PDF Version

March 15, 2023 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 19

The House met at 10 a.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Government Business

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you Speaker.

Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 7, second reading of Bill 27.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. COADY: Thank you, everybody.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Government House Leader, that Bill 27,

An Act to Amend the Revenue Administration Act No. 3, be now read a second time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 27,

An Act to Amend the Revenue Administration Act No. 3, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act to Amend the Revenue Administration Act No. 3.” (Bill 27)

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

S. COADY: Thank you very much, Speaker.

Welcome, everyone, to Wednesday morning. This is

An Act to Amend the Revenue Administration Act No.3. A subsection of that act, we are just changing the date to March 31 of 2024.

So it's a fairly straightforward and simple bill this morning, but it's a very important one. We're introducing amendments to the Revenue Administration Act to extend the tax reduction on gasoline and diesel of seven cents per litre for the next year, until March 31 of 2024.

This is very important for the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. This maintains a lower price at the pumps by 8.05 cents per litre, which that includes HST. This reduction is one of many initiatives that we've delivered by the provincial government to support residents, families and businesses with the currently high cost of living.

While this cost of living is due to challenges that are global in nature, we know Newfoundlanders and Labradorians feel it close to home. The tax reduction for gasoline diesel was initially set until January 1, 2023. It was later extended until March 31, 2023, next week. Further extending the tax reduction until March 31, 2024, is an initiative of budget 2023-24 at an estimated cost of $63.4 million. So it is a very substantive revenue reduction for the people of the province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. COADY: Thank you very much.

It's certainly important to the people of the province who travel on our highways and our roads, going to get groceries, going to doctors' appointments, going to pharmacies, travelling for work or for business. It's also important for our businesses, many of whom have to transport goods and services across this vast province of ours, and so it is equally important to the business community that we keep this gas tax as low as possible.

Speaker, on that note, I will note that this is the second-lowest tax in the country, next to Alberta. Alberta has a lower tax but everyone else – I can tell you, for example in Quebec, the gasoline tax is 19.2 cents. In Saskatchewan, it's 15 cents. In Nova Scotia, it's 15.5. In Newfoundland and Labrador, it's 7.5. So it's a significant tax reduction for the people of the province. It's costing $63.4 million, but I think it's a good investment that we're able to make and ensure that people have lower taxes, especially with the vast geography that we have in this province.

It's our latest move, I guess, now as we move into the next fiscal year. As everyone in the province knows our fiscal year in Newfoundland and Labrador, of course in most governments across the country, ends at the end of March which is in very short order. It ends at the end of March. So in our next fiscal year this is a very important move I think for the people of the province, but it does have significant budgetary impacts at $63.4 million.

As I've said, budget 2023 is coming up next week, or I guess it's a week from tomorrow. I have a lot of work to do between then and now. It's going to be delivered on March 23, and I hope people tune in and I know that the House of Assembly will do a very thorough job of reviewing that budget and going line by line through the budget to ensure that we're making wise investments and wise decisions on behalf of the people of the province.

Speaking of wise decisions, I think it was a very wise decision that this government took over the last year, and especially as we had some additional revenues we were able to put towards reducing the cost of living and the burden of the cost of living on the people of the province – things like the one-time relief cheque that we were able to provide to residents of $500. That was, of course, anyone with adjusted income of $125,000 or less received an appropriate amount of money based on where they fit under the $125,000. If you were $100,000 below, you received the full $500. From $100,000 to $125,000, it was a proportioned amount.

We also are providing a home heat supplement for those that are utilizing oil. We all know the price of oil has been impacted by the volatility in global markets and, because of that, we were able to provide a $500 supplement to people who heat their home with oil. But we're also going beyond that, Speaker. We're also providing an amount of money to help people switch from oil to electricity because we all know the volatility in the oil pricing, but also because it is right for our environment and impacting climate change.

I know my colleague at Environment and Climate Change has been very, very engaged in helping people switch and he's just announced, as part of next week's budget, an extension and continuation of that program. So very, very pleased to see that transition from oil to electricity. We've also, for example, provided additional funding for those that receive the Income Supplement and those that receive the Seniors' Benefit.

