May 31, 2022
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. L No. 59
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
Before
we begin, in the public gallery today, I would like to welcome Ailish Slaney,
who is the subject of a Member's statement this afternoon. She is accompanied by
her mother Cathy and her father Rodney.
Welcome.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Also in the public gallery, I
would like to welcome Elijah Gillam, his parents John and Sheri, and the
Safianiuk family from Ukraine. They are also joining us this afternoon for a
Member's statement.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
And also joining us today in the public gallery Skye
Taylor, the executive director for the Association of Early Childhood Educators
and she is also the subject of a Ministerial Statement this afternoon.
Welcome Skye.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Bonavista.
C. PARDY: Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
During Question Period, yesterday, the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and
Agriculture said I was – quote – a little misleading – unquote – when I asked
questions about his decision to overrule the Fish Processing Licensing Board on
licensing. The minister was not found to be out of order in using that phrase so
perhaps I would not be out of order to use the same phrase to describe the
information the minister provided in answering my questions yesterday.
The House of Commons Procedure and Practice
2009 said it would amount to contempt to be deliberately attempting to mislead
the House and by the same token refusing to answer a question or provide
information or produce papers.
I
don't want to say the minister has shown contempt, but I would like to give him
the opportunity to produce the paper he cited to contradict the findings in a
report of the board. The board wrote in their decision on April 12-14, 2022 that
“Overall, the outlook on the snow crab fishery is positive in most areas during
the next 4 years and beyond ….”
The
minister wrote in his decision on May 2022 that “the outlook on the snow crab
fishery is only projected to remain positive in most areas up to two to four
years.”
When I challenged the minister on this contradiction, the minister stated, “I
wish I had that report at my fingertips. It's on my desk. I would gladly share
that with the Member opposite, in which the DFO actually said the next two to
four years, but one year being done now puts us down one to three years.”
As
the Speaker ruled on November 21, 2013, and on other occasions: “If
you are reading from a document, you are responsible to table that document.
That is the content that is extracted from that document, so you table that
document”
If the minister refuses to accept the decision of the board because of a
particular report or reports that he is citing, a report or said reports from
which he quoted the figures two to four years and then one to three years, then
I believe the rules of the House say it is incumbent on him to table the report
or reports that he cited to back up his decision.
I ask that the minister be instructed to table the report or reports that he
referenced.
Further
to this, the minister used the word misleading when I said the board worked over
a year on the report, but in fact the board does say this in their report.
I ask
that the minister take the opportunity to acknowledge what the board actually
wrote and withdraw the term misleading.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture for a response.
D. BRAGG:
Thank you very much.
What a
great opportunity to get up and respond to what was perceived yesterday as
inaccurate information. In my hands today, I have the report of the 2HJ3KLNOP4R
Snow Crab Fishery and Survey Summary, of which I have underlined – and this was
on my desk yesterday – and it goes on to say: “There have been improvements in
most Snow crab assessment divisions in recent years, which are likely to
continue in the short-term.”
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
D. BRAGG:
“The last four years have
shown an overall trend towards warmer and potentially less favourable
environmental conditions for future productivity and there are indications that
abundance indices of pre-recruits (2-4 years until commercial size) may have
peaked.”
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I heard
the point of order; I want to hear the response.
D. BRAGG:
So this is the actual report
that would've been presented to the board by DFO, which is what I quoted from
yesterday. I brought it into the House today. I'll gladly table it. I only wish
I had made 40 copies so everybody could have one.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
There's no point of order
there. It's just a difference of interpretation.
Also,
I'll remind Members that point of orders have to be made at the point when they
occur.
Thank
you.
Statements by
Members
SPEAKER:
Today we will hear statements
by the hon. Members for the Districts of Terra Nova, Ferryland, Mount Pearl
North, Bonavista and Burin - Grand Bank.
The hon.
the Member for Terra Nova.
L. PARROTT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I stand here today to thank and commend two very active community-based
volunteers that have brought together a group of like-minded people pulling
together to help others.
Alice
White and John Gilbert are fondly known in my district and the surrounding areas
as the people going around with a yellow dory attached to their car encouraging
people to get on board to support the Salvation Army and food banks and to help
load the dory.
They
have been seen in various parking lots in the surrounding areas from Clarenville
to Arnold's Cove to Bloomfield, and with the increasing price of groceries and
the demand at food banks we need to do our best to help people get on board.
They
have recently added “on board” to their campaign. These collection bins,
currently at 14 various locations and they are adding more daily in businesses,
churches and community groups all because they saw a need to help others that
are in need. The generosity of these volunteers, their time and community giving
has been overwhelming.
Please
rise with me in thanking John and Alice for their community initiative. As Anne
Frank said best: “No one has ever become poor by giving.”
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Speaker.
I rise
today to recognize and congratulate a group from my district that organized a
Strides for Melanoma walk this past Sunday to raise money for the Melanoma
Network of Canada. This organization is an organization that depends on donors
to allow it to continue to offer programs and services that are so important in
educating and supporting patients and families living with melanoma and all
types of skin cancers.
May is
Melanoma Awareness Month and we all know that awareness and early detection is
the key factor in cancer diagnoses. An event such as this is a great way to help
promote and spread awareness of melanoma and other cancers. I was honoured to be
able to attend such an important function, especially as you know that cancer
has impacted each and every family in some way.
Speaker,
I ask all Members in this House to join me in congratulating the organizers of
Strides for Melanoma fundraiser on such a successful event.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
L. STOYLES:
Speaker, in 2010, Linda Ryan
was diagnosed with breast cancer. While recovering from treatment, she
established Pink Days in Bloom, a high-spirited awareness and fundraising
initiative to bring together breast cancer survivors and newly diagnosed
individuals.
The
group started raising money in support of the Canadian Cancer Society. Pink Days
is a movement grounded in the healing power of gardening, their connection to
nature and to one another.
Linda
has many volunteers helping her raise money for breast cancer research to enable
cancer patients from across Newfoundland to travel to St. John's so that they
can stay at Daffodil Place while recovering from treatments at no cost.
Linda
has been recognized provincially, nationally and internationally, receiving many
awards for her volunteer work; plus, the Canadian Cancer Society has given the
Pink Days in Bloom its own logo.
The past
year, she worked with the Cancer Society to knit socks in aid of Daffodil Place.
Socks in the City was a hit, raising spirits and funds to support people
fighting cancer during the challenging days of the pandemic.
Speaker,
I ask all Members of this House to recognize Linda Ryan, and thank her for her
community work.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
C. PARDY:
It is a privilege, Speaker,
to celebrate and publicly recognize the recent achievements of seven-year-old
Elijah Gillam of Bonavista.
One
rainy day in March, Elijah, with the assistance of his family, launched a hot
chocolate fundraiser in support of the Ukrainian people. With the generosity of
their community $2,000 was raised and donated to the World Central Kitchen,
helping thousands of displaced Ukrainians as a result of the war.
Elijah,
who sings beautifully in church, taps maple trees in his spare time, starred on
Rock Solid Builds, has yet another
achievement to add to his list. Together with his parents, Sheri and Johnny – in
attendance – they reached out to extend employment for a Ukrainian family in
their Sunset Kitchen cabinet shop. With great fanfare and community support, the
Safianiuk family of five will be moving to Bonavista tomorrow.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
C. PARDY:
It is through such great
humanitarian acts, such as these, that we make our mark in the world. Proof was
on Sunday past, when Elijah, along with 13 like-minded friends, operated a hot
dog and lemonade sale for Ukraine – which I just recently heard netted $1,300.
I ask
Members of the 50th House of Assembly to join me in celebrating the outstanding
act of kindness of Elijah, his family and friends, and extend a warm welcome to
the Safianiuk family to our wonderful province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Burin
- Grand Bank.
P. PIKE:
Speaker, today I proudly rise in this hon. House of Assembly to recognize
15-year-old Ailish Slaney of St. Lawrence. The Janeway Children's Hospital has
selected Ailish to be the outstanding philanthropist volunteer.
In 2014,
when Ailish was seven years old, she was diagnosed with a malignant brain
tumour, medulloblastoma. Her oncologist at the time said she had the attitude
of: “Well, let's do this, we have to do what we have to do.”
This
attitude carries over to volunteerism and fundraising with the help of her
family. In 2014, while battling surgery and months of treatment, Ailish started
her fundraiser called the Ailish Pancake Breakfast. This effort basically turns
her residence into a restaurant for the day and friends and family and the whole
community all enjoy a great day celebrating with Ailish.
Ailish's
goal is to continue her fundraising efforts for the Janeway. She has also added
recycling and ticket sales, all while balancing school and athletic activities.
Ailish
Slaney motivates not only her family, but an entire community. To date, Ailish
has raised over $73,000 for the Janeway –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P. PIKE:
– and we thank her parents,
Rodney and Cathy, and her sister, Abby, who couldn't be here today, for their
support.
In 2020,
Ailish rang the bell to recognize she was cancer-free. We thank Ailish who is
here today with her family for giving all of us the strength and courage to
preserve and to do our best to help others.
Thank
you, Ailish.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Industry, Energy and Technology.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
A. PARSONS:
Speaker, I am pleased today
to inform Members of this House of Assembly and residents of the province that
Cenovus and the project partners have announced the restart of the West White
Rose Project.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
A. PARSONS:
This is great news for
Newfoundland and Labrador. This project will generate and maintain up to 1,500
more direct and indirect jobs during construction and create roughly 250 new
permanent platform jobs. I'm pleased to reveal that employment at the Argentia
site will ramp up immediately, and increase through next year.
Speaker,
as we look to the future, we have to acknowledge the important role that oil and
gas projects, like West White Rose, continue to play. Over its 14-year lifespan,
this project is expected to generate nearly $20 billion in gross domestic
product, and over $7 billion in labour income for the province.
The
revised fiscal agreement will bring the province increased royalties if the
price of oil is over $65 US per barrel, with first oil expected in 2026.
As a
government, we have a responsibility to the industry, to the province and to
residents to plan for the future. Through this revised agreement, the province
obtained a $200-million royalty abandonment credit against decommissioning costs
and $100 million to establish a Green Transition Fund to support the energy
transition and other renewable initiatives.
Speaker,
we will continue to foster an environment that supports our economy by embracing
renewable energy, while maximizing our low-carbon oil and gas advantage.
Restarting the West White Rose Project is a great decision, and I thank the
project partners for their role in this agreement. Today is a great day for the
province and those who work in the industry.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
L. PARROTT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I'm extremely glad to hear
that construction of the West White Rose will continue. There are many
tradespeople in this province who have been waiting anxiously for this news and
who are looking forward to getting back to work on these job sites in our
province.
Today's
announcement also means that work, which has not taken place in this province,
will resume. With that being said, and with the Bay du Nord Project on the
horizon, I must urge the Premier and the minister not to give away any
Newfoundland and Labrador jobs. As much work as possible must be done in this
province on the Bay du Nord Project, including construction, engineering, design
and maintenance. It's not good enough for us to continue to let jobs leave this
province while many tradespeople wait to go back to work.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I'm glad to hear that the
workers of this project can now have some clarity of their future. I hope that
this government takes the future seriously and commits to a comprehensive just
transition plan that will be ready for when these projects reach their end of
life stages.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Education.
T. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's an
honour today in the House of Assembly to recognize the week of May 29 to June 4
as Early Childhood Education Week.
This
week acknowledges and celebrates the crucial role early childhood educators play
in the lives of children in guiding their early learning and development through
well-planned, play-based learning and exploration of the environment.
Our
government, in partnership with the federal government, is implementing an Early
Learning Action Plan that will significantly expand affordable, regulated child
care in this province. At the same time, this plan will increase opportunities
for career advancement for early childhood educators and will see the
implementation of a wage grid that will see most early childhood educators
receiving a wage increase starting in 2023, to better reflect the important work
they do.
Last
week, we announced more than 30 locations for a pilot prekindergarten early
learning program that will open in 2022-23. The pilot will result in
approximately 600 new regulated spaces in communities throughout the province,
as well as significant career opportunities within the sector.
I would
also like to extend congratulations to Nicole Hall of Portugal Cove-St.
Philip's, recipient of the second annual Joanne Juteau Early Childhood Education
Scholarship as presented by the Association of Early Childhood Educators of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Ms. Hall
is graduating from the College of North Atlantic full-time ECE diploma program
this spring with a 4.0 GPA, while volunteering at the college as a tutor,
helping her peers reach their own success in the ECE program. Ms. Hall also has
experience in the field and hopes to open her own child care centre.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Ms. Hall, and thanking early
learning and childhood educators for their dedication and commitment to
providing essential support to families in Newfoundland and Labrador and
encouraging others into this very special profession.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement. On behalf of the Official
Opposition, I would like to recognize this week as Early Childhood Education
Week. In doing so, I would like to thank the compassionate ECEs in our province
and the work they do in caring for and educating our youngest residents. I
especially recognize Ms. Hall on graduating the ECE diploma program with a 4.0
GPA. I wish her all the best as she endeavours to open up her own child care
centre.
Speaker,
the things you hear about the need for more early childhood educators in this
province, this week is a great opportunity to bring attention to the profession
and seek out ways to encourage more students to undertake the training that's
required.
I
encourage government to continue working on this initiative because we do have a
shortage of spaces.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement and join him in
recognizing Early Childhood Education Week, congratulating Ms. Hall on the
winning of the Joanne Juteau Early Childhood Education Scholarship and in
recognizing the valuable work and role of early childhood educators, that they
play in the lives of our children, our most precious resource, and their
families.
Speaker,
early childhood educators, the majority of whom are women and earn an average of
$30,000 a year, will continue to struggle to make ends meet through record
inflation. 2023 is too long to wait; we ask that government look at implementing
this wage scale earlier.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Are there any further
statements by ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
On
the heels of the minister overruling the Licensing Board and issuing more
licences, companies have slowed or stopped buying crab altogether. The FFAW has
warned this could be catastrophic for plant workers and harvesters.
Does the Premier agree with his minister's decision to overrule the Licensing
Board?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and
Agriculture.
D. BRAGG:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
It's a great question. Indeed, today, I had a conversation with the president of
the FFAW, Keith Sullivan, as well as many owners of fish plants throughout this
province. I also reached out to counterparts in Atlantic Canada. Right now, we
are at a time in our industry where we have an abundance of crab supply. All
cold storage are full and indications are that production will be slowed to
allow the market to catch up for it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
While there are ministers who are overruling agencies that are put in play to
offset the process for making decisions, I would like to have the minister
offset or overrule the PUB to help the people of this province with the price of
gas.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL:
Speaker, harvesters have already struggled with
declining prices, skyrocketing operation costs and trip limits. The minister
interfered by issuing more licences when no one is buying – the first time it
has happened in our province's history. Now our billion-dollar crab industry is
at a standstill.
How
will the Premier fix this mess?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and
Agriculture.
D. BRAGG:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
I
think that maybe there is a little fear mongering on the go there. Our industry
is as big as what it was last year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
D. BRAGG: We have an increase of 30 per cent overall within that
industry. Price remains strong. It was negotiated down – I think is was $6.19
from $7.69. It is still strong. It is the strongest it has been in the last
number of years and it is unfortunate the way the markets are.
The
Members opposite keep talking about the cost of living. I guess this is a factor
of the cost of living, that people are not buying high priced quantities right
now. We hope that the market recaptures itself and gets back to the right size
and we get some sales on the go.
We
have lots of producers and lots of buyers. One indication this morning was
someone brought in 17 tractor-trailer loads of crab and sold –
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
minister's time is expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
We
are not fear mongering. What we want is to ensure that there is a process here
that is followed that ensures harvesters and plant workers are taken care of and
there be a proactive approach here instead of a reactive approach, Speaker.
Last week, residents on the Labrador South Coast and the Labrador Straits saw
their gas prices rise by 69 cents. Central Labrador and the North Coast will see
similar spikes in the coming future. Residents of Labrador already pay
exceptionally high food prices.
How
does the Premier expect Labradorians to survive if they cannot afford fuel and
food?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service
NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
Petroleum Products Act, I guess to the
former question and this question, is a quasi-judicial body. They are kind of
entrenched in law, unlike the Fish Processing Licensing Board, which is advisory
in nature.
To
address the question about Labrador and the price of gas, Speaker, I think
that's an excellent question. Two years there was a review of how the gas
pricing process in Labrador works. The theory, the spirit of the regulation and
legislation is that when the tanker comes in, the price is set based on the
price at that time, and that's how it manifests itself throughout the year.
My
department has been working closely with the Public Utilities Board and the
Department of Labrador Affairs, and I look forward to speaking about this again
later today when we talk about gas prices again.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, we're hearing
from hundreds of Labradorians who are saying that the impact right now is having
a detrimental effect on their ability to put fuel in their vehicles, or their
Ski-Doos or their boats, and also to have access to good, healthy food.
There
are seniors who do not drive, who do not heat their homes with oil. The only
thing the Liberals have given these seniors is an extra $131 a year. That's a
measly $4.30 a month, not even enough to buy a box of tea bags. Seniors are
being forgotten by this government.
Why does
the Premier continue to do little for seniors who simply cannot afford to go to
the grocery store anymore?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Of
course, we recognize the stress and strain of our seniors. That's why one of the
first measures that we did was increase their Supplement by 10 per cent, Mr.
Speaker. We also realized that not every senior, as he correctly points out,
heats their home with furnace oil. We appreciate that. That's why we're
mitigating their rates of electricity heat by $2,400 a year, Mr. Speaker.
We'll
continue to look for creative ways to look after our seniors. We have one of the
most robust plans across the country, and we will continue to be dynamic and
flexible and responsive should other needs arise, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
But
we've also heard that it's not enough to help people, particularly seniors here,
and there are more things that could be done here.
I've
heard from a senior who likes to volunteer at a local food bank, who is now
struggling to afford meat and vegetables. Now she's relying on the very food
hamper she used to distribute.
Why is
this Premier not doing more to keep seniors from needing to rely on food banks
to eat healthy?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Of
course, we're always looking at more ways to help people in this province. We
have to recognize the fiscal restraints of the province, largely because of
Muskrat Falls. No one wants to talk about it, but it is a reality that we have
to deal with every single day. They don't want to deal with it. Unfortunately,
we have to deal with it, on behalf of the people of the province.
I wish I
had $500 million year after year, in perpetuity, to help seniors in a more
effective way, Mr. Speaker. Right now given the fiscal constraints of this
province, we've offered them 10 per cent extra. We've offered them $142 million
of this five-stage package initially and now, hopefully today or tomorrow, we'll
cut the gas tax in half even further.
This is
a healthy plan, it's a robust plan and I would argue it's more than any other
jurisdiction across this country has done per capita, and we will continue to
look for more creative ways, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Obviously, your plan is failing, because seniors are struggling. So mission not
accomplished, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker,
communities around the province continue to speak about the failed roads plan.
Placentia and Bay Roberts are the latest to complain about zero investment from
the province over the next two years.
Why does
the minister continue to ignore the needs of these communities?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure.
E. LOVELESS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and
thank you for the question.
In terms
of the roads plan, I've said it before and I'll say it again that we believe
this year we struck a real balance in terms of bridge replacement and
improvements in our roadways. Unfortunately, I have a $151-million budget.
Believe it or not, it's still a tough task in terms of what need we have in our
roadways in this province. It is a tough task, and I believe, as I said before,
we have to replace bridges and we have to pave roads. We've struck a great
balance for this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
the deputy mayor of Placentia is speaking out about the lack of action, noting
that the Argentia ferry will soon push thousands of tourists over our roads,
which he says are filled with potholes and craters.
Is this
the kind of welcome the Premier wants to give visitors during his Come Home
Year?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure.
