. The mental
health system in this province has undergone a significant transformation.
Services are accessible via a whole variety of means including telephone, face
to face, no appointments are required and you can even self refer to the FACT
teams – the Flexible Assertive Community Treatment teams.
These are difficult situations. I cannot and will not, in this House, respond to
the specifics of any case. Myself and predecessors from all sides of the House
have adopted that view and that policy in the interest of privacy and respect
for families.
There are improvements in the health care system. This is an unfortunate
situation and we are certainly looking to learn from it. My sympathies go to the
family.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
We
hear every day the shortcomings of the systems that are put in place. Speaker,
Dr. Wendy House, a general internist in Central has responded to this case.
Without physicians in place, like Harbour Breton, she says – and I quote – this
is probably going to be the norm.
I
ask the Premier: Will health care system failures like the Molloy family, that
they have tragically faced, continue to be the norm under his government?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
I
did see the interview with Dr. House on the media last week. It is difficult
when you have professionals who are tired and frustrated and burnt out, airing
their views in public. We need to hear them and we certainly worked very closely
with the NLMA on these issues in the past.
That is
why, having recognized that, we have brought in an ADM for recruitment and
retention. We have a work in progress with the NLMA to analyze those factors
that would make working in rural centres attractive and sustainable. The Health
Accord will provide us with further support to do that, and I look forward to
the blueprint report which I expect hopefully in the next week or so.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Speaker, today we celebrate
and recognize Provincial Francophonie Day. Ironically, my office has heard from
a number of parents who have registered for French immersion in September at
Holy Trinity Elementary in Torbay, but they are getting a runaround.
Thirty-eight families have registered for French immersion, but the school
district has capped the class size to 27 – 27 in Kindergarten.
Speaker:
Why are the 11 other students being denied access to a French immersion
education?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education.
T. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
aware of the situation in the Member's district and the number of people that
are enrolled. The operations for these issues are generally handled by the
NLESD; however, myself and my staff have been looking at this issue, the
executive within the Department of Education. We've been looking at the issue,
Mr. Speaker. It's still under review.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Speaker, looking at the issue
and under review is not the answer that's being given to the parents. This
decision will only force the 11 wait-listed students into the English stream,
expanding the class sizes there.
If this
government is really serious about promoting French immersion education in our
province, why not split the full registration of 38 families into two classes of
19, a much more reasonable number than one class of 27?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education.
T. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do
recognize the points being raised by the Member opposite. Again, the issue as it
stands at the moment, the NLESD are looking at enrolment numbers, Mr. Speaker.
In French, the class cap is higher than it is under the general English stream,
but I do recognize the point that the Member is saying and I do believe that it
is important for students in our province to have an opportunity for French.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
L. PARROTT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd
remind the minister that it's important for the students to have equal
opportunities right across the province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
L. PARROTT:
With the pending announcement
on the resumption of work at West White Rose, much of which is being done in
other countries, will the minister commit to ensuring that all work that can be
done on the Bay du Nord Project will be right here by Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Industry, Energy and Technology.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
happy to answer this question and speak to the successes that we've been having
as it relates to the oil industry as of late. When it comes to Bay du Nord, what
I can say is that there was a framework agreement in place in 2018. And I can
point out that this government has always gone out of its way to ensure that we
get as much work here as possible.
As we
move forward into the Bay du Nord negotiations, we'll continue to do that. I
think everybody on all sides of the House – well, most people on all sides of
the House want to see as much done on the oil sector here. So that is a
commitment that we'll make and we'll try our best to ensure that we have as many
person-hours here and as much of the work done here.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
L. PARROTT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have
seen the giveaways before and now is the time that we have to stop them. Bay du
Nord could be as much as five times bigger than we originally thought and the
commitment for 5,000 metric tons of work just isn't enough.
When
this agreement is reopened, what assurances can you give industry and workers
that this province will be the primary beneficiaries from not only operations
but also construction?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Industry, Energy and Technology.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can't
speak to agreements that were sanctioned before our time or certainly before my
time. I can only speak to what has been done since I have been in this chair.
I'd like to think that we have gone out of our way to show support for the
industry, but at the same time realizing that the resources belong to the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador.
So the
best I can say is that the assurance that I give is that at the end of the day,
I live here in this province. I have neighbours and friends, the same as we all
do, that work on these projects and we want to see as many of them gainfully
employed on this as possible. At the same time, dealing with the circumstances
we face when we look at these global companies and operators, there is always
going to be that pressure but we all want to see as many people working here as
possible.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
Thank you, Speaker.
The Fish
Processing Licensing Board, a group with a combined over 200 years of experience
in fisheries matters – 200 years – spent over a year meeting with DFO scientists
and industry representatives before they made their recommendation to the
minister on the addition of licences.
In
overruling the board, what research was his decision based on?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.
D. BRAGG:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
I take
the duties of the board very seriously as they take their duties very seriously.
They took some time to deliberate; they give me six recommendations about a
month ago. I took some time to think that over and talk it through with my staff
and we came upon a decision where four of the six recommendations were accepted
immediately and a decision on the other two were not in favour of the board but
it is definitely in the favour of this province and I stand behind that
decision, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
Mr. Speaker, the board had
done over one year of research. I'm not sure what research was done in the short
time the minister is referring to for him to be informed on his decision.
The
minister writes in his decision that DFO states: The outlook on the snow crab
fishery is only projected to remain positive in most areas up to two to four
years.. The board writes in their decision: Overall, the outlook on the snow
crab fishery is positive in most areas during the next four years and beyond.
Did the
minister consult with DFO and is the board mistaken?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.
D. BRAGG:
Great question, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I
wish I had that report at my fingertips. It's on my desk; I would gladly share
that with the Member opposite, in which the DFO actually said the next two to
four years, but with year one being done now puts us down one to three years.
So I
would gladly share that report with the Member opposite and he can see who was
actually clear in their deliberations and who is clear in the information. It
didn't take me a year to read it, Mr. Speaker. It took me a couple of days to
read that and that is the actual report.
Again, I
thank the board for what they did. The Member opposite was a little misleading
when he said they were a year deliberating; they were not. They were two days in
the process of a decision – two days – in April.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
I think the minister reads
his report and revisits; he'll find that it's clearly stated in the board report
that over one year they were analyzing the situation. But he'll revisit that in
the report.
The
minister states in his decision that more crab licences in 3L, Bay Roberts and
O'Donnells, will likely take workers or crab away from what is already there,
and you did not want to set somebody up for failure – quote.
The
board states that the total allowable catch has increased by 46 million in the
past two years and felt that based on economic considerations for the company,
it would be approved. They were seeking an allocation of 15 per cent of the
increase.
Is the
board wrong?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.
D. BRAGG:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
I would
like to ask the Member opposite what the members in his district told him of
their concerns of losing employment in their current fish plants. Just reach out
and see what they told him.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
D. BRAGG:
There's quite a bit of
chirping going on there, Mr. Speaker, so I must be hitting a nerve.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I heard
the question; I want to hear the response.
The hon.
the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.
D. BRAGG:
Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the hon. Member to take his seat. It's not my place to do that, but since you
asked me for the response, I'd see him standing.
I was
answering the question that I know struck a nerve on the other side there, Mr.
Speaker. That's very unfortunate they weren't ready for the answer, but the
answer is quite obvious. I ask the Member, who is about to ask another question,
just get up and stand on his feet and tell me how his members in the Bonavista
fish plant felt and what he told those people at a protest of how he felt about
more fish plants.
SPEAKER:
The minister's time has
expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
I want to inform the minister
that I never had another question but I want to answer his.
The only
thing being, if the people in the Bonavista plant were worried and they looked
at that as an increase in $46 million in the allocation and it's expected to be
more in the following years. By allocating 15 per cent of it, I think they would
have been okay with that. Fifteen per cent of it, not the total allocation of
$111 million, but 15 per cent of the $46 million increase. That is what the
board decided.
SPEAKER:
The Member's time has
expired.
The hon.
the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.
D. BRAGG:
I thank the Member for
answering my question, Speaker. I thank him very much.
I guess
what the Member is saying is he is supporting 15 per cent of reduction for the
workforce for the plant in his district. I guess that's what he's mentioning,
Mr. Speaker. So they won't be looking for any support from us once people no
longer qualify for their EI income.
Thank
you very much, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
In April
of 2021, the All Hands on Deck report
on post-secondary education was released. The overwhelming feedback from
apprentices to the review committee called for a review of our trades and
apprenticeship system in this province.
Speaker,
it's been over a year since the report. Why hasn't the minister acted on this
recommendation?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.
G. BYRNE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
I'm very
pleased to inform the hon. Member that action is indeed being taken. There is a
review that is underway of the apprenticeship system. We've asked for additional
outside expertise, as well as expertise within the department, and also asking
those with the Apprenticeship and Certification Board to provide input into this
exercise.
Our
apprenticeship system is one of the best in the entire country; we're going to
keep it that way. We're going to do so by constant improvement; ever, ever
improving.
Thank
you very much, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Speaker, we're supposed to be
part of the Atlantic harmonization for trades, but the feedback I constantly
hear from apprentices and educators in this province is that we are behind.
I ask
the minister: Will he listen to the tradespeople of this province and review how
apprentice training, including how block training is carried out in this
province?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.
G. BYRNE:
I can inform the hon. Member,
Speaker, that we are indeed a member of the Atlantic Apprenticeship
Harmonization Project. It's an initiative that went underway to be able to
create seamless capacities within the Atlantic region, to be able to foster
increased strengths. I can say that I am very pleased to report that the
Maritime provinces use our province as their gold standard in many of their
initiatives.
So we'll
keep on doing this, Mr. Speaker, we will indeed improve our education, our block
system. I would like to thank the employers from Lab West who participated in
some very novel, some very innovative training programs to be able to create
block training at home in Labrador West. The hon. Member may not necessarily be
aware of those programs.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
it's positive to see that government is increasing the minimum wage to $15 per
hour, as recommended by the Minimum Wage Review Committee report.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
J. DINN:
Don't get ahead of yourselves
yet.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
J. DINN:
Though 16 months is a long
time for people facing record inflation.
Will
government also adjust the minimum wage by the percentage change in the
provincial CPI plus 1 per cent on April 1, 2024 and April 1 for each year
thereafter until the next review is completed, as also recommended by the
committee?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for Labour.
B. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I
thank the hon. Member for a question.
I agree
with him, it is important to use minimum wage as an opportunity to improve the
lives of those individuals that are most vulnerable in this province, and that's
absolutely what we decided to do as a government last week. It came as a
recommendation from the Minimum Wage Review Committee – a unanimous
recommendation. There are five recommendations; we're working through the
process on the others.
I look
forward to making some announcements with my colleagues on those recommendations
in the coming weeks and months. But we wanted to give employers and employees as
much notice as we possibly can about the changes to minimum wage and include a
stipend for small businesses that are under 20 to help them make this transition
as well.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
J. DINN:
That's fine to hear, but in
many ways people are drowning now. Waiting several years to throw them the life
preserver is not going to help them.
The
authors of the report note that full-time minimum wage earners should receive an
income that exceeds the poverty line and that the CPI recommendation is
necessary to achieve this.
I ask
the minister: Why did he ignore this recommendation which would've stabilized
this and future increases in this province against inflation?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for Labour.
B. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That's
categorically untrue; I never ignored anything. We've said that we're going to
take those recommendations. I've met with the Minimum Wage Review Committee,
which represented employers and employees – two on each side and an independent
chair. We took their recommendations, we moved on the ones we could move
quickest on, which is what we've done. We didn't want to hold them back waiting
to evaluate some of the other recommendations that are there that are very
recommendations as well.
We're
working through that with departments that were involved and we're going to
continue to do that. I look forward to making some announcements in the coming
weeks and months.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
J. DINN:
Considering the fact that the
committee recognized that poverty reduction demands a holistic approach, will
government immediately strike the All-Party Committee on guaranteed basic
income, as called for in our unanimously approved private Member's resolution?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT:
Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to respond, and
excuse my voice.
I
know we have discussed this in the past in terms of the All-Party Committee and
we are waiting for the final report from the Health Accord NL and the blueprint
because in it, it talks about basic income. When we have that final
recommendation, I think we will be in the position, through our Government House
Leader, to talk to yourself and to the Opposition House Leader as to the
formation of that committee.
SPEAKER:
Time for Question Period has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Tabling of Documents
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service
NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Speaker.
As
outlined in section 56(1) of the
Automobile Insurance Act, I would like to table the Board of Commissioner of
Public Utilities 2021-2022 annual automobile insurance report. We have provided
six copies to the Clerk's Office.
Thank you.
SPEAKER:
Further tabling of documents?
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill
entitled, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 6. (Bill 64)
SPEAKER:
Any further notices of motion?
The
hon. the Member for Burin - Grand Bank.
P. PIKE:
Speaker, I give notice of the following private
Member's resolution, which will be seconded by the Member for Windsor Lake.
WHEREAS rates of firearm-related violent crimes are on the rise in Canada; and
WHEREAS according to Statistics Canada 59 per cent of firearm-related violent
crimes in Canada involve the use of handguns; and
WHEREAS the Government of Canada outlined that it would work with the provinces
and territories to ban handguns outright; and
WHEREAS rates of firearm-related violent crime were higher in rural areas than
in urban centres in most provinces and were notably high in the Northern rural
regions;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House declare its support for the
Government of Canada's efforts to reduce violent crime and further restrict
access to handguns.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
In
accordance of Standing Order 63(3) the private Member's motion referred to by
the Member from Burin - Grand Bank will be the private Member's motion to be
debated this Wednesday, June 1, 2022.
SPEAKER:
Are there any further notices of motion?
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I
give notice that on tomorrow I will move in accordance with Standing Order 11(1)
that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 31, 2022.
SPEAKER:
Are there any further notices of motion?
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move the
following motion, that notwithstanding Standing Order 63, this House shall not
proceed with Private Members' Day on Wednesday, June 1, 2022, but shall instead
meet at 2 p.m. on the day for Routine Proceedings and to conduct Government
Business and that, if not adjourned earlier, the Speaker shall adjourn the House
at midnight.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
Speaker,
I give notice that I will on tomorrow move the following notice: That
notwithstanding Standing Order 9, this House shall not adjourn at 5 p.m. on
Wednesday, June 1, 2022, but shall continue to sit to conduct government
business and if not adjourned earlier, the Speaker shall adjourn the House at
midnight.
SPEAKER:
Are there any further notices
of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Thank you, Speaker, I
appreciate that.
The
background of this petition is as follows:
WHEREAS
there are no current major operations happening in Bull Arm – I've been
presenting this petition since 2019. There are people on here from Thornlea,
Bellevue, Sunnyside and Fair Haven. It affects us all in the isthmus area. I
want to put it out where the Bay du Nord Project is going, and probably an
update on the expansion of what's happening for the implementation of getting
the infrastructure ready for Bay du Nord and –
SPEAKER:
You have to read the full
petition into the record.
J. DWYER:
Okay, no problem.
WHEREAS
the site is world-class facility with the potential to rejuvenate the local
economy; and
WHEREAS
residents of the area are troubled with the lack of local employment in today's
economy; and
WHEREAS
the operation of this facility would encourage employment for the area and
create economic spinoffs for the local businesses; and
WHEREAS
the site is an asset of the province, built to benefit the province and a
long-term tenant for this site would attract gainful business opportunities; and
WHEREAS
the continued idling of this site is not in the best interest of the province;
THEREFORE we, the residents of the area near the Bull Arm Fabrication Site,
petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned, call upon
the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to
expedite the process to get the Bull Arm Fabrication Site back in operation. We
request that this process include a vision for a long-term, viable plan that is
beneficial to all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador first;
FURTHERMORE we request that government place an emphasis on all supply,
maintenance, fabrication and offshore workover for existing offshore platforms
as well as new construction of any platforms whether they be GBS or FPSO in
nature.
We have
the assets here, not only the infrastructure in places like Bull Arm and the
Kiewit facility in Marystown, but we want to ask the minister to make sure that
if there's any work that can be done here, it is done here and we get that
guarantee for our people. Right now, we're doing a lot of reports that are
looking at fees, taxes and how to save money, but I think that if we address the
economy and we make sure that we get our people back working, there will be
money in the coffers to take care of all these initiatives.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hera, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Industry, Energy and Technology for a response.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Speaker.
I am
happy to answer this. The Member certainly does bring this issue to the
forefront and it is an important issue. What I can say is that I agree with the
statement that we should not see this as a site that is not in operation. I
guess on the flip side of that is that it is an important provincial asset and
one that we certainly do not want to give away or not see full value for.
I can
give some update as to what has recently gone on there and sort of where we see
this going in the future. Most recently, Bull Arm was utilized for the quayside
campaign when we had the Terra Nova FPSO there. That started last September,
went until December until it was moved. At peak times, there were about 250
people working there on that campaign. DF Barnes currently has a portion of the
site leased; they continue to do some work there, as well as rig upgrade work.
So we're seeing some activity there as it relates to that.
What I
will say is there is a lot of interest as it relates to Bull Arm and the
possibilities of parties working there to advance Bay du Nord; that is a
conversation that is ongoing. Thankfully, we have a number of sites in this
province that are seeing increased activity. So what I would say as it relates
to Bull Arm is that we will continue to do what we can. We know the value of
having increased activity there.
What I
will say is that, overall, it is a much different conversation than it was even
a year ago in that there is more possibilities there, so we'll continue to work
towards those.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
J. DINN:
(Inaudible.)
P. DINN:
(Inaudible.)
J. DINN:
Mr. Speaker, I'd like to on a
point of privilege for unparliamentarily language towards his older brother.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
J. DINN:
Speaker, this is a petition
to keep senior couples together in long-term care. It is a petition that was,
basically, organized by Gavin Will, whose parents have recently gone through
this and he is in the House of Assembly today.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled:
WHEREAS
senior couples should have the right to live together as they age; and
WHEREAS
seniors in Newfoundland and Labrador have worked hard to build this province and
deserve dignity in care; and
WHEREAS
separating couples has a detrimental effect on their health and well-being; and
WHEREAS
the province has a rapidly aging population, which is one of the most important
challenges confronting government;
We, the
undersigned, your petitioners, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to change its current policy of
separating couples due to their differing levels of care in a publicly funded
universal long-term care system, and direct regional health boards to do the
same and pass legislation to this effect.
Speaker,
there are a few things that stand out here. Certainly about separating couples
and having a detrimental effect on their health and well-being. One thing that's
very clear in the Health Accord was the importance of the social determinants of
health: the importance of family, of community, of allowing seniors to age in
place through that continuum of care. And when you look at it, for some couples
at this stage, they've been married 30, 40, 50, 60 years in some cases. So to be
separated at that time is a significant stressor and probably even detrimental
to their physical well-being and certainly their mental health.
We also
recognize that we have a rapidly aging population and that's one of the things
that the Health Accord looks at is that we have to change our model. So in this
case here it's a simple thing. It may be administratively challenging, but
certainly to the couples themselves it's going to be significant in making sure
that they age well, that health care costs are minimized and that in their last
final years that they are able to spend their time with the one they love and
ones that they have committed to and that family are there with support for
them.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
approximately 100,000 people in Newfoundland and Labrador live with mental
illness.
Only
about 40 per cent of people affected by mental illness and addictions seek help.
Seventy
per cent of mental illness is developed during childhood and adolescence, and
most go undiagnosed.
And less
than 20 per cent receive appropriate treatment.
Emergency and short-term care isn't enough and it is essential more long-term
treatment options are made readily available.
Therefore we petition the House of Assembly as follows: To urge the Government
of Newfoundland and Labrador to provide access to long-term mental health care
that ensures continuity of care, beginning with psychiatric and
neuropsychological assessments being more accessible to the public so they can
access proper mental health treatment and supports on a regular and continuous
basis.
Mental
health has become a huge, huge issue in this province and everywhere, really.
It's only the situation I alluded to earlier in Oral Questions around the young
mother, 27 years old, mother of two, young Ashley Molloy who had mental health
challenges throughout her life and committed suicide.
This is
tragic. But these are stories that are so common, individuals who find
themselves in a mental health crisis and are looking for help. I know there are
supports in line, like the 811 call line, but I still get people calling me and
saying that line's not working. They call the line, they get quality assurance
recordings; they get put on elevator music for three to four minutes before a
health care navigator comes online. So we really have to start taking mental
health more seriously here in terms of looking at long-term continuity of care
measures.
This is
not a band-aid solution, when you look at people dealing with mental health.
It's not an easy solution because everybody's situation is different. Protocols
in general are probably just the first phase, but each individual has to be
treated like an individual and the seriousness of mental health in this province
really needs to have more, longer-term continuity care measures in place, as
well as the staffing, the psychologists, the psychiatrists and the like, to help
deal with it.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
Well said, my colleague from
Topsail - Paradise.
These
are the reasons for this petition:
We
acknowledge that as a society we need to curb our intake of sugar but strongly
feel that the provincial government's sugar tax is not the best way of effecting
change. After reviewing the literature and studies in relation to the proposed
tax, realizing that we are the only jurisdiction in Canada to implement and find
merit in its existence, and realizing that taxing a population during an already
significant time of inflation is unacceptable, we strongly disagree with the
implementation of a sugar tax in our province.
We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to spare the residents of the province another tax by
immediately cancelling the implementation of the sugar tax this fall, leaving
over $5 million in the pockets of struggling residents.
In the
couple of minutes I have to speak to it, I just want to cite the winter issue of
The Taxpayer. The editor wrote in an
editorial, the head of his column was: Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Andrew
Furey is coming for your pop. In the article it says that it's the wrong move.
It says
in the article that to add a 20-cent surtax to any litre of sugar-sweetened
beverage sold in the province, one of the biggest problems with these types of
taxes is that they hit the poor families hardest. It's not the editor that we're
going to reference; he references the Quebec National Institute for Public
Health. He quotes: “It is the tax's regressive nature that makes it effective,
most notably amongst the less well-off or, in other words, the poor people
should be thankful that government wants to take them back to health.”
Then he
cites the jurisdictions that did it. Mexico did it and found that it did not
affect the obesity of their population. He references other countries like
Denmark, France and Hungary have tried it. When, in our debate, we mention
Northwest Territories did an extensive study and said: not going there. The only
province or territory with a sugar tax will be Newfoundland and Labrador.
We just
went through a budget process to find that and we both agreed that the people
couldn't afford it. The only thing being, Mr. Speaker, we should debate the
sugar tax. We did it once and I thought that we had a good understanding, but to
know now that we're in extraordinary times and we're going to tax our population
again – unconscionable.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
once again the reason for this petition:
The need
for senior accessible housing and home care services in Labrador West is
steadily increasing. Lifelong residents of the region are facing the possibility
of needing to leave their homes in order to afford and to receive adequate care.
Additional housing options, including assisted living care facilities, like
those found throughout the rest of the province, for seniors has become a
requirement for Labrador West. That requirement is currently not being met.
WHEREAS
the seniors of our province are entitled to peace and comfort in their homes
where they have spent a lifetime contributing to its prosperity and growth; and
WHEREAS
the means are increasing the number of senior residents in Labrador West to
happily age in place are currently not available in the region;
WHEREUPON we the undersigned, your petitioners, call upon the House of Assembly
to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to allow seniors of Labrador
West to age in place by providing affordable options for seniors in assisted
living care facilities.
Once
again, I bring this petition again to the House because once again the people of
Labrador West are asking for the ability to retire and live in comfort in
Labrador West.
It's
interesting because I seen recently a senior couple living in a home that they
could no longer maintain, but they have nowhere else to go. They were
desperately looking for an apartment to downsize because they just can't
physically keep up their home anymore. They do not have the ability; they need
extra help. They can't clear the snow, they can't paint; they can't maintain
their home. They were desperately looking for an apartment because they just
can't do it anymore.
This is
the thing with Labrador West, there's nowhere for seniors to move into; there's
nowhere for them to downsize, there's no ability. They are trying to stay in
their community that they helped build and they just don't have the ability to
do it anymore. We've been asking and asking, and, like I said, we can go back to
the early 2000s, when there was a study done saying this needs to be done in
this community because you're going to get a big slot of seniors.
Even the
study underestimated how many people decided to stay after they retired and
after they aged. So even at that point, we just do not have the ability anymore
for our seniors to live in peace and comfort when they retire. I know the
minister has said he's spoken with the community and stuff like this.
I'll
continue to bring this petition forward because it's something that needs to be
talked about, something that needs to be in the forefront, seniors do need the
ability to be able to age in place, live in comfort and enjoy the communities
that they helped build.
By
sending them off to Corner Brook or Goose Bay or anything like that is just
doing a disservice to those people, because they just want to be surrounded by
their family. Sending them five to 1,000 kilometres away is not doing them
service, it's not showing appreciation for what they've contributed to this
community and this province.
With
that, Speaker, thank you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development for a response.
J. ABBOTT:
Speaker, thank you for the
opportunity to weigh in on this.
I just
want to let the Member know that the prayer of the petition is certainly
resonating with me as Minister Responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing
Corporation. We're working with the community, working with the pioneers,
working with advocates and we see a path forward that will help address the
affordable housing needs of seniors in Labrador West in the very near future.
SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Motion 1.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
Oh,
sorry, the hon. the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Sorry, Tony, wrong one. Just
give me a second.
SPEAKER:
My apologies.
S. CROCKER:
Sorry, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that pursuant to Standing Order
11(1) that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Monday, May 30.
SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion
carried.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that this House resolve itself
into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 60.
SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion
carried.
On motion, that the House resolve itself
into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Warr):
Order, please!
We are
now debating a resolution and Bill 60, An Act To Amend The Revenue
Administration Act.
Resolution
“That it
is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the imposition of taxes on carbon
products.”
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Chair.
It's a
pleasure once again to stand in the House representing the District of
Stephenville - Port au Port and to once again be talking about a tax, which I
think is not appropriate at this time. We will certainly be voting against this
increase in carbon tax. I think that the inflation alone has put enough pressure
on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, with rising prices for gasoline,
that the imposition of carbon tax is no longer needed and, certainly, to turn
around and increase it is simply a slap in the face to people who are struggling
to pay for their gasoline prices right now.
I would
argue that, at the end of the day, this province has probably paid more towards
reducing the footprint of carbon in this country than anywhere else in Canada.
The Members opposite have reminded us on many occasions about the cost of the
electrical project, which, in fact, was a project, not only for the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador but for the country. The federal government provided a
loan guarantee to the project so that it would help the Province of Nova Scotia
reduce their carbon emissions. Yet, it is the taxpayers of Newfoundland and
Labrador who will bare the brunt of the cost of a project to make Canada a more
carbon-neutral country and will go significantly, when the project starts, to
reduce the carbon footprint of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador by, if
not eliminating, then certainly reducing the amount of carbon footprint coming
out of the Holyrood generating station.
So I
would argue that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have contributed their
fair share. In actual fact, more than their fair share in terms of the billions
of dollars that they will pay for the project. In funding that project, the
federal government, despite its assistance in providing rate mitigation, failed
to take an equity stake in a project which was of benefit to the country, not
just the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
They
turn around and talk about the project as part of an Atlantic Loop, yet we
receive no benefit from a carbon reduction point of view for what we have
undertaken as the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, what we will pay for as
the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and a significant, as I said,
reduction in the carbon footprint that will be eliminated when the project comes
on stream.
So,
again, for the federal government to simply – and I don't know if it wasn't
negotiated or talked about but the bottom line is why are we seeing, as a
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador – I would argue, why do we even have to
introduce a carbon tax in Newfoundland and Labrador, considering what we have
already invested in turning this country into a green energy and moving forward.
Secondly, I would argue why are we talking about a tax increase on carbon tax
the very same day that the Minister of Finance brings in notice that we're going
to introduce changes to the finance act to lower the gas tax in the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador? We are standing here in the House getting ready to
approve another tax increase on gasoline. How ironic is that? On the one hand we
giveth and on the other hand we take it away. And that's exactly what we're
doing by supporting a carbon tax increase.
