December
3, 2018
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 47
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR.
SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Admit strangers.
I would like to welcome the Members back to what should
be a very busy week.
Statements by Members
MR.
SPEAKER:
For
Members' statements today, we will hear from the Members for Torngat Mountains,
Bonavista, Placentia West - Bellevue and Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
EDMUNDS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to stand in this hon. House to extend
congratulations to Labrador Inuit in recognition of December 1 as Nunatsiavut
Day.
As an Inuk and a Labradorian, I am proud to take this
opportunity to inform my colleagues and residents of Newfoundland and Labrador
about the significance of Nunatsiavut Day.
The Nunatsiavut Government was established on December
1, 2005. This new government was and is mandated to act and advocate for the
cultural, social and economic best interests of the Labrador Inuit. The path to
self-governance was a long journey that involved hard work and dedication from
many people who would not give up on their dream.
The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement set out a new
regime for land ownership, resource sharing and self-government, which included
Inuit ownership of almost 16,000 square kilometres of our land referred to as
Labrador Inuit Lands, and the creation of the Torngat Mountains National Park.
I am pleased to advise this House that the most recent
amendments to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement was proclaimed into law
on this Nunatsiavut Day, being the 13th anniversary of the establishment of the
Nunatsiavut Government.
I ask all Members of this hon. House to share my pride
and join with me in recognizing Nunatsiavut Day.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Bonavista.
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm sure we'll get our monies' worth out of this
statement.
Provincial scholarships were recently announced and I
am honoured to stand here today and recognize five bright young people from the
district who were recipients. These scholarships are awarded to high achievers
who finished high school, are attending a post-secondary institution and are
based on results of public exams. Ultimately, it's the culmination of years of
hard work and dedication as it relates to their secondary education.
The Electoral District Scholarship, valued at $1,000,
is awarded to three high school graduates in each district who achieves the
highest public exam marks. In the District of Bonavista Ryan Connors of St.
Mark's School, who had the highest marks, Brianna Hiscock and Riley Cotter of
Discovery Collegiate were the recipients.
The Centenary of Responsible Government Scholarships,
also valued at $1,000, is awarded to 79 students with the highest marks – other
than the Junior Jubilee, W.C. Moss and the Electoral District Scholarships.
In the District of Bonavista, Tyler Hiscock of Bishop
White School, Noah Harris and Kaylee Tremblett of Discovery Collegiate were the
recipients.
I ask that you join me in congratulating them and
wishing them success in the future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR.
BROWNE:
Mr.
Speaker, “thank you” – words we use every day to show our gratitude for acts of
courtesy or kindness. Words Canada's most talented roster of figure skaters felt
compelled to say to all Canadians to show their appreciation for our support
during the Pyeongchang Olympics.
Just last weekend, Olympic medalists including Tessa
Virtue, Scott Moir, Patrick Chan and many more, and yes, Mr. Speaker, including
Marystown's own Kaetlyn Osmond performed to sold-out crowds at Mile One Centre.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
BROWNE:
I
can confirm to Members of the House that Kaetlyn got the first standing ovation
of the evening and sustained the most applause. There is no doubt that the
thousands of spectators present showed her fellow Olympians that her greatest
support comes from right here on the Rock.
Countless young figure skaters attended the show, in
awe of the Olympic performances, with a gleam in their eye towards the future,
thinking perhaps one day it could be them.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in
congratulating this elite group of athletes on their successful cross Canada
tour. And join me in assuring them the “thank you” is mutual. We also thank them
for the wonderful way they represented Canada in Korea, and I'm sure they will
understand if we reserve our biggest thank you to our very own Kaetlyn Osmond.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today to recognize a group who are based out of
my district but do work on an international level. I speak of the Trail of the
Caribou Research Group. Recently, I had the privilege to attend the group's
first fundraising gala dinner at Legion Branch 56 here in the city.
All in attendance were entertained by the Royal
Newfoundland Regiment Band and Master of Ceremonies Peter Noel. It was great to
see the sold-out event attended by members of all branches of the military,
including the commander of 5 Wing Goose Bay, along with members of the general
public and yourself, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I know you will agree that the highlight
of the night was when the organization's president, Retired Major Michael
Pretty, took the podium to outline in what he said would be 10 minutes or less
about the work of the group around the world.
What transpired for the next 30 minutes was an
emotional, historic journey of what the young men of the Newfoundland Regiment
and their families endured 100 years ago to defend our freedom. For those 30
minutes, you could hear a pin drop. Due to the work of this group, they
discovered the sacrifices made and the everlasting effects that they have had on
our province.
Their endeavours to find all the resting places of
fallen Newfoundland Regiment soldiers and recognizing them with a ceremony and
headstone has taken them to three continents, 18 countries and 450 cemeteries,
serves as a testament to the dedication this group of volunteers has for
acknowledging the importance of preserving our history and paying homage to
those who served in the Great War. As their motto says, “Every Story Is
Important.”
I ask all Members of this House to congratulate and
thank the Trail of the Caribou Research Group for preserving our history.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Tacora
Resources on the restart of the Scully Mine.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS.
COADY:
This is great news for Labrador West, and indeed the entire province.
The restart of the mine has been a collaborative effort
of Tacora, different levels of government, labour and many others. I want to
recognize and thank the Member for Labrador West. In fact, our government has
been working toward the reopening of the mine in Wabush since 2016. I'd like to
thank officials within the provincial government and, in particular, those
within Natural Resources, who have diligently on this project to ensure success.
Mr. Speaker, that success means good, well-paying,
long-term jobs will be returning to a vital mining region. Approximately 260
positions are directly associated with site operations which will produce some 6
million tons of concentrate annually when fully ramped up.
As a province, we have initiated
The Way Forward on Mineral Development – Mining the Future 2030: A Plan
for Growth in the Newfoundland and Labrador Mining Industry. The restart of
Scully Mine demonstrates the many benefits mining brings to the province as we
work to achieve our Mining the Future
goals.
We welcome Tacora to the region and we hope for a long,
safe and prosperous future for the company, its workers and indeed the
community.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of her
statement. On this side, the restart of Scully Mine is certainly good news, both
for the residents of Labrador West and for the entire province.
The mining industry in this province currently employs
approximately 4,800 people, and with the restart of the mine our understanding
is another 260 positions are expected. The restart of the mine will not only
bring those jobs into the region, but the economic spinoffs from small business
related to the mine will support the entire economy of Lab West.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that this is the start of more good
news and a time of continued growth for the mining industry in our Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy. The
restarting of the mine is great news, obviously, for the workers and
communities. However, what happened to the workers when the mine shut down in
2016 should never be allowed to happen again, where jobs and pensions were lost
and people's lives devastated.
In federal law, workers are the last to receive what is
due them in a shutdown. The province should be pushing the federal government to
change that law and place workers at the top of that list.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further statements by ministers?
The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Status of
Persons with Disabilities.
MS.
DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to recognize December 3 as International
Day of Persons with Disabilities. This day is celebrated internationally to
promote the rights and well-being of persons with disabilities.
This morning, with the Coalition of Persons with
Disabilities, I signed a proclamation to commemorate this day and promote
awareness of the value of diversity in our society. I also participated in a
ceremony at Government House to celebrate the inclusion of persons with
disabilities both here and around the world.
This year's theme, Empowering Persons with Disabilities
and Ensuring Inclusiveness and Equity, also focuses on the United Nations'
pledge to 'leave no one behind.”
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to continue our government's
work to promote inclusiveness, equality and diversity throughout Newfoundland
and Labrador.
We will continue working with advocates and
stakeholders to remove barriers, creating environments that promote greater
participation in our communities, and equitable access to employment
opportunities and public services. In fact, work is well underway with our
partners on the development of new, inclusion-based accessibility legislation.
Diversity and inclusion are achieved when we uphold the
value and dignity of all individuals. As Robert M. Hensel, a well-known advocate
for the community of persons with disabilities said: “Know me for my abilities,
not my disability.”
Mr. Speaker, I ask my hon. colleagues and all citizens
in this province to join me in recognizing International Day of Persons with
Disabilities and striving to make Newfoundland and Labrador a more inclusive
province for all people.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS.
PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of her
statement. On behalf of the Official Opposition, I, too, would like to recognize
today as the International Day of Persons with Disabilities.
The theme, Empowering Persons with Disabilities and
Ensuring Inclusiveness and Equity, reflects the diligence and hard work of the
many advocates who fight each and every day to ensure that all persons,
regardless of the challenges they may face, have access to all services,
buildings and to the whole of society.
Mr. Speaker, the minister referenced the development of
new, inclusion-based accessibility legislation. I look forward to debating that
in this House and hope that it will be brought forward early in the next session
for our review.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for the statement. Obviously, I'm
very happy to join with her and my colleague from the Official Opposition in
recognizing this day. It would have been nice, though, if the minister had
explained what she means by well underway in reference to the new inclusion
legislation, which has been promised for a number of years now.
But since it's still being written, I encourage the
minister to make sure that the legislation crosses all departments because we
know that our education system right now still has serious problems with
inclusion that need attention.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further statements by ministers?
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
Mr.
Speaker, I trust the front benches have returned refreshed after their week's
break from the legislative session.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
CROSBIE:
Very entertaining, Sir.
We were told this morning of a serious error with the
provincial electronic medical record program. May I ask the minister how the
error was discovered?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
It is a serious issue – one we have taken seriously.
The important message, I think, is that there has been no evidence of any harm
to any individual as a result of this error. However, Eastern Health have been
tasked to fact check that with a case-by-case review of each of those reports.
The problem came to light when one of physicians here
who is an EMR user highlighted the fact that an expected result had not appeared
in his chart.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
Can
the minister just clarify when this came to light then?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
The single incident was notified to TELUS, as far as
I'm aware, at the end of October. It was only around the 14th or 15th of
November that TELUS contacted NLCHI to say this was not an isolated problem. And
then there were some back-and-to to get the required data to scope out the
magnitude of the problem. That became apparent on the 27th.
On the 28th, all the ordering clinicians were advised
of the problem, and asked to contact their patients on a case-by-case basis. As
of this morning, Mr. Speaker, the individual patients have been notified by
courier.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
Mr.
Speaker, the minister has enlightened us as to the timing of the discovery of
the issue. It was also put out in a briefing this morning that 615 patients may
not have received medical results in a timely manner.
Given the 12-month period, over which this error may
have occurred, how confident is the minister that no other patients are
impacted?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
I
met with senior vice-president from TELUS Health this morning, and I would say
it was a fairly open and frank discussion. The bottom line is that, as of this
week, there is now a mechanism in place. We know what leaves our electronic
system and TELUS will now be telling us, on a daily basis, at least, what goes
into their system. If there is gap between the two, an investigation will occur
on that day. As far as this is concerned, there are at least two other methods
and, in critical incidents, these three others methods of physicians accessing
those reports.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
I
understand the minister to be telling the House that this is being used as a
learning opportunity, and that safeguards are being put in place to make sure it
doesn't happen again, or to minimize the possibility.
Can I ask the minister: Was the NLMA made aware of this
error prior to the news conference this morning, and what reaction, if any, have
they given?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
The electronic medical record is co-managed by an
oversight committee, which consists of the Department of Health, the
Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information and the Newfoundland and
Labrador Medical Association. They knew when we knew. They have been fully
supportive of government's approach, and given their CEO's past history as
director and lead on the provincial Task Force on Adverse Health Events, they
have supported us in our endeavours with TELUS Health.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
I
thank the minister for the reply.
Can he tell the House what his level of confidence is
that the measures put in place will prevent this kind of incident happening
again?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
I'm
not going down the P50, P70 or P80 level of certainty, Mr. Speaker. That would
be most unwise. It's happened before and tripped people up.
What I can say is, there is a daily reconciliation
process between the information that leaves our systems, which physicians had
access to, independent of TELUS' software, and there will be a second
information back on a daily basis from TELUS and we can compare those lists
through an algorithm, any errors will pop up on a daily basis. There is never a
foolproof system. This is, at the moment, better than in any other jurisdiction.
For the Member opposite, there are four other
jurisdictions affected by this issue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
I
thank the minister for that response.
There is a different level of care required when taking
concern about money versus taking concern about human life and health.
Have there been any other issues with the software
involving this record system?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
There are no other issues that either TELUS, the NLMA
and the oversight committee or ourselves are aware of currently. For context,
over the period of time that TELUS have discovered this error, 1.5 million items
of data went through this system and only 600-and-odd patients had a problem.
That is a small percentage; it is not an acceptable
percentage but I think it speaks to the volume of work that this system does. We
have a reconciliation process in place. We had paper backup, we had electronic
backup for all of these results and critical clinic results were phoned directly
to the ordering clinician.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
I
thank the minister and would switch focus now, at this stage.
It's been 17 days since the SeaRose FPSO reported an
oil spill due to a problem with a valve. The SeaRose has not yet resumed
production.
I would ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Have
there been any other problems identified in addition to the valve and,
specifically, what issues are delaying resumption?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is indeed correct, there had been some time even
since the NIOSH oil sheen has been seen or even any wildlife impacts. Mr.
Speaker, there is an investigation that is ongoing. There is a full review of
the flow line. If you recall, I did indicate that it was a weak link on the flow
line that had an issue. There has been some investigation of that flow line.
Those investigations are continuing. There is going to be a continued, thorough
analysis before any start-up of the White Rose is undertaken, Mr. Speaker.
I know that all concerned, the C-NLOPB, as well as
Husky, the operator, are doing all that needs to be done in order to ensure the
safety in environmental protection.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
I
thank the minister for those assurances, but I would ask her: Is there an update
that she can provide on the environmental impact of the spill and any associated
cleanup efforts?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
Well, Mr. Speaker, as I've indicated, there has been no sheen seen on the water
for quite some time, I think it was November 18, and no further impact on
wildlife since a few days after that. However, vessels are still monitoring.
They're still out there surveilling. That is continuing. There has been some
water monitoring as well for the depths of the ocean to see if there has been
any impact. Those are continuing.
So, there is no ongoing cleanup because they haven't
found any further sheen at this point, Mr. Speaker. However, diligence is still
ongoing. There are still observers out there for wildlife and there are still
vessels on the water. It is now switched to really looking at what the root
cause is and ensuring that we have taken every precaution.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
We're told that over 250,000 litres of oil were spilled in the marine
environment. Two weeks ago, the Minister of Fisheries said that the situation
was being monitored and that he would have better information in coming days.
So, I ask that minister, what is his assessment of the
impact of the spill on our offshore and inshore fish stocks?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR.
BYRNE:
Mr.
Speaker, we always monitor. We work with the federal government. We work with
the federal administrators, those responsible for protecting the marine
environments of our shores, off our shores. We will take nothing lightly when it
comes to this, but we also have assurance that the methods and procedures are in
place to continue to monitor this.
This has been a pledge by the Department of Fisheries
and Oceans and we will ensure that that work is done. Obviously, it is early in
the process but work is already underway.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
Yesterday, the Terra Nova FPSO was given the green light to resume production.
Has the Minister of Natural Resources been provided with a plan and a target
date for resumption of production?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is an important question because there has been an
abundance of caution here. There are similar valves on the Terra Nova that there
are on the White Rose, so there was an abundance of caution.
I can tell you that they have brought in remote
operated vehicles to check the flow lines. They have been in touch with a
manufacturer of the links. They have brought in whatever was required to ensure
the diligence of making sure the equipment was operational.
There was a slow start-up starting yesterday, and I can
advise the House that at this point there is nothing to report. I believe
operations are ongoing and they will soon resume production, but they have
started that process.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In a recent briefing, it was indicated that the carbon
tax on residents of this province will result in approximately $62 million in
annual revenue.
I ask the minister: Is all of this directed to general
revenue?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, the carbon revenue will be directed to general
revenue. There's approximately a million dollars a quarter to the consumers of
this province. The majority of revenue, which I'll get the final numbers on, I
think that might be a little bit high, but the remainder of it is industry, the
offshore and other industry.
I think it's important, again, to note that in working
with the federal government and the plan that we put forward has the interests
of the consumers of this province, and our industry in this province, in mind.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So just to clarify, is the minister saying it's $4
million a quarter, so that's $60 million a year? We were told in the briefing
there was $61.8 million to be collected.
Could he clarify what that amount is?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Through the gas tax, Mr. Speaker, the amount on gasoline and on diesel, what the
consumers in this province will pay, it's about $1 million a quarter in 2019-20.
There is also revenue from the offshore, production
platforms and other industry in this province, but directly to the consumer in
this province, what they pay in gasoline and in diesel and so on, in 2019-20
it's about $1 million a quarter. There is other revenue from industry.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
My
understanding is the revenue from industry is coming from those on site and
offshore site facilities over 20,000 tons of emissions.
Does the minister have a number of what's expected to
be collected in the fund for those facilities, based on being over 25,000
emissions standard?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Some of this is under the green energy fund, through
the federal government, Mr. Speaker. Some of it is industry, some of it is
offshore production, the other industries in the province that are considered
emitters.
Mr. Speaker, the Member asked about monies going into
general revenue. It's important to note that the largest tax put in place on the
people of this province is Muskrat Falls. So this province is working to
mitigate those rates. So make no mistake that any revenue that's generated as a
result of the carbon pricing system in this province will be going to help the
people of this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So we'll see where this is going in terms of reducing
emissions and assisting people of the province.
I ask the Minister of Environment: What GHG reduction
emission targets are set in this province's climate change action plan? Have you
updated the plan?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR.
LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the Minister of Finance has said, we've put in place
a carbon pricing plan that reflects the realities of this province, and
certainly protects the people of this province, as well as industry, to allow
them to remain competitive.
As for the industry, we put in guidelines and we've put
in targets for them to reach. The first year would be a 6 per cent reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions; to go up by 2 per cent for each of the next four years
until we get to the 12 per cent range that, whereby, industry will be expected
to reduce their greenhouse gases to protect the environment and to allow them to
remain competitive in a worldwide industry.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So they're bringing in a carbon tax. So I ask the
minister: Obviously, this is broader scale in terms of the climate change action
plan. So have you updated the climate change action plan for the province in
relation to your new carbon tax? Surely you must've.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR.
LETTO:
To
put it in one word, Mr. Speaker, absolutely. Because what we've done in the
carbon pricing plan will inform us in developing a climate change plan that we
will have in effect in the next few weeks. But, certainly, it's very important
that we have the carbon pricing plan in place. The bills that we are discussing
today will also inform us and will allow us to move forward with our carbon
pricing plan.
Yes, the carbon pricing plan will be a major component
in development of our climate change plan, that we know will protect industry
and, at the same time, protect the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
He can clarify it, but I thought he said they haven't
updated their climate change action plan, but the carbon tax is going to flow in
that at some point in time. So they haven't updated it, but they're bringing in
a carbon tax.
Starting in a few weeks the government will be
collecting, as we were told, approximately $62 million annually for
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for a carbon tax.
I ask the Minister of Environment: Can you tell how
much of this revenue will reduce GHG emissions in our province? What's the
number?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR.
LETTO:
Mr.
Speaker, we have a carbon price plan in place that's really a
made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador plan. If we didn't go with that, we would have
been levied or forced to accept a backstop from the federal government that
would cost the people of this province four times as much.
So we think our plan really addresses the greenhouse
gas emissions, will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and, at the same time, will
protect the taxpayers of this province so we're not overburdened with another
tax that's going to affect the people of this province.
Mr. Speaker, we don't know what the number is at this
point, but certainly, as we move forward, that's something that we will be
monitoring very closely, but we know that we have a plan in place (inaudible).
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, that's interesting. They're bringing in a carbon
tax of about $62 million they're going to collect, but the minister can't tell
us how that, in any way, is going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
He did reference a Liberal plan, so I'll ask him this:
In 2019, the Liberal federal carbon tax is based on $20 per ton. We went with
our own plan. So what is the minimal federal requirement for GHG emissions for
2019? So we're comparing that to our plan. What's the requirement for GHG for
the federal plan?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR.
LETTO:
Mr.
Speaker, we have the same targets in place to reduce greenhouse gases. How we do
that is outlined in our plan, the Newfoundland and Labrador plan. We can't help
that former Prime Minister Mulrooney put in the targets. But we're going to
adhere to those targets and we feel –
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Harper.
MR.
LETTO:
Mr.
Harper. What did I say?
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Mulrooney.
MR.
LETTO:
Harper. I'm confused.
Anyway, by Prime Minister Harper. Mr. Speaker, what we
do know is that the greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced by the plan that we
have put in place. Whether it's through the carbon pricing or through the
performance-based system that we put in place for big industry.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thought the opposite Member was going to say Prime
Minister Diefenbaker, he went back so far, Mr. Speaker. I'm not sure where he
was referring to in terms of the prime minister.
Basically what we have, he's saying you're collecting
the $62 million to reduce gas emissions, despite the federal government having
not given a specific target. So there's no target there, but he referenced
targets. So in absence of that, they've gone with a provincial plan.
So I ask him – he said there are targets – what are the
provincial emissions reduction targets for 2019? You must have them; you said
you had targets.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR.
LETTO:
Mr.
Speaker, first of all, I apologize I never got the prime minister's name right.
That's immaterial, I think, when it comes to the topic that we're dealing with
because what we're dealing with is a very, very serious issue. It's the
reduction of greenhouse gases.
We put targets in place that large industry have bought
into. They are pleased with our plan and that plan will see the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions by 6 per cent in 2019-2020; 2020-2021 we'll be 8 per
cent; the year after that it will be 10 per cent; and finally, in 2022, the
greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced by 12 per cent.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
He still can't tell us what the targets are going to be
and how this money is going to ensure that those targets are met, Mr. Speaker.
There's a lot of information lacking in the legislation
from baseline targets for facilities; performance credits have not been
established; contributions of the greenhouse gas reduction fund not established;
sector-wise performance not established; facilities that want to opt into
performance standards hasn't been identified.
Minister, you're jamming all this in to January 1 with
no regulations, too many unknowns exist. Shouldn't you agree that this should be
delayed and even shouldn't go in at all because it's just a tax grab on the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR.
LETTO:
Mr.
Speaker, one of the things that we've kept in mind developing our carbon price
plan is that we wouldn't be gouging the people of this province.
The Member knows full well what taxes will be levied
because of this plan. We're going to remove the gas tax and replace it with a
carbon tax and that's .37, I think. On a 60 litre of gas, by the way, if anybody
is going to go – to put it into perspective and put it into money figures so
that people understand, on a 60-litre tank full of gas, they'll be paying 25
cents more than they are today.
Mr. Speaker, that is a good plan. That's a plan that
meets the needs of the people and addresses the greenhouse gas emissions.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS.
PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On November 22, WestJet announced the cancellation of
their St. John's-Dublin flight.
I ask the minister. When did you become aware of this?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly, we're very disappointed that WestJet has
decided to cancel its flight to Dublin. I had actually travelled to China and I
met with WestJet executives while I was there. They had indicated at that time
that the flight was performing well. We had met with our partners, the Airport
Authority, the City of St. John's, Destination St. John's and others, and
highlighted that we would work with WestJet to enhance a marketing plan. We had
upwards of $800,000 on the table to fully market this connected flight to
Dublin. It's a direct flight.
I took the flight recently, Mr. Speaker, and I want to
say that it's certainly very important for us to have connectivity and air
access. We're meeting with our partners in the airline industry on a regular
basis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Order, please!
I do remind all Members, thoughts are becoming chirps
and chirps are starting to sound like heckling, so watch out. That's a warning.
The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS.
PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister, you referenced talking with WestJet in China
but when you had your meeting, were there any discussions about this particular
flight? And have you also had discussions with the Irish ambassador, the Airport
Authority or other stakeholders in advance of WestJet's announcement?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to say that I did meet with executives and had
conversation when I was in China back in June. And the indications were that
this flight was going to continue at this particular time.
We have continued to meet with our partners and have
stakeholder meetings for months. I had taken a personal holiday to Ireland, but
I had met with a number of people in Ireland while I was there and highlighted
this direct link, and, being an ambassador for promoting the Irish-Newfoundland
connections, that's what we do. We continue to do so.
I met with the Irish ambassador. We talked about how
important connectivity is. In continuing to have the conversation with other
airline partners, with WestJet, I will continue to meet with them. I have a
meeting scheduled with them, Mr. Speaker, and we'll have those conversations.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS.
PERRY:
We
have heard that the Nova Scotia government has given a significant amount of
funding to Halifax airport in support of the Halifax-Dublin flight.
Minister, are you aware of this, and what did you do to
try and promote Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm certainly aware that Halifax has a significant
funding through their Airport Authority in upwards of $10 million to support and
attract air access. One of the incentives that can be provided is you can buy
airline flights. You can actually pay for empty seats if you want to pay for
that access. That's one mix that you can do, and that can be an incentive that
maybe the Halifax airport is doing.
We work with our partners. We work on promotions. We do
a variety of things that we can do to attract air access, direct air access to
our airports whether it be St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, or Deer Lake,
or Gander, or looking at all airport connectivity because it is so important for
business and tourism for our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I look
forward to continuing to have those conversations with all of our partners.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS.
ROGERS:
Mr.
Speaker, government sat idly by while a multinational company tried and failed
to break the union at D-J Composites. After almost two years locked out in a
labour dispute – two years, Mr. Speaker – today, the workers of D-J Composites
have a new collective agreement – no thanks to this government, who refused to
stand up for the workers of this province in their fight against a multinational
corporation.
I ask the Premier: To protect workers in the future,
will he now implement Recommendation 5 of the 2010 Industrial Inquiry and amend
the Labour Relations Act to provide
for a process for the imposition of a new collective agreement when a prolonged
strike or lockout has been ineffective in bringing about a resolution?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, for the Leader of the Third Party, I would say no
one stood idly by. There was a number of people that were involved in this in
terms of mediation and so on. When the union reached out to me, and others did
as well, we got involved in this to try and bring the two parties together.
As the Member opposite would know, through a PMR that
was done in this House of Assembly, that I think you supported, there's work
ongoing now actually in the future on how we can prevent a long labour dispute
such as this.
We were involved, and I think if you speak to the
workers and you speak to the union – I actually visited that line myself. I'm
not sure if you were there or not. I also did meet with the company themselves
to get the two of them back to the table. They agreed to do so because there was
an arbitration mechanism within their own agreement.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS.
ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, but it was almost two years before the Premier
did do that.
In his 2010 Industrial Inquiry Commission, John Roil
noted replacement workers aggravate and prolong labour disputes.
I ask the Premier: Will he now show he supports workers
in this province by enacting legislation banning the use of temporary
replacement workers during a strike or a lockout?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister for Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR.
DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We're very pleased, as the Premier mentioned earlier,
that D-J Composites are going back to work and negotiating the back-to-work
process for that.
But what we're more happy about here right now is that,
based on a private Member's resolution that came forward to this House and
passed unanimously by this House, we've gone out to try to get a terms of
reference for this process, placed out to hearing views of unions, employers,
all Newfoundlanders. We're moving on that process, and we should stay tuned
because, in the new year, we're going to be having that process come out.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
The locked-out workers of D-J Composites have had to
make big sacrifices to win economic justice. All along government claimed it
wanted to stay neutral, not picking sides in the dispute. No doubt, this
prolonged the dispute unnecessarily.
I ask the Premier: Now that this particular dispute is
over, can he explain why he chose not to stand up for workers in this province
when they made specific requests?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR.
DAVIS:
Mr.
Speaker, government must ensure that there's a balance between the needs of the
worker and the needs of the employers. It's very, very important that that
balance is struck. A negotiated deal is much better than a forced deal.
From our perspective, we're listening to this process –
in the new year, we're going to hear from the trade unions, the employers, the
workers and all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on this very topic. We're going
to hopefully move forward on some recommendations based on what we hear in those
consultations. That's exactly what you would do in this case, and that's what
we've done, to make sure we hear from all sides to get the best results.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I point out to the minister that, if he remembers
correctly, we had a corporation that was ruled as acting unjustly.
I ask the Premier: Will he finally show workers in this
province he is on their side and enact laws that protect them so no worker ever
again has to suffer like these workers did?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR.
DAVIS:
Mr.
Speaker, I thank you for the question. That's exactly what we're doing. That's
why we started this process to make sure we look at the legislation, hear from
all sides in the process and making sure we have the best information.
We have to have the best information in order to make
the best decisions. That's what we're doing in this government. That's what
we've always done and that's what we're going to continue to do.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The time for Oral Questions is ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill
entitled, An Act Respecting A Pension Plan For Teachers, Bill 45.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Further notices of motion?
The hon. the Minister of Service NL.
MS.
GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr.
Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An
Act To Amend The Marriage Act, Bill 46.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further notices of motion?