E. LOVELESS:
I would ask him the question:
Where is he hiding his money tree? Because there is only so much that we can do
with the financial envelope that I have. I understand the challenges of that
deputy mayor, like other deputy mayors in parts of the province –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
E. LOVELESS:
We're trying to be
responsible with the financial envelope that we're given. We believe a good
balance has been struck. We're investing in bridges, which is a very important
piece of our roadways. And it will be in the years to come. It has to be done.
There is investment there and investment in our roadways, and we struck a good
balance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Speaker, I would say that
probably the money tree is lost in one of those P3s – about $1.5 billion and
counting and we know where that's going. And it might be behind door four. Maybe
door four has the money tree. We're not really sure; there are a lot of doors.
It's all smoke and mirrors, remember that. It's smoke and mirrors; that's what
this government operates on.
Speaker,
the Bay Roberts town council notes Route 70 is in deplorable condition – it's
actually unsafe. Yet again, the minister has refused to listen to the community
and take action.
Speaker,
I take this question directly from their press release: How bad does it have to
get, and how long will it be ignored?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure.
E. LOVELESS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad
he asked that question, because the MHA who does a real good job for her
district advocates very hard for that piece of highway. And we met with the
town, and I instructed to the town that we will be investing on that roadway.
But we have preliminary work to do this year. We are investing this year for
work to be done next year.
It's not
announced in the roads plan because we haven't determined yet the extent of what
we will do. So there will be investment in that road because of the advocacy and
the great work done by the MHA.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Speaker.
Last
week the Liberal government finally realized that the Minister of Finance does
control the finances of the province and actually made a reduction in the gas
tax, which we have been calling for since November.
So I ask
the minister: Now that you control the taxes, will you eliminate the sugar tax?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
I have
to say it is very interesting that they are convoluting cost of living, lowering
the gas tax and now not implementing a plan that will help make our province
healthier. We have set a plan for this province to be one of the healthiest in
the country by 2030. One of the ways that we are doing that is by the Physical
Activity Tax Credit. We are also implementing –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Do you
want to waste your Question Period arguing back and forth? I'll allow you to do
it.
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
It is quite interesting to
have the chirping in the House and from the other side, Mr. Speaker.
I will
say that we will be moving forward with the sugar-sweetened beverage tax. This
is one way in which we are bringing to the people's attention how important it
is to reduce the sugar in their diet. This is about choice, Speaker. You can
choose something with lower calories.
SPEAKER:
The minister's time has
expired.
S. COADY:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Speaker, if the minister was
truly interested in healthy choices, she'd reduce the cost of healthy food and
not increase the cost of living, which is exactly what is going to happen when
we implement a sugar tax.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
T. WAKEHAM:
So I ask the minister, once
again: Would you introduce an amendment to push back this sugar tax
implementation? Certainly the minister understands that the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador do not need another tax.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
I wasn't aware that the
Member opposite was an economist, Speaker.
I will
say that the people have choice. They can choose a sugar-sweetened beverage;
they will pay a slightly different rate for that. Then they can choose another
beverage that has lower calories, that has no sugar, that would be better for
their health outcomes.
Speaker,
this is about choice of drink and we're suggesting to the people of this
province to choose wisely. We will be imposing a tax on sugar-sweetened
beverages. It is logical; it is all about choices, Speaker.
So, no,
I will say to the Member opposite, we will not be pushing back the
implementation of that tax.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Speaker, this is just what
the minister said. It's about introducing another tax; it's about taking $5
million out of the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It's not about
healthy choices.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
T. WAKEHAM:
Yesterday, the minister
justified leaving people in the cold when she said: We are going to wait until
September when we know people will be filling their tanks getting ready for the
fall. I've talked to many people who are trying to pay off their current oil
bills.
I ask
the minister: Will you please get those rebates out now so people can afford to
pay off last year's bills?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you, Speaker.
With
regard to the sugar-sweetened beverage tax, the prelude to the question, I will
say to the Member opposite that this is not about tax at all. We have taken the
money that we will be collecting and we've increased, for example, monies that
we're paying for the children's food programs in schools. We've taken that money
and put it towards active living and active healthy living put towards seniors.
We have reinvested that into our communities because we want a healthier
environment, we want healthier opportunities for all Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.
As the
Member opposite knows, we will be coming into a fall where it will indeed get
cold. We are getting information from the Canada Revenue Agency so that we can
produce those cheques. This is all driven by an application based, as well –
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
minister's time has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
S. COADY:
Thank you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
That's not bad, Speaker,
yesterday, they were playing baseball. Now they're playing hockey, stick
handling around all the answers. Maybe they should end up in the penalty box.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Speaker, every day we see
reckless driving on our highways and excessive speeding often recorded at 150
kilometres an hour or more. Way back in November 2019 amendments were made to
the Highway Traffic Act to allow speed
cameras as another tool of enforcement.
Why has
the minister not done anything in three years to put these in action?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speed
cameras are an incredibly important policy instrument for me and this
government. We are working on speed cameras. As you can imagine it's incredibly
complex.
So
there's the technology, then we have working with the municipalities. We have
working with the RNC system; we have working with the OCIO system. So there are
lots of things that we currently have an intergovernmental team working on.
We're working very hard to get speed cameras in the hands of government and
municipalities as soon as possible.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Speaker.
The same
government bureaucracy that slows everything down.
Speaker,
the minister loves committees and studying the issue, but precious little done
in the way of action. Again, she has the legal authority to make highways safer
for years, yet has failed to advance this important safety measure.
When is
the minister going to stop making excuses?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Speaker.
It is
currently fully legal for someone to have a speed camera. It is a legal
instrument in our laws, Speaker. Right now, we're working on the technology
implementation side. We need something that a municipality or a town – the Town
of Paradise, the City of St. John's, the Town of Ferryland – that they can plug
into and if they so choose on the streets of their towns and cities. We need to
make sure that they talk to the RNC systems and the OCIO systems.
There
are a lot of working pieces there and a lot of other things that the government
is trying to figure out, but this is a very important piece to me. I have been
driving it. I can't say when we're going to have it ready, but we're working as
fast as we can.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Grand
Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
C. TIBBS:
We look forward to that.
Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Health said: “It is difficult when you have
professionals who are tired and frustrated and burnt out, airing their views in
public.”
I ask
the minister: Will he continue to disrespect the doctors of this province or
will he stand and apologize to Dr. House, as I am sure she can air her views
without assuming that she is burnt out?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much for the
question, Mr. Speaker.
Again,
it's a question of selective quotation, because immediately following that I
acknowledge that these were difficult conversations and we needed to hear them.
It is
the case that physicians are tired and frustrated. We've heard that. It is the
situation that nurses and LPNs are tired and frustrated. We've listened to that.
As a
result of those conversations, we have put in place initiatives: the family
medicine initiative from last October; the nurses' think tank; we've met with
NAPE on paramedics; we've had discussions with allied health professionals on
respiratory therapists and perfusionists. These conversations are difficult but
important. I said nothing that Dr. House had not said herself in public media.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Grand
Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
C. TIBBS:
Well, that's about the worst
apology I've ever seen.
Let me
tell the minister something, the doctors in my district work very hard; they do.
Maybe if we supported them instead of chastising them for every time they speak
about something, we might not be in this mess.
Speaker,
the CEO of Central Health in an interview yesterday said that over the next few
weeks they plan to work on retaining the physicians that they do have in the
region. Very important.
Does the
minister think that branding physicians as – quote – difficult will push
physicians out of the region or keep them there?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
Again, a
lecture in selective misquotation from my colleague opposite.
The
conversations are difficult. The physicians have genuine feelings of fatigue and
exhaustion. I sympathize with that; I've been there. We have put in place an ADM
for recruitment and retention of all health professionals. We have approaches
through conversations with nurses, with physicians about what it is we can do to
make their working life easier and their work life balance suit them better.
These
are important issues for us. We are putting money there. We're putting resources
there and the results will manifest themselves in time.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Exploits.
P. FORSEY:
Emergency room closures in
Central Newfoundland are causing severe disruptions at the Central Newfoundland
Regional Health Centre in Grand Falls-Windsor with more patients needing
emergency service, longer wait times and patients forced on stretchers in
hallways.
How long
will Central Health be practicing hallway medicine?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
We're
aware of the situation in our emergency rooms. We have, and we brought to this
House, measures that we have in place to attempt both short-, medium- and
long-term fixes for this. There will be stabilization of the hubs in Grand
Falls-Windsor and Gander. We put $1.8 million into each of those this year in
the budget that we've recently passed. We have committed an extra $2 million for
virtual ER support in Central Health. Central Health is actually pioneering the
use of virtual ER services. These are short term.
Long
term, I'm pleased to announce, that the entire family medicine seat program at
Memorial is full and we are on track to make further enhancements to that
program.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Exploits.
P. FORSEY:
Well your short term is not
working, Minister. It's time to get at the long-term one because they're still
in the hallways.
Residents in Central region are concerned with the future of their health care.
Many residents can't get access to the health hub, don't have a family doctor
and are driven to emergency room for their basic medications.
I ask
the minister: Why is government forcing people to go to overcrowded emergency
rooms to access basic medications?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Speaker.
Several
elements packed up in that question, but, essentially, we have put in place
short-term measures to deal with medication refills; 811 can do that for you.
Pharmacists can refill prescriptions for stable patients with medications.
In terms
of putting in place good, solid primary care, that is the foundation for Health
Accord NL. We will be opening up Patient Connect NL to Central and Western
regions of this province within the next few weeks to identify those people who
need a primary care provider, just as we have done in Eastern Health. There is
capacity in the Eastern Health clinics and we look forward to people being able
to register.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Thank you, Speaker.
Residents from Chance Cove, Blaketown and even as far as Arnold's Cove are
relying on the emergency room in Whitbourne, because there are simply not enough
family doctors in the area.
How long
will residents have to worry about not having access to a family doctor?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
Indeed
access to primary care is our primary focus currently. We have in place, through
Eastern Health, Patient Connect NL, which I have referenced earlier. Those
individuals should register for primary care through that portal. Currently
we've had just north of 12,000 registrations. You will be prioritized on the
basis of clinical need into how rapidly appointments are provided.
We
continue to work to expand those services across Newfoundland and Labrador in
line with what we believe the blueprint for the Health Accord NL plan will be.
Look forward to providing further – my colleague over there looks as though he's
ready for his next one.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
The reason why I stood,
Speaker, is because that was another non-answer. I asked about the specifics of
Whitbourne clinic and you're talking about asking a senior to go to St. John's
to see a doctor to get medications – come on.
With so
many emergency room closures in the province, many residents are worried that
the Whitbourne clinic will be next to close its doors. Without family physicians
and without an emergency room clinic, where will residents of the area seek
medical care?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Again, Mr. Speaker, it seems
that selective misquotation is the order of the day with my questions. The
gentleman opposite misquotes me and misinterprets what I did say.
Patient
Connect NL is a primary way of registering for primary care access in Eastern
Health region. From the point of view of those physicians, Whitbourne clinic is
experiencing – as other clinics have – some staffing challenges which Eastern
Health are working with the local physicians to attempt to resolve, as well as
local staff.
Our
long-term and medium-term solutions lie on recruitment and retention of
Newfoundland and Labrador people who go to medical school and do residency
training here. That is in hand and will bear fruit.
SPEAKER:
Order!
The
minister's time is expired.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I've
raised this before; I'll do it again. Route 60 through my District of Topsail -
Paradise has sections in deplorable condition. It is pitted with potholes, has
erosion on the shoulders, and it presents safety issues for both drivers and
pedestrians.
I ask
the minister: What is the timeline to address this issue in Topsail?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure.
B. PETTEN:
Wrong colour there.
E. LOVELESS:
That's a good question, and
no, it's not the wrong colour, I'll say to the deputy, whatever his title is.
But in
terms of Route 60 there are conversations to be had about that highway. I have
driven it many times because I live nearby it. I have chatted with the Member as
well in terms of the need there.
It is
not just in the roads plan; it can be an upgraded maintenance plan, as far as I
am concerned, so we are looking at that. It is not like we're neglecting it
because, as he would say, it is a different colour. It doesn't matter, but the
need is there and we recognize it and it is part of our planning in the
department.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
Thank you.
Speaker,
on Thursday, many patients from my district were told that they could not travel
home until Monday, a four-day delay, because there was no room on the medical
flight for them. This has become a chronic, ongoing problem which causes
additional mental, financial and relationship stress for patients. It is only
after pleading with the health authority that additional flights were added.
This cannot continue to be the norm, Mr. Speaker.
So I ask
the minister: Will he take action to ensure patients don't have the continued
burden of these huge delays getting home?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
The
skedevac service, the regular medical flights to the North Coast, are managed
and handled by Labrador-Grenfell Health. Certainly happy to take the Member
opposite's concerns back to them. My understanding is that they have built on
their existing contract and increased the number of regular flights as it is.
Should that not be sufficient then obviously there is a need to reassess that.
We would
be happy to work with the Nunatsiavut Government, as well, who have a monetary
interest in supporting that flight too. We have various channels and, again, I
am happy to take that back to Labrador-Grenfell on behalf of the Member
opposite.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
In a
current response to the PUB from NL Hydro, over the current application of power
supply to Southern Labrador, the PUB has asked NL Hydro to engage external
experts, as the project is over $50 million. NL Hydro refuses to do so. This is
Recommendation 1 from Muskrat Falls inquiry, Volume 1, page 61.
I ask
the minister: Why hasn't this recommendation from the Muskrat Falls inquiry been
implemented?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Industry, Energy and Technology.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
happy to hear somebody else in the House talking about Muskrat Falls besides us.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
A. PARSONS:
What I would say to the
Member is that I am quite aware of the dialogue that is going on between Hydro
and the PUB. I guess the first thing that I would say is that I am extremely
happy to see a robust, active dialogue between Hydro and the PUB as it relates
to reliability and stability of power in Southern Labrador. It is certainly a
huge conversation going on.
What I
would say, right now, is they are still, to my knowledge, working this back and
forth. There are a lot of concerns and there have been a lot of concerns
expressed in the community as to the source of power. So they will continue to
do that, but the fact that they are having open, transparent dialogue that is
being seen in the public, I don't think that's a bad thing.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Route 450 is a very important route for the whole south shore of the Bay of
Islands. It is good for tourism, for people travelling back and forth to work.
There is a major split in the road at Coppermine Brook. I know I have been
dealing with the minister on it and he has been very gracious in working with
this.
The
people of the Humber - Bay of Islands would just like an update on that road
because the road is in serious condition and one portion of the road is in
serious condition. I followed up on a tourism bus and it was on two wheels the
other day. I know the minister is working with his staff.
Can
you just give us an update on that so I can pass it on to the residents of
Humber - Bay of Islands – the short-term solution and the long-term solution?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Transportation and
Infrastructure.
E. LOVELESS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
An
important question and, any time that safety is in question, we take it very
seriously as a department. The Member is right. We did have conversations around
that route – Route 450. I did have conversations with the staff this morning
about it. While I don't have anything in terms of what will be done in the
interim, we know that something needs to be done there to address that
situation.
We
are assessing it right now. Once I have the feedback from the department and
engineers, I will be glad to have that conversation with the Member.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
I thank the minister for that.
The
Liberal government made a commitment that the new acute-care hospital would have
all of the services currently at the Western Memorial Regional Hospital. We know
now that that commitment has been broken, with a loss of 75 union positions. The
laundry services, with 75 jobs, has been eliminated from the new acute-care
hospital despite assurances from your government during the election of 2021.
There was a request for qualifications that closed in January 26, 2021, during
the election. Then an RFP for services to be done privately.
Can
the minister inform this House on the status of the RFP and the status of these
75 jobs in the Corner Brook area and if this tender has been awarded?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
When the original P3 was crafted, at a time when I believe the Member opposite
sat in a different location in this House, it was agreed that non-clinical
services would be removed, where possible, from the footprint of Corner Brook
Acute Care Hospital on the grounds of economy and quality.
What has happened since then is that Western Health
have gone out to an RFP to assess how best to provide laundry services.
As a result of that RFP, they have gone back to the market for a consultant in
the field of commercial laundry to provide them with further advice. That is the
RFP that is currently out there.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The time for Question Period
has expired.
Presenting Reports by Sanding and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
D. BRAGG:
Speaker, I guess this
document will strike a nerve with Members on other side who seem intent on
watering down employment in the fish plant industry. I, on the other hand,
intend to support the people that currently work in that industry.
I table
this document entitled the 2HJ3KLNOP4R Snow Crab Fishery and Survey Summary.
This will support a question from Question Period yesterday in which I said
something. It was made a point of order today to be contrary of what I said.
This supports what I said yesterday, and I table this document.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Any further tabling of
documents?
Notices
of Motion.
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Lake
Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
Good catch, Speaker, thank
you.
Many
constituents in Newfoundland and Labrador have eye diseases and degeneration
that requires surgical intervention to help maintain vision. One of the
corrective procedures, coronal transplant surgery, is covered under the
provincial Medical Care Plan. However, there is another less expensive and more
effective medical procedure available within the province that is not covered
under MCP that could save the province money and provide improved health
outcomes for the residents of this province.
My
petition: WHEREAS corneal cross-linking surgery is less expensive than corneal
transplant surgery; and
WHEREAS
corneal cross-linking surgery is currently available in St. John's, and
WHEREAS
the corneal cross-linking surgery is a one-time surgery with lifelong
effectiveness, instead of being repeated every 10 years as for the transplant
surgery procedure; and
WHEREAS
corneal cross-linking surgery has a shorter recovery time and does not require
anti-rejection medication; and
WHEREAS
corneal cross-linking surgery does not require donor tissue, reducing the wait
time considerably.
THEREFORE we, the undersigned, call upon this House of Assembly to urge the
government to cover corneal cross-linking surgery under the provincial Medical
Care Plan.
Speaker,
this particular issue was brought to me by a resident; I've since heard from
others that are battling and very frustrated with the situation. It's estimated
that some one in 100,000 people in the country are estimated to suffer from this
type of eye disease that would require this kind of procedure to address. That
would represent, by the way, for everybody here, 520 of our residents in this
province.
This
procedure is covered in Quebec, and there are a variety of advantages to it. It
does halt the progression of keratoconus; it prevents vision loss; it has been
approved for young teens; it avoids that very complicated transplant procedure;
it enhances contact lens tolerance; delivers a much faster, more effective
treatment – by the way, the procedure only takes 10 minutes to deal with – is
suitable for thin corneas; serves as a safer treatment and, finally, Speaker, it
provides maximum eye protection.
So,
again, and to sum up, I'd like the government to have a look at this. Certainly
this approach is less expensive, more effective and the citizens of the province
are asking for it.
Thank
you very much.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay.
The hon.
the Minister of Health and Community Services for a reply.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Speaker.
Sorry, I
had to wave through the moving bodies.
The
Member opposite's petition brings up a very interesting clinical issue; it is
topical in my department, with the treatment of keratoconus. We have a small
group of clinicians working on that at the moment and may be able to provide
some future comment to the House.
So thank
you for the petition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
the following petition is one from the residents of Corner Brook and the present
situation out there with the crematorium. As colleagues will do in the House, I
politely agreed to present this petition on behalf of the people of Corner
Brook. I consulted with my good friend the Member for Corner Brook, who is in
support of this.
Currently, there are no regulations for crematoriums in Newfoundland and
Labrador. All crematoriums in Newfoundland and Labrador are currently operating
without regulations, resulting in crematoriums being built as close as a few
metres from neighbouring homes with no emission monitor. Toxic emissions
contaminate the soil, air and water. The World Health Organization stresses that
crematoriums should not be built near neighbourhoods where people live.