For the
longest time we heard that we could do nothing with our own gas tax because the
federal government would not allow us to do it. We could not do anything with
our own gas tax because the federal government wouldn't allow us to do it.
We seem
to have overcome that hurdle with the announcement that was made last week. I'm
not sure, as has been pointed out in Question Period today and by others, as to
why it took so long to come to that conclusion. Why couldn't we have done this
six months ago? Why couldn't we have done it three months ago? But nobody seems
to have the answer to that. But at the very same time, as we now introduce a
bill to reduce our sales tax, we're going to stand in the House today and talk
about approving an increase to carbon tax. It does not make sense.
I would
go back and also argue that for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and
perhaps others the high cost of inflation, the fact that the price of gasoline
has almost doubled is more than enough deterrent for the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador to try and reduce their consumption of gasoline. Unfortunately,
many people do not have the ability.
We all
know that carbon tax is not suited to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We do not have the infrastructure in place to support significant public
transportation. We have it in the capital city and some of the surrounding
areas, but outside of that we do not have public transportation.
Some
would argue you have taxis and buses. Well, guess what? They also burn fuel and
they increase their prices. And when you're trying to get to and from work on a
daily basis and you commute more than an hour back and forth five days a week,
you simply can't not use your vehicle. That's the reality of what people face in
Newfoundland and Labrador, especially in areas that I represent.
Government has introduced some measures about buses and gave money to different
towns and communities to organize a bus program. The only problem with that is
the bus only runs one day a week. And why does it only run one day a week?
Because there's no money for the operation of it. There's no money for the
drivers. It's very difficult, as the minister would know, and others, to get
volunteers and so the bus relies on volunteer drivers.
That was
a great announcement, I thought it was a great announcement, it was there, but
the fact of the matter is, it's now because we don't have the operating funds to
be able to keep it going on a daily basis; it operates one day a week.
So,
again, there are things that we can look at doing, but I firmly believe, as I
have said, that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador – we should be
fighting Ottawa about carbon tax. We should be standing up and saying no to this
increase. We have done enough. We have done more than our fair share. We have
paid the price. We are going to continue to pay the price.
So
at the end of the day, think about what we are going to give back to the country
of Canada; think about what we are going to give back in terms of what help Nova
Scotia will get when their electricity comes online, how they eliminate their
coal; think about what will happen if Atlantic Loop ever happens and the
potential that this province has. That's why the people in Newfoundland and
Labrador, in my opinion, do not deserve another carbon tax increase.
My
colleague alluded to another tax in his petition called the sugar tax. Again, I
simply argue, how ironic is it, on the day that you announce that you are going
to help the people of Newfoundland and Labrador with a home heat rebate program,
with a reduction in gas prices, we sit here knowing full well that there is
another $5 million to come out of their pockets in the budget for sugar tax.
Surely, given these times, this is not the time for that sugar tax to be
implemented. It is scheduled to come into effect in September. Surely that could
be pushed out. And when it comes to finding that $5 million, I am sure there are
lots of ways we can do that. I would gladly make some suggestions on it when I
stand up again to speak on this particular carbon tax bill.
Thank you so much for your attention and I will take my seat, Chair,
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I
am going to stand and have a few words on this and support the Opposition in not
going with the carbon tax. I tell you, Mr. Chair, and
Hansard will reflect this, if you go
back on my words and I said it numerous times when we said we should reduce the
gas tax. If we never heard 50 times the Members from government saying we can't
because if we reduce the gas tax here the federal government is going to
backstop it. If I never heard that 50 times – whoever wrote your notes you
should fire them. Because I knew the difference. I knew the difference and to
stand here for two to three weeks and tell the people out there who are
suffering that we can't do it because the federal government is going to add on
more carbon tax was just false. It was just
false.
What do
we do? What did the government do? Decreased the provincial sales tax, which
we've been asking for, for the last three or four or five weeks. It's just
false. When you have people struggling, Mr. Chair, and there are people
struggling, trust me. I know the government Members hears it also, I know that.
I know the Liberal government Members hear that, I know for a fact. But to stand
here in this House for week upon week upon week upon week and say we can't do it
because the federal government, what they'll do, they'll just backstop it, is
just false.
You
wonder why people don't believe sometimes what ministers says in this government
and Members say, because someone hands you something, you'll stand up and read
it, and you stand up and read it when there's no validity to it, absolutely no
validity to it.
I said
on numerous occasions – I was a part of that carbon tax – you could do it. You
can do it. One of the ministers – I won't say who – he's shaking his head. You
just did it. It's introduced today. Shaking your head – it's just introduce b'y.
Mr.
Chair, the other part about it, you can reduce the income tax for people. There
are numerous ways to help out people; it was done on numerous occasions. We hear
on a regular basis here is that this is unprecedented times. These are
challenging times. Why don't we step up if these are challenging times?
COVID
was challenging for everybody. A lot people lost their jobs because of COVID.
The war in Ukraine, that is challenging for the whole world, Mr. Chair, so what
do we do? Put our heads in the sand and say we already gave the people $142
million.
Something I have to put on the record: You gave the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador – it is their money. It is their money. So this idea of saying we
already gave back, gave you a certain amount – it's their money. They need help.
They need assistance.
I hear
on numerous occasions they were talking about the youth, the minister talking
about the youth, how we can't put it on our grandkids. I can tell you right now,
I'm dealing with it. There are a lot of youth, a lot of children, a lot of
grandchildren, who are helping out their senior grandparents and parents as we
speak. A lot of them right now are filling up their oil tank. A lot of them
right now are paying for their medication. So this idea, this foolishness of
saying that we can't help anymore because we have to worry about our children
and grandchildren. They are stepping up to the plate right now as we speak.
I can
name the people who went down and filled up their mother and father's oil tank.
I can name the people who paid for their medication. I can name the people who
helped them on their city taxes. I can name people right now who are driving
back and forth because they don't want mom or dad to spend their gas. I can name
them.
What I'm
trying to say to the government, let's not say it's us against you. I said it
and I made the suggestion on numerous occasions, get the Government House Leader
and the Minister of Finance, sit down with the Opposition Finance critic, the
Member for Stephenville - Port au Port, sit down with the Leader of the Third
Party and come up with something you could bring back to the House. That is a
fair solution.
We
always hear about bipartisan; we all have to work together. I made that
suggestion here on numerous occasions. The Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands,
I even said on his behalf that what three of them agree with, we would support.
Because I know it would be hamming out a fair deal.
Guess
what? For three weeks, four weeks since I made that suggestion: we can't do
anything. The federal government will backstop the carbon tax, they will add
more on to it; they will stop the program.
I'm
willing to bet, Mr. Chair, I'm willing to bet my bottom dollar you will not see
the federal government come in now and say, oh, by the way, Newfoundland, you
just reneged on your deal so we're going to impose our own carbon tax. Not going
to happen. Not going to happen. For the last four weeks we've been listening to
that rhetoric.
I'm
suggesting again what the government put in, I think, unless I'm wrong – if I'm
wrong, I'd like for someone just to correct me – what the Premier put in with
the eight cents that they're going to get, people are going to save $100 a year;
eight cents on the gas reduction, I think that was in his press release, $100 a
year and then if people are going to get $500.
Just to
let you know: an average tank these days is what, 400 litres? That's an average
tank and a larger one is 800 litres. Just take this: what it's going to cost to
fill up a senior's tank today will not cover what they just put in. It won't
even cover a tank of oil, won't cover it. And then the people who have to drive
back and forth to work on a regular basis who had to commute a bit further, what
you're going to save is $100 over the year on your gas tax.
These
are unprecedented times. That's what this is. Mr. Chair, when you get a
situation like this, when there's a crisis, we should come together. I'm
confident that if the Minister of Finance sat down with the Opposition critic
and the Leader of the Third Party and they hammered something out, wouldn't it
be nice that next year's budget say, yeah, we have a bit higher deficit or we
never knocked down the deficit as much. But have everybody in this House stand
up and say we support that because we helped people in need.
Wouldn't
that be reassuring to the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?
Wouldn't that be reassuring that the 40 people in this Legislature came together
and worked something out? Because when you banter back and forth – I've been on
both sides, several times actually. I understand, but there are times when the
House of Assembly came together as one. There are many times when that happened.
When you do that people have confidence in the Legislature, they have confidence
in the government and they have confidence in their MHA that we're doing work
for them.
There
are people still suffering. I said to the minister before, you can reduce the
gas tax. Guess what? The gas tax is reduced. When you start hearing excuses why
you can't do other things, that's our role, as Opposition, to question it,
especially when you know the difference; especially when you're a part of the
solution with the carbon tax; especially when there are other ways that you can
help, definitely other ways, that has nothing to do with the gas tax. There's an
income tax that we can help out. There's a subsidy we can help out for
low-income earners. There are ways that we can help out.
So when
you hear the government stand up and say there's nothing else we can do. Don't
take it; take it on face value. Because this is a prime example – and I give the
Opposition and I give the Third Party and I give myself and the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands, we stuck together. We got something. There could be more
done. There could be more done, but we stuck together and said we're getting
something. The government said okay, here's what we can do and this is all we
can do. Do I believe that? No. Because when you look at this debate in the last
month, we've been saying you can't do this, but we could, and we did.
I don't
know what the plans are to push this further, but I can tell you when you have
people filling up their mother and father's tanks, when you have grandkids
helping out their grandparents and you want to stand in this House and say we
have to worry about the grandkids; when they're saying, worry about mom and dad,
worry about grandfather and grandmother right now, because they can't get their
medication.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair. I'm sure I'm going to be back again to have another few words.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair is recognizing the hon. the Member for Exploits.
P. FORSEY:
Thank you, Chair.
It's
always a pleasure to represent the District of Exploits. Over the weekend, I did
have a chat with some of my constituents again with regard to the cost of living
and those sorts of things.
I would
just like to acknowledge one of those constituents; actually she said she would
be watching today, so I would just like to say good afternoon to Doreen Carter.
Thank you for some of the advice she gave me over the weekend. I appreciate
that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P. FORSEY:
So it continues again that
I've been hearing stories with regard to the high cost of living. People just
can't afford it and to introduce a carbon tax right now, it's just unacceptable.
People are not ready; they don't want a carbon tax. There is no way that they
can afford it. I think the government needs to draw back on the carbon tax at
this time. People just don't need it.
I know
my colleague for Stephenville - Port au Port just mentioned it, you're giving
eight cents back and you're going to grab 11 cents on the other side. That's not
what people want. Everybody out in my district is saying that this just doesn't
go far enough with regards to the eight cents tax because they're not gaining.
They're going to have to pay 11 now, so it just doesn't add up.
The high
cost of living certainly is driving up the fuels; it is driving up foods at the
grocery stores. As the fuels go up the meats and groceries, everything goes up
in the grocery stores and people just can't absorb anymore of the tax increases,
especially something like carbon tax.
We have
paid for our carbon tax. I know it has been mentioned here numbers of times that
we have paid for our carbon tax – we've paid it through Muskrat Falls. I know it
is a sore spot for the governing party but it is there. It has been proven that
it's going to be a greener future for our province and that's already been
there. Our province right now will be a leader in green energy; we already know
that. So people just can't understand another carbon tax at this moment.
With
regard to fuels, Mr. Chair, not only is health care out there bad enough now in
the Central region, health care is deplorable, it's causing people right now
tremendous pressure, tremendous stress. Every emergency department in Central
has been closed at one time or another, sometimes all of them at one time, which
is causing long drives for patients, long drives for ambulances, especially from
Harbour Breton up to Grand Falls-Windsor, you're looking at over a two-hour
drive. That's on a good day. Now they're going to put a carbon tax on that.
Don't
get sick in the middle of the night down that way. Don't get sick down in
Leading Tickles or Fortune Harbour and Botwood in the middle of the night down
that way, you fellas got a two-hour drive as well. Not only that, we're going to
put another 11-cent carbon tax on you guys so that you mightn't be able to get
your mother to the hospital, or you mightn't be able to get your son to the
hospital. We're going to give you more taxes so you can't afford the fuels to
get there.
That is
ridiculous. That is outrageous. We should not be imposing this carbon tax on
those individuals right now. We've got people already missing appointments right
here in the city, from the Central area. They're already missing appointments;
they're turning down appointments. They can't afford to come in here. They
really can't. What it's costing them now on a daily run to come in from Central
Newfoundland into the Health Sciences Centre is probably $150 worth of gas, one
way. Now to come in on a day and go back again, that's $300 worth of gas just to
see a specialist, and we're going to throw in a carbon tax.
No,
b'ys, I certainly can't vote for a carbon tax at this moment. Not for what's
happening just in the health care system alone. Because people have to drive,
it's an emergency situation, it's really needed and to force people with the
fuels and the high cost of living to have to come to St. John's, a burden like
that, we don't need to do this. We've got to stop this. Again, like I say, with
regard to the long drives themselves to get to the hospitals from the emergency
units and from long distances, it's just not right.
So this
is just tax after tax and that's all people see. They see tax after tax. They
can't absorb it anymore. They're frustrated. They're at their wit's end. To say
another tax, we're just going through a tax, you're going to take a small amount
off here and give us another tax. People just don't want it. They really don't.
So we need to go to Ottawa, contact Ottawa and say, look, we don't need this
carbon tax. We can't do this carbon tax at this time. We have to draw back on
this carbon tax.
The
taxes: again, I mentioned the fuels. Healthy living: people can't afford to buy
milk anymore in the stores for their children. You want to push a sugar tax,
that's another tax that's going to come the fall. Now you want the children to
be buying milk, buying good drinking quality supplies, healthier living. We're
all the time pressing for healthier living. People just can't live healthy
anymore. It's just not there. This is rubbing off on the health care system. We
can't afford to do this. It's causing people to be sicker because they can't
afford to eat healthier. I don't know what kind of plan you're going to bring in
for that, I don't know, because now they can't eat healthier.
We
already said about the emergency units being closed. People can't get there. Now
we have more people added to that again because of the high cost of living, that
they can't eat healthier – sugar tax being put in there. It's causing more
stress. The health care system alone, because of the carbon tax and the taxes
that you're putting on there, it's causing people not to able to eat healthier.
They can't get to a hospital. They can't get to appointments.
The
health care alone, because of those carbon taxes, because of the taxes that
they're paying, is causing people stress. It's causing them stress and they're
worried. They don't know what to do anymore. Once health becomes a big issue,
then the mental health becomes worse. Then people get worried about themselves.
They wonder what we're going to do. Will I lose my home? Where am I going to get
my next cheque? How am I getting my fuel to put in my oil tank on a cold
February night? That causes stress on people, it really does. By causing stress
on the people, we're causing more stress on the health care system.
If we're
going to implore tax after tax after tax on people's lives, on their well-being,
then that's not the way to do it. We have to find better ways of addressing the
taxes that people have to pay, and carbon tax is certainly not the one to do so.
I
implore the government to draw back down on the carbon tax. I certainly won't be
voting for it; it's not a tax that we can absorb right now, it's not a tax that
the residents of the province can absorb. It's certainly not a tax that my
constituents can absorb in my district.
Like I
said, I just mentioned the health care system alone; we don't have an adequate
health care system in Central Newfoundland. We have to go to St. John's for most
of our specialists, that sort of stuff. We have to come to St. John's or
elsewhere to see a specialist, which costs more money, which causes more stress
on the people of the Central area.
We have
to find better ways; carbon tax is not doing it, it just drives up the cost of
eating healthy, just drives up the cost of being able to live comfortably and to
be able to do what you want to do, which causes, like I say, more stress on
people and patients from everywhere in the Central district.
Mr.
Chair, I'll finish off my time here now and just say that, again, I can't
support this motion on the carbon tax.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.
B. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd just
like to say thank you for the opportunity to speak again today. I've got to
start off first by just correcting the record for my hon. colleague for
Exploits, who talked about the sugar tax being placed on milk. I don't know
which piece of legislation you looked at, but that's categorically untrue. Maybe
it was just a mistake, but it's categorically untrue.
So in
addition to that, we're talking about –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
B. DAVIS:
– carbon tax. I like how he
tied things together in a nice bow from many conversations, but I can't let it
pass when we talk about a sugar tax. We have every question period in this House
for the last – since 2015, since I've been here – there's been multiple
questions about health care and health outcomes – multiple. I think there was
one day since 2015 that the Minister of Health and Community Services never had
one question. I think there's been one day.
So I can
appreciate why the Opposition cares so deeply about health care, because we all
do. And this is important. When we have a province that has the worst outcomes
and we're trying to make changes that will improve the outcomes – sugar tax on
regular pop – this is what we're talking about here, we're talking about regular
Pepsi.
Diet Pepsi is not included in that. So if we want to
actually tell full truths in this House, this is where we have got to be. We are
not putting tax on diet drinks. We are not putting tax on milk.
It's all about being open and transparent – fair. That's why I had to correct
that statement because I do think the hon. Member did not mean to be untruthful.
I don't believe that and he is nodding, which is great, because I definitely
thought he didn't mean to be because I know him to be an upstanding individual.
I'm
actually going to try to stay focused on the actual conversation about carbon
tax. I know other Members on the opposite side do not like the fact that I talk
about carbon tax with the intention that is what it was built for. Carbon tax
was pushed onto the provinces, not just our own, by the federal government. They
made a decision. It was a policy decision that stood the test of court
challenges from other provinces, not ours. But other provinces have challenged
it and lost that the federal government had the ability to exercise that option
to put carbon tax in there to make a movement for people to move away from their
dependence on fossil fuels.
Now, I understand that is hard for people to understand and people to get
behind. I completely get it, but one thing that a hon. Member mentioned earlier
– that they were involved in the process, and this is true.
B. PETTEN:
(Inaudible.)
B. DAVIS:
The hon. Member for CBS is going to get his opportunity
to speak, too. I can't wait to hear him because I always love to hear him.
All
I can say is that it is really, really important for us to understand that this
government here believed that if we were going down the road of climate change,
which we all know we are, if we are going down that road of climate change and
the effects of climate change, then we have got to do something about it.
Now, the hon. Member that was involved in the process before had said that there
are lots of things that we argued for and were very successful. Previous
Ministers of Environment argued with the federal colleagues about what we could
have exempt from carbon tax.
So
I want to talk a little bit about why carbon tax and the urgency that is related
to climate change is such an issue. We can tie it to anything we want, but this
is the actual bill we are talking about and I am going to try to stay as
relevant as I possibly can to that.
We
all know that every impact that we do, whether it be individual, government,
industry, company, right down to municipalities, the way the trucks are driving,
the investments they put into their infrastructure, all of those things impact
climate, impact greenhouse gas emissions, impact what we do.
So
the federal government recognized this as an issue.
They needed urgent changes on
that, so they put things in place whether it be the Climate Change Action Plan
from our standpoint, or whether it be the Low Carbon Economy Leadership Fund
that they put in place to help transition people to much better ways of doing
things.
What we
need to do and what I've always said about this bill, it may not be something
that we're all excited about, but it's something that's going to help us in the
longer term. Now there are things that we can do. The Premier has had the
ability to work with relationships that he's built in Ottawa to try to move so
that we could make changes to gas tax to allow us to lower that without
implementing the backstop, which is an impressive piece because we haven't been
able to do that. We haven't been able to get by that and we have been able to
identify that now as an opportunity.
Every
decision that we make on this side has ramifications. I have no issue with
supporting a carbon tax based on how we're going to be moving as a people, not
just in this province, not just in this country, but in the global community.
That's where we have to be. Now, what we've been able to try to do is find that
balance of the reinvestment of the infrastructure, that money into
infrastructure to mitigation, adaptation and help people transition. Those are
things that we're moving towards. Every opportunity we do that removes another
barrier for some individual to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, which is
what each and everyone us needs to be trying to do.
So we
can try to move the issue and talk about things other than what this is intended
to do, this piece of legislation, which is reduce carbon tax. When we get to
another bill, where we've talked about things we've made to help offset costs
for individuals in this province, that's when I'll talk about that portion, but
it's not where this is focused right now.
This is
focused on the betterment of future generations, ensuring what the federal
government has pushed on us is not taken in the wrong vein so that we lose
exemptions that we have. One of those exemptions is the exemption on home
heating oil, which is something that was negotiated by a previous minister – I
won't take credit for that. It was negotiated by previous ministers that worked
with the federal government to ensure that those individuals that have home
heating oil do not get hit with those carbon tax. That was an exemption.
If we do
not follow the rules of the federal government, like some other individuals may
want us to, that's where we get the backstop, which is where we get those things
taxed, whether it be in our fishing enterprises, our forestry enterprises, those
things that we need to do that will instill a lot of jobs in this province for
prosperity, we don't want those things to falter.
One of
the things we've done is trying to maintain the exemption. This is why this bill
is before the House of Assembly, it's a directive of the federal government.
We're going to continue to move forward with it because it's good policy
decision to ensure that those individuals make those transitions.
All I
can say is that I'm very supportive of what we're doing with respect to the
carbon tax. I think it gets us to where we need to be for individuals to make
those choices that will come from.
One of
the good things that we do have is we have other pieces of legislation that we
can do. The Minister of Finance has talked at great length about the $222
million that we put in place to help alleviate some of those costs. I might add
that that's the single biggest investment right across this country, per capita.
So one
of the things is that I'm pleased that we can do that. I could go on about
carbon tax and the fact that we need to do everything we can to combat climate
change, but I'm sure I'll get another opportunity, seeing how the other
individuals in the House of Assembly may or may not agree with me, but I'm sure
that some do. I can't wait to have this implemented so we get through this
process now.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair is recognizing the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
Always
wonderful to get up and speak on behalf of the wonderful residents of Topsail -
Paradise. I think something we realized or recognized since we started the
debate on this bill is that nobody's debating climate change. I think it's all
been agreed upon, it's all been said by many in terms of climate change. We
recognize that it's happening. What the focus of the debate has been on is
another tax – a tax.
Now, we
understand carbon tax, we understand why it's there, but we also understand the
situation residents of Newfoundland and Labrador are in currently. Like I said,
any tax, whether it's a gas tax, whether it's an income tax, tax is placing a
burden or an unnecessary strain on individuals. I mean, that's what a tax is.
That's what tax does. And here in the cost of living, we see the price of gas,
the price of home heating fuel; it's driving prices through the roof for
everything and people are making serious decisions.
Part of
that whole gas tax or price per litre is, of course, the carbon tax. That plays
into it. We've used this debate to bring to the forefront and to bring what
residents are telling us about the struggles they're going through and to look
for some action to help ease the burden or strain on residents of the province.
Government is starting to hear that. They've made some changes: an
eight-cent-per-litre reduction and a one-time subsidy. You're not going to
please everyone, there's no doubt about it, but you have to do something.
So
that's a step, but there are some issues there as well. You look at the timing
of this; the eight-cent decrease is in effect until December 31, 2022. Now, I
can't predict – in fact, I say most economists can't predict – where the price
of gas will be at that date. You can look at trends, I mean that's what you do,
you look at trends, but you won't know exactly where it's going to be. But what
I can tell you, with some certainty, is that date is just prior to the coldest
months of the year. The coldest months of the year here in the province:
January, February and March. So we give a break to our residents up until
December 31.
Not only
that, but for residents who can afford it, and I suspect it will be less this
year, who can go out and purchase Christmas gifts and the like for their loved
ones and their kids and even make donations to Christmas hampers and the like,
those are all bills that come due after December 31. So you see an attempt here
in terms of lessening the gas strain – the tax on people – but you put a date on
it.
In my
mind, that's perhaps the worst date you can put on it. When people come out of
Christmas with their bills and Visa bills to pay. We know, from those calling us
now today, that they have delved into their savings to pay for medications, to
pay for food, to pay for heat, to pay for gas. So the strain on them is going to
be even more. So you see this gas tax easement gone, you see them inundated with
huge bills to pay, you see them going into the coldest months of the year, I
just question the logic around it, in terms of that.
I keep
going back to the theme of Mental Health Week, which was “This is empathy.
Before you weigh in, tune in.” And that's a bit of what should be done here.
When putting this together, I don't think the channels were finely tuned in
terms of looking at, okay, how does this date affect individuals? How does this
date affect the public out there? It's going to affect them hugely – hugely.
When we
talk about seniors who are on fixed incomes, we've heard it, who're paying more
on their home heating fuel and we talk about the one-time subsidy. We haven't
been given a definitive time, other than it will be soon, in terms of how we can
access that subsidy. But that will be long gone and utilized prior to December
31.
But when
you look at what's involved in a litre of gas in terms of taxation; I think I
looked at it and taking in HST, carbon tax and this tax, I think the tax is
somewhere around 60-odd cents per litre, give or take. That's a lot to ease off
in terms of taxes. But you look at what it does to help. Okay, well you might
say, well, if we take off the taxes, what does that do to us in terms of
revenue? But what does it do if you don't do it?
I have
residents calling me now: single parents supporting their kids on a single
income – and this is not an exaggeration – who have come to me and asked how can
I apply for income support? Because it's not worth it to me now to continue to
work, to continue and try to get back and forth to work and support my kids.
They would be better off on income support. That's what they're saying.
So the
benefit of what we do with our tax relief is going to have long-term effects. So
a little bit more relief in terms of taxes here will certainly make life more
bearable for those in the future and those who – because I'm telling you, once
you're out and you're on income support – and I worked in the department – it's
a hard cycle to get out of. But that's just one example. We have to look at the
cost, the opportunity costs, when we put in any kind of tax, or we look at tax
relief.
Again, I
don't know the reason for a definitive end date. I don't know the reason for a
definitive end date that's, in my mind, the worst time of the year for these
individuals. But I think we really have to look at this and say, okay, is there
more we could be doing, or if we could tweak this to be more effective. There
are a few things to do there. The carbon tax, of course, is one part of that
whole equation. If government has the relationship they claim to have with the
federal government, then maybe we should be able to get the four or five or six
month break on carbon tax. We're all going through this, the cost of living, and
it's all affected by the cost of diesel and gas.
If we
really have that relationship, and we're all hearing it in all our districts,
then we should be up there and talking to the prime minister and saying we need
this break. We're not looking for a hand out; we're looking for a hand up. Let's
give them a break that works, keeps people in the workforce and keeps people
from becoming sicker because they can't afford medications. We just have to do a
little bit more here, a little bit more to ensure that people live a proper
life.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Thank you, Chair.
The
carbon tax is up for debate today and I think that we've kind of jumped into it
a little bit, kind of with blinders on I guess kind of thing, because I'm going
to take it from a perspective of the department that I service as a shadow
Cabinet minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development; Status of Persons
with Disabilities; the Community Sector; Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and
Income Support.
We on
this side on the House, Chair, do understand that we have to be stewards of our
environment and we do understand that it's our responsibility to pass on a world
to, let's say, our kids and grandkids that is viable and that they can
peacefully enjoy. But when the Environment Minister speaks about the
carbon tax and going into a green economy and all of this kind of stuff, I do
understand that and I know that is the direction we are headed. But I don't
think we should be pushed as abruptly into it as I see that is happening.
If we want to be stewards of our own environment and
make sure that we are passing on a good environment to people, I would suggest
that we tackle the 200 communities in our municipalities in our province that
are on a boil order for more than 10 years. I think that is the lifeblood. That
is the lifeblood of survival. I mean, to not address that and offer people a
stipend on buying an electric car or switching over their house or anything like
that, there are a lot of people that struggle and they are not in that position
right now – currently, they are spending extra money on having to boil their
water because it is not potable.
I
would recommend that maybe people listen as opposed to chirping across the floor
in order to get some ideas of how we can move forward. Instead of driving a
carbon tax, we can talk about helping people in our municipalities that have
been on a boil order for more than 10 years, because it's really not giving us
an opportunity to succeed as a community.