Hundreds of thousands of people receive – you know, some of them receive both the Income Supplement and the Seniors' Benefit, and it's very important last year that we increased that. We also increased the income support payments. So Income Supplement went up, the income support payments went up and the Seniors' Benefit all went up last year to help address the cost of living.

That's not even to speak about some of the other – and I think of them as long-term impacts of how we've been able to keep the cost of living low in this province. You know, some things like helping with child care. We've been able to move very quickly. I've been Finance Minister now for 30 months – 30 months and I'm about to give my fourth budget. But we started with $25-a-day child care, which was a huge benefit to people. Went to $15, now we're down to $10 a day for child care. The investments that we're making there are certainly helping.

A friend of mine has three children under the age of four. Can you imagine? Busy life. Four children under the age of four and the savings to that family is unbelievable. Very, very important because, of course, if she didn't have that she would be paying upwards to $45 to $50 a day for child care, each child. That would really impact not only their finances but their ability to work because, of course, that would be an exorbitant amount of money. So helping in that way.

Making sure, for example, that Muskrat Falls didn't double electricity rates. That was a huge worry of the people of the province and we've been able to mitigate that. By doing so, we're helping the people of the province with cost of living.

I can report to this House that Newfoundland and Labrador has the second lowest cost of living in the country, next to Alberta. So we seem to be following Alberta very closely in a lot of ways. I'm very, very pleased to be able to say that the impact of cost of living hasn't been as significant here as it has been in other places.

I think, Speaker, it has something to do with the way we've been able to support people, the way we've been able to keep our gas tax low. We've been able to support people by giving them assistance by increasing the Seniors' Benefit, the Income Supplement and the income support payments.

Speaker, I will say that I'm hopeful that everyone in this House will support the continuation of the lower gas tax. I'm sure everyone in this House will be supportive of that.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was our idea.

S. COADY: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: It was our idea.

S. COADY: I would say to the Member opposite, that while I appreciate his interjection that is not exactly the way I see it.

We've been very –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

S. COADY: We have developed a suite of cost-of-living measures that, I think, have been robust, have been important and we're going to continue to keep our focus on the people of the province, because that is exactly what you've asked us to do and that's why we're sitting on this side of the House.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Speaker.

It's indeed an honour to sit our first Wednesday morning back for the people who are watching or listening, back to debate an important piece of legislation before only a week away we get into debating what's coming in our budget.

I do have the honour of getting to speak to any bill, as everybody in this House does, and see the legitimacy and the importance of passing legislation that reflects what people are doing.

I do find it a little bit amusing that the minister sees what they're offering through rose-coloured glasses here because, at the end of the day, when she mentions things like the lowest cost of living in Newfoundland and Labrador in this country, I don't know where you're living. I don't know where you're living. You're not living in Nain, Labrador; you're not living on Bell Island; you're not living in Bonavista or CBS or Whitbourne or the Burin Peninsula or Central Newfoundland or the West Coast or the Connaigre Peninsula because we don't hear that from anybody.

We hear the opposite. We see the thousands of workers who have to leave Newfoundland and Labrador every week to do a transition in to find gainful employment to come back here and they're helping keep this economy going. They look at the cost of living in the provinces that they travel to. It's nowhere comparable to the increased cost in Newfoundland and Labrador. There are rose-coloured glasses here that are, in my opinion, skewed when it comes to the actual facts of the situation. We had a similar conversation yesterday about facts in this House of Assembly. It was about our education system, it was about facts.

Now anybody can take a fact and turn it and make it relevant to what you want to do. The facts are the reality from the people we've heard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

D. BRAZIL: Do you know the facts that we heard a year and a half ago was about the regressive gas tax. So regressive that we on this side of the House – and I'll give credit to particularly the independents who worked with us too – fought and we threatened filibusters and we went late in the night to ensure that there were some changes made to the gas tax.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: That came by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador speaking to the Opposition here to make sure it got done.