The
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador urgently needs to develop and enforce
regulations for all crematoriums. Crematoriums are in fact incinerators and
toxic emissions are very well documented even in the most modern equipment.
Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately place a moratorium on all new crematorium builds until there are
regulations in place for all of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is signed by
quite a number of people, Mr. Speaker.
I
table this and I hope the government gives it some consideration.
Thank you very much.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
reasons for this petition or the background to this petition is as follows:
Roads in our province are in various states of disrepair. Many rural communities
are concerned that the deplorable road conditions will keep visitors and family
away from Come Home Year celebrations. We are inviting the world to come to our
province this summer, yet many rural roads are unfit to travel and many vehicles
are damaged by huge potholes, unrepaired washouts and uneven shoulders. This is
a real deterrent to tourists and families from out of province who wish to join
in our celebrations this summer.
Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: To urge the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to increase the provincial roads program
to address the need for repairs on many rural roadways in our province.
I
have presented this on several occasions on behalf of the people, but, right
now, I guess, to go with this petition, I know that the roads plan is out,
Speaker, but we are in desperate need of some maintenance. The brush cutting now
– like, we'll say, in Petite Forte, the moose are hanging out on the road. Moose
never stay on the road. Caribou do because they lick the salt off the road but
to have moose, now, hanging out on the road means they can't even get through
the brush. So there is something pretty serious there.
We
have roads that haven't been looked at since they got paved originally. But I
will say this, the work that has been done and the workmanship of, not only our
depots but our contractors and stuff like that – and I was remiss in not
including our contractors last time – have done an excellent job. We just have
to set them out to do the job, I guess.
But
I appreciate it and look forward to the minister's response in giving some
attention to the maintenance going forward for the rest of the summer.
Thank you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Transportation and
Infrastructure for a response.
E. LOVELESS:
Thank you to the Member for his interest. As for brush
cutting, we will be announcing brush-cutting projects in the next couple of
months. As I told them yesterday, we will certainly be considering his area as
we do other areas. So we will be giving his area due consideration.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS:
Thank you, Speaker.
This petition is to call to reinstate the marine shipping and service between
the Island portion of our province and Northern Labrador communities.
We, the
undersigned, are concerned citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador who urge our
leaders to return the marine shipping services between the Island portion of our
province and our Northern Labrador communities of Rigolet, Makkovik, Postville,
Hopedale, Natuashish and Nain.
This
marine freight service was removed in the spring of 2019, resulting in freight
having to be trucked to the port of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and then shipped to
our northern communities. Since then, the additional shipping has directly
impacted prices of food, building materials, vehicles, including trucks and
off-road vehicles, household goods and many essential services for our
communities.
Our
Northern Labrador communities are totally isolated, without any road access, and
marine transportation services are limited to just five summer months on
average. With the cancellation of the direct marine freight service from the
Island portion of our province to our communities, residents are witnessing
exorbitant price increases of our basic needs impacting overall quality of life.
So,
Speaker, this petition is really important. In June 2019, after I got elected, I
was only elected for about a month. I called for a meeting with the Department
of Transportation, the minister, the deputy minister and also the deputy
minister of Labrador Affairs and Indigenous Affairs was there. One of the things
that we couldn't understand was why was this freight boat taken off. I was told,
in that meeting, it was because the Trans-Labrador Highway was almost complete
and there was a commitment that once the Trans-Labrador Highway was complete
that the freight boat from the Island potion would be removed.
To me,
Speaker, that was very confusing. That was confusing for anyone in my district
because everybody knows when you go to North West River, which is the most
northern point of Lake Melville region, and you look up towards my district,
there is no Trans-Labrador Highway. The only access we have is by air, which is
very, very costly for freight and passenger travel or by marine, which is
restricted to five months. So really, I think the fair thing for this government
to do is return the marine shipping service.
Speaker,
we don't actually mind where the port would be on the Island. Whether it is
actually in the port of Lewisporte or actually in the port of Carbonear.
Actually, Harbour Grace has a good port as well. In actual fact, we need this,
Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Member's time has expired.
The hon.
the Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation, and Labrador
Affairs for response.
L. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I just
like to take a moment to respond to the hon. Member's comments when she talks
about the need for the boat to go back to Lewisporte. Right here in my hand I
have an email from a leader in her district that says some people might say the
reinstatement of a ferry to and from Lewisporte to my community and the North
Coast may be the answer. In all honesty, I would have to disagree. Then it goes
on to talk about other things and moving forward.
I just
want to say to the hon. Member, any time that she wants to meet with me my door
is open. I'm happy to sit down and talk about the issues that matter, but we are
hearing from people in Labrador saying the boat going back to Lewisporte is not
the answer. People in Torngat are messaging saying they don't want the boat to
go back to Lewisporte.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Exploits.
P. FORSEY:
Thank you, Speaker.
This
petition is as follows:
The list
of number of people in need of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing in the Central
–
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Exploits.
P. FORSEY:
The list for housing has
increased significantly in the past few years. This leaves people in vulnerable
situations, and many times individuals are outside in the cold and homeless
while waiting for placement.
Therefore, we, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to repair and increase the number of
Newfoundland and Labrador Housing units in Central Newfoundland to meet present
need throughout the region.
Speaker,
in the past couple of years, I've been hearing more and more with regard to
housing in Central Newfoundland. There are over 250 applications alone in
Central-West. There's a rising need for housing in the Central region. People
can't afford to get regular housing because of the cost of living and that sort
of stuff. So we need to address those issues right off the cuff and need that
done. I'm talking to people that are living out in the cold. I had one last
winter – I believe I mentioned this before – was living in a shed. We had to
find some placement for him. I've heard of others sleeping in tents.
They
can't afford housing, Mr. Speaker, and there are no units. We'd like for that
housing to be updated with regard to units and more housing created, if
possible. So with this dire need of housing in Central Newfoundland, we'd like
something to address that.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Motion 3.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, the following: Standing Order
11(1) that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m., today, Tuesday, May 31.
SPEAKER:
It is the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion
carried.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Order 12, second reading of Bill 64.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Government House Leader, that Bill 64, An Act To Amend The Revenue
Administration Act No. 6, be now read a second time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 64, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 6, be now read a
second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration
Act No. 6.” (Bill 64)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you, Speaker.
I
appreciate the opportunity to speak to this important bill.
Speaker,
we've talked substantively in this House over the last number of months about
balance, about ensuring that we are fiscally responsible, ensuring that we're
helping people, ensuring that we are funding a lot of the programs that need to
be funded in the province, that we are being responsible in our actions. I would
say, Speaker, that we have done that. We have achieved that balance in budget
2022-2023. Not only on the fiscal side of things and some of the remarks coming
from banks, bond-rating agencies, unions, community leaders, all were positive
about the budget, Speaker.
I think
it's important that we remember – and I can quote from the debate that was here
in the House that these are difficult choice. They are difficult things that we
have to do within any budget, and striking that right balance. The balance of
investments in our economy, investments in our communities, investments in our
people with being fiscally responsible and responsible to our children and our
grandchildren to ensure that we leave them a legacy of strength.
I've
spoken in this House about the goal that we all want. Every one of us in this
House wants. We all want a stronger, smarter, self-sufficient, sustainable
Newfoundland and Labrador.
So the
debate around the budget wasn't as much about where our investments were going,
and I think people understood and appreciated, actually, where our investments
go. We've made a tremendous number of investments not only in our economy but
also in our communities. We've also increased some funding and spread as much as
we possibly could across this province of ensuring – for example, we increased
the roads budget. We spoke a lot today about the roads budget and about how
important that is to communities. I heard, and I know Members opposite heard how
important it is to support community groups. So we were able to put an
additional $5 million towards that.
We know
how important education is and I'm very proud that we were able to increase the
number of children in our educational system. The first time in 50 years,
Speaker. The first time since 1972 we have 1,000 new kids in school. We've made
investments with the Premier's Task Force on Improving Educational Outcomes, we
made investments in terms of more guidance counselors, we made investments in
reading specialists and we made investments in our educational system.
We also
have made investments in health care. Almost $400 million, Speaker, in the last
couple of years. All at the same time of bringing down that deficit. And as I
outlined in budget 2022-23, we have a really robust strategic plan for
addressing and making sure we're being very financially responsible, but also
making sure we're being very responsible to debt management.
I've
talked about in this House, the triangle I call it, you know, one side fixing
Muskrat Falls in terms of the finances of Muskrat Falls, making sure that we're
really focused on financial management and making sure that we're focused on
debt management. We were able to bring down our deficit.
Why is
that important to the people of the province? We spend a billion dollars a year
– one of our top expenditures in this province is on our cost of borrowing. It's
not on paying down our debt. That's just on the cost of borrowing.
I think
the people of the province understand that's not sustainable. We can't continue
to drive debt; we're up to $17 billion, we have to start bringing that down.
Otherwise, the future wouldn't look as bright as it does right now. Again, I
say, everyone in this House wants that stronger, smarter, self-sufficient and
sustainable Newfoundland and Labrador. Not one person, I don't think, in this
House, would say differently.
But it
is about balance and it is about choice. So when we sat here on Budget Day and
we announced $142 million – $142 million – and this is in addition to some of
the other programming that we do, that we've been able to put in place. So that
$142 million are investments and monies going back to the people of the
province. As I said on Budget Day, and I'll say again, trying to put money back
into people's pockets, rather than out of people's pockets.
We made
some very strategic choices. I know that my colleague for St. John's East -
Quidi Vidi was very focused on ensuring that we supported those most vulnerable.
He wanted to makes sure we supported seniors. So we announced programing to
ensure that during these difficult times, globally – they are not Newfoundland
and Labrador's challenges per se, they are global challenges, all across this
country, all around the world. I quoted a couple of days ago, the deputy
governor of the Bank of Canada, he talked about that this is a global problem.
This not just in Canada, not just in Newfoundland and Labrador.
But how
do we support people? How do we give back to people? So in working with my
colleagues, we came up with a plan where we talked about we're going to do some
short-term measures and some longer term measures. The short-term measures
including things like we ensured that we increased the Income Supplement to help
those most vulnerable, the lower income, making sure that they had some
additional money in their pocket; the Seniors' Benefit. We gave a one-time
stipend, a cheque, $400 for all those on income support. We eliminated the tax
on home insurance. We felt that was very broadly distributed across Newfoundland
and Labrador. We also ensured that we cut in half the cost of registering a
vehicle.
These
are just some of the measures. These are the ones off the top of my head. We
gave things like bus passes for seniors, and we did other things. That's all in
addition to the over $200 million that we spend per year in subsidizing and
supporting those most vulnerable. That's in addition to the money that we spend
in housing. That's in addition to some of the other expenditures that we have,
but we felt it was very important that we put in place measures, because we
understood the cost of living was challenging people. We understood that.
Coming
out of a pandemic with supply issues and the global strife with the war in
Ukraine and the rising fuel prices, we wanted to support.
Let me
tell you what the price of fuel was the day this House met for the budget:
$1.85. The day we sat here in this House and read the budget it was $1.85
regular gas price. We also know over the last number of weeks the gas prices
have continued to increase. Why have they continued to increase, Speaker? Again,
it's not a Newfoundland and Labrador centred problem. This is something that's
happening globally and we're concerned. We're concerned about these rising fuel
prices. We're concerned about the challenges they're creating for the people of
the province.
So we
dug a little deeper, we worked a little harder and we have been able to support
– and that's what this bill is about today, lowering our gas tax.
Speaker,
I'm going to get asked: Why didn't you lower it before? Well, let me address
that, as I have in this House on multiple times.
We have
provided $142 million – the House is tired of me saying it I'm sure – back to
the people of the province. We collect $141.6 million in the provincial gas tax.
So we turned the entire amount of it back to the people of the province in
different ways.
I can
tell you that hundreds of thousands of people in this province, hundreds of
thousands of families in this province were impacted by the amount that we were
able to lower home insurance or lower the registration on cars or provide the
Income Supplement or provide bus passes or provide other supports that we're
able to do. So hundreds of thousands of families have been helped.
We gave
back, basically, the entire amount of the provincial gas tax. But lowering the
gas tax was problematic because once we lowered that gas tax there was a
possibility that the federal government would impose the carbon tax backstop.
Now,
what is that? Basically, when Newfoundland and Labrador made a deal with the
federal government to remove home heat, the oil heat, from carbon tax to ensure
that carbon tax was not applied in the fishery, to ensure it wasn't applied in
forestry, to ensure it wasn't applied in agriculture or in exploration, we made
sure that those were carved out. In doing so, we ensured that the money would
stay in the province as well. But if we did too much with the price signal on
the price of gasoline, the backstop could come in. Meaning the federal
government could come in and impose carbon tax then on home heat. That's the
last thing anyone in this House or anyone in this province would like to have to
happen. We are in challenging times and we recognize we're in challenging times.
Now, in
the last number of weeks, as we've seen the price of oil continue to rise, we
have had multiple discussions with our federal colleagues. And as you know, the
prime minister visited in the last couple of weeks and the Premier, in his good
relationship with the federal government, in his ability to work with the
federal government, has basically ensured that we can now lower the gas tax,
because of the price of fuel, because of the challenges that that's presenting
to the people of the province.
So,
today, I have put before this House measures, ways in which we can lower the gas
tax. We are lowering it by seven cents and that is an actual effect of just over
eight cents because of the HST on that as well. That's the lowest provincial gas
tax in the country next to Alberta. We all know in this House that Alberta,
because of its $500-million surplus – and bless them for having it. They have a
surplus. I wish we did, too. Because of that surplus, they are able to remove
their provincial gas tax until the price of oil comes down.
Now, we are the next lowest. In a province that has struggled financially –
think about this: struggled financially. I can tell you, I have only been
Finance Minister 18 months. I know I have done three budgets in those 18 months,
but in those 18 months we have taken the deficit, which is more spending than
you are earning, more money out of your pocket than coming into your pocket,
$1.8 billion in deficit, and we have taken that down, taken that down to this
year, it will be $350 million.
AN HON. MEMBER:
She is doing a good job, Speaker.
S. COADY:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
S. COADY:
But I will say to you, Speaker, and I appreciate my
colleagues' support, this is a tough task, but it is about balance. It is about
ensuring that we recognize that continuing to overspend is not in the best
interest of this province. So we have been very, very diligent, very prudent,
very responsible.
Now
I will say –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
S. COADY:
I am hearing chirping across the aisles, Speaker.
I
will say that the deficit has been higher. The highest deficits and the highest
revenues came under different administrations – the last administration.
So
I will say we are trying to be very fiscally responsible and must be. No one in
this House nor in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador wants our
great-grandchildren and our grandchildren to pay for our mistakes. We don't want
that to happen. So being responsible, being balanced is incredibly important.
Now, I listened intensely during the debates of the Budget Speech and I can say
to the Speaker that what I heard was: Please spend more money – please spend
more money. I have a list. I am a note taker and I made a list on pieces of
paper of where the people opposite wanted to spend. They talked about more money
for roads, which we have been able to provide. They talked about cellphone
service, which we have been able to provide tens of millions of dollars towards
improvement of connectivity. They talked about, you know, ensuring that we
have good economic
confidence. I can tell the Members opposite that – and I will, actually – our
growth in our economy is good this year. But I had to be very fiscally
responsible, too, and make sure that we are not burdening future generations.
We were
able to provide $142 million back to the people of the province. Now, because
the price of fuels has reached 202.22 cents – remember, it was a 1.85 less than
a couple of months ago. So basically a 40-cent increase over the last two
months. We have been able to say, now, to the people of the province, we can
reduce the gas tax – lowest in Canada.
We have
also made a decision that we would provide a home heat, oil heat supplement this
fall to those that heat their homes with oil. We will provide a supplement to
those earning under $100,000 family income, $500, and for those above $100,000
to $150,000 it will be a diminishing – to the lowest amount will be $200. We're
going to provide that in September of this year.
We have
to do an application process; we have to get the information from the Canada
Revenue Agency and provide the cheques. So come September, we'll be able to
provide that; I think it will be helpful to the people of the province. All of
that added up to be another $75 million. So now, we're up into the 220s. This is
the most that anyone in Canada has provided back in the cost of living.
From the
province that struggles financially, we have done the most. Speaker, I have said
in this House, even though Members opposite like to plate me as somebody who's
callous and – I think I wrote it down – not caring. I can tell the Members
opposite, I can tell the people of the province, we are balancing and we are
providing everything that we can back to the people of the province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
S. COADY:
Almost $225 million – $225
million. Now remember, we still have to borrow that money. We have a deficit of
$351 million. That's this year, provided all the things that I've talked about
in budget remain the same.
Now,
Speaker, before I get into other notes, I did want to give some good news on the
economy. I had it here a moment ago, and I just want to reach and give some good
things. You heard today of course about the good news from the Minister of
Industry, Energy and Technology when he spoke about West White Rose restarting
and I am very, very pleased to hear that. It was a very difficult time for the
workers, the people of the province. I have to say it was very, very difficult
when, due to COVID, Cenovus took the decision – or it was Husky at the time,
took the decision to actually close the project and then had to reassess how to
move forward, so I was very, very pleased today.
I can
tell you that the restaurant – the food serving industry is back to 2019 levels.
I can tell you that retail sales in this province are up again. I wish I had my
piece of paper – and I am sure I'll find it as soon as I stop speaking – that
would tell us the percentage, but I can tell you it is well above inflationary
pressures. It is a real, true growth in retail sales. We are seeing a true
growth in new urban housing starts. We are seeing a lot of movement in housing
sales. So these are very positive signs in our economy.
We
already know that in mining, for example, we're seeing true growth in terms of
exploration and developments. I congratulate, again, Marathon for moving through
their project and hopefully going to a mine very soon. I congratulate those that
are doing incredible work all around this province, not just in the gold
industry. We know rare earth minerals and iron ore is doing incredibly well.
These are investments that are happening in our province and they are helping to
grow our economy, grow our employment. Our employment is up this year as well.
I will
say, Speaker, we're seeing good growth offshore Newfoundland and Labrador. We're
seeing exploration this year and I wish them every success in their exploration.
So,
Speaker, back to the bill at hand. This bill absolutely will lower the cost of
the provincial sales tax. It goes from 14.5, now down to 7.5. Allow me to tell
you what it is in Quebec: 19.2 – 19 per cent in Quebec. In Nova Scotia, it is
15.5 just to give you an example. We will be at 7.5. Our provincial gas tax is
quite low and because of the strength in our economy, we're seeing additional
revenues. And it's not through the HST, because I'm sure I'll hear that from my
colleague opposite, when he says you're collecting more HST.
I've
told the Member opposite that HST won't catch up for a number of years. We will
collect $66 million on provincial gas tax this year through HST. That is the
amount that we collected last year; it remains normalized. Now, in a couple of
years' time we may see a bump because of the price of gasoline, but this will
lower the price of gasoline by eight cents.
So the
bill itself says two things that I'm sure my colleague opposite will remind me.
It says that this will take effect as quickly after Royal Assent, as we inform
the Public Utilities Board and they are able to implement it. The second thing
is there's a sunset clause of January 1, 2023. People will say why is there a
sunset clause? Why can't you just keep your provincial gas tax low?
Again,
Speaker, I say to you, it's about balance. We want to ensure that we are
supporting people as we go through these very high cost of living times, the
inflationary times. We will look at this again this fall. We will continue to
consider how we might be able to support and help people. We will look at the
price, obviously, of gasoline again this fall. But we must have a sunset clause
on this, at this time. Otherwise, we would have to come back with another
amendment to raise the price of the provincial gas tax back to where it is today
or somewhere in that vicinity.