The hon. the Parliamentary Secretary of Tourism,
Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR.
BROWNE:
Mr.
Speaker, I move the following private Member's resolution, seconded by the
Member for Bonavista:
WHEREAS impaired driving is the number one cause of
criminal deaths in Canada every year;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House urge the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to support a public awareness campaign
to encourage the public not to drive impaired.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 63(3), the private Member's
resolution just entered shall be the one to be debated this Wednesday.
Further, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask
leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Supreme Court In The
Province, Bill 47.
Further, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 11(1),
I hereby give notice that this House shall not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday,
November 4.
Further, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 11(1),
I hereby give notice that this House shall not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday,
November 6.
Thank you.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
December.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
December, sorry.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Okay, we're good?
Further notices of motion?
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is basically a document that I would like to
table. I missed Tabling of Documents but, on the 22nd, the Leader of the
Official Opposition asked for the update to the cannabis contract. I have the
timelines here. I can read that out under Answers to Questions – I did provide
it after, but I'd like to table this for the House.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further answers to questions for which notice has been
given?
Petitions.
Petitions
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR.
PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the
undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS many students within our province depend on the
school busing for transportation to and from school each day; and
WHEREAS there are many parents of school-aged children
throughout our province who live inside the Eastern School District's 1.6
kilometre zone, therefore do not qualify for busing; and
WHEREAS policy cannot override the safety of our
children;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to eliminate the
1.6-kilometre policy for all elementary schools in the province and in junior
and senior high schools where safety is a primary concern.
And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I continue to present these petitions on a
weekly basis – sometimes daily. I have a lot of them. I have a lot of concerned
parents out there who are really concerned for the safety of their children.
They're not caught up in the cost of school busing because, like I said, cost
should not override the safety of our children no matter what.
It's a very fair petition because we're targeting
elementary schools, where our most vulnerable children go, your K to six which
you're looking at probably five- to 10-year-olds, 10- or 11-year-olds. They are
the ones that, as a parent, you don't want them walking the streets. I know my
district and a lot of other districts, some of the roads there are no sidewalks,
high traffic areas.
You just wouldn't do it as a parent. Unfortunately,
some parents are put in a situation. They have no other way to get their
children to school, whether they walk from there. Then there are family
situations, single parents, small child at home, it puts a lot of stress on
every family.
This petition is not new to this House. We've put
private Members' motions and my colleagues have petitioned. As recently as last
week, we had a public meeting actually in my district and the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island and myself attended. It was a decent turnout
and parents voiced their concerns. It was all about they wanted to have a public
meeting, Mr. Speaker. We obliged, thought it was a good idea to give them an
opportunity to come to voice their concerns, to give possible solutions, to tell
their story. Sometimes that's a lot of what it is, Mr. Speaker, they want to
have their story told. They're concerned. They have legitimate concerns.
We listened. We told them what we've been doing, we
hear their concerns and we said we would keep the petitions that they filled out
at that meeting, plus I have others, and there is more coming. We said we'd keep
their issue alive. It's a very important issue. We should never lose sight of
it. It happened in September, now we're in December, keep it going because, most
years, in September month after children go back to school, parents
self-admitted, too, they died off on the issue and they made other arrangements,
as hard as it might have been, and hope for the best for next year.
This time around, they've made it clear they're not
giving up on this. They want us to keep fighting it. We've committed to do that
as a caucus, as a party, and we're going to continue at that, Mr. Speaker, every
opportunity we get until we see some change.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm the alternate for the Minister of Education, and
it's in that capacity that I'm rising today. I thank the Member. I've listened
to him in the House on many occasions bringing this very important issue
forward, and I did want to make sure that the people of the province did know
that the government has given guidelines to ensure that buses may stop as a
courtesy stop within the 1.6 kilometres. We've given that guideline to the
school board, Mr. Speaker, and they are making provisions, where possible, to do
that.
The 1.6 kilometre has been around for quite some time –
decades in fact. The Member opposite would know it's a very important issue.
Safety is paramount; we all know that. It is generally used across the country.
If you do a jurisdictional scan, 1.6 is used across the country, including a lot
of rural areas. I'm using Ontario here; Alberta is actually longer, Mr. Speaker.
So, I think it is an important issue. I know the
minister is consumed with this. I know they've had many, many discussions. I
think, as we move forward, I just want the people of the province to know this
is an important issue for government.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you for the response.
Further petitions?
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At a time when the people of Newfoundland and Labrador
are dealing with high levels of taxation, increased unemployment rates,
increased food bank usage, increased bankruptcies and many are being forced to
choose between food, heat and medications,
Newfoundland Power and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro are continuing to seek
numerous power rate increases through the Public Utilities Board.
Once the Muskrat Falls Project comes
online, these rates are predicted to further increase significantly to
unmanageable levels for the average citizen of our province. While government
has indicated that they are working with Nalcor to mitigate these rates, they've
provided no detailed plan as how they intend to do so.
Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: To urge the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to publicly provide all the potential
options for rate mitigation and develop a comprehensive, detailed plan to deal
with current and impending power rate increases. This plan is to be provided to
the public as soon as possible to allow for scrutiny, feedback and potential
suggestions for improvement.
Mr. Speaker, I've presented this now several times, and I will be presenting it
several more times. Today, we have signatures from the Southern Shore area,
actually. I won't list off all of the communities, but all along the Southern
Shore. There were a lot of people, all across Newfoundland and Labrador, that
have this same concern. I think the petition is –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. LANE: – pretty self-explanatory. People
are concerned, and they're glad that the government said that they're going to
be putting plans in place to mitigate rates, but they would like to know what
those plans are.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to make mention that a lot of what we're talking about
here is coming out of Nalcor, and there continues to be concerns. As we listen
to the inquiry, it's absolutely shocking, to say the very least. I certainly say
to the Premier, I say to the minister, it's time to get some accountability at
Nalcor. It's time to make changes to the
Energy Corporation Act, which you made a minor change in legislation this
spring. It went nowhere; they still didn't give us the information. You've said
you've committed to a further change to get more information out there. It
hasn't happened yet. That needs to happen. People at Nalcor have to be held
accountable.
I'm absolutely shocked, as I said, of what I'm seeing out the inquiry. I can't
believe that there haven't been pink slips handed out in some cases, based on
what we've been hearing. I certainly would say to the minister, to the
government, that we need to have accountability at Nalcor; we need to find out
what's going on there.
We had issues going back as far as DarkNL when they couldn't even keep the
lights on, Mr. Speaker. They couldn't even manage to keep the lights on, which
was their core mandate, and we found that they didn't do basic maintenance. Not
only was there nobody fired, but everybody got their corporate bonuses, which
was absolutely amazing. We never got any answers to that either.
We never got any answers from other questions that were raised by the former
chair of the board talking about conflict of interest. Never did found out what
that was all about. So, Mr. Speaker, time for some accountability at Nalcor.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources for a response.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think there was a pink slip given out. It was given
out to the government of the day that approved the Muskrat Falls Project.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS.
COADY:
Mr.
Speaker, I will say this, it is shocking and unbelievable what's coming out of
the inquiry.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS.
COADY:
Since we've come in to this government we've actually been able to take that
project –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Please proceed, Minister.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you.
We have been able to take that project and at least put
it on a path where we're not seeing continuous increases in costs or time
schedule slippage.
All that being said, Mr. Speaker, the project – and we
all know the Muskrat Falls Project will have a devastating impact, or could have
a devastating impact if not for this government who are working very diligently
to have a plan so that the costs are not borne 100 per cent by taxpayers,
because that's what the former government actually put in place.
So we are working toward that end. We are working
toward making sure that we have a plan. The plan is required for 2021, when we
do take power from Muskrat Falls. I can assure the Member opposite and the
people of this province, we will have a plan that will see us through this mess.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further petitions?
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR.
LESTER:
Mr.
Speaker, the 15 per cent retail sales tax on insurance premiums that the
provincial government imposed in 2016 has significantly increased the cost of
insurance.
Therefore, we, the undersigned, call upon the House of
Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador not to reduce, but
to eliminate the 15 per cent retail sales tax on insurance.
Mr. Speaker, as you are well aware, if you drive a
motor vehicle on a road of any sort in this province, it is a legal requirement
to have insurance. Therefore, anybody who uses their vehicle to travel back and
forth to their employment or to medical appointments or even to visit family and
friends must, therefore, have insurance on their vehicles. In some cases, this
has put insurance out of reach of a lot of our citizens within the province.
We're hearing reports now that there are more uninsured
vehicles on the road now than ever. This has only come about – 15 per cent
extra, it doesn't sound a lot when you look at 15 per cent. But when you're
looking at $10,000 or maybe $20,000 for insurance, that's a big, big cost.
That's something that we have to look at. If people are
not travelling, if people are not going to work, they're not spending money in
the economy, they're not spending money in our communities and that's all having
a ripple effect. It's not even ripple anymore, it's a tidal effect. We're seeing
small businesses close up all over the place, and it seems like the only
announcements we can get are announcements that are driven by world commodity
prices.
What about small- to medium-sized businesses? They're
also affected by that 15 per cent that could be spent in their business.
Instead, we're having to spend it on a retail tax on insurance.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon. the Minister of Service NL for a response,
please.
MS.
GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr.
Speaker, as the Member opposite is well aware, there is an ongoing insurance
review and I'm awaiting the response from the PUB.
However, the Member just indicated that there were more
uninsured drivers on the road today than ever before. I would love to see where
he got those statistics, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Orders of the Days, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day, Sir.
Orders of the Day
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, I would call from the Order Paper, third reading of Bill 40.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Children, Seniors and
Social Development, that Bill 40, An Act To Amend The Housing Corporation Act,
be now read a third time.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against?
The motion is carried.
CLERK (Barnes):
A
bill, An Act To Amend The Housing Corporation Act. (Bill 40)
MR.
SPEAKER:
This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and
its title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The
Housing Corporation Act,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as
on the Order Paper. (Bill 40)
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Children, Seniors and
Social Development, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting A
Pension Plan For Teachers, Bill 45, and I further move that the said bill be now
read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that the
hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and
Social Development shall have leave to
introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting A Pension Plan For Teachers, Bill
45, and that the said bill be now read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against?
The motion is carried.
Motion, the
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a
bill, “An Act Respecting A Pension Plan For Teachers,” carried. (Bill 45)
CLERK:
A
bill, An Act Respecting A Pension Plan For Teachers. (Bill 45)
MR.
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a first time.
When shall the said bill be read a second time?
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 45 read a first time, ordered read a
second time on tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Motion 4.
I move, pursuant to Standing Order 11(1), that the
House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, December 3, 2018.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
All in favour of that motion, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against?
The motion is carried.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to call from the Order Paper, Order 1, Address in
Reply.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Address in Reply.
The hon. the Member for Bonavista.
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just want to take this opportunity to get up and
recognize some great things that are going on in the District of Bonavista.
Recently, on Saturday evening, we had the Christmas tree lighting in Bonavista.
What an excellent turnout that we had for this time of the year. We also have it
this evening in the municipality of Trinity Bay North. With the season upon us,
it's about giving. I said in my speech on Saturday night, much like Canadian
Tire, this season is about save like Scrooge and give like Santa.
I just wanted to make an appeal to the people in my
district to give to the fourth annual toy drive that I host every year. We've
been doing it for a number of years. I partner with local charities and
organizations that distribute the toys, so I want to make that out to the
public. I know there's a video and on Facebook asking for that. I encourage all
people to get out and certainly do that.
Also, I'd like to reflect on the year that we've had in
the District of Bonavista. It's been a very positive year, Mr. Speaker. Tourism
numbers are up through the roof. I was –
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR.
KING:
– a
great announcement – I'll get to that, thank you for the idea.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to get up and talk a little bit
about the tourism industry that seems to be on its wheels. I was at a Chamber of
Commerce function on Saturday evening and it was highlighted that there were
61,000 visitors to our region this year. You take the population of, say,
Bonavista, which is a little shy of 4,000, that certainly adds quite a few
people to our towns and regions.
You have Trinity-Port Rexton – you seen the number of
young entrepreneurs, which I want to recognize as well. In a place where we
always hear that you've got an aging population, our region is one in which we
have a younger population coming into the area. We're a place to be. It is
because of the economic growth that we have in our area. It's an exciting place
to be. It's a cool, hip place to be. I think it started off years ago with
Rising Tide Theatre and some of the great things that they've been doing here
for 25 years. This past year was the 40th year of Rising Tide Theatre, so I do
want to recognize Donna Butt and what she's been doing.
Also, I'd like to recognize the 25th anniversary of the
Trinity Pageant. I know we had a number of people joke about that previously,
but it started to bring people to our area. Through that, we've seen things grow
in Bonavista. You see Home from the Sea in Elliston. That's been a great boom
for our region, bringing people to a community that couldn't afford to pay its
light bill in 1997 and only had three businesses and now you have several
businesses, they are open year-round and they are bringing people.
Actually, the road to Elliston is even paved this year,
which is a great thing. I know the Leader of the Opposition, when he was out to
the district, when he was on his campaign tour, or the year before last, talked
about this road needs to be paved. While it was in the five-year Roads Plan, we
kept up to our word there. It's great. You are seeing other roads done along
Route 230, Route 233 and we see major infrastructure in place.
You look at the Sir William Coaker Heritage Foundation,
what they are doing in Port Union; the Port Rexton Brewery, other operators
within Port Rexton, and the good news that we saw the other day in our brewing
industry with the tax breaks. We're going to see more growth where you see Union
Electric Brewing Company opened up; Dungeons Distillery Ltd. as well.
MS.
P. PARSONS:
Baccalieu Trail in Bay Roberts.
MR.
KING:
What was that?
MS.
P. PARSONS:
Baccalieu Trail in Bay Roberts.
MR.
KING:
Baccalieu Trail in Bay Roberts my friend, the Deputy Chair of Committees, is
telling me. So we see a lot of growth in this industry.
To use a pun, the potential is untapped in this market,
so I'm excited about it. I have worked with local companies to help them get
things in place so that they can be successful.
Growth in our region is spectacular. You take Church
Street region in Bonavista, a bunch of young entrepreneurs – and I was happy to
walk into a place like East Coast Glow and purchase Christmas gifts on Friday. I
was able to get homemade soap products, high quality, that's in demand all over
the world. They've been in New York. They've been featured in magazines. They
ship everywhere.
You've got the Boreal Diner which is the Bonavista
coffee company, great coffee, and something that you would never think of in our
region years ago. It's great.
Outside of the tourism industry, you look at the growth
in our agriculture sector. We have a number of young farmers getting into the
field, dairy farmers and some vegetable farmers as well. They're excited about
coming home and starting a family business such as farming. I know my friend
from Mount Pearl North, he's huge into the farming industry and he's excited
about what's going on out in the District of Bonavista with regard to
agriculture. You can see he has a gleam in his eye right now because I'm talking
about agriculture.
You look at the Musgravetown, Lethbridge, Harcourt
areas, all vital to our farming
industry, and now you see it on the top of the peninsula. We have a couple of
young farmers who are doing whatever they can to produce non-traditional
vegetables, who raise animals, to go out there and start something they're
passionate about. I mean, they're two young electricians from Labrador who moved
to our area who are looking to get into the farming industry. I've been talking
to them a number of times and I'm excited about what they're doing.
Also, the forestry
sector, we have the biggest forest lumber producer in the province with Sexton
Lumber. I've been working with Kevin Sexton for three years now. When he
couldn't get any satisfaction from the former PC government, when he wanted more
timber, when he'd have to shut down because he couldn't get enough allocations,
and when the former MHA of the day wouldn't even take his calls or get in a row
saying, no, no, other areas of the province need that, what I've been able to do
is been able to work with Kevin Sexton and work with the minister of Fisheries
and Land Resources at the time to help them be sustainable and open and maintain
their shifts so they don't have to shut down for two or three weeks at a time.
He's been able to
grow his operation. Now he's in finger jointing. I've talked about this here in
this House many times before. You get more product out of the lumber and timber
that you actually bring in. Now he's actually going to be into pressure
treating. So that's growing our economy, creating more year-round jobs, Mr.
Speaker.
That's what we want
to see, more people employed in our region. We're an area of growth. One area we
certainly don't want to forget about is the fishery. The fishermen had a pretty
good year. The fall, the weather hasn't been co-operating very well for the cod
fishery, but when the fishermen have been able to get out they've been telling
me that they've been able to get their
quotas on cod fish, so we wanted to see that increase. There is always a concern
about crab.
The local fish plant, I'd certainly be remiss if I
didn't talk about Ocean Choice International and the job they're doing here in
Bonavista. They just don't employ people from Bonavista but all over our region:
Trinity Bay North, Port Rexton, Trinity, over in Newman's Cove, Ambrose Cove,
that area, Elliston.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR.
KING:
Yeah, that's down your way. The minister for the Status of Women was talking
about Grand Bank and they're doing a good job down there.
One thing I love about Ocean Choice International is
when the quotas for crab were cut this year, it put a number of people in
jeopardy of not getting their hours that they needed for their unemployment
insurance. What OCI did as a company is brought product in from other areas.
Everyone that needed their hours got their hours. We're certainly thankful for
the good ownership and management that we have at Ocean Choice International.
Mr. Speaker, I'm going to conclude my comments, but I'd
like to take a moment with the House winding down here right now, just to wish
everyone a very Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays to those who don't celebrate
Christmas and a very happy, joyous and prosperous new year.
Certainly going into 2019, we'll see an election and we
want to keep the prosperity going and certainly don't want to regress back to a
Progressive Conservative government which won't see any prosperity at all.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER (Warr):
Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to call from the Order Paper, Order 5 and I'd like to
move the second reading of Bill 41.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the hon. Member for Torngat
Mountains that Bill 41, An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador
Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act, be now read a
second time.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that Bill 41 entitled, An Act To Amend The
Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And
Labrador Act be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The
Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And
Labrador Act.” (Bill 41)
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the opportunity to open the discussion on
amending the Atlantic Accord implementation act to extend the
Management of Greenhouse Gas Act to
the offshore area. This action reflects the province's commitment to help
address climate change, while maintaining the competitiveness of our industry in
supporting clean, economic growth.
The province's carbon pricing system, which has been
accepted by the federal government, is based on the principles of maintaining
competiveness for taxation and trade, minimizing the impact on consumers and
vulnerable groups, recognizing the considerable cost we are already paying to
de-carbonize electricity and delivering meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions. My colleagues, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment and
the Minister of Finance, will speak on the provincial carbon pricing system and
the principles and actions we are taking in response. I will focus my remarks on
the offshore area.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the offshore area, this
made in Newfoundland and Labrador approach will ensure we, as a province, do our
part to address climate change while protecting our offshore industry against
the federal backstop, which would have imposed significantly higher costs
without improving outcomes. Before I get into specifics, I would like to speak
to the contribution of this sector and denote a couple of key points with
respect to the Atlantic Accord and subsequent Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador
Atlantic Accord implementation acts.
From an economic perspective, oil production in the
offshore area represents 25 per cent of Canada's conventional light crude
production, and there's been over $56 billion in industry expenditures on
exploration, development and operations; quite an economic stimulus for our
province. The industry represents 25 per cent of provincial GDP and over 40 per
cent of our exports in this province. Going forward, our government anticipates
the potential for significant growth and our even greater contribution to the
provincial financial well-being, and I will speak further to these growth
opportunities in a moment.
From a governance perspective, the Accord Acts confirm
the federal and provincial governments as equal partners in the joint management
of offshore oil and gas developments in legislation as outlined in the 1985
Atlantic Accord. This legislation often supersedes other federal legislation.
Both governments have committed to introduce amendments to regulations only with
the consent of the other party. The Accord Acts define and grant the C-NLOPB its
powers and authorities, as well as cost recovery mechanisms for its operational
costs.
No petroleum activity can take place in offshore area
without the authorization of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Petroleum
Board. Offshore operators were consulted and expressed a clear preference for
having the province's Management of
Greenhouse Gas Act apply offshore. The federal government is in agreement
with this approach and it is supported by the C-NLOPB; however, the Accord Acts
currently do not permit the Management of
Greenhouse Gas Act to apply offshore area and amendments are required.
The provincial government therefore has proposed to
extend the application of the Management
of Greenhouse Gas Act to the offshore area through Bill 41 to be
administered as appropriate by the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore
Petroleum Board. Specifically, amendments to section 159 of the Accord Act will
allow C-NLOPB to administer the Management
of Greenhouse Gas Act regulations in the offshore area.
Specific amendments to section 29 of the Accord Act
will enable the C-NLOPB to recover costs associated with this function from
industry. The federal government introduced their parallel amendments into
parliament on October 29 of this year. Our provincial Bill 41 mirrors the
federal approach. This approach is consist with and respects the unique
regulatory regime embedded in the Atlantic Accord. It is also consistent with
our Advance 2030 strategy.
Mr. Speaker, we're seeing success in our plan to drive
exploration and grow the province's offshore through
Advance 2030 – The Way Forward
on oil and gas. In fact, record bids for exploration licences offshore were
received earlier this month as a result of the most recent call for bids in the
Eastern Newfoundland region and Jeanne d'Arc regions. In total, there was a
record cumulative total of $1.38 billion in bids and a single record bid of $621
million from a new entrant, BHP Petroleum in the Eastern Newfoundland region.
The resource potential in offshore Newfoundland and
Labrador is incredible. In less than 7 per cent of the province's offshore,
there's a combined resource potential of 49.2 billion barrels of oil and 193.8
trillion cubic feet of gas. And I'll say it again, Mr. Speaker, that's in less
than 7 per cent of the province's offshore. There have been eight new entrants
in the past three years and $3.9 billion in recent exploration work commitment.
To ensure this continued interest in growth requires a
regulatory regime that is efficient, effective, transparent, globally
competitive and environmentally responsible. These factors, among others, are
important in attracting and retaining investment opportunities to the benefit of
our respective governments. Industry has identified a number of potential risks
to continued investment. These risks include regulatory uncertainty associated
with the many federal legislative initiatives, including those associated with
the implementation of carbon pricing offshore.
Applying the provincial greenhouse gas pricing regime
in the offshore area delivers meaningful reductions in emissions – which is
critical, we all understand the impact of climate change – while minimizing
uncertainty to industry. It provides for a single, seamless, large industry
carbon pricing regime to be implemented in the province that is tailored to the
unique nature of offshore petroleum industry. It exempts exploration activity,
it exempts aviation support services to the offshore. It structures greenhouse
gas reduction targets in a manner that recognizes the constraints of operating
350 kilometres-plus offshore.
Before concluding I would like to note, that C-NLOPB
operates on a cost recovery basis from industry. This means, in effect, that 100
per cent of the costs that are incurred by the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador
Offshore Petroleum Board to administer greenhouse gas regulations are recovered.
This would not result in any new costs to the provincial government.
Mr. Speaker, industry supports this approach, including
the continued application of a single regulator offshore. Our government
completed numerous consultations, including each offshore operator: the Canadian
Association of Petroleum Producers, the Newfoundland Offshore Industries
Association, and Nalcor Energy. Our government has also engaged the C-NLOPB on
an ongoing basis to ensure that the provincial regulatory approach can be
effectively integrated with existing current licensing, reporting and compliant
practices implemented by the C-NLOPB.
So, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, this act basically does
a couple of things. It allows the
Management of Greenhouse Gas Act to apply to the offshore oil area. It gives
powers and imposes duties and functions under the
Management of Greenhouse Gas Act on
the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. And, as I've said
earlier, the federal government has introduced parallel amendments into
parliament in late October of this year.
So the two things that this bill does, the amendments
to the Accord Act, are basically allowing for the
Management of Greenhouse Gas Act and for C-NLOPB to be the purveyor
of that act on the offshore and allow it to collect fees in order to cost
recover.
So that's it, Mr. Speaker. It's a rather simple bill as
part of our strategy to ensure we address climate change and greenhouse gas
emissions in this province.
Thank you. Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR.
PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is a pretty straightforward piece of legislation.
The bigger piece will come in Bill 44 – I'm assuming will come after the
Management of Greenhouse Gas Act.
In a nutshell, this bill basically permits the
Management of Greenhouse Gas Act to be
incorporated into the Atlantic Accord which in turn will give the C-NLOPB the
power to administer and collect these carbon taxing or fees under one
administrator which was agreed upon and is what industry wanted. We attended a
briefing actually and some of the minister's staff attended and gave us an
overview, so I thank them for that.
This is kind of a small piece of the big picture but
it's an important piece, obviously. During the briefing, basically, we were
explained the same thing that cost recovery – that 50 per cent of the costs
where it's a joint between the federal and provincial, the costs would only be
applied. You could only get 50 per cent of cost recovery; but, the C-NLOPB being
the one administering it, a lot of that makes sense to us.
Now, removing ourselves from the bigger piece of carbon
pricing in general, we've been on the record for quite some time of our views.
I've been the critic of climate change since 2015 and we've made that pretty
clear in this House and publicly of our views on the carbon pricing model that's
being implemented by the federal government, now in turn by the province in
their own made in Newfoundland approach.
So I suppose tying two of them together – this piece of
legislation is pretty routine but the bigger piece is where we – the overall
Management of Greenhouse Gas Act and
charging a tax to the consumers of this province and our industry with no set of
real emissions in place is an area where we have concerns, and we'll discuss
that later in Bill 44.
Like I said, Mr. Speaker, the C-NLOPB will administer
the Management of Greenhouse Gas Act
in the offshore area. They will recover costs associated with this from the
industry, which happens with current costs for other regulatory functions of the
C-NLOPB.
Section 1 of the bill is going to make changes to
section 29(2) of the Accord Act. Subsection (1) is already contained in the act
and subsection 2 is being added. Subsection (2) indicates that all amounts
related to the Management of Greenhouse
Gas Act will be paid in their entirety to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
This is because carbon pricing is a provincial jurisdiction. The C-NLOPB may ask
the province for more operating funds, which the C-NLOPB will then bill to
industry and then pay back to the province.
So, Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to speak a long time on
this. Like I say, we have the associated Bill 44, which I think would be more in
its entirety, because this is more like an enacting piece of legislation tied to
Bill 44. So we'll discuss further into that piece of legislation.
But this one here, like I say, in a nutshell, it's the
Management of Greenhouse Gas Act. It's
allowing it to be part of the Atlantic Accord. It's giving them sole authority
as a regulator to do the collections, to remit the funds to the province and
deal with the cost recovery, deal with the offshore separately. It's what
industry wanted, and this legislation reflects that.
So we'll discuss further on this piece of legislation
as we debate Bill 44.
Thank you very much.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I'm pleased to have a couple of minutes to speak to
this amendment, the bill itself. Bill 41 is An Act to Amend the
Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland and
Labrador Act. Obviously, it's something that is being required because of the
legislation that's being brought in with regard to the greenhouse gases. We do
have the greenhouse gas act, and later on in this sitting we will be discussing
amendments to that act.
The amendment today is an amendment to the
Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act because – it
was said in the briefing that the oil companies would've preferred to be managed
in terms of the greenhouse gas policies. They would prefer to have the C-NLOPB
in charge of the industry offshore rather than the department – a department
probably would've been Natural Resources – that they would prefer the C-NLOPB to
administer the GHG Act.
So that's why we are standing here today, because in
order for that to happen there has to an amendment to the Atlantic Accord
agreement to shorten the full title. What we're doing today is approving – which
I think we need to, we shall – the amendments to the Atlantic Accord agreement,
allowing the C-NLOPB to administer the greenhouse gas act as it relates to the
offshore, as has been pointed out by the minister, pointed out by my colleague
from CBS as well.
So it's pretty straightforward, but it is an
opportunity to look at the fact that the activity in the offshore is pretty key
when it comes to looking at greenhouse gas emissions here in our province, and
adjustments have to be made. We did not meet the first target that was agreed
upon with regard to the reduction of emissions in this province, and one of the
reasons why we had to change the target is because of the greater activity in
the offshore. So it would appear that we can set targets for the reduction of
GHG emissions, but if at the same time we continue to grow in the offshore, if
we continue to have more activity in the offshore, that's going to change our
ability, as we go forward, to reduce our emissions. It's as simple as that.
I would like government to think about what else is
going to need to be done, because if we continue growing in the offshore and we
continue having more activity in the offshore and that's affecting our targets,
then something else is going to have to be done with regard to the offshore to
make sure that we do meet targets that we're setting, and that discussion will
come up in the amendments to the greenhouse gas act, which is rather
problematic. So if we continue to have activity that's going to be increasing
our emissions and we have to keep changing our targets, we're never going to get
anywhere where we are really affecting greenhouse gas emissions in this
province.