We were happy, we were happy finally; finally we could see some collaboration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

It's hard to hear the speaker when people are chatting back and forth, so, please, I want to hear the speaker.

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All I'm echoing is what we've heard from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Also from their own districts, I know they were hearing the same thing. That's why it was easy to pass after we outlined the business plan of why this would be beneficial to the people of this province from an economic point of view. Why it would help drive industry. Why businesses saw the value of it. Why people on fixed income saw the value of it as part of it.

Now, while I have no qualms, I will be voting for Bill 27 and I suspect all of my Members will. The problem I have is it's a bad bill. Bill 27 should be saying we are going to eliminate the gas tax.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: If we're really going to show that we're going to invest in industry, we're really going to show we're going to put money back in the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We're really going to show that we're a progressive society in Newfoundland and Labrador and we're really going to show, at the end of the day, we can take some of that money – and you want to do something for the environment, put it back into education. Put it back into health care. Put it back into industries providing a better environmental situation in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The level of chatter is getting way too loud. I can't hear the speaker. I've asked people to remain quiet while the speaker is speaking. If it continues, I will name Members and they will lose speaking privileges.

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I welcome a lively debate here because I can only imagine what's going to happen next Thursday when the budget comes down, when we look at exactly what gaps in services for the people of this province are there and what hasn't been done to address a lot of the issues that are necessary in this province for people here. Because if we look at it, we've talked about the government over there touts the lowest cost of living, lowest tax in the province. All I see is highest tax in the province, cost of living is outrageous in Newfoundland and Labrador. Every citizen will say that, every business will say it and talk about what's happening.

They talk about $25-a-day daycare. My colleague here, very eloquently outlines, you can offer it for free, if you can't access it. I had a business one time that used to sell hockey equipment. I used to sell hockey sticks and if somebody came in and say Canadian Tire got them on for $5 cheaper, but they don't have any. Well, you know, at the end of the day, $5 cheaper means nothing if you can't access it, and that's what's happening in daycare here in Newfoundland and Labrador and we're hearing that constantly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL: So if we're going to have a plan in Newfoundland and Labrador, the plan not only got to be affordable but it's got to be accessible and that means you've got to have a long-term plan that includes all the key stakeholders here.

That's one of the criticisms that we've had here. Stakeholders are not being engaged. We heard that again yesterday in debate, conflict on factual information, because we know stakeholders are saying we haven't been engaged. We haven't been asked to give proper input and the input that we've given haven't been put in play to outline policies and programs that would be beneficial to the people of this province.

So getting up and touting, we're extending the seven-cent portion on gas for another year doesn't really do anything. It pushes it down the road. It's a small relief for people but it's not a sense of confidence and it doesn't give anybody in any area here a sense that they can plan for the future.

If you're in business and you're trying to outline what your fleet of vehicles are going to be and what the costing is going to be and you talk to your accountants and that, and then the cost of your product, because you have to add all expenditures into that, you have no way of being able to plan that long term. You're going to be fluctuating on your costing in and out because it's only temporary.

Temporary is never a solution. Temporary is when you don't have a plan, and we've seen that so often in this administration and this House the last eight years, there's no plan.

I keep saying and we've been saying it here: Work with us to be proactive instead of reactive. This is a political reaction here. Keep people happy because people are upset the cost of living is getting out of hand and you can't control bringing the cost of living down if the cost of fuel is up, because that has an impact on every product that's produced and supplied and brought to Newfoundland and Labrador.

So again, while this will be a little, tiny temporary relief and it may get people to pause for a second, oh, at least it's not going up; but wait until this time next year when there's a different process here or the general public or businesses look at it and say well, I've got to plan a business around what I'm going to really save or my expenditures. This doesn't do anything. I've got to plan down the road so my products got to be increased as part of that process.

Let's look at some of the other taxes here, and we had a discussion yesterday about the sugar tax. Fair enough, the minister got up and talked about well, here's where it's going into other programs and we welcome that, happily. Now, it didn't go in all the programs we would have liked to see it go, but it's welcome in that.