We're
also sending a message to bond-rating agencies and banks, and we want to make
sure that we are clear in our balance. Again, I go back to that word: balance.
If we're going to consider this – and I reassure my Members opposite, they will
hold me to account this fall; I know they will. I know they will. They'll ask me
in this House, I'm sure when the House returns in a couple of months' time and
if the price of fuel remains high, they'll be asking these questions. So we'll
have that opportunity for the debate this fall, as to whether or not we will
sunset on January 1.
But,
right now, we're clearly signalling that we will sunset on January 1 and it's
about budgetary balance. I know the Members opposite understand fiscal
responsibility. I know Members opposite understand really strong financial
responsibility, prudence. They understand that.
So
understanding that we're coming back in the fall, understanding that we are
offering temporary benefit to people because of the high price of fuel and
understanding that things may change in the next six months. Then we'll
consider, but right now it is January 1, 2023, this will sunset, okay.
Speaker,
I haven't read any of my notes that have been provided for me. I will have a
quick flick just to make sure that I have not forgotten anything that I should
have said.
I will
say, Speaker, we've had a lot of barbs back and forth in the House about some of
the transitionary measures that we put in place on the electric vehicle rebates.
I know the Members opposite, and I know the people of the province, recognize
that as we transition – and we talk about transition quite a bit, moving towards
a green economy – that people will start to buy electric vehicles. That's why
we're putting in – and I commend the Minister of Environment and Climate Change
– charging stations across this province.
I also
will say that we've put in some transition measures of providing, for example, a
rebate. There's electrical vehicle rebates and charging infrastructure money
available. You can get money to assist you to buy an electric vehicle, to bring
down the cost of your electric vehicle, because they're somewhat higher priced,
but that is falling. But because people are starting to move, when you're now
going to look for a new vehicle, you're likely to consider buying an electric
vehicle and that's where we're going in our economy. That's where we're going,
globally.
I will
also say we are providing help for families to get their homes transitioned from
oil to electricity. That's important for climate change, it's important for cost
right now. But it is important for climate change, and we are blessed in this
province with an abundance of renewable energy. We're thankful for it, about 98
per cent of the province right now, once Muskrat Falls comes on stream
permanently, is renewable. So that's a very good sign.
Speaker,
I'm going to pause there and thank Members in this House for their support. I
will also say that these measures cost $225 million, Speaker. It's a tremendous
amount of money in a province that has a deficit of $351 million. But we're
doing everything as responsibly, prudent and timely as possible to assist
people.
I thank
you. I petition the House to support this bill. Once this bill is passed, and
I'm hoping everyone in this House supports this bill, and we have Royal Assent,
we will be able to advise the Public Utilities Board and they will be able to
lower the price of gasoline. I will say we will also be providing support for
those heating their home with oil come the fall as well.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Speaker, there is lots that
the minister had to say; some of it I agree with, some obviously I don't agree
with. But first, before I get started, just for the minister's knowledge, my
major in university was economics. So I just want to put that out there so she
understands that I have a major in economics from Memorial University.
Now, you
know, it's funny that we find ourselves standing here today talking about gas
tax reduction and a rebate for people of the province. I've been calling for
relief for the people of the province since November. It's not only me that has
been calling for this relief. It's been all of my colleagues on this side of the
House, the PC caucus and other Members on this side of the House. We've been
talking about this since November and here we are, the 31st of May, we're seeing
things.
What I
fail to understand is the same items that the minister is talking about now
could have been dealt with in the budget, could have been dealt with in April
when the budget was brought down. But if it wasn't for the tenacity of the
people on this side of the House, in pushing for change, it would never have
happened. It was a force that was put on by the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador who said quite clearly to government that what you announced in your
budget was just not enough.
After a
period of time, the government acknowledged that. The Premier of the province
acknowledged it, the Minister of Finance acknowledged it and we brought and came
looking for additional measures.
It's
interesting that in the revenue sources for the Province of Newfoundland, that
tax – provincial tax sources – accounts for $5.4 billion of our revenue. So it's
very difficult for people to understand.
We all
understand balance; we all understand the need for balance. But what really
upsets the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is when their government chooses
to spend money on things which they may consider to be extra; i.e., did we
really need to give Labatt $250,000 to upgrade their systems that they have,
recognizing that it's a fund that the federal government had and contributed
$250,000.
But
where does that money come from? It comes from taxpayers. Perhaps it comes from
carbon tax. So take it out of the people's pockets and give it to a corporate
giant like Labatt; that's very difficult for the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador to understand at a time when they can't afford to fill up their oil
tanks.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
T. WAKEHAM:
Talk about opening up a new
office. They can provide all of the logic and rhetoric around why that was
necessary, but at the end of the day it still accounts for another quarter of a
million dollars. And again, the people of the province are simply asking: Was
that really necessary at this particular point in time? Did we really need to do
that? Because ultimately where does the $250,000 come from? It comes from the
pockets of the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is a problem.
When you
decide to spend $5 million on Rothschild to do an evaluation of our assets – and
the last time, Speaker, that Rothschild were involved in a review of
Newfoundland and Labrador, it was 1953 when then former Premier Joseph R.
Smallwood went to London, England and sat in their boardroom and basically he
gave them the rights to all of Labrador. That's where CF(L)Co and BRINCO came
from originally, in those discussions. We all know what happened at the end of
the day.
Now,
I've heard the minister in this session of the House talking about Rothschild as
phase one, as if we're about to spend more money on another Rothschild report.
Where does that money come from? It comes from the pockets of the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador. And it's a choice. It's a choice that has been made.
But the real challenge for people of Newfoundland and Labrador is to try to
understand if they have money to do this and they have money to do that, how
does it help me when I try to feed my family? How does it help me when I travel
back and forth?
This
measure that the minister has introduced for effect immediately, once we pass
this, will save taxpayers money. The minister, I think, projected it somewhere
to be $44 million. But she also has said that it will not impact the deficit. So
this action will not impact the deficit. As a matter of fact I don't know if –
and the minister or one of her officials can confirm this. A barrel of oil was
budgeted in our budget at US $86 a barrel. I don't know if it has traded that
low since then. Today I think Brent crude is at $130 a barrel. And in the
minister's own budget, they talk about a difference of $1 making somewhere
around
$13 million or $14 million difference when it goes up by a dollar or down
by a dollar.
Since April 1, it has been well over $86 US a barrel. That is a windfall of
revenue. If production stays the same – I recognize that production has to stay
the same – and with announcements like today, and hopefully more, production
will continue to increase. Because, as we said earlier in this House, if we are
going to transition from oil as a province, as a country, as a world then let
us, in this province, transition away from imported oil first and maximize the
production of our offshore oil resources and maximize the clean – (inaudible)
more clean, never clean but more clean, carbon-friendly oil that we have off our
shore.
So
those are all good announcements today that we heard. But again, I go back to
choices. The choice can be made. We have heard the minister talk about sugar
tax. You know, they have talked about sugar tax as if somehow or other imposing
a tax – and the Premier of the province, by the way, he has called it behaviour
modification. He has used that term more than once in this House: behaviour
modification.
So
we are going to try to influence people's behaviour by making them pay more.
That, to me, is fundamentally flawed. Again, I would argue that if you want to
help people shift from non-healthy choices to healthier choices, do something to
reduce the cost on the healthier choices, not impose a tax. I still believe that
the minister has an option to review that before September. I trust the minister
will go back and take another look at it.
I
think it is $5 million, again, that doesn't need to come out of the pockets of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That is what this is all about. My first
release in November 19, 2021. I just want to read it. I said at the time:
“Living on a fixed income is challenging enough for our seniors, but time and
time again the cost of living continues to increase, whether it's at the gas
station or the grocery store. If the Liberal government does not act, difficult
choices will have to be made in the households of our province. To stand by
silently is not an option.”
That was last November. So we know there have been numerous opportunities to
change things and we know there has been numerous opportunities to make
adjustments but we are here, now, May 31,
and we're going to see some of those adjustments.
Again, I
go back to politics should not be about politicians; it should be about the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador. When we stand up here, on this side of the
House and talk about these issues, we're not talking simply about ourselves.
We're talking about the people we represent – the people in our districts that
we represent, who are legitimately struggling with these. I would suggest the
Members opposite have the same concerns and the same people, because inflation
and the cost of living doesn't have a border. It does not have a border; it
doesn't end at a PC district or and independent district or an NDP district. It
is in Liberal districts just as much as it is in ours.
So it is
very clear that this is a very high provincial issue. Every person you talk to,
when you go back to your districts, will talk to you about two things: the cost
of living and health care. Those are the things. I never thought that I would
see the day when the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador would
have to pay to get a prescription because they have to go see a nurse
practitioner because they can't get in to see a family physician. And they have
to pay $35 to see a nurse practitioner. I never thought I would see that day,
but it is here.
Yet, we
procrastinate by saying, oh well; we haven't figured a way yet to pay nurse
practitioners. If you haven't figured out a way to pay nurse practitioners,
figure out a way to pay the people back their money that they've already spent.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
T. WAKEHAM:
That is an easier way.
So,
again, as I said, those of us on this side of the House in our PC caucus, we
know who we stand for. We stand for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We'll continue to stand for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. And let me
tell you who they are. We stood for the senior who could not fill their oil
tanks to heat their homes. We stood for families who could not afford to put
food on the table. We stood for the early childhood educator who could not
afford to drive to work.
As the
minister alluded to earlier, this is Early Childhood Educator Week and I
couldn't agree with her more. We have to turn those from being jobs to being
careers, and that is a path that the minister sounds like he's working towards.
We stood
for the small business owner who struggled to make multiple trips to St. John's
for supplies and wondered if they should close their doors. We stood for the
public servants who have to commute over two hours a day, spending over $400 per
week in gas. We stood for the couple that has 40 per cent of their take-home pay
going to pay for fuel just to get to work, having to choose which bills to get
paid and which not. We stood for a four-time cancer survivor who discontinued
treatment because he couldn't afford it. We stood for the grandparents who could
not afford to drive to Corner Brook to see their grandchildren.
We stood
for the senior who already borrowed $500 from friends to keep oil in his tank to
try and stay warm but was too embarrassed to ask them for more money and did not
qualify for any government programs. We stood for the family who stayed home on
May 24 weekend because they couldn't afford the $300 of gas just to tow their
camper to Terra Nova. We stood for the woman scheduled for a medical procedure
in St. John's, only to travel over 400 kilometres and be told that their
appointment had been cancelled because there was no bed available and could not
afford to travel back into St. John's for the rescheduled appointment.
We stood
for the single mother with two small children who could not afford the multiple
trips to the Dr. H. Bliss Murphy Cancer Centre because the price of gas exceeded
the family budget. We stood for the businessperson who is paying her oil bill,
living off canned food and has to cancel physio appointments because she can't
afford to fill 'er up. We stood for the volunteer who, for the last few decades,
has offered free drives to cancer treatments and has delivered food hampers to
those in need and now is questioning whether the cost of fuel is too great to
continue his service.
We stood
with the people, Mr. Speaker. We will continue to stand with them, Speaker, and
demand more from the government. We will not stop. We will be here for the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador; we'll continue to be here for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Speaker,
I also want to touch briefly on the minister's sunset clause. The minister has
said they need a sunset clause because if they didn't have a sunset clause
they'd have to come back in the House and adjust the price, if the price of gas
started to go really low, they'd have to come back to the House and adjust it
down or up. So I would suggest, let's do that. Why do we need a sunset clause?
Why do we need a clause that says on December 31 your gas will go up by eight
cents a litre, no matter where the price is, no matter what adjustments are
made?
We are
coming back to this House in October. We will get a fall fiscal update; we will
have plenty of time to debate whether or not there needs to be an adjustment
upwards or downwards to the eight cents a litre. And given what the minister has
said, it's cost-neutral, why do we need a sunset clause?
It is not going to increase the deficit and with the price of oil trading at $34
per barrel higher today than it was in the budget –now we'll use a pattern on
that, it probably won't trade as high as that forever – there has been a
significant amount of windfall coming into that.
Again, I'm not sure why we need a sunset clause. I think the House is the place
to decide that. The House is the place to debate that. That is where we should
be talking about where we go and how we make these measures. That's why we come
to the House of Assembly, to have open debate, to have open discussion, to go
back and forth and to lay it out on the table and talk about the people in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
So
I would suggest that the sunset clause does not need to be there. There will be
ample opportunity to come back in the fall and make any adjustments that need to
be made. So let's not have that penalty on people.
Again, I can't sit down without pleading on the sugar tax. There is no need to
put more taxes on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They do not need that
tax. It can be deferred. It could be postponed. If it's your will that you want
to have behaviour modification on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, wait
until next year to do it. Give the people of the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador a break. They do not need their behaviour modified at this movement.
Inflation has taken care of any modification of behaviour that is needed,
because at over 6 per cent inflation the cost of all of those products has
skyrocketed.
So
people are making choices. They do not need government to impose a tax to help
them make those choices. They do not need behaviour modification. They need
their government to be there for them, to continue to be there for them and to
stand with them just as we have stood with the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador, just as we will continue to stand for the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
T. WAKEHAM:
We will be there for the people of Newfoundland and
continue to be there for them.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
We're
having sort of a reprise of the carbon tax debate in some ways. Years ago, with
the Teachers' Association and the whole debate, Speaker, around the health plan,
we used to say: You can have any plan you want, as long as you're willing to pay
for it. I remember one teacher, when I was teaching up the shore, it came down
to we were debating whether to increase premiums or to decrease benefits. I
remember what he said to me because teachers are always looking at how do we
save money; put money back in our pockets?
But his
comment to me was this: Increase the premiums because you'll never miss the
benefits until you need them. So it's better to have the benefits when you need
them. So I'm thinking here it's the same thing. What is it that we want?
Many
people who benefit from the gas tax are not the people I'm necessarily helping.
They are the people who are in need of programs, not a break at the pumps.
Because I look at what we need and who we need to help and who are the
vulnerable and who are the people that call up to my office day in and day out.
I can
tell you that in my district there are a significant number of people with a
variety of issues – poverty is at the root of them; housing is at the root of
them; mental health and addictions, at the root. If anything, I would say maybe
it's time we start looking at how we can increase the funding so that we can
start helping those who are most vulnerable as well. Because in the end, here's
the thing, we're going to pay for it, Speaker. We're going to pay for it in the
visits to the hospital emergency room. We're going to pay for it in crime, in
incarceration.
The fact
is that, in the end, there's no such thing as it's a zero cost. It will cost us.
For example, let's take a look at housing. It's only two weeks ago that a lady
came to me with pictures of the emergency shelter she was assigned to. She had
no place to stay. The mattress was stained. There was plywood up to the wall.
There was no security; the locks were broken.
She left
there. She's been sleeping in her car for the last two weeks. There's not enough
affordable housing there. She is sleeping in her car; working at a hotel. But
that's where she is for the last two weeks, because we don't have enough when it
comes to, even what I would call, safe, affordable shelters – safe, affordable
supportive housing.
I've got
on this page here one, two, three, four, five seniors who are facing right now
no-fault eviction. That's just today. That's just this week. They will have
nowhere to live within a month. Where are we going to put them? I can tell you
that each and every one of them, they're not relying on a car. They're relying
on public transit, or they're walking.
Eight-seven: can't keep up with home care payments, medication; heart attack;
no-fault eviction, too sick to pack and move and has an application in with
Newfoundland and Labrador Housing with no options for an apartment.
Seventy-seven – another person – too sick to move, to find herself in another
smoke-free building; has never smoked before but is suffering the effects of
second-hand smoke. Another person, a senior, 82: multiple debilitating medical
conditions; can't afford to live where he is right now; can't afford food.
Another
senior, in his 70s: multiple illness, diabetic, you name it; not well enough to
pack and move his belongings; cannot find an apartment; lives on OAS only; and
eats at The Gathering Place.
Those
are the calls I get. Now, I don't know, I'm assuming that other people get them
as well, but at times, I've said it here, it's like a game of Whack-a-mole. Just
when I think I've solved one problem, two or three more pop up. You just cannot
keep ahead of them.
Now I've
called here, so I'm not looking – if I thought for a minute that lowering the
gas tax or anything else is going to solve these problems, no. But you know
what? And I do believe this: Paying taxes is what I pay for the privilege of
living in this country. Of having the medical services, of having roads, of
having a hospital. I'm living in St. John's for that reason. I'm paying a lot
more in terms of municipal taxes, as well. But that's what I pay for that
privilege, to live here. To support the schools, to support the various
organizations that I may not even avail of.
But in
many ways, that's what it comes – we've got bigger problems here. We've got
systemic problems that need to be addressed. If we want to help people, how do
we go about making sure that they are mobile, that they can get around? Within
the city, I can tell you: Metrobus. But let's call it something else: public
transit, regional transportation.
Because
there are people who will never own a car. Actually, there are people in my
district, and I've got a number of them, a young professional with family, who
says: I'm writing as a constituent. We're a professional couple, we have one car
and we rely on a mix of public transit, walking, biking and cabs. Other
professional couples are doing the same. I've had several, multiple emails from
people making sure that there's funding provided for Metrobus. Not only within
my district, but within the adjacent districts as well.
So how
do we make it affordable for people to get around? Obviously that's what they
need. How do we make it affordable so that people can live in a decent,
respectful place? Where does the money need to be invested? Now I hear yes, we
want to invest it in getting roads paved and so on and so forth, but I would
argue right now we've got a bigger issue here. And I would suspect it's not just
in St. John's but probably throughout the province. But certainly in St. John's
itself, in the centre of the city, housing is a huge issue.
I think,
and the minister can certainly correct me on this one, but I'm pretty sure that
the emergency shelters are full. That's no fault; that's just the way it is
right now. We've got a problem and I would say that, for the most part, in
speaking to the minister when I do bring a problem forward to the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development, we can usually get things done.
But it's
overwhelming. So to me, I'm looking here, if
we want to – and I mentioned this last time. There is one gentleman we are
helping. He is panhandling to buy diabetic strips. Think about that: to buy
diabetic strips. Now, we usually think, well, someone is panhandling; what are
they going to use if for? That is usually the judgment that comes with it. But
no, he is using it to buy diabetic strips.
Most people who are on income support, I think the levels have to be looked at
in terms of if we want to help people, the ones who are at the bottom. I
challenge here anyone who can come up with a decent diet based on less than $100
a week, which is what a lot of people are living on, especially if you are a
single individual. That is what you have got to buy food and the other
necessities.
In
some cases if they fall in arrears, it is down to less than that. I challenge
anyone to see how much $100 will buy. It is not – and you might say, well, we
can't afford it, we are doing the best we can – and maybe we are, but in the end
I can tell you that there is going to be a cost to us. We are going to pay for
it anyway. Either we are paying it for it, Speaker, in terms of the supports we
give people or we are contributing, as we saw in the Health Accord, we are,
basically, undermining those social determinants of health.
In
some ways, I have heard the argument that putting money into the pockets of
people and they will spend it in the economy – and I agree with that, but here
is where we probably need to go too. One of the things we have called for is a
living minimum wage. And how do we move towards that? Because I do believe one
of the proposals that we put forward is to increase it to $15 an hour right now.
Make sure that all small businesses have a total reprieve on the small business
tax – probably at least what we are looking at in our proposal that we had made.
I think it is– I stand to be corrected – $17 million, if that is what it costs,
but you look at it and it would probably put over $3,000 in the pockets of each
person who is on minimum wage if they are working 40 hours a week. That is money
that is going to go right into the economy, if that is what we are after, if
that is the motivation.