The latest reports globally are saying that greenhouse
gas emissions are growing on the planet, in spite of the agreements that have
been put in place, and we have to accept responsibility for that here in this
province. So if our growth in offshore development is going to continue to
increase our emissions, then, as I've already said, we're never going to get
anywhere when it comes to really reducing –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS.
MICHAEL:
–
the overall emissions in this province, which affects overall emissions on our
planet.
So it's problematic that we don't have that broader
discussion in this House. It's problematic that we are not taking seriously
enough the importance of our role when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions.
The details of this bill are pretty straightforward.
It's just making sure that administration is going along, is working well and
that the administration by the C-NLOPB would be in agreement with what's
happening with regard to the greenhouse gas act, because the greenhouse gas act
itself is under the department under the minister, but the behaviour of the
offshore is under the C-NLOPB. So it becomes problematic.
It points out to me, Mr. Speaker, something that we've
been saying here in this House, and that is we need a separate agency that's
dealing with issues like the greenhouse gas. We need a separate agency dealing
with environmental issues and safety issues in the offshore. Because the
C-NLOPB, their responsibility is exactly what's happening here – it's
administration.
It's administration of the business part of the
offshore. It's administration of the lease of lands in the offshore for
exploration. They have an administrative role. They do not have a major role
when it comes to looking at how much greenhouse gas is being produced by the
offshore and how much an increase in activity out there increases our emissions
and therefore works against our being able to diminish, to reduce our emissions.
So this is a moment for government to think about that,
Mr. Speaker, to think about the fact that we actually have had to change our
target because of the offshore. We've had to change our target because of the
offshore. So are we looking at five years down the road, setting a target now?
What is the production going to be like in five years or 10 years? And do we
wait –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Do we wait until then to make the adjustment or do we
make targets, are we going to be realistic and say, well, knowing what's going
to happen or what could happen in five years time our target is probably not
going to work.
I don't think we are being completely open and honest
with ourselves about the targets we are setting, because at the same time we're
doing it we are saying we want to increase production. So one is
counterproductive when it comes to the other. So we have a problem here. If
we're going to continue with offshore, if we're going to continue with that
industry, then we need to be looking at what are the other ways in which we are
going to reduce emission, and that's a major problem.
I also would like to know what will happen in terms of
communication between the Minister of Natural Resources, who will be in charge
of the greenhouse gas act, and the C-NLOPB. What's going to be the communication
back and forth between the board of the C-NLOPB and the minister who is in
charge of the greenhouse gas act? Who is going to oversee that communication?
That kind of thing is not really dealt with in the amendment we're making. It's
stating facts, but who is going to monitor to make sure the communication is
going on between the two bodies.
We do have a bit of a complication when it comes to
that, but my big issue that this begs for us to look at is the issue of how
every time we increase activity in the offshore we're increasing our emissions,
and because of that, targets already have had to been changed, and I would say
that we are going to continue changing our targets and we will continue to be
adding more emissions to the planet and becoming more and more a part of the
problem when it comes to greenhouse gas rather than really seriously saying
we're going to help reduce greenhouse gas.
So I'll leave my comments at that point, Mr. Speaker. I
may have questions to ask in Committee.
Thank you.
MR.
SPEAKER
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm only going to take a couple of moments to speak to
Bill 41. Mr. Speaker, this all ties into the carbon tax and basically giving
jurisdiction to the C-NLOPB to manage that within the offshore. It's almost a
cart before the horse in one sense. (Inaudible) of how we're dealing with it
here in the House today, because arguably you're voting in favour or against a
mechanism to have something applied to the offshore that we haven't even agreed
on yet, if you know what I mean, because I think there are a number of people
that have issues with the carbon tax per se.
And I have my concerns. I have my concerns with the
carbon tax. I know the government has said – and I get where they're coming
from, that either have a made in Newfoundland and Labrador approach or have it
forced down our throats by the federal government. That's basically what it
comes down to, one or the other. I can understand that. They're saying that our
version is a more palatable version, if you will. Better for us than if the
federal government simply imposed something. I can understand that and
appreciate that, and to some degree I could agree with that.
I guess the other side of it is should there be a
carbon tax. Should there be a carbon tax? And should we, as a province, instead
of taking the position of having it shoved down our throats or coming up with
our own solution, should we not be taking the position of Ontario and some other
provinces who are saying neither, we're not accepting either one. We're not
imposing one, and you're not imposing one on us either, because we just don't
agree with the whole concept of a carbon tax.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
They are imposing it.
MR.
LANE:
And
the minister across the way there says, yeah, they are imposing it. And they may
well, but at least they're fighting it. I guess the point is Ontario and some
other provinces are fighting it. They're saying, we'll take you to court, we'll
do whatever. Now, will they win or will they lose? Who knows? Who knows what's
going to happen.
I suspect the federal government has jurisdiction to
simply impose it in any case, but they are fighting it and they are challenging
it. Personally, I think that's a route I would have liked to have seen us go, to
be honest with you, Mr. Speaker. And I'm looking at it now from a layperson's
point of view.
I heard in one of the answers in Question Period, the
Premier or the minister or somebody talked about paying 25 cents. All it means
is if you fill up your tank, 60 litre tank or whatever it was they said, you'd
pay an extra 25 cents. Well, if that's the case, then every time a
Newfoundlander or Labradorian goes to the pumps and puts 25 cents extra in the
pump, how is that dealing with climate change? I can't get my head around how
that is going to impact climate change.
Are we suggesting that people are going to say I'm not
going to drive my car because I'm going to have pay 25 cents on a fill-up? Of
course not. People who are driving their cars today, they're going to drive
their cars tomorrow. So simply saying to the taxpayer you're going to pay this
additional tax, I can't see how it's going to do anything whatsoever to address
climate change.
If we were serious about climate change, government
would be going after industry – and maybe it's going to do that, too, I don't
know. I'm not sure what their plans are, but I would think government would be
going after industry to get rid of the combustion engines and making it so
difficult to create this situation where, we're all going to electric b'ys.
That's the way it's going to be, and you may as well start looking at electric
cars because that's the way she's going to go.
We're going to create that environment; we're going to
create that pressure. Maybe we're going to use incentives, maybe we're going to
use a big stick if we have to, but we're getting away from combustion engines
all together and everything is going to be electric. It's all going to be green.
And to make that happen, that's going to impact climate change.
But saying to Joe Q. Public, or the Justice Minister's
father, when he was here he used to call it, was it, Joe Chesterfield. Saying to
Joe Chesterfield that you're going to pay an extra 25 cents at the gas pump, and
that's somehow going to stop Joe Chesterfield from driving his car and that's
going to do anything to impact the environment is absolutely nonsense. It's not.
It's not going to do one thing to help the environment.
So when I say the bills here, it's sort of like a cart
before the horse, that's what I mean. Because this is talking about implementing
something into the offshore that hasn't even been implemented for the province
yet. So I do have some concerns about it because I have concerns about the
carbon tax.
I would also say as a province here in Newfoundland and
Labrador, our contribution to greenhouse gas emissions in the big scheme of
things is minuscule. It's minuscule in the country. It's minuscule in the world
certainly, but even in the country I think it's minuscule.
When you look at the Muskrat Falls development, and we
all know the concerns we have about it, but one of the good things about Muskrat
Falls, if there is a positive to be found there – and there are certainly a lot
of negatives now for sure, I'm the first to admit that – but if there is a
positive to be found with Muskrat Falls, it does address, I think, greenhouse
gas emissions and so on.
Now, there are people who would argue it's still not
environmentally friendly. You talk to people about hydro and they'll say, yeah,
but you're destroying the – there are methylmercury concerns. They're destroying
the landscape and the vegetation and all that stuff. I totally understand all
that as well, but from a greenhouse gas emission point of view, it's considered
clean, green energy.
So for a little province like Newfoundland and
Labrador, 500,000 people, by virtue of that project I think we're doing our
share and then some to address pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. If
everyone else in every other province and area had initiatives like that, in
terms of clean energy, from that angle at least, then from a greenhouse gas
emission point of view we'd be way better off.
I think we've done more than our share. So, arguably,
why should we do more? And I know people will say, well, we all got to do
everything we possibly can to help the environment, and I get that, and I
certainly acknowledge climate change. I'm sure we all acknowledge climate
change. Even here in Newfoundland and Labrador, over the last number of years we
have seen the impacts of climate change. It's very real.
I'm sure the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the
former minister of Municipal Affairs know that climate change is very real in
terms of our municipalities and our infrastructure and the storm sewer systems
and water systems. The pipes just can't handle the flows any more like they used
to. What was considered a one in 100-year event is now becoming a one maybe
every 10 years or five years. That's reality. It is happening, and I think we
all acknowledge that and I think we all need to do our part.
I would argue that, again, with the Muskrat Falls
Project, with all of the negatives that come with it now, that part is a
positive, and we are doing our part in addressing greenhouse gas emissions and
then some. Bearing in mind, like I said, the other environmental issues,
methylmercury, that's a different issue. It's an important issue, but it's a
separate one, but we are doing our part on greenhouse gas emissions and then
some.
Again, the whole concept that somebody going to the gas
pump and having to put in an extra 25 cents on a fill-up – is what was used. I
don't know if that number's even accurate, but that's what somebody said over
there so I'll take it on their word that it is right. Even if it was an extra
dollar on a fill-up, it's still not going to stop the average person who needs a
vehicle to travel to and from work and take the kids to hockey or dance or visit
friends and neighbours or whatever they're doing. It's not going to stop
tourists. So how does that tax do anything whatsoever to improve climate change?
I would say it does zero, zippo, nothing. All it does is it just puts more money
into provincial coffers.
I understand as well that given our fiscal
circumstances and everything else that we need every cent we can get at this
point in time. I understand that too, but that's not what this is about – or at
least that's not what it's supposed to be about. It's not supposed to be about
taxes and raising revenue. The spirit of all the legislation on this is supposed
to be about climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
So I just don't see how a carbon tax is going to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, generally. I just don't see it. I think, like I said,
the federal government needs to be going after the big polluters either with
incentives and or big sticks to stop the pollution, but Joe Chesterfield going
to the gas pumps and now paying an extra tax for it is doing nothing to address
it.
I'm really conflicted with that. I understand this bill
is talking about applying this to the offshore. So if we're going to do it, if
we're going to vote in favour of bill – what is it?
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Forty-one.
MR.
LANE:
No,
this is 41. The other one –
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Forty-four.
MR.
LANE:
Forty-four.
If we're going to vote in favour of Bill 44, and we
agree that Bill 44 is a good thing and we should vote for it, than this is going
to, obviously, make sense because if you're going to do 44 and we're going to
have a carbon tax than, obviously, it needs to apply to the offshore as well as
the onshore and so on. So we get that.
The authority under this bill needs to go to the
C-NLOPB to allow them to manage the carbon tax for the offshore. I would have
preferred if we had debated Bill 44 first and we can all have our say about what
we feel about Bill 44 and the carbon tax.
Anyway, that's all I have to say on this, Mr. Speaker.
I will say in principle, if I'm going on the premise – if Bill 44 was voted for
and it passed, then I would say, well, we're doing Bill 44. It's happening, so
now we have to do Bill 41. But now that we haven't done Bill 44 – and it hasn't
passed, although I'm sure it will – it's kind of hard for me to vote, in a
sense, for Bill 41 because I don't agree with Bill 44. So that's the dilemma I
have.
My first inkling would be to vote for 41 because we're
doing it anyway, but I don't really agree with 44. So I'm probably not going to
vote for 41 either, because I can't vote for one and not the other, really,
unless Bill 44 was already in place and then it was just, okay, now we have to
do it.
Anyway, that is my comments, Mr. Speaker, and I'll be
taking my seat now. I'm sure my colleague from Ferryland and others may have
more to say.
Thank you.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR.
JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm just going to stand and have a few words on this
because I was a part of this at the beginning. I look at the two ministers who
carried it through and I know the dilemma you're in with the federal government
also, is that if you didn't put something in place you would eventually have
something imposed. So many times it's better to find something that you're going
to help out Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in a better way than to have
someone from Ottawa impose something on you.
I know the current Minister of Municipal Affairs and
Environment was involved and the past minister, and now the Minister of Natural
Resources on this bill here, on Bill 41, it's better to have something we can
work with.
Mr. Speaker, if anybody tries to disagree that climate
change is not real, they should have come down to Bay of Islands last January
when we had the great floods down there and you see the devastation in the area.
You can go all across the province, at certain times you can see the disasters
we're having are becoming bigger. They're becoming more dangerous. They're
coming more often. They're almost now to the point that we are expecting major
floods every 100 years, every 10 years or sooner. So climate change is real.
Just on a point to the federal government on climate
change is that we know it's happening. They have changed their legislation where
we have a 15 per cent variance, which I know the government lobbied hard for a
number of years. That was finally changed to help out with the mitigation
throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, which was a great benefit. Mr. Speaker,
that's something that's helping all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
I heard the Member earlier speak on something, and
something I have to put out there because I know it was in the mix for a long
while and I know it's there now. He mentioned a few provinces like Ontario and
Alberta who are not agreeing with it and taking it to court. It has to be known
to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that in this bill, from my understanding, is
that there's a me-too clause. It's if they go to court and they get something
changed, we have the option to opt out. If the court says that Ontario or
Alberta can opt out or if there are changes to it, we have that right. So that's
my understanding and I'm pretty confident I'm right on that.
If we don't sign on to this now, there will be an
imposed agreement on it on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. So we're jumping in
now and saying, no, we're going to do something that we feel is going to benefit
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians more, but there is a clause there that if there
are any changes to any other provinces that we can move in on that. I know the
current minister there now was a part of that, and I just want to recognize that
part that's in there.
Mr. Speaker, the other thing I heard the Member talking
about is, okay, why are we doing this? At the early negotiations and discussions
on this there's a green economy. This is a big part of that. There's about $44
million now that we can use in Newfoundland and Labrador to help.
One good example, I know I'm going to be meeting the
minister on it and it was on the plate, just a prime example in Newfoundland and
Labrador how we can reach some of our targets with the green economy fund. How
many people out in rural Newfoundland burn wood? How many people in Newfoundland
and Labrador use the older stoves? If we use the more combustible stove, which
is a great option, giving incentives to replace the older stoves with the newer
stoves which are much greener, much more friendly – and we have the funds to do
that.
So this is an opportunity for Newfoundland and Labrador
to turn to technology and look at new businesses because there is funding there
to start new technologies, to find some way that we can cut the greenhouse gas
emissions in Newfoundland and Labrador through smaller ways, through larger
ways, through electricity, for some products. So there is a new economy that can
be made. In a lot of places a green economy has become very profitable and is
something that I know we will be looking at.
Also, I know the change with the 4 cents a litre or 3.7
cents a litre, it doesn't seem like a lot, but the gas tax that's on there now –
and I know the government made a commitment that they would relieve that as fast
as they can. What the government did do is release that gas tax now and put on
the carbon tax. So there's an extra burden there, but the burden that's in place
now is going to be removed. We had to find something as a province, Mr. Speaker,
to do our bit.
Some people would say, well, the gas tax was already
there, which is true because of the situation that happened in 2016, but they're
lessoning the burden on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. The whole concept,
would it work? In some cases it will, in some cases it won't. The whole concept
is if it costs you more for behaviour, that funds will change your behaviour.
That is the original concept, is if you put a tax on something you want
behaviour to change.
A prime example, if you go years back, is electricity.
If the price of electricity went up people's behaviour will change. They would
wear a sweater or they would say, okay, let's turn the heat down in a certain
room if no one's in there. Behaviours do change if the price goes up. It
actually does.
This amount, is that going to cause a great behaviour
change in Newfoundland and Labrador? We don't know. Then if you increase it to
the point where there is a behaviour change, the next thing you know a lot of
people can't afford to even drive their cars. So there is a balancing act there,
Mr. Speaker. I know personally, every person I speak to agrees there is climate
change. Every person agrees that we must do something, and every person in
Newfoundland and Labrador says we must do our own bit.
I know everybody in government feels – and in
Opposition, also – is that we have to help out our way throughout the whole
province, and in Canada itself. Different ideas for Toronto, different ideas for
Calgary, but Newfoundland and Labrador – if we can create some good initiatives
for Newfoundland and Labrador to help the green fund that's in place, to help
bring down the emissions, to remove our footprint as best we can, that's the
best we can do as parliamentarians.
So I will be supporting this. I know Bill 44 will be
coming in. I know there was a tough slog with it. I understand the federal
government has accepted it and it will be coming into effect January 1, I
understand.
So, Mr. Speaker, the reason why this Bill 41 is in
because we have to get it through the House of Assembly. If not, by the time
Bill 44 comes in in January – if this is not passed now, it can't be done until
the next sitting, and this won't be in place.
Mr. Speaker, you're going to pass Bill 44, the
greenhouse gas emissions act, and Bill 41, is that you need to do them in unison
in this session of the Legislature to ensure that when one is passed, Bill 44 is
passed, that Bill 41 will be in unison. So I will be supporting this bill. I
know the greenhouse gas emissions act is very important.
I say to the minister, that we now, as a province, have
to look at some initiatives to help the people with some great green ideas for a
new economy in Newfoundland and Labrador, and I know the minister is open to
that. I know I'll be having discussions with the minister and I look forward to
doing our part, Mr. Speaker. So I will be supporting Bill 41.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad today to rise to speak to Bill 41. This bill
is, as others have spoken, to amend the
Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland and
Labrador Act, specifically as it relates to Bill 44, which we'll debate I
guess later today, in regard to the
Management of Greenhouse Gas Act. Also, there's a provision that the
Revenue Administration Act needs to be amended as well.
In regard to this particular bill related to the
Atlantic Accord, my understanding in terms of the briefing, this allows the
authority to be transferred to the C-NLOPB in regard to the particulars of this
bill for the administration of the greenhouse gas act. When that act was
originally brought in here to the House some time ago, a few years back, we had
a discussion then about industrial facilities and the emissions of those
facilities. At that particular time, it didn't include the offshore. So it
didn't include what we're discussing here today in regard to this regulatory
framework and giving the authority to C-NLOPB.
The current act, under our understanding, and the
provision now brings in both onshore and offshore installations of facilities,
and brings them in under the requirements of the greenhouse gas act. So that's
another reason why this amendment needs to be made to allow that greenhouse gas
act to be administered by the C-NLOPB for coverage of offshore facility and
sites.
So, overall, when we look at these two bills – 41 this
one is, and 44 we'll debate later – it's about climate change and a plan for
climate change where often a carbon tax is just one part of that. There are many
facets of that climate change plan that administration could have or a province
could have, and this carbon tax is only one component of it. This particular
bill speaks to our offshore facilities, oil and gas production, and bringing it
under the greenhouse gas act for the administration.
When you look at the beginning of our industry, where
we are today, and then looking forward and looking at the tremendous
opportunities we have in regard to the resources offshore and what that means
for the province in terms of future development, revenue streams, economic
development, it is indeed significant.
In any fundamental issue related to carbon tax or
climate change plans or things you're going to do, it always comes to, well,
what's the return going to be? Is this going to change behaviours? Is it a
behaviour pattern we're trying to get at, or is it a polluter-pay kind of
program that we're trying to develop and regulate? This particular act looks at,
about onshore and off, from 15,000 to 25,000 tons of emissions, and those
industries that are below that aren't covered by this but any that are between
15,000 and 25,000 as we move into the other bill will be and can opt into it.
My understanding in looking at the offshore and what we
were told in our briefing, most of the emissions now related to Bill 41 would be
significant. Most of them would far exceed almost half-a-million tons, I think,
of emissions that we talked about that would be relevant in terms of regulating
those that would be well over that threshold and requirement of being part of
the fund that would be set up when those will be looked at in regard to what
they can do to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and how that will look.
One of the things that was brought up as well, we know
the C-NLOPB is paid for jointly, 50 per cent as a partnership to the federal
government and the province. When we look at, any time there's administration or
extra roles of a body and what they do, there's also the issue of costs and that
cost being covered, what that particular cost will be in regard to the
administration of this regulatory framework.
Well, I won't call it a regulatory framework because,
as we know, this is a bill. There are vast amounts of regulations that are yet
to be done, which would certainly be applicable to this. I think we're about
roughly four weeks from January 1 of 2019 when this is supposed to become
effective.
So there's some concern, and we talked about it today,
in regard to being in any way ready or have the details ready to actually do
this and make it part of Bill 41. Those regulatory framework as well, through
Bill 41, will be giving the authority to C-NLOPB to administer and oversee the
actual framework of the greenhouse gas act.
There are also significant, in a broader sense, powers
in regard to the minister responsible for the
Management of Greenhouse Gas Act. The minister responsible for that
act has significant authority in regard to, obviously, the
Management of Greenhouse Gas Act, and exercise that authority,
duties and functions that are involved with that are given in the act. That
authority is given the minister to ensure that the administration and
enforcement of the act is done, and the C-NLOPB would be the body to do that as
we move forward – or this, if it passes, would allow the C-NLOPB to carry it out
with the greenhouse gas act, and this would give them the authority to do it.
There is also reference as well, in the bill, which
significantly relates to coming into force in regard to other changes in Ottawa
related to the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Implementation Act. So
that needs to be – I guess there will be some questions later in regard to
changes to federal regulatory frameworks, or legislation in Ottawa that needs to
be changed as the Accord itself is shared jurisdiction and shared legislation.
There will be some questions about that as well as we go through in regard to
that.
I guess the real discussion will start, and I think my
colleague mentioned it as well, in regard to debating Bill 41. The real
discussion is on the greenhouse gas act, which is tied to this, and the carbon
tax; how it's been outlined in Bill 41 and what the intent of it is. Is it going
to reach the targets? Are there targets? What are they? How can we ensure the
extra revenue that has been generated is going to address that and is going to
be intrinsically linked to reducing greenhouse gas emissions?
That's fundamental, and I'm sure we'll have a long
debate on that in Bill 44. Ultimately, that'll connect to this Bill 41 – if Bill
44 passes – that the C-NLOPB will have the authority to carry out the
administration of that act under the authority of the minister at the time who
owns and maintains that greenhouse gas act.
So, with that, we look forward to the debate on Bill
41. I look forward to some questions and then getting into the overall issue
here, which is Bill 44, later in regard to that bill as well.
Thank you.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
If the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources speaks
now, she will close the debate.
The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
For those watching at home, this is on Bill 41, which
is An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador – sorry, the Accord Act
to allow for the Management of Greenhouse
Gas Act provisions for our offshore, as well as to confer powers and impose
duties and functions under the Management
of Greenhouse Gas Act to the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore
Petroleum Board and allow them to cost recover.
I'd like to recognize and thank the speakers to this
bill: The Member for Conception Bay South; the Member for St. John's East -
Quidi Vidi; Mount Pearl – Southlands; Humber - Bay of Islands, and Ferryland.
I want to recognize the leadership of the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands, not just on the climate change file when he was
minister but also on dealing with emergency services, because climate change has
had an effect on our province, Mr. Speaker.
Many of the speakers today talked about Bill 44. So I
will say to those that may be tuned in, Bill 44 is An Act to Amend the
Management of Greenhouse Gas Act and the Revenue Administration Act, and that
will be debated shortly. That really does compose the imposition of some of the
rules and regulations that will be around climate change and the management of
greenhouse gas in the province.
Today, in Bill 41, we're dealing with really the
offshore industry and the implementation of – the imposition the management of
greenhouse gas on the offshore industry.
I do want to say a few things in response to some of
the things I heard during debate. I want to make sure that people understand
that this will give absolute targets for annual reductions on offshore platforms
– absolute targets. They'll be phased in: 6 per cent in 2019, going to 12 per
cent in 2022. So 6, then 8, then 10, then 12 per cent by 2022, and that'll have
a significant effect on greenhouse gas emissions offshore Newfoundland and
Labrador. It'll have a big impact.
I did listen with intent to the Member for St. John's
East - Quidi Vidi who talked about there is a concern about growing the
industry. I say to the Member opposite, I think growing our industry offshore is
a very important thing for our globe. And perhaps the Member opposite is not
aware, but I will advise her, Members of the House of Assembly, those watching
at home and the people of the province, Mr. Speaker, Hibernia, for example, is
one of the lowest emitters of carbon for barrel in the world today. In 2016,
Hibernia averaged about 12 kilograms of CO2 per barrel.
Now, let me compare that to some other installations
around the world. China, Beijing, is about 260 kilograms, approximately; UK
Brent is over 100 kilograms per barrel; Brazil Lula is just under 50 kilograms.
Again, I repeat, Hibernia averaged about 12. Our globe is going to continue to
use fossil fuels into the foreseeable future. Why not have as low carbon per
barrel as we could possibly have it.
The challenge to our industry here is continuing to
lower the carbon impact, and that's what we're doing in today's
Management of Greenhouse Gas Act and
the changes that we're making to our offshore. So I want to make sure that
people understand that there will be a phase-in approach, 6, 8, 10, 12 – 12 per
cent by 2022. And that's going to have some pretty significant impacts to our
offshore, both from a cost perspective, because if you don't manage to reduce it
then you would actually have to, either have to invest in the Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Fund or you'll have to buy credits to offset those costs. Operators
are very keen to actually lower the carbon per barrel and I think it's very
important. It will be a big reduction in the emission levels and I think that's
very important.
So, Mr. Speaker, I won't belabour the point. There are
just two things that this bill does, and I know people are anxious to get to the
larger Bill 44. They're very interested in the larger Bill 44 that does talk
about how we're going to deal with climate change, how we're going to deal with
greenhouse gas and the management thereof.
This does two simple things. It allows the
Management of Greenhouse Gas Act to
apply to the offshore, and it imposes and gives powers and duties and functions
under the Management of Greenhouse Gas Act
on to the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, of course,
as they are the regulator for the offshore. So two simple things that are being
done by this act.
So I won't belabour it, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to
any questions that may be had as we get into Committee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Is
the House ready for the question?
The motion is that Bill 41 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.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A
bill, An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord
Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act. (Bill 41)
MR.
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a second time.
When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the
Whole?
MS.
COADY:
Now.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Now.
On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The
Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And
Labrador Act,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole
House presently, by leave. (Bill 41)
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal Affairs
and Environment, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to
consider Bill 41.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
It's been 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.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Ms. Parsons):
Order, please!
We are now considering Bill 41, An Act To Amend The
Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And
Labrador Act.
A bill, “An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And
Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act.” (Bill
41)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR.
PETTEN:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I ask the minister: Minister, when do you expect this
federal bill to be passed? When do you expect the passing of this federal piece
of legislation?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you.
It was introduced into the House on October 29, as I
indicated. I would assume they will try and get it through this sitting as they
are bringing climate change – they're bringing in their greenhouse gas emissions
targets for January 1.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR.
PETTEN:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Minister, is there any conversation taking place with
the federal government about other changes to the Atlantic Accord?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As the Member opposite may know, there has been
discussions around some offshore regulations changing and that's been an ongoing
discussion for quite some time. That's following a process, so there may be
changes required to the Atlantic Accord for that.
As the Member opposite would know, there was a March
31, 2019, deadline imposed, I think, in the amendments that were made for a
discussion between the feds and the provincial government, and that's ongoing.
So at this point there's nothing new to report in terms
of ongoing legislative changes that are required, but it's certainly – as we
move forward these offshore regulation changes, there may be into the future.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR.
PETTEN:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Minister, in the briefing officials suggested that the
C-NLOPB may ask for an increase in their budget for these changes, that they
will likely hire one more position. Do you have an estimated cost, the
estimation of this cost for that position?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you.
Just for clarity and certainty, all expenses at the
C-NLOPB now are completely borne by the industry. So while the federal and
provincial governments do flow through, there is no financial impact to the
province nor to the federal government. It's completely cost recovered. This
bill will now allow for any increased administration cost to be recovered from
industry as well.
So it's a 50-50 basis, and the monies will be recouped
from industry and cycled through. So no cost to the province or the feds.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Chair.
I just wanted to go back to the reference the minister
made to the specific federal applicable legislation, and it was introduced on
October 29.
Is there a contingency plan if it does not get approved
in time? Are there regulatory changes required with that piece of legislation as
well, and do you anticipate they'd be completed by January 1, 2019?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As I said, the bill was introduced in the end of
October. I would imagine the Government House Leader is moving through the
legislative requirements. I know they've been active on this file, and they also
know they will be imposing a federal backstop come January. So I would think, I
would hope, that they would have this legislation through by then. Certainly, we
will look to their diligence on that matter, Madam Chair.