But what that tells me, again, is no plan to address those issues. Those issues just didn't come to fruition because, at the end of the day, they didn't exist until we got this money from the sugar tax. Those were issues or programs that weren't being adequately funded for the last number of years that existed. So this was a way of them patting themselves on the back and saying look, the money we put into it. But you know where we got the money from? Your pockets.

We got it from the most vulnerable financially, and put people in an awkward situation where they had to make decisions around things that normally would be detrimental to them. If you can't afford milk or healthier foods or healthier juices, why all of a sudden now do you think you're going to be able to afford it when it's more expensive if you haven't given a break in the healthier areas?

So, to me, it didn't play well that it was going to be beneficial to the people. It's a great political move: Look what we've done over here, we've got a tax that we tout – and the only people that I can hear tout it is the people on that side, that it's going to help from a health point of view. I've yet to sit with any of the physicians that I talk to on a constant basis to say they see any real value in that particularly.

Now, does some more money go for a school lunch program and breakfast programs which are very valuable programs and very important, very important, but they should have been funded 10 times over. They should have already been acknowledged that they're very important programs and money should have been allocated through one of the other pots of money that this administration hasn't been proactive on in putting in play.

If it was the extra money they paid for building buildings and places like this, if it's monies that they've done in other programs and services taking care of other people and within industries that weren't necessary, frugal use of that money, well then that's where that should have been done at the end of the day.

Taking money out of people's pockets when it doesn't provide any direct benefit to them and doesn't provide a benefit to the people of this province, I've got a real problem with that. That, to me, is reflective in a lot of the bills that are coming to this House here. They're political bills. It's politically moving money around to make it look that they're doing something in a particular area and addressing it. If I hear the word “RFP” again about health care in this province, I am going to have to scream out for the people of this province because it's crazy when we're talking about an RFP.

We should have plans. There has been discussion here for decades about what needs to be done. Every health organization, every union have outlined what they feel is necessary. How do we not have a hybrid here where we can put into play immediately what needs to be done, instead of pushing it down the road?

We need to be more proactive, and that's what this administration needs to be. Where else in our history have you had the Opposition say – and that includes all two parties on this side of the Opposition and the independents – we will be co-operative? If you come up with the right plan, you know what, we'll be co-operative. We, actually, on this side voted for stuff that even our supporters would say, why would you support that? Because we felt it was in the right interest of the people of this province. We're not seeing that. I'm not seeing that in what's being put forward in the last couple of years and the only times we do get any movement is when we force the hand.

I would hope this budget – and I've said it, I am cautiously hopeful. Now, cautiously hopeful doesn't mean that you've got a lot of confidence, but it's cautiously hopeful because I'm an optimist. I would always hope that people are going to come up with a plan that works for the best interests of the people of this province.

I know on this side of the House we're always thinking that: What is in the best interest of the people of this province? More importantly, how do we implement it in the most efficient, frugally beneficial way but in a timely fashion? That we don't wait a generation down the road or we don't put people in peril while we're taking our time to put it in. We don't overthink a process that we know already has a solution to it. There are the challenges that we have in this House of Assembly.

Right now, I'm not getting instilled with a lot of confidence that that side of the House has those plans. Now, you've got an opportunity to prove me wrong next Thursday. As a matter of fact, you've got n opportunity to prove me wrong over the next number of days by outlining some of the things you already have in your budget.

Because if they're good, God, we can get up here and tout it and let the people in Newfoundland and Labrador know at least there's another week of anxiety you can take away from them because we're going to address health care, we're going to address education, we're going to address the cost of living, we're going to ensure that people in every district here have access to infrastructure.

We're going to do these things that are necessary for the people of this province and that seniors can feel comfortable that they're going to have access to long-term care and all the supports that they worked and put in place over the last number of decades in this province to make sure that they had some adequate health care and quality of life in their later years.