The
people who call me, Speaker, are down to taking prescription medications, in
many cases, for heart, blood pressure and other related issues, maybe every
second or every third day. How do we help them? What's one of the consequences
of not helping them, of not making it more affordable?
I think
in many ways, if we want to look at helping people, let's take a look at some
broad, bold ideas. Maybe it's time to get busy addressing the issue of
pharmacare, either nationally or provincially. Let's start moving towards that.
Let's make sure that maybe electricity rates that there's a rebate on
electricity rates; not everyone uses oil, but everyone uses electricity.
Let's
eliminate poverty. In 1988 or 1989, I think it was, the Parliament of Canada
unanimously passed a resolution to end child poverty by the year 2000. It is
2022 and it's still with us.
I
applaud the fact that part of the sugar tax money is going into helping groups
that provide meals to schools, but do you know what? That's still a band-aid
approach that still requires a change to the systemic problem that faces us.
We've
got to do more. Maybe that's about looking at improving the rates, reviewing the
income support rates, accelerating the move to a living minimum wage and to look
at what the necessities are and what people need to live with it.
But I
can tell you right now, the seniors I spoke to, the people who contacted me,
what they haven't been looking for was a reduction in the gas tax. What they
were looking for were the supports to make sure that they can maintain a decent
standard of living.
We need
to address our housing. We need to address income support. We need to make sure
that jobs are protected. That we have legislation that protects good union jobs.
We need to make sure that a minimum wage is indeed a living wage.
But,
Speaker, I'm not sure if cutting our way to that will achieve it because in the
end – I'm going back to my colleague when I was teaching up the shore – given a
choice between increasing premiums or cutting benefits and having a savings, his
answer was very clearly: increase the premiums because it is the benefits that
you will depend on.
So I
look around here and I think what is it we want? I want good schools. I want
good hospitals. I want a good transportation system. I want those, especially
those who are vulnerable, looked after. Those that are homeless right now or are
living in a car or couch surfing or in an unsafe shelter have a decent place in
which to live that is safe, that is secure, that has the supports in place.
Expanding the early childhood education; spot on. Putting it into the schools;
spot on. It is about time; it is about providing benefits to – it is about
making sure that parents have the resources that they need. I have no issue with
that. I think that is an investment.
It will
not benefit me. It will not benefit me directly but I think it will benefit
society at large. It will address a lot of the issues. So in many ways, if we
want that, if we want those things, that means that is the price I pay. Because
either I am paying for something like that or I am paying to put up more
prisons. I'm not putting that in your direction, Minister. My point is that we
have a choice; we're still paying it, let's not fool ourselves.
I think
I may have mentioned this. I had the privilege, luxury of spending a night in
the emergency room at St. Clare's and all I can tell you is that you get a
deeper appreciation for the characters of downtown St. John's. But I would argue
that many of them have other issues, whether it's addictions, mental health
issues, homelessness and so on and so forth. They end up there for a lot of
reasons. If you were looking at the cost, they are costing. But is it not better
that we look at ways of making sure that we look after the most vulnerable and
we invest in that. We invest in people.
As I
said, there are couples in my district and several have said do you know what?
What they want to see is – they're looking for more bus transportation. That's
what they're going to need, professional couples, to maintain their lifestyles.
So,
Speaker, I think it comes down to priorities. I'm looking at taxes that help,
and even with the sugar tax, my opposition to that is where the money goes. To
me, if we're going to take that – I'll go back – not into let's say the health
living or my participation in some sort of physical activity, but I think in
many ways if we're going to better spend that let's put it into making food more
affordable for those who couldn't afford it back in the fall. It's gotten worse
since then.
To me,
it's about where we spend it to, but, in many ways, if I want the services, I
must be prepared to pay for them, even if I'm not one who is going to receive
them. Because I think if we benefit everyone, I benefit myself in the process.
But it's something that we raise up all boats, and raise it up for all people.
I'll
finish with this last little fact that I brought up before, that raising the
bottom level, the income level, the bottom 20 percentile to the next level
actually saves the health system some 6.7 per cent. Think about what that means
in Newfoundland terms: over $200 million annually.
With
that, Speaker, I finish.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Speaker.
It's a
pleasure, I guess, it's bittersweet to get up and speak about this bill because
several weeks back this bill probably wouldn't have happened. We wouldn't be
here debating this bill only we, as a caucus, united for a cause and it was to
stand up for the people in the province that are struggling. There are a lot of
people struggling in this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
B. PETTEN:
It was something that we, as
a group, it wasn't one person, it was a group of people, felt there had to be
some more measures put in place for people who are struggling during this
cost-of-living crisis. A lot of seniors, a lot of low-income people, but a lot
of working poor, too, Mr. Speaker.
So I
know when we started debating carbon several weeks ago, it was brought in, it
was kind of evolved and we were like, we didn't think it was adequately
addressed in the budget. There were some measures, $142 million, which we've
heard. My colleague from Ferryland, I'm not sure where the count is to on that
but it's a fairly high count on the number of times that we've been told $142
million, and fair enough, no problem. I mean, government are proud of that and
I'm not condemning that. We just felt it needed to go further and this is
further. Is it far enough? No, but it's further. The key word is further. It's
better than what it was, but not where we need to be.
So as we
debated it and it evolved, we were told: we've done everything we can do. The
Premier told us and the Minister of Finance told us we can't do anymore, we
can't do anymore. Well, lo and behold, we did get more, which is good. I think
it comes down to a case of – government knew when they presented their budget,
based on the public outcry, there was – I guess when the budget was released and
tabled, it was a level of relief because sometimes you don't know what to
expect. We just went through the Greene report, we don't know if there are any
aspects of that coming into play, and the reset.
So
you're wondering are we going to get big cuts. You're on edge, but then you know
you're dealing with a cost-of-living crisis that's affecting everyone. So then
you're living in hope, too, that you're going to get something to help those
people. Because when I say help those people, they're all in our districts, we
deal with them every day, every one of us. So you're trying to find a balance.
Now,
government did say when they presented their budget they felt that they found a
balance. I guess, in a way, they probably did. There were times when I read the
budget – and it was the first year after an election – it almost seemed like an
election budget. That kind of stuck me oddly because government has made all the
right statements sometimes on how to deal with this, and the Premier's task
force and we've had the Rothschild report that we haven't seen yet. How to
tackle this, how are going to get through this? How are we going to reinvent
ourselves? I can't remember all the acronyms the Premier uses all the time. They
sound great. Most of us don't understand what they mean, but they sound great.
Ultimately, what people are looking for, they're looking for help, but they're
looking for people to listen to them. I keep saying, and it bears repeating:
People want you to listen to their concerns. It's a very simple concept.
Simplest concept in the world, Speaker. Pick up the phone, email them back, but
don't just give them passing words. If you listen to them closely, the cries are
there. You can't solve all the problems – and I don't expect government to solve
everyone's problems.
But,
ironically, since this announcement of the cost of living add-on, I guess, last
Thursday, it's $80 million I think we're looking at, there are still gaps in
that. You talk to the public; people are still concerned. They're still not
adequately addressing their issues. That home oil is part of a separate thing,
but the home oil rebate or whatever they're giving in the fall. It's still a big
group of people there that are struggling. Even though they're burning
electricity, they're struggling.
It's the ones who received the Seniors' Benefit, they
are the ones who should probably be included in that group. We have done a lot
of speaking about it in our caucus and my colleagues asked the minister about it
as well. Right now, you have home oil customers getting that rebate, but all
people who qualify for that – if they don't burn oil, they don't get it. It's
only people that burn oil in that group. They all should be included. That's
where we stand. Then you're capturing that group.
You get to the fuel piece. So we spent the better part
of two weeks – it's 11.5 cents or 11.05 cents carbon on gas. So you have taken
off eight cents, which is fine. I'm not saying that's wrong. We would like more
but that is the reality. Everyone would like more. But you are taking off a tax,
yet we still – so really we are net down three cents after the debate on carbon,
because we got eight off it, but we still have 11 and that never came from
carbon. That came from provincial tax.
So
are we better off? In a way, yes. But in a way, no, because the same people are
still suffering because they have still got to go to the supermarket. They have
still got to try to get the groceries. They have still got to try to live. There
are lots of other costs in life.
And
I know government sometimes – I suppose people expect – they are accused of
trying to be everything to everybody and we get accused, sometimes, of asking
government to do too much. And government themselves, sometimes, try to do more
than they really should be doing.
But
if you look at the cost of living as a whole, we are targeting fuel. We're
targeting people who drive vehicles. We are targeting people that burn oil.
There are people that are left out of both of those groups. People are
struggling and they are not in those groups. Seniors that don't drive and they
have electricity in their homes; they are getting that much, Mr. Speaker. Zero.
And go around, there are lots of them, lots of them in our communities. I have
lots in my communities and most every Member in this House does.
So,
respectfully, in an effort to do good and address the cost of living, I am not
going to say that it was terrible. I think we have clearly articulated that this
is not enough.
How
do we address that group? Do you not look at doing something for the people who
are getting the Seniors' Benefit? Bump that up and give them a payout that is
going to come in the fall. Do you not include that group? That would be a good
step in the right direction.
A
lady, a senior in my district made reference to the fact that she – this is
about choices. She said electric vehicles will still wear down the road. They
are giving rebates for electric vehicles. They are still going to cause damage
on the pavement; still rubber tires on the vehicles. How do you make rubber?
What about the battery? What about all the parts? Because they use a big battery
that no one can afford to buy.
It's
like 20 years down the road, we're going to look back and we're going to start
saying where we were to 20 years ago when we started talking about climate
change. I remember some of the conversations back then; it seems pretty amateur
now. I think in 20 years' time, we're going to come to the point, like, this was
pretty amateur, a lot of these things. But the point everyone is making is, as
good as this may be, and the point I'm trying to make here, there's a lot of
people gone through the cracks.
Government in their wisdom will stand up and take credit and feel that they are
doing measures to help those people struggling, but I guess that's the question,
probably, the Minister of Finance can address: What are you doing for those
people that don't have a vehicle and don't burn oil? When they're living on
$1,700 or $1,800 a month, because I say this and I said it and I'll say it
again, and I use the example of beans, because I still can't believe that in our
supermarkets it is $7 for three cans of beans.
There's
a senior from my district who I know quite well and he was down one day,
recently – that's why I use this example, actually, I ran into him – and he was
really frustrated with that cost. And it was only then I realized how much they
actually were. He said, you know, I'm getting to the point I question can I
afford to buy them.
Now,
this person got a – I don't know what they got, they're doing all right, I
think, they'll survive it, but that's where we're to. That's a senior that
probably can manage. But that's just one example of the many costs of living
that's not really been considered. Again, because you don't have a car or you
burn oil, your life goes on as normal for you. There's no benefit.
If we do
a calculation in our district of how many people are in that boat. A lot.
Government, sure, I give them a passing grade on doing something, but it's far
from adequate.
I
suppose I'd be remiss if I never made a little comment, I sit and listen again
to my colleagues with the Third Party. They point out a lot of good things
that's needed; a lot of required things in the province, a lot of needs of
people: low income housing, guaranteed wage, minimum wage increase – 50 cents is
not enough.
Now,
again, that's not bad, it's a balance, because the minimum wage is going to
increase, it's going to cause people, small business owners to struggle, too.
That is an added cost on the businesses, who will probably add it into their
products. Or in the restaurants, there's going to be extra cost on food and
beverages in restaurants because they've got to pay staff extra. It ultimately
comes back to the consumer, but for those people in that industry and those
jobs, it's more money in their pocket. In turn, there's more money in
government's pocket. It's the way the economy works.
But that
50-cent increase will ultimately affect the consumers in the province who can
afford to go out and buy – and even if you can't, as I said, that will effect
supermarkets as well because they're no different. Even though they're the big,
bad supermarkets, they have deeper pockets than most, they'll still increase it
like anyone else, and that's why their profit margins are probably something
else we should be looking at, if there is any way of getting some control on
that situation, because there is a lot of price gouging going on in this
province. I think that no one says it enough, but all you have to do is go
around. I think it's outrageous. I think COVID gave a licence to print money for
a lot of business in this province, and supermarkets are probably leading the
way.
My Third
Party colleagues, they'll ask for all these things, and these things cost money.
There's no shortage of money required to do those things. But we, on this side
of the House, and I think most of government side has done a decent job of this
one as well. We believe in the oil industry. We support the oil industry. We've
always been major advocates for the oil industry, workers and the impacts on our
economy. They didn't want us to go with Bay du Nord. I guess West White Rose;
they mightn't be pleased with that today. I am. We think it's great.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
B. PETTEN:
Yes, exactly.
But you
listen and that's where I question some of the ideologies of some of these
arguments. It doesn't make sense, Mr. Speaker, to me. We'll get up and we'll
debate legislation that the government are bringing in, but I think it's fair to
bring up legislation that's being debated in this House by other Members of the
House. It don't make sense; it's not credible. I don't think it's credible. It's
not a credible argument.
I said
this before, you know, and I always remember back in the day, someone used to
take a big calculator and start punching in numbers every time Members from the
Third Party get up talking about things they wanted. It was a big calculator;
some people in this House would recall it. But that was meant to be fine, it was
funny, it was joke, but it was bang on. That's what you're dealing with.
It's
like this tug-of-war. We're advocating, if want more for seniors – and we do,
but we also realize there has to be revenue to create that. Like my colleague,
the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, wanted to know where the
money tree was. I think there are a couple of locations we can find that. But it
doesn't grow on trees; you have to have a revenue base. The oil industry is one
of the biggest revenue drivers in our province, let's face it. And my colleague
from Bonavista does a great job advocating for the fishery.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
B. PETTEN:
Hear, hear is right.
Now the
Minister of Fisheries don't seem like he agrees with a lot of what he says, but
any data that the Member for Bonavista throws in this House of Assembly is well
researched, because he's researching better than anyone in this House. Take my
word on that, Mr. Speaker. There might be someone as good, but there is no one
researching any better than the data.
That's
how we justify you pay for these initiatives. You have to pay for these
initiatives. They don't come for free. So if you want to shut down the oil
industry yet you want a big wish list of things, how do you get there? How do
you get your road paved? How do you get affordable housing? I need affordable
housing, but I am also an advocate for the oil industry. We're advocates for the
fishing. We're advocates for agriculture. My colleague for Exploits, he's a big
proponent on agriculture. I like agriculture because it is important to my
district. We're not fishing communities. There is one seal out in Exploits last
spring we found out. I got a few up in Conception Bay but we're not fishing.
We're all about agriculture.
But,
Speaker, respectfully, it is how you get the income. How are you going to get
the funds to pay for these things? So we might be accused of a lot of things
but, as Conservatives, I think we've done a good job fiscally on a lot of
things. People can throw their criticism at us but – and we always like to talk
about the economy. As the Minister of Finance may realize, we ask a lot of
questions on the economy. Every single day in this House, there are questions
coming out about the financing the economy. It is because we care about that. We
care about how we get there, too. We care about people's cost – on the other
side, what they have to pay, meaning the cost of living.
So it is
a balance; we try to strike that balance on a daily basis in this House and, for
the most part, I think we do a decent job. Are we perfect at it? No. But I think
we do a decent job and that brings me back to when I started in, originally, was
how we got here today. Because there is a real likelihood we probably wouldn't
have been in this Legislature this week had we not stood united for people that
are struggling in this province.
It is
like you say, it is no one credit; it is a credit of a group united. Colleagues,
independent Members, and even the Third Party stayed and debated this carbon –
even though they were in agreement with it, we all stayed on one united front
because ultimately we believed we were united and we were not willing to let
that legislation go through unless there was some measures brought in to help
people struggling.
Again,
government, I'll say, they did okay. Could they have done better? Absolutely. At
the end of the day, we cannot not support legislation that is going to reduce
eight cents, obviously. But we think that some changes could be done to it, some
improvements could be done and there are other things outside the legislation
that we feel that can be done to improve the lives of those people that are
struggling and those people are falling through the cracks.
We will
continue to advocate on that, Speaker, every single day, every single
opportunity we get. That's something that won't go away when this House closes.
We'll continue on every day at that. We'll be back here in October, and guess
what? We're going to continue on it when we get back here, too. This is our role
and it's the expectation of what we'll do.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
glad to have an opportunity to speak to this Bill 64.
Mr.
Speaker, first of all, I just want to say I'm going to pick up a little bit on
what my colleague was saying there. I think it's important for us all to realize
that while we are going through a rough patch right now, and there's no doubt we
are going through a rough patch as a province and there's no doubt our citizens
are going through a rough patch, but the sky is not falling – the sky is not
falling. And we have, I really do believe, a very, very bright future ahead of
us. I really do.
I make
no bones about it. I was thrilled to hear about the West White Rose today. I was
thrilled when the announcement came down on Bay du Nord. Anything that we can to
develop our resources, whether they be oil and gas, whether they be our
minerals, and we're seeing Labrador is doing fantastic. Now we're seeing more
and more discoveries happening here on the Island. Lots of opportunity there, no
doubt, and even hydro. Despite what went on with Muskrat Falls and the
ballooning costs and perhaps misleading information that got us there and
everything else, despite all that there's going to be a bright future for us in
terms of hydro. I really believe there will.
Certainly with the Upper Churchill, combined with Muskrat Falls, combined with
Gull Island, which I really believe is going to be developed. The minister may
not be able to disclose anything at this point, but I think that there's
something in the works; I really believe that. And there are other hydro
projects – there are actually other rivers and that in Labrador and on the
Island that could be at play as well.
And I
think there's lots of opportunity for hydrogen and wind and so on, and I think
we're going to see all that stuff forthcoming. So it's not all doom and gloom,
and things will get better. We're going to see a lot of times these things work
in cycles. You're in a bit of a downturn and I think there's an upturn not too
far in the future. I think we will have more opportunity, if it's managed
properly – that's the key point. If the resources are managed properly, if we
are the key beneficiary of those resources, both from an employment perspective
as well as secondary processing and obviously ensuring we're the primary
beneficiaries in terms of royalties and everything else.
If it's
managed properly I think there will be an opportunity to pay down much of that
debt and get us on much better financial footing than what we are today. I
really think that's there and it's going to happen. I really believe that.
So what
do we do in the meantime? That's the question: What do we do right now? While I
do understand and, as has been said here, there is a balancing act that much be
achieved, and while I do understand that even though what was predicted in terms
of a deficit has decreased, thanks to the price of oil going up and so on, that
we're still looking at, I think, a $300-million deficit this year. We always
have to be mindful of that.
But the
question is, in trying to tackle the deficit and trying to tackle the debt, you
also have to balance that out with the needs of the actual people. It's fine for
us to be on solid financial ground, but while that's good on the one hand, you
can't have the province on good financial ground but everyone who's living in
the province is in poverty and really struggling to survive. You can't have
that. We also have a responsibility to the Treasury but we also have, arguably,
a larger responsibility to the people of the province, who elected us here by
the way, who elected us to do what was in their best interest and to look out
for their needs and address their concerns.
Right
now, as I indicated, people are struggling. They're looking for some support
where they can, from the government. I've said here in this House before; I
recognize the fact this government cannot be held accountable and responsible
for geopolitical events that are occurring in the world, that are driving the
costs of oil and fuel and everything else. Along with that, of course, groceries
and everything else comes on board once prices go up, everything seems to go up.
Some of it, legitimately, as a gouge, I would suggest. People making hay, I
guess as they say, when the sun shines, but on the backs of the average person
more so than perhaps they should.