From the children's side of it, for the department that I represent, you know,
children suffer from poverty as well and it impacts their lives. The Health
Accord is telling us this and it is very plain to see that one of the biggest
social determinants of unhealthy outcomes is poverty and another carbon tax on
top of the taxes and fees that are already being paid with the increase in the
price of fuel and everything like that, then raising taxes and prices is only
going to reduce family incomes, which impacts the quality of life for children.
I
had a lady approach my office and she said that with all of the new taxes and
fees they are not even able to take the kids out for a treat – like a scattered
bit of McDonald's or an ice cream or a bag of chips even for this matter because
(a) they can't go for that Sunday drive anymore as a family and (b) the prices
are so out of reach that they are not able to do it. The income at the end of
the day is just not there for them to enjoy some of the creature comforts, I
guess you would say, in life. And children deserve those because that gives them
that little piece of mind to know that their family is probably not doing too
bad. But once you take
away those little creature comforts, it starts to sink in to the children; they
realize also the financial strains that are on the parents and the financial
strains that are on the family, the financial strains that are on their
community and the financial strains that are on their province.
That is
why I think this government needs to talk to our federal counterparts. We're not
asking them to cancel the carbon tax; we know that we have to be stewards of our
environment. We are asking that it be postponed for now, because we are dealing
with another economic outcome that's really not going to help anybody, and
that's the rising price of fuel already. Putting more taxes and more fees on
fuel is only marginalizing us just a little bit further down the road, which is
very disconcerting to me. Because at the end of the day what we're here for is
to make sure that people get to peacefully enjoy the province they live in, no
matter if that's in the metro area or if it's on the West Coast or on the North
Coast of Labrador.
We have
to treat people with dignity and respect. We have to stand up for them and make
sure that they're not overtaxed. Right now, we're the most taxed in the whole
country, so to talk about what other provinces are doing and stuff like that,
that's fine, but they're also dealing with a different economy than us. They're
also dealing with a different population than us. They're also dealing with a
different demographic than us. Because we're so spread out, we have to travel to
get certain services.
Another
one for me is our seniors. Our seniors are being further marginalized because
they suffer enormously. They're usually living on low or fixed incomes and
cannot bear any cost increases. They have higher costs due to their frailty and
illness that often come with age. But many are already dividing their medicines;
they're not eating well and they're keeping their thermostats at unhealthy
levels when they need to stay warm.
In their
golden years, seniors are being forgotten. That's just not good enough, just for
the simple fact that by having these increase in taxes, especially around fuel,
with the state of the health care right now, a lot of our seniors are having to
travel further distances to get the services they require. Increasing those
taxes are further marginalizing them in their daily life. They're having to rob
Peter, we'll say, to pay Paul. I think they deserve better, to be quite honest.
They blazed a trail for us and we need to make sure that trail stays clear for
them to peacefully enjoy their retirement years.
Again, a
lot are outside the overpass, I'll say. A lot of our seniors and a lot of our
communities are aged, which with carbon tax, all the sugar tax and all this kind
of stuff is further marginalizing these communities, which doesn't make any
sense. We're here to represent them and give them that opportunity to succeed;
therefore, I think that we should be better stewards in looking at the fact of
taking off as much as we can.
Again,
we're not here to say that it's not a step in the right direction; it just
doesn't go far enough. That's the issue. What about the five cents? How come we
haven't lobbied the PUB about the five cents that went on during the refinery
sale? That should never have gone in there. It shouldn't have been approved in
the first place. As soon as it got approved, that's when we should've been
approaching the PUB to make sure that the checks and balances were in place to
make sure that was okay to do.
From my
understanding it was only one company that got on board with this extra five
cents; the other two companies weren't even consulted. So from my understanding
it has to be a concerted effort in order for the PUB to move forward. Therefore
I think that lobbying the PUB at this time, it might be too little too late, but
again, on behalf of the people of our province we must do so, there are no two
ways about that.
With
saying that, I have other headers that I'm certainly going to address. I
wouldn't want to do that in the minute and 20 seconds that I have left because
I'm not here to further marginalize anybody that I look after or that needs my
help. I'm here to represent the people of the beautiful District of Placentia
West - Bellevue and that's what I'll do. Like I said, with the increase in fuel,
I think our federal government needs to recognize the actual situation that
Newfoundland and Labrador is in right now, as opposed to comparing us to a
blanket over the whole country, which has a whole different demographic and
population density compared to us in certain metro areas.
With
that being said, Chair, I'm going to take my seat. Like I said, I would ask the
government that they would talk to their counterparts at the federal level to
make sure that we can postpone the carbon tax. We're not saying get rid of it or
eliminate it, we're saying just postpone it because we just can't take that hit
right now.
Thank
you, Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair is recognizing the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's
great to have an opportunity to say a few words again.
Mr.
Chair, we're talking about carbon tax again today. I know a lot of my colleagues
have been raising the concerns that they're hearing from their constituents. I
know I'm hearing the same issues from my constituents as it relates to the high
cost of living. Of course, this is about actually making it even worse on people
by raising the carbon tax.
I
understand it's a federal program, no doubt, but the province is the one who
reaps the benefits in terms of that's where all the revenue goes in this
particular deal; it goes into provincial coffers, not into federal coffers. It's
important we're clear on that. That while the initiative itself may have been
federally driven, the money is not going to Ottawa; it's going to Newfoundland
and Labrador. It's going in our bank account here.
That's
not necessarily a bad thing, by the way, in the sense that if the money is going
to go somewhere, it's better for it to go here than to go in Ottawa, from my
perspective at least. But it also means that if the revenue is coming here, that
means we have more control over what we do with that revenue as opposed to the
federal government.
I have
to say that there are a couple of things, Mr. Chair, when we talk about carbon
tax. I've stood in this House of Assembly on numerous occasions and –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
P. LANE:
– spoke to the fact that I'm
certainly not –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
P. LANE:
– a proponent of the carbon
tax in general. I really believe that if we want to deal with climate change
that we should be going after the big polluters. If we want people to drive
electric cars, then we need – and I understand from the minister, I think last
time I spoke, Ottawa does have a plan in that regard, and that's where we need
to go. To say to car manufacturers that by a particular date there will be no
more combustion engine vehicles, that it will be electric vehicles and force
them to act, to pivot and change their business model, that's what needs to
happen.
Simply
charging me extra money at the tank is doing nothing only taking money out of my
pockets and other Newfoundlanders' and Labradorians' pockets. Just it's another
tax going into the government. If people need to drive to work, drive to
doctor's appointments and so on, they're going to do it anyway. If you want
people to buy electric vehicles, then there has to be an option – there has to
be a comparable option – for people to do so. Right now, at this point in time,
we don't have this comparable option because of the cost of an electric vehicle
and the fact that we just don't have that infrastructure across the province at
this point in time, really, to accommodate electric vehicles, not to mention the
costs of the vehicle.
Now, I
understand the government brought out a program – a $2,500 rebate and I think
the feds have a similar program, and that's all to help, but, at the end of the
day, the cost of electric vehicles is out of reach for the average
Newfoundlander and Labradorian. Once we reach a point in time where the
infrastructure is in place and the vehicles are readily available at a price
point that the average consumer can afford, then I would submit you penalize
somebody at that point if they choose to continue on driving a combustion engine
vehicle. But at this point in time they really don't have a choice; they don't
have an option. So you are penalizing them for something that they really have
no control over and, at that point, it just becomes nothing more than a tax
grab. That would be my position on the carbon tax – always have been; always
will be.
Then you
look at, well, the money that is coming in, what are we doing with the money,
and that is the other thing. I don't know about other Members, but I had a
number of people contact me over the weekend and I have certainly seen a lot of
postings on social media and everything else. People weren't too happy with the
announcement, as an example, that $250,000 went to Labatt Brewery.
Now, I
got nothing against Labatt Brewery; I drink Michelob Ultra. So I have no issue
and this tank here can hold a few litres, I can tell you. So it is no issue with
Labatt, no issue with beer, no problem there –
AN HON. MEMBER:
You're a sponsor.
P. LANE:
Yeah, I'm a sponsor.
No
problem there, but the reality of it is that $250,000 of provincial money that,
I guess, came from the carbon tax goes to a private corporation that is doing
quite well, part of a larger corporation that is making huge profits – billions.
We take
$250,000 of the money that the average person is paying every time they go and
they fill up and the price of gas is through the roof, a portion of that money,
being the carbon tax. Instead of taking that money and investing it back into
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, we give $250,000 of it to Labatt
Brewery. And then the federal government comes in and they throws in another
$250,000 for a profitable corporation that could easily afford to do it on their
own. They didn't need the money.
Do I
blame them for taking the money? Of course not. Anyone who operates any kind of
a business, you'd be a fool to say, no, b'y, I don't want it. Of course they're
going to take it. The question becomes one of: Is that the best use for that
money? That's the question.
I think
if you were to poll the average Newfoundlander and Labradorian, right now, they
would say: No, that's not the best use of that money. I would prefer to see that
go back to the consumer in the form of additional rebates or whatever the case
might be, or to help the people on the lower end of the income scale and so on.
And that's not to diminish the 144 – jeez, I should know the number off by
heart; I heard it so many times. I am not sure if it's 144 or 142.
AN HON. MEMBER:
142.
P. LANE:
The $142 million that the
Minister of Finance keeps talking about. I'm not diminishing that. That helped a
segment of people, and this latest announcement is going to help a broader group
of people, and I appreciate that. I'm sure the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador appreciate anything you can do. I understand also that it has to be
weighed out against the fact that we are up to our necks in debt. We can never
lose sight of that, of where we're to in terms of our provincial debt and our
year-over-year deficits.
Now,
thankfully, my understanding – I could be wrong – is that because of the
additional revenue coming in on the price of a barrel of oil, our projected
budget will remain the same. It's not going to increase our projected deficit.
Now granted, our projected deficit could have been lower had they not taken this
additional action. So there's a balancing act; I get it.
Some of
the commentary I heard from some people – to do what some people have suggested,
we'd have to be prepared to go, like, $2 billion in debt this year to actually
do what some people are requesting. We know we can't do that. That would be
irresponsible to do that.
So it's
this balancing act of how much can government do to alleviate the pain, much of
which, in fairness, is the result of world events, geopolitical events. You
can't blame the war in Ukraine on this government. Some people might like to try
to twist it that way somehow, if they could, but you can't do that, and much of
the problem that we're having is also being felt throughout the country,
throughout the globe. That's the reality, and it's important that we acknowledge
that.
It comes
down to what can the government do with the parts that it controls, i.e., gas
tax, carbon tax, so on. What can it do and what's a reasonable balance of how
much money they can use to offset the cost of living for the average person? I'm
cognizant of the time there, Mr. Chair. They have done some, then they did some
more, and the question is could they do even more.
But when
you see money, as an example, once again, going into a corporation instead of
going into reducing the pain even more, it is difficult for the public to
swallow.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I remind
the hon. Member his speaking time is expired.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The Chair is recognizing the
hon. the Member for Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm not
ergonomically situated for your neck, am I, but you watch the screen and you can
hear me from there.
I was
representing the community in George's Brook-Milton back in 2016 and I went to a
budget briefing at that point in time from the same government in power now, and
it was the incumbent that I ran against that had the briefing. So I, along with
the deputy mayor, attended. The meeting was in Lethbridge, and when we sat in
Lethbridge, the Member for the district started to talk about the budget.
I think
conservatively I can say he probably got seven seconds in before everything
unravelled. The people were upset about the amount of taxation. That was a fact:
They were upset about the amount of taxation. The only thing is that the
Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board – and we all agree, it came
down to balance. And I think everything we have we have to play the balance. I
think probably even government may be aware that back in 2016 we didn't have
that balance. At least it wasn't perceived by those that would be in my
district.
I'm
thinking where we are in this particular budget then we are trying to find that
balance. We're talking about a carbon tax, and right now for the benefit of
those in the District of Bonavista and other districts, 11 cents is on as carbon
tax on our gas. What a lot don't know is that by 2030, that 11 cents on carbon
tax is going to 37 cents. Some would say looking at it where we are now with the
inflationary pressures in our society, that is a pretty daunting aspect to know
that we are going to 37 cents. That's huge.
I've
been out in my district and we've talked about it. Do they agree with climate
change, that we've got a concern? Absolutely. In this House, I think we're all
on board to know that climate change is a real issue. It is something that we've
got to do; we've got to get a handle on. We have to reduce our carbon emissions.
But how you go about it is part of an integrate plan that we do.
We're
going to tax people enough with carbon that we'll stop them from driving: drive
less, reduce your carbon footprint. That's the genesis of a tax. That's it. We
did the same with tobacco. I'm not sure how successful we were with the tobacco
and where we are with our smoking population, but I don't think taxation led to
cessation of smoking. That's what the government is going to do now with sugar,
we're going to do the sugar tax.
Now, I
have to clarify, my hon. friend from Exploits when he spoke earlier about the
sugar tax, he had stated milkshakes, because he was thinking the added sugar in
milkshakes was within that pop – if it's not, the minister just left off the
word shake or that part.
AN HON. MEMBER:
No, he did.
C. PARDY:
He left it off?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Yes.
C. PARDY:
Okay. I misunderstood, but
Hansard will indicate my learned friend.
The only
thing is that in my district they'll often talk about rural Newfoundland versus
urban and I hear that more and more. I know that when I was going through
school, lots of time they referenced the overpass: inside the overpass, outside
the overpass. As I got a little bit wiser, with age, I realized that there is a
significant discrepancy between living in rural Newfoundland and living in
urban. All those representing urban districts would say we know that there is a
big difference. You have bigger competition in urban. Bigger competition means
that your prices are going to be lower. What you're going to pay for what you
would have would mean that greater competition, prices are lower. The more rural
you get, you would know that's not the case.
Then comes the fact on health care. You live in urban: the tertiary care at the
Health Sciences complex is top notch. If you have a medical emergency and what
you need and you get into the Health Science complex, you're in a good place.
Rural Newfoundland – we have heard examples.
So
when we are talking about rural and urban there is something that should instill
in us the ability or the desire to make a plan. And one plan that I often look
at that we had good success with in this province was the Poverty Reduction
Strategy. It was a plan. I know that's in the works, but keep in mind now for
any government that took power in 2015 – you know that you have been in since
2015 and we are in 2022 – the only thing being is that in that number of years
we don't have the plan yet, but we are working towards it. Good. But there comes
a point in time that, with a significant portion of our population experiencing
poverty, I would say there is no time like – it ought to have been yesterday and
not today.
Another thing I want to mention – and I agree with the Minister Responsible for
Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation, and Labrador Affairs – she mentioned in
her address probably a couple of weeks ago – a wonderful address by the way –
she had stated that you wouldn't be borrowing on your credit card and that is
the balance that we look at. We don't borrow on our credit cards.
The
only thing I would think that would be a little bit misaligned on what is said
by the government side is that whenever we look at spending, we default right
back to Muskrat Falls and everything we go back in Muskrat Falls. So at one
session I had – and if I do misrepresent now someone is going to speak up later
on and correct me like the milkshake but anyway I'm sure it was milkshake he had
stated. But when it came down to being accurate, I stated at a meeting, well
this government had spent, recently in the past few years, $1.5 billion on
infrastructure and it was all through the P3s. The P3 concept, which they knew
nothing of, but in an explanation that was a partnership, and I think it
probably had some good success with that, but he said where is the $1.5 million?
They are in agreements, I would assume, for future years with the private sector
that we will have or accumulate debt going forward or in our deficit in order to
pay off this infrastructure in
the following years.
So,
anyway, nothing wrong with good infrastructure, but one thing when it came down
to P3s, one thing that Muskrat Falls did at the commission – and the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety who got good experience with the commission – they had
stated that anything over $50 million ought to be analyzed by an independent
tribunal, and I think they may have mentioned the PUB. But some independent
tribunal to make sure that we're not creating any missteps going forward.
Now, if
you had took $1.5 billion, and the benchmark was $50 million, then you're
looking at 30 of those $50 million expenditures in $1.5 billion, and keep in
mind nobody knows what the agreements are. There is no independent tribunal like
the PUB or anybody that looked at that spending.
Now one
would say, if we made a mistake in the past or we questioned
an expense that we undertook or a
project, then we ought not to be now, at a point in time where we're not
transparent, that we don't know how those 30 sets of $50 million that
were spent by the government over the past number of years, that – who analyzes
that? It's not the AG, because the AG is not going to see that. It's not the
PUB. Who looks at it? It's government making the decision that this is good for
the people, but nobody else will know exactly what the agreements are for that
30 set of $50-million expenditures. And I would say the people in the District
of Bonavista were surprised that was the case.
Imagine,
30 $50-million expenditures that was spent and nobody knows what the agreements
are.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As we're
speaking on the carbon tax, it's a money bill, I'm going to have a few words,
Mr. Chair, about a few things that went on in the House for several weeks
concerning myself and my family. I want to speak about that and I'm going to
present it on the record.
There
was a report issued, Mr. Chair, a while back, from the Commissioner for
Legislative Standards about how –
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I remind
the hon. Member to stay relevant –
E. JOYCE:
It is. We're pay –
CHAIR:
– to the tax bill that we are
now –
E. JOYCE:
We are paying his –
CHAIR:
I'm reminding the Member to
stay relevant to the bill that we are discussing.
E. JOYCE:
We are. We're paying his
salary. So we have the right to question what he's presenting in this House, if
the money from this carbon tax is paying his salary. That was ruled last week,
when the Member for –
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I'm
going to remind the Member to stay relevant to the bill, Bill 60, An Act to
Amend the Revenue Administration Act.
E. JOYCE:
(Inaudible) money. That's
what I'm discussing.
CHAIR:
This House agreed on
relevancy, and that's where it's going to stay.
E. JOYCE:
Everybody is getting touchy
now. We're not allowed to talk about the Commissioner for Legislative Standards.
It's getting pretty tough.
CHAIR:
I said it once.
E. JOYCE:
Well, I can tell you, I'm
going to say it here and I'm going to put it on the record that when the report
finally came back, I did not own a company. My spouse did not own a company. I
just wanted to put that on the record for you, Chair, just in case you were –
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I'm
going to ask the Member to stay relevant to Bill 60.
E. JOYCE:
B'ys, we should have a bit of
consistency in the House, because last week when the Member for Mount Pearl -
Southlands questioned –
CHAIR:
I don't need to be directed
by the hon. Member. I'm directing you to stay relevant to the bill.
E. JOYCE:
I'm not directing you. I'm
not. I'm just saying last week, when he spoke about it, he was allowed to speak
about it. That's all I'm saying. I'll show you
Hansard if you want to later.
But I'll
respect your ruling.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
E. JOYCE:
I'll respect your ruling,
although last week was different. But anyway, I have no problem with that
whatsoever.
I guess
I look at the crab licence. I'm not getting into the crab licence and where they
should have went or not went, Mr. Chair. But I seen the passionate speech from
the owner out in Bay Roberts. It is passionate and I'm not getting into if it's
right or wrong because I never seen the full reports, but I can tell you that if
the Member for that area was not in Cabinet, she'd be up complaining about it.
She'd be doing what she did to Dale Kirby: file a report if he never got the
school. I guess she would resign if she never got that licence, the Member for
Bay Roberts, but she can't.
Mr.
Chair, I'm going to speak on the carbon tax again. I guess it's pretty relevant
about the expenses for the people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
It's pretty tough times for a lot of people. Again, I'm going to stand on my
feet because I know, back a few weeks ago, there were people in the caucus
didn't want me to be here speaking. But guess what? I'm here. I'm going to raise
the concerns that I have.
I heard
the Minister of Health today talk about BC closed down the clinics. This is
about the funding, I guess, or the doctors needed and the funding that's needed
around that. I just find it curious that the Minister of Health brings up, well,
BC just closed down six emergencies or whatever. He uses information that's
irrelevant, that he wants to use, for his argument. Why don't he use the
argument whereby Nova Scotia just gave 2,400 patients for cataract surgery to a
private clinic? Why don't he mention where Ontario just did the same thing? But
here in Newfoundland and Labrador, he won't do it.
So it is
convenient when you want to stand in this House and say, okay, we haven't got
the money to do things for the health care; I understand that. But when you
start using, well, it's done on other provinces to fit his argument. Why don't
he use the same argument for the 800 seniors who don't have proper vision now?
Why don't he use the same argument for the seniors who, right now, can't read
their prescriptions? Why don't he use the same argument for residents, right
now, who can't drive? Why didn't you use the same argument, Minister?
So when
you stand up here in this House of Assembly and you talk about something that is
happening in other provinces but you won't say here are the positive things that
are happening in the other provinces because he don't want it done. It is time
to bring all the facts out, Mr. Chair.
I have
to say to the minister that – and I say to the Premier, the Premier always says
that the buck stops with him. It is time for the Premier of this province – many
of the constituents are from his district. The Member for Corner Brook, many of
the citizens are from his district. The Member for St. George's - Humber, many
of the seniors are from his district. It is time for them to stand up; it is
time for it. Because if you want to say one thing that is happening in other
provinces, then let us look at the positive things that we could do in certain
provinces that we can do in Newfoundland and Labrador.
This is
very touching for me because I get so many calls from the seniors. I hear the
minister stand up on numerous occasions: Oh, we do it within a certain amount of
time, the 112 days. But I can tell you one thing; he will not address the
wait-list. Every time he stands up and says: Oh, it was within – let's talk
about the wait-list. Let's talk about the 800 seniors on the wait-list.
Mr.
Chair, those 800 seniors, they could be done in the next three or four months.
They could be done in the next three, four or five months but right now the Apex
clinic in Corner Brook, when they get the quota, they got to stop. They actually
have to stop surgeries while people are sitting home, in their homes, who can't
read, can't drive and are isolated.
There
was a report done that there's a greater chance of dementia with isolation.
There's a report that I just read probably about a month ago about isolation for
seniors with dementia. You can't drive, you're scared to go out, you might trip
and your whole social life has been diminished. So I just want to put that there
that it is part of it, yet the government across the Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador refuses to address it. There are many in the Premier's district.
I saw
just the other day, Mr. Chair, that the Premier and the minister were out
talking about the hip and knee surgery, that they're going to find a way to get
the wait times. I agree with it. Great job. Why don't we do it for the cataracts
which are in place right now? That's the question that the Premier will not
answer and the Minister of Health and Community Services will not answer. We can
do this tomorrow and we won't do it. That's what I find strange, that it won't
be done.
So it's
very, very obvious, Mr. Chair, that there's a reason, not because of finances,
because it's cheaper to do it at the Apex building and the three specialists;
it's not because there's a wait-list, because there is a huge wait-list; and
it's not because you could do it in other facilities, because you can't. The
only thing you hear on a regular basis is the people who are seeing the
ophthalmologist; there are a certain amount of people in 112 days. But we're
forgetting the people who won't even be on the list until next April to be done.
I'm
going to continue to put this on the record, Mr. Chair, whenever I get the
opportunity to do it. I know people are saying, well, you're talking about it.
Here's what I say to the government and here is what I say to the Opposition:
Remember the Motor Registration? They're open. Remember, you kept this open for
the last two or three weeks because of the carbon tax, guess what? You got some
relief. Not enough but you got some relief for the people of the province. So
you can't give up on an issue when you feel strongly about it. I will continue
to bring this up on a regular basis.
Mr.
Chair, I'll end my speech there but I'll say one word to you: I don't mean to
disrespect the Chair. I would never disrespect you or the Chair. That's just
personal to me. I would never disrespect you or the Chair, so don't ever think I
would. I do respect you. I do respect the Chair. I respect you as the Chair, as
the Speaker and as a person. I would never try to disrespect you in any way.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Cape St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It is
good to be here today back in the House and represent the people of my district,
and to be in Committee this afternoon and speak to Bill 60, a resolution
respecting the imposition of taxes on carbon. And we'll keep it to that, Mr.
Chair.
Mr.
Chair, I, like everyone else, had the opportunity for constituency week to spend
time in my district and to meet with different groups in the five different
towns. In each place that we met we discussed the cost of living and, of course,
carbon tax.
I was
fortunate enough to be with the development association in Logy Bay-Middle
Cove-Outer Cove and volunteering with the students of St. Francis of Assisi with
their community garden. We got our hands dirty; we got into the setting of
potatoes, pumpkins seeds and different things. It was important for the children
to realize to grow their own food so less is trucked into the district and, of
course, because of the carbon tax that has its price on everything that's
brought in here.
I had
the opportunity to be in Pouch Cove and the hon. minister was there for a
funding announcement. It was good to have the minister there. It was with
respect to the bottling of water and to use less bottled water with refilling
stations. It's always good to have the minister in the district when it comes to
that. This, again, was another initiative through the town to try to curb costs,
and with respect to carbon tax was brought up for conversation at that location
as well.
We had a
community clean up in the Town of Flatrock. We had a hundred people come up and
clean up the community. It was all conversations dealing with the environment
and reducing our carbon footprint. This is very much on the minds of the
residents in my district. It's not that they are against climate change. They
agree that climate change needs to be addressed. No doubt, it has to be
addressed and I applaud the residents of my districts who are stewards of the
environment and doing their part without having to pay the carbon tax. So when
we look at the effects that it has, it affects many.
I had
another opportunity to be in the Town of Torbay with the hon. minister for the
Atlantic Mayors' Congress and I thank the minister for joining us for that. We
had some good discussions with mayors from across the four Atlantic provinces.
What we discussed was the cost of living, carbon tax, how it affects each and
every decision and how it affects the municipalities.
I had
good conversations with – since we were in this House last – the municipalities
in my district and how they are struggling. They are struggling with the
increased costs and they don't know how they're going to handle all of the cost
increases with respect to what's coming down the pipe with carbon tax, of how
goods and services and contractors in their towns are doing business. It all
affects the bottom dollar. It all affects how municipalities are run and, as I
said before, they cannot have the ability to change their budgets. They have to
look at what they have to operate with and be within that budget and not to have
any overruns.
It does
have quite the affect on many people throughout the district, through many age
groups and demographics. Everyone is aware, fully aware, of what's going on and
want to do their part with respect to climate change.
Mr.
Chair, I had the opportunity to speak with many seniors in my district with
respect to housing. I know that the hon. minister is always listening when it
comes to the housing needs in all the districts of the province, but it's
becoming more and more unaffordable when the heating costs rise and inflation
reduces people's disposable income. Of course, many people of this department,
unfortunately, are some of the poorest of the province and right now they're
barely making ends meet as it is.
So we
have to take measures, of course, so that the toll is less on their families.
What we have to look at right now that a further tax increase, on these
particular individuals, is the last thing that we need right now. It has to be
in the forefront when making decisions, moreover for our seniors and our low
income.
My
colleague from Topsail - Paradise talked earlier with respect to income support.
I'm getting calls almost daily of people who are struggling, of people who are
asking questions about income support, because of the cost it's going up and up
and, of course, the carbon tax is going to drive this up even further and people
have less disposable income.
In
addition to that, I'm having people who are trying to come off income support,
but are struggling so heavily that they're going back on. As my colleague said
it is a vicious circle. So there are two things here driving them back to the
system and driving them to the system.
Mr.
Chair, they do have the difficulty of surviving day to day, and, of course,
income support would be a last resort, no doubt, when it comes to them trying to
survive. It is hard to listen to; it's hard to take. I'm sure you'll agree, this
is not just one district, this is all districts when we're looking at the level
of income that some people have and, unfortunately, being driven to income
support.
As I
said earlier, Mr. Chair, I had the opportunity to discuss with the Atlantic
Mayors' Congress of different tourism aspects in my district and whenever I have
the opportunity I always praise the East Coast Trail. No doubt tourism is going
to be impacted by carbon tax, just because of our geographic location alone.