So they're the things that we're asking from this side of the House. But to get out and tout that this a wonderful thing we're doing by pushing money down the road that has been taken out of the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for the last seven years and say it's going to be beneficial to the people is not actually, in my opinion, in the best interest of the people of this province, and I know people in this province see the difference too. I know 100 per cent they see through what's being offered here.

Let's start coming up with solutions that are long-term planning initiatives that help. Let's say if you're going to do taxation – I get we're in a society and taxation is what's going to drive how we generate our revenues, but let's put the taxation into improving programs and services so the outcomes are better and the amount of money we have to invest becomes minimal every year as we improve.

One of those is health care and another is education. The third would be infrastructure, but a bigger one is the cost of living. The minute the cost of living gets too outrageous in Newfoundland and Labrador, we lose people. I already hear people who are going back and forth saying my next time I go to Alberta or Ontario or Quebec or out West I'm staying there. I can't afford to come back here anymore; it's not to my advantage to be here as part of this process. Or we have to move. We just had a young child.

I know in a year I'm not going to have daycare for him, so why would I stay in a province that doesn't offer me the services? Long-term care patients – I know I have family saying now, you know what, we're going to have to send Mom up with my brother who lives in Ontario because at least they can access long-term care supports and services.

Is that the society we want to have in Newfoundland and Labrador? Is that the legacy we want? It's not my legacy and I know it's not the legacy of the people on this side of the House. Let's find a collaborative approach to doing things; let's have an open and transparent concept. We had the conversation yesterday evening about the cyberattack and some of the challenges we had last year about being more open and transparent with people.

I get you're not going to get into every minute detail. The same way as you're not going to with every deal if it's the Upper Churchill or if it's with Canopy Growth or if it's with any other entity, or it might be building a mental health facility. You're not going to get into all the minute details, but the things that the people of this province should know about they should have an ability to have input into. Being open and transparent should be a better approach here. You're going to get better solutions on the programs and services that are going to work.

While I'll be supporting the vote for this because at least for the next 12 months people will have seven cents when they're filling up their tanks back in their pockets to try to offset the cost of not having access to health care, not having access to child care, not being able to put fuel in their oil tanks, not being able to buy medications, not being able to eat healthy. At least that gives that, but that's not a solution to solving the issues that we have in Newfoundland and Labrador. It's got to be a long-term plan.

Mr. Speaker, while I'll be voting for this, I would hope Bill 27 would've said we're eliminating this tax and a number of other taxes because here's the strategy we have to grow our economy, provide services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and make people in Newfoundland and Labrador be proud again to stay here and start bringing people back to Newfoundland and Labrador because it's the place they want to live.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

It's a pleasure to speak here on behalf of my constituents of Labrador West. We're reducing this tax; we're pushing it down the road for another day. That's fine, that's great. But I'll say this, and the minister mentioned that this is for the cost savings for delivery and stuff. Well, I haven't seen anything from this tax actually translate to the grocery store shelves in Labrador West. I've seen it considerably rise, but I haven't seen any savings on this.

The amount actually being saved here is not getting passed down to the actual individuals. The only time that individuals actually see a little bit of savings is when they physically go to the pump. That's just one thing I find disingenuous about this is that they say the cost savings there, but I haven't seen any cost savings on any store shelves with this yet.

That's where I find that I don't think we're doing enough to put money back into people's pockets. It's fine that we do this little thing here for commuters, that's fine, but what are we actually going to do to actually save individuals money? Not everyone can afford a car, not everyone can afford that kind of thing. What do we do to actually help those individuals?

Yeah, you'll go back to the one-time cost-of-living cheque. That's one time. That's one cheque for one point in time. But what are we doing to actually reduce the cost of the goods and stuff so that people save? Or the biggest one I hear about is the cost of actually heating your home, which I'll go back to the fact that we actually charge HST to heat someone's home. A necessity of life and we charge HST on that.

If we removed that cost from there, wouldn't that save a lot of people a lot of money? That would actually physically help a lot of people. We shouldn't be charging HST on stove oil. We shouldn't be charging HST on residential electricity. Those are necessities of life.