So we
are going through this tough period of time. What can we do to help the people
who need our help right now? That's the question. Depending on who you are,
depending on your stage in life, how much income you have and so on, how well
off you are financially and so on, different people are going to have different
needs. There are some people who don't need any help. There are some people who
can, even with the cost of living, while it pains us all, we can suck it up. We
have the ability to pay that additional money at the pumps because we're making
a good salary. Perhaps we're making a good salary and perhaps our spouse is
making a good salary.
It's
painful in a sense; nobody likes it. Your dollar is not stretching as much as it
did, and sure it has an impact on your finances, on everybody's, but you still
don't have to worry about the fact, when I leave here if I need to fill up my
vehicle, I don't have to worry about, oh my God, I wonder if I have enough money
in my account to fill up my vehicle. I go to the gas station and I pay for it. I
don't even know what's in the account, but I know there's money in the account.
A lot of
us here and people who are making good salaries are in that boat. While we don't
like having to pay more, we're able to. Then, of course, we have the people who
are extremely wealthy and it really doesn't matter what happens; they're going
to be fine anyway. Then at the other extreme, of course, we have a lot of the
people that my colleague from St. John's Centre is referring to. I get it; that
is a big issue for him. It should be a big issue for all of us. I don't mean to
diminish it in that way, but it's a big issue for him because he would have,
perhaps, on a percentage basis, more people in that situation than most
districts. Definitely more than I would have, for sure.
So it's
a bit of different perspective, I suppose, in the sense that he's getting these
calls and these situations on the daily. Whereas I don't have any social housing
in my district. I have co-op housing, but I don't have any social housing, per
se. I would have some people, perhaps, who are on income support and perhaps
they're living in someone basement apartment or whatever – I have some, but
certainly nothing close what my colleague from St. John's Centre would have. So
I do get some of those issues that he has, but certainly pales in comparison to
what he is getting every day. I appreciate his perspective and I appreciate his
passion. I really honestly do.
With
that said – and I understand we have to help people there, but again, it's a bit
of a balancing act as well because a lot of the people who I represent – now,
some of them are doing quite well, but there are other people certainly in my
district who are, what I will call, the lower middle class. They're
working-class people, but they don't have the ability – like, they're sort of
surviving from paycheque to paycheque. By the time they pay their mortgage,
perhaps a modest one, and make their car payment, they pay their insurance, they
pay their taxes to the City of Mount Pearl or whatever the case might be, and
groceries, there's not a whole lot left. If they have kids, then naturally they
want to have their kids in sports, whether it's hockey, soccer, baseball or
whatever. We have all kinds of different sports in Mount Pearl, tons of it. And
they're finding it a struggle. They're finding inflation is really affecting
them.
Now, is
it to the degree, as my colleague in St. John's Centre has, where there are
people literally saying I can't afford to eat and I can't afford medication? No.
But they are still struggling to survive. These people would tell you I'm the
guy, or I'm the girl, who's getting up every morning and lacing up my boots, and
I'm going to work. Some people are working two jobs, working whatever overtime
they can get to pay those bills, to keep their kids in hockey. Why should they
feel guilty – I'm not suggesting my colleague is saying that, by the way. That's
not what I'm inferring at all. But why should they feel guilty about the fact
that, my God, I went and I got myself an education and I got myself a half
decent job, and I'm working my guts out day and night to pay all these bills
and, heaven forbid, I have to put my child in hockey or in baseball.
They
should not be deprived of that. Just because it's not what some would say an
essential, as opposed to like eating, medication and so on – I understand it's
not that same essential, but it's still part of living. Surely God if someone
gets themselves an education and a job, it's not a whole lot to ask and expect
that they should be able to live comfortably as opposed to survive.
Surviving is one thing; living comfortably is another thing. Arguably, someone
who is working hard, got an education, got a good job, a decent job and they're
working hard to support a family, they should be able to live a comfortable,
reasonable lifestyle.
That
doesn't mean they get to go to Florida every single year. It doesn't mean that.
It doesn't mean they're going out to eat to The Keg every night, but surely
goodness they should be able to afford, if they have a couple of kids or
something, on a Saturday or something, to take them out to McDonald's or
whatever the case might be. They should be able to afford to take them to a
movie. They should be able to afford to have their kids in soccer or have their
kids in hockey. If they're on a hockey team or a soccer team and they said we're
going to go on a tournament or something now, we're going to Gander for the
weekend, to the provincials, they shouldn't have to deprive their child with the
fact I can't afford to take you to Gander to participate in the provincials or
the regionals or whatever, because we can't afford to do it.
Somebody
here, yesterday I think, I can't remember, I think it was one of the Members in
the Opposition talked about someone who had to take their child out of hockey
because they could no longer afford to keep their child in hockey. They had to
take that child out of hockey.
Just
think about that for a second. As a parent, who's working hard every day and you
have to say to your child, all your friends are playing hockey, I have to take
you off the hockey team. You can't play hockey with your friends any more
because I can't afford it.
What a
horrible thing to have to – I can't think of anything – we could all think of
worse I suppose, but to me that would be a horrific thing. If I, as a father,
had to say to my child, I have to take you out of hockey or I have to take you
out of dance or I have to take you out of gymnastics or whatever because I can't
afford to have you there. All your friends are here, you can't be there anymore;
we can't afford it. It's just a terrible feeling to have to do something like
that.
I'm not
arguing against – and I don't want to be seen – what my colleague from St.
John's Centre is saying, because those people are struggling, I get it. I really
do. Housing is an issue, health care is an issue, mental health and addictions
is an issue, transportation, i.e. public transit is an issue, he is right. He is
1,000 per cent right. If you don't deal with people's issues, in terms of
dealing with their addictions and their mental health and housing and all that
stuff, and poverty, if you don't deal with that, you're going to deal with it
anyway.
He is
right, I agree with him, because you're going to deal with it through the health
care system. You're going to deal with it through the department of social
services. You're going to deal with it through the CYFS and child services.
You're going to be dealing with it through the RNC, the RCMP and the HMP. That's
reality. And the courts and the huge costs associated with all of those
entities. So he's not wrong with what he's saying. I'm not knocking what he's
saying, I agree with what he's saying.
But I'm
trying to bring it back to the middle-class working person because that's the
demographic that I generally represent in my district. I've had people come to
me on numerous occasions and say: Paul, b'y, do you know what? I never qualified
for anything. All I qualified for is payment. Every time there's something, more
taxes, more taxes, more taxes. I pay for everything; I never get a break.
I go to
work every day and all I'm doing, I look at my cheque – I've said this before –
you look at your net pay and your gross pay and the net pay is actually gross,
when you look at it, when you look at how much you lost on your cheque. You're
saying here I am, going to work every day and I'm paying in all these taxes, but
whenever there's a government program, I never get a break. I don't qualify for
nothing.
I'm not
going to qualify for any drug card. I'm not going to qualify for any NLHC home
rebate programs or home heat programs. I'm not going to qualify for home
repairs. I'm not going to qualify for none of it. I'm going to qualify to pay
for all of it.
So I
guess in that vein, when we look at this measure here to reduce the cost of gas,
yes, there are people that are not going to benefit from giving a break at the
pump. Just like there were people who didn't benefit from the $142 million
because they weren't a senior on OAS, CPP only, or they weren't on income
support.
But
guess what? A lot of my constituents, they will argue it's not enough. They will
argue it's not enough because inflation is killing them, especially ones who are
just living paycheque to paycheque, but at least it's something for them. At
least it's something for the average working person. That's the bottom line.
And why
shouldn't they get something, too? Why shouldn't they get a break, too? I'm not
talking about the intent here; I'm not talking about giving breaks to
millionaires here. Although, I suppose everyone is going to gain from this. But
at least the average working Joe and Jane who gets up every day and laces up
their boots and goes to work to support their family, at least they get a little
break. They get something out of it, besides paying for everything. From that
perspective, obviously, I would support this measure.
Now,
with that said, while this is being billed, portrayed, whatever way you want to
look at it, as cutting the provincial HST in half, and I guess it is in terms of
eight cents off – we're not really taking eight cents off. It's kind of a
sleight of hand. Because we just put 2.5 cents on in terms of the carbon tax. So
the net value is 5.5 cents; not eight cents, it's 5.5 cents.
Because
that carbon tax, even though we might want to call it a federal tax – and
there's no doubt the feds are responsible for having this tax, or forcing us to
have this tax, but that 2.5 cents carbon tax, that we voted against, I might add
– thank you to my colleagues in the Opposition for that – is going on and eight
cents in provincial tax is coming off, which is a net benefit to the consumer
of, not eight cents, 5.5 cents. That's what it is.
I don't
know why, if the intent is to give people a real break and you're saying you're
taking eight cents off, then, as far as I'm concerned, it shouldn't have been
eight cents coming off, it should have been 10.5 cents coming off. You could
have taken off the eight cents, cut that in half, and you could have eliminated
the 2.5 that you just added on. That would have been even better for the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador, to give them a bit better of a break.
I know
other Members – I've got a few people reach out to me about that, saying, jeez,
they're saying they're giving us eight cents and then they're going to tack on
carbon tax. People see it as a bit of a bluff or a scam or whatever. That's some
of the words they use, not me. I, personally, would like to see that 2.5 cents
also come off. It's unfortunate it didn't.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker, for the time.
SPEAKER (Warr):
Speaker recognizes the Member
for Lake Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Speaker.
Always a
pleasure to speak to any matter and, hopefully, reflect the needs of the people
of the province and, most importantly, the constituents of the districts that
each of us represent.
So just
by way of background, I just want to remind everyone, we're dealing with Bill
64, and as we are in second reading, not in Committee, we're not dealing with
the specifics of the bill, we're looking at the rationale for the bill.
By way
of Explanatory Notes, as was provided by Legislative Counsel, this bill would
amend the Revenue Administration Act
to reduce the tax on certain grades of gasoline by seven cents per litre until
the end of this year, December 31, 2022. That's what this bill does.
I would
suggest the intent of the bill, consistent with the rationale, which so many of
us have spoken to today – and by the way, throughout this session – I think I
referred to this some time ago – each day during Question Period, I keep track
of all the questions: who asked the question and what was the subject matter and
I have been scoring this. It is quite interesting. Since we have reconvened a
couple of months ago, well over 50 per cent of the questions raised by
Opposition deal with the cost of living. It is everything from the price of
gasoline to the struggles that the Leader of the NDP has spoken about; so many
people who can't even afford a car, let alone have to go through the
consideration of how do I put gasoline in that car that I can't afford to start
with.
So this,
no question, is a preoccupation of the people of this province and we need to be
focused on that. My concern is – and thinking about the rationale – what exactly
will this do to help us? I mean, politically, we're going to be able to say to
the people of the province: The Legislature passed a bill, Bill 64, that saw a
reduction of the provincial portion of the tax that's on that gasoline that we
pay at the pumps. I want to talk about some of the background noise that is
going on and just how this, frankly, is just a blip in the big world that we're
dealing with. So many colleagues, including my buddy here for Mount Pearl -
Southlands, talking about world events and how they're shaping what we're
feeling.
I just
had an interesting conversation with the Member for Labrador West. He's a bit
younger than I am, that's for sure, and he has a bit more aptitude for all those
things to do with software and so on. He is showing me this really interesting
app. It is called trading commodities. It is a trading commodities app and he
was just showing me how you can go on there and look at the price of gasoline as
it is happening right now on the world. So in the last hour that we have been
talking, looking at it, it has been moving a little bit from $4.09 to $4.1 US
dollars per gallon. It is moving around there.
Why this
is relevant is because just six months ago – actually, just four months ago,
before the war started in Ukraine, guess what the price was on this trading app?
Half. The price of gasoline has doubled on the world markets. We're here again
arguing over seven cents per litre. Yeah, I get it. Yeah, I know it's going to
provide some relief, but folks, there are a lot bigger pressures going on than
this seven cents. The price of gasoline has doubled since February. The last
time we saw prices – frankly, we haven't seen prices like this, but the last
time they were high was some 10 years ago, when, according to my colleague from
Labrador West, in looking at the app, he said it was about $3.34 US per gallon;
we're now at $4.1. We are setting some interesting records here, and things are
happening well beyond the strength, power and authority of this Legislature to
deal with. That's what I want to talk about.
There's
an interesting article yesterday. For those of us who track the news items, it
was a bit of an explanation of what the Public Utilities Board does, doesn't do,
how it works, and how it's called to help regulate the price of gasoline in this
province. As I've stated, the District of Lake Melville is bracing because, in
the next few days, a tanker will arrive with fuel that's from outside markets,
and that fuel is going to be a lot more than what we've been paying. We've been
enjoying a freeze, through the freeze of the winter, but now with that new
tanker we're going to be exposed to it, and people are bracing.
The
inquiries have been coming into myself and it's been interesting: When is this
ship rising? When will Bill 64 be passed? When will it go to the third reading,
Royal Assent? When will we sign off? When will that call be made to the PUB to
adjust it? So my point is that it's probably going to happen, or certainly could
happen. If we look at the last four months, we'll pass this bill perhaps this
week. There'll be a call made to the Public Utilities Board; they'll drop that,
that seven cents, plus the HST that we're dealing with. Well, guess what? We're
just as likely to see, in the same day, a jump of 10 cents or more –
S. CROCKER:
Guaranteed.
P. TRIMPER:
Guaranteed, he says, and I
completely agree with the Government House Leader because, in the last three
months, the Public Utilities Board has made 26 changes to the price of gasoline,
that we pick up at the pumps – 26 changes. That includes 14, what are called,
extraordinary changes. These are changes that are not made on the regular – for
those of us who understand, the MHAs, we are provided a confidential briefing or
note the day before. It is an embargoed document and explains to us what's going
to happen to the price of gas in the district we represent.
The PUB
has had to intervene, as I said, 14 times. So this is an intervention of sorts,
this seven cents, plus HST, that we're all working hard on and so on. In the
meantime, the world is just moving it all over the place. I find myself – while
I get it and I see the political savvy in doing this, I'm really concerned for
who this is not helping –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
P. TRIMPER:
I believe I just heard my colleague from Mount Pearl -
Southlands said some words like, I suppose everyone is going to gain. Well, in
fact, so many folks won't gain from this. And we really have to think about that
and I can tell you I am in a district in Labrador and all of my colleagues and I
feel those from Western Newfoundland, we all have this – let's just talk about
health care and the cost and the Medical Transportation Assistance Program that
we are often railing away on and pointing out the flaws to and so on, looking
for additional financial support to help.
I
have constituents who can't even afford the differential in the government
support, sometimes that is $1,000 up front prepay airfare. Well, that extra
$400, $500, $600 and additional costs and so on, they have got to figure out how
to do that themselves. So you know what happens? Those folks that I believe this
bill is intended for, I am very sorry to tell you, I know people who have
cancelled their appointments for a cancer checkup. They have cancelled their
appointments for cardiac care. They have cancelled their appointments for all
matter of surgery here in St. John's or Corner Brook. That is where the services
are, but we can't even get them there.
So
I don't see this helping those, frankly, who I am very worried about. Sunday
afternoon – I needed to do it – it was a very difficult situation but I went to
a family who are grieving. They had just lost a loved one who was on a wait-list
for some 17 days for cardiac care. On the 18th day, the family was advised an
air ambulance is coming. She had a heart attack and died before she could get
out of Labrador to get here.
Yes, it is seven cents. Yes, we will provide that to folks but that represents
the foregoing of some, according to the briefing I received, $44 million in
revenue. I look at the questions today. I think there were three or four
questions from the Official Opposition dealing with roads in their districts
that weren't addressed. The minister responded and I think he said he had a
budget of $151 million. Just think what $44 million more could do to his budget
alone. It's 25 per cent more paving, bridge repair capability. I can tell you,
in Labrador, we could have another aircraft and crew on standby.
We only
have air ambulance support right now for half time. So many of the times I'm
having to make – our region is having to feel the loss of a loved one because we
couldn't get him out here in time. And I tell you, that is sobering. It is
really, really difficult.
Again,
I'm going to take some time, because I feel – and while I did clap today when
the minister announced the breakthrough with Cenovus, and I welcome it, because
here's a project that had been parked, it's one that's in the queue, and I'll
hold my nose and support it, but I still have all of my different issues and
arguments around our continued reliance on oil.
We seem
to want to go use oil to help us get off oil, and I can't wait until we really
start to make serious progress. We did not do that today, but I recognize we
need that transition time; we'll get there.
But,
folks, I've got to tell you, windfall profit tax legislation is a way that we
can immediately put cash in the pocket. Not just somebody who's at a gas pump
trying to put gas in there, and we're going to help those folks; I'm talking
about the people on low income, even the middle income, and putting money
directly to – whether or not they own a car, they need cash for health care and
a whole bunch of other things; early childhood education, we need daycare
support.
Cenovus,
I've got to talk about them, again. Last year, they declared a profit of $220
million in the first quarter. This year, they just declared a profit of $1.6
billion. This morning we heard they're going to go ahead with the West White
Rose Project. What an interesting coincidence. That $2.95 billion – I'm sorry,
I've just jumped over – so Cenovus is proceeding. Well, great. I wish they'd
been there some of the tougher times, as opposed to this amazing lucrative
opportunity for anybody in the oil and gas sector.
I also
have been speaking about Suncor, another important player in our offshore oil
and gas industry. They just declared they tripled their profits. Last year, $821
million; $2.95 billion this quarter. And we stood here; I stood here with my
colleagues last year, and allocated some $505 million of additional support for
them to go ahead with the Terra Nova Project – wow.
We are
trapped in this province by what is politically expedient. I feel that if we are
really seriously going to help the people who most need the help and really need
a hand up, not a handout, we've really got to start thinking longer term, start
thinking a little bit further out there.
Guess
what? We already have. Canada is already applying windfall profit tax
legislation to guess who? The banks. We're doing it now. I just need to find my
numbers – but we now and over the next five years, the proposal – not the
proposal, but Canada has passed legislation that's going to be securing some –
I'm going to use “about” because I don't have my exact numbers in front of me,
Speaker. It's approximately, within the five years, the anticipated profit the
banks are enjoying right now because of the support they received during COVID
times, the federal government, the Government of Canada has said we're now
coming after you to help us get through the recovery. The banks have enjoyed
these windfall profits, so it's going to represent some $4.1 billion, there
about, in windfall profit tax that the federal government will be receiving from
our national banks.
I have
calculated that if we had this legislation – remember we cannot apply it as a
subnational, as a province; Newfoundland and Labrador cannot do this, but the
Liberals can go to Ottawa and talk to the prime minister. The Official
Opposition can certainly go to their national leaders and the Third Party can do
the same. Even the independents can speak to this, urging Ottawa to take a look
at this situation.
We are
all in this struggle because of certain commodities are going through the roof.
The folks that are running those commodities have control over what's happening
with them and so on, they are enjoying amazing profits.
What are
they doing with those profits, by the way? Suncor just declared a 12 per cent
increase in its dividend to its shareholders. I've got a litany of quotes here
that Anna Hutchings, who works with me, I had her dig up from some of the oil
and gas players. I have to say, even the president of Cenovus, Alex Pourbaix, is
talking about the need for additional funding, if they're going to take on some
of the serious mitigation efforts around carbon sequestration, reduction of
emissions. They're looking for government's support to make action towards this
green economy to try to get us to net zero, yet enjoying amazing profits.
I've
calculated that if windfall tax legislation was in place consistent with what
the Americans are dealing with today in Congress, it's happening, it would
generate, for Hibernia alone, today, we could be having coming into our coffers
$2.3 million US dollars a day, just from Hibernia. West White Rose, additional
dollars. The Bay du Nord Project, again, additional monies.
What you
do is you calculate what is the price that they've enjoyed and the profits they
made over the previous five years before COVID times and then they're applying
it now to the current price of oil, which, I'm not sure right now, is probably
$114 to $120, it's in that range. So this is not a cost on production, it's an
opportunity to share the profits.