On the second point of whether there are regulatory
changes, I'm just checking to see if there are any changes. I would imagine
there would be requirement to understand what the impacts of this would be to
C-NLOPB and they will have to develop guidelines, but I'm just checking on that
now.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Under remittances and charges, the bill speaks to
regulations made in accordance with a particular bill and amendment, and under
Section 29.2(1) “shall be paid to the Consolidated Revenue Fund in the
prescribed time and manner.”
I wonder if the minister could give us some indication
of what's thought of there in regard to the prescribed time and manner. And
where would these particular remittances and charges be coming from?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Again, going back to how – now the C-NLOPB is fully
cost recovered, 100 per cent cost recovered by industry. So what happens is
there's a flow through from the federal and provincial governments to C-NLOPB.
C-NLOPB recovers its full budget from industry and then it's recycled back. It
goes to the Consolidated Revenue Fund but it's only an in and out because of the
way the mechanisms and means by which they collect, send money back on a 50-50
cost-shared basis and it's cycled through to their budget.
Again, for clarity and for certainty, while it's
collected in the Consolidated Revenue Fund, it is 100 per cent cost recovered
from industry, and that's how the budget of C-NLOPB is funded.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Under Bill 44, and I have the reference to it here,
under a performance standard system, that a facility offshore may be under in
regard to emissions, and most of them would be or all of them would be under
25,000 tons.
So this particular section wouldn't be relevant to any
amounts based on their limits in terms of emissions they would exceed under the
fund. None of those payments would come through here? You're just saying it's
just C-NLOPB?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
I'm sorry, I didn't quite understand the full question. So I'll turn to the
Member again, just maybe for clarity. But for certainty our offshore, in today's
environment, is 100 per cent recovered. C-NLOPB's budget is 100 per cent
recovered from industry.
What you're approving today, or hopefully will be
approved today in Bill 41, is that any costs associated with the administration
of the Management of Greenhouse Gas Act
on the offshore industry, any cost would still be recovered from industry.
That's one of the focuses of Bill 41 is to do just that.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you.
And to minister, I guess I'm referring to the
performance standard system in regard to offshore facilities the same as
onshore, and there are performance targets that are met. And based on when we
roll this out, or whether they meet those targets or not, they need to pay into
the fund based on if they meet those targets or not.
So if an offshore facility is under performance-based
model that you're proposing and they have to pay in, you're saying the money
doesn't flow through here. So where would it actually flow in regard to –
because this says it's going into the general revenue consolidated. I assumed it
was, but you're indicating it's not.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
I
understand where the question is coming from now. That's if they're not
compliant. That's where the question lies.
So if, for example – and I'll use an example that says
in 2019 the 6 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emission target is not met –
I think this is the root of the question – then the installation would pay into
the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. And that Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund would
fund, and under the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment, would fund
activities to continue to lower greenhouse gas emissions in the province.
Again, if it's administrative costs required because
the C-NLOPB is administering the
Management of Greenhouse Gas Act, then that is cycled back through to the
budget of C-NLOPB. If an installation is non-compliant with the reductions that
are required – 6, 8, 10, 12 per cent going to 2022 – then what they will pay
into a – I just want to get the right name – Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, or
they can buy credits, okay. So there are one of two ways. Maybe somebody has
actually reduced their greenhouse gases enough that they can buy credits.
So they would either pay into the Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Fund or they can buy credits, but that's if they're non-compliant with
reducing their greenhouse gas emissions in 2019 by 6 per cent and so on, 2020 by
8, so on and so forth.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
That's exactly what we're talking about, because this
particular section speaks to: “shall be” required to be “paid to the
Consolidated Revenue Fund in the prescribed time and manner.” That was my
original question.
Subsection (2) speaks to: “are related to the powers,
duties or functions of the board referred to in subsection 159.2(1), those
amounts shall be paid in their entirety to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.”
So to me it means that any revenue out of performance
standard or anything else that based on not meeting those standards flows back
from the C-NLOPB to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Could you clarify whether
that's the case or not?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
Specifically to Bill 41, and this is under 29.2, and this is very specific to
Bill 41. The cost recovery is on what they consider a 50-50 basis between the
federal and provincial governments. So that as well as 100 per cent recovery
when the amounts collected are related to the powers, duties and
responsibilities and functions of the board. That goes back to the budget of
C-NLOPB. So it's a flow-through effect.
The federal government and the provincial government,
on a 50-50 basis, fund C-NLOPB. It's collected from the industry itself and then
flowed back through the Consolidated Revenue Fund. So just for clarity and
certainty, there are no budget implications on the federal or provincial
governments for this imposition of the
Management of Greenhouse Gas Act on offshore industry.
What the Consolidated Revenue Fund is is only a
mechanism for the flow through of the cost recovery.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Okay, I thank the minister for that.
So we're talking about cost recovery in regard to the
Consolidated Revenue Fund. Outside of that, if one of the operators is involved
in a performance standard in regard to reaching their targets, whether it's two,
six, eight, 12 over the next number of years, and there's a penalty because they
don't reach the target, that penalty that's levied and if there's money or funds
tied to it, where does that money flow and where is it directed?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
I
believe the question is – sorry, I'm going back and forth on the Consolidated
Revenue Fund, but I believe the question is if they do not meet compliance.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
That's correct.
MS.
COADY:
Yeah. My understanding is if they do not meet compliance, they do not meet their
6 per cent, 8 per cent, 10 per cent, 12 per cent, the funding goes to the
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund; the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund under the
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
They could also opt to buy credits, okay. So they could
buy credits. For example, if someone overextended and there were credits
available they could buy credits, but most of the time they would have to make a
contribution to the greenhouse gas fund.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Yes, that's what I expected upfront, that it would be
made to the injury fund.
Section 159.1(1) “The
Management of Greenhouse Gas Act applies, with the modifications
that the circumstances require, to a work or activity authorized under this Part
that is carried out within the offshore area.”
Minister, can you just give us an idea – that's
obviously the authority for the C-NLOPB oversight. So what would be defined as a
work or activity that's authorized?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
I'm
not quite sure where he's seeing that, but I will say that any work that is
authorized by the C-NLOPB. So as you know, any work being carried out in our
offshore oil and gas industry has to have authorization of the
Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. So they make the
considerations of what's an authorized activity offshore, whether it's
exploration or development.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Yes, I was speaking specifically to the
Management of Greenhouse Gas Act. It's in the bill. 159.1(1) says the
Management of Greenhouse Gas Act. It
says: “The Management of Greenhouse Gas
Act applies, with the modifications that the circumstances require, to a
work or activity authorized under this Part that is carried out within the
offshore area.”
It goes on to say: “Notwithstanding subsection (1),
where the Management of Greenhouse Gas Act
is amended and imposes a tax, that tax shall not apply to a work or activity
authorized under this Part that is carried out within the offshore area.”
So my question is, what's the work or activity, and
what's an example that's been suggested here in your bill?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
I'm
going to check on that with officials, because I want to make sure I'm saying it
exactly clear.
But allow me to ask officials and get right back to
you.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As well, the bill speaks to the power that's conferred
on the C-NLOPB with powers, duties and functions of the board, and that's
specifically here. 159.2(1): “The board may, under an agreement with the
minister responsible for the Management of
Greenhouse Gas Act or in accordance with the
Management of Greenhouse Gas Act, exercise any power or perform any
duty or function set out in that agreement or that Act to ensure the
administration and enforcement of that Act within the offshore area.”
So that obviously gives huge authority, and I would
determine it to be exclusive power by the minister at the time responsible for
the Management of Greenhouse Gas Act.
Could I just get – maybe from the minister who's
responsible for the act or from the Minister of Natural Resources. There are no
circumstances, based on this provision, where any authority could be fettered in
any way by the C-NLOPB. So this authority here is exclusive and under the domain
of whoever the minister of Management of
Greenhouse Gas Act is.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
The
role of the C-NLOPB in the Management of
Greenhouse Gas Act for the offshore is in administration, it's in monitoring
and reporting.
It is not an implemented policy, so therefore the
policy requirements under the act would be under the
Management of Greenhouse Gas Act, which is the Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Environment.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you.
Yes, certainly, but what this bill does is give the
C-NLOPB that authority that's under the
Management of Greenhouse Gas Act, and that authority references here in your
bill that the minister responsible for the
Management of Greenhouse Gas Act has, I assume, exclusive power in terms of
the implementation of the greenhouse gas act.
So there's nothing the C-NLOPB can do to infringe on
that authority? That's my question. This is exclusive to the minister and
there's nothing that can be done in regard to the administration of that act by
the C-NLOPB. That's my question.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
That is correct. The role of C-NLOPB is, as I said, the administration, the
monitoring and the reporting. It is not in the policy development of the same.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The act goes on further to say: “In exercising its
power and performing its duties and functions under subsection (1)” – which I
just referenced – “the board may obtain from the minister responsible for the
Management of Greenhouse Gas Act and
disclose to that minister any information relevant to the administration of the
Management of Greenhouse Gas Act.”
I just ask the minister again; so this is exclusive
authority by the minister to request that information, and I guess there are no
areas in any case where that could be denied. Just give an example of what types
of information that would be, please.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
We're dealing here with management of greenhouse act. So, as an example,
emission levels. Obviously, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment
will have to know emission levels to know that they're 6 per cent lower, 8 per
cent, 10 per cent. So that's an example.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you.
Just to that question in regard to the emissions and
the information that the minister responsible for the
Management of Greenhouse Gas Act would require from C-NLOPB, could
the minister just speak to that information that's required? Is there any kind
of audit process in regard to those emissions and confirming that they are
meeting the target? Not to discount the information that's put forward, but is
there any process in that regard to do an overview or an audit at some point
over the years as that will continue on and looking at the emissions?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you.
The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment will
have a team of people that will be monitoring this very closely, obviously, for
emissions levels. They will do the auditing as required. They will ensure those
targets are being met and administered properly. It's the role of C-NLOPB to
actually do the administration and monitoring then as directed by government
requirements of the Management of
Greenhouse Gas Act.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
The Member for Ferryland has asked a number of the
questions that I was going to ask, so I will not repeat those. We have the
information that we would have been looking for.
Minister, there's one in particular, coming back to
159.1(1): “The Management of Greenhouse
Gas Act applies, with the modifications that the circumstances require, to a
work or activity” et cetera.
I would like some explanation of what is meant by that
phrase “with the modifications that the circumstances require.”
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The amendments are consistent with the joint
management, obviously, of the offshore for both the federal and provincial
governments. The federal government has already introduced, as I said earlier,
the greenhouse gas pollution pricing amendments as part of their requirements.
This is legalese that has been agreed upon by the
provincial and federal government. It will ensure that C-NLOPB does the
monitoring and administration of the act – sorry, of the requirements of the act
while oversite and policy direction is established by the Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Environment.
I hope that answers the question.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Not
quite, Madam Chair, I say to the minister.
“The Management
of Greenhouse Gas Act applies, with the modifications that the circumstances
require, to a work or activity authorized under this Part that is carried out
within the offshore ….”
Does it mean with modifications that the circumstances
require to the act itself, to what's in the act? Modifications and circumstances
relating to what? It's not clear.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
I
would assume, Madam Chair, that it would be around the modifications and
certainties and requirements around the levels of requirements for emissions,
for emission decrease, and modifications to the greenhouse gas act as we move
forward, and any changes that are required from a policy direction perspective
that are agreed to by the federal and provincial governments.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Then based on the minister's comment there, are we
talking about modifications that the circumstances require that would have to
come to the House because it would be modifications to the act?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
If
there are modifications to the act, absolutely, it would have to come to the
House, but there would be under regulations – if there are regulatory changes or
policy changes that do not require legislative changes, obviously, they'll be
done as required under the regulatory body as agreed to by the federal and
provincial governments.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
That does explain – that final answer there does give
me the information I think I needed.
I just want to come to 159.2, which the Member for
Ferryland asked a lot of questions about and I won't repeat any of those. I have
a broader question, I guess, because it is the – subsection (1) for example:
“The board may, under an agreement with the minister responsible for the
Management of Greenhouse Gas Act or in
accordance with the Management of
Greenhouse Gas Act, exercise any power or perform any duty or function set
out in that agreement or that Act to ensure the administration and enforcement
of that Act within the offshore area.”
Then subsection (2): “In exercising its power and
performing its duties and functions under subsection (1), the board may obtain
from the minister responsible for the
Management of Greenhouse Gas Act and disclose to that minister any
information relevant to the administration of the
Management of Greenhouse Gas Act.”
I'm trying to deal with how it is going to operate. I
think the Member for Ferryland pointed this out. Everything seems to be in the
hands of the board, of the C-NLOPB, but – I know to whom the board is
accountable. It's accountable to the two governments, but is the board the
ultimate power?
This is what I'm trying to figure out, because that's
what it seems like. That the board is the ultimate power when it comes to the
exercising of the power and performance of duties or functions set out in the
act. And the board may obtain from the minister information and disclose to that
minister any information. Again, there seems to be a lot of power there in the
hands of the board.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As I've said, the C-NLOPB – the role of the
Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Petroleum Board in this particular instance,
and the management of greenhouse gas, will be as administrator, monitor and
reporting. They report on a regular basis. We have conversations on a regular
basis which C-NLOPB, but they would be reporting with regard to the emissions,
with regard to the Management of the
Greenhouse Gas Act.
They would speak, I would think, on a regular basis
with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment's office, giving status,
giving reports back on the management of greenhouse gas, on the levels and on
the installations and what the installations are requiring at that point.
So there would be a fair amount, I would think, of
discussion and reporting mechanism going back between the people who are
responsible for the management of greenhouse gas, which is the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment and C-NLOPB, as the entity responsible for
that administration and monitoring.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Just further to that, because I think my question will get to why this got set
up the way it did. It was indicated in the briefing that the corporations wanted
C-NLOPB to be the one performing the function that the minister just outlined,
rather than an individual department.
Minister, could you, if you can, if you have the
information, what was the rationale behind the corporations asking for that, and
ultimately (inaudible) agreeing?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
I
have to give credit to those within the Department of Municipal Affairs and
Environment. I've already said the minister is responsible, and of course there
are several individuals within the department that did a really good job of
ensuring our competitiveness in Newfoundland and Labrador for our offshore, in
recognizing the low levels of carbon per barrel that exist in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
We've had quite a bit of discussion over the last
number of years with industry to how best to administer this; how best can we
take as much carbon out of the barrel as we possibly can? As I said earlier,
Hibernia, to use it as an example, emits about 12 kilograms per barrel of CO2,
versus some other installations around the world, one as high as 260 kilograms.
So we're trying to take the carbon out of the barrel,
which is a great term, take the carbon out of the barrel as much as possible.
We've been working with industry to find out, how can we set that achievement?
How can we set that goal, continue to produce offshore Newfoundland and
Labrador?
We have a great opportunity of not just growing our
industry and creating jobs and economic activity and financial opportunity for
the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but imagine if you can supply more of
the world with what I'm going to call low carbon per barrel oil versus high
carbon per barrel oil. So the government has been in discussions with industry
to find the right mix of doing that.
As I've said to the Members opposite, next year it will
be 6 per cent lower than this year; the year after by eight, by 10. So it's
escalating. By the time we're up to 2022, we're going to be taking out literally
tens of thousands of emissions, tens of thousands of tons of emissions. So I
think it's valuable in that we are driving down emissions, tens of thousands of
tons of carbon will be eliminated. We'll continue to grow that. We're continuing
to push the industry to keep your carbon per barrel lower, lower, lower all the
time, and that's our goal.
In Advance 2030
we also started talking about renewable energy. Many operators around the world
– and I'll use Equinor as one of them – are now starting to use offshore wind in
conjunction with the development of oil and gas because they're recognizing that
the world is changing to a low carbon economy.
So they're really focused on this. I can say in my
dealings with the industry they recognize they have to continue, they must
continue to do more to lower that carbon in the barrel. I think in our offshore,
thankfully, we have low carbon now. We want to get it lower and lower
constantly.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just one question, I think it's my last one to the
minister because she referred to this in her final comments. It does have to do
with the fact that increased production – and I'm not speaking against increased
production, I'm just pointing out a fact – up to now has caused us not to be
able to meet our targets.
So I am wondering, with the determination of the six,
eight, 10 and 12 over those years of reduction, increasing from 6 per cent to
12, did that determination include an analysis of potential increase in
production? Which it seems in the past wasn't done, because that's why we had to
change out targets. I'm wondering if this time that was factored in so that the
six, eight, 10, 12 is realistic.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I will point out that the six, eight, 10 and 12
concludes in 2022. There will be no new production by 2022. It will be underway
now, so it will be factored in as we move forward.
I think if Equinor comes into play, and my memory is –
I have to check my memory on it, but it won't be until 2025. So that production
then, it will be post that production.
And you're absolutely right, we're going to have to
continue, and that I guess is the future of ensuring lower impact all the time.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR.
PETTEN:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Minister, I have one question. I was listening to the
questions going back and forth. We have equity shares outside of Hibernia, in
all our oil fields. Has there been an estimated cost to the province based on
our ownership in those fields, what it's going to cost the province as a result
of this greenhouse gas act being implemented?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you very much.
I think the Member may be a little – allow me to say it
this way, the province is not an operator of any of the fields. It is an equity
shareholder, okay. So we're an equity shareholder. The operators will be driving
down 6 per cent, 8 per cent, 10 per cent, 12 per cent.
In the fullness of time, what I think you're asking is
if they are not able to meet their reduction targets, what the impact that may
be on our – within the fullness of time question, and it would be speculative
for me to say at this point in time, but it would come off the cost of the
barrels.
I can't speculate that there would be any cost, because
of course installations are continuing to drive down by 6, 8, 10, 12 per cent
their emissions targets. So I wouldn't be able to speculate there would be any
cost at all as an equity shareholder.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The owner-operator piece, I know reading through some
of the information – the original greenhouse gas act, I think, had owner and
operator. I think now it's been amended to just operator. If the minister could
reference, was there some thought given that in regard to the offshore where the
owners or those that have shares in it may be quite different from operator? And
was that one of the reasons the change may have been made?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
No,
I don't think so, but I could check with my legal department to find out why
they chose one word versus the other. That wasn't –
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
(Inaudible.)
MS.
COADY:
Pardon me?
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
It
used to be owner and operator (inaudible) operator.
MS.
COADY:
Yeah. I could ask legal as to why they chose one word versus another word.
I do have an answer, though, to your earlier question:
what does work or activity mean?
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Yeah.
MS.
COADY:
Work or activity authorized under this part refers to activities in which the
C-NLOPB would issue an operating licence or authorization. Remember I said that
would be the case, C-NLOPB can do an operating licence or an authorization. It
basically means that the Management of
Greenhouse Gas Act applies to the activities of the oil and gas industry
that are regulated by the C-NLOPB; for example, the drilling of wells, and
production from offshore installations.
I just wanted to make sure there was clarity around
that before I moved on.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just listened to my colleague speaking to section
159.2 (1). That reference says: “The board may, under an agreement with the
minister …” and goes on to the powers, duties and functions. Is there an actual
agreement that needs to be drawn up between the two parties, or what exactly
does that reference?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you.
I think it allows for C-NLOPB and the administration of
the requirements of the management of greenhouse gas to be able to have
conversations and reporting mechanisms and monitoring mechanisms with the
department that is responsible for the act. So it allows for that kind of
interaction.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR.
PETTEN:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just as a follow-up; Minister, I know you explained it
out to me when I was asking about the equity share, but just some clarity – I
know the owner-operator piece, during the briefing that was pretty
straightforward, but the province by paying in have an equity, incurred costs
and they also reap rewards in revenues where possible.
So you are an owner, but you're also – you're the owner
of the field, you're the owner of the resource, but you're also – I'm trying to
separate the two, owner operator from the province's perspective. You're
partnered with them in every step of the way, so when it comes to a cost – this
will cost industry. As much as we say it's going back to the C-NLOPB, it's not
going to cost the province but it's industry.
Carbon pricing is a cost to industry. To reach your
targets industry will have to pay. As a province we have an equity share in
those fields. You're either an owner or you're the operator. The province are
part owners. They're not the operators, where Husky, for instance, would be.
Just some clarity. There is still a possibility – I
know you can't specify the exact dollars and cents, but am I not right in
saying, or it's not a valid point in saying there will be some cost to the
province. You may not know the exact dollars and cents, but there has to be some
– based on the simple fact we paid in. We take the risks and the rewards; the
risk and reward benefit by buying ownership of these fields. So I'm struggling
why you would separate the two when it comes to carbon pricing.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
There are a couple of things, if I may, to correct in the hon. Member's
statement. I just want to make sure we're clear on it.
What I'm saying, what goes back to the C-NLOPB is any
costs of administering, okay. If a company is not compliant with meeting their
reduction targets, that money will go to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund,
okay? So I just want to make sure we're clear on that. The only thing that goes
to the C-NLOPB is collection of any costs that are associated with the
administration of the act. That's one thing.
The second thing I want to make sure I'm clear on is an
operator is responsible under the authorization that is given by the C-NLOPB. An
operator is responsible under the authorization given by the C-NLOPB, whereas an
owner is an agreement amongst corporations to own a particular project.
So I think your question is if you're an owner of an
installation you may have some impact over, in the fullness of time, if the
operator does not meet its reduction targets. And that is a potential – I can't
speculate on that. I would anticipate that they will make their targets of
reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. If they don't, the operator would have
to make a contribution to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.
I would anticipate, because I know the offshore
installations are doing a lot to bring down their greenhouse gas emissions.
They're putting a lot of money into innovations to do just that. So I can't
speculate if there would be any impact. We're not anticipating any because we're
anticipating them lowering their impacts.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR.
PETTEN:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Minister, to clarify, as a province, are we the owner
or the operator?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
Sorry, I had to wait for my light to come on.
At this point in time – and again, in the fullness of
time – we may be an operator, but at this point in time we are an equity owner.
So an operator is someone who actually operates the well. And I'll use
ExxonMobil, who operates both Hibernia and Hebron. I'll use Suncor, who operates
Terra Nova. There are other investors or other equity owners, but that is a
difference between an operator and an owner.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR.
PETTEN:
Minister, based on that fact we'll never have to pay in as a province. The
reason I ask, under Bill 34 that came into legislature in 2016, I think, was it,
the greenhouse gas act? There was a separation. There was an owner and an
operator. They were included for both of them, now we've got it separated to the
owner and the operator.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
The
only time the Management of Greenhouse Gas
Act will apply to the offshore is with the approval of Bill 41.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just want to pick up on a point that the Member for
Conception Bay South raised, and just for my own clarity. I think he was saying,
and I won't put words in his mouth, but I'll just try to make it really simple.
If I was a shareholder in a business and the net profit for that business was
$1, okay – it wouldn't be in business very long but I'm just trying to simplify
it – net profit of $1.
These regulations come along, and in order to meet
these regulations the cost of doing business goes up. Now I'm only making 90
cents; I'm not making a dollar. So if I was a 10 per cent shareholder in that
business, I was making 10 cents, but because of these regulations driving the
cost up and the profits down, now I'm only making nine cents.
So I think what the Member was saying, if I understand
him, and that's how I understand it as well, to clarify, there could indeed be a
cost to us in terms of our share of the profits on equity. It could go down ever
so slightly if their profit margins were impacted by having to implement all
these new measures, driving their costs up and then net profits down. Would that
be correct?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
You
would still make a profit, you'd just make less profit. And that could be, in
the fullness of time, correct.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR.
LANE:
I
thank the minister for that, and that's how I understood it. I'm not arguing
that, I'm just trying to understand the full picture and what the Member was
saying.
I guess on the other side of it, if the operator
decided we're not going to meet targets and they're going to pay the credit or
the levy or whatever it is you call it, in lieu of meeting targets, then we
would get 100 per cent of that money going into government coffers anyway. So in
that regard, I guess, we'd be out nothing. If anything, we'd probably be up a
few dollars. Is that correct?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
It
is difficult to speculate on all these things. I would be clear that as an owner
you do have responsibility for their percentage of any costs, right? So as an
owner you do have those responsibilities.
I will say that I would anticipate that most every
installation will lower their impacts by six, eight, 10, and 12. That's
certainly the information I have. They could, if they cannot make those targets
they can pay into the Greenhouse Reduction Fund, and that fund would then go
back into innovations and trying to drive down the province's overall impact on
greenhouse gas.
So you are correct in that we could, in the fullness of
time, have some impact, but the impact would be because we're trying to lower
our emissions, and that's a good thing for all of us.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR.
LANE:
I
thank the minister for that, and I agree, and I'm not arguing. I'm just trying
to, Madam Chair, understand the full scope and all the impacts and potential
impacts and so on. I thank the minister for the answer, and I don't have any
real issue with that.
Madam Chair, I guess the only other point I would say
is that – just for the record, because this will probably be the last chance to
speak to this bill. I know in theory you could speak to third reading but it's
not customary, generally.
I did raise some concerns in second reading around the
bill, but my concerns were more about the bill to come as opposed to this bill.
I guess in listening intently to the discussion back and forth and so on, on the
impacts of this bill, my concerns are more about the consumer going to the gas
pump as opposed to lowering greenhouse gas emissions on the offshore. I think we
do need to lower greenhouse gas emissions on the offshore and with the big
polluters, I call them, wherever we can.
I'm glad to see we're doing well in our offshore in
terms of the impact on it per barrel versus other jurisdictions. That's great to
hear. If we can reduce it even further I think that's important. As I said
earlier, climate change is real and we are seeing the impacts here in
Newfoundland and Labrador. We do have to do our part.
Again, my concern is about the consumer going to the
gas pump, the everyday person, not the big corporation, and for them to be
paying a tax in which I do not believe for one second it's going to have any
impact on the environment. It's just a tax, in my view. Granted, government
really doesn't have a choice, because if they don't do it the feds are going to
do it anyway. So I guess my beef is more with Justin Trudeau than the Minister
of Natural Resources in Newfoundland and Labrador in that regard. But we're not
even at that bill.
So in terms of Bill 41, I will say in conclusion, for
the record, that based on the fact that this is really just about the offshore,
lowering greenhouse gas emissions, it's not the issue about the regular consumer
at the pumps, even though it's all tied into the same bill but a different part
of that larger bill, from that regard, I will be supporting it.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you very much.
Again, this bill really does allow for the
implementation of the Management of
Greenhouse Gas Act in our offshore. It's very important and allows for
C-NLOPB to do the administration, which I think is very important, a single
administrator for our offshore oil and gas. They will be the one monitoring.
They will be the one reviewing to ensure compliance, and they will be the one
reporting to government that our offshore oil and gas industry is doing just
that.
I think all of us in this hon. House, as well as all of
us in the province, would expect our offshore oil and gas operators to continue
to reduce their carbon impact and that they would continue to fund innovations
to take the carbon out of the barrel. I think it's incredibly important that
they are held responsible for that, as industry is held responsible for ensuring
that climate change is addressed, not just in Newfoundland and Labrador but in
the world.
So I thank you for the opportunity to bring this
forward.
CHAIR:
Seeing no further speakers, shall clause 1 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against?
Carried.
On motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK (Murphy):
Clause 2.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 2 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against?
Carried.
On motion, clause 2 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 3.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 3 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against?
Carried.
On motion, clause 3 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative
Session convened, as follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend the Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord
Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against?
Carried.
On motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill without amendment?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against?
Carried.
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the
bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.
I move that the House rise and report Bill 41.
CHAIR:
The
motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 41.
On motion, that the Committee rise and report Bill 41
carried without amendment, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR.
SPEAKER (Trimper):
The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave
and Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole.
MS.
P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Committee of the Whole have considered the matters
to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 41 without amendment.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have
considered the matters to them referred and have directed her to report Bill 41
without amendment.
When shall the report be received?
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Now.
When shall the said bill be read a third time?
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On motion, report received and adopted. Bill 41 ordered
read a third time on tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Normally, now I would be calling second reading of Bill
44, which is An Act To Amend The Management Of Greenhouse Gas Act And The
Revenue Administration Act, but I'm hoping with your indulgence, Mr. Speaker,
and I guess the indulgence of my colleagues across the way, that I can explain a
little procedural difference that we're going to undertake here – and with the
consent of my colleagues. We will still be debating the substance of Bill 44 but
not in a regular piece of legislation but in a resolution.
So what we have here – and, again, this is a bit of a
procedural wrangling here. Normally, in a bill you enter it and you've given a
notice, you have first reading, second reading, Committee and third, and you're
only supposed to do certain readings at a time, which means a bill traditionally
takes up to four days. Certain pieces are resolutions, and endeavours require –
especially when it relates to the imposition of a tax on individuals, it
requires a resolution to be entered into a House. And that is done via a notice,
giving a notice of what you're intending to do, and then the next day you can
debate that resolution.