There you go, that's 15 cents a kilowatt-hour or 15 cents a litre that we'd actually put back into people's pockets, everybody who pays for their heat and light. A lot more people pay for heat and light than actually drive. That's how you really would put money back into people's pockets. Because we shouldn't be charging HST on necessities of life. I say again, heating your home is a necessity of life.

We don't charge HST on grocery store shelves for non-prepared foods, yet we charge it to heat your home. So this is where we can actually help everyday people, we can actually help Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We can actually help reduce the cost of living. It's actually helping them live. That's where I really think we should be actually focusing our attention to. That's where I think we can actually do the greatest good right now while we face this cost-of-living crisis. We can actually make sure that people actually have a warm house to go into because right now a lot of people don't.

I know the minister says the global markets and things like that, but, at the end of the day, we still have to look after people here. This is our part of the globe. This is our actual little place in the world that we have to look after and that's our responsibility. Our responsibility is to people that are here.

We're supposed to be, as a government, a government is supposed to shelter its people from the effects of sometimes the global markets. We're supposed to shelter people, yet we're charging them tax upon shelter. This is the interesting part that I find, you talk about saving seven cents here on the gas, but we still charge HST for a necessity of life.

That's where I think we can actually do the greatest good in this province and the greatest good for anybody is maybe look at the broader things of what we actually do tax and where we think that we can actually pick apart to find maybe this is a good thing to do, maybe we can actually put some money back into people's pockets here.

It affects a lot more people. We have these issues and right now this is probably – I find here, coming back and forth between here, it's probably one of the coldest winters in a long time on record for this province. I went for a five-day stretch in Labrador West of 50 below, probably the longest I can remember in my entire life living in Labrador. Then I come here into the city and it's interesting that this time in March and actually walking around and actually still seeing high snowbanks in the City of St. John's. So that would have been a lot of savings, but do you know what?

This winter a lot more people burned a lot more heating oil and burned a lot more electricity this past winter. I'm sure that the HST line on their bills is going to be pretty high for a necessity of life. I'll say it again: heating your home is a necessity of life and we tax it.

So this is where we can actually save so many more people save a lot more money than just a little seven cents off gasoline. We can put a lot more money back into people's pockets. We can actually make sure that people have a warm and safe home.

Talking to that, housing in itself is a massive issue in this province that has to be tackled on top of that. So anything we can do to make sure that people have shelter, warm shelter especially after the cold winter we had, that's where our focus should be. That's where people should be focusing on.

This is also a savings because if they have that money, then they can afford the other things that they need. A tackling on that, like I said, I'll go back to what the minister mentioned about the cost savings to transportation of goods. I think there's actually a good justification or warrant to actually investigate how much it does cost to ship things in this province and actually ship things to my corner of the world in Labrador, because honestly it's getting a little high.

They say that there are a lot of these global things, but I'm honestly starting to think that there has to be a better way to get those costs down, too, because I haven't seen prices like this and I used to deal with logistics in a previous life about shipping goods and stuff like that. The cost of that has skyrocketed in the last three years of shipping goods.

I know people say the prices of fuels and stuff like that, but I honestly think just on top of what we're seeing now with the committee in Parliament on the pricing of food and services and stuff like that, I think there's a lot of gouging going on for a lot of these things because I think people have taken advantage, large corporations and stuff have taken advantage of the situation. I don't think it honestly costs this much to ship goods. I honestly don't think it's that much to put it on a shelf in a store, especially in the national chain.

I honestly think that even us ourselves, as a province, need to investigate what's actually going on in the logistics world of shipping food and also some of these large corporations that are actually, I honestly think, taking advantage of the situation and taking advantage of the people of this province, because we shouldn't see this.

We have some of the highest employment rates in a long time too, yet we have to also see some of the largest amounts of poverty in a very long time. So it just goes to show that even if you have a job right now, you're still living in poverty. That's a serious thing that we need to have a very serious look at. Is that what is actually going on? Where are these extraordinary rent rates coming from? Where is the extraordinary cost of shipping coming from? Where is the extraordinary cost of groceries coming from? Yet, we have high employment rates and we have some of the highest amounts of poverty right now.