I always
support the East Coast Trail; however, people are saying to me – and, again, not
only with that but with Come Home Year as well – that they want to be here, they
want to take part in supporting our tourism. It's a very important thing to
support and, of course, we in the Official Opposition do recognize that, but we
are disadvantaged here, unfortunately, with our location. So we definitely rely
on tourists coming from out of province, as well as our local tourists. That is
being impacted as well, because people are not going to have the financial
ability to tour our province because of the high gas prices and, of course, with
carbon tax, which is going to be on top of it as well.
It is
definitely making an impact on what we can do. The minister is shaking his head.
This is what I'm hearing from constituents in my district and from the Atlantic
Mayors' Congress who came to the province. They're hearing it as well. It
definitely makes a difference when it comes to what they have to give.
Mr.
Chair, after tourism we look at arts and culture. When you have people who can't
afford the necessities – and I have to say the Speaker said earlier today, when
we opened the House, he recognized the Page that we have here today who is doing
honourable work, who's collecting feminine hygiene products for people who
cannot afford to pay for those. I commend her for that. I also spoke to her and
said I will be supporting what she's doing. I think each and every Member in
this House should support what she's doing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
J. WALL:
But, Mr. Chair, when you have
people who can't afford the essentials, where are they getting the money for
arts and culture? Where are they getting the money for entertainment? Where are
they getting money to go out and spend here in my district, in your district
throughout the province when they can't afford the essentials?
So
that's imperative when you're looking at what people have and the money that can
circulate within the economy. That money is being siphoned off into the gas tank
and into carbon tax. I'm sure people want to spend it elsewhere, they want to
spend it on different things, moreover in tourism or arts and culture; however,
we are at the point now where people are rationing their spending and how
they're going to go forward, what they can spend it on.
It's
very important for us to realize that when we're making these decisions, when it
comes to carbon tax coming down again on top of all the other levels of taxation
we have, people just have to spend their money elsewhere, Mr. Chair. It's
becoming unfortunate that they have to make these tough decisions on essentials,
as my colleague said earlier with respect to medications. It's all on the table
when it comes to decisions that are being made.
Mr.
Chair, I do realize my time is going down; I have several other issues and
headings that I'd like to speak on. I'm sure we'll have lots of opportunity this
evening to do that. So I do thank you for your time and for your attention.
Please, if you can support this young lady in her initiative, I ask that you
please do so.
Thank
you so much.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's
always a pleasure to speak in this House. I like the premises. Most times we
don't do enough and I try to do it as often as I can. I am proud to represent
Conception Bay South. It is a privilege, each one of us taking this House, 40 of
us – and I know everyone feels the same way. I won't say my beautiful district
because someone else has the copyrights to that, but I'm very proud.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Scenic.
B. PETTEN:
Scenic, yeah.
Mr.
Chair, we've been debating this a couple of weeks ago and we're back debating
again. It's about the carbon tax. I guess underneath all the debate the one
common theme you hear said is about individuals. I heard my colleague from Cape
St. Francis jump up and he's talking about people. He's talking about their
struggles.
We get
in the House of Assembly daily and my colleague from Stephenville - Port au
Port, our Finance shadow minister, he talks about people's issues. Help for
seniors. Help for people with their home heat rebates. Help for people who can't
afford to drive their cars gas-wise. Help for people buying groceries in the
supermarkets.
These
are real stories but they're not isolated to one district in the province,
they're isolated to 40 districts. Sometimes the function of this House of
Assembly, the layout of the House, the way we're all back and forth and the
adversarial nature of this House, there are a lot of Members on the government
side don't really get to speak to the public in this domain in the House of
Assembly like we do on the Opposition side. People may ask, why are you keeping
the House open? Why are you debating this legislation again this week? You were
at it there a couple of weeks, why are you continuing on? Government got a
majority. They can invoke closure; they can do what they want.
Ultimately, government can get this bill in, absolutely right. There's no doubt
about it, the Government House Leader has the ability to invoke closure whenever
he wants and we can shut it all down and move on. To his credit, and I guess to
the credit of the House and the people of the province, we're debating this.
We don't
agree with the carbon tax. I think most Members opposite probably feel the same
way. The Minister of Environment and Labour already stated that it was kind of
forced upon them by the federal government. Our good friend in Ottawa – and he's
done good things here, I don't dispute that. I haven't got my head totally in
the sand, there are good things that the prime minister has done for our
province and I credit that.
But
there are some things that are not good and this is one of them. So does that
mean that because you've done five good things, you're going to give him a pass
on something like this? No. These things are affecting people; day-to-day
living, it's affecting them. Supermarkets, they're being affected. Heating their
homes, they're being affected. Vacations, they're being affected. Every angle in
life, everything to do in life.
Mr.
Chair, this past weekend it was two doctors I spoke to having just a
conversation, basically a chat about many things, catching up on a lot of
things. As we know, we never got into salaries, but doing very well for
themselves. They as much as stated so. He said you know what I'm struggling with
now? I don't want to be driving my truck as much. I've turned my truck into a
flowerpot, I told him. I have a nice truck but she's over in the driveway full
of soil. My wife recently retired and she's doing flowerbeds. I said now I have
a flowerpot in the backyard and I'm using her small car. I don't mind admitting
that. My neighbour said, you don't use your truck no more? No, no, no, I don't
use that I said. I use my wife's car, a smaller car; I can't afford to drive
that so that's a flowerpot.
I mean
on a serious note, these are two doctors stood up looking, and they're really
dead serious when they're saying this. Ultimately, I'm sure they'll probably
survive, but when you start rationalizing and you start looking at your own
situation – when you're in a group, you're in the top 1 per cent, or probably
even the top half per cent, in some cases; we don't know what the salaries are –
that's real. They're not my constituents. They're people I know.
But
those are the real stories we're hearing out there. We'll come in and the
Minister of Finance many times will get up and talk about the $142 million. My
colleague from Ferryland keeps a tally on that. I'm not sure where we're to now,
it's somewhere around – I keep the tally on Muskrat Falls; he keeps the tally on
the $142 million. But we're there. We're getting up there. Nobody disputes that.
But the
senior who called me on Thursday afternoon, after the cost of living
announcement was made, she was really – she called me repeatedly; I missed her
calls. I had to speak to her; she had to get it off her chest. She said I make
$1,800 a month. I burn electricity. This is no good to me. I'm getting eight
cents off gas. They might put that up tomorrow. What's the benefit to me then? I
can't afford to eat. She referred to the Premier and not in a bad way but by his
name. I can't say it in this House. But I'm hearing directly – here in this
House today, I'm telling that story. Very good point.
That's
not to say the $142 million is no good. We've never said that. It's not enough.
We know the province will say otherwise, we've put an extra $80 million; $222
million now is the new number. We've graduated from $142 million, now we're $222
million. Fair enough. Is it enough? Do anyone here think it's enough? People
here might think it's enough. I don't think it's enough.
Do I
understand the fiscal situation we're in? Yeah. But if people are not spending
money, or can't spend money, or are struggling to survive, what does it matter
if you keep your books balanced, if you keep borrowing less? What does it really
matter? In the financial situation of the province, what does it really matter
when the people again – and I'll go back to my original comment, Mr. Chair, 40
of us here
who we all represent, who we are really the champions
of. We're the champions of the people in our communities and our districts.
I know a lot of Members opposite – and I've seen them
operate over the years and they are the champions for their people. So shouldn't
we all say that $222 million is not bad, that's a nice number? But is it enough?
No. If it was enough, you wouldn't be getting the complaints; you wouldn't be
getting the concerns.
On
the Opposition side, we collectively get issues raised to us. Members in
government probably don't get the same ones because we have a role to play. If
we flipped over on that side, which we'll get there eventually, this side here
will be getting them emails because that's the role. People that understand the
House of Assembly, our role as Opposition Members are to lobby government for
better legislation, argue government for how they spend their money. Better
expenditure of money: that's our role. That's a inherent role in the Official
Opposition. I mean the Loyal Opposition has a role to play. That's our role.
Liberals email us. Sure, they're not going to email their own crowd because they
are the ones making the rules. So why are you going to email them? They are only
going to spend $222 million. We think they need to have $442 million, so what is
he going to email them for? They know the answer, so they're emailing us. When
you get a chance have a crack at them. That is what we do.
I
know I'm being very flippant. That's the reality, that's what we all deal with
here. I have lots of Liberals coming to me now that I think – lots of Liberals
are probably going to stay my way if we continue on. But we'll leave that for
another day, Mr. Chair, because then we are getting into elections now, and I'll
probably going to go off on the beaten path, but that's the reality we deal
with. We deal with all political stripes on this side of the House because we
are the voice.
I
go back – and a lot of Members were here, a lot weren't. In 2016 we stood in
this House and we went day and night, back when they used to be able to do a
real filibuster. There used to be three of us over here and it was – the Chair
can probably remember it well. We went around the clock and around the clock and
around the clock. It was because we strongly believed in what – and to this day,
years later, I don't regret one second. I could have gone longer because,
ultimately, we were bringing their voices in this House. It is the people's
House.
It
is what we did; it is what we signed up for. It is what is expected of us. I
remember we used to have coming in the stacks of emails from people. We didn't
write it. There was no speech writing going on back then. We never had enough
staff for that or enough money to pay them. We used to go email after email. It
is all we could do, Mr. Chair. We couldn't do nothing else. I am not a great
writer so I would read email after email after email after email.
Eventually, two days in people started saying: Hang on a second; I heard my
email was read. We were getting a lot of that stuff. But, ultimately, they were
applauding us. They knew that the end of the day, you know what, government had
that big majority back then of 31 seats I believe. They knew that government
would get their way eventually;
they'd wait you out. I guess that's what happened.
The
mission we were on was more about speaking up for the people who don't have that
voice. Because when you're in government – not this Legislature, any legislature
in the country and across the world, that's what you run into in the Westminster
legislatures. You get Government and Loyal Oppositions – and the US is different
with the representative. We're into a different legislature here.
We have
a role and it's a role that I will not take lightly – and I'll have more time to
speak before the day is out. But it's a role that I take very seriously. I think
everyone on our side take very seriously. Even the independents, even the people
in the Third Party. They mightn't support Bay du Nord, but they'll get up and
speak for the people when their turn comes.
So I
think that is the issue where we're here. We are here for carbon tax, but we're
here for people. And I know their voices can't be spoken for on the other side,
but we will speak for them on this side.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
Member for Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Chair.
I
appreciate the opportunity to be able to get up and speak and thank, again, the
residents of the Ferryland District for voting me in. I'll start off by saying
hello to my mom who's probably watching today home. I think she only –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Last week she learned how to
get on – she doesn't have it on her TV on the Bell, but my daughter who's in
Liverpool gave her the link to get on. I said that's not a good thing and then
last night I was down there and I was leaving, she said, now, Loyola, behave
yourself when you go in there tomorrow.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
L. O'DRISCOLL:
So I think I'll tell her in
advance to shut off the iPad.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
L. O'DRISCOLL:
So I will get to a serious
note. We are talking about the carbon tax for sure. We're talking about lowering
the prices for the people of the province. First thing that's going to come in
September is the sugar tax. That's something that they don't even know is going
to hit them yet. We're talking about bringing down taxes; they have no idea
what's coming yet.
I heard
the minister speak earlier about the sugary drinks that they're taxing – just
sugary drinks. But he's got to realize that these companies are doing their best
to bring down the sugary drinks. They have diet Pepsis; they have diet Cokes;
they have sugar-free drinks. So they're doing their job to do that. They don't
need to be putting more tax on them. They have to go out as companies now and
change their POS systems. Tens of thousands of dollars it's costing those
companies to change their point of sales, computers, to be able to do that.
So
that's something that the government went out – I know; I heard from them. They
went out and said you're doing this, there is no choice, you're getting it done
so you might as well adjust to it. They didn't get a choice; they have to do it.
And it is something that they've been doing since they started, over the years,
to make these pop drinks less sugary. They have been doing it themselves. They
have been trying to.
It is
the same as a car companies. As I have said before, now they're into electric
vehicles. I will be in the process of buying a vehicle by next March, as an
example. If I go in to order a car today, I'm going to be eight or 10 months
away to get a car, let alone an electric car. So they're not geared up yet. So
they're forcing this on us – I know the federal government are forcing this on
us and we're going to get there. We're eventually going to get there, but
they're forcing this on us. We're making the pay right now and that is hurting
the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We're
forced to do that. Like I said, there are no cars there to get. There are some
cars; I shouldn't say there are no cars. They're having trouble getting cars; I
know that. I know people who have been out and they're three or four months
waiting for a car to come in and they haven't got it yet. So now you're trying
to get in the process of yeah, I'll probably like to have an electric car, but I
wouldn't want to leave to go to Corner Brook tomorrow and drive across in my
electric car and have to stop four times and wait a half hour to an hour for it
to charge up fully. So the technology right now, that's where it is; it's going
to be a half hour to an hour to get maybe fully charged, not fully charged but
close.
So you
have to stop two or three times to leave to go across the Island. So if you have
a seven-hour trip to Corner Brook right now, then you're going to have another
1½ hour tacked on to that so now you're leaving earlier. That is the way it is
going to be until all these cars get tracked in and their batteries and all that
stuff.
Someone
else had asked me: How much do these batteries cost for these cars? Well, they
hadn't had an issue with them as of now, that I know. But somewhere along the
ways, it is like anything else, you have a battery in your bike, your ATV, or
your car, the battery gives out at some point that you never want it to give
out. So electric cars are not around yet, I wouldn't think – they're here
probably five or six years, I'd say that is how long. Maybe a little longer, I'm
not sure exactly. So five or six years.
So now,
a battery gives out in that; anybody here know the price of a battery in one of
those electric cars that you got to replace it? Nope, neither do I. I'm going to
say it is $4,000 or $5,000 at a minimum. That is a minimum right now. That will
probably go down the more cars you have. So you're talking about $5,000 for a
battery for a car or $4,000 if that happens. It is eventually going to happen.
If the cars are going to be electric, they're eventually going to wear out. Same
as your cellphone. It is like there is something in the cellphone every two
years, it is like the cellphone goes dead and you need to get another one. It is
like it is programmed to go down. Cars are going to be the same way, eventually,
at some point in time. Hopefully, you're going to do that.
So
you're looking at a cost of living and I look at the government, and I heard the
Member for Bonavista say the poverty reduction. We look at that. Why not a
Jumpstart program? Instead of putting sugary taxes, why not put some money into
a Jumpstart program for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to help the
kids?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
L. O'DRISCOLL:
You're talking about healthy
living, you start a Jumpstart program, kids will get involved in sports or
whatever activity they're going to do, whatever they can, whatever the schools
can help them with, or any organization to get more kids out and being active.
Well, that's an incentive to do it, not put tax on the sugary drink. That
doesn't make any sense to me. I would put more money and take the money and
invest it and get the kids out to be more active. Get them into hockey, get them
into softball and get them into gymnastics.
If
anyone here thinks gymnastics is going out waving pompoms, they're sadly
mistaken because it is probably the most athletic sport out there. For anyone
that's ever watched and you go watch these events, it's absolutely an athletic
sport.
Those
are some of the places that we should be investing our money into the kids to
get them more active, to get them out in the communities to do more of this
stuff. It's just a different incentive. We got away from that in 2016; they cut
it out. I believe the Member for Bell Island was a part of that program when it
first came out. It was a big initiative and we just squashed it. It came in and
you just cut it. But you can go out and tax people more now. It makes no sense.
Tax
people more and don't give the kids any more money to get out and be active.
Tell me what part of that makes any sense. That's a poverty reduction to me, if
you're going to help the kids get out and get active. They're going to get out
and be more be energetic in the community and be more healthy. Costing the
health care system less money over a period of time. That's what we're talking
about.
Food
prices, obviously have gone up. Based on fuel prices, the food has to go up. You
talk about vacations, going on vacations. People are going to have a hard job to
go on vacations. First of all, they leave the province and we have to do a test
for $59 or $60 to get out of the province per person, to go on a flight to prove
that we don't have COVID or if you already had COVID. It costs you $60.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Don't stay in Canada
(inaudible).
L. O'DRISCOLL:
If you're going to go outside
of Canada, that's correct. So I will make that point. If you stay in Canada,
then it's not going to cost you – good point. I will take that under advisement.
That's a good one, though.
If you
go out in the US or anywhere else, it's going to cost you $60 each. You have
four in a family at a minimum and that is $240 more, besides your flights. Then
you get down and you can't get a rental car. Rental cars are doubled. I know
that; they're doubled. Not only here, everywhere. That's not only here, that's
everywhere.
Obviously you go to the gas stations now and you're driving here – we just drove
across the Island; $300 to go across the Island and come back again. It's not
cheap. Somebody said that's doubled from last year. I'm going to say probably
double or close to it. It wasn't exactly double, but it's pretty close.
But
those are the things that are affecting the normal, everyday person. I know
you're not forgetting it, but we're here to reinforce that's why we're here.
We're here to speak for the common people, to be able to get out and have their
life – get back to normal. To do their regular driving and to do all the things
they'd like to do. They can't go out to a restaurant as much.
What you
came in with the other day, all of a sudden you opened the door, jeez, we found
$80 million. We must give that out to the people.
Why
didn't we do that when the budget came out? It's like an imaginary door or
closet was found. It's unbelievable. I took three weeks of bantering on
everybody to try to get it – wow, we found a door with $80 million behind it.
Now we're going to give that out to everybody. That's amazing. I can't believe
it.
So you
must have come up with that idea. No, three or four weeks of bantering is how it
got there and the reason it got there is because the people on this side have
spoken for the people and you had to have a look at it. I don't blame you to
have a look at it. It's a great idea and it's a great initiative. I'm glad you
did it.
With all
that advice that we have given you, I'm glad that you opened the door and found
$80 million to help the people. I'm very glad of it. Hopefully, you can find
another $222 million somewhere else in door number two; we'd like to have
another $222 million.
I'll
leave that off, I'm running out of time here, but I certainly have to get
another opportunity to speak later on.
Thank
you, Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
C. TIBBS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I just
want to touch on the sugar tax as well; everybody else seemed to have a minute
here. I've just got a question for the government: The predicted tax revenue for
this sugar tax is what, again? I'm going to ask my –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Five million dollars.
C. TIBBS:
Five million dollars is the
predicted revenue for the sugar tax. My question is this: If your plan is
supposed to work, shouldn't that revenue be zero?
S. COADY:
Please God.
C. TIBBS:
Please God. That's right. But
we have said $5 million. So nobody is going to drink less sugary drinks. The
only thing this is going to accomplish is taking more money out of taxpayers'
pockets that really can't afford it. If your plan was going to work, that
prediction would be zero, but it's $5 million. So you're expecting for people to
continue to drink sugary drinks.
I'm on
board with it, I would love to see people drink less sugary drinks, too, but I
think a different approach is needed here.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Hopefully it's zero
C. TIBBS:
Hopefully it's zero, yes,
absolutely. Hopefully it's zero.
On one
hand, we're taxing the people of the province as they drink sugary drinks, but
on the other hand, we're sticking our hands back in the pockets again to give
money to a brewery. How does this make any sense to us?
AN HON. MEMBER:
It's about choice.
C. TIBBS:
It's about choice, but we're
making a choice of promoting that brewery and putting money back in there.
That's the choice. We make the choice of giving it to the brewery and taking it
out of
taxpayers' pockets. It just makes no sense to me at this moment.
So
we talk about the carbon tax, and you'll have to forgive me if I do not take the
word of the main head honcho who is pushing this carbon tax down everybody's
throat, which is our prime minister. When he shows up at the Delta a few weeks
ago in six or seven huge black Suburbans as a security detail. Now does he need
it? Does he need it? One could argue of course he needs it. He is an important
man and important dignitaries like that they need it. But guess what? Harold
Curtis in Grand Falls-Windsor that works in the produce department at Dominion,
he needs to get to work as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
C. TIBBS:
Gail Budgell who works in the OR in the Grand
Falls-Windsor hospital, she needs to get to work as well. Ray Pardy, he drives
the school bus every morning, he has got to get to work as well. The only
difference is these people do not have the money to put into their gas tanks
like the prime minister and his seven Suburbans do. And that is not right. That
is not right. You give him the same paycheque as some of these people with the
same bank account, I guarantee he would suffer as well and that carbon tax would
go away pretty quick.
I
heard the Finance Minister earlier today talking about this as a home run. When
we use the analogy for baseball, sort of thing, and we started the analogy for
baseball, but when that was said here, that this was a home run for the
province, everybody cheered. I don't know what people are cheering about. I have
no idea.
I
moved to Ireland in 2000 when I was 22 years old and there was an older fellow
there Gus O'Donovan. He sort of took me under his wing and he gave me some of
the best advice I have ever gotten in my entire life. And it is the best advice
I have ever gotten. He said: Chris, at 22 years old you pretty much know
everything that you are going to know in life, like all of the basics you know
it right now. Now be aware of it. When you separate those two things, you get a
completely different outlook and outcome.
We
all know the people in our province are hurting here today. We all know it.
Everybody knows it and we stand here and we say, yeah, we know it. We get the
emails. We know it. We know it but there aren't many people that are aware of
it.
You
can argue with me and say that you are aware of it. You are not. You are not
because I would argue that there is not a person in this Chamber that goes to
the gas station and pulls up their phone really quick before they pump that gas
to see how much money they have in their account. There are very few, if anybody
here that does that. But when you stop into a gas station and a mom or dad has
got to take you their phone to check real quick: I got $17 in my account, I can
put in $15. That is being aware of it. That is being aware of it.
When a
mom or dad goes to the grocery store, everything costs a little bit more right
now, and I've said it before, and I'll say it again, you watch senior citizens
or a mom and dad, a single mom or a single dad put stuff back on the shelf. Do
you know what? We know they're doing it, but we're not aware of it. Not a person
here is aware of that, not a person here. We're all trying to be a little frugal
at home, I'm sure, but when you have a budget of $78 for your week's worth of
groceries and you have two youngsters, they're aware of it, trust me.
We might
know it, but they're aware of it and that is the disconnect. That is the
disconnect that I've seen throughout government for eons and eons and eons.
We can
stand here and we can argue back and forth and talk about what's best for the
province, but until you're aware of what the people are going through, and I'm
not talking about looking at an email. I'm not talking about talking to a
constituent every now and again and you say what you think is what they want to
hear. I'm talking about being aware of it: Being in that situation. We all were
in that situation probably at one time, but we easily forget. I think we easily
forget.
So my
argument would be to stay on the ground, talk to these people more. Be in
contact with these people more. If you want to be aware of what they're going
through, try to be in contact with them a little bit more and try to take on
what they have. People out there are missing mortgages, car payments, everything
else. Houses are getting repossessed. We know it; we say it in passing. Not many
people are aware of it and, unfortunately, that's where the disconnect comes in.
I want
to take a quick second and just give a quote here. Not a quote, sorry, a
definition: Equality verses equity. I'll use the province, instead of person.
Equality means each individual province is given the same resources or
opportunities. Equity recognizes that each province has different circumstances
and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal
outcome. Not all provinces are the same. They truly are not.
Geographically, of course, we're a dispersed province. Our people are dispersed,
we're more of a territory; I've heard that more than once. But when you look at
each province being different in Canada – and my colleague from Stephenville -
Port au Port said it best earlier – we've done our due. We have done it. We've
taken on these hydroelectric projects so hopefully all the bunker C that's being
burned in this province is going to be taken offline. We're helping Nova Scotia.
We've helped Quebec over the past 50 years, haven't we? We have paid our dues.
In my
opinion, we should be rewarded with that. We should be able to go to Ottawa and
say we have done our due diligence, we've taken a chance, we've taken the
liabilities and here we are. That should be rewarded to Newfoundland and
Labrador. We should not fall under the same category as every province,
including Ontario for instance, that probably puts out more pollution than any
other province in Canada. So when we look at the equality and equity, that's a
definition that should come into this conversation when it comes to talk to the
prime minister or your friends up in Ottawa there.
We ask
who's fighting for us, who's bringing this message ahead? I would like to know
what was said. Was this argument made that not all provinces are equal, so not
all provinces should be treated equally, just to have a carbon tax across the
board? It's not good enough.
This
equality and equity can be used the same as urban and rural places in
Newfoundland and Labrador as well. You know what, the Metrobus in St. John's and
on the Avalon here, it's absolutely fantastic. I hope people use it because it's
a great service. We don't have it in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We don't.
So people that have to drive from Grand Falls-Windsor to Botwood to go to work –
not at the emergency room, by the way, because that's not open, but anywhere
else down there, for people that have to make that drive they can't get a bus.
They can't get a bus down there; they have to take their vehicles. When you're
spending 40, 50 bucks a day to get to work, well by God, what's the sense in
going anymore.
We
literally have people right now that are saying they can't afford to go to work.
What's that going to do for us down the road? So equality and equity need to be
discussed. That should've been the cornerstone when we went to Ottawa and fought
to get this tax taken away from Newfoundland and Labrador. Every other province
might do it, but all I'm worried about is Newfoundland and Labrador right now.
Just a
minute left. I'm going to touch on something that I've always touched on and
always will, and that's the mental health aspect of all this. Whether it be the
sugar tax, the carbon tax, we continue to stick our hands inside the pockets of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that cannot afford it. They truly cannot afford
it.
I get
our fiscal responsibilities and I get that we're fiscally strapped. It's not an
easy job the government has – it's not an easy job – but different choices can
be made. They truly can. I've said it before and I'll say it again, just as my
colleague for Exploits has said it: The Premier's office in Grand Falls-Windsor
is going to cost the taxpayers probably $750,000 to a million dollars over the
next three or four years. It doesn't need to be there, it shouldn't be there. So
let's take that money and stick it back into the pockets of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians where it belongs.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
Member for Terra Nova.
L. PARROTT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr.
Chair, last Thursday when the announcement was made on gas tax, I listened to
the Premier and the Finance Minister say, boastfully: We've listened to the
people. They had an opportunity to listen to the people on April 7 and every day
before that when they introduced the budget. If they were listening, we wouldn't
have had to wait until last Thursday for this announcement. If they were
listening, it would have been done a long time ago. As a matter of fact, if they
were listening we wouldn't have spent the last two months listening to them tell
us that this could not be done. Sadly, day after day, we heard the same thing:
This cannot be done.
Then the
default goes to $142 million that we've put back in people's pockets. Well, I
would challenge them to bring one individual forward who received the $2,400
cheque – one. That's all I'd like to see. The claim is that everybody in the
province got the $2,400 put back in their pockets. The reality is that none of
them got it put back in their pockets.
Now, I
understand that this money was used to mitigate the price of electricity, but
there was no guarantee that electricity was going to go up substantially, as
they had predicted. No, you can look across, that was never set.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
L. PARROTT:
There's a process, Minister,
and you know the process as well as I do. So when the process comes in place,
there's a chance that electricity could go up, but that process wasn't in place.
I also
listened today to the minister stand up and say extraordinary times call for
extraordinary measures. There's some truth in that statement, but I will say
this: There's nobody in this province that thinks these are extraordinary
measures. If you want to see something extraordinary, perhaps someone should get
on a plane and go see their friends in Ottawa, and ask them about the 11.5 cents
that people are getting paid. We've got five cents from the refinery and an
11.5-cent carbon tax, along with the gas tax. There's an opportunity for us to
be yelling and screaming at the so-called friends, cousins, aunts, uncles,
whatever they are in Ottawa, asking for a pause on that.
The very
thing that we were told by this government we couldn't do is what they came back
and done. Which to me, it leads to the question, how is it that it can happen
right now? Maybe it's as my colleague said, maybe they opened up door number two
and found a pot of money. I don't know but there are no answers.
There's
a quote that says, the number one reason people fail in life is because they
listen to their friends, family and neighbours. I would say that this is the one
time we should be arguing with our friends, family and neighbours. This is the
one time that we should be telling Ottawa that we need relief. When you have
people who can't afford to eat, can't afford to go to work and there's an
11.5-cent carbon tax that could be paused, nobody is suggesting that it get
stopped. The reality of it is that it's too much right now. Extraordinary times
– too much right now – extraordinary measures. Facing off against the very
people who have put this in place. It's pretty simple.