Typically, in the House we refer to these as money
bills. Again, it's done in a Committee stage of the House, it is intervening
speakers back and forth. People can speak for as long as they want on this
particular resolution, but it doesn't go through the regular reading stages.
When we entered this bill, we had done it thinking it
could be done in a regular piece of legislation, but through some very careful
eyes, we'll say, on the legislation, we identified that where this is actually
the imposition of a tax, as was explained in the Legislature, we must do this in
a resolution.
So what I'm hoping is with the consent of my colleagues
right now, I will hereby enter a resolution and we'll commence debate. I'll
bring the House into a Committee for us to enter that debate.
So I would ask for my colleagues consent.
MR.
SPEAKER:
I
am looking for consent for the –
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Consent.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Consent.
Thank you.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
I
thank my colleagues for this.
So, Mr. Speaker, normally I would give notice on that
but I will bypass that stage.
Mr. 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 on Ways and Means to consider a resolution respecting the
imposition of taxes on carbon products, Bill 44.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
motion is that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
The motion is carried.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Warr):
Order, please!
We are now debating the related resolution and Bill 44.
Resolution
CLERK (Barnes):
Be
it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows:
“That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting
the impositions of taxes on carbon products.”
CHAIR:
Shall the resolution carry?
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We've changed a bill to a resolution today in the House
and bringing forward amendments to the
Revenue Administration Act relating to the implementation of our carbon
pricing system.
So, Mr. Chair, the changes to the
Revenue Administration Act are included in the same bill as the
Management of Greenhouse Gas Act that
the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment, I understand, is going to
speak to during this resolution as well.
There's been a lot of disingenuous rhetoric, I would
say, Mr. Chair, on the topic of carbon pricing by Members of the House of
Assembly. I'll get to a little bit of that, but despite what Members opposite
have been saying, the carbon pricing system that we've agreed to with the
federal government is anything but a job killer.
So, Mr. Chair, at one point Members opposite were –
prior to the details of this becoming public – saying that it was a job killer,
the taxes were going to be too high, we were going to shut businesses down,
consumer wouldn't be able to afford to pay. And now that the details are there,
Mr. Chair, it doesn't go far enough. It's not going to eliminate greenhouse
gases, it's not significant enough.
I understand the role of Opposition, Mr. Chair, and I
understand that role is to try and make things – to criticize. I would say
constructive criticism, it should be, to criticize what government are doing.
That's the reason they're call critics.
I spent some time on that side of the House as well,
Mr. Chair, so I understand the role of Opposition. It is to be critical of
government but it should be constructive criticism, not just simply to criticize
for the sake of criticizing. To say one week that it's going to be a job killer,
that's it going to be way too heavy, that consumers shouldn't have to bear with
it, and then when they find out that it's not as bad as they thought it was, it
doesn't go far enough. You can't have it both ways.
Mr. Chair, the reality is that the carbon pricing
system is federally imposed for every province in Canada, and when faced with
that reality provinces had one of two choices. They could have put in their own
system, as we did, the Made-in- Newfoundland and Labrador system that our
government negotiated with the federal government, and I would say we did a very
good job.
When you get other provinces, Mr. Chair, complaining
about the good deal we got on this, when you get other provinces saying we got
the best deal in Canada, I would say we did a pretty decent job. So you could
either go with your own system or you could go with the federal system, what
we've been referring to as the federal backstop; namely, the imposition of the
federal carbon pricing system.
Mr. Chair, our government has never seen the federal
backstop as an option for our province. We would have seen businesses in this
province pay up to four times more under the federal backstop than what we've
negotiated. We would have seen things like home heating fuel affected, which
we've negotiated out so that we didn't put in place a burden on people who
could, perhaps, least afford it.
Most of the houses in this province that are heated by
oil are 30, 40 years old, Mr. Chair, and they're owned either by senior citizens
or they are older homes, probably less insulated than some of the more modern
homes. Traditionally, for the most part, people who are heating their homes by
oil are now on fixed incomes, if they're on pensions and so on.
So, Mr. Chair, we didn't see that as an option. We got
a number of areas within our system where we've seen exemptions put in place
that we negotiated with the federal government. Again, I believe we got a good
deal.
In designing their plan, the federal government did not
take into account the unique realities that some of the provinces face, such as
our province. It would've been a one-size-fits-all. The problem is that it
doesn't fit all. It doesn't meet the circumstances and needs of our province and
the people of our province.
So while some provinces refuse to work with Ottawa, we
recognized that if we went that route, which the Leader of the Opposition at one
point was advocating for, that we tell Ottawa we weren't going to work with
them, we would've seen the federal backstop.
Other provinces are facing the federal backstop now. In
particular, those provinces are the ones that have identified the fact that
we've been able to negotiate a pretty good deal for the people and the
businesses in this province. So while other provinces refuse to work with
Ottawa, Mr. Chair, we've been able to put in place a good deal for the people of
the province.
We took the route of co-operation, of negotiation with
the federal government, of outlining the unique circumstances that this province
faces. One of those is the fact that we're already paying very heavily as a
result of Muskrat Falls. The people of this province, the government in the
province, are already paying for Muskrat Falls; something that we've able to get
that message across to the federal government. We've been able to identify the
fact that without access to natural gas companies like the North Atlantic
refinery in Come By Chance would've been adversely affected. So we've been able
to get that recognized under our plan.
Many communities throughout the province are reliant on
interprovincial marine transportation. Mr. Chair, we got an exemption there. The
fact that many are off the grid and rely on diesel-generated electricity, and we
were able to get exemptions there.
Mr. Chair, one of the biggest areas, as I said, was the
$12.7 billion. The project that was supposed to be less than half of that,
Muskrat Falls, the largest single tax on the people of this province, and we
were able to demonstrate to the federal government, Mr. Chair, that because of
the burden of Muskrat Falls, because of the burden that this province and the
people of this province have faced with that, that the Muskrat Falls Project has
to be taken into account.
So when the Opposition say we haven't done enough for
climate change, or to reduce emissions, I'd argue that point as well. Not only
is the province going to be 98 per cent green energy – and I will give credit,
it was the other party that brought in play Muskrat Falls.
I've identified that really the only good thing, in the
short term for sure, to come out of Muskrat Falls is the fact that we will be 98
per cent green energy, and we were able to demonstrate the burden that Muskrat
Falls puts on the people of this province in negotiating this deal with the
federal government. We also made the case to Ottawa that our province was
already paying a significant cost for low carbon economy, as I'd mentioned with
Muskrat Falls.
While others have elected not to work with the federal
government on the carbon plan, Mr. Chair, we're working with them. We've
achieved a far more reasonable plan given our unique circumstances, and the
federal government has recognized our position and have approved our plan, which
I believe is a credit to them as well and to the hard work of our staff.
The officials in the Department of Finance, the
officials in the Department of Natural Resources and in the Department of
Municipal Affairs and Environment had been working for months with officials in
Ottawa to design the plan we have today and to get it approved by the federal
government.
Mr. Chair, we've heard complaints, as I've said, from
other provinces that our deal was the best deal in the country, and it is. It
does recognize the unique circumstances in our province. I won't speak directly
to those comments, but I think they speak volumes of our approach and our plan
and the negotiation that took place with the federal government.
Mr. Chair, what we're introducing here are amendments
to the Revenue Administration Act to
put our Made-in-Newfoundland carbon plan into action. These changes will become
effective January 1, as we've announced previously.
So before I get into the act itself, Mr. Chair, I'd
like to speak to the significant exemptions that our agreement with Ottawa sees
and puts in place the exemptions for carbon pricing that already exist on the
gasoline tax. These changes will soon be prescribed in regulations under the
Revenue Administration Act. I won't go
through all of them, but I'll hit on some of the higher points.
Exemptions under the carbon tax, as with the gasoline
tax, include gasoline used for electricity generation; fuels used in home
heating – perhaps, Mr. Chair, the most important of the exemptions we were able
to achieve. If we had faced the federal backstop, home heating fuels would have
been taxed.
We've got exemptions for fuel used for farming
purposes. We are trying to grow our agriculture industry in this province and
it's very important that we see an exemption on fuel used for farming. Fuel used
in the forestry activities, including: commercial cutting, harvesting of logs,
wood chippers, debarkers and silviculture – also very important.
When you look at the challenges we almost saw with free
trade and what the administration south of the border was trying to do with
Corner Brook Pulp and Paper and the importance that puts not only in the direct
jobs, but there are some 500 jobs that are directly related to that industry in
terms of harvesters. So very important that we've protected our forestry
industry in this province as well.
There are numerous exemptions for fuel used for vessels
or boats, including for fishing purposes; for regularly scheduled routes in
international and interprovincial trade – again, to protect the fact that we are
somewhat of an isolated location and we needed to ensure we were protected on an
interprovincial and international trade perspective; for commercial
transportation of fish; for the cultivation or harvesting of aquatic plants or
animals.
Other types of exemptions include fuel used in several
types of construction and manufacturing equipment, and fuel used in equipment
for exploration of a mineral or an offshore exploration – again, to protect our
industry.
So we went above and beyond. The ministers involved and
the officials involved in each of these departments, Mr. Chair, I believe put in
place a very effective negotiation, very effective dialogue. Again, I have to
commend the officials in each of these departments for the dedication and the
hard work they did in getting us to this very successful negotiation with the
federal government.
Mr. Chair, we're also putting in place exemptions for
fuels already exempted by the federal government in their
Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act; fuels used for regulated
activities under the provincial Management
of Greenhouse Gas Act, which was introduced in the last session of the
House; for aviation fuels.
As well, Mr. Chair, as mentioned, this covers some but
not all of the exemptions.
When you look at aviation and our remote location, the
fact that aviation is very important to this province, we were successful in
getting that exempt as well.
If we turn to the legislation at hand, we're making
amendments to this act to set how the tax will be applied and administered. So
for gasoline, Mr. Chair, it will be applied at a rate of 4.42 cents per litre,
and at the same time we will be removing the 4 cents on the remaining temporary
gas tax as we have committed to doing all along.
The difference will be .42 of a cent, less than half a
cent for consumers in this province on a litre when they purchase gasoline. The
result is that individuals will only see less than half a cent increase. So if
you're purchasing 150 litres of gasoline per month, the increase that
individuals will see is about $7.50 per year.
Mr. Chair, I understand there's less than a minute left
to speak. We've got a number of individuals on both sides of the Legislature I
would suspect will want to speak to this. Again, I'm very thankful to the
officials. I believe they did a fantastic job in putting, what we see on this
side as government, a very successful negotiation with the federal government.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR.
PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's a pleasure to get up and speak on Bill 44, the
Management of Greenhouse Gas Act. As I
stated earlier, I've been the Environment critic since 2015. The carbon tax and
the carbon pricing models, it's an issue that's come to this floor many times.
I've had the opportunity to speak on this issue on many occasions.
Last year, we brought in a private Member's resolution.
Basically, we're opposed to a carbon tax. We're opposed to the carbon pricing
model. The resolution didn't pass through the House, but that was our stance and
we've been very public on that ever since.
I guess being public on it too, it's not unanimous
across this country. As we know, five provinces now are facing court challenges
on the carbon pricing model. So it's far from unanimous consent that the federal
government has gotten on their initiative.
Even though Members opposite like to get up and make
reference that it's a federal government initiative and we had no choice but to
bring in our own legislation to protect the province, Made-in-Newfoundland and
Labrador approach, it was brought in by the federal government, and we
acknowledge that.
Something that I know I've spoke on in this House, and
some of my colleagues, and it bears repeating, I've always wondered: Why didn't
you stand up for the province? The federal government here, this is their
legislation. We're going to accept that legislation. We're going to add another
tax onto the people of this province. We already got 300-plus taxes and fees.
We're going to give them another tax.
I'd like to highlight the minister – and on that topic,
the Minister of Finance just got up and he made some reference of some
commentary that has been said about our carbon pricing. My guess would be a
reference to some public commentary I may have made.
To say that we never went far enough, I'm asking – it
doesn't make sense. My commentary has been, you go all this while, you got a
carbon pricing plan, the federal government has been – there have been a lot of
talk throughout the country, probably more so nationally than it's been in the
province. I know, as critic, you try to bring issues, as the minister rightfully
identified – he was a Member on this side. As a critic, we try to give life to
our debate. We feel we have an issue; we try to bring it to light.
Provincially, it's been a struggle for our side. I know
from mine, and some of the colleagues, we speak about it a lot. We feel it
doesn't get the legs it deserves. But federally, this has been big issue. Across
the country, carbon pricing has been a big issue.
This past summer, I was in Quebec City and Montreal
visiting family, and I talked to locals. One of the first things they brought up
– one of their biggest issues was immigration and carbon pricing. And I kind of
smiled when they said it because that's not the two biggest issues in
Newfoundland and Labrador. But it is a national issue. It's become more of an
issue here. Yet, to this day, and I'll say it again, people do not really
understand or grasp the full concept of what this really means.
Carbon pricing has always been – we're trying to change
behaviours. In a nutshell, you're trying to change behaviours. You are trying to
get people to bring in new, innovative ways to reduce carbon emissions. We're
bringing in legislation. There are no real targets. We don't know any
guidelines. There are some targets set for the offshore, but there are no
emissions. We just experienced that in Question Period today. We went through
the briefing – and I thank the minister, staff and others for the briefing we
have provided last week, and I appreciate it.
We asked those questions. We're not getting the
details. You're going to eliminate 4-cent gas tax, but you're going to replace
it with 4.42. So you're not eliminating, you're going to actually add on. And it
says it's only going to cost you X number of dollars, more than what it cost you
before, fair enough, but it's still going to cost you more. It's still going
into general revenue. It's a tax. As being debated here now, it's a resolution
because it's a tax.
The goal of Members opposite and the federal
government, it's a big thing to reduce your carbon footprint, reduce your
emissions. We're opposed to carbon pricing. We never, ever said once we're
against climate change. We don't believe in climate change. We don't say that.
We don't agree with the philosophy out to get there. Carbon pricing is their
vehicle to get there.
We don't agree with that philosophy. We've never said
once, and I've never said it as Environment critic, that we're opposed, we don't
believe in climate change – never once. I know people south of the border say
that we don't say that. We don't like the vehicle to get to climate change. We
don't believe carbon pricing is the answer. That's all. It's a philosophical
difference. We do share the same belief. I think both sides agree that climate
change is an issue. We're not living with our heads in the sand; we just don't
believe that's the right mechanism to get the desired result for pricing.
Because, in essence, you're using sin tax; you're trying to punish people into
changing behaviours.
So what you've done is you put a 16-cent tax on gas in
2016. I don't see the road flooded with electric cars. I've seen the economy
affected. I've seen a lot of small business people being affected. I've seen a
lot of people's disposable income being affected, but they never changed their
behaviours, and I say that with all sincerity. I've railed against the taxes.
I've railed against the gas tax. I'm on record in this House, as Members and the
Minister of Finance has well heard me many times, I'm totally against it. But it
didn't change their behaviours when it came to emissions.
I don't see any difference across the board. I don't
see any flux in electric cars; nobody else is with one vehicle as opposed to
two, or opposed to three. Nothing has changed. Now, people made adjustments
because there's less money coming into the household. Businesses suffered
because there is less money being spent. When you tie it to your emissions and
your climate change, it made no difference.
That's when I say, and I'll say it again and I'll be on
record, not that you didn't go far enough, this is not the answer; this is just
a nice way of ticking the box on an election promise by the federal government.
We ticked the box. We've accomplished their goal: We're going to bring in a
climate change plan. That's what I promised to do. I've delivered on my promise.
When you go back to the voters next year, the prime minister can say I done what
I told the people I was going to do.
But what is the result? Made-in-Newfoundland plan. Sure
there are people in this province going to be happy they don't have to pay more.
Lord knows, with 300 taxes and fees in excess, we got enough, we're paying
enough, and we're still paying it. Two years later, going on three, we're still
paying it. We don't need another tax; that's been our argument anyway. But to
say we never went far enough, that's what I'm saying, none of this makes sense.
It's a political exercise, Minister.
I've read a lot of information on this. I've read a
lot, I've heard a lot, I've listened to a lot, and I still don't know all there
is to know. I educated myself because it's part of your role, I suppose, of
being a critic, as you would know. You try to talk somewhat intellectually on a
topic, but I'm one of them people, too, if I see reason, if it makes some sense,
I'll be fair enough to say that makes a lot of sense to me. This case here, I
don't see the rationale. You got targets set offshore, okay, I get that. You got
your single regulator we just went through in Bill 41. I get the gist of that.
We're not really sure where our targets are but there's something more defined.
Me and you and whoever else is going to a gas station
are paying 4½ on gas and our diesel increase of 5, whatever the exact amount is.
I don't see how that's going to change our behaviours. It's another tax. It's
another cost out of our pockets. I don't see that's changing anything.
So, another tax is not the answer to reducing
emissions. The minister refers to good deals. They went up to Ottawa, they came
back and they got a good deal. We lobbied, we argued and we still say why didn't
you stand up to Ottawa. It's never a bad thing to stand up to Ottawa. Some
people might say it's politically advantageous sometimes to be the bad cop of
Confederation which we've had a history of doing over the years. I'm not even
saying that. Stand up and say no, we don't need any more. We're already burdened
enough. We've struggled enough under this economy. We've struggled enough with
the reduction in oil prices. We need a break. We don't need to add another
burden on to our taxpayers, on our industry. We don't need to do that.
You look at industry like Come by Chance Refinery out
there; they have pretty tight profit margins. At least they were when we were in
government. From my memories of it, they were always tight profit margins. When
I was over in the Department of Environment with the former minister and we met
with the officials from that department, when all these issues were being talked
about – this is not a new thing, of course. It's not just happened since 2015.
Climate change has been around for a long time and it's been how you deal with
it. These people are tight. The profit margins were very tight back then.
They're no less now. They're probably worse now with the price of oil dropped in
our economy. They have to make an option. They got to opt in or opt out. If you
opt in, you have targets or based on your emissions. More than likely they'll
have to meet targets because I think they're over 25,000 if I'm not mistaken.
Regardless, it's another cost to those industries.
When you put that into perspective, Corner Brook Pulp
and Paper is a prime example. They've really struggled. As we all know, and
rightly so, they're the lifeline to the Corner Brook, West Coast region. They
are the lifeline. It's another burden on them. We can blanket it, you can say it
with all the lingo and all the different terminology and some people kind of
just could glaze over, the bottom line this is another cost.
We just talked about Bill 41. We talked about it in the
Legislature; we're talking about Bill 44 now. It's another cost. So it's another
cost to the offshore. We got up and we asked the question: Who's absorbing the
cost? The industry is absorbing the cost. Will the province be affected? Well,
we're not really sure. No, because they are the owner and not the operator. Put
all that aside, all that semantics, all that aside, the grey areas or whatever
you want to call it, blurred lines, the bottom line is it's going to cost us
more.
At the end of the day, we will pay more. When you go
into the gas station, the province will probably have an effect on their
royalties but there's no real clear – it might be small. It'll have an effect.
If the industry pays more, it affects the bottom line. They make decisions based
on that.
Any way you look at it – if you're going to buy
something off a shelf in a supermarket, it will cost you more. All this stuff
trickles down. There's no real – the end game – the consumer usually pays every
time. The consumer pays most every time. They downloaded the cost. It's a known
fact. That's the way our world operates. The end-user is the one that will
always pay the extra price. They have set profit margins. They'll meet their
margins at the cost of the consumer. So when you say you get a good deal, and
you looked after the people in this province –
MR.
LETTO:
We
did.
MR.
PETTEN:
The
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment is proudly saying we did. I know
there are a couple of people got a good deal in this province. We haven't
figured it out yet, but –
MR.
K. PARSONS:
Once we figure it out, we will (inaudible).
MR.
PETTEN:
We'll let you know when we get it all figured out. There are a couple of
companies here that got a really good deal. There's Canopy and there's a
numbered company, 80521. They got a pretty good deal. But we're going to let you
all know when we figure it out all out. There's a lot more –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR.
PETTEN:
– to the story.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR.
PETTEN:
Information happens to flow pretty good, Mr. Chair. As time goes on, you're
pushing your year four, information flows pretty good these days, but –
MR.
K. PARSONS:
People are figuring it out.
MR.
PETTEN:
People are figuring it out, that's right. They are figuring it out.
So the minister says that Muskrat Falls – they like to
get up and the punchline is Muskrat Falls for this, Muskrat Falls for that. The
Minister of Finance voted for Muskrat Falls. I never, but he did. He voted for
Muskrat Falls, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR.
PETTEN:
Now, they don't like that, but that's a fact. He voted for Muskrat Falls. And
there is a minister over there that was on the board that approved it. So when
they get up and it's their punchline to everything, whether it's snowing today,
whether the plow is broke down, that's because of Muskrat Falls. A restaurant
closed, that's because of Muskrat Falls. It can't be a punchline forever.
Your names have been over the door now for four years.
It's time for you, as a government, to own up to some of your problems.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR.
PETTEN:
It's time for you to own up to some of your responsibilities, I say.
What about the 300 taxes and fees? Go out and ask the
people: Do you want another one now? There are 301, because that's what this is
as of January 1, 2019, is 301.
But the Minister of Finance – he's there, and I see him
making his actions and whatnot –
MR.
KING:
Point of order, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Bonavista for a point of order.
MR.
KING:
(Inaudible) got to listen to the misinformation for the Member for CBS. This is
not 300 new taxes or fees; this is 300 across the board that some haven't been
raised since the '70s, Mr. Chair. He should be honest in this House and not
mislead the general public.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
There is no point of order.
MR.
PETTEN:
Point of order, Mr. Chair, section 49.
The Member for Bonavista just referred to me as being
dishonest and I take that as not parliamentary.
CHAIR:
Do
the Member for Bonavista want to speak to the order?
MR.
KING:
No.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I will review
Hansard and report back to the House.
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception
Bay South.
MR.
PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There last week we were debating a private Member's
motion and there was eight points of order, and it was on a numbered company, it
got under their flesh, and actually the Member from Bonavista got two or three
points of order. It was one after another after another after another. I mean
let us speak; you'll have opportunities to speak. No, that's fact. They don't
like hearing it. We listen to Members opposite. I listen to them whether it's
good, bad or genuine; I listen to it all.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR.
PETTEN:
Money bill, we can talk all we want, Minister of Transportation and Works.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR.
PETTEN:
You'll get an opportunity to get up, too, now shortly.
MR.
K. PARSONS:
They don't want to hear it.
MR.
PETTEN:
They don't want to hear it, but Mr. Chair, the reality is –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
This is a warning to the House. I just want to hear the
person who's been identified to speak.
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception
Bay South.
MR.
PETTEN:
Mr.
Chair, in my last few minutes I kind of got disrupted a lot so I'm winding down,
but I think I might have to get up again and again, you never know, we get lots
of opportunity in Committee.
So on that final note, I tell the Members, stay tuned,
this will continue, I got lots more information to share with him when I talk
further on the debate.
Thank you very much.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Finance
and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm only going to take a couple of minutes because I
know my colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment, wants to
speak to this as well.
But I got to address something here. The Member for
Conception Bay South said, oh, the Minister of Finance voted for Muskrat Falls.
Well, I tell you what I voted for, Mr. Chair; I voted for what they promised,
not what they delivered.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
OSBORNE:
I
made a mistake because I believed them. I was sitting as an independent at the
time.
Now, I did get a binder. I got a binder from them. I
might bring that into the House because there's some really good information.
It's a binder that was provided by their caucus with some absolutely fantastic
facts and figures; what I thought were facts. They were figures, all right. What
I thought were facts, Mr. Chair, what I thought were facts.
I'm going to tell you a little story about Muskrat
Falls. We got, not only in the Estimates document for the 2015 budget, but in
the binder that their caucus were so delighted to provide me with a copy of, we
were only supposed to put a little more than $3 billion into Muskrat Falls, as a
province.
I wish that were the case, but that's what I voted for.
That what I voted for. Muskrat Falls was supposed to cost $5.7 billion. Now, I
wish that were the case because it's more like $12.7 billion, but that's what I
voted for. We were supposed to get our full investment back in eight years, Mr.
Chair – in eight years. Well, that's what I voted for. That's what I voted for.
Not what they told me. They told me that we'd get our investment back in eight
years. I voted for what I believed to be the truth, but it turns out it wasn't
the truth.
After the eight years, we were supposed to get our full
investment back, and then we were supposed to make about a billion dollars a
year, I believe is what was in the document, revenue for this province. I would
love, as Minister of Finance, to say we had an extra billion dollars a year
coming into the province. That's what was in the document, Mr. Chair, and that's
what I voted for, because it all sounds wonderful. It sounds wonderful, but what
they delivered is not so wonderful. So I made a mistake, all right. The mistake
was I believed them. The mistake was I believed them.
But now just to be on the safe side, I went in and I
got a meeting with Gilbert Bennett and Ed Martin, and I brought in the binder
that I got from them. I brought that in and I said can you tell me if these
facts and figures are true. Oh yes, they are. Yes they are, I was told. So I
figured I was doing due diligence. Not only did I take the binder in – oh lots
of quotes in it, lots of quotes, lots of figures, lots of juicy information. It
just turns out that none of it was true.
But I went in and I spoke to the CEO for Nalcor, Mr. Ed
Martin, and I spoke to Gilbert Bennett, and they confirmed their numbers. Yes,
they're all accurate. In fact, we've done such a good job of doing the pricing
on this project, we even put $300 million contingency; we won't even need to use
that. That's what we were told.
Not very often am I duped, but I'll tell you I was
duped, hook, line and sinker. I believed them, and that's the problem, Mr.
Chair, and that's why I don't believe them anymore.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR.
JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As we know, I'm glad the Minister of Finance got up and
spoke about something else besides the carbon, because I'm going to speak to
something besides the carbon also. I support the bill and I support the process.
Mr. Chair, I'm going to speak on the report, because
this is a money bill, that report that was put in the House of Assembly a couple
of weeks ago. I told my family and friends that every opportunity I get, I'll
defend myself and defend it.
Mr. Chair, something happened last week, two weeks ago.
The Minister of Natural Resources stood on her feet and it was very telling –
very telling. It was a question from the Opposition. The question from the
Opposition, because the former mayor was up in the gallery, was about Vale
funding, the $30 million.
The minister stood up, on Natural Resources, and said
no, we haven't got the funding; we're getting $10 million in 2017, 2018 and
2019. That's what the minister said. That's what was said in Cabinet, I'll say.
And do you know, people in this province know, in this report I was accused of
taking the $30 million, leveraging federal funding and spending it on the West
Coast? That's what the Member for Cape St. Francis – allegation made against me.
That's the allegation here that was made against me. I had to defend it, and I'm
sitting over here. Just think about it. Just think about it. And I have the
email –
MR.
K. PARSONS:
Point of order, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The Member on a point of order.
MR.
K. PARSONS:
(Inaudible) section 49. I don't know what the Member is talking about, but I
never put in any allegation against you for anything.
MR.
JOYCE:
(Inaudible.)
MR.
K. PARSONS:
No,
you said the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR.
JOYCE:
No,
no, not you, sorry (inaudible).
MR.
K. PARSONS:
Okay, I apologize.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
There is no point of order.
MR.
JOYCE:
Placentia - St. Mary's. I apologize for that. That wasn't you. You said
something else that I'm not allowed to say, that's right.
But the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's – that's one
of the allegations. I had to stand up and defend myself. And that was made
public. That was made public that I took $30 million, leveraged federal money. I
remember in 2016 the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's wrote the minister of
Natural Resources and she said we haven't got the funding. We haven't even got a
mechanism in place to accept the funding. That was in the documents.
But do you know I was still accused of taking the $30
million, and I'm over here? Can you realize what you guys did? Do you realize
that? Did anybody take the time and realize the allegation?
I have to bring up something else, Mr. Chair. I know
the Member for St. John's Centre wouldn't stand and apologize, but I have to say
something. And it was here in the House of Assembly. It was put out here in the
House of Assembly, and it was outside the House of Assembly. It was said and it
was brought up here how dare me release names of people who made allegations.
The Member for Placentia - St. Mary's said out there:
Eddie Joyce – well, somebody put my name out there. I want to put on the record
the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's – do you know how her name was put out
there? I ask the Minister of Justice if he wants to stand up, I ask the Minister
of Transportation and Works, and name, say, eight, 10 of them – do you know how
her name was put out there? She walked into caucus and said I just made a
complaint to the Premier. Ten witness were put in place that could have
confirmed that – 10 witnesses and I get accused of putting names out in public
where 10 witnesses – and there's more, there's a lot more, a lot more told me
privately yes, they heard it.