There seems to be a very serious issue in this province when it comes to costing. I think we need to have a very serious look at why and who and what kind of advantages these companies are taking against our own people, because there's no way in this world that any of this equates to anything. It seems to be that the equation is off skew, that nothing is adding up right now. Yet, somewhere along the line there are pockets being lined that shouldn't be and there are extraordinary amount of profits taken that shouldn't be.

At the time, I will say again, it's our responsibility to protect the people of this province. It's our responsibility to protect those that are the most vulnerable, but we're also supposed to protect everyone in this province. Everyone has the right to be protected from this kind of behaviour, I think, that is happening here and across this country.

So maybe we should all just take a step back. Maybe we should look at removing HST from heating our homes. That's a necessity of life; housing is a necessity. Housing is a right in this country. It's a right to have shelter. We need to take a look at that and say maybe we could look at these different avenues.

I hope that the minister does take it into consideration that maybe there's another avenue here to protect that, because heating should also be a right along with housing in this province. The right to heat and the right to be warm in the winter.

With that, I take my seat.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I'll be supporting Bill 27 as well. I would say, Mr. Speaker, the first thing that comes to my mind when I see this – and continuing on with this and some of the other initiatives that have been taken, whether it be this initiative, whether it be the $500 cheques to everybody – is, thank God, thank God for offshore oil.

It's amazing how our fortunes continue to change. It was only a year or two ago we were talking about the fact that allegedly we couldn't make payroll. It was only about a year or so ago that we were bring in the Greene report and we were going to be selling everything off. We were going to be selling off all our assets potentially and making a lot of unpopular decisions.

Now, all of a sudden, we're in a position where we can take initiatives such as this one. We can hand out $500 cheques to everybody, the cost-of-living cheques. We also had another program for people burning oil, a rebate there. I'm not knocking any of these things, but it does go to show the dependence really that we continue to have on offshore oil.

Imagine the state we would be in – the state we were in. I mean, we were projecting a huge deficit last year and we were able to overcome that deficit and at the same time put out almost $200 million – I think it was $194 million, I believe was the amount, $194 million on these $500 cost-of-living rebate cheques and all the other things we've done.

Now, we also have to absorb the loss of revenue from the carbon tax because, even though it was a federal program, it was actually the provincial government that was collecting all that carbon tax money for the last two to three years. While the money was supposed to be going into green initiatives, the reality of it is, as we pointed out in this House time over time, it was just more money going into general revenues. Not to say that there was zero green initiatives, but certainly nowhere near the money being spent on green initiatives as was coming in to provincial government coffers.

So now that the feds are going to take over the program, citizens are going to get that money back by way of a quarterly cheque. Now, I've heard Minister O'Regan saying you're going to get all the money back and more and so on. I question that one. I can't wait to see that one. I really don't think that's going to happen. There may be some people who may make out okay, but I think most people are not going to get back all their carbon tax. Not even close to it.

For one thing, they're not even factoring in the costs of goods and services, the cost of groceries and everything else that has gone through the roof because of carbon tax. That's not even factored into their calculations as to what the carbon tax is actually costing us as a province and as a country. But I suppose the good news is at least people will get something back, some more than others. But by the same token, when that happens, that's another loss of revenue to provincial coffers.

So when you look at this, this is really no different – the provincial budget, while it's a large budget, obviously, I think it's like $7 billion or $8 billion, it's a big number, but it's really no different than your own household budget or anything else. Money coming in, money going out and, hopefully, you should be able to balance the two.

It's important that we recognize that every time the government foregoes taxes like they're doing here, seven cents a litre, every time the government decides to come out with these rebate programs like these $500 cost-of-living cheques, that's money that we don't have to spend on education and health care and so on. I mean, that's the reality of it. It's money we don't have to spend on those things. It's money we don't have to pay down on our provincial debt, which has been climbing and climbing and climbing for years.