The
Premier left his chair and flew to Ottawa to listen to a virtual meeting with
the president of Ukraine. Yet he won't get off his chair and go to Ottawa and
tell his buddy, Justin, that we need extraordinary measures. We are not every
other province. We are Newfoundland and Labrador and we need more. We need more.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
L. PARROTT:
I can call him whatever I
want, thank you very much. At the end of the day, if you want to stand on a
point of order, go right ahead.
At the
end of the day, this province is in a place that we haven't seen before. The
reality of it is that we do need extraordinary measures, I totally agree with
the minister, but how do we get there. Part of it is for standing up for the
people that need it.
I
listened to –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
L. PARROTT:
Yeah, I seen you were out and
seen him.
The cost
of living is not made easier by purchasing an electric car. Absolutely –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
L. PARROTT:
And so I should be. I should
be listening on the behalf of all the people who put me here, as you guys
should. You guys should get off your –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
L. PARROTT:
That's the bottom line. I
should be listening to everyone running in a leadership. We seen what happened
in your leadership. The preordained – every one of you showed up in masks before
you even knew what was going on. So there you go.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
L. PARROTT:
You see what it got us. Right
where we are right now.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
L. PARROTT:
I am, 100 per cent.
The
reality of it is we need leadership here and we don't have it.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Brazil is doing (inaudible.)
L. PARROTT:
David Brazil is doing a
fabulous job.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
L. PARROTT:
People every day are suffering and this is what we resort to. Here is the
reality. The Member for Virginia Waters - Pleasantville says all the time: Facts
are facts. And you know what, he is right. He is 100 per cent right; facts are
facts, but here is what government just did.
They
said if you can't afford to put gas in your car, you should buy an electric car.
That is like going downtown and looking at a homeless person and telling them if
they can't afford a house, to go buy a house. People can't afford to buy
electric cars. People can't afford to buy homes. People can't afford to put gas
in their car. They can't afford any of the essentials of life that they need
right now.
At the
end of the day, that's what we should be looking at. We should be looking at
what's happening to the people that need it the most. And the people that need
it the most are the ones that are yelling and screaming.
My
colleague for CBS said today we get emails all the time from everyone throughout
the district. We do and I'm sure you guys do too. We get the sad stories and
there are good stories out there too, make no mistake about it. There are
businesses starting up, there are tourism businesses that are looking forward to
a good summer: There are all kinds of good things happening, but the reality of
it is that there are lots of bad things happening.
When we
stand up in this House and we talk about what we can and can't do and people say
it is about choices, well, here is something about choices. Choices need to be
made for the right reasons. When we make choices to invest money in some things
and the timing is wrong, then they're not the right choices. We have done that.
We've done that in this budget and we've done it historically in this province.
At some point, we need to make the choices that benefit the people that put us
here.
We've
always had a province that's flush in natural resources; flush in opportunity
and we've failed to take advantage of it. Now, more than ever, we need to start
taking advantage of those things and finding a way to put money back in people's
pockets.
I would
argue that the way to put money back in people's pockets is to get them working,
to get the economy going, to find ways to spur what we have here. Instead, we
sit in here and we spin our wheels and we cast blame and we look back in
history. We talk about $142 million, $500 million, all the mistakes of the past
but we forget about the mistakes that we made ourselves as individuals or
governments.
We need
to start looking forward. That is the only way we can go. When we sit here and
we don't look at what we can do. We say we can't do it, we can't do it, we can't
do it; oh my God, look, I just found $80 million. How much credibility does that
lend to anybody in this House? The reality of it is we all look like fools at
some point.
The
timing and the perceptions of the choices that we've made in the last little
while, there's no doubt that it's incited people in the public. I will agree
with the Minister of Tourism, I don't think for a second that the investment in
NASCAR is a bad thing, but I struggle with the timing of it. I don't think for a
second that investment in industry in this province is a bad thing, but I
struggle with the timing of it based on what people are dealing with.
AN HON. MEMBER:
It can create jobs.
L. PARROTT:
I don't dispute that it can
create jobs. But people need to be able to drive to those jobs. People need to
be able to find a way to get to work.
When we
have a Premier who's travelling to Ireland, who's travelling to Ottawa and who's
opening offices in Grand Falls.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
L. PARROTT:
You guys know when he went.
Scotland, yeah, sorry. Photo shot.
But the
reality of all of this is right here, right now. We've been in this federation
for 73 years and for 73 years we still are handcuffed. We've got a carbon tax
that's being put down upon us by the federal government; 73 years into
Confederation, and they're telling us that we have to implement it. We've got a
provincial government that's telling us that we can't withdraw any of our taxes
because backstops will come into place. We've heard that 142 million times to be
exact. Here we are a week ago making an announcement on it. So why did we have
to wait that long?
Then we
have an example, a home heat rebate, I get it, come this fall people will put
their first tank of fuel in their thing, I know why we do that. But here's the
other side of it, between now and then, there are people who can't afford to pay
bills, lots of them. We need to find a way to help those people.
So the
seven cents, does it go far enough? I don't think it does. The 11.5 cent carbon
tax: there's zero chance that I can support it. We should be yelling and
screaming to our federal counterparts to put a pause on it immediately –
immediately.
My time
is up.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Member for St. John's Centre.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
I'll
start off by saying: I've been there. I've been there as part of a young couple
with a family and struggling, two cars because we had to. I taught up the shore,
my wife taught in town. I can tell you it was tough at many times. I won't go
into just how bad it was at times, but nevertheless we worked through it.
I
volunteered with Saint Vincent de Paul for over 30 years, walking into houses
and we saw how much people struggle – a hell of a lot worse than any of us can
imagine.
When we
talk about the need for immediate help: totally agree. We also need a long-term
strategy. When I look at the whole carbon tax debate, I've got to ask myself the
question as to who are we helping, because not everyone is going to benefit from
that. There are a lot of people who will see not one benefit from reduction in
the carbon tax.
I'll
give an example where I'm going here, too, because there's a greater cost if we
don't address this. I'm sure you've seen the news from Ontario, the tornado that
swept through there. It left people dead, destroyed property, destroyed homes,
knocked out power to schools. My sister teaches up there and, I can tell you,
for a while there that the calls: Are you all right?
Extreme
weather events as a result of climate change, or better yet, let's go back to
Snowmageddon in 2020 and think about the event and who is going to be most
impacted by these extreme events. Not necessarily the people who can afford to
put food in the refrigerator, but it's going to be the vulnerable. The ones who
are on the margin already. Back then, long before any increase, they were
struggling. The ones on income support, where they are already not making
enough.
So when
I look at it, in terms of what we call for and what we have looked for, are more
robust measures than just simply a tax decrease. Because, in the end, taxes also
pay for many of the services, whether it's paving our roads, whether it's
reducing, hopefully, the busing for our students, that's what taxes go into.
Things, by the way, like the busing, I have no need for it, but to me it's a
service that is necessary for people in this province, Chair, who need it. So
that's why I pay taxes, even if it doesn't directly affect me.
You may recall I've brought this up before, Canada's Food
Price Report back in December predicted at that time a 5 to 7 per cent increase
in food prices, 9 per cent here in Newfoundland. That was back in December.
We've seen this coming, this is not something that just happened in the last few
months. This has been on the rise for the last decade or more. It's gotten worse
this year.
I have
to address, too, the whole notion about the whole, let's say, use of electric
vehicles, of transitioning to a green economy. I was looking at the opportunity
here. Now, it's been said that electric vehicles are out of reach. I would
suggest that there are an awful lot of gas-powered cars that are out of reach
for many people. And if you look at the cost of what you pay in fuel versus the
electric rates or to charge a car, it probably balances out.
But
apart from that, here's the key thing. We've called for a transition plan
because there's no way everyone's going to be going to electric today. That's
not going to happen. We know that. I'm not going to turn in my car to get a
vehicle for a lot of reasons. But, right now, I'm already planning for that
because I know it is coming.
But a
transition plan is needed if we are to make sure that we get the most of jobs,
people-intensive work; that we start by looking at solutions such as public
transit, I'll talk a little bit more about that later; and that we have the
necessary supports for workers. That's what a plan is about.
How many
here remember Reddy Kilowatt? I do, I remember Reddy Kilowatt. What you may not
know is that Reddy Kilowatt was developed in the 1920s as a way to encourage
people to electrify their homes. It's hard to believe that there was a time when
people were skeptical of electricity. They were afraid of it, didn't think it
would work, thought it would cost too much money. Reddy Kilowatt was developed
in relation to that, to encourage people to make the transition to electricity.
Now,
it's hard to believe because we power our phones, we turn on our TVs and we
never think twice about it. But there was a time when people were hesitant about
making the transition. It will never work – never work, skeptical, suspicious.
There was a plan, though, to get the people who were in rural areas especially,
as most of the cities had been electrified by that time in the States, but there
were still a lot of people who were resistant to it. But it came about and we
don't even think about it.
In 2001,
for 9/11, people came to Holy Heart and they were looking for phones because I
can tell you, the cellphone was not where it was. And here's my point:
Technology develops exponentially. So you think about where the development of
any of the technology, green technologies will be in five years, it will be
phenomenal. And we've got to accept that.
Will
reducing carbon taxes impact food prices? Maybe. I can tell you that for many of
the people who contacted me, a lot of them, they're calling out for something
different. I've had numerous people calling for more investment in public
transit. I've got a gentleman who is panhandling on the streets of St. John's to
pay for diabetic strips. He's not worried about the carbon tax. He's not worried
about heating costs; he's worried about diabetic strips. The family in December,
who contacted me at that time, who'd just bought $100 worth of groceries and was
totally devastated, didn't know where they were going to get the money to pay
for their next groceries, and first time of considering what else they could do
illegal, possibly, to get that money.
We've
called for a minimum wage which was a living wage and to index it. Even
Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador has called for a broader conversation
on a provincial-wide transit system to start that conversation. I'm thinking
also, if we want to start tackling some of the things that cost people – and not
all people, but a lot of people, especially those who are the middle class,
let's take a look at bank fees, internet bills, cell coverage, pharmacare,
electricity rates. For the most part if we're looking broadening this, whether
it's with the federal government, whoever, municipal government, whatever it is
to bring down these costs for people. Because to the person who depends on
Metrobus, saving a few cents at the pump is not going to make much of a
difference.
To the
person who is on income support, the single person or who may be living on
something like $4,500 a year, it works to less than $100 a week, Mr. Chair. So
we've got to find broader ways, broader approaches to resolving it so that
there's a greater impact on the people of this province, the people who need it.
It's
interesting, I'll leave with this: Insurance rates here in St. John's are double
what they are on the West Coast of this province. That's what the premiums are.
I know my son worked over here and he was paying half the price. So if we want
to look at it, let's look at other ways which we can start bringing costs down
for people.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Chair.
Chair, I
move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit
again.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion
is 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 Baie Verte - Green Bay and Deputy Chair of the Committee of the
Whole.
B. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Ways and Means have considered the matters to them referred and have
directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred to them and directed him to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
When
shall the report be received?
S. CROCKER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the Committee have leave to sit again?
S. CROCKER:
Presently.
SPEAKER:
Presently.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again presently,
by leave.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that this
House do now recess until 6 p.m.
SPEAKER:
This House do stand recessed
until 6 p.m.
May 30, 2022
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. L No. 58A
The
House resumed at 6 p.m.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I'd like to start off by asking leave to do first reading of Bill 64,
the reduction in gas tax.
SPEAKER:
Leave granted?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Yes.
SPEAKER:
Leave is granted.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, that Bill 64 be now read
a first time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 64 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,
the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a
bill, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No.6,” carried. (Bill 64)
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Revenue Administration Act No.6. (Bill 64)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the bill be read a second time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 64 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, that this House resolve
itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 60.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the
Whole to consider the said bill.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion
carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Trimper):
Order, please!
We are
considering a resolution respecting the imposition of taxes on carbon, Bill 60.
Resolution
“That it
is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the imposition of taxes on carbon
products.”
CHAIR:
I now recognize the Member
for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Chair.
It's a
pleasure once again to stand in this House of Assembly on behalf of the
residents of the Stephenville - Port au Port District. Unfortunately, I'm
standing again to talk about a tax increase. I wish I was not standing to talk
about a tax increase, but rather talking about some other measure. But that is
what it is. It's an increase in taxes and on the same day, as I said earlier,
that we're going to be introducing a bill to reduce gasoline tax on the one
hand, we're going to add carbon tax on the other.
And, of
course, we've talked a lot about taxation and about what's coming. The carbon
tax debate we're having now, tonight, but we also know that in September there
is looming a sugar tax for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. And while
the government talks about the benefits to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador of increasing taxes so that they can eat healthier or drink healthier,
I'm not sure that their logic is totally accurate. The fact that you're going to
take more money out of people's pockets to try to force them or change their
habits, in this particular case, I would argue that the impact you are hoping to
achieve by implementing a sugar tax has already been achieved by the fact that
inflation is now at over 6 per cent.
So when
you go to that grocery store now or your local stores or you go to buy food,
you're looking at those choices you have to make between what's essential and
what one would consider optional. And for some people, optional may be that soft
drink. The price of those soft drinks has already risen by more than the tax
that you want to impose on them. So why would we add another burden of taxation
when we already know that inflation has taken care of what you hope to achieve
by putting on a tax.
If we
were in a different time and a different place when it was first introduced, I'd
understand the logic, but now nobody could tell me that the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador need another tax, whether you call it a sugar tax or
some other tax. And as I just said, the inflation alone has taken care of that.
The high costs, the increased costs are through the roof on every single
product. People understand that. The people opposite understand it, people on
this side of the House understand it; you just have to go to the store.
In
economics, inflation is described as a general increase in prices and a fall in
the purchasing value of money. So that's exactly what has happened here. We've
seen significant increases in prices in the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador and across the country and a significant fall in the purchasing value
of money. All of those people on fixed incomes in the Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador have seen the value and a fall in the purchasing value of their
money. And how does that impact them? It impacts them when they go to the
grocery store. It impacts them when they go fill up for gas. It impacts them
when they go and fill up their oil tank. It has impacted them almost in every
way possible. In some cases, they do not have options. With a limited amount in
their bank accounts, which they've now used up to pay for last winter's heating
costs, they are looking for help. The last thing they need is another tax. The
last thing they need in the fall is another tax.
So let
us not simply turn around and implement a tax because we had planned to
implement it. Let's really look at the economic situation of the people of the
province. The fall in the purchasing value of their money. So a sugar tax, if
you want to implement it, you've deferred it until September. Defer it more.
Defer it until such time as inflation starts to come back down to where it was
when you decided to implement a sugar tax. So maybe that's what you could do.
It's already on the books. When it was originally proposed inflation was much
lower than it is right now. So I'm suggesting, defer it until inflation comes
down and protect the purchasing value of the money of the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador. Those are the things that matter.
Who
benefits from inflation? We know companies benefit from inflation. If you have a
product that is in high demand and short supply, you will benefit from
inflation, because the prices you charge for your product will go up. But let's
add one more beneficiary of inflation: the provincial government. The revenue,
the coffers of government increase because of inflation.
Let me
give you a classic example that everybody in this House should be able to relate
to, and that is the cost of a piece of two-by-four. If you're going out to build
a shed, build a patio, build a house, your original price, prior to this huge
increase, a piece of two-by-four cost $3.59 and you paid HST on that purchase.
The government's share of that HST on that one purchase of one piece of
two-by-four, when it was at $3.59, the province collected 36 cents. On that one
piece of two-by-four, the province collected 36 cents.
Now,
that same piece of two-by-four costs $8.99. So anybody that's thinking about
building houses, building decks or doing any kind of renovations, or garages or
sheds, faces significant increased costs. But who benefits from that? Provincial
coffers, because now on an $8.99 piece of two-by-four, the provincial revenue,
their share of HST does to 90 cents.
So the
provincial government on piece of two-by-four is seeing an increase in HST from
36 cents to 90 cents. The government is benefiting from inflation, in that
perspective. Every single purchase, a simple thing like that, increases the
coffers.
The
Minister of Finance has acknowledged increases. The cost of the temporary tax
reduction on gas tax from June to December is $44 million. The Finance Minister,
in her statements the other day, said this will not increase the deficit, as the
revenue collected by the province is also increased. This two-by-four example is
one example of how the revenue to government has increased. Now if oil keeps
trading where it's at, above what we have budgeted at $86, and production stays
the same, we'll see another significant benefit to the Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador – another one.
So let's
talk about not imposing any more taxes. We do not need it. The people of the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador simply cannot afford it. They simply
cannot afford it. And the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador does not need it
from a revenue-generation piece. They do not need it. Because we're going to see
significant revenue increases, which the government has already received and
will continue to receive. So let's turn around and say no to a sugar tax at this
time. Let's defer it. Let's put it back until the inflation rate drops to where
it was when it was introduced.
Let's
say no to the federal government on carbon tax increases – because again,
inflation has taken care of that particular problem. Because the price at the
pump is now twice as much as it was when perhaps carbon tax was first
introduced. And that's another benefit of course, to the province, because every
time the price of gas goes up, the province has seen an increase in HST. All of
those things surely would tempt you to say the last thing that we need to put
back to our people, giving them a tax break on the left hand is to take it away
in the right hand by increasing taxes.
Thank
you so much for your time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Thank you very much.
I now
recognize the hon. Member for the District of Exploits.
P. FORSEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again,
Mr. Chair, it's always nice to get here at this House of Assembly and represent
the people of my district. Any time they've got some issues to share, I
certainly don't mind bringing them here. And this time certainly it's the taxes
that they're facing on this one right now, the carbon tax, which is forcing
those people to be forced into a higher cost of living, higher tax that they
have to pay, and they are burdened to death with taxes already, burdened to
death with the cost of living.
They
can't afford any more taxing, any more increase in food, any more increase in
cost of living, because every day it takes a piece out of their cheque, more and
more. Right now they're only living cheque to cheque, and that is a strain on
families, it's a strain on their incomes and people are trying to survive as
comfortably as they can. Again, Chair, even volunteer groups in my district – I
know my colleague from Cape St. Francis has brought up the same issue – and the
volunteer groups pay a big portion of my district, they support my district a
great deal.
But they
are finding it tough now even to be able to do their volunteer work as in
contributing to the things that they wanted to do, because the cost of getting
around to fulfill their needs and the things that they want, they just can't
afford to do it, Mr. Chair. A carbon tax doesn't help this situation by no means
right now. It's just adding more burden on our society.
Increases in population: You want to increase the population. They're deciding
now whether to have a second child or not. Do we make those decisions on having
another child? It's just too expensive to have another child. We know how much
we need growth in this province with regard to children, people, and our own are
making decisions of not having to have another child because it's too expensive
to clothe them, too expensive to buy the needs that they have to have for them,
buy the necessities that they want. That's a really tough decision, that is, and
forcing those people to make those decisions is not where we need to be. We need
to be getting those taxes down, getting that carbon tax off, and then putting it
to a better use.
Farmers:
We talk about increasing food self-sufficiency. The carbon tax, the taxes that
we apply, only adds to – yes, I know they're probably not going to pay tax on
the direct fuels that they're using, but they're going to be paying a higher
cost on the parts that they need, higher cost on the wheat that they need,
higher costs on the fertilizer that they need. All that's coming in through
other means of transportation, causing the farmers to put those food increases
on the tables of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Every
time they get an increase in cost, they have to pass that cost down. They have
no other choice only to put their cost up. A carbon tax right now is certainly
going to increase on the tax of foods that we're paying on the tables of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
We need
to address that. We need to go to Ottawa and get Ottawa to decline on that
carbon tax now, so that we can get the farmers back to a more regulated season.
This is the growing season. They're telling me that they can't expand on their
land because of the fuels in their machines – it's too costly, to clear the
land. So in order to increase food self-sufficiency, food security, we need
their land cleared. We need for them to be able to grow their crops. They can't
do that. It costs too much, even just to clear the land. Not only then, just to
get the fertilizers and to be able to grow their crop and get it on the tables
of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Climate
change doesn't have to mean a carbon tax; it really doesn't. There are other
ways and means that we can support our climate change. We have done that through
– I've heard it here again – Muskrat Falls, through the green energy projects
that we have. We've paid enough. We are the generators for it. We should be able
to have the carbon tax release.
Carbon
taxes and all those taxes, this forces people to make choices. Not the kind of
choices that the government makes; tough choices that the people have to make.
The tough choice that they have to make right now is trying to get to work,
trying to feed their families. How are we going to get there? We don't have an
electric car. We have to use our vehicle, which gas costs more. I know that the
government has put in a program for electric vehicles, which is great, but when
they can't afford it upfront, it don't work.
Those
are the type of choices that the individuals have to make. But I tell you the
choice that government could have made, on a Premier's office in Central
Newfoundland, $750,000 probably in three years – what's an electric car? Fifty
thousand dollars, basically, for an electric car. It makes that out to be 15
electric cars that you could have put in Central Newfoundland. There's your
carbon tax.
If that
office is not going to Ottawa to fight for our carbon tax, then give us 15
electric cars. He's not doing anything. Give us 15 electric cars and we can put
them up on a draw; do whatever we like with them. I'm sure there are lots of
residents that can't get to work Central Newfoundland because it's too expensive
for them. I hear it every day.
Carbon –
they can be driving away in their electric cars. There'd be 15 of them right now
in Central Newfoundland that they could drive. But the Premier would rather have
a voice in there that has no voice because he's not going to Ottawa. Seven MHAs
and the Premier needs a voice.
That's
the type of choices that they're doing. That's the kind of choices. Put 15
electric cars in there so that people could be able to afford to get to work on
their electric cars and be able to afford to do what they want to do.
Chair,
that's the kind of choices, but unfortunately the choices that they have to make
is food for their children. Seniors, again, they can't afford to buy fuel for
their oil tank. They can't fill up their oil tanks, and we've heard this time
and time over the winter. I've heard it. What are we going to do? I can't fill
up my oil tank. And that's very sad.
The
carbon tax, that's another tax that we don't need. We don't need seniors calling
us saying, b'y, I can't afford to get my tank filled up. They cut the seniors'
hours back in 2016 and increased their contributions, and now it costs more to
live in their own homes when they can't even afford to live there in the first
place. They can't even afford to live there. They can't afford to heat it, they
can't afford the groceries there and government won't even help, give them extra
hours to get there, only pay more costs on that.
So
that's the kind of stuff that's happening, and we hear this. I know I brought up
the Premier's office a dozen times, and I'll keep bringing it up, because that's
what I hear in my district. When seniors and people are making those type of
choices and they're looking at government and government is saying, boy, we're
going to give this money to our Liberal friends now. We're going to create an
office there, so that they can get to work, so that they can stay warm. We're
going to feed their pockets, but we're going to take it out of the pockets of
the rest of the people in Central Newfoundland. We're going to take it out of
theirs and we're going to give it to you fellas, so that you can continue to go
to work and do whatever you want to do, but the other fellas, you're going to
have to pay for it.
That's
the type of choices. So when people hear this in Central Newfoundland, that's
why they get mad. That's why they don't like it, to see government money spent
in those situations when they're trying to make a living. It don't add up. It
really don't add up. Mr. Chair, when it comes to carbon tax and other tax, it
forces people to make choices, not the choices that the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador are having to make right now, the tough ones, but they are making
tough choices indeed.
So with
that, Mr. Chair, I'll sit down and hopefully have my chance to talk on something
else on regard to my area in the next coming days.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Thank you very much.
I next
recognize the Member representing the District of Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and
glad to have the opportunity to speak again.
Mr.
Chair, you know, one of the things we've been talking about here in this House,
of course, is –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
It's a
little difficult to hear the Member.
Thank
you very much.
P. LANE:
– I guess the main focus has
been cost-of-living issues; specifically we're talking about carbon tax. But I
think it all comes down to the overlying theme is cost of living, and what does
government have the ability to do to help people with cost-of-living issues that
we're currently experiencing.
Now this
is a bit of a strange request, or suggestion I would say, Mr. Chair, but it did
come to me from a senior, actually. I understand that a lot of seniors, sort of
the ongoing plan is you turn 65; you get your OAS. You don't need to work
anymore; you get your OAS, CPP, and so on. But there are a lot of seniors who
find themselves in the boat where – some of them want to work beyond 65. They
have their health and so on, and just to get out of the house, whatever, they
like to go to work. There are some seniors who, at that age, again they have
their health. They may not necessarily want to work as much, but they want to
enjoy a better lifestyle.
I know
there are seniors, for example, who even though they might qualify for their
OAS, CPP, they might work for a few months of the year to try to get some money
together so that they can perhaps go away down South somewhere for two or three
months, whatever, and that's how they earn their bit of money to do so.
I had a
senior reach out and said, look, why not throw this out there – I'm not
suggesting that we want to put all seniors to work now and crack the whip or
nothing like that; that's not the suggestion. But for seniors who do want to
work, beyond 65, one of the impediments that this person said they have is
they're afraid if they work too much, they lose their drug card. They can work a
little bit and keep their drug card, but the suggestion to the government is,
even if it's a temporary thing, while the price of everything is through the
roof, why not consider changing the threshold so if I'm a senior, at 65, and I
want to –
AN HON. MEMBER:
You are.
P. LANE:
My colleague is saying you
are.
If I am
a senior, at 65, and I want to work and I'm able to work, that my drug card
won't be impacted or any other benefits won't be impacted. So I'm able to earn a
little more money to try to get myself through this turbulent time, to earn some
extra money, and not have to worry that if I do so, my drug card or other
benefits that I might otherwise be entitled to get cut by the government.
Arguably, that wouldn't cost the government a cent to do that, really. Because
if I have drug card now that I'm entitled to, and you're already paying for it,
all you're doing is you're continuing on. As a matter of fact, if I go to work
and make more money, I'm actually paying more taxes into you. So I see that sort
of as a win-win scenario. It's not going to work for everybody, Mr. Chair, but
for seniors who are out there that are able and willing and want to work,
allowing them to earn extra money, if they so desire, that helps them with the
cost of living. It gets more people out in the workplace. We know there are a
lot of employers finding it hard to get people to work – and then those seniors,
if they want to do that, can do so with the assurances that any of the benefits
that they are currently entitled to, whether it be drug cards or anything else,
is not going to be taken away from them when they do their income tax, that they
are in fear of losing that benefit.
So I
throw that out there to the Minister of Finance; I know she's listening
attentively there. That is something that you could do to help some seniors and
it wouldn't cost the government one dime – not a dime. So I put that out there.
I thank
this senior for reaching out with that suggestion because it's not something I
really thought of, because it's always kind of been frowned upon in a sense. A
lot of people say, you know, I can remember when you go down south, down in
Florida and so on, you see seniors all the time, you go into the grocery store,
half the people, three quarters of the people working there bagging the
groceries and so on are seniors.
Now,
they're there out of necessity, I would suggest, because they don't have a good
health care system and everything else, but still they do it. There are people
here that do it. If you go up to Kent's or any of these places, you'll see a lot
of people who are retired, probably a lot of them that are over 65 that are
working. So if we can raise that threshold and allow them to still do that, earn
extra money, pay more taxes, but at the same time not have to worry about losing
their drug card or any other benefit, then I see that as a win win. It's a win
for employers, it's a win for the government and it's a win for the senior and
it doesn't cost the government one dime.
So that
takes me down to about less than half of my time. So, again, trying to stay
relevant in terms of cost of living and so on.
This has
been raised before, I think, in some iteration, but I want to join with my
colleagues in the Official Opposition, the Member for Stephenville - Port au
Port, I have to say, has been very diligent – I have to give credit – on these
cost of living issues.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P. LANE:
It relates to the fact that
here we are – I'm not going to say we're arguing but we're debating over a few
cents on a litre of gas and so on and cost of living issues for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador and where are we going to find the money and if we
take money from this we don't have money for that and so on.