Can you imagine? Can you honestly imagine all the
misinformation, the false information that was put out and I had to defend it
and I did defend it?
I'll say to the Premier of the province, I was very
discouraged – I know he's not in the House. I know I'm not supposed to say that
but I want it to be known that he said last night on NTV, the Premier said well,
he's putting me in a bad spot. He said he wouldn't sit in the caucus with the
Member for Placentia - St. Mary's. Well, that's like an ultimatum.
I ask the Premier: The next time you go to the media,
tell them how many discussions we had over the five or six months. Tell them.
Tell the people how many discussions we had. Tell the people how far we went and
discussed – did we ever discuss who was going to go into Cabinet when she was
removed from her seat? I ask the Premier: Go tell the people. If you want to put
everything on the table, it's time to put it on the table. I'm not being the
whipping boy anymore for anybody in this province. I'm just not being the
whipping boy.
I asked the Premier: Did you agree to go as a witness
for me? Did you agree? Let him stand up and say. I ask the Member, whoever wants
to stand up, see who got the courage in Cabinet, did I bring her name up in
Cabinet? Did I? The Member who did it, why don't you stand up and say it was me?
It wasn't me. It wasn't me.
She puts in this report how in Cabinet it wasn't me.
So, the Premier, the next time you tell people we can't do that, did we discuss
it? How many times have we discussed it? Why don't you tell the people of the
province how much we discussed it? Tell me what you really thought of it when
you were telling me privately? How many times did you call my house and we
discussed it? And the idea of saying well, I haven't seen him talk to people
lately. Seven or eight days later, I was over introducing him to people in
Corner Brook at the cancer relay taking pictures. Oh no, we haven't discussed
it; I haven't been talking to him.
I'm sick of it, Premier. I am just absolutely sick of
it. Tell the truth. That's all I ask. Tell the truth. How many discussions did
we have? How many times did you call my house and you went over the report what
I should put in it? Let's put everything on the table here.
I'm going to the Management Commission, and I know the
Speaker – the information the Speaker has also. Do you know the information the
Speaker has? I'm hoping to get this taken care of someday. Mr. Chair, do you
know the information? Bruce Chaulk, and just realize now what happened here, the
only person that was not called as a witness, it was Eddie Joyce, never called
as a witness.
Bruce Chaulk, who is a member of this House, went in
and told the Management Commission – get this now, people, get this, the people
of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; he told the Management Commission
that Eddie Joyce refused to participate, wouldn't meet.
Two letters from the lawyers. The Speaker saw them. I
asked before we even had that debate to have an emergency meeting with the
Management Commission to get that confirmed and denied and get him to apologize.
Guess what? I haven't heard a word. But I tell you, I'm not giving up. I'm not
giving up.
Can you imagine if anybody in this House now was
charged tomorrow with an offence; you go in front of a judge, the judge says oh,
you're fine; no, there's nothing to it – which Rubin Thomlinson said there was
nothing to it – but the police officer says okay, by the way, you weren't
charged for speeding but we're going to charge you with something else, but you
were never called as a witness? Can you imagine ever going to court and not
called as a witness? Can you imagine? And then have the presiding Officer of
this House of Assembly make statements to the Management Commission which is
absolutely, categorically, false.
I went through this report here with the Member for
Placentia - St. Mary's. Do you know there are about 28 false statements that
I've found so far – 28 false statements that are proven by witnesses or
documentation to back up to prove the allegations are 100 per cent false, yet
I'm the big, bad bully? I'm the big, bad guy here in this whole House of
Assembly.
I told my friends every chance I'll get, I'll stand up.
Every chance I'll get, I'll stand up to show what has happened because I can
tell you if it happened to me, it could happen to anybody. But I tell you, I'm
not lying down with any of this.
I can go through this report here and I could show you
stuff. I can tell you who she said lied, the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's.
I released her name – the people over there heard it. You all know the
difference. Joy Buckle lied; Greg Mercer lied; I lied; the information I had
from the mayor, he lied; the former mayor, I couldn't get along with him, yet
the documentation showed that we work well together. I can go through it step by
step.
But my time is closing, so I'll ask the Premier: Next
time you want to stand up and you want to say Eddie Joyce knows it is an
ultimatum, he knows that, why don't you tell about discussions we had? Why don't
you tell them? Why don't you go out publicly? Won't you be honest, Premier, and
go out publicly and talk about discussions we had, and how long we had the
discussions?
Premier, did you ever tell me the allegations that were
made at the beginning by the Member of Placentia - St. Mary's – did you ever
tell me that they were BS? Your exact words: They were BS. Did you tell me that,
Premier? Stand up next time. Stand up and ask did they ever change the
allegations, because I can tell you, Premier, I'm not letting you go public
anymore and destroy my character because you haven't got the courage to stand up
for (inaudible) –
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR.
JOYCE:
I
won't be dealing with it, I can tell you that.
CHAIR:
I
remind the hon. Member his speaking time has expired.
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Environment.
MR.
LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, the science is clear. Climate change is
happening, and it's real. Now, we hear the Opposition talking about how we
didn't fight hard enough. Well, I think, if I interpret their actions correctly,
it's the fact that they would not have accepted or would not be prepared to
implement any type of plan. In that case, that would be unfortunate, and I'll
tell you why.
If we didn't put in our
Made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador plan, a plan that's been accepted by the
federal government and meets the minimum requirements of any climate change or
greenhouse gas emission plan, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians would be paying
four times what they're going to pay under this plan.
Industry – big industry – would be paying four times
that much, and probably more. In developing this plan, we consulted with
industry; we consulted with individuals; we consulted with municipalities; we
consulted with every taxpayer in this province that wanted to be consulted. We
put together a plan that meets the needs of the province, and puts the province
in a good stand with the federal government, and it's a plan that doesn't
destroy industry. It allows them to remain competitive. When you look at the
four principles that we put into effect, that guided our thinking, you'll see
that our plan meets those needs.
And the plan is guided by four key principles, Mr.
Chair. One is maintaining competitiveness from taxation and trade perspectives,
and we are dealing with the big world there. Climate change is not something
that's unique to Canada, to Newfoundland and Labrador; it's something the world
is dealing with. In December 2015, 194 countries, including Canada, signed the
Paris Agreement on climate change.
We all know who's opted out of that, so we need not go
there. If the Official Opposition wants to use that as their guiding principle,
then have at it, because that's not the way that we treat climate change. We
take this climate change very seriously and we put in a plan that reflects that.
Our second principle, Mr. Chair, was minimizing the
impact on consumers and vulnerable groups. We all know that we don't want to
impose extra taxes; that's not what we're about. And you talk about the 300
taxes that they keep talking about that we imposed and brought in in
Budget 2016, well 260 of those levies
and taxes were already there. They were already there, so let's get the facts on
the table.
We recognize the very large ongoing investment to
de-carbonize electricity, and of course that's why Holyrood is back in the
picture. If there's anything good at all about Muskrat Falls, is that it will
help with the carbon plan. But that's the only thing because the debt and the
responsibility that's put on the taxpayers of this province by Muskrat Falls, we
will never see the benefits of that project.
Delivering meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions – that's where we've allowed industry, that produces or emits over
20,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions, they can opt into what we call a plan
designed for industry, and they have to meet certain targets in greenhouse gas
emissions. This is not about imposing taxes or anything of that nature. This is
about looking after our environment, and looking after the fact that climate
change is real. Whether we like it or not, we have to address it and we all have
a responsibility to do that.
The Minister of Finance had mentioned this that, in
developing our plan, we understand the burden that people of this province have.
We understand the uniqueness of our province within the federation of Canada. So
we went to great lengths to make sure that we protected our people; for
instance, home heating fuel, which is a big item for our taxpayers and our
citizens, but that's exempt. We've exempted as well the key economic sectors
including aquaculture, fishing, mining, forestry and silviculture.
Mr. Chair, we've come a long way. We went to the wall
and back to make sure that our industries and our people are protected.
Electricity generation – now, we don't see it sitting here in the House of
Assembly, but we have remote communities, especially in Labrador and along the
Southwest Coast of the province, of the Island of Newfoundland, that are still
reliant on diesel generation. While we are working toward getting them off
diesel, in the meantime we want to make sure they're not penalized for being on
diesel. And we've managed to have those people exempt as well, which is huge,
because they're paying high enough electricity rates as it is. We don't need to
burden them anymore.
Aviation fuel, as the minister alluded to – and the
aviation fuel, by the way, is something that's really important, and I refer to
my friend, the Member for Torngat Mountains. That's their only means of
transportation other than ship or Ski-Doo – or snowmobile, I should say. I
shouldn't use the word Ski-Doo, I suppose. We've recognized that. They rely on
the aviation and they rely on the airplanes for their mode of transportation.
They should not be penalized, and they're not.
Of course, Mr. Chair, when you look at municipalities
in this province, they're the backbone of our economy, and they're the backbone
of our governance, and municipalities will be exempt as well.
We keep hearing from the Opposition that this is
another tax. I look at it another way. This is not another tax; this is our
responsibility. Our responsibility as every man, woman and child on this planet,
it's our responsibility to clean up the environment and to put measures in place
that will address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It's not a
tax. It's our responsibility. On this side of the House, we've accepted that
responsibility. If they don't want to, that's their problem.
But we are accepting that responsibility and we're
going to deal with it in the best way possible so that our citizens of this
province aren't negatively impacted by this. Yes, we need a culture change. We
got to change the mentality of our people. That's all part of it, Mr. Chair.
I can guarantee you, we're going to try to leave a
province, a Newfoundland and Labrador and a country that our grandkids and our
great-grandkids can be proud of and thank us for protecting them, because that's
what it's all about. It's not about us. It's about the future of the
environment, it's about the future of our province, it's about the future of our
country and it's about the future of our children and grandchildren and
great-grandchildren. If we don't do something now, tomorrow may be too late.
So I think what we've done here in meeting that
objective and meeting that goal of protecting our environment, we put a plan in
place that has the least impact on our citizens. It's not a new tax, Mr. Chair;
it's a responsibility that we all share. We all better be prepared to accept
that responsibility, because it's going to be up to us to make it happen.
On that note, I take my seat and hopefully get a chance
later on to have a few more words.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
MR.
LETTO:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
At this time, I would ask, with the concurrence of my
colleagues, that we recess while in the Committee stage of this resolution and
return in 30 minutes.
CHAIR: This House now stands in recess until 6 o'clock p.m.
December 3, 2018
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 47A
The
House resumed at 6 p.m.
CHAIR (Parsons):
Order, please!
Is the
Government House Leader ready?
We are
now resuming the debate on the resolution and the related bill, Bill 44.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes, I thought you were going
to say the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis, Madam Chair.
It gives
me great privilege to get up and to be able to talk. Again, it's a bill that we
can all talk about, and it gives us a wide range to speak about a lot of
different things, as speakers have done here already today.
I
suppose I'm new to the climate-change world – not that I'm new to it, but you
learn more and more every day about it. We see all these different scenes on TV
where you see the ice flows and huge chunks of ice falling in, and we look at
what's happening around the world today when it comes to our climate.
I had an
experience, actually, this weekend in my own district, where I was out on the
wharf in Flatrock talking to a couple of fisherman. They were saying that these
are the highest seas that they've ever seen in the town, and we were looking at
where the waves are coming up to – and, actually, I sent some pictures off to
Small Crafts Harbours this morning because there's some pavement coming up.
There
were experienced fishermen that were telling me that they've never seen this
before, so for anybody to say climate change is not a factor and rising sea
levels are not a factor – we see it everyday. We've seen it in the last couple
of weeks. We saw what happened out on the White Rose, and we saw what happened –
I spoke to people, also, on different rigs out there. They've never seen
anything like it.
We're
living in world where it seems like the climate has a huge effect. We're seeing
floods. We're seeing – when it comes to typhoons and waves and everything else,
and the disaster that it's doing. This is a real topic, and what we pump into
our air and what we pump into the atmosphere has a huge effect on it. I believe
that. I'm not President Trump, who doesn't believe in it, but I do believe in
it.
My
problem with this whole bill is that I want to know what the results are going
to be. The extra tax that people are going to pay – and you can say whatever you
want – but it is money that people are going to have pay on – their gas tax is
going to be relieved. Now, this tax is another 4 cents a litre that they will
have to pay no matter what. What are we going to get for that?
Now, if
you had a plan over there and said this is what we're going to do with this
extra $62 million of revenue that is going to come in to our coffers, this is
how we are combat climate change, this is how we're going to combat and make
sure that the carbon and emissions don't go into the air and we're going to get
things done, but that's not part of this bill. This bill tells us that you're
going to take the money and put it into general revenue, and that's wrong,
because we should be taking this money and doing different things with it.
I
noticed that there are a lot of – education is a huge factor, and I know someone
mentioned today about wood burning and different efficiencies. I know, in my own
home, that I've done things to reduce my light bill. I put a heat pump in there,
and it cut down on the amount of energy that I'm going to use, and it's saving
me a few dollars, by the way. There are all kinds of different things we can do
to make sure that we use less energy.
There
are also things we can do in transportation. We can talk about how we travel.
What incentives are we giving people to use public transit? Maybe that's a way
to take cars off the road. We look at what we burn out in Holyrood – and I can
remember the conversation one time about Holyrood, and it's equivalent of
300,000 cars a day, what's burning out in Holyrood, and what is that doing to
our – those are things that we have to look – there are different ways that we
can make sure that people are educated and people are aware of what we're doing
to the climate.
I'd say
today people are more in tune than what they were when I was a younger person
and coming along. I'll give an example now, also. You talk about educating
people. I remember first when my children were in school and they'd start coming
home talking about recycling, and I never recycled before, but today I do
recycle. I recycle everything I can get. Actually, last week I brought some
cans, bottles and that out to the Green Depot out on Torbay Road, and I set up
an account for my two grandchildren. They're only 16, 18
months old, and last week I went over $200 in that account. That's really,
really good. I've never done that before. If we educate everybody and teach them
how to do things and how to make smart choices and what we can do to improve our
climate – it's very, very important.
This tax
that you're bringing in, there's no plan in place. There's no plan here to show
the people in this province that the extra revenue you're going to bring in from
this extra tax – and you can say what you want; it is an extra tax – what you're
going to do with it. How are you going to combat it? What is this revenue going
to do to make sure our emissions are lower? How are you spending the money to
make sure that people in this province, and our children and our grandchildren,
are going to live in a place where we don't need to worry about the ocean
rising?
This is
what this bill is about. This is what we're saying over here on this side. We're
not against climate change. We're not against saying that yes, it is a factor.
It's a huge factor that – our whole society is changing. Like I said earlier, I
spoke to fishermen that have been on the water all their lives, and they've
never seen the water so high as they saw this weekend.
There
are a lot of things that are changing. All we have to do is watch the news.
Every night there's a disaster somewhere in the world. I've been around for a
good few years, but I've never seen anything like it. It's a factor when we
talked about all the fires in California. It's a factor that you look at all the
disasters all over the world with mudslides and everything else. What are we
doing with this extra revenue? That's my problem. That's what I want to see. I
want to know what we're doing with this money. How are we combatting what's
happened around us in the world? There's no doubt it's about the future of our
families and the future of who we are as a province.
I know
the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment got up and he said we didn't
introduce 300 new taxes, but what you did –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. K. PARSONS:
You're right, you're correct
and I'll correct the statement now, and I know you'll clap for this one too,
Member for Bonavista. You increased them. You increased them all and you added
50 new ones. That's the actual fact.
There
were 300 fees. When you went down through your 2016 budget, you went line for
line for line and said let's increase that, let's increase this, let's increase
this. Every bit of revenue that was coming in that people in this province were
paying taxes, whether it was fees for your moose licence, whether it was the fee
to register your car, whatever it was, you increased them. There were 300 fees
there that you increased and then you added 50 more. Now, that's the fact, and
I'm sure the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment will get up and say
you're right.
I know
the Member for Bonavista is shaking his head over there, saying you're right; I
know you are. So, those were new taxes, and this is another tax. It's a burden.
People don't mind paying taxes on different things if there's a result but
there's absolutely no result with this. You're not showing people how you're
going to take the extra money that they got to spend on another tax, a new tax,
and what are the results – what are you going to do? What's your plan?
This is
just to say, listen, give us another $62 million, we'll throw it into general
revenue and we'll spend it the way we see. That's not what people want. I think
it would be more understanding for people if they said okay, this is $62 million
we're going to take from you and here's what we're going to do with it. Here's
how we're going to make climate and our emissions – here's how we're going to
make our future for our children and our grandchildren so that they don't need
to worry about what's happening around the world.
We have
to change; everybody in this world has to change. But what you're doing is just
charging another tax. This is just another tax on the people of the province
that really can't afford any more taxes.
Our
economy today, it seems like its rising a little bit as the price of oil – you
might disagree with this one, but the oil industry is a key factor in how our
economy works in Newfoundland and Labrador. You all know that now that you're in
government. You didn't know it three years ago, but you do know it today, that
it plays a huge factor in what the price of oil is and how it affects what
revenues government takes in and how they can do their expenditures.
When we
look at the things that we're doing as a province when it comes to climate
change – and I think that it'll start right off the bat; it's just to get people
more aware, more aware of carpooling, more aware of what we're doing, how we're
burning things and how it's going into the atmosphere. We've done a great job
with waste management and stuff like that. I can remember years ago there were
dumps everywhere. You drive all over and you'll see a dump in every community.
That stuff is good; that's good for our environment. We did a great job on that.
But we need to do something. If we're going to take $62 million –
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I remind
the hon. Member that his time has expired.
MR. K. PARSONS:
– out of our economy, we want
to show the people what we're going to do with it.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for Bonavista.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. KING:
Yes, I'd certainly like to
give leave to my friend from Cape St. Francis. It was an interesting speech, to
say the least. I'm sure, given this is a money bill, we'll have more
opportunities to get up and have 10 minutes of say, and all that sort of stuff.
I find
it interesting when they talk about raising taxes, raising fees. When you leave
a province with a $2.7 billion deficit, when you leave a province, a government,
two weeks before Christmas, in a place where you can't pay your employees, that
is the legacy of your government and make no wonder you had to increase taxes
and fees, because of the fiscal mess that you left us after 12 years. It's
absolutely shocking and disgusting, Madam Chair.
Imagine
now, two weeks before Christmas, not going to meet payroll. The public service
of this province would not be able to pay for children's presents under their
tree, to have a nice family dinner. That's what they left us. It's absolutely
disgraceful and they should be ashamed of themselves. That's what foolishness
and nonsense they're getting on with.
You talk
about climate change, it frustrates me to no end, because you see the group of
people like Andrew Scheer and his cronies on the cover of
Maclean's Magazine called
The resistance, denying climate change
is happening. I could tell you in the District of Bonavista the last two weeks
we've had so much wind and bad weather, rising shorelines that the sea fences of
Bonavista –
MR. K. PARSONS:
Rising sea levels; the
shorelines stay the same.
MR. KING:
Oh, sorry. Thanks to my
friend from Cape St. Francis – sorry, rising sea levels – that sea walls
have been damaged very, very badly in Bonavista and around the surrounding
areas. That is proof that climate change is happening.
I moved home four years ago. I tell this to people all the
time. I can't remember it ever being this windy in this area. Now, it has always
been windy on the Bonavista Peninsula, but the level of wind and storms that we
get now are directly related to climate change.
For
their buddy in Ottawa, Andrew Scheer, and his cronies, Doug Ford and the rests
of them there – Jason Kenney on the cover of
Maclean's Magazine saying that they're
the resistance. Resistance for what? Flooding our shorelines, causing more
damage, ruining our environment for generations, for our children, our
grandchildren. We have to take action on climate change. If we don't do it
today, the future for our kids and grandchildren is not going to be too bright.
They're subscribing to the Donald Trump-style of climate change. It doesn't
exist. I mean, come on b'ys.
We have
a made-in-Newfoundland plan to tackle climate change. This is not a federal
government coming in and saying we're going give you this; here's what you got
to do. We worked with industry, we worked with stakeholders, we developed a plan
with our friends in Labrador – our Indigenous communities – developed this plan.
They say: Oh, you didn't have a plan.
I have a
document here, about 10 pages long of research, of how we approached this and
what we did. It's absolutely ridiculous the nonsense that they get on with
saying that we don't have a plan about anything. The proof in the pudding that
they didn't have a plan – there's a $2.7-billion deficit that they left us. So,
when they talk about taxes, I find it's pretty rich.
Back in
2007, Danny Williams then premier, lowered taxes for his rich buddies when he
shouldn't have done it. We have $5 billion of lost tax revenue from Danny
Williams. We have $25 billion of squandered all revenue, thanks to the former PC
government. That's not a legacy that I would want to have. Now their legacy is
getting up against climate change – a Newfoundland-made plan. So, what do you
do?
MR. EDMUNDS:
Newfoundland and Labrador
plan.
MR. KING:
Sorry, Newfoundland and
Labrador plan. Thanks, Randy.
So, what
do we do? Do we have a federally-imposed carbon tax put on us? What we've done
is our research, we worked with industry, we worked with all key stakeholders,
we worked with Labrador to come up with this plan and this plan would work best
for Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. OSBORNE:
A few provinces are suing to
try to get out of it.
MR. KING:
Exactly. Well, that's part of
the resistance that you saw in Maclean's
Magazine. It's still mindboggling how five middle-aged, white guys can get
up and get in front of a camera from Maclean's and say: We're the resistance for
climate change. That's their buddies in Ottawa. That's their buddies in Alberta
and Ontario – Andrew Scheer and the gang. We heard their leader talk about how
they're following Andrew Scheer's lead. It certainly sounds like it tonight with
the debate, that's for sure.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. KING:
It is ridiculous.
MR. OSBORNE:
Sheer ridiculous.
MR. KING:
Sheer ridiculous, as the
Minister of Finance has said.
“Before
exemptions, approximately 91 per cent of provincial GHG emissions in 2016 on a
National Inventory Report basis …” – sorry.
“Before
exemptions, approximately 91 per cent of provincial GHG emissions in 2016 …
Report (NIR) basis (9.8 MT of a total of 10.8 MT of GHG emissions). This share
is the highest among provinces and reflects the fact that the province has a
small share of GHG emissions from non-energy” sources “such as agriculture,
industrial processes and waste.
“Including exemptions as outlined below, the effective coverage is approximately
76 percent.”
So we
are working to get GHG levels down but taking into account our oil industry, our
agriculture industry, our forestry sectors, all of those things that are
important in the District of Bonavista. Agriculture is big in the district,
forestry is big. We don't want to be putting burdens on our key industry
stakeholders so that we put them out of business. We work with them.
Muskrat
Falls, the biggest folly we've ever seen in Newfoundland and Labrador, has
actually helped us out a bit on this and we're able to leverage that to reduce
the cost. This is why you're only seeing a moderate increase in what carbon tax
you'd have to pay. We're removing the gas tax and putting it back as the carbon
pricing.
Madam
Chair, when you talk about climate change, I often think about where
Newfoundland is going to be in 40, 50, 60 years time.
MR. EDMUNDS:
And Labrador.
MR. KING:
Well, Newfoundland because
we're an Island, I'd say to the Member for Torngat Mountains.
With
rising sea levels our coastlines are going to slowly erode, and you're seeing
that now. You're seeing it happen in our communities near the ocean.
Rural
Newfoundland is built on the fishery and built on the ocean. You see a number of
houses that are hugging shorelines and hugging cliffs. If we keep the sea levels
rising, what's going to happen to that? We're going to have to make major
investments to stabilize our shorelines, to stabilize those houses, to have
additional cost.
Madam
Chair, climate change is not a fad or it's not this made up thing that Andrew
Scheer and his gang want you to believe it is. It's actually affecting the lives
of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians right now.
If you
look at this summer past, one of the hottest summers we've had on record, weeks
without rain, and you see the wildfires in British Columbia or California, all
down the Pacific coast, and I was surprised – I was pleasantly surprised that
that didn't happen here in Newfoundland and Labrador; yet, my friend from Baie
Verte - Green Bay talked about communities and water. He experienced this.
Prior to
Milton getting water online from the project that was put in place in 2017, they
would have dried up and had no connection. They'd have to connect to
Clarenville. This is proof that climate change does exist. We're seeing weather
patterns here in Newfoundland and Labrador that we've never seen in our lives.
The
Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, but I
think he said weather events that you would see once in a 100 years you see now
once in 10 years, once in every five years, maybe yearly occurrence. This is
what we have to fight. We have to do our part on climate change, and, Madam
Chair, I will certainly be supporting this bill.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Well, as I do up my jacket
here, I realize that I probably ate too much chicken for supper. But, in saying
that, as I was sitting down eating my meal of chicken, I was looking at what the
carbon tax is going to have on that meal of chicken, what effect that's going to
have.
While I
know the fuel for agricultural-produced goods is going to be exempt, my question
is: Well, what about the cardboard and the fibre that that box of chicken was
in? What about the airfare or the air travel that the eggs have to travel on?
What about the cost of feed?
Right
now, in Newfoundland and Labrador, we're producing very, very minimal amounts of
cereal grains, and a chicken obviously has to eat lot of cereal grain in order
to grow and produce. So all of that has to come in through either a truck or a
boat, which will be subject to the carbon tax.
What I
find, and what I've read, is the way to change people's behaviour is not through
punitive measures but incentive. Basically, any form of tax is a punitive
measure. This punitive measure is going to affect businesses bottom lines, and,
basically, they're going to pass it on down to the consumer.
I know
earlier we discussed the effect of the carbon tax on our offshore oil industry.
We, as owners, appear not to be taxed but the operator of the site, of the
facility, will be subject to the carbon tax. So that's an added expense to that
operator. That will come off his bottom line and, therefore, it will affect us
negatively when it comes to the royalties.
Madam
Chair, currently the majority of oil refineries in North America are approaching
the end of their productive life cycle. Most of these oil refineries are located
in the Gulf of Mexico or along the Eastern Seaboard. As we all know, the United
States is rapidly shifting from oil to shale gas as their hydrocarbon source and
there'll be no more need for oil refineries to be built in the States.
This
could be a prime opportunity for us as a province to really move into a position
of being the oil refinery hub of Eastern North America. But, as my colleagues
have said, the profit margin within the oil refinery industry is so, so minimal
– less than 2 per cent is what I've read – a carbon tax is going to be
prohibitive of oil refineries establishing here in our province.
Why do
we have to accept everything that comes from Ottawa? Why can't we stand on our
own, stand as independents, stand as five other provinces have stood up? Over
half of the population in Canada is now on record as objecting to the carbon tax
in the form of a legal action. Why can't we, as Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians, stand up and realize, look, on the end of the whole supply chain,
on the end of the food chain, we're going to be subject to this increased cost
of living. There's no way around it. We still import a large portion of our
food. We import just about all our goods that we rely on to conduct our
activities, furnish our homes and communicate. All this will have a buried
portion of carbon tax within it.
People
say: oh, well, it's only 25 cents on a tank of gas. Well, guess what? There are
families and individuals in our province today that do not have 25 cents in
their pocket to spare. This is going to go right across their whole lifestyle.
It's right across their whole living. So 25 cents here, 25 cents there.
Right
now we have people that aren't able to afford groceries. We have people – and
not (inaudible). It's an increasing segment of our population all the time. So
how are we going to expect to load on more of a financial burden on the people
of our province?
We, as
parliamentarians and as elected Members, have to stand up and say, look, our
people are suffering; our economy is in a very low state. Yes, it is largely due
to commodity prices, but we have to stand up for our people and say, look, we
cannot afford any more hands in our pocket pulling taxes out. Yes, it's a
federal government program, but guess what? We also elect federal government
representatives. Where are their positions on this?
In
reference to climate change – and no disrespect to anybody else here – but I
would say that my career and my occupation prior to and still while –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
Can we
keep the noise levels down?
MR. LESTER:
– I'm an MHA, being a farmer
–
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. LESTER:
– I've seen huge changes in
climate change, and what has happened is bad weather has gotten worse. We're
seeing more of an extreme wind. I know on our farm last year we clocked on our
wind meter 168 kilometres an hour. Myself and my family and my wife, we
basically watched all our greenhouses disappear into the wind. That has never
happened before.
So we
see those types of things increasing. Yes, we are able to produce a little bit
more heat-loving crops like pumpkins and squash and corn, but because our
patterns of weather have changed such and are no longer predictable, even though
our climate has warmed up, we could still get that killer frost or that
windstorm or rainstorm that will totally devastate our crops. As most of us
know, we still produce so, so minimal amount.