Again, I
go back to the rationale for this bill. It's really, let's face it, the
Opposition, we're all sitting over here and we have in our questions
consistently 50 per cent of our time, we are talking about the cost of living.
What can we do to help those people? If we really are serious, we will take
money from those who are standing to gain most from this most unfortunate
circumstances where the world is again in serious war and embroiled in a
conflict and issues about supply that are causing the commodities that we have
access to go through the roof. As I said, the price of gasoline has doubled in
four months and we're here dealing with seven cents.
I think
I've made my point, Speaker. I thank you very much for the opportunity.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
I
recognize the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
It's
indeed an honour to stand in this House again as we get to the final stages of
debating the 2022-23 budget. And while the budget itself has been debated in
past, there are certain pieces of legislation that are part and parcel of being
able to put the whole package together so that any programs and services can be
funded and that, hopefully, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador can see some
of the benefits as part of that process.
I want
to go on record first by saying I will be supporting what's being put forward
here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL:
It's a partial relief. We
understand, and I'll be totally honest and upfront here, that budgets are not
easy for anybody to do. And I've said it a number of times here. I've been
around dozens of them and dozens of them over the years. Some are very easy to
do because the money is just there and it happens we're in good times. Other
ones are very challenging. When there isn't money, you've got to make some
really harsh decisions. I know this one wasn't an easy one. I give credit to the
minister and her staff and the bureaucrats, who, themselves, had to try to find
ways to be as frugal as possible, do an evaluation on which services and
programs need to be the priorities and try to come up with a balance.
I will
say, I'm not adverse to the budget, but I do think priorities could've been put
in certain ways. We had a debate about that just in this spring sitting. We
asked over 300 questions around cost of living, the direct impact on people.
We've had a multitude of debates around certain pieces of legislation and the
impact. We may not always agree, but I do think we agree we would like for
society and the citizens here
to have as much as we can offer. The debate that we
have had on this side – or the adversative debate, I should say, has been about
not feeling that the prioritized process works 100 per cent in the best interest
of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador. And that is a difference of opinion.
I get it.
We
are going to say, here is what we think a priority should be in a program.
Somebody else is going to say something else should be here. We do challenge
certain things. I will say I am perhaps one of the few who will publicly say: I
am not in favour of the carbon tax in any way, shape or form. Am I in favour of
protecting the environment? One hundred per cent. Am I in favour of working and
even forcing industries to do a better job when it comes to emissions? One
hundred per cent.
Am
I in favour of educating our citizens, of using technology to improve minimizing
emissions and having a better understanding of how we protect our environment?
One hundred per cent. Am I in favour of finding those environmentally friendly
industries that we can use to ensure our economy moves forward? One hundred per
cent.
Am
I in favour of using the industries we have here to generate revenues, so not
only can we take care of the citizens here and their needs, particularly, keep
them healthy and safe and engaged, but that we can generate enough revenue so
that we can transition to other ways of keeping our environment safe and clean?
One hundred per cent on all of those things.
I
don't think the carbon tax is what would have been the benefit to that. But,
with that being said, I do not fault the Liberal administration in Newfoundland
and Labrador for that. They were forced into it based on a different
understanding from a federal perspective, and I get that. I understand that. And
I know if I was in the chair on the opposite side, there would be decisions that
I, our Cabinet and our caucus would have to make around how we make that balance
work there.
But
I will say that on record now, the carbon tax, to me, is not going to achieve
anything near what people would hope. I think there are other ways of doing
that, other incentives that could be done, other ways to force the hand of those
who are the polluters and other ways of educating our society to make sure that
they not only do the right thing but so does the next generation and future
generations there.
The
sugar tax, again, I put that in the same category as the carbon tax. I do not
see what the intended outcome that was probably thought up in, you know,
full-fledged thoughtfulness that this would be a positive and it would help keep
people safe and healthy – I don't see the outcome being there. Again, it becomes
an issue around revenues coming out of people's pockets, the most vulnerable. I
think there are other ways of doing it.
We
have seen it in industries here where they have used their technology to
minimize the amount of sugar that needs to be in certain products so that it
keeps people safe. I think an issue around education would have been
more important here. But I do
not see the real benefit, from a health point of view, other than the most
vulnerable and those in the lower income who still have to sustain that will
have a challenge here and it will be more money come out of their pocket.
Do we
like the fact that there are discussions around the minimum wage? Of course, but
the issue has been for us on this side, and we've said it for years, it would
have been more equitable and more beneficial to low-income workers and those
working at minimum wage if we changed that tax regime so that they could get to
keep more in their pocket. That wouldn't then drive up potential cost because as
an employer, an employer has to pass on any additional cost when it comes to
salary bases. If the salary base for low income just moves the low-income
threshold to another level –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Can I
bring the volume down, please?
Thank
you.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That
doesn't change anything as part of that process. So we are not dismissing that
the increase in minimum wage doesn't benefit to some degree, but there are other
ways that it could have been dealt with that wouldn't stimulate something
negative for all of society, which includes the lower income individuals. So
there are thought processes here, when you look at it from an economy of scale,
that might have been more beneficial.
When we
also look at some of the other things that have been implemented here in this
budget. The electric car supplement: We would love to see that in five years,
when we're ready to do it, when economically we can afford it. When, if we're
spending that money right now, there are other avenues that would have been a
priority for us, in this part of the administration, and from what we've heard
from the general public, without a doubt. Do I think we need incentives down the
road to encourage people to move off fossil fuels? Sure we do, without a doubt.
But timing is everything and when you're in a financial crisis for the people of
this province, you need to ensure that you're giving back to the people when
they need it.
The same
thing with the transition from changing your heating source from oil to
electric. That would be great but, at the end of the day, right now is not the
time that people can afford to do it. They don't have that disposable income
because they're already challenged with stuff that they have no control over
and, in some cases, even government has no control over: international monetary
funds, international costing for fuels and all the other things. So we accept
that as part of that.
What we
have encouraged over here – and I'm happy to say, the open debate has got us to
point where there have been some new additional incentives. Not that the $142
million that was announced in the budget isn't going to help people out there,
and we appreciate that and no doubt the taxpayers do. But it didn't go far
enough as the economy kept getting worse and worse and worse.
So the
new incentives that we're here now talking about, the around eight cents that
will come off gas, hopefully tomorrow, is a positive. Challenges we have though
– and home heat rebates that will come the fall are good. But we have a number
of people who heat their home with wood, who are all on fixed incomes. While you
might think, well, fuels go like this, wood didn't. It does, because wood has to
get to market. It has to get to market, based on what? Trucks that are using
fuels that have to pass on that costing.
We are
encouraging – and I know, Minister, there are still a few months here; if
there's some way that those who heat their homes, who are on a fixed income and
meet the thresholds could be considered as part of this process. There may not
be a big number, but I will tell you, I've heard from dozens – and that's just
in my small little area of my district and I would think in rural, remote areas
that are even more reliant on it, that I think we need to be cognizant of that.
Because it is a costing to them that they have no way of absorbing that
additional cost.
So there
are things like that that we've had good dialogue; I thought we had good debate.
I thought, on this side of the House, we gave a multitude of good suggestions,
and that's coming from all levels here. But I do also acknowledge the fact that
I would think the Liberals are hearing the same things we are, and are cognizant
of trying to find the best balance here to ensure that people are helped.
Does it
go far enough? Probably not, from our perspective. Where do you balance what you
borrow to what you can afford to pay? I am a believer, you know, sometimes you
have to bite the bullet now, knowing – and I'll talk to my colleagues and
mention it, my colleague from Mount Pearl-Southlands said the same thing – there
is a bright future in Newfoundland and Labrador; I have no illusion about that.
The announcements of today acknowledge that. Our fishing industry, our tourism
industry, our IT industry, our aerospace industry, our aquaculture industry, our
mining industry but, particularly, our oil and gas industry are very vibrant
industries here.
We can't
dismiss either one of them; we can't not invest in them, and we can't not make
sure that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are the beneficiaries of the benefits
of those resources here. We need to let people know we're open for business, but
we're open for business in a partnership where we also benefit here. And there
are no more giveaways. Giveaways are not on – I'm not pointing a finger – it's
about Newfoundland and Labrador owns its own resources; the people here built
those resources and their skill set to be able to do that. We need to make sure
that they are the beneficiaries.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL:
So I will end on one note,
that the oil and gas industry will be around for the next number of decades.
Let's make it work for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Let's use the
resources to transition into a healthy environment, and environment that
industries can develop here, and that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador
are proud of.
So, Mr.
Speaker, thank you for that, we look forward to supporting this bill and moving
Newfoundland and Labrador to the next level.
Thank
you, Sir.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
If the hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board speaks now, she will close the debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much, Speaker,
for the opportunity to close debate. I thank all those that participated in this
debate, and it was particularly refreshing to hear the Leader of the Opposition,
the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island, say that they would be
supporting this bill. I think it's an important bill because it contains
additional measures to help those in our communities.
There
were a couple of things said during debate that I'd like to make a few remarks
on. I won't take very much time. I do appreciate the Leader of the Opposition
pointing out that indeed our economy is resilient and has been doing quite well.
The oil and gas industry, I spoke of the mining industry, we're having a good
tourism year with Come Home Year, and I thank the minister for all his efforts
in that regard, but our economic indicators, for example, Speaker, are up year
to date over 4 per cent.
Our
retail sales are up year to date, 7.1 per cent. Our home sales are up 7.9 per
cent. Urban housing starts, believe it or not, over 69 per cent. The number is
still low, Speaker, so I'll say that. We're seeing some growth in our economy
and some strength in our economy, but, as I said in the Budget Speech, we are
resilient Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and hopefully we will continue to see
that continued growth and drive in our economy.
I'd be
remiss if I didn't mention the technology sector, which is really doing
extremely well. I'm so proud of the fact that Newfoundland and Labrador has a
booming technology sector including the ocean technology sector.
A couple
of things came up during the debate that I would like to make some remarks on.
One of the things that I heard Members opposite talk about was how many people
is this affecting in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the measures
that we have taken? As I said in my introductory speech, we started with $142
million. I can tell you that for the Seniors' Benefit, there is about 50,000
seniors that receive that in the province. It's a tremendous number. For the
Income Supplement there's 162,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that receive
the Income Supplement. The income support clients that received an extra stipend
this spring, there are about 20,000 people that received that. And we know that
there are about 219,000 homes in the province, I believe, so we know that those
that have insurance, of course, would have benefited from the reduction in the
retail sales tax on insurance.
When I
think about those families that will be receiving the oil heat supplement this
fall, there about approximately 30,000 people. This is application based so
we'll know more definitively as the applications come in, but we're estimating
approximately 30,000 people who have oil heat that will be receiving the
benefit.
We know
that we have 375,000 vehicles in the province, not all of those, of course, are
attached to a licence because some people have multiple cars. But with 375,000
vehicles, you can guesstimate that the majority of people would have a licence
with those. So all of those receive benefits. So a tremendous impact.
Now
we're driving another benefit to the people of the province through this act
today. This is Bill 64 that we're debating, An Act to Amend the Revenue
Administration Act No. 6. These changes, of course, are relatively
straightforward changes to the act in sections 1 and 2 that would allow us to
lower the price of gasoline and diesel in the province. The price of gasoline
we're lowering to be the lowest, next to Alberta, gas tax in the country. It
would be reduced by 50 per cent, or seven cents. And, of course, when you add on
the HST impact on that it's about an eight cents reduction. So a tremendous
impact, in my opinion.
Now,
some people in the House had talked about the carbon tax today. There was some
misinformation yesterday so I want to clear this up. I've had people come to me
and say there's going to be an 11-cent increase in carbon. That is not true,
that's not the case. There has been, over time, that amount of tax laid, but the
2.2 cents has been added as of the 1st of May. So it's already on the price of
your fuel, and it's 2.2 cents. So you won't see that, even though the bill was
passed yesterday, it was retroactive to the 1st of May.
Now, I
did hear the Member opposite for Conception Bay East - Bell Island talk about
the financial concerns of the province. I'm glad to hear a recognition in this
House that we are in financially challenging times for the province as well. As
I've said, we've been able to lower the deficit and we are continuing to lower
that deficit. But in this particular budget, we focused very heavily on ensuring
that we were able to provide back supports on cost of living.
As the
Member opposite also said, you're seeing kind of an increase. It's not the
economy, and I know what the Member meant, the cost of living has gotten worse
and worse. That was the intent of what he meant, the cost of living has gotten
worse and worse. As I said earlier, on Budget Day, the price of fuel was $1.85.
Today, it's $2.22 I think for regular gas.
So we're
seeing this and therefore we have again stepped forward and said we have to help
the people of the province. I think everybody in this House now has said that
they will be supporting this reduction because we are challenged – I'll say that
– in this province when it comes to our finances. We think about our finances,
obviously, every day, we're trying to be prudent and responsible. We're also
messaging of course to the banks and the bond-rating agencies every day in what
we do and we want to make sure we maintain and even improve our bond rating.
I
recognize the Member for Conception Bay South who said that sometimes
governments try and do more than they should, and that is the case. We try and
do more than we sometimes can, because we recognize that the people of the
province are challenged in these very difficult times. That's why we've
provided, now, over $222 million in benefits back to the people of the province.
We can't
solve all the problems, as the Member for Conception Bay South has indicated. We
can't. But we're going to try hard and I think with the co-operation of this
House, and I'm glad to hear the Members opposite will be supporting this bill.
I will
also say, I have listened intently during, not just the budget debate but again
today when my colleague for Stephenville - Port au Port talked about some of the
choices that we've made. He talked about some of the things that we perhaps
didn't need to spend money on. As he was talking about it, I added it up, and it
was about $5.75 million. So just under $6 million. On a $9.4 billion budget, $6
million is only a small amount that we may be able to invest elsewhere. I say to
the Member opposite, I appreciate the suggestions on the six, but we'd have to
go beyond that. I want everyone to put on their thinking caps on how we can do
spending differently.
Now I
did listen, as I said, and I heard the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port
talk about how the Opposition stood for seniors and stood for public servants. I
think that's our job every single day that all of us stand for. But I can say on
this side of the House we're fighting for people every day. We're fighting for
not just families, not just seniors, but our future.
We have
to recognize in this province that there are sometimes difficult choices and
sometimes we're trying to make the best balance we can in budgets. We're very,
very pleased that we've been able to provide $222 million in supports for the
people of the province and we're going to continue to try and do the best we
can, continue to fight for the people of the province, we're going to do that.
We want
to have a great province. We want to have, as I've said, many, many times now in
this House, a stronger, smarter, self-sufficient and sustainable Newfoundland
and Labrador. I know everyone in this House and everyone in the province wants
the same, that's what we're all fighting for.
Thank you for the support on Bill 64 and for the continued responses, the
continued focus, the continued efforts to ensure that we address the cost of
living in the province, make the right decisions for the people of the province
while making sure that we are focused on families and future generations. I
appreciate it.
Thank you.
SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the question?
The
motion is that Bill 64 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?
The
motion is passed.
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The Revenue
Administration Act No. 6. (Bill 64)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a second time.
When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the
Whole House?
S. COADY:
Now.
SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 6,” read a
second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by
leave. (Bill 64)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank
you, Speaker.
I
move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that
the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 64.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve
itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the said bill.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Trimper):
Order, please!
We
are now considering Bill 64, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No.
6.
A
bill, “An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 6.” (Bill 64)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?
The
hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Chair, I would like to move an amendment.
I
move that clause 1 of Bill 64, An Act to Amend the Revenue Administration Act
No. 6, be amended in the proposed subsection 51(2) by deleting the words “on or
before December 31, 2022” and by substituting the words “before such a time that
a resolution is passed in the House of Assembly.”
CHAIR:
I thank the Member for the
amendment.
We will
now recess to review the amendment to see if it is in order.
Thank
you.
Recess
CHAI:
Order, please!
Are the
House Leaders ready? Do you have your teams here?
The
Committee has reviewed the amendment and found that it is not in order. It
introduces a new idea and a new mechanism.
Does the
Member wish to continue speaking?
T. WAKEHAM:
Yes.
CHAIR:
Okay, I recognize the hon.
Member for the District of Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Now that the amendment is
cancelled, I have to go to three pages.
I have a
couple of questions, Chair. The first one I have is how was the reduction of
seven cents per litre determined? Why not more?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much.
An
important question. I have multitudes of copies of
Hansard here where I listened intently, as I said, to Members
opposite who called for removal of the Newfoundland and Labrador refinery
increase. And, of course, that is up to the Public Utilities Board. But, again,
that five cents was the call. And I noted on multiple days when you had asked
for that.
Quite
frankly, it is a matter of looking at how much we could afford, how much was
responsible for us to afford, how much it allowed us that room, I guess, to the
Member opposite. I know how keen the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port was
to have some kind of supplement or, as he liked to call it, a rebate, go back to
the people of the province. So we looked at what we could possibly do, in
addition to the $142 million we had already.
So it is
a matter of balance. Again, I remind the Member opposite that this would be the
lowest provincial gas tax in the country, next to Alberta, who has eliminated
theirs temporarily. Again, please note that Alberta's is temporary, too, and
tied to the oil prices.
So it's
the rationale of again being responsible, fiscally prudent, measuring all the
balances that we have to have, ensuring we kept into consideration how much we
needed to have again for the fall to be able to help support people who heat
their homes with oil.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
I thank the minister for the
answer.
We also
heard a lot, of course, about the inability to reduce the gas tax out of fear
that the federal government would apply the federal carbon backstop. Is that no
longer a concern? Have you got correspondence from the federal government saying
they would implement the backstop?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you.
The
Member opposite would recall that when the carbon tax was initially introduced,
we made an arrangement with the federal government, during the imposition of the
carbon tax – and again it's a federal government initiative to help address
climate change – that we, in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, were
exempt for certain things: fisheries, forestry, agriculture, exploration. Very
important economic drivers in our province and we had arranged with the federal
government not to have carbon tax imposed on that. More importantly, not to have
carbon tax imposed on homes that were heated with oil.
As part
of the overall structure in the country of the carbon tax, those provinces that
did not implement carbon taxes, the federal government came in and they
implemented their own carbon tax. So if the province didn't do it, then the
federal government was going to do it. By being able and proactive, we were able
to carve out these particular items.
Now, we
were very concerned if we lowered the gas tax, because we had heard it from the
federal government, that could have implications around the carbon tax and they
could come in and impose a backstop. The Premier, of course, spoke with his
national colleagues, he spoke again most recently with the prime minister, and
in relation to the rising cost of living, the federal government, in
discussions, has indicated that they will not come in and impose a backstop
based on these extraordinary circumstances. So we feel very comfortable that we
could lowered the gas tax, based on that information.
So,
again, it's a strong relationship that the Premier and the prime minister has,
the discussions with them, the understanding.
As I
said earlier, we've changed from – I think it was $1.85 I said on Budget Day to
over $2.20 today. We were concerned about the continuing rise in the cost of
living and wanted to lower that gas tax, especially as we know this is
continuing for the time being based on global circumstances.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Minister.
The hon.
the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Chair.
I thank
the minister for the answer.
Why was
the December 31, 2022, date determined as the end date? Why not return to this
House and debate the tax rates when the price of gas falls?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
For a couple of reasons to be
quite honest with you. This gives us six months, and I can say to you quite
sincerely the 11 different forecasters at the time of budget had indicated price
of oil would be $86 a barrel. We now know it's much higher than that. We know
the price of fuel is much higher. We know what's happening in the Ukraine, but
we don't know what's going to happen in six months' time, whether those things
reverse themselves.