I can't
help but feel and agree with my colleague that somewhere along the way Ottawa is
getting off the hook. I really feel like Ottawa is getting off the hook, whether
it be in the health transfer payments that are coming down, whether it be the
equalization program, which I really don't think is fair to Newfoundland and
Labrador. I don't think it's fair to do it on a simple per-capita basis for any
of these programs.
You have
to recognize our aging demographic; you have to recognize our geography,
sparsely populated all over the place. When you look at health care delivery or
education delivery or any of these programs, the economies of scale are not
there, you simply cannot deliver those services the same way as you can in a
large city where you have a large population on a small footprint and you can
have those economies of scale and efficiency and so on. You cannot compare that
to our situation in Newfoundland and Labrador, you really can't. I would say
we're more comparable to perhaps a territory, in many ways, than we are to some
of the other provinces.
So that
recognition does not seem to be there and I think that more has to be done to
bring that case forward so that we can get more money from Ottawa in terms of
equalization and fairness as a partner in this Confederation.
And I'm
not knocking, I know the government talks about the great relationship they
have. I'm not knocking the feds money that has come to Newfoundland, but in a
lot of cases when you look at the COVID money and everything else, everybody got
that. It's not like they did Newfoundland and Labrador a favour and said we're
going to give you all this extra COVID money. We only got our proportionate
share of everything the same as every other province. When the infrastructure
money comes down, when the green funds come down, whatever that formula is, we
get our proportionate share under those programs.
So I
know it gets couched by MPs and so on as this great announcement, like we're
doing something wonderful, like you see the small craft harbours money going
here and there. My God, we delivered with small craft harbours. But they're
doing the same thing over in British Columbia and they're doing the same thing
over in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. They're not just doing it here in
Newfoundland.
So I
think we can't lose sight of the fact of the bigger picture. We can't lose sight
of the fact, as I said, of our unique geography, our population density or lack
thereof and the challenges that we have with an aging population when it comes
to health care delivery in particular. Like I said, I feel as if Ottawa is
getting off the hook.
The same
thing with our seniors by the way. We have seniors on basic OAS and CPP and
we're having to prop them up – think about it. This program, $2,000 a year that
government just gave a 10 per cent increase to the seniors. Why are we even
having to give seniors $2,000 a year and then increase that? Why are we propping
up the feds? That's the federal government's responsibility, I thought, OAS and
CPP and so on. So we're making up for their shortfall and we're doing it out of
provincial funds that we don't have, we're borrowing money to prop up the feds.
It's just not right.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Thank you very much to the
Member.
I now
recognize the Member for the District of Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
Again,
always a pleasure to speak on behalf of the wonderful residents of Topsail -
Paradise.
The hon.
Member for Virginia Waters - Pleasantville spoke or –
AN HON. MEMBER:
What a Member.
P. DINN:
What a Member, right? He's
not even listening. Oh no, he's listening there, through his left ear, he got me
there, he got me there. He's a good fella. But he did speak to the sugar tax and
you know –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
P. DINN:
Yeah, tell the truth – and
the sugar tax –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Tax matters.
P. DINN:
Tax matters, but taxes are a
burden and a strain on people, right?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
P. DINN:
Oh, tax matters, too, in your
case. No doubt about it.
But,
anyway, with the sugar tax, we talk about trying to change health outcomes. Of
course we have the highest rates of diabetes and other major illnesses and
trying to curb that. But much like the carbon tax was imposed on us; the sugar
tax is that as well. Because the Premier I know noted many times, many times
we've been talking about the sugar tax, he called it behaviour modification.
That was his words. He always spoke to it as behaviour modification.
Now, I
think of behaviour modification as some guinea pig in a lab and you turn on the
light and you try to get him to do one thing and not the other. So I think when
you look at behaviour modification, when it comes to healthier outcomes, a
better education process would help. And how do you come about that? Because I
can tell you right now behaviour modification doesn't happen over night. People
will still suffer. And the ones who will suffer are the ones who can't afford to
buy, or are just barely able to buy soft drinks and that on the income they
have. Because they can't afford to buy healthy choices.
I think
healthy choices is something that we need to reduce the cost on. Maybe that's
where some of our revenue from taxes should go, to reduce and provide healthier
choices to our population.
We're
over here and we're not always criticizing. I mean, our job is to hold
government accountable, but we've provided solutions. Just take the recent gas
tax adjustments; those were suggestions made over here for the last month to two
months. These were over here.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
P. DINN:
Well, I never said to what
degree, but they were certainly made as to what we suggested.
The
other thing I look at, when we talk about better health outcomes for the public,
for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we've also suggested some options there.
We know our health care – well, we know over here our health care is in crisis.
I can say that with certainty. But when you look at it, what are other ways to
do what you can with what you have?
I've
gotten up in this House many times and spoke about continuous glucose monitoring
devices. I've stressed and brought forward quotes from Diabetes Canada and many,
many reports that documented the pros and cons of these devices, and let me tell
you there are very few cons about it. We talk about 30 per cent of our strokes
and 40 per cent of our heart attacks are due to diabetes, 50 per cent of kidney
failure requiring dialysis, 70 per cent of all non-traumatic amputations and
it's the leading cause of blindness.
So if
you could take on these continuous glucose-monitoring devices, for a nominal –
it's an investment. Just think, if you reduce a percentage of strokes, if you
reduce a percentage of heart attacks, if you reduce a percentage of kidney
failure requiring dialysis, if you eliminated non-traumatic amputations and if
you could prevent blindness, you tell me that's not a good investment. You tell
me you're not saving money and investing elsewhere in the health care system or
in our whole budget.
You look
at the other issues around diabetes. These devices reduce emergency calls;
almost split them in half. Cutting emergency calls in half, which again leads to
cutting emergency room visits in half. That's freeing up time to be invested
elsewhere.
When
individuals can participate in their everyday activities; you're not recovering
or trying to recover from an amputation or blindness, kidney failure or heart
attack. These keep people in the workforce longer. Keep them contributing.
Keeping them paying into the tax base. I mean, these are investments and these
are solutions that we have offered.
You look
at some of other issues around population growth. We've spoken and I've spoken
here to IVF clinics. I know there are two doctors in the province here who have
put in a proposal that does not require any additional funding from this
government. Their proposal says that. Just continue what funding is put there
now, and they'll put in their own, match that, and continue on – no additional
funding. So we wouldn't be paying out $5,000 per cycle to individuals to travel
abroad to obtain these services. Five thousand dollars which is part of upwards
to $60,000 that patients pay for – $60,000, it's amazing. You could put that
there and you could have that done. You could support our population growth.
So we
have offered solutions that can utilize the same budget, and in fact, save us
some money, become more efficient in what we can do and offer elsewhere. To me,
it's the responsible thing to do, to well analyze and explore all the options
that are available there. To simply say, something like a continuous glucose
monitor, we done a report and there's no recommendations. I find that hard to
believe when there's so, so, so many reports out there that deal with this.
There
are opportunities here when it comes talking about taxes. I understand taxes are
a huge way of raising government revenue. That's where our revenue comes from,
but you have to look at the big picture. An investment in the short term, in
some of the things we've offered, will result in long-term payments. I go back –
let's bring up this now, which comes up, Muskrat Falls that everyone talks
about. They talk about the $500 million every year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Just a little order, please.
Thank
you.
P. DINN:
But guess what?
The
Upper Churchill Project is worth, in today's dollars, $400 billion. That's the
value of the Upper Churchill Project in today's dollars.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Who signed that agreement?
P. DINN:
I don't know who signed that
agreement. But here's my point, if you go back to the excuse all the time, well
if we didn't have to pay Muskrat we could do this, if we didn't have to pay
Muskrat we could do this, we could do this. But the bottom line is – and the
Premier just put a committee task force together to look at the negotiation of
the new Churchill Falls Project, the new agreement, when it expires in 2041 –
that's 19 years. If we had a portion of that $400-billion project, we would
never be in the position we are today. We would never be there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P. DINN:
So don't toss out the
history; we don't do it. But to make a point here –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order please!
P. DINN:
The Member can tell me when I
spoke of history last; this is the first time I spoke to it. This is dealing
with an issue and offering solutions. And unless you take your blinders off,
you'll never find them.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Thank you.
I next
recognize the Member for the District of Placentia West - Bellevue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh1
CHAIR:
Order, please!
Here we
go.
J. DWYER:
Thank you, Chair.
In
continuing on in our debate of the carbon tax, I'm going to continue on to take
it from the perspective of the government department that I am the shadow
Cabinet minister for, and that is Children, Seniors and Social Development,
Status of Persons with Disabilities, the community sector, Newfoundland and
Labrador Housing and Income Support.
I've
already spoken to the plight –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
J. DWYER:
Chair?
CHAIR:
Order, please!
J. DWYER:
Thank you for your
protection, Chair, I appreciate it.
CHAIR:
I'll do my best.
J. DWYER:
As I was saying before, we
are here debating a carbon tax, and the reason why it's being implemented by our
distant cousins is because we need to be stewards of our environment. That's the
angle that I expressed in my last address to the carbon tax, and from that
perspective I spoke on how it was affecting the children and the seniors. But
this being AccessAbility Week, as my time was getting short in the first
opportunity, I didn't want to just brush over it because it's something that's
very important. It's something that's very near and dear to my heart. Like I
said, those people are my constituents. They are my people and represent them I
will.
This
being AccessAbility Week, after us passing legislation in the fall, about
accessibility, then I would anticipate that we would have a deeper look at not
marginalizing further people with disabilities.
I'm glad
the Minister of Environment is listening this time around because being stewards
of our environment is not just about taxing people into a new lifestyle. It's
about letting them enjoy peaceful enjoyment of where they choose to live and the
choices they have made.
The main
point that I made in my first address was that if we're going to be stewards of
our environment and we want people to go into a new green economy, then there is
no way that we should be allowed to go into a green economy while over 200
municipalities are still on a boil order for more than 10 years. That's not
acceptable.
If we're
going to be stewards of our environment, then we have to make these
environmental decisions first. Because right now we're at pioneer stage of
electric cars and this green economy. So some of the things that we're trying to
implement right now are going to be obsolete by the time it's on an uptake for
everybody in the province. Our demographic doesn't allow for us to be able to do
that.
We're
implementing, right now, instead of taking people off a boil order in their
municipality, we're putting a lot of money into these electric charging
stations, over 200 charging stations across the province. From my understanding,
it's only about 500 cars that can use these in the province. So where are they
going to be in five years or 10 years down the road? They're going to be in the
same place that the rest of it is: the landfill or trying to be recycled for
some parts that will go into new components of electric charging stations.
Because being in the pioneer stage, we know that this idea is not developed to
fruition, same as the carbon tax. It's just not developed to understand the
demographics and the geography of Newfoundland and Labrador.
While
the idea might work in Alberta, BC, Ontario, wherever, it just is not going to
work here, except for a very minute part of our province.
Ask the
people on the North Coast what are they going to drive their electric car on.
Ask them.
Like I
said, this is AccessAbility Week. We try and do what we can for people with
disabilities, but, like I said, if people with disabilities are on a boil order,
I think there's more of a safety concern than anything, because if you have
mobility issues and you're trying to move around to boil water, it's certainly a
pretty delicate dance to get a glass of water.
So what
we're doing is we're further marginalizing the most vulnerable in our society,
which is very unfair, very unequitable, and it's just not right. We've got to
start doing the right things for the right reasons because we are
representatives of others. We're not here on our own accord, we're all voted in
by people that asked us to represent them. And that's what I'm so proud to do
for the District of Placentia West - Bellevue.
When it
comes to people with disabilities, they're already often impoverished. They're
struggling in any economy, let alone one that's increasing taxes at this kind of
a level. They have to have modifications for their vehicles and modifications
for their workspace and all this kind of stuff. These are all things that a lot
of times come out of pocket because that accessibility legislation has only been
changed recently. I hope it all gets implemented very soon, because, like I
said, the most vulnerable in our society right now are hurting.
The
other side of the House is just not listening. They're doing stopgap measures
that are not really taking into account everybody and everything. But, like I
said, having over 200 municipalities on a boil order should obviously be our
responsibility before we start offering a rebate on electric cars. That's just
coming from a common person, speaking for the common man.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Call VOCM.
J. DWYER:
I don't need to call VOCM
because I'm right here in the House of Assembly. Maybe you should listen and
then we won't have to deal with it in a public manner.
Some
people with disabilities have to use alternate modes of transportation, like the
GoBus and stuff like that. We've done some stopgap measures here now for the
first little five-point plan that they thought was going to get them over the
finish line but that's just not good enough. Because like I said, that doesn't
help that person with disabilities in Arnold's Cove or Swift Current or Red
Harbour. They still have to get to their job, if they're lucky enough to get
one, and they need to be looked at where we're not marginalizing them further
and we give them that opportunity to succeed.
Carbon
tax is just not doing anything to help in that sector and it's very
disappointing that it hasn't been addressed.
A couple
of my colleagues already have alluded to the community sector. It's very
unfortunate that we find people calling our offices these days saying they'll
have to give up their volunteer hours because they can't afford to get to their
volunteer position. I was at a Charter Night for the Lions Club in Marystown on
Saturday night, which I might add was quite a nice event, and I was happy that
we could all meet in person again. But I had some people there that said that
they're questioning being able to stay on with their local Lions Club because
they just don't feel that they have it in their budget to be able to continue to
get to the meetings or get to the opportunities to help.
They all
rely on their vehicles and with the price of fuel now, it's obviously taking
away from the disposable income that was probably a little bit over and above
what they normally had for their budget. But now our community sector is
struggling. These are all our volunteers. Even the fact of our municipal
councils, they have to get back and forth to meetings. I'm not saying that they
can't afford it or anything like that, but everybody is finding it tight right
now.
We're
not asking that the carbon tax be cancelled. We want to be stewards of our
environment on this side of the House as well, but we don't want it drove down
our throat. What we were looking for is for it to be postponed. If not
postponed, then maybe it's time to look at the fact of who's doing the majority
of the pollution and therefore we kind of address it that way.
Not to
overburden anybody else or drive anybody out of business, but to give them an
opportunity to understand why they're being charged another carbon tax. You're
taking eight cents away on one side and you're adding 11 cents on the other
side. Instead of saying that we hit a homerun, maybe we should let people know
that you're only going to get increased this time around by three cents as
opposed to saying that we're reducing anything or taking anything away.
I can
see that my time is coming short, Mr. Chair. Like I said, I will address a
couple of more headings from the Department of Children, Seniors and Social
Development at a later time.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
I thank the Member very much.
I next
recognize the hon. Member for Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
Thank you, Chair.
Quite
the honour to talk for the many viewers watching this evening, and there are
many. My colleague from Exploits mentioned Doreen Carter from Botwood, and I had
the privilege of meeting her this past weekend. She watches every sitting of the
House of Assembly. Nancy Vaughan, in the minister's District of Virginia Waters
- Pleasantville, watches every sitting of the House of Assembly. And in my
district, the District of Bonavista, watching tonight is my friend Sandra Cooper
in Bonavista. And I'm sure she's interested in the speech. So that's wonderful.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
C. PARDY:
I'd like to talk, Chair,
about three things, now in my short time remaining. I'd like to talk about the
Liberal carbon tax – and it is a Liberal carbon tax, because it is the federal
Liberals and distributed by the provincial Liberals, and the cousin of the
Liberal carbon tax is the Liberal sugar tax, which is totally on us locally, not
nationally; and then if I have time, I'd like to look at the Liberal regional
property tax that's coming maybe later this year.
So let
me start with the carbon tax. I stated a little earlier, and I just want to for
clarification, that we have 11 cents carbon taxes charged to our gas as a
deterrent for people to drive and commute. I stated a little earlier that by
2030 the plan is that the carbon tax will be 37 cents a litre. So if you take
between the year '22, this year, and 2030 being eight years, then we're looking
at probably 3.5 cents per year for the foreseeable future until 2030, when we
settle, maybe, at 2.2.
Anyway,
the carbon tax, some would engage in a question and say is it inflationary in
and of itself, that we're adding a tax and we're putting taxes on people in
inflationary times. Would it be inflationary that we're adding to it? And I
would say that some economists would say quite possibly we do. If we're adding
taxation, we're adding to the inflationary pressures of residents of
Newfoundland and Labrador – rural, urban. But conceivably a greater impact on
rural than what it may be on urban, for factors that I had mentioned before.
Sugar
tax: My hon. colleague from Stephenville - Port au Port asked a question about
will the sugar tax be cancelled in a Question Period in the previous session.
And at that point in time it was the Minister of Education who stood up and he
stated: “Furthermore, we all know that this province has the highest rates of
diabetes of our population across the country.” It is important. “It's not only
beneficial to our health care budget, but the health outcomes for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.”
And
that's our goal, isn't it, with the sugar taxes, as a punitive measure to change
the behaviour of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Well, it
would be nice that when you embark upon the sugar tax to present the research
that's out there to indicate that it's going to work. Anything that I've
researched or requested to research, it doesn't work. So while we're going to
issue a tax that which may be inflationary, add to the dread and the hurt in
Newfoundland and Labrador, but quite conceivably it has no effect. And that's
the research that I could find what it has.
My hon.
Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans has stated earlier and he referenced $5
million. Well, it's $5 million this year, but remember, the Liberal sugar tax is
in a condensed period of time this year, because it's not starting until the
fall. But it should settle in at about $8.7 million a year coming from the
residents of Newfoundland and Labrador to the tax coffers of the provincial
government. So not $5 million, $8.7 million.
Every
tax dollar we take in we spend on something, but remember what you spend it on
is up to the government to decide what you spend it on. And I would say the
office that my colleague representing Central Newfoundland, that's coming from
taxpayer dollars. So the revenue generated is up to the current government to do
so.
But let
me share a little bit on the sugar tax before I go to the next one. I stated
earlier that Quebec National Institute of Public Health stated that they looked
at that proposal a few years ago and it doesn't work. Here's what they state: It
is the tax's regressive nature that makes it effective, most notably, amongst
the less well off. Or, in other words, poor people should be thankful that the
government wants to tax them back to health.
Now I
say that – and several countries have tried the sugar tax, and it didn't make
any effect in reducing obesity and wellness in our population. The only thing I
would suggest, the government must have done their due diligence with the sugar
tax. We would hope that they would never initiate it and launch it on our
population if they did not do their due diligence, true? We all agree with that.
Why tax somebody with a desired outcome when research states that it doesn't
work, regardless of where you're going to spend the money that you pull in.
So maybe
it would be a good idea to produce the research in the House that we can remain
silent on the research and say yeah, we can see that, that's a bona fide
research, that it does work. The article here would state that it doesn't exist.
The sugar tax doesn't work. So even though it's inflationary, even though it's
regressive according to the editor, the bottom line is that it doesn't work.
The last
one, I had the pleasure to be outside in my district a short time ago at a
meeting, and they were talking about the budget. In Old Perlican a gentleman
asked: When the regionalization property tax comes, what are we getting out of
that? Now, keep in mind, it's still in progress. I don't know until it's
launched or tabled or you tell us what it is, but I mentioned land-use planning.
Remember, that was a significant one, that we'd say land-use planning, sharing
resources. His question was: How much is that going to cost me? And that we
couldn't tell. And that we didn't know.
So the
only thing I would say is that no matter what good intent, or what good
rationale that regionalization – and we know that the spirit of working
together, regionalization, is always a good concept. Working together and
collaborating your efforts and your resources is always good. But the bottom
line he had asked: What is it going to cost me?
Significantly this year, carbon tax, and for the next eight years to come. You
have the Liberal sugar tax which is coming; that's going to pull in this year $5
million; following years, $8.7 million or more. The third one would be the
regionalization property tax, where if you're outside, in an LSD, or an
unincorporated area, you know that you've got property tax coming, how much and
what benefit you're going to accrue from it to be determined in the short
course.
I'm sure
Sandra Cooper watching now is going to want me to mention how much revenue is
taken in. Projected in 2022, our gas tax revenue will be $167 million. The
carbon tax will be $113 million?
S. COADY:
$141.6 million for provincial
gas tax.
C. PARDY:
Okay, I have to check that in
the book. I just wrote it down before I – and the total of $280 million, to be
double-checked. I would say if it is $280 million, then I would say that the GST
on that, our portion, would be $28 million.
CHAIR:
To be continued.
I thank
the Member. His time has expired.
I now
recognize the Member for the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis.
J. WALL:
Thank you, Chair.
I always
appreciate that. It is good to be able to stand again this evening to speak in
Committee to Bill 60.
Chair,
while we were on the supper break, I had a phone call from a resident who was
obviously watching, as was said earlier, and the question was asked: Do we care?
That hit hard to me because we care. My colleague from Mount Pearl - Southlands
said earlier about the impact of taxation on the residents. I wanted to go back
to the many, many news release that my colleague from Stephenville - Port au
Port has put out with respect to the high cost of living, the level of taxation.
There are about 18 or 19 of them here. I said to this resident on the phone, I
said, yes, we do care.
I'll go
back to this one, this was dated in March from my colleague from Stephenville -
Port au Port, and it says: There was a great risk of prices of fuels, gasoline
and home heat fuel, and the price of goods will increase again. I know many
people in this province are already struggling to balance their household
budgets and have changed their spending habits. I am concerned about what the
impact of more cost increases will be on the residents. That was back in March.
So, yes,
we are quite fully aware of what's going on with respect to the level of tax
increases and the cost of living. We do care. I'm sure there's not one Member in
this hon. House that doesn't. We're all here because we do care; however,
someone said earlier about listening. We do need to listen to our residents and
we do indeed take that very seriously.
Before I
get into my critic role for Municipal Affairs again, I want to share with you an
exchange of conversation that was passed on to me by a constituent. My
constituent was at the gas pump on Torbay Road. On the other side of the gas
pump was a gentleman in his 50s who was putting gas in his car. He started
pumping gas and he put $10 worth of gas in his car. Now, we all know here what
$10 worth of gas is going to get us in our vehicle.
So my
constituent said jokingly to the gentleman across the pump: Skipper, you forgot
your wallet. And he said: No, this is what I have until Wednesday. That is
reality. That is what we're dealing with when we say we are listening; we do
understand what's going on, to the plight of the residents in our province. They
are struggling. And this extra level of taxation is going to be another burden.
It was
said to me by another constituent they don't disagree with climate change, they
don't disagree with the carbon tax, but not right now. Hold off on it; it's
punitive as it is. However, another level of taxation that's going to come on us
right now at this point in time is just not needed. We're just not able to
handle it.
Mr.
Chair, it makes a difference when the residents are reaching out, they're asking
if we care. Yes, we care; yes, we're listening; yes, we're doing our part.
That's why we're here representing our constituents and the people of the
province with respect to what they're going through. And we do realize that it's
extraordinary times, as was said earlier by my colleague.
Mr.
Chair, I had the privilege in my municipal career to be the chair of Jack Byrne
Regional Sport & Entertainment Centre, a fine, fine facility on the Northeast
Avalon. It's a gem. I had the privilege of chairing that –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Named after a (inaudible).
J. WALL:
Yes, exactly. Named after a
very nice gentleman. Former Member of this House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
J. WALL:
I had the privilege of
working with municipal officials, people from the community who served on that
board. I had the opportunity to chair that for a number of years and I was very
proud of that. The problem right now that we're finding at Jack Byrne is the
extra cost of paying for goods and services. And that extra cost is then passed
on to the user.
So we
have families who have two or three children involved in different levels of
hockey at Jack Byrne, that requires transportation to and from, and we do have
many, many children outside of the district who come to Jack Byrne for
recreation activities. However, the rising cost of getting to and from is again
becoming unbearable and it's leaving them, of course, with very little
disposable income for other activities.
I did
speak with a couple in Outer Cove who took their son out of hockey because of
the rising costs, because of the level of taxation, because the less and less
disposable income that they have. And that's one less child taking part in their
recreational activities. We can't have that. Going forward, we need to make sure
that this doesn't happen again and that every child has the opportunity for
healthy living and healthy activity.
Mr.
Chair, I know my colleague from Topsail - Paradise has spoken many times with
respect to the Health Accord. We, in the Official Opposition, have met numerous
times with Sister Elizabeth Davis and Dr. Pat Parfrey with respect to listening
to the Health Accord. And that clearly spells out the urgency of the financial
pressures that people are facing and how that's affecting their daily lives.
Higher taxation drives poverty and poverty means poorer health. That's something
that we, as a province, cannot stand to have any more of with poor health.
We all
pay for that at the end of the day. Increased cost of people living in poor
health will drive up our costs related to health care. So tax relief no doubt
could be a preventative measure against poverty, and keeping that in mind when
making decisions, we should, of course, keep the Health Accord in mind as well
as to what that clearly states.
It was
said earlier, Mr. Chair, with respect to travelling to and from appointments. My
wife and I have had the displeasure of going to an appointment and having it
cancelled many times. But, of course, we're a very short distance outside St.
John's. The people driving from the West Coast – a friend of mine from
Stephenville - Port au Port, her and her husband travelled here to the capital
city for their treatment at the cancer centre. And, of course, they had to stay
an extra day in order to get their treatment because that particular appointment
was cancelled. So that, again, gives that couple extra costs of staying here.
You put the extra costs of taxation on top of that again and it does take its
toll with respect to travelling for appointments outside the city. We all know
how important it is to have timely appointments, especially when it comes to
cancer care.
One
question that I never heard asked, and I don't think it was brought up here,
with respect to the road and air ambulance and carbon tax. How's that going to
affect our road and air ambulance with respect to carbon tax? That is something
that we all need to be aware of. We're going to have, of course, the need for
using ambulance systems, but when you're looking at the added cost for that
throughout the province, no doubt it's going to be astronomical when it comes to
the road and the ambulance system.
E. LOVELESS:
(Inaudible.)
J. WALL:
Perhaps I'll have a chat with
the minister after and he can fill me in on that. So I appreciate that,
Minister; that came to me earlier with respect to – and it's a very good
question. We don't think about it. You know, you call and the ambulance is
there, or the air ambulance is there with the flight team. So I look forward to
that, Minister, with respect to that conversation.
Then
with our health centres and our long-term care facilities, those that have to
stay warm and functioning with respect to the use of oil – again, that would be
an added cost on to the department, on to the provincial coffers when it comes
to the level that's being used. Of course, the taxpayers, we will bear that
extra burden when it comes to carbon tax, even at our health care facilities and
our long-term care facilities. We have the rising cost of fuel and it does have
an impact with respect to the health and safety of our patients and, at the end
of the day, there will be less money for the overall health treatment and for
health care professionals.
We all
realize the level of importance that we need to have when it comes to our health
care. We have an aging demographic. Some of us are healthier than others, and of
course that all makes a huge difference when it comes down to paying the bottom
dollar.
Mr.
Chair, I do appreciate the opportunity to speak to this bill again. I'm sure
we'll have another opportunity, and I look forward to hearing the continued
debate and I thank the Members opposite for their attention this evening.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Thank you.
I next
recognize the Member representing the District of Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Chair.
Again,
it's a pleasure to be able to get up and represent the District of Ferryland,
and again thank all the constituents of Ferryland for voting me in, so it's
certainly a pleasure to get here and speak.
I'll
certainly start here. We're talking about carbon tax, of course, and I spoke
with the minister after I finished speaking the last time – Minister of
Environment and Climate Change – and he sort of updated me on the batteries, and
how they're charging, and 6.2 megabytes or 6.2 whatever he called it –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Megahertz.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Yes, megahertz, whatever he
called it. I'll give him kudos; he is doing his job in that part and checking
out the information and making sure it's accurate when it comes to the carbon
footprint.
I did
work in a dealership and we did sell the electric vehicles, and I tell you it's
a lot to keep up with when you're looking at that. You go down and do training,
and they're talking about having hybrid cars that go and then they burn so much
gas. When the electricity is gone, they start burning the fuel and how they
charge themselves and stuff like that. So I will give him credit. He just
informed me right away and let me know where it's all to, so I give him kudos on
that for sure.