I'd like
to point out the situation that occurred there last week with the romaine
lettuce recall. So there was no romaine lettuce available in basically all of
North America, but what I also noticed was on our shelves in Newfoundland and
Labrador there was also no lettuce available, and that's because we are the last
people in the whole of North America to get food. Everybody else gobbled up all
the other lettuce prior to it reaching Newfoundland and Labrador.
As it
goes to our fisheries –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
Can I
kindly ask all Members to keep the noise levels down, as the Chair is having
trouble hearing the speaker?
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
In reference to my colleague
from Cape St. Francis talking of sea levels and high seas, that's something I'm
hearing, too. I have a lot of associates and people who I do business with that
are involved in the offshore, and they were basically communicating with their
family members last week in those high seas on almost a minute basis because
what they were experiencing out there were seas of magnitude, even far greater
than those that sunk the Ocean Ranger so many years ago.
Another
story I also heard, and still kind of get a little bit upset over it, is a
couple of years ago there was a polar bear that was swimming around the base of
Hibernia. Now, what in the heck is a polar bear doing out in the middle of the
ocean? He's out there looking for a piece of ice. And guess what? There's no
more ice. The ice comes down quickly and melts quickly; yet, we're seeing more
icebergs. We're seeing ice go up through Placentia Bay. We're seeing icebergs
coming around the tip, going up through Placentia Bay; hardly ever heard before.
So that's something we haven't looked with the Grieg project, but I guess we'll
have to deal with that, too.
As I
said, tax is punitive. Tax is always a disincentive for consumers to spend
money.
AN HON. MEMBER:
It's regressive.
MR. LESTER:
It's regressive. We're trying to promote people spending money. We're trying to
promote and expand the economy. God knows, we need it.
What do
we have, 17,000 people leave our province in the past 18 months. Those are
people that all of our taxpayers' dollars paid to educate. They're people that
should be contributing to our tax base, but because of tax, they've had to
leave, because the cost of living here is more expensive than other
jurisdictions. Now, our carbon tax is just going to increase that.
The
realty is, yes, we do need to address climate change, but we cannot address
climate change by further putting a burden on the people of our province.
Collecting money is not going to change corporate direction unless it is
profitable for them. As long as they can pass that tax cost on to the consumer,
they're going to carry on business as usual.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The
Chair recognises the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I
wouldn't normally get up a second time, but I have to get up and address some of
the issues that my hon. friend from the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis
had in his few comments, and that was around we have no plan for the revenue
that's going to be taken in under this carbon pricing, which is absolutely,
categorically not true.
Because
I tell you, yes, the money is going into general revenue, but what we failed to
mention, of course, is that as part of this agreement, we've negotiated with the
federal government an $89.4 million, which is a joint federal-provincial
investment over four years, for greenhouse gas reduction projects through the
Low Carbon Economy Leadership Fund, and 50 per cent of that – $44.7 million – is
provincial. Now, I don't know where that's coming from, other than general
revenue.
We've
committed, Madam Chair, to significant funds to address greenhouse gas emission
projects. So to get up and say we're taking in $62 million – by the way, it's
only a net, I think, of $17 million this year – to get up and say we have no
plan to spend that money is not true. We have a plan, and we've negotiated that
plan with the federal government through the Low Carbon Economy Leadership Fund;
$44.7 million that comes out of our general revenue. We don't have a money tree
out there for the Low Carbon Leadership Fund; it doesn't come out of that. It
comes out of general revenue.
Not only
that, we've also, through the Investing in Canada infrastructure plan, we have
over $300 million in federal funding for green infrastructure under the
Investing in Canada fund, $136 million of which will be invested in climate
change mitigation projects over the next 10 years. Now, that's $136 million from
the federal government. We're not getting that for nothing. We have to ante up
our share, as well. Any projects that we do with municipalities under this fund
or other entities, there's a federal portion, there's a provincial portion and
there's a municipal portion.
So,
Madam Chair, we have to come up with – we don't know how much money that will be
at this point, but we have to pay our share, to pay our way. So to get up and
say we have no plan for the revenue that's going to come through carbon pricing
is not true. It's absolutely not true, because we have to pay our way. We are
prepared to pay our way, and it's because we were able to negotiate these
agreements with the federal government, we are going to pay our way. But we're
going to pay it at the least impact on the taxpayers of this province – least
impact. I'll say it again, I'll say it again, if we didn't go with the
Newfoundland and Labrador carbon pricing plan we would be paying, the people of
this province would be paying four times, four times more than they're paying
under this plan.
So, to
say that we haven't made a good plan here, I think it's fabulous that we are
moving forward with a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and we're doing it
in a very responsible way and a very, I guess, economic way for our people. Not
only the people of this province but certainly the industries that are producing
the greenhouse gases.
When you
talk about big industry, Madam Chair, I cannot sit down because I may not get
another chance during this session of the House, but last Tuesday in Labrador
West we saw an announcement that's going to be good for the people of Wabush,
good for the people of Labrador City, good for the people of Labrador and good
for the people of this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LETTO:
Madam Chair, our Premier was
there, along with the Minister of Natural Resources and myself and a few others,
and we were very happy to partner with the Tacora on that day to announce the
reopening of Scully Mine.
Now, we
know, Madam Chair, that's going to have an impact on greenhouse gas emissions as
well, but they're very happy to move forward. They're very pleased with the plan
that we have in place so that they can – they're working already towards
reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Madam
Chair, it was a great day. It was a fantastic day. The people of Wabush were
quite pleased and the employees from around the region. They held a job fair, if
you want to call it or an information session, that night at the Arts and
Culture Centre that seats almost 400 people. They had to turn people away. They
had to turn people away, Madam Chair, so there's lots of interest in that
facility.
We are a
region that we know mining. We have people in that region that are well-trained,
well-equipped to move into the mining industry in Wabush, so we're very pleased
with that. We've worked, and the department, I must say, during my time there as
parliamentary secretary, the people in the department worked very hard to bring
us to that event on Tuesday, to get it across the finish line.
They
raised over $335 million; that's $335 million that's going to be invested into
the economy. They're buying new equipment, new trucks, new shovels, drills and
they will be in production, Madam Chair, in June 2019. So if that's not good
news for this province, I don't know what is. It certainly gives me great
pleasure to stand in my place here today and to be able to announce that and to
say that we've been part of the process.
I
remember the first meeting that I had in January 2016 with some of the people of
this company, but there were other companies involved. It's been a lot of ups
and downs since then. There were times when we certainly were doubtful whether
we would get this across the finish line, but working together and being
persistent – and I want to thank the people of Tacora. I want to thank the
people involved with Tacora for their persistence in moving forward and raising
the money, raising $335 million to get Scully Mine back in operation so we can
have good paying jobs for the people of Wabush, for the people of Labrador and
for the people of this province.
Thank
you, Madam Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Leader of the Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Madam
Chair.
I am
happy to stand and speak to Bill 44, and this bill would amend – it's an Act to
Amend the Management of Greenhouse Gas Act and the Revenue Administration Act.
What we're talking about is a tool, this basically is a tool to deal with the
issue of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions.
Newfoundland and Labrador is part of the global community. We're also part of
Canada, and as good citizens of Canada and good citizens of the global
community, that we, too, must do our part. It's a whole new area for many
people, and I think we have to look at how we talk about this. The word tax may
not really be an accurate description of what needs to be done, what we all need
to do to play our part.
My
colleague from St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, we've been talking about that, and
in other provinces they talk about carbon pricing; that it's not all about tax.
We all have to do our role and we all have to play our part, but, basically,
really what we should be doing is looking at polluter pays. This bill is looking
at a carbon tax in terms of the use of gas and diesel, and then also we're
looking at greenhouse gas emitters in terms of on an industrial level.
I have a
few issues. I believe, really, that again what we must see this as is as a tool
that should be a tool and part of an overall climate change policy. And that
this isn't the only tool that we have, but it's part of that toolbox. I believe
what we have before us today really shows a weakness; it shows a weakness in
terms of really, really reducing emissions in Newfoundland and Labrador. The
goal is 6 per cent, then 2 per cent, then 2 per cent that will get us to 12 per
cent, while really Canada had made a commitment of up to 30 per cent in the
Paris agreement. We're not getting anywhere near that, and already we know we
are behind that plan and we are behind those commitments.
The
federal government talks about climate change, and they have, and they did
before the Liberal government, the Trudeau government, were talking about
climate change is a very issue. Is an issue that we have to be on top of, that
we have to take extraordinary measures, because the issue of climate change has
extraordinary ramifications for everybody, for people in Newfoundland and
Labrador – and for people in Newfoundland and Labrador it's hard for us to
really worry a whole lot about pollution, because we seem to have lots of clean
air. We have lots of wind. We have a huge coastline with water. We have lots of
freshwater. We have a lot of water in our ocean that surrounds the Island, and
then as well as Labrador, when we talk about Labrador, the Big Land, and the
pristine land of Labrador. So it's hard for us, as a people, as a province, as a
community of people, to think about what is our role in climate change.
A lot of
people feel, well, we're not polluters. We don't have heavy industry. We don't
have traffic jams. It's not like traffic jams on the 401. We don't have
crowding. We don't have real dense population where you can see the difference.
But what we do see is we see the effects of climate change. We see more frequent
storms. We see bigger storms, windier, more damage, more flooding. So we are
affected by climate change, and we also have a role to play, because we have
some pretty big emitters in our province, and part of that has been part of
industrial progress, so to speak.
When we
look at Muskrat Falls, when we look at Holyrood – unfortunately, Muskrat Falls
is a real problem. It wasn't the project that was going to do the province well
as it had been presented by the previous administration.
We do
have a role to play and we have a commitment to make, but what we have to make
sure is that it's appropriate who pays and how they pay. When we look at
something like Alberta – do you know, Alberta, for instance, in the plan that
government has produced to us, are changing the gas tax to a carbon tax and
they're not including home heating oil as a taxable item or a carbon pricing
item. That, I believe, is probably not a really smart move.
I
understand why government doesn't want to burden our people with extra taxes. We
have a lot of seniors who are just at their limit, some seniors who can't even
afford to heat their homes. We have more and more seniors going to food banks.
What Alberta has done, for instance, around this issue is they make sure that
people who are low-income earners, people who live in rural communities – and we
have a lot of people living in our rural communities who depend on vehicles, on
personal transportation, because we also don't have good infrastructure for
public transportation. People are absolutely reliant on their cars. Oftentimes,
we see people commuting back and forth to work and there's one person in their
car. They can't rely on a public transit system if you live outside of St.
John's or Mount Pearl. We are very, very dependent on our vehicles.
In
Alberta, they give a rebate; people in Alberta get a cheque back. They get about
60 per cent – this is a high percentage. About 60 per cent of households in
Alberta are eligible for a full or partial rebate of the province's carbon levy.
A
household in Alberta with two adults and two children would be eligible to
receive a rebate of up to $540 a year in 2018. That's what they were getting
back; more than the estimated cost of a levy for this size of a household.
They're getting a cheque back. If they are going to pay a carbon tax on home
heating, they're going to get some of that money back. If they're paying it on
gas, they're going to get some of that money back. Those who can afford to pay
more are often those who use more as well. They can pay, they can do their part
and, again, we all have to do our part.
We look
at the federal government talking about this as a really important issue, yet
when we look at what government has presented to us, it doesn't show it in that
light. I'm concerned a little bit about, really, what does it mean for our
larger emitters? What's that going to look like in terms of the greenhouse gas
reduction fund?
For
those who are not meeting the targets of reduction by 6 per cent, they'll have
to pay a penalty and that penalty will go into a greenhouse gas reduction fund.
We don't really see any real direction about what will be the priorities for
that fund. We know that there's going to be an advisory committee that will be
struck to administer that fund. We don't know who's going to be on that advisory
committee –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR (Warr):
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
– and how they will establish
their priorities, how that money will be spent and allocated. I'm hoping there
will be community members who are part of that advisory committee, not just
industry members or government Members. We need to have some details on those
types of issues.
The
exemption of home heating oil from the carbon tax is very unusual. What you want
to happen is you want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and there's really
nothing in this bill that encourages individuals to reduce their use, that
encourages industry to reduce its use. That's the goal. If there is not enough
incentive to do that, and also to use any money by those who are not achieving
their goals – because people can achieve their goals and, if they don't, they
will pay a penalty. If there's not enough incentive, then, to turn that penalty
around to make a difference and get in individuals' lives and in industry, then
this is not a strong bill.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I'm
happy to follow up on my colleague in speaking to Bill 44. It's an interesting
bill; it is An Act to Amend the Management of Greenhouse Gas Act and the Revenue
Administration Act. I think it's because of that last piece that we are having
this debate in the format that we are under a resolution, and holding the debate
in the Committee of the Whole.
I say
it's an interesting act because with those two names,
Management of Greenhouse Gas Act and the
Revenue Administration Act, it makes one believe that
everything in it has to do with greenhouse gas. So that if you open it and you
read and you see a section that talks about the carbon tax, then you think
that's really geared to reducing greenhouse gas because it's in this bill.
In a sense, this bill – I'll be polite and call it a bit of
a smokescreen. I've thought of other terms for it but I thought I just might be
on the edge of what I might be able to say in the House. I'll call it a
smokescreen because, in actual fact, it is hiding the reality of what government
is doing in this bill.
I am going to concentrate on the section under carbon tax.
It truly is – I guess, the phrase I would use for what we need to be doing in
the province, what we need to be doing in the country with regard to trying to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions is look at carbon pricing. What is the price we
need to put on carbon in all the different ways that we use carbon? What is the
price we need to put on it in order to make sure that we are reducing emissions?
This bill is not sophisticated like that. That is not what
this bill is about. When I look at the section that's called carbon tax, what we
are talking about is basically an ordinary revenue tax for this government to
get from consumers, to go into the general revenue fund to spend on programs.
That's what it is. It's not a carbon tax in the sense that most governments are
meaning when they say carbon tax.
The government has been very straightforward about that – I
heard the Member for Labrador West – very straightforward about what this is
about. It's about getting money from people. The interesting thing is what they
are doing. In 2016, this government put a very punitive tax on gas. It was a gas
tax; it was 16.5 cents a litre for gas every time you filled your vehicle up.
People were really upset over that tax; it was a temporary gas tax.
Government started the process of bringing it down over the
last couple of years and now what they're doing is they're replacing that gas
tax, that was a temporary gas tax, and doing it again and now calling it a
carbon tax. As I said, the revenue is going to go straight into the general
revenue fund, our Consolidated Revenue Fund to be used for government expenses.
It's not
going to be used as one would expect, to go into the remission of greenhouse
gas. It's not going to go into programs that will help with the remission of
greenhouse gases. So it is not a carbon tax in the meaning of carbon tax, it
really isn't. So that's why I call the bill what it is, the bill is a
smokescreen.
So
because of that, because it isn't what they call in Alberta, for example, a
carbon levy, because it really isn't something that's being put in place in
order to deal with greenhouse gases, government is not going to see this tax the
way it is viewed, for example, in Alberta. My colleague from St. John's Centre
just made reference to that.
In
Alberta, they're being very honest. They're saying it is a carbon levy and
they're saying the levy is there in order to help them reduce greenhouse gases,
but they also recognize that an awful lot of people can't afford that levy. So
there actually is going to be a partial rebate of the levy, not more than – 60
per cent of the families in Alberta are going to be eligible for that partial
rebate. There, they are being quite upfront with people about what that carbon
levy is about, why it's being put in place and doing education of people around
that in order to try to have people lessen their use of gas in an effort to deal
with greenhouse gases. This government is doing none of that.
In this
bill, we have no plans at all; except a plan in the carbon tax to get revenue
for government, because it is not being creative about revenue, the revenue
issues in this province. They are not dealing with the issues around revenue and
the fact that our revenue is so dependent on the price of oil, for example. It
has been saying for three years it's going to diversify the economy.
Well,
first of all, putting a gas tax on in 2016, bringing it down for two years and
putting it back on with a new name is not much diversification of the economy, I
have to tell you. The people whose money is coming out of their pocket is not
seeing it as diversification of the economy. If that's the brightest they can
come up with when it comes to revenue to run this province, we're really in
trouble, and we are in trouble.
When I
look at this bill, even with the part of the bill that deals with the management
of greenhouse gases, and which deals with the companies, with the offshore and
with the industry we have there, that is our largest greenhouse gas promoter –
not promoter but producer. When we look at that, and we look at what they have
in place, still there are no plans.
We're
being told by the government we're going to have a reduction by 6 per cent of
the emissions in the first year. In the next year we're going to have a
reduction by 8 per cent. In the third year 10 per cent, and by 2021, I think it
is, 12 per cent. But there's nothing at all to show how they've worked with the
companies to come up with those numbers to make them realistic for the
companies. There's nothing to show what companies' plans are going to be to get
there.
They
tell us what they're going to do if companies don't make it and there'll be a
penalty, or they can buy back their usage, or the fact they have created more
emission than they should have, but none of that is really going to get us to a
point where we're going to have a reduction in greenhouse gases. They haven't
shown us how they're going to do it.
I'm
amazed they think they can put this out here and expect us to vote for it. I'm
amazed they think that people don't see through it. I'm shocked; I'm shocked
that we do not have a plan from this government as other provinces have – not
all, I know that – but some have really good plans in place and this government
doesn't have a plan. Once again, we have things being given to us without a
solid plan.
So here
we have government saying the emissions will be reduced by its participation in
the federal programs, but we have no idea what their involvement in the
federal-provincial low carbon fund is going to be. We have no idea what their –
we have some idea; I shouldn't say none – of what their involvement in the
federal infrastructure program is going to be, but this government – we're not
meeting our targets now. We haven't been meeting our targets.
Instead
of them looking at, how can we increase our reduction on emissions? They're
going for the bare minimum. They're saying, okay, we're taking part in the
federal-provincial plan and that's going to cause some remissions, but we're
doing this carbon tax and it has nothing to do with it because we don't have to
have that tax have anything to do with lowering emissions because we're taking
part in the federal-provincial plans, which are minimal.
So this
is shocking. It's shocking that they're putting this out and expecting us to
accept it as a plan; that they're putting it out and expecting us to say yes to
it. In saying no, we're not saying no to the desire to have a change in the
emissions, in our greenhouse gases. We're saying no to a document that is not
going to do what they're saying it's going to do.
So
that's why, Mr. Chair, I don't think either one of us is going to be able to
support this.
Thank
you very much.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm glad
to rise to speak to Bill 44. I listened to my colleague speaking to the actual
content of Bill 44 and some of the issues she identified with the actual bill.
We had a
briefing the other day and recognize the staff that took us through the various
aspects of Bill 44, and Bill 41 as well. I think the finance component of it as
well, we went through it.
I think
my colleague just mentioned in regard to the environment and protecting the
environment and programs we put in place to deal with it; climate change plans
and those initiatives that many provinces have and we have in this province. A
carbon tax is one component of that climate plan or climate management plan.
We've seen it in other jurisdictions as well.
Today in
Question Period, the minister indicated – I asked did they update the provincial
climate change plan. I think his answer was, no, but after bringing in the
carbon tax we're going to update the plan then. That would seem not to be
consistent with managing the climate and climate change because, overall, a
climate change plan has many aspects to it. One could be carbon reduction,
another could be polluter plays.
It could
be looking at various things in our society like water, refits of public
buildings, infrastructure building, and a whole wide range of components that
could factor into an overall climate management plan. As I said, carbon tax, if
we agreed to go with one, could be one component to that. The logic behind a tax
or a carbon tax or any tax, I guess, in this case is to try and inhibit what
changed your particular behaviour.
This
plan we are told is a hybrid plan, meaning two components to it. One is related
to a direct tax on usage. An example being gas. So it's applied to combusted
fossil fuels across the economy, and there are some exemptions in regard to
various industries. I think there's agriculture, aquaculture and a few others,
recognizing the challenges that may be with the extra cost with such a plan,
with carbon tax. So that's one side of the hybrid carbon-pricing system that
we're talking about here.
The
other is tied to performance standards system, and that's for onshore and
offshore large industrial facilities and also large-scale electricity
generation, which would look at bringing out the Holyrood plant here, which we
know has significant, serious emissions. I think it's maybe 1.4 millions tons of
greenhouse gas emissions, which is really significant when you think about it. I
remember in speaking in our discussion in the briefing we had, we talked about
offshore installations, and I think most of them were over 500,000 tons of
emissions, in regard to what they were emitting. So it's significant.
The
second component of the hybrid is that performance standards system, and what
this is proposing is that it would look at those emitters that were greater than
25,000 tons, annually. You would be automatically in for land based and
offshore, based on that amount of emissions.
We know
when the Greenhouse Gas Act was originally brought in, there were five
industrial sites on land that were identified, and that time, there was no
indication that the federal government was going to mandate – I don't think at
that particular time – that a carbon tax had to be in by January 1, 2019. And I
remember, at the time, asking the minister about that. What happens if the
federal government comes along and says: You need to modify or change what
you're doing. And the answer was: Well, we'll deal with that.
But at
that particular time, there were five on-land industrial sites that were brought
in under that and plan was to monitor them for two years in regards to their
emissions and see where they would be. But at that time, it was only on land. It
didn't recognize, at that time, the offshore. What this does is amend it's – or
proposed to amend it, and bring those installation sites offshore in the oil and
gas sector into this actual hybrid model that's been proposed, which looks at
over 25,000 tons, annually, and you're automatically in.
Now, for
those that are out there, too, that are between 15,000 and 25,000 and are being
monitored, and they determine that they would like to be part of this proposed
hybrid system, they can, I guess, request to be brought in under that. They
would assess, I guess, whether paying a tax just on carbon, straight tax on
carbon for all the operations they do, it would be more beneficial to be part of
the emissions from 15,000 to 25,000, and be part of the hybrid system related to
performance standard. So that's the two systems we're talking about.
Now, we
have some discussions about the amount of money, not on the performance
standards piece, but on the general tax on gas. We've heard that, I think, we're
taking 4 cents off and we're putting 4.2 cents on, so really it's still a tax.
And there is some information too, I know in the information we had it was told
to us that, I think, it was around $61.8 million that was going to be collected.
Now,
there are other figures that was in Question Period today, the minister alluded
to the fact that it was $1 million, and then there was a figure of $4 million
and there was a figure of $14 million or $16 million on an annual basis that was
going into the general revenues. And we had discussions on, well, how does money
collected on gas from all of us who purchase gasoline and that goes into a
general revenue fund, how is that going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
What's the direct link between that collection of $61 million or whatever it is,
and reducing greenhouse gas emissions? How is the targets set? How do we monitor
it? How do we ensure that if we're charging a tax, that it's having the effect
of supposedly changing behaviour and reducing your greenhouse gas emissions?
You
would assume that would be done through the transportation sector, which is I
think probably, if not the first, the second biggest emitter of greenhouse gas
emissions in Newfoundland and Labrador, with the offshore maybe moving ahead in
regards to those emissions. So it's a behaviour modification that you're hoping
it attacks; 4.2 cents taxes going to adjust.
There's
no evidence of that, and that's some of the issues we have with the proposal.
We're taking money out of people's pockets from an economic point of view and
from an income disposal point of view, and there's no direct link to how we're
reaching the 30 per cent reduction by 2030, which I understand is still not
reaching the Paris accord levels that were the last time – Kyoto was before
that, the Paris accord was the most recent one, and my understanding is this
still does not reach that target. I understand the province hasn't been reaching
its target.
So,
that's a concern, and specifically in regard to what we're doing, the actions
we're taking, how annually, year after year starting in 2019 to 2030, we're
seeing specific reduction in greenhouse gases, whether from a human consumption
point of view in terms of gasoline, whether we're seeing – there's no threshold
or annual review to show us we're meeting those targets. That's an issue.
The
other side of it in regards to polluter pays does have a recognition of those
that contribute, and if we can monitor and in some way incentivize the reduction
in greenhouse gases there. There's some legitimacy to that as well, I would say.
From that as well when you look at not reaching their performance targets that
they pay into a fund, which somehow would assist in regard to those facilities
taking technology or doing things to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
I do
note that there was a mention on that side of the two-tier system, that over a
period of time there would be percentage reductions over a number of years. But
those percentage reductions, only 10 per cent of that reduction of that
percentage in a particular year needs to be done on that particular site. Over
and above that 10 per cent, actually they could buy credits to offset increase
or non-modification of the greenhouse gas emissions.
That
would mean if you had the funds to do it, you could pay the bill after you did
your 10 per cent reduction of whether it's 2 per cent, 4 per cent, 6 per cent or
8 or 12 per cent as you proceed through the years. So you could pay off that
actual cost if you just did your 10 per cent on site.
I asked
questions today in Question Period in regard to the targets, the performance
limits. There's a whole range of regulatory framework that's required for this
that we're neither close to or have reviewed or have seen here in the House on
what it is and what it reflects. So that's of an utmost concern.
I do
look forward to further questions, certainly posing questions to the minister as
we go through and having further discussion in the hours ahead on this important
piece of legislation.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I just
wanted to stand to just identify a few more issues with this particular bill
and, again, my concern around our participation in the whole area of climate
change and our action around climate change and then the issue of greenhouse gas
emissions.
We're a
little bit concerned about, really, when we do see the greenhouse gas fund that
will be established in a number of provinces, that money is going specifically –
like when we look at Alberta and what Alberta is doing, that money is going
specifically to help individuals, to help public sector and public sector
buildings, to help industry to make their buildings more energy efficient, to
ensure that everyone is doing as much as they possibly can to reduce their
emissions. That's really what you want to be happening. Otherwise, there's
really no reason for any of this.
We
really don't know what government's plan is there. We see that a good chunk of
money is going to go right into general revenue. Then, with the greenhouse gas
fund I believe none of that money will be spent. It will accumulate for five
years before the money is spent. I may be wrong. That's my understanding of it.
We
really don't have any clear indication and identification of government's role
in helping the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, helping working families,
helping seniors make their homes more energy efficient, making their
transportation more climate friendly, making our public buildings, our schools,
our hospitals, our public offices – making those more climate friendly and more
energy efficient.
When you
think of all the money that has been spent on Muskrat Falls and then the fact
that we couldn't decommission Holyrood because of the delay in Muskrat Falls
coming online, then some insecurities, really, about how reliable that source of
energy might be – Holyrood is still up and running and may be for quite a while.
There is nothing to really encourage people to get off oil as a means of heating
their homes because nobody is going to be charged. There's going to be no levy,
there's going to be no pricing and there's going to be tax on home heating oil.
We know
that there are methods to ensure those who are more economically vulnerable can
have a rebate if they're using oil to heat, or programs to help get them off oil
– which is what we really want to see – and to use that Muskrat Falls power. We
need everybody to be using that power as much as possible. That's power that we
are generating ourselves through Muskrat Falls. We have to find ways of using
that power as much as we possibly can because we're going to be paying for it
anyway.
I'm
concerned about that, Mr. Chair, in terms of terms of, really, what is the plan
to make sure that our households are as modern and energy efficient as they
possibly can be? What is the plan to ensure that our public buildings are as
modern, energy efficient and climate friendly as they possibly can be? What is
the plan to ensure that our industries and those large emitters are as energy
efficient and climate friendly as they possible can be, that they are as modern
as they possible can be?
The
Minister of Natural Resources told us that Hibernia is one of the most
climate-friendly oil operations in a number of places in the world. Their
emissions are lower than in a number of places in the world. That's kind of
interesting. Our concern, too, is who will be regulating? If it's the C-NLOPB
regulating offshore industry, it's clear once again how important it is that we
have an independent safety and environmental authority to deal with that issue.
We know
that self-regulation doesn't work. We need that. When we see what happened with
the Husky oil spill, how important it is for us to have a strong safety and
environmental authority to be dealing with the offshore industry in the area of
climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. I think that becomes clearer and
clearer, particularly as we see that industry expand. I think that's a
no-brainer, Mr. Chair.
Basically, that's all I wanted to add to this. Government should be really
saying that they are proud to be doing a really good, comprehensive plan with
tools that are effective to help us become modern, to help us become more
climate friendly. This seems like it's just tweaking around at the edges, that
it's a very modest approach.
I think
that's unfortunate because, as we know, when we see what's happening with
climate change, it takes bold steps. Also, we need to make sure that we are
taking care of people who are living in rural communities, who don't have access
to public transportation and to seniors and to people who are really on low
incomes.
We have
to make sure they are covered, but we also have to make sure that everyone,
particularly higher income earners and industry, play a significant role in
addressing this issue. I believe, Mr. Chair, this is really a weak approach.
It's not robust, it's not bold and daring and it's not modern. It's not as good
as it possibly could be.