There
were indications that the cost of living would actually decrease and the
inflationary rate would decrease this fall. Whether that happens or not, I think
it depends on global circumstances, not anything in Newfoundland and Labrador.
So we chose the six-month mark.
As I
indicated earlier, we will consider what we could do this fall. We have to be
very fiscally responsible and prudent. I know the Member opposite would want us
to be. We all recognize the financial situation the province is in, so we had to
be very responsible. We wanted to send the right message, not only to the people
of the province, but also to our banks and bond-rating agencies, that we are
being fiscally responsible here and making sure that anything that we do can be
undone, should circumstances change.
So we
will obviously consider as we move forward whether or not we can continue to
have the lowest gas tax in the country. But I plead with the Member opposite, I
know you recognize the financial situation of the province, I know you do, so
understanding that having a sunset clause in this legislation gives us, I think,
a prudent, responsible measure and we'll consider it further in the fall.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Chair.
Thank
you, Minister. I certainly understand the fiscal position of the province and
again the fact of the sunset clause was simply that the House will open again in
the fall. We'll have a fiscal update and that would give an opportunity to have
made adjustments to it at that time, if necessary. So we look forward to
continued success in our revenue and more money coming back to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
I wanted
to ask the minister what forecasts does the department have about the market
consumer price of gasoline and diesel. Do you have any forecasts that your
department have been working on?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you.
The
forecast right now, I can say that the price of oil – I can't say on gas
because, of course, global circumstances are driving the price of gas, depending
on whether or not the war in Ukraine continues. We know what the European Union
has done yesterday, of course, with continuing sanctions, so that's very
volatile.
We know
the price of oil now, there has been a change, and we're seeing the price of oil
staying very, very high. I can't give it to you today, as to what the forecast
will be for the price of gasoline, because it's changing and so volatile at this
point in time. We will update again in the fall.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Chair.
Again,
how much additional provincial sales tax revenue is the province forecasting
because the pump price is so high?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
I'm sorry, I didn't –
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Are there any additional
provincial sales tax revenue, HST – is the province forecasting any increase?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you.
On HST,
it takes a number of years for that to flow through the systems, of course. It
is administered by the federal government through the CRA – I'll use that
acronym – so it does take a number of years. In our budget forecast, it's still
$66 million that we collect on HST. I think it is $66 million on HST from gas;
I'll ask my officials to give me an indication if that is incorrect.
But I
will say that we're not anticipating any big change in HST this year. As I've
already said to you, we've lowered the gas tax and utilized the gas tax revenues
on other avenues, so depending this fall on revenues and sources of revenues, we
may have to come in and do a special warrant if required as well. I know the
Member opposite understands that that could be a possibility depending on how
the flow of funds to the provincial government go.
But I
can say HST; we're anticipating it to be the same as we had last year, based on
forecast.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Minister.
The hon.
the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
My last question, Chair.
Again, I
thank the minister for the answer.
The
minister has said that the tax reduction will not impact the deficit, so I'm
wondering what kind of evidence do you have that you would make that kind of
statement.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
I also remind the Member that
if consumption goes down, our taxation goes down. So we may actually end up with
less from the HST, depending on how consumption goes, and I know people are
being very responsible about consumption as well. I will also say that the
provincial gas tax is cents per litre, so it depends on that consumption. I'm
going to turn to the Member and say, what was the question again?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Chair.
The
question was around the fact that the minister had said that the tax reduction
will not impact the deficit, and I was wondering what supporting evidence she
had for that.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
I said it may not impact the
deficit, and here's why. We've talked about it in this House. The price of oil
per barrel in the budget was $86 per barrel. It is, we know, much higher than
that. It's somewhere in the 120s today. So we know for every one dollar more,
it's $13 million. So just even on the last three months, we know we've taken in
extra revenues.
That
could change. It could easily change. We don't know for the year at this point
and we'll have a further update in the fall, but we do know at this point in
time we will take in additional revenues in royalty just based on that price of
oil alone. That's why I said I don't think it will have impact on our deficit,
because we'll take in more revenues from that. But it may not; we may not have
enough in any of the budgetary lines, the Estimate lines, to be able to fund
some of this programming so I'm cognizant of that. We're working through that,
as we speak actually.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Chair, my final comment is
that we will continue to hope that the price of oil stays high, above the $86,
and if it continues to trend that way, we look forward to a fall fiscal update
that will see additional revenues or additional rebates available for people
certainly going into the heating season.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
I will say to the Member
opposite, and as I spoke to you before, we may need a certain appropriation for
some of these fundings because we may not have an appropriation available. So
that's why I said the possibility of a special warrant this fall. But I will say
to the Member opposite, we have to be very cognizant obviously of our deficit.
Everything that we do impacts that deficit. Any money that we give back, we want
to have that deficit as low as possible because it's costing, not just us today
– and I've said this in the House. The cost of borrowing is a billion dollars;
every year we're spending a billion dollars just on cost of borrowing. It's on
future generations because, of course, then we accumulate the debt.
So yes,
we're looking at hopefully additional revenues this year. That's why we've been
able to give back as much as we've been able to give back, but please also be
cognizant of the fact that we are carrying a deficit, and we want to be
responsible to today's generation as also the future generations.
CHAIR:
I now recognize the Member
for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Seeing
as how the last amendment was considered out of order because it introduced a
different mechanism, I'm going to introduce an amendment of my own, which I
believe keeps the same mechanism, it just changes the date.
So I'll
say, Mr. Chair, that I don't necessarily understand why we're stopping at
December 31; our budgets and so on usually run the fiscal year, until March 31.
I understand things can change, but given what's going on in the world today, I
honestly don't see that happening. If it were to change, there's nothing to stop
the government when we come back in the fall to make an amendment at that time.
With
that said, I move that clause 1 of Bill 64, An Act to Amend the Revenue
Administration Act No. 6, be amended in the proposed section 51(2) as follows:
By deleting the words “on or before December 31, 2022” and substituting the
words “on or before March 31, 2023.”
Seconded
by the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
CHAIR:
The Committee will recess to
consider the said amendment.
Thank
you.
Recess
CHAIR:
Order, please!
House
Leaders are you ready? Yes.
The
Committee has reviewed the proposed amendment and finds it to be in order. Power
of the independents.
P. LANE:
I knew it was going to be in
order because the big give away was that I saw all the government Members coming
in to vote it down.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
I can assure the Member there
was no leaking from the discussions.
They
just recognize the brilliance of the man who delivered the amendment.
I
recognize the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you.
It is
quite predictable, unfortunately.
Anyway,
all I can say, Mr. Chair, is to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and
certainly to the people who I represent, this is just another, I guess, attempt
on behalf of Members of the Opposition; I know my colleagues in the Official
Opposition, NDP, we've been doing everything we can to try to alleviate some of
the challenges that our constituents are facing and indeed the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
I don't
see the sense of going to December 31; everything here basically runs the fiscal
year to March 31. As I said before, when we go back in the fall, if, at that
time, everything has changed, and I really don't believe it is going to be
changed, but if it is, then at that point in time there is nothing stopping the
government from coming in and reversing it at that time.
Or here
is worse case scenario for you; imagine if things actually improved for people
and they still got a little bit of a break on tax; we actually helped them out a
bit more. Can you imagine if we actually helped people a little bit more?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
P. LANE:
Absolutely, a few extra
dollars in their pockets. So, with that said, that's all I have to say about it.
I tried, and I know they're all going to vote it down anyway.
Anyway,
thank you for your time.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The
Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
S. COADY:
Thank you very much.
It's
sometimes a challenge when you have to be really prudent and fiscally
responsible, and you have to have the comfort, I guess, of understanding that
there are consequences to everything that we do here and, as Minister of
Finance, I have to look at those consequences.
As I
said earlier, we felt this was both a prudent and responsible period of time. We
don't know the outcome of the war in the Ukraine; we do know what the 11
different forecasters have said about the price of oil this year. We don't know
about the impact of the war in Ukraine. This sunsets as of the end of the year,
it's a full six months. To go this additional three months, that the Member
opposite is asking for, is an additional $20 million-plus. I'm going off roughly
just extrapolating some numbers here.
We have
to be very responsible in our fiscal considerations here. I'm saying to the
Members opposite, look, we're signalling to the people of the province and to
the bond-rating agencies and to the banks that we can do this until this period
of time and maintain our fiscal discipline. We'll make some considerations in
the fall, depending on where we're sitting, globally, as well as in the Province
of Newfoundland and Labrador. That's what we're going to have to do is be
fiscally responsible and understand the consequences of any fiscal action that
we take.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Any
further speakers to the amendment?
Seeing
none, shall the amendment carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
I'm looking for somebody to
call Division before I say something.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division.
CHAIR:
Okay, the Opposition Members
are calling Division.
Okay,
thank you.
House
Leaders please call in your Members, if you have anyone.
Division
CHAIR:
Order, please!
Regarding the amendment, all those in favour of the amendment, please rise.
CLERK:
David Brazil, Barry Petten,
Paul Dinn, Craig Pardy, Tony Wakeham, Chris Tibbs, Loyola O'Driscoll, Lloyd
Parrott, Joedy Wall, Pleaman Forsey, Jeff Dwyer, James Dinn, Jordan Brown, Paul
Lane.
CHAIR:
All those against the
amendment, please rise.
CLERK:
Andrew Furey, Steve Crocker,
Lisa Dempster, John Haggie, Gerry Byrne, Tom Osborne, Siobhan Coady, Pam
Parsons, Sarah Stoodley, John Hogan, Bernard Davis, Derrick Bragg, John Abbott,
Brian Warr, Elvis Loveless, Krista Lynn Howell, Paul Pike, Scott Reid, Sherry
Gambin-Walsh, Lucy Stoyles.
Chair,
the ayes: 14; the nays: 20.
CHAIR:
The amendment has been
defeated.
Looking
for speakers now to speak to the main bill in Committee.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl-Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Chair.
I
certainly thank my colleagues for the support for the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Mr.
Chair, in addition to this issue, there's another issue which I have and it
relates to the bill that I didn't support, and neither did my colleagues here on
this side of the House, and that was the carbon tax, the 2.2 cents on carbon
tax.
Mr.
Chair, what we're seeing here is a bit of a sleight of hand. I know other
Members, I actually heard from a few people today already, who are not too happy
with the fact that they were under the impression they were going to get a
break, that eight cents. Now to find out, yeah, you're getting eight, but we're
taking away 2.2 cents so you're really not getting an eight-cent break at the
pump at all. Really, the carbon tax, while it gets disguised as a federal tax,
the bottom line is it goes into provincial coffers. That's the reality.
With
that said, if government truly wants to give people that eight cents break at
the pumps, as it said it did, then I think we should add that 2.2 cents onto
this bill to give that 2.2 cents back to the people.
With
that said, I'm going to move, Mr. Chair, that clause 1 of Bill 64, An Act to
Amend the Revenue Administration Act No. 6, be amended in the proposed
subsection 51(2) as follows: (a) by deleting the figure and words “$0.095 per
litre” and substituting the figure and words “$0.073 per litre”; and (b) by
deleting the figure and words “0.075 per litre” and substituting the figure and
words “$0.053 per litre.”
So
effectively what we're doing is we're taking the 2.2 cents carbon tax and we're
subtracting that from what's being proposed so that consumers get the full eight
cents off at the pumps.
CHAIR:
I thank the Member.
The
Committee will now recess to consider the said and proposed amendment.
Recess
CHAIR:
Order, please!
House
Leaders, are you all ready?
Oh, I'm
missing the Clerk. I feel pretty lonely without the Clerk.
As the
amendment represents a decrease, it is in order.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Well, thank you, Mr. Chair.
I
appreciate that. Mr. Chair, there is not much chance it is going to go through
but, at the end of the day, because you look at all of these numbers here and
you read them out, it sounds a bit confusing. But again, just for the purposes
of, I guess, the House, Hansard, those who may be listening, what is being
proposed here, basically, is that under this bill, the government is proposing
that we would remove seven cents off the provincial gas tax.
At
the same time that they are taking seven cents off the gas tax, when you add the
HST to that, that works out to more like eight cents. So for people to have
heard eight cents is coming off the price of gas, that's why. Because they are
going to take seven cents off the provincial tax, and then the effect of the HST
makes it around eight cents off a litre of gasoline.
But
at the same time that they are doing that, we just approved – they just
approved, I should say. We didn't over here; we voted against it. But they
approved a carbon tax of an additional 2.2 cents a litre. So if you had eight
cents that you are giving back but then you are going to take back another 2.2,
really you are down to 5.8 cents a litre is the actual benefit and not eight
cents.
What I have done in this amendment is I have, basically, taken that 2.2 cents
that the government is taking in carbon tax and put it back to the people so
that the people are getting the actual eight cents. That is what is being
proposed here. At the end of the day, instead of a 5.8-cent a litre break, it
would mean an eight-cent a litre which is what government actually announced.
That is what they actually announced. That is what people thought the intent
was, until they heard about the carbon tax and now realize, no, I am not even
getting eight cents.
So
if the government were to approve my amendment, we would actually get the eight
cents, not 5.8 cents. That is what I am proposing. Again, I see we have a full
house across there now so, obviously, they are all ready to vote that down –
vote down giving the people a better break.
Thank you for the time, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much.
I
don't want to repeat myself but I will say, again, we have to be very cognizant
of our financial situation in the province. We have to recognize that the carbon
tax is a separate issue altogether. I will come back to the carbon tax. We have
said in this province we will – and even this is difficult – lower our
provincial gas tax by seven cents which will make it the lowest in
the country, next to Alberta.
So I will say that this would really make sure that we are doing the best that
we can for the people of the province.
I will
remind the Member opposite that the 2.2 cents of the carbon tax was put on
gasoline back on May 1. That was when it came into effect. So when people go to
the pumps and when the Public Utilities Board does make this decrease, it would
be in the eight-cent range. So that decrease, when it comes, when we have Royal
Assent and then everything goes through, you will see the eight cents at the
pump.
I will
say, again, a combination of being financially responsible – the impact of the
Member opposite, it would be somewhere in the $15-million range. So I'll say
that. Secondly, these are two separate issues. One, the carbon tax is a
federally mandate, federally required tax, and we don't have the controls that
he thinks we do on that one. On the gasoline tax, we'll be the lowest next to
Alberta, in the country.
My third
big point is, of course, the fact that there expenses that would be incurred
here. I say to the Member opposite, we have done $222 million worth of, what I'm
going to call, cost-of-living supports to the people of the province at this
point, even though we're borrowing money.
Thank
you, Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Look, I
appreciate what the Member is saying there, but again, I just want to clarify
for the record, because she keeps saying about a federal tax that we can't
control. I understand there's an agreement with the federal government. There
would be a carbon tax imposed upon us. We came upon our own made-in-Newfoundland
solution, so to speak, what it was billed as anyway.
I
understand the feds are making us put carbon tax on fuel; we all understand
that. But the point that is getting sort of lost and convoluted in all this is
that while you may have to put the 2.2 cents on here, the money is not going to
the feds; it's going to the provincial coffers. So you can put 2.2 cents on over
on this side and you can take 2.2 cents off on the other side.
That's
what this amendment is doing; it's saying that one is going to cancel out the
other. So people get their eight cents and they're not paying the 2.2 cents in
carbon tax, which nobody in this House supported to begin with. That's the
purpose of putting in this amendment.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Any further speakers to the
proposed amendment?
The hon.
the Leader of the Third Party.
J. DINN:
I tell you, we're probably
split on it here, but I'll tell you my issue with this is that in some ways what
we're trying to do is get around the carbon tax. We've been very clear where we
stand on this, okay.
I'll
tell you the issue with it is we're going to be facing more drastic costs down
the road with climate change. If you think that two cents is costly; it is going
to be way more costly down the road. I can guarantee it; it's coming. I would
say it is already affecting us, Chair, in terms of if you look at your insurance
premiums. I can guarantee you that people who are paying on their insurance
premiums, whether it is home or auto; they're already seeing them go up.
But the
other part of it is this: we're willing to support, certainly, the decrease here
and even if we need to review it in the fall of the year. But I have an issue
with this that somehow we are trying to get around the carbon tax. That is the
message that we're sending because I'm hearing quite clearly that we all believe
that climate change is a reality; we all believe in the effects.
AN HON. MEMBER:
That's not true of everybody.
J. DINN:
Pardon me?
CHAIR:
Order, please!
Let the
Member speak.
J. DINN:
We believe in it, but, at
some point, we've got to be willing to pay for it. That is the issue here, for
me. It's great to recognize that smoking is bad for you but if you then go out
and say let's double up our smoking by two packs a day, that is not recognizing
the problem.
So all I
am saying here is that, yes, I will support the motion as it stands until
December. Let's review it then, at that point, if we have to and let's see where
we stand, and no problem. But I will tell you that right now, somehow this sort
of approach of trying to get around the carbon tax is troubling to me for all
the reasons I have laid out.
We have
called for a just transition plan. We know that in the Member for Torngat
Mountains's District, they're already facing the drastic impact of climate
change.
But I
will tell you that the more we start reducing revenue – I've still got people in
my district who are going to need services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
J. DINN:
They can't afford a car; they
can't afford to eat; they can't afford a place to live. So somewhere along the
line, the more we cut back, I can tell you, it comes down to what services we
want. That is where it is for me, simply put.
I
understand where this is coming from but I struggle with it. I will not be able
to support the amendment, but I well certainly support the main motion.
CHAIR:
Any further speakers to the amendment?
Seeing none, shall the amendment carry?
All
those in favour of the amendment?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against the amendment?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division.
CHAIR:
Division has been called.
Let's ring the bells just for a second.
House Leaders ready?
Division
CHAIR:
Order, please.
All
those in favour of the amendment, please rise.
CLERK:
David Brazil, Barry Petten, Paul Dinn, Craig Pardy,
Tony Wakeham, Chris Tibbs, Loyola O'Driscoll, Lloyd Parrott, Joedy Wall, Pleaman
Forsey, Jeff Dwyer, Paul Lane.
CHAIR:
All those against the amendment, please rise.
CLERK:
Steve Crocker, Lisa Dempster, John Haggie, Gerry Byrne,
Tom Osborne, Siobhan Coady, Pam Parsons, Sarah Stoodley, John Hogan, Bernard
Davis, Derrick Bragg, John Abbott, Brian Warr, Elvis Loveless, Krista Lynn
Howell, Paul Pike, Scott Reid, Sherry Gambin-Walsh, Lucy Stoyles, James Dinn,
Jordan Brown, Lela Evans.
Chair, the ayes: 12; the nays: 22.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
Let's
have a little tranquility.
Thank
you.
I am
pleased to advise the House that the amendment has been defeated.
Are
there any further speakers to the main bill, Bill 64?
Seeing
none, shall clause 1 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 2.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 2 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 2 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
enacting clause is carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Revenue
Administration Act No. 6.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
title is carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill
carried without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move,
seconded by the Member for St. John's Centre, that the Committee rise and report
Bill 64.
CHAIR:
It has been moved and
seconded –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
I'm just making sure I have
willing seconder, I do.
It has
been moved and seconded that the Committee rise and report Bill 64 carried
without amendment.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Off I
go, thank you.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Lake Melville and Deputy Chair of Committee of the Whole.
P. TRIMPER:
Speaker, the Committee of the
Whole reports that they have considered the matters to them referred and have
carried Bill 64 without amendment.
SPEAKER:
The Deputy Chair of Committee
of Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred
and have directed him to report Bill 64 without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
S. CROCKER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the bill be read a third time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Member for Topsail - Paradise, 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 10 a.m. tomorrow.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 10 a.m.