I'm
looking at some of these costs that we – every time we come in here we're
talking about budget, what we should do, what we shouldn't do. I sit here and
the last time I got up, I mentioned the Jumpstart program and how are we going
to fund it. Well, we could fund it by not paying $5 million to Rothschild in the
States, in evaluating our assets. We have somebody here that can do that.
Somebody in this government building can do that.
Then to
come in and not release it to the public. I can see a part of that, but I tell
you one thing if you owned a house and you want to get the best dollar, you tell
everybody what it's worth. You have a vehicle and you want to get the best
price, guess what you do? You shop around and see who's going to give you the
best dollar for it. So why wouldn't you do that? You have $5 million spent in
the US to Rothschild, and I'm sure that can be done by a company in Canada or in
Newfoundland and Labrador for sure, totally.
You talk
about Jumpstart; $5 million would be some contribution to start; $5 million
towards a Jumpstart program to get kids in hockey, kids in softball, kids in
whatever. Some of the parents –and I'll use an example. There's a parent up our
way that has three kids in three different divisions, going three different
directions, and unless they can get somebody to take their kids somewhere else –
how are you going to tell one of your kids that you can't join hockey, can't
join softball, can't join dance or whatever sport you're going to be in,
whatever that may be? I'm sure I'm going to miss one, but the point is that
they're going in three different directions. Can you imagine how much that cost
them this winter, in the last couple of months?
Now the
hockey is over and there's going to be softball and there's going to be soccer.
Most times, the kids are three different ages, in three different groups, so
it's going to cost them. We have to think about the people in this environment.
These are the middle class, where we're to. Someone over $100,000 is not worried
about eight cents in the price of gas, or $150,000 in the gap that we have
there. They're not really worried about the price of gas. Yes, they talk about
it, but that's not really their concern. The people in the middle is where it's
to, and in the lower income. Those are the ones we have to concern ourselves
with.
We talk
about $750,000 in Central Newfoundland for an office for the Premier. Jumpstart
program – it could certainly help. Why wouldn't that help the Jumpstart program?
I mean, it comes up. We sit here and we ignore it; it's not going to go away. So
you talk about wasting money, that's wasting money. In my opinion, that is
wasting money from the government to take care and put an office there for three
years, $750,000 for the three years. It's deplorable that we do that. We have so
many other things that we can do with $750,000 in this province – so many other
things, but we want to sit there and keep throwing money. You listen to
suggestions; these are two that I just threw out there.
I had a
call the other day – I was driving. The lady called the office and she wanted to
speak to me, so I called her. She owns a business in the Ferryland District. She
has two workers.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
L. O'DRISCOLL:
She's injured. She's off.
She's there. She has two workers that couldn't show up to work because they
couldn't afford to buy gas. Now that's as simple as it gets. It doesn't get any
more simple than that. That's where it hits home. She called me and I said, wow,
that's unbelievable. They cannot come to work.
That's
where we have to get our heads to. I know that I'm not the only MHA getting it.
I know you're getting that; you have to be. There's no one in either one of
these districts that are not getting those calls; you have to be.
How do
we get to it? It's just hard to understand how we can't help these people, or
try to help them. We can't give away the world, I know that. You have a budget
and you have to adhere to it. But when you say you have a budget that you have
to adhere to, you forget about the $5 million, the $750,000. We said before,
take care of the pennies, the dollars take care of themselves. Well, we're not
taking care of the pennies, if we're wasting it, in my mind. We're wasting it.
Spending it on that – wasting it.
Open up
the door, there's $80 million. Door number one, close that door –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Don't forget the couches.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
No, I'm not going getting
into the couches. I'm trying to stay relevant to this because this is where it's
to. It's talking about saving money. The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador
saving money and spending on things. All of a sudden there's another big
announcement next week, a million dollars. Where did that come from?
It must
be an account in your budget called slush fund or something; you just find it
when you need it. Two hundred and twenty-two million is the new number now.
That's the one we have to talk about. We just started tick marks this afternoon.
That was only mentioned twice today, but if we're here long enough, we'll get
$222 million. It will get mentioned often enough and we'll get a tick mark going
for that.
I think
we need another pen for Muskrat Falls. The ink is gone out of that one. I just
wanted to pass it on.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Too many strokes.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Too many strokes, yeah, it's
gone.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Well, it will get out there
sometimes I guess.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Again, I'd like to talk about
the fishery a little bit in regard to –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
L. O'DRISCOLL:
– fishermen being able to go
out. So right now they're on a catch limit; they can't go out. It costs double
the fuel for these boats to go out to their fishing grounds and come back. They
can only get 6,000 at a time. Along with the price of fuel doubling since last
year, they have to make four extra trips right now, if they're in a quota of
25,000 or 30,000. That's the inshore group.
Something that the minister could get at and help this group out. The inshore
people should be the ones that get their quota first, and let them get that
done. It's 25,000 to 30,000 to get it all done. The mid-shore fellows and the
offshore fellows have bigger boats they can get out in and not wait on the
weather. They're things that should be discussed and get to. Lots of things to
discuss.
Again,
we have people with minimum amounts of fuel, when you order fuel, all right?
People buying oil. The Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, mentioned last week,
I had a call from a different lady, same issue. The minimum they could get was
$600 worth of fuel. This time last year, it was $300. Now it's $600. They can't
afford it.
I mean,
you get a lot of people calling – one of the guys that works in the oil
industry, taking calls and delivering oil, numerous people calling and
cancelling their automatic fill-ups. One time they would let a furnace go down
to half a tank or a quarter tank and then get it refilled. They're taking it as
far as they can right now, hoping that the price of fuel is going to go down –
hoping. You know, it's a tough choice; no question about it, it's a tough
choice. But they're hoping that the price of fuel is going to go down.
That's
what they're living day to day. They're trying to manage their budget and,
again, they're not going to go get – $600 worth of fuel is only getting you the
same amount of fuel it got you last year, you're not getting any more fuel for
it, it costs you $300 more. You're not getting any more fuel for it.
So this
carbon tax is something that the federal government is passing down to us and
telling us that we've got to have it. And if that is the case, you listen to the
Budget Speech and they couldn't change anything; after three weeks, they found
$80 million in some office, somewhere, or some closet, they found another $80
million to be able to give out. And they're going to make a big announcement
today how they helped the people of the province.
They
must have forgot what drove them to get there, which is this side of the House.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
L. O'DRISCOLL:
You might open a door next
time – door number three might get you $222 more million, we hope, to take care
of the people.
AN HON. MEMBER:
I hope it do.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Yes, I hope it do, too.
And
$600,000 for NASCAR, did we need that right now? I agree, but it's the timing is
the issue. It's not the problem with NASCAR or trying to help and build it,
that's not the problem, it's the timing.
Door
number four: $600,000 for NASCAR. That's not bad. Not bad. We'll soon have Monty
Hall on the other side of the building sitting down.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
L. O'DRISCOLL:
It's unbelievable.
Anyway,
Chair, I'm running out of time so I'll leave that there until the next time I
get up.
Thank
you so much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
I next recognize the Member
for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
C. TIBBS:
Monty Hall, that was good.
So the
carbon tax, obviously, it's definitely the flavour of the day the past couple of
weeks here. The reason why we took this on and the reason why, you know, not
that we dragged it out, but we definitely wanted to do our due diligence on this
side of the House and ensure we sat and debated it for as long as we possibly
could, to bring up as many points as we possibly could on a personal note.
So when
it comes to gas tax or carbon tax, in general, all it's doing is hurting more
people across the province. We get the point of it, but, in my opinion, it's –
again, everybody said it – something that we don't need right now.
It's
hurting existing business, that's one thing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
C. TIBBS:
It's also deterring new
businesses from getting started.
So we
look at Marathon Gold, for instance. Marathon Gold is a huge company that
started here in the province and we're so happy to have them. But talk to
Marathon Gold the past couple of weeks, this carbon tax, other gas taxes, the
price of fuel in general, is going to raise their overhead so much from three
years ago when they first started; first when I got involved, literally, almost
twice as much.
So can
they absorb the cost? Well, I'm sure they can because they're a big company,
they'll find the money to do it. But you have to ask yourself where could that
money have possibly gone? Higher-paying positions for people throughout the
province; more positions for people throughout the province; charities
throughout the province or, also, many companies come into smaller towns like
Buchans or Millertown and they help with community assets and community
programs.
I know
when I was drilling for oil up in Bonnyville, Alberta, Canadian Natural
Resources Limited were a big presence up there. They were the biggest company up
there. Everywhere you go everything is CNRL, CNRL, the complex, the fields, the
sporting units. They have given so much to that town it's not even funny.
So if
Marathon Gold had a little bit more money in their pocket maybe they would've
passed it on to their employees, hired more employees or done more community
work.
So with
the bigger companies and existing business, it's hurting them. It's going to
deter new business. I sat down with many people who looked at books and they
said do you know what? I cannot afford to open a business right now. Might be a
small business, but we need every little bit of business we can get in
Newfoundland and Labrador. But I know new businesses that are waiting to open
that cannot open. They are too afraid to get started.
That is
what's happening now when you get this much inflation, gas tax, tax on top of
tax on top of tax. Businesses are just deterred. They don't want to open; they
don't want to take on that risk. So when you see businesses not wanting to open,
businesses closing, eventually it gets too difficult, it's going to hurt the
province at the end of the day.
The mom
and pop shops, of course, they're going to be hurt most. The bigger businesses,
they can absorb it, but unfortunately the mom and pop shops they cannot. We're
seeing them close down every other day throughout the province. It's becoming a
real issue. And it's a spiral that if it gets too far, it's going to be very
difficult to come back from.
Restaurants: they rely on product, food, food prices, of course, which are
soaring. It's going to be hurting the restaurants across the province and in
general. You come out with a new gas tax, people are just more reluctant to
drive, they park their vehicles; they don't want to go anywhere.
How is
this going to impact the businesses throughout our communities? They cannot get
out and have themselves a meal. Do you know what? A lot of these smaller
communities, they have to drive 40 and 50 kilometres to get to a small
restaurant or a food truck. They will not do it. They will stay home now.
They're pinching every single penny they have, and it's going to hurt business
across the board, which obviously trickles down and it will hurt individuals
trying to work for that business.
Tourism
and travel: it comes back to when I talked about every province is not the same.
It costs $500 just to get off the Island and do you know what? If you're in
Toronto, for instance, you could go anywhere in Canada within reason, but in
order just to get to another province, we have to pay, if we're driving, $500
just to get off the Island. That's going to deter people from coming to the
Island as well, obviously.
My
colleague from Topsail - Paradise talked about behaviour modification. That's
exactly what this is. I mean, the purpose of this carbon tax coming down from
the feds is to make it difficult to drive so that people opt for another option.
The fact of the matter is a lot of people don't have another option. Like I say,
this could work in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver; you have subway units, you have
buses, you have Ubers. We don't have this in Newfoundland and Labrador, in rural
parts. We don't have any of this.
If
you're trying to give us another option or you're trying to push us into another
option, well, that's not going to work, because there are no other options in a
lot of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That's what people don't get. Putting a
blanket carbon tax over this country, it's absolutely useless and it makes
absolutely no sense. I would like to know what was said at the time to try to
fight this to our counterparts.
The
trickledown effect is unreal – less money. Money is meant to move around
throughout our society in our communities. It's not meant to be kept in our
pockets and a lot of people are doing that, because they have to hold on to
every dime right now, but money is meant to be moved around throughout society.
It's not meant to be kept in Cabinet coffers and for the province. It's going to
inhibit a lot of people from doing that.
Groceries: groceries didn't go up by pennies over the past year. It didn't go up
by dimes and nickels or quarters even, it went by dollars, literal dollars. It's
absolutely insane and another carbon tax is just going to add to the cost of
these groceries once again. It's impossible to buy food now for a lot of
families, let alone healthy food. So on one hand we're talking about the sugar
tax, trying to help families get healthier. On the other hand, the carbon tax is
only going to drive the price of our fresh produce a lot higher and families are
not going to be able to eat healthy foods, they really aren't.
We all
can. It goes back to my point of knowing something and being aware of it. I can
go out and buy a bag of apples, most of us here can, but a lot of people can't,
guys. A lot of people can't so they have to revert to buying that unhealthy food
and it hurts them in the long run.
No more
Sunday drives: when I was a kid we used to always go on Sunday drives. I'm sure
a lot of other people did here, too. It's not happening anymore. It's truly not
happening anymore.
So when
we talk about mental health, which is my next point here, we talk about those
family drives, the family unit, the family dynamic. With that's been happening
over the past couple of years here – and we get it; it's been a rough couple of
years sort of thing. But for the government to acknowledge it's been a rough
couple of years throughout COVID, the war in Ukraine, whatever else sort of
thing, this is the time to fight for those breaks right now. This is not a time
for a new tax. We've recognized that the era that we're in right now is so
difficult. Now is the time to try and fight Ottawa to get rid of this carbon
tax, to not impose it on Newfoundland and Labrador.
The
bigger cities, absolutely. If I'm driving around in a big SUV in Toronto,
Montreal or something like that, the option is there to take a bus or to take a
subway. But unfortunately, here in Newfoundland and Labrador, we don't have that
option. So again, take that blanket off of Canada and look at it by district, by
provinces, and say what's best for this province right now. I can tell you right
now that a carbon tax for Newfoundland and Labrador is not what's best. People
are trying to hold on to the little bit of money they have; stop trying to
continuously take it from them.
Housing
and new construction: We have a housing crisis here in Newfoundland and Labrador
that it's not brought up enough. There's a housing crisis here, guys, like you
wouldn't believe. Go to Grand Falls-Windsor, here in the metro area – I'm
looking at people trying to rent a house, putting it out for $1,800 and some
people looking at saying well, I'll give you $2,200 a month for it instead
because they can afford to do it. But low-income families, they have no place to
live. They have no place to live right now.
New
housing is not going up like it should be, because of the construction costs. So
when all that trickles down to the suppliers, it's going to be trickled down to
the customers and it's just going to stall our economy. It's going to stall our
jobs, and it's only going to put more hurt and suffering upon the people.
I'm
going to go back to the mental illness for a second. You talk about the sugar
being bad for people. Guess what, guys? Stress is probably worse for you than
sugar. It truly is.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
C. TIBBS:
The stresses that the
families have, throughout this province right now, is absolutely unmeasurable.
The divorce rates are up. I talked to mom-and-dad couples all the time; they're
fighting like cats and dogs over finances, and they shouldn't have to. That
should not be the focal point of getting up in the morning to when they go to
bed at night, but it's happening in families, and it's ripping families apart.
I'm just
going to take the last 45 seconds here, and just a little message to all the
families out there, all the mom and dads out there that are suffering right now.
Societal expectations do not have to be met. Stop paying attention to societal
expectations. My son wanted to get in four dances this year; I told him he could
only get in two. I'm sorry, but the other kids can get in four. There's nothing
wrong with looking at your children and saying I'm sorry, at this time right
now, we can only afford this much. Don't think that you've got to walk on water,
because you don't have to. You're a mom and dad. You're a human being. You're
trying the best that you can. It's okay to say it's not okay.
I want
you know that societal expectations out there, to all the mom and dads, you do
not need to keep up with it. Do what's best for you and your family. Take the
tongue from the roof of your mouth, relax your jaw, take a deep breath and know
that you're going to be okay.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Thank you very much.
I next
recognize the Member representing the District of Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's a
pleasure to get up again and speak on this ongoing debate on carbon as we talk
and I listen to my colleagues and listen to a bit of banter back and forth. I
was there with one of my colleagues with the Third Party and I know they are
supporters of the climate change carbon tax. He'd rather cap and trade, he said,
but I'll tell him what was told to me by a senior official within government a
few years back. Newfoundland is a particle of dust to the rest of the world.
I've said this in the House before and I'll repeat it again and again, because
that's an actual fact. We are such a small player as a country, not a province,
as a country. And then you put Newfoundland on the map where we're to as a
country.
I go to
my good friend and colleague from Bonavista and we had a bit of banter back and
forth a couple of weeks ago about the Minister of Environment and Climate Change
was accusing him of being a climate denier. And he clearly stated with his
family watching that he's not a climate denier.
C. PARDY:
And it still hurts.
B. PETTEN:
And it still hurts him.
We don't
live in a dream world; we know there's climate change out there. Is it to the
degree that we're being told? Maybe not, but we're not saying it's not an actual
fact. We're realistic. But do we think that the issue now, what we're facing now
with this carbon tax and all these measures you see introduced across the
country and there are electric vehicles and it's get rid of this and throw your
furnace out by the door and get the little bit a rebate and spend another
$20,000 and go energy efficient. I might be facetious, but I'm being honest. You
go and you get a rebate on a mini-split, but you have to still pay thousands of
dollars. But you can't afford to go look for one because you can't afford to put
gas in your car to go to the showroom to see one. All realistic problems.
But the
point I get back to is: How big an issue is carbon? How big an issue is climate
change in the province? People get up in the morning and they turn on the news
and they put on the kettle or whatever and they get their coffee. I ask you to
guess, how many people sit down and scratch their head and say what are we going
to do about climate change? How are we going to deal with carbon?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
B. PETTEN:
Someone here in the House
just put a zero up and they're right. That's an actual fact.
Again I
know I'm being facetious, but I think that's a very valid point. People who
watch this – and we don't know the numbers; we haven't got the viewer ratings –
but a lot of people watch the House of Assembly and they appreciate the
realness. A lot of Members get in the House and they always say I like some
commentary, because you're actually speaking my language. In an actual fact,
that to me is one of the more straight up – I think everyone in this House can
attest to what I'm saying. Is that your number one issue every day? No,
absolutely not.
Is the
price of gas your number one issue? Sure it is. Over 11 cents a litre, carbon
pricing tax. That's what they talk about. Are they concerned that they're going
to throw the dryer in on the dump and start hanging their clothes out every day?
No, that's not their issue. They can't afford to take the furnace out. They
can't afford to do that. They are tying to get a woodstove. Trying to find a way
they can afford to live.
So here
we are in 2022, pushing June of 2022, and the number one issue facing the
province and the country today is carbon and climate change. I mean, I don't
know what stations they're watching; it's not the same news channel I watch.
That's why I say sometimes I may be facetious but I'm trying to be real. Because
we all live in the same province the last time I checked.
This is
not Beijing, Mr. Chair. We're not living in Beijing; we don't need to go out
with a mask on to see across the parking lot. I've been in Beijing. I know what
Beijing is like; it's not very nice. And I think you've been there too, Mr.
Chair. We're not Beijing. But if you listen to some of the commentary here, oh
yeah, we got to get ready; she's coming to an end. It is all over.
You've
got the Third Party, they're advocating and they're all about carbon, and the
leader drives a big gas pickup truck. Big gas truck in the parking lot. I don't
see any Smart car. Unless someone else has got a Smart car and they get dropped
off in a pickup truck to get the Smart car; I heard that story.
Forgive
me for being, again, facetious, but I know you get the point. I sit in the House
as House Leader and I sit in the House and I listen to debate all day long. And
ultimately I sit back and I say, we've been here now for how many hours,
debating this? Answer me the question. How many people get up every day and the
first issue they've got on their mind is carbon tax? They don't live in CBS. And
if they do, I'm sure they might reach out to me in the coming days. And if they
do, I'll talk to them, obviously, and explain my view.
But they
don't live in CBS. I don't think they live in Carbonear. I don't think they do.
I don't think they live in Conception Bay East - Bell Island. He might have a
couple. He actually got a couple in Portugal Cove-St. Philip's. My colleague
from Topsail - Paradise, he may have a few down on Topsail Hill, but I'm
familiar with that area.
That's
what we're dealing with. The world is coming to an end if we don't get carbon.
Oh, we have to get carbon, get up every day and oh, yeah, I'm worried about how
I'm going to get from point A to point B.
I said
earlier when I spoke this evening, I have a nice truck home, but my wife turned
it into a flowerpot. I can't afford to drive it. So is my worry a carbon tax?
No. Am I worried about the climate change? No. I wish we had better weather. I
mean, today we're in here all day today and tomorrow it's supposed to rain. We
might get out early tomorrow, who knows right, in a rainy afternoon. That's how
we have everything figured out here; we have it backwards. We probably should
have done this tomorrow, but we're here.
Mr.
Chair, I can write notes. I have books here, I can write notes, but that's the
question that everybody has to ask themselves. Whoever is watching home, whoever
is watching this, whoever watches the recording of this, they need to ask
themselves that question: Is this the number one issue facing you today? No. I
can't see it. Yet, we'll debate it and we'll debate it and the Premier will fly
all over the world with the entourage and the cameras and the photographers and
everyone else because we care about the climate. We're climate change activists.
It
sounds great, Mr. Chair. It sounds wonderful, but it's not. I go back to the
colleague who showed the thing of how many people – the zero that feel that way,
that's true. If I polled this House now, I think I'd get a vast majority of
people who would agree with what I'm saying, but they can't say that because
it's not cool to say that.
Chair, I
was the climate change critic for the Opposition for several years. If I'm not
mistaken, the Chair used to be minister of that portfolio. We had many questions
here in the House of Assembly, because I was trying to figure it out. I was more
interested in roadwork and pavement and potholes. He was into climate change, I
wasn't.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
B. PETTEN:
The Member for Corner Brook
finally woke up and commented on something. He didn't wake up? Oh, I thought he
was – now he's arguing, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I ask
you to keep the noise down, somebody is trying to sleep. So please keep –
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South, please continue.
B. PETTEN:
People try to interrupt you
in this House. It's happened over the years and I've been here long enough to
find it and it's similar people every now and then. Every now and then they try
to do it, but he can have the 10 minutes after I'm done, Mr. Chair. I don't
think he agrees with carbon much more than I do. I'm looking forward to his
commentary on the carbon pricing because I wonder how many people in Corner Brook are concerned about
this.
I
would say that everyone out in Corner Brook got the same thing tomorrow morning.
Lights will be on before daylight comes because they are worried, they can't
sleep, worrying about carbon and worried about the climate change. They don't
care. They're fine. They don't care about paying $2.30 a litre for gas or $2 a
litre for price for furnace oil. They're fine. Or $7 or $8 for three cans of
beans. They're good with that. They're worried about carbon. They're worried
about climate change. All the people in Corner Brook are. Again, not most of our
districts, I have doubts if Ferryland is worried, too. I know my crowd aren't. I
don't hear it. And that is the point I am trying to make. I do not hear one
single word about carbon pricing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
After this speech you will.
B. PETTEN:
You never know. They will probably all agree. But they
don't talk about that. How do I afford to live? That is the question. How are we
going to ever survive this? How are we getting through this? When do you think
this will all end? I can't answer those questions. Not one of them.
But
what I can tell them is, we sit in this House of Assembly daily and we have been
doing a lot lately, and we speak about issues that are important to them. We
speak about their concerns. My colleague, the Member for Bonavista, does a great
job and he singles out people and he talks about people in his district. They
got sense, same as all of us. My colleague from Stephenville - Port au Port, he
has been very vocal and done a great job advocating for improvements. Does his
district have a lot of carbon, climate change activists? Maybe. Is that the
biggest concern? No.
Yet, we'll sit here and we'll debate and we'll debate and we'll debate and we're
looking for change. We are getting some improvements. We would like more. But,
ultimately, I plead – this is my final comment on it – there are much bigger
issues in this province and this country. This is not where we should be to.
This is not our most important issue. That particle of dust, that's all we are.
Let's get on with the real business of the House, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
L. PARROTT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I
would say leading up to this January, I have had constituents reach out to me
asking questions about climate change and different things, certainly the
environment, but since January, I haven't heard a peep about it. I will say not
one peep, but I have received hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of emails from
people concerned about how they're going to afford to buy groceries, how they're
going to buy milk, how they're going to put kids in school – all of the things
that are very important to people in their daily lives.
There is no question that the future of the world depends on how we treat it,
but the future of the province, right now, and the people in it depends on how
we treat them also. And people are hurting and there is zero question about it.
The one thing that affects everyone and it affects the cost of living and
everything we do is the price of gasoline and the price of gasoline has an
effect on every good
that we buy and sell.
So when
we talk about carbon, I'd say to the Premier sitting over there, I'd say we'd
love to hear what you said to the prime minister when you visited and talked to
him about carbon tax. I'd love to hear exactly what you said to him. We haven't
heard a peep about it.
The
reality of it is there's an 11.05-cent tax that's here and there should be a
pause put on it. I don't think anybody in this House, not once during this whole
debate the last couple of weeks, has said that it should be eliminated. The
words that have been said is that there should be a pause put on it.
A pause
is a plausible thing that can give people relief. So between 11.05 cents – and
certainly, again, another thing that I haven't heard anyone say, other than it's
out of our hands, it's up to the PUB, is the five-cent gas tax for the refinery.
And the reality of it is we were importing fuel in here for a very long time,
long before the refinery shut down and those proponents never asked for that
five cents. We're doing it now and we've been doing it for a long time.
As a
matter of fact, we're going to discuss a bill tomorrow that has a sunset clause
and we ought to have tried to find a way to put a sunset clause on that five
cents. Although, I know it's not legislation and the PUB control it, we should
be looking for a way to do that. Because the reality of it is people are paying
way too much at the pumps and the cost at the pumps is what's affecting everyone
else.
When we
buy our groceries and we look at how things are taxed – I always say this, and
I'll use processed food, because we pay tax on processed food – when we –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
L. PARROTT:
Do you want to say something?
Stand up and have at it.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
L. PARROTT:
No, but we can't, all I can
hear is chirping, so stand up, have at it. Or you can stand up after and have
your say.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
L. PARROTT:
No, but it gets to her.
When we
buy processed foods at a grocery store, we pay way more. Nobody considers that.
We'll use a TV dinner as an example. If we pay $4 for a Swanson TV dinner, we
pay 60 cents tax on it. If you go to Nova Scotia and you buy that exact same TV
dinner, they pay $2 for it and they pay 30 cents tax on it. And that's all got
to do with what – it's processed food, there is taxes. Yes, absolutely. So when
we buy processed foods, there are taxes on all of it. You pay a lot of taxes.
But we
don't think about those things, right? Logistically, how we ship things into the
province every day hurts us. We've got to find ways to improve it. But, right
now, the immediate relief that we can find is at the pumps.
Now,
listen, make no mistake about it. There was legislation – mysterious surprise
legislation that's going to be proposed tomorrow that was announced on Thursday
where we found some money in order to give some relief. Does it go far enough? I
don't think it does. I have zero reason not to support it because any relief is
welcome. But, at the end of the day, we need to find a way to get more relief.
It's
fair to say that premiers across the country are against this carbon tax and are
all looking for a pause. Well, maybe it's time for that bold move where we're
saying it louder than the rest of them. Where we're trying to reunite the
premiers across the country and trying to come together and let the prime
minister and the federal Liberals know how dire this is. Because it's dire.
I'll
tell you, there was a comment made here earlier by my colleague from Grand
Falls-Windsor, and if you think about this it's such a reality. Rural
Newfoundland or rural anywhere versus metro areas are entirely different. So
when you look a regressive tax like this and you think about how it affects
people, the first point is it affects everyone. It affects them in their
pocketbooks, it affects them when they go to grocery stores and it affects them
when they try to do something.
But if
you live outside of the city where you can't take advantage of things such as
Metrobus or if you're unfortunate and you're sick and you have to travel to a
major centre in order to get health care, or if you have to travel to get
groceries or if you have to travel to get your mail, you immediately pay way
more than anyone else. And nobody's considering the difference between rural and
metro Newfoundland. We can compare ourselves to other provinces, but we're not
other provinces.