Thank
you very much.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have
to get up and address some of the issues that were just raised by the Member for
St. John's Centre.
First of
all, she talks about: We have no plan and there's nothing in this plan to
address seniors and low-income earners and so on. I've only been in this role
for two or three weeks, so I was not much involved in negotiating this plan, but
I will say there were members of our department that did a fine job of
negotiating this plan.
I don't
know how the Member for St. John's Centre feels, but I can get up here today and
I can say that that I am very proud of the plan that's been negotiated for
carbon pricing by the people in the department and ministers before me in the
Department of Municipal Affairs and Environment. I'm very proud and so are they.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LETTO:
Mr. Chair, we talk about low
income and seniors. Well, that's why we fought to have the home heating fuel
exempt, because the majority of the people that use home heating fuel are our
seniors, our low-income earners and so on. That's why the previous ministers
involved in this insisted that would be exempt from carbon pricing. To get up in
this House and say that we have done nothing to protect our seniors is just
ludicrous.
She also
mentioned about the greenhouse gas reduction fund and how the money is going to
go into that and that there's no plan on how we're going to spend that, Mr.
Chair. That's why we're going to put in place an advisory committee of five to
seven people that will provide recommendations to the Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Environment and to the department on how that money should be spent.
We've
also made it quite clear that those five to seven people are going to be well
qualified. For instance, there's going to be at least two members who will have
climate change expertise, that's two members that really know what they're
talking about when it comes to climate change; there's going to be two members
with industrial expertise, so that avenue is covered; and there will be at least
one from a government executive. Mr. Chair, that's five to seven people, so we
will have an advisory committee in place that will advise the department and the
minister, whoever he or she may be at the time, on how that money should be
spent and what projects we should be looking at to make sure that we do meet our
targets.
Our
targets, between now and 2030, is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 650,000
tons – 650,000 tons between now and 2030. We know it's ambitious, but I can
guarantee you this government is committed to reaching those targets, and we
will. We will because we will put in place a plan that people can buy in to and
people can support. It's not a willy-nilly plan as being suggested on the other
side, that we have no plan how to spend this money.
As I
said before, we have the low economy fund that's going to invest $89.4 million
into this province over the next four years; $44.7 million of which is our
money. I don't know where they expect us to get that money if it doesn't come
out of general revenue. So when you say we're putting money from the carbon
pricing into general revenue and it's being lost in the shuffle, well it's not
being lost, Mr. Chair, because we've committed to spending $44.7 million over
the next four years on greenhouse gas emission projects.
As well,
we've also signed an agreement with the federal government that will see $136
million through the Investing Canada Infrastructure Fund over the next 10 years
in projects that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Now, $136 million, as I
said, from the feds which means we have to pay our fair share as well.
Mr.
Chair, we're making progress already. The Minister of Transportation and Works
just reminded me of the fact that any new buildings we're building today are
much more efficient than something we would have built 20, 30 years ago. We
strive to lead criteria. We strive to put in place energy efficient buildings
that will. If they're not using the energy, that reduces greenhouse gases.
So to
get up in this House and say we have no plan and we have no idea how we're going
to meet our targets, well, Mr. Chair, I beg to differ, because we do have a plan
and we do have commitment. Unless you have a plan and you don't have commitment,
then the plan is not worth the paper it's written on, but we have both. We have
a plan, we have commitment, and we will live up to that commitment.
As has
been said in this House already today, greenhouse gas emissions have to be
curved. We have to cut them down. That's why we said to industry, we don't want
to put you out of business. That wouldn't solve anything. We don't want to put
you out of business. You have to remain competitive.
In the
meantime, you need to do your share for climate change and cut down on
greenhouse gas emissions. That's why we've set targets for them, and these
targets will be closely monitored. These targets will mean by 2022 that they
have, any large industry – and I have a list of them here – who've bought into
this – and, by the way, they fully support it.
It's
companies like IOC, Rio Tinto, Vale, Voisey's Bay, the plant in Long Harbour,
Tata Steel, Tacora Resources – the new on the block, but they will be subjected
to it as well, and they bought in – Hibernia, Terra Nova, White Rose, Hebron,
North Atlantic refinery, Kruger pulp and paper, the Holyrood terminal, Holyrood
diesel and Hardwoods Gas. So all these big industries, Mr. Chair, have bought in
and they are very supportive of what we're doing. They're very supportive.
I'll now
read: From an industry perspective, while no company wants to be regulated, the
large industrial facilities based in this province have indicated they
understand that greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced and they understand
they need to contribute to this effort. I reiterate again, all the large
industrial facilities in our province have indicated a clear desire for the
province to regulate greenhouse gas emissions through the Management of Greenhouse Gas Act rather than by the federal
government.
The
companies also appreciate that the province is working towards establishing a
mechanism, such as the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, to assist in seizing new
opportunities. It's phasing in the system to 2022, which will allow them to plan
to minimize any capital cost they may incur.
AN HON. MEMBER:
You should table it.
MR. LETTO:
Mr. Chair, I can table it, not a problem, because that's what they're saying.
That's what they're telling us. I'm not making this up. This is what they're
telling us. Now, I don't know if you've talked to them; I don't know if you
have.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. LETTO:
So what are they telling you? What's your plan? Do they agree with your plan? I
ask again, do they agree with your plan? Do they agree with the Opposition plan?
Well,
they've agreed to our plan, Mr. Chair, and they've bought into it because they
think it's the right thing to do. It's the right thing to do, to address climate
change. It's the right thing to do to clean up our greenhouse gas emissions, and
it's the right thing to do to be responsible for that and they're willing to do
their fair share. They're willing to do it. It's not something that's being
imposed on them. It's something they came to the table with and they're very
pleased with. They congratulate us for reaching a plan that meets their needs –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LETTO:
– that allows them to stay
competitive, and to allow the people of our province to not be, as they say,
taxed. I say, not taxed, Mr. Chair.
I'd say
the people of this province are willing to do their share to clean up this
environment that for so long has been ignored, not only by us but everybody in
this world.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm glad
to take an opportunity now to speak to Bill 44.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. LANE:
As this is a money bill, I do
have some things I want to say about Bill 44. I'll say that the next time I
stand, but as this is a money bill, I want to talk about something else which is
likewise important; very important to me at least.
I want
to reference the Minister of Finance. When he was up speaking earlier today he
was talking about the Muskrat Falls Project. I just want to say to the Minister
of Finance, I share in everything of what you said. I think any Member who voted
for the project that's in this House, if they were to be honest with themselves,
I don't know why everybody isn't outraged, but I'm outraged. I think anyone who
voted for this project should be outraged of the way that this project has gone
and all the revelations that are coming out of the Muskrat Falls inquiry.
You
listen to it day after day, and all you're doing is you're shaking your head and
you're saying, how could this possibly be? Which is why, when I just heard the
Minister of Municipal Affairs talking about climate change and he was talking
about his panel of experts and so on, I say that I don't know if I'll ever look
at – if anyone ever says to me again about, I have a panel of experts or we have
experts looking into the things or whatever, I don't know if I'll ever really
trust the word expert again.
No
disrespect to the minister in what you're saying, but in terms of all the
experts that were talking about Muskrat Falls and Manitoba Hydro and Nalcor and
all these so-called experts, and to see where we are today is absolutely
shocking. It really is shocking. So if you want to use the word deceived, lied
to, hoodwinked, another good one, I'd say all of the above. That's how I feel at
least. That's how I feel, and nothing would make me happier – and we'll see how
the inquiry comes out. Nothing would make me happier on a personal level than to
see someone doing the perp walk on NTV to be honest with you. That's how I feel.
That's how angry I am about everything that's gone on.
Now,
whether it will lead to anything like that, who knows, because at this point in
time there doesn't seem to be necessarily any proof of anything criminal that
went on, but there was definitely incompetence of the greatest order from what I
can see. I have to say that.
And
that's why I say to the Minister of Natural Resources, and I've been presenting
petitions and talking about Nalcor and holding Nalcor accountable, that's why
even before the Inquiry started, I had written the Minister of Justice and the
Premier and raised it in this House, about putting appropriate resources in
place to be watching this Inquiry that's going on, because the Inquiry can only
make recommendations, talk about what happened, what the conclusions were, make
recommendations so that it doesn't happen again. The Commissioner can't say: I
think you should lay charges against this person, this person and this person.
The
Inquiry can't say: I think you should sue this company, this company and this
company. The Inquiry can't say: I think this person should be fired, this person
should be fired and this person should be fired. It doesn't have the ability to
do that, which is why I believe then, and I still believe today, that there
should be somebody assigned, if you will, from the RCMP commercial crime, to be
viewing all this as it's going through and if they see anything that warrants a
criminal investigation, to get it started ASAP. To have somebody from a legal
perspective looking at what's going on and saying if they see anything untoward
happening here that we should be suing people or suing companies or cancelling
contracts or whatever the case might be, that we do it. Having someone from a HR
perspective that's going to recommend the handing out of pink slips because,
definitely, at the very least, there needs to be a few pink slips handed out,
from what I have been watching and listening and gathering from all that's gone
on. I can't believe they're not being held to account.
It also
comes into effect, when we talk about Nalcor and the imbedded contractors issue
and changes to the Energy Corporation Act,
which I've raised in this House many times, and we did get a change in the
spring. I said at that time that change wasn't going to cut it. The Privacy
Commissioner said that change isn't going to cut it
I was
told in the last sitting of the House, when we come back here in the fall,
hopefully, there'll be another change to the
Energy Corporation Act once they've
had a chance to look at it. Now, I don't see anything here, maybe there's
something coming. I don't think it's going to come now, but I say to the
minister we need changes to the Energy Corporation Act to hold those people accountable and to make
sure we can get the information that the public deserves to receive. That it
goes through the Privacy Commissioner and let him determine whether or not the
information should be released. Not somebody at Nalcor because they've been
running roughshod and doing whatever the heck they want. They have been given
the total autonomy to do whatever they want and look at where it has gotten us.
Imagine,
hiding information and reports and risk reports and lowballing costs, and,
supposedly, allegedly, not letting the deputy minister know, not letting the
minister know, not letting the premier of the day know, not letting anybody
know, just deciding on their own to do it. That's what's been said. I'm only
going on what's coming out in the Inquiry. I can't believe it. I absolutely
can't believe it. It comes down to accountability and we have to hold people
accountable.
We can
go back even before the Inquiry, I've referenced this before, nothing ever
became of it. DarkNL, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's one and only mandate
really is to keep the lights on. That's their job, to keep the lights on, and we
had DarkNL and the Liberty report comes out and they said they didn't do basic
maintenance. They didn't do maintenance at Holyrood and we were all left in the
dark.
There
was little to no explanation from the CEO of Nalcor at the time and nothing
happened. Nobody was fired that I'm aware of. They should've been; somebody
should have been. I'm sure the power engineers up in Holyrood didn't decide:
Let's not do the maintenance, let's let her go. I don't believe that for a
second, Mr. Chair. There's no way that happened. Somebody had to knowingly
direct people not to do maintenance or say we're not giving you money to do
maintenance. We can't afford to do maintenance. We're going to roll the dice and
hope that we can get Muskrat Falls before the lights go out. That was never
investigated.
I wrote
the Auditor General, the former Auditor General, met with the Auditor General,
you think I could get him to look into that. No way, couldn't seem to make any
progress there. Even though we couldn't keep the lights on, all the executive
all got their corporate bonuses. They all got the corporate bonuses, every one
of them. Do you know why, Mr. Chair? We had a good safety record. Imagine, we
had a good safety record.
Now,
there's nothing wrong with having a good safety record. I'm a safety
practitioner, that's what I did before getting in here. I applaud them on their
safety efforts, but their mandate is to provide power and they couldn't do it
because they couldn't do maintenance and everyone gets full bonuses because we
had a good safety record. Answers never came out to why that could be.
Before
the former board of Nalcor quite en masse, they got upset about some comments
made in the 2016 budget by the then minister of Finance, and they all quit. And
a story came out in CBC shortly after that, where the former chair of the board
was quoted on CBC, or an email that they ATIPPed or something, say: Load up the
guns, get the information, former chair was in a conflict of interest. I know
she was in a conflict of interest. Dig out the files.
How come
nobody investigated that? I wrote the Auditor General. Still, no, nothing
happened there. But he was saying that persons in a conflict of interest on the
board, and he knew about it. So he must've knew about it a year before and the
year before that and said nothing. Why is that? Because they were all buddies,
everyone was happy go lucky then so I'm going to forget about the conflict. Now,
that I'm mad at you, I'm going to tell the whole world to dig out the
information to get the dirt on you, you're in a conflict. So how many other
people could possibly have been in a conflict that he wasn't mad at? I don't
know. These are questions; can't get answers.
Two
years ago I wrote the Auditor General, this one apparently had been
investigated, and I've talked to the new Auditor General and, hopefully,
something's coming out very soon, I'm hoping, about our current CEO's contracts,
and how it's okay to retain 5 per cent share in Fortis while being the CEO of
Nalcor. How is that okay? I can't understand how that could not be a conflict.
Well, we're waiting on that one. Hopefully, we get an answer on that one. But
there are so many things that have happened without answers and we need
accountability at Nalcor.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's
indeed an honour again to stand, as we always do in this House, to debate
legislation in an open process here, and there's always some open discussion and
maybe even some disagreeing on the interpretation and the intent and possibly
even the outcomes.
I would
hope the intent here is that the outcomes are for the betterment of all
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, presently and into the future here, and that's
what I'm confident we all strive to. We all may have different approaches
towards it, we all may have different concepts of policy and we may have
different interpretations of the best way to do that, but we set out to do that.
I'm
confident nobody here would argue that we are all cognizant and supportive of
protecting our environment, and that we have a responsibility to do that. How we
do that in the best interests of our society, and particularly the future, is,
again, up for debate.
Part of
what we're debating here is around Bill 44, which is the
Management of Greenhouse Gas Act and the
Revenue Administration Act combined. There are two components here
that are very important; one leads into the other because it's a
revenue-generating process. The bigger picture here is not necessarily the
amounts of money being generated, it's how we're going to use that money to
better our society from an environmental point of view, and how that impact is
going to have a positive reinforcer and a positive influence on ensuring that
individuals and, particularly, industries, are cognizant and are good corporate
citizens around protecting our environment, and how do we do that.
I've got
some reservations here. I've heard my colleagues on both sides here talk about
the impacts it may have. I know we've sometimes gone different angles and used
an opportunity to bring other things directly or indirectly connected to it, but
I want to concentrate more on the particulars of we're generating monies, and I
know any time you generate money that comes out of the pockets of taxpayers,
it's going to have an adverse effect on them. Sometimes it's a necessary evil
because the outcomes of how you're going to invest that money are much more
beneficial to the masses in our society and has a long-term positive effect.
Right
now, I'm not confident of that. I'm not confident of that mainly because of the
old cliché: The devil is in the detail. How that money is going to be used in
the best interests of ensuring that we've got a process, a plan, a go-forward
mechanism that ensures our environment is protected, either if it's through an
educational process we're going to use, if it's through hiring of staff that may
be necessary to police, a certain process. It may be investing in industry that
ensures the toxins that are released in our society or the way that we're being
a danger to our environment is addressed, and that we look at a long-term
solution to being able to deal with those types of situations.
When we
look at the act itself, it's a fairly intensive act. It covers off a multitude
of sectors and responsibilities in Newfoundland and Labrador and all those who
are involved, and the responsibilities and, in some cases, the privileges that
they have as part of the legislative process here. We have an opportunity to do
something here that's significant.
I know
it's become somewhat of a contentious issue here about provinces getting to a
point where it was going to be enforced or regulated on them a particular
process that may or may not have been in the best interests of that particular
province. That's based on the types of emissions, the carbon footprint that is
seen as a negative in that particular province. In some cases, I think – in
defence of our province – the positive things that have been done, from an
industry point of view and from a government point of view, to look at being an
environmentally friendly province, particularly, around heating access to
getting away from our carbons, using our natural energy levels here,
particularly around safe energies and clean energies.
We've
come a long way to be able to do that over the last number of decades to get to
a point where we now are industry leaders in how we're going to do it in safe,
clean energy. The issue here is it doesn't seem to look like we're getting our
due justice here from looking at how we address the costing of moving forward on
some of the other things.
I know
we talked about the made-at-home plan and I support that process. I support the
fact that Newfoundland and Labrador should have been and, no doubt, was allowed
to put together a made-at-home carbon tax process here. The problem I have is
that it is a carbon tax which means the first thing it's a tax, it's going to be
a burden on people.
Again,
I'll go back to what I started with – and I still say it – sometimes you must
pay revenues, you must pay out of your pocket to ensure you get a better
lifestyle, that things are protected and this type of thing. The question I have
here, and the question that we've been asking on this side, is: How is this
going to roll out? What financial impact is it going to have on people directly?
We already know now we're just switching in and out from a tax part of it, from
a gas tax and we can go from there. That's not my contentious issue.
The gas
tax was there and we've had a multitude of sessions in this House debating the
impact that's had on our society and the impact it's had financially on people
and that it was to be an eliminated tax. Really, where we are now is that's just
going to swap out for the carbon tax. That's fine if that's the move of the
government who understand they have to generate revenue and that's their
home-based, home-developed, home-configured plan here.
The
issue again becomes what exactly are we going to get and how are the people
going to benefit from the monies that are generated from that tax? If you said
to somebody tomorrow: You pay an extra half a per cent tax that will go directly
into health care and it's put in a separate approach to increasing access to
health care, I think most people would be supportive of that. As would people be
supportive of protecting our environment to ensure industries can be
sustainable, to ensure that our natural resource industries, fishing industry,
the forest industry: all relevant things like that would be sustainable and the
potential for expansion.
We need
to know. I think the general public would like to know and I would like to know.
This is being sincere. I'd like to know. If we're going to generate $50 million
or $60 million, how is that going to be used, so at the end of the day I can
feel confident that my kids and my grandkids, and the province that we're all
very committed to, is going to be better off from an environmental point of
view. They're the issues that we have here.
When we
talk about some of the big emitters of toxins here, particularly around
greenhouse gases, we only have less than a dozen of what would be considered
comparable large ones. We know Holyrood; we've had this conversation, we've had
this debate. One of the big issues around everything that's moved forward in the
last decade has been around how do you address the emissions out of Holyrood?
One of the issues is: Get rid of Holyrood, but you need to have an alternative
process for that. Right now, that's what's being worked on under green energy as
part of that.
When you
look at the largest ones we have here: Holyrood, Come By Chance, the mines in
Labrador City, Voisey's Bay, Corner Brook Pulp and Paper – Schefferville in
Quebec is one-tenth or less than one-tenth that we have in –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. BRAZIL:
No, you're right. Sorry, I apologize. You're right. It's just in quotes here in
Quebec, but that's ours, too. I apologize. Even the Hardwoods gas turbine in
Mount Pearl – they all have impacts.
I can
see why industry would want to be able to minimize the greenhouse gases that are
being emitted. There's no doubt they would want to work with the government to
find either partnership solutions or investments. I have no qualms, if somebody
can apply for incentives from government to increase the way that they prevent
greenhouse gases from being emitted in our society, I think – I mean we have a
responsibility to do that and taxing people to do that is not necessarily the
wrong thing. The wrong thing is people not understanding and being comfortable
that the money that's going to be collected is going to go somewhere that are
going to benefit them.
If this
plan outlined that, I'd have no qualms in saying, you know what, as somebody who
was very supportive of the environment, I would support that. As somebody who is
very supportive of industry, but realizing industry has a responsibility, and we
have a responsibility as government sometimes to give incentives or partner with
them to ensure that they have the ability to do their part without jeopardizing
their industry itself. I think we have that ability here.
The
issue becomes, from our side of the House here, outlining exactly how we're
going to do that, what the incentives are going to be, how we're going to
benefit that. It just can't be a cash cow for industry; it can't be that we're
going to take this money and spend it over here, yet it was identified for this
to solve a long-term solution.
What
we're asking here is an outline of exactly how this investment – this tax that
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are going to invest back into the
government, and entrust the government to spend with industry, to improve our
environment, how that's going to be done.
Mr.
Chair, I just wanted to note that we need a plan here so people can feel
comfortable that their money is going to be spent in the right manner.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's a
pleasure to stand and speak again, and this time I will speak to the actual
bill.
The last
time I just took advantage of it being a money bill to vent a little on Nalcor
and so on, but anyway. And by the way, despite what some people think, I really
believe that – even when I was talking of Nalcor – I really believe that
everybody knows a lot of what I was saying, we might not totally agree on
everything, but I'm sure we all have concerns about Nalcor and stuff that's gone
on in the inquiry. I know we do a hundred per cent, all of us, so I will say
that.
Mr.
Chair, in terms of Bill 44, my original thought on it was – I was torn, but my
original thought was I had the inclination in one sense not to support it based
on the tax at the pumps. That's really my biggest issue with it, because I
really do believe, as I said earlier, that there are big polluters out there. We
all have to do our part to deal with that. Governments have to do their part,
not just in Newfoundland, not just in Canada, but around the world.
Unfortunately, some of the biggest polluters in the world are taking little to
no action, which is a shame.
Some
people would argue, what's the point of us doing anything here when the real big
polluters on the other side of the hemisphere are doing nothing and they're the
ones that are really causing most of the problems? Well, I guess it's got to
start somewhere, and we have to hold to our beliefs in the environment and do
our part. I believe most people, I can't say everybody, but I think the majority
of people in our province understand and support us doing the right thing for
the environment, obviously within reason and realizing costs and so on.
I have
no issue with establishing targets for industries to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. That all makes sense, and there has to be either incentives and/or
penalties to make that happen. I think that's really the intent, and that's
good. I would support that, because we all realize climate change is very real
and, as I said earlier today, we've seen it here in Newfoundland and Labrador
first-hand. Nobody in this province can say there's no such thing as climate
change.
Now, we
did have a former mayor of a certain city, apparently he didn't believe in
climate change at one point. Maybe he's changed his mind, but, for the most
part, we all believe that climate change is real. We've seen it first-hand with
the flooding and different things we've had happen across the province when
we've had significant storm events, and they seem to be getting more frequent
all the time. As a matter of fact, it was only last week, I believe, that out in
the Port aux Basques area, I saw some pictures there of a roof blown right off a
building and significant damage from high winds and so on. So it is a real
issue, no doubt.
Again,
my concern is not about setting targets for polluters. I think polluters are the
people we should be going after, the big polluters. I also don't have an issue
with, in general, I suppose, in creating incentives and encouraging the general
public to do their little part to help the environment and so on where they can,
but charging a gas tax at the pump, that's where I have an issue. That's really
the only part that I have an issue, because I don't believe it's going to make a
difference.
If I
thought by charging that four cents at the pump, that that was going to
significantly lower our greenhouse gas levels and so on, or it was going to
somehow help bring an end to fossil fuels and everyone would be driving around
in electric cars and all that great stuff, it would be wonderful. But the
reality of it is, is that fossil fuels are not going away. They're not going
away any time in the near future, or I'd say even in the mid-term they're not
going away. Eventually they will, but I don't suspect – for a long time to come,
we'll still be dependent on fossil fuels.
So
people are going to drive cars, and as someone said earlier, yeah, when you
throw a few cents' tax on gas, yeah, you'll feel it a little bit. It depends on
how much and so on, but you do feel it; but, at the end of the day, people have
lives. They got to go to work. Kids got to go to school. They got to go to dance
class. They're going to have their holidays if they can afford it. They're going
to drive around, that's reality, and they're going to burn gas.
I don't
think by charging 4.5 cents at the pumps is going to do one thing to change
people's habits and people to pause and say, hold on a second now, I'm going to
stop using fossil fuels, or I'm going to reduce my use of fossil fuels. It's not
going to happen. All that's going to happen is you're going to pay more at the
pump and more money will go into government coffers as a tax, which is what it
is, and there'll be no difference by doing it. So that's my problem with it.
That's the issue I have.
Now,
with that said, it sounds like I'm going to vote against it, but, here's the
thing – yes, there's a however. The however is this; the however is this is
being forced on us by the federal government. It's being forced on us by the
federal government. So we really don't have a choice, that's the issue. If we
don't vote for this, it's going to be shoved down our throats anyway and
probably something worse.
We're
told that what we have here is sort of a made in Newfoundland and Labrador
solution, if you will. While I might not like the idea of the four cents, if we
don't do it the feds are going to shove something probably worse down our
throats anyway. So we really don't have a choice in that regard.
Now, we
can talk about the fact that – and I did earlier today – about how other
provinces are fighting the federal government in court and all that kind of
stuff. I will still maintain, as others have said, I wish we had to have been
part of that fight, so to speak. I wish we had to have been more vocal and part
of that fight and said, listen, we're signing on to this, too. The federal
government needs to find another way as opposed to just taxing the general
public for pulling up to the gas pump; but, it doesn't matter. It is what it is.
They're going to do it anyway.
The good
part, which I didn't realize at the time until the Member for Bay of Islands
indicated it, and I guess I'll ask the minister if she speaks or he speaks.
There's a #MeToo clause, or whatever you call it, that if the other provinces
are successful in their fight against Ottawa on this, then we're not going to be
stuck with this while they get off with it. We can opt out of this.
AN HON. MEMBER:
True, true.
MR. LANE:
That's my understanding. I'm
hearing true. So if that's the case, which I didn't realize at the time, to be
honest, then I think that offers a protection as well, that we won't be stuck
with something that other provinces won't be stuck with.
So, with
all that being said, although I don't – again, I don't like the idea of 4.5
cents at the pump. I don't think it's going to make a difference in terms of
behaviour or do anything with greenhouse gas emissions. I think the other parts
of the plan do make sense.
I do
share in what the Member for Bell Island said about it would be nice to know
specifically what the money is going to go to, but I suppose in one sense that's
no different than any other tax or fee, or even legislation when it's left to
the government to draft regulations. We don't really know. You have to trust to
the government of the day, whoever it is, to make the appropriate choices with
that money as it comes in, and hopefully put it towards good projects that make
sense. If not, the Opposition is there, obviously, to hold them to account in
Question Period and other ways.
I guess
with all that said, Mr. Chair, considering the points I just made, I will be
supporting the bill.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Shall the resolution carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, resolution carried.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Management Of Greenhouse Gas Act And The Revenue
Administration Act.” (Bill 44)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 33
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Clauses 2 through 33
inclusive, shall they carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 through 33 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The
Management Of Greenhouse Gas Tax And The Revenue Administration Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the long title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report Bill 44
carried without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the resolution and a bill consequent
thereto, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Chair, I move that the
Committee rise and report the resolution and Bill 44.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report the resolution and Bill 44.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise and report Bill 44 carried without amendment,
the Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
The hon. the Member for
Baie Verte - Green Bay and Chair of the Committee of Ways and Means.
MR. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
Ways and Means have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me
to report that they have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill
be introduced to give effect to the same.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of Ways and Means reports that the Committee have
considered the matters to them referred and have adopted a certain resolution
and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.
When shall the report be received?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On motion, report received and adopted.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, that the
resolution be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that the resolution be now read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
All those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The motion is
carried.
CLERK:
Be it resolved by the House
of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows: “That it is expedient
to bring in a measure regarding the imposition of a taxes on carbon products.”
On
motion, resolution read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
Minister of Natural Resources, that the resolution be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that the resolution be now read a second time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
All those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
MR. SPEAKER:
I do believe the motion was carried.
The Clerk, please.
CLERK:
Second reading of the resolution.
On motion, resolution read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
Minister of Natural Resources, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To
Amend The Management Of Greenhouse Gas Act And The Revenue Administration Act,
Bill 44, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that the hon. the
Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To
Amend The Management Of Greenhouse Gas Act And The Revenue Administration Act,
Bill 44, and that the said bill be now read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
All those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is still carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance
and President of Treasury Board introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The
Management Of Greenhouse Gas Act And The Revenue Administration Act,” carried.
(Bill 44)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The Management Of Greenhouse Gas Act And The Revenue
Administration Act. (Bill 44)
On motion, Bill 14 read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 44 be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that the said bill
be now read a second time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
All those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act to Amend The
Management Of Greenhouse Gas Act And The Revenue Administration Act. (Bill 44)
On
motion, Bill 44 read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Natural Resources that Bill 44 be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 44 be now read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Management Of Greenhouse Gas Act And The Revenue Administration Act. (Bill 44)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the
Order Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Management Of Greenhouse Gas Act And The
Revenue Administration Act,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be
as on the Order Paper. (Bill 44)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, that the House do now
adjourn.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded that this House do now adjourn.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
I heard
no nays.
This
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30 o'clock.
Thank
you.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.