I've
said for a long time when we talk about anything we do here, from health care to
regionalization to taxes, the one thing we always overlook is our two major
disadvantages: population and geography. But the people that are outside of the
Avalon Peninsula with regard to gas tax and the cost of living are at a major
disadvantage right now, and there's no mistake about it.
We talk
about the five-point plan, and I find it amusing how we – listen, the five-point
plan is going to help some people very little, but when we talk about people not
paying taxes on home insurance, you go out around the bay and a lot of people
don't have the fortune to own their home. And those that do probably don't have
a fire hall close enough to it where they can get insurance. So it doesn't help
them. Now, they still have drive all the distance in order to buy food.
When we
talk about electric cars, if you go out around the bay, a lot of people out
around the bay have 100-amp services. They could buy an electric car and go home
and not be able to charge it. They certainly can't afford to upgrade to a
200-amp service. And most likely can't afford to buy an electric car.
As a
matter of fact I think that the minister said that the cost of the electric car
rebate was $1.9 million, and my colleague from –
E. JOYCE:
Humber - Bay of Islands.
L. PARROTT: –
Humber - Bay of Islands was
looking for somewhere around $1.6 million for cataract surgery. Now, imagine if
that money had to have been invested in that and those seniors could get their
sight back. Just think about that. We have a choice between giving people the
ability to do something that they most likely won't, either because it's not
available n the market, they have fear of how it's going to react, or if they
buy it they can't charge it. Or we can give 800 citizens of Newfoundland and
Labrador their vision back. Seems like a no-brainer to me. Seems to me like a
very plausible plan.
When
we're here in government, it's easy, certainly in Opposition – and I say this,
it's easy enough to speak back and throw barbs, but when you're in government
the one thing you've got to understand is when you throw that stone in the
water, all of those ripples have an effect. And we don't look at it that way.
When you
think about seniors, and certainly seniors with regard to the cataract surgeries
and things, and alternatives that we have, to me it's the one group that we
should be rewarding and trying to look out to. Government had a choice, and they
chose not to do that. They simply chose it. They had every opportunity to do it.
This
carbon tax is baffling again, like I said, because never once have I heard – the
Premier hasn't stood on his feet and said one word about it. He hasn't said he's
for it or against it. He hasn't told anyone in the House about the conversations
that he's had with the prime minister – he said he's had the conversations – but
why not say what they were? Why not tell people where you stand on them? There's
no reason not to. At the end of the day it's the people of this province that
are being hurt and the reality of it is we're here to represent them.
Eleven
and a half cents goes a long way. Now if you were to add that 11½ cents on to
the seven-cent announcement, which equals 8.2, I think – is that right?
Somewhere around there? Now we're at 19.7 cents – substantial. Now if we could
do something with the five cents, we're at over 24 cents. Much more substantial.
And if you ask someone in the public how they feel about all of that, I can tell
you right now I haven't had one person come to me and say that they felt what
was offered was adequate. Now, I've had a lot of people come to me and say that
they're happy there was something, in all defence. But in the next comment they
say, it's going down eight cents but then it's going up four cents tomorrow, and
it's this …
Do you
know what? They have a reason to feel this way, because that's the history with
what's been happening with our gas prices here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
This carbon tax is an opportunity for us to stand up as a province and say to
the federal government that we do not want it, we do not like it and we're just
looking for a pause. Nobody wants to give up the future – nobody wants that –
but we need to understand the present we live in. And the present we live in is
a province that's struggling financially, on a personal and corporate level, and
the individuals that need this money the most could use a break at the pumps,
and that break at the pumps will go into everything that we buy and purchase.
Everybody knows that. The cost of living has gone through the roof. Gas is the
best way to put it down.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR (Warr):
The Chair recognizes the
Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm
going to just have a few words. I'm going to talk about the carbon tax and some
of the issues in the district concerning the carbon tax.
One of
the big things I hear, especially with the carbon tax that's going to be put on
the gas – and I'm sure it's all around the province; it's not just Humber - Bay
of Islands – are the roads. And you hear it on a regular basis, people saying,
well, we're going to pay more taxes on our gas, but there are a lot of issues
with our roads. And this is not a knock on government, because it's the climate
we live in and the hard winter we had and we had seven thaws this winter, but
usually we get one – seven. So that causes a lot more issues with the roads
itself.
You get
people asking those questions and you can't answer it. You honestly can't answer
that question. Like, okay, we'll put more tax on the gas, but our roads aren't
being maintained to the level that the residents expect. I spoke to the minister
and I know he's looking into it out there in Copper Mine Brook, but I just
wanted to put it on the record that I have brought it to the minister's
attention on many occasions and he is looking into it. It has to be fixed. If
not, they're going to have to shut the road down. It is getting that dangerous.
If someone goes there in a motorcycle or a small car and don't know the road,
there's a very serious chance for a serious accident. And the minister's aware
of it and I know he's working on it.
So those
are the kinds of things that politicians, when you go out in your district, have
to try and explain to people. You always talk about the carbon tax to the
people. Well, why are they putting it on gas? Why don't we put it on something
that we can save more? Why don't we put it on some recyclables, some other way?
But when you put it on the gas, you see the connection between paying for gas
and the roads. I think a lot of municipalities – I hear the Member for Cape St.
Francis talking about the municipalities. They are finding it very tough. They
are finding it very, very tough right now with the increase in cost.
A lot of
those municipalities also do have trucks and they do have tractors. Their cost
has gone up a lot. As I said earlier today, on many occasions, we've been
hearing now two or three weeks saying, oh, we can't do anything with the tax on
gas because the federal government would just step in, scrap the deal that we
have with the federal government. So we know now that's not true. Once that's
off the table, Mr. Chair, then we can say what else can we do. What else can we
do to help the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who are struggling? Trust me,
they are struggling.
I know
the Members opposite – some do, I'm sure some don't, but most do get the same
calls. And then you look at a lot of seniors. There are a lot of seniors and
people on low income who are finding it very, very tough these days. They are
finding it tough. As I said earlier today, there are a lot of children and
grandchildren who are helping their parents or grandparents out, buying oil,
buying gas, buying their medication, helping to buy their food. It is a reality.
It is an actual reality.
I was
speaking to one person Sunday when I was driving in, the family had to get
together and put the oil in their mother's tank. An older lady, they had to
actually put oil in her tank. She was getting $1,400 a month. To fill up her
tank for that month: $1,200. The maximum income she has is $1,400, and it was
$1,200. There has to be something where we can target seniors on low income and
people on lower income. There has to be something better we can do. What it is,
I don't know. I have some ideas, but, of course, you had to fight for three
weeks just to get them convinced that you can do something with the gas tax.
So we
just don't have enough time now to convince them that there are other things you
can do. But there are other things you can do. There are definitely other things
you can do. And that government, which I was a part of, did before. So I know
there are things that can be done. I know there are subsidies to low income. I
know that can be done. I know there can be a reduction in the income tax. I know
that can be done.
So when
people stand up and say, oh, we gave them enough, just think about that when you
say we put back – so here you are telling somebody who's struggling on the
street, seniors who are cold, seniors who can't eat, seniors who can't take
medication, you're saying we gave you enough. But it's not. We have to find some
other way. We just have to find some other way to do it.
We will
not be here long enough to keep on with the government to try to keep bringing
it to them. Almost bring it to the point where everybody is starting, everybody
out in the province is saying, lord, jeepers, b'ys, we're suffering, we're
hurting, we need something. And we won't have time to do that. The Opposition,
and I know at least two of the independents, have been raising those issues ever
since this House opened. We got some headway but it's still not enough.
There
has to be a targeted group that we can help out so that people can start
enjoying their summer. Instead of sitting in their house, they can go for a
little Sunday drive or they can get their medication or they can get their food.
I say to
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, I know it's not easy. I
know in your position it is not easy. I don't know any time in the history of
Newfoundland and Labrador when you're in that position that you're not one of
the number one targets in government. I know that. This is nothing personal to
you – nothing personal. Because no matter who's in that seat the same questions
are going to be raised. Because the process is that once everybody in the
department brings things forward, the minister brings it to the Cabinet, this is
a Cabinet decision. But it happens that we have to go through you, Minister, to
bring it to the Cabinet to try to get some changes, which have been done.
But
there has to be some other way to help out seniors or lower income. I implore
upon the government – and in some cases, you take the Humber - Bay of Islands,
the fishery is very big; Corner Brook Pulp and Paper is doing well. So there are
positive things that are happening in the area. But even a lot of the smaller
companies are struggling these days. After the pandemic and this with the war in
Ukraine, of course, everybody though employment was going to pick up. Then
because the costs have risen so much, a lot of employment hasn't taken place as
we thought it would.
So there
are issues there also because people aren't rehiring as much as they thought
they would be in the employment sector in the Bay of Islands, in the Corner
Brook area especially.
But
there are some positive things that are happening, it's not all doom and gloom.
There are some businesses that are moving and there are some businesses that are
expanding. But it's the common person who we are sworn to help that elected us
in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador who don't have a voice. I thank
you, Mr. Chair, for agreeing with me. Who don't have a voice to stand up here.
We are the voice. We are the voice of those common people.
That's
why if anybody says, oh, we're just standing up here and we're just talking,
killing time, you haven't been in someone's kitchen who can't get their
medication. You haven't been in the kitchen with someone who's saying they don't
know what they can afford to eat. You haven't been in the kitchen with someone –
and I use the cataracts again in Corner Brook area, mainly a lot in the Corner
Brook area, a lot of the Humber - Bay of Islands, a lot in the St. George's
region, a lot in the Premier's district. When you sit down with them and the
only way to do it, they have to go somewhere in St. John's and pay $3,400 an
eye, they can't afford it, when we can walk in tomorrow and get it done – start.
And the Premier himself will not stand up for that.
So when
you sit down and talk to those people, the people that elected us and you hear
those concerns, that's why we're standing in this House. That's why we're trying
to explain to the government, listen, you're making bad decisions here. Here are
some options. You're going to make the decisions; you have the majority, you're
going to make the decisions.
I'll say
this in closing, Mr. Chair. I offered the Premier, the Member for Corner Brook,
he can go also, and I offered the Minister of Health, go meet with Western
Health, or come out with me and meet with some of the seniors. Sit them down
face to face and tell them to their face, you have to wait another year for
cataract surgery, when we can get it done.
Let's
see your courage. Let's see how much courage you have. I'll arrange the meeting.
Sit down with those seniors, as many as you want, sit them with them, look
across the room and say, listen, we're not going to get this done now because we
have a personality conflict. We're not going to allow your surgeries to be done.
Let's see who got the courage to go out and do that. I bet you they will not
take me up on the offer.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Lake Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Chair.
Thank
you very much for the opportunity.
I wasn't
going to speak, but anyway we've had, as it is, a debate. You have different
thoughts. You have different perspectives on the floor. Sometimes when you're
sitting as a Chair, your duty is certainly to protect the speaker, but I just
wanted to grab the mic and go – now I have that opportunity I say to my friend
and colleagues across the floor.
I want
to start off, my first couple of minutes, just in response to some of the
comments I just heard. First of all, folks talked about is the most burning
issue on the minds of our constituents of this province right now the future
situation and projections for climate change? I'd say probably not. Is it the
need to put a price on carbon and pollution? Probably not.
However,
we all know, and I believe the province knows, that if we really start thinking
seven generations out, we need to start being very worried about a variety of
issues. I'll just go through a few of them.
First of
all, we have a demographic crisis. In these last few weeks of this session,
we've looked at things like regionalization. We've heard the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure talk about how he's putting out, now, feelers
and strategies for how we can deal with the reduction of ferry services, all
this big problem.
We have
a concentration, 50 per cent of our pollution lives in this little area around
where this Assembly is right now. This vast landscape with scattered communities
and over 9,000 kilometres of road, very challenging for us to service. This is
also a crisis. That's why we are taking these steps now; we're thinking ahead.
We also
have a health crisis. Let's face it. I can tell you we've had some – I'm sure
every single person has had some tough stories these last seven days when we
went back home. I had a very difficult afternoon that I'll speak about later
this week, but people are literally losing their lives while we try to get a
plan for the future in place for our health care system. It is another crisis –
it is another one that is burning, consuming so much time. We need to get it
right, again, for the future.
Fiscally, wow, we talk about Muskrat Falls and we talk about all these other
issues that are going on. We've had bills in this House where we've talked about
improved ways of borrowing money and some real good advantages and we can see
those fiscal advantages. That's why we're doing it, because we're thinking
about, again seven generations out, making sure that there is not a debt left
for those generations that are going to come after us.
And then
finally is climate change. One that I and many others – and I believe there has
been progress on the debate of this bill because I think I have heard everyone
say that they recognize that climate change is indeed a serious issue for
themselves; for their families; for generations to come; for this province; for
the world.
I think
most of the commentary I hear is saying, well, we have to park it now. Well, you
know what, folks? We have been parking it; we have been parking it a long time.
In terms of the reference that somebody made just a little while about us just
being a dust speck on the butt of the world. Well, as I've said, on a per capita
basis the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, frankly, have the greatest
carbon footprint. We are contributing at a rate that sets us in the third place
in terms of Canada. As a country, as a Canadian, we are seventh in the world in
terms of our carbon footprint. We might talk the talk and we may be concerned
but, folks, we still are not doing enough.
We need
to get started and, yeah, I'd like to park this too. I can feel the fiscal
pressures. I can tell you right now, I've been sitting in my chair watching
because in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, where I live, we're bracing for the ship to
come in. We have enjoyed somewhat of an isolation from these wild gas prices.
Last
week when I left – I drove back home – I said to the owners in Port Hope Simpson
after driving across the Island – yes, in my gas truck that my wife has. We
landed in Port Hope Simpson and I said to those folks, who I know very well, for
the first time in the 20 years that I have gone to gas up and coming from the
Island up, the price was lower than what I had been paying, and that is in Port
Hope Simpson. It was quite remarkable and we're bracing because we can feel
this.
So
people are actually asking me tonight: When do I think that this legislation
will be passed? When will the PUB be alerted? I said: It could be the next few
days. But people are watching that ship coming in. Lake Melville, the North
Coast of Labrador, we're going to feel it and we know it.
However,
what I wanted to reassure everyone in this House, and despite all these
pressures right now, there are some 111 countries. I can remember when my
colleague for Conception Bay South was my critic, when I was defending the moves
and efforts of the climate change office back many years ago. We used to have a
great debate back and forth, and I used to remind him, I'd say, go look and see
what they're doing across the United Nations.
I don't
know if he's ever gone to look, but I can give him a little update. There are
111 countries that are proceeding with a form of taxation on the price of
pollution, on the price of carbon. We are not unusual; this is not just a
Liberal – this is not just a Justin Trudeau move; this is happening around the
world. And it's tough, but we need to step up and join in, because frankly we
haven't been doing that. And by the way, there are some 12 more on the way.
But I
have to bring this debate again, and I've got to thank Anna Hutchings who works
with me and Bonnie Learning for the last few days. I said: I sense we're not
done yet with carbon tax. We're going to need to speak to this one more time. I
said: Let's just get a little update on what we call windfall profit tax
legislation. So we just did a little scan, not just across the country but
around the world. And I wanted to bring this back to the floor, because I want
everybody to pay attention.
I
believe you are, and I say as we fight over, whether it be some 11 cents right
now for carbon pricing, or the seven, eight cents that we're going to see for
the bill that's coming later his week – wow, are we missing the boat; are we
truly missing the boat. First of all, when we talk about windfall profit taxes,
here's a little definition. It's a piece of unexpected good fortune, typically
one that involves receiving a large amount of money.
Okay, so
let's take a look at it. So the United States, as I've alerted this House – I
think it was about a month ago, during Question Period and watching – they're
introducing profit tax legislation. They're going to be targeting the large oil
and gas companies and their massive profits, and that money that they'll be
receiving, it's in the billions – billions of dollars – is being rerouted back
to low- and middle-income folks. The folks most vulnerable to this rising cost
that, let's face it folks, is primarily related to the price of petrocarbons:
gas, diesel, propane and so on.
Spain,
by the way, it was actually one of the first national governments that I was
able to find; they actually started an idea of a windfall profit tax. It's 10
per cent on their oil and gas companies, and what they do is they revert it
right back to the taxes that the Spanish government has forgiven its residents
for paying for home heating fuel. So they've given a break to the residents,
they've taken the profit from the companies that operate in Spain and there's a
nice moving around of dollars to those who most need it. Folks, I can tell you
these are not crumbs; these are serious dollars.
I
mentioned, when I first talked about this some weeks ago, that the United
Kingdom was considering it. And if you're watching Boris Johnson and the debate
for many weeks, several months, he was
resisting pushing back. Suddenly, just a few days ago, a complete reversal
because so many of the other national governments are doing this. So the UK is
implementing it. It is going to be 25 per cent of that calculated profit, and in
the interest of time I will not go into it. That is going to generate some 400
pounds of rebate per household throughout the entire United Kingdom. That's a
substantial bit of support that you can put back and, by the way, this is not
profit. This is not a production cost. It doesn't drive anything up. It is just
profit that these shareholders are making.
I
want to go back again to Suncor. I am not necessarily wanting to beat up on
Suncor, because I see them doing several progressive things in the oil sands
projects in Alberta and so on. However last year, folks, during the first
quarter, Suncor declared a profit of some $821 million. This year: $2.95 billion
profit. And that money, it went to shareholders. It didn't go the help the low
and the middle income. It didn't go to helping environmental cleanups and
reductions of emissions. It went to shareholders, executives, owners, and that
is what is going on. We are playing this type of debating game here on the floor
and meanwhile I can tell you, folks, people are making a lot of money.
I
want to leave you just with a couple of quotes. The profits did not arise
because of changes to risk taking, innovation or efficiency and, for that reason
I am sympathetic to the argument to tax these profits fairly. That is from a
gentlemen who is the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
“The industry is effectively transforming a humanitarian disaster and pain at
the pump into Wall Street returns. Exploiting the war in Ukraine is a desperate
play on the part of these companies to salvage their reputation with investors.”
And that is from Lukas Ross – Friends of the Earth. But it is absolutely the
truth. If you look to see where these dividends are going, it is going to
shareholder return and we are fighting over seven cents, eight cents, nine
cents.
Thank you very much.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair is recognizing the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you. Mr. Chair.
This will be my last opportunity, I guess, to speak to this particular matter.
First of all, I want to say it is a very interesting concept that my colleague
just brought forward. I definitely think it is something worth looking into. My
only concern would be is that if we were to do this and our country were to do
it and then the US, what does that mean in terms of – would those companies then
say, okay, now we are just going to double down on oil in the Middle East and in
Venezuela and in these places. There is always that risk that if you do that,
they just pack up their bags and leave and
invest in other countries who
don't really care about the climate.
So that
would be my only concern, but, in concept, it sounds like a good idea,
definitely something worth looking at. I think it's definitely something worth
looking at, and I appreciate him bringing that forward.
On a
similar vein, when we talk about corporations and money and so on, I had a
person come to me, a business person recently, and this is something that – when
you talk about the cost of living, it's not just about – we're focusing on
government taxation, when we're talking about the cost of living here and
cutting tax and so on, but part of the cost of living, as well, is driven by
what you have to pay for goods, whether it be at the pumps or what you have to
pay for groceries and the inflated costs and so on.
One of
the things that this person pointed out to me, which I wasn't really aware of
how it worked, but you have this thing called a fuel surcharge. Now, pretty much
most of the goods that are coming to this province are coming here by ship,
they're coming in container. In the past – he showed me bills – you had a
container, and he showed me one, I think it was like $1,600 for the container.
Included in that cost would be all the costs, would be the fuel costs, the
labour costs, the overhead and, obviously, built in a profit and so on, and here
was the total cost that they paid for this.
Then a
couple of years ago they came up with this fuel surcharge. Now, I could
understand it. I would make sense to me, that if someone said well, the fuel
component of this $1,600 is $300 and because the price of fuel has doubled, now
it's going to be $600, but that's not what's on the bill. The bill actually said
– one bill he showed me – 115 per cent fuel surcharge, not on the fuel, on the
entire bill. So the $1,600 was $3,500, even though the actual fuel – the extra
cost on the fuel might have been like $300 or $400 more, but they were charging
like $1,500, $2,000 more. So the rest of it is all just pure profit.
Now, I
did check it out with Consumer Affairs and in talking to them it's really the
federal government, because there's a piece of legislation that we sort of have
here that governs fairness and so on, but that's fairness between consumer,
being a person, and a business. But because this is a business-to-business
transaction, in other words, the business is bringing in the container, not on
the individual, and they're doing business with the company that's bringing it
in, because it's a business to business, it falls under federal legislation and
it doesn't fall under our provincial legislation. That's what I was told by the
department, the director there.
So it's
something, I would say to the government, you should look into. I really ask you
to look into it, talk to your federal counterparts, because we have a monopoly,
pretty much, here on this Island. I mean, we have one company and we have Marine
Atlantic, pretty much. And that's how all the goods are coming. So just think
about it. If the companies are bringing in goods to the Island and they're
having to pay twice as much money for it, then that's going to be passed on to
the consumer. So when people are saying I'm going to the store, whatever, oh my
God, the price of everything has gone up, and we're arguing over a bit of tax.
At the same time, you have this large company that is making an absolute killing
– making an absolute killing.
Of
course, obviously, the company who is bringing it in they have no choice but to
pass it on. If their costs doubled, well they have to pass it on to someone or
they'd go out of business. So they end up passing it on. But the fact that
they're allowed to do this. So I ask you to check it out: a fuel surcharge. I
didn't even know about it.
The
other thing that was on the bill, which was interesting, was another additional
$300 charge and it was called a marine mammal protection fee or something like
that. So apparently that has to do with the right whales. So because of trying
to protect the right whales from being struck by ships, there are certain lanes
that they have to go when they're passing through a certain area, they have to
slow down a little bit, apparently. And they're saying that creates – it's not
as much fuel efficiency when they slow down. So on top of that for one container
was an additional $300 per container for the marine mammal protection fee, on
top of this hundred-and-some-odd per cent surcharge on the entire contents of
the container.
So when
we're talking about consumers and that, because it's the same people we're
talking about here, when we're here talking about well, they can't afford the
tax on things, but the goods themselves, we're not really talking about the
goods themselves and what's being charged here. Potentially, it sounds like a
gouge to me. Then maybe that's something we should be looking at.
So,
again, I would encourage the Minister of Finance or whoever, or Service NL,
whoever it would apply to, it may not be under provincial legislation, but it's
definitely something that you should talk to with your federal colleagues just
to explore how this fuel surcharge and these other charges are working and
applying, and if indeed it has any level of fairness to the consumers. Because,
ultimately, we're the ones paying for it in the end, regardless of how it
arrived at that number.
Another
one that was brought to my attention was, apparently there are a number of – and
this would be provincial, as I understand it – shop fees. I don't know if anyone
has heard of shop fees. So every time now you go to – and I'm not saying it's
every garage, but some garages and places, now they're charging shop fees. So I
go to a garage and I say I want to get my brakes done, so they charge me for my
brakes and that. They charge me for the labour and now they're saying 10 per
cent, I think it is, or whatever the amount is, 10 per cent or 15 per cent, like
another tax, shop fee is what they're calling it. Because when they were doing
my brakes, maybe when they were taking off my tires, there was a lug nut or
something that wouldn't come off very easy, they put some grease, or they had to
put a bit of Spray Nine on it or something. Again, if you had to use some
Spray Nine and it costs $5, charge $5, not $50. Not like 10 per cent, 15 per
cent on the entire bill. That's what's happening, I'm being told.
I had someone who even told me – this is even better now,
again, it's hearsay I suppose, you have to check it out, but this person told me
they went to a particular retail outlet and got four tires. Never got the tires
put on there, just got the tires. Took them off the rack, I'm going to put them
on myself or my brother-in-law is going to put them. He has his own garage in
this backyard, so don't charge me. Just give me the tires. He told me there was
a shop fee on that. He said what is the shop fee for? Because we had to pay for
the pair of gloves that the young fellow was wearing when he took the tire off
the rack or something.
If I went in the store and I bought anything else there,
I'd take it off, I'd put it in the cart, no problem. You get something down in
the automotive, a set of tires: shop fees. That would fall technically under our
legislation.
I know we're focusing on the tax. I get the fact we're
focusing on the tax, but as we focus on and we go back and forth over how much
tax is not too much tax and we understand the province's situation financially,
we need as much revenue as we can get, and we're fighting amongst ourselves, and
then you have these things happening that perhaps should be addressed. You
wouldn't be worrying about the tax, if people weren't being gouged in other ways
by some of these companies. It's something that definitely needs to be looked
at.
I mean, you look at the price of groceries and then if you
look in the news or whatever, you'll see some of these grocery chains and so on
are making record profits. So if they were just jacking up the price of
groceries to compensate for the high price of fuel, they'd still make the same
profit, but they're making record profits because they're obviously taking more
than simply the additional cost of fuel and expenses. They're using it as an
opportunity to gouge even more.
So we're
here fighting over tax on people, saying people can't afford their groceries,
and we're not even thinking about the fact of, well where are they getting the
groceries from, and how much are they charging – is that even reasonable costs?
So these
are things I just put out there, that it's not just about taxes, and big
corporations also need to be held accountable.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Seeing
no further speakers, shall the resolution carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division.
CHAIR:
Division has been called.
I summon
in all Members.
Division
CHAIR:
Are the House Leaders ready?
Order,
please!
All
those in favour of the resolution, please stand.
CLERK (Hawley George):
Steve Crocker, Lisa Dempster, John Haggie, Gerry Byrne, Tom Osborne, Siobhan
Coady, Pam Parsons, Sarah Stoodley, Andrew Parsons, John Hogan, Bernard Davis,
Derrick Bragg, Elvis Loveless, Krista Lynn Howell, Paul Pike, Scott Reid, Sherry
Gambin-Walsh, Lucy Stoyles, Jordan Brown, Perry Trimper.
CHAIR:
All those not in favour or
against the resolution, please stand.
CLERK:
David Brazil, Barry Petten,
Paul Dinn, Craig Pardy, Tony Wakeham, Chris Tibbs, Loyola O'Driscoll, Lloyd
Parrott, Joedy Wall, Pleaman Forsey, Jeff Dwyer, Eddie Joyce, Paul Lane.
Chair,
the ayes: 20; the nays: 13.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I
declare the resolution carried.
On
motion, resolution carried.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act.” (Bill 60)
CLERK (Barnes):
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
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.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
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.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Revenue
Administration Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the resolution
and Bill 60 carried without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
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:
Mr. Chair, I move, seconded
by the Deputy Government House Leader, that the Committee rise and report the
resolution and Bill 60.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report the resolution and Bill 60.
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.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
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 Baie Verte - Green Bay and Chair of the Committee of the
Whole.
B. WARR:
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 Chair of the Committee of Ways and Means reports
that the Committee has considered the matters to them referred and have adopted
a certain resolution and recommend that the 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, 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.'
The
motion is carried.
CLERK:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting
the imposition of taxes on carbon products.
On
motion, resolution read a first time.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I
move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that this 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.'
The
motion is carried.
CLERK:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting
the imposition of taxes on carbon products.
On
motion, resolution read a second time.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Finance, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An
Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act, Bill 60, and I further move that
the bill be now read a first time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill, Bill 60, and
that the said bill now be 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.'
Motion
carried.
Motion,
that the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to
introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act,” carried.
(Bill 60)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Revenue Administration Act. (Bill 60)
On
motion, Bill 60 read a first time.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that Bill 60 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.'
Motion
carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Revenue Administration Act. (Bill 60)
On
motion, Bill 60 read a second time.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Minister of Finance, that Bill 60 be now read a third time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved that Bill 60 be
now read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion
carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Revenue Administration Act. (Bill 60)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the
Order Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act,” read a third
time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 60)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that this House do now adjourn.
SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion
carried.
This
House do stand adjourned until 1:30 o'clock tomorrow.
On
motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.