I'm not being critical of it because there is no easy answer. I will support this because people are finding it tough. There's no doubt about it. Some more than others. There are some people who are really struggling. There are some people who are able to weather the storm. There are some people who, over the last couple or three years, are quite able to weather the storm. They would say, yeah, it has cut back on my expendable income. It's cut back on everybody's expendable income, but they still have an expendable income.

Maybe that means they have to go on vacation every second year instead of every year or one trip a year instead of two trips a year or whatever the case might be. But there are a lot of people that are still doing fine and life goes on as normal. They're pretty much living the same lifestyle they always did.

Now, there are other people who are struggling to various degrees and it's the people that are struggling are the ones, I believe, that we really need to focus our efforts on some of these cost-of-living initiatives. I think we have to prioritize them on the people that really need it because it's all a balancing act.

As I said to the Minister of Finance, before we started, we were having a little chat there, and the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology, before the House opened, the reality of it is no matter what the government does – and I don't care what stripe it is. It doesn't matter if it's red, blue, orange, whatever. It doesn't matter. No matter what the government does, any program the government puts out, you are always going to get people who are going to agree with it and people are going to disagree with it, for various reasons.

Sometimes the reasons are political, as simple as that, because this side came up with I'm against it or this side came up with it I'm for it. But a lot of people, it's their own personal circumstance. How much does this policy impact me? That's the reality. A lot of people look at these things at how it impacts them on a personal level or a family members and so on. We don't always think about everybody else. That's just human nature. You're concerned about yourself, your family, your kids, your parents, your grandparents and that's just the way it is, for the most part.

So when government comes out with any of these policies, there's no doubt there's going to be people that are going to applaud this and there are going to be people that are going to say we shouldn't be doing this. This is money that we should be paying down on the debt. This is money that we should be putting towards getting more doctors, more nurses, whatever the case might be. Or you look at the Roads Plan. I look at the Roads Plan that just came out, and the minister was touting the fact that this was the largest expenditure on roadwork in that department. I think he said it was the largest expenditure in any given year they've ever done, the biggest one ever. I think that's what I read.

That may very well be. The reality of it is, I would suggest that he could triple that, quadruple it, and there's still not going to be enough money to do everything that needs to be done and there are going to be people that are going to be happy because their roads got done and there are going to be people that are going to be unhappy because their roads didn't get done. That's just the reality of everything that we do in this House of Assembly. Every expenditure that happens in the budget that we either vote for or we vote against, that will always be the case. Some people are going to agree with it; some are going to disagree with it.

Now, like I said, I will agree with this. It's something we've had in place. They're going to extend it. I agree with the Leader of the Official Opposition that – I'm not going to say we had to drag government and they were screaming to do this. I'm not going to try to make it too political, but the reality of it is that a number of these initiatives were pushed by this side of the House. They were, and government, to their credit, adopted them. It might have took them a little while to do it. Maybe we thought they should have done it quicker and so on, but they eventually did it. We supported it. I still support it and I'm not going to knock it.

The point I'm trying to make here is that – and I heard the Leader of the Official Opposition talk about this as well. I won't give him too much credit there, but he's a pretty good fellow. I want to talk about when he talked about having a plan. It's true because some of the things that we've seen done feel like they've been done somewhat haphazardly, somewhat reactive. Even that $500 cheque and how it was administered and so on, it just felt sort of like a knee-jerk reaction to get this done, get the money out, and I know a lot of people appreciated this.

I know a lot of people did and I also know that some people who said I don't need that money. It would have been better off if we had taken that money and put it towards the debt. People would say someone on the lower end of the income scale we should have gave them more money and a guy making $100,000 a year didn't need it.

Again, that comes down to this whole concept of you'll never please everybody. I understand that.

But some of the things that I've seen just feel like they been a little bit knee-jerk, so I kind of agree with the Leader of the Official Opposition when he talks about having a plan, have it all planned out so it feels like we've examined the bigger picture, we understand the plight of people, we understand what are the key things that people are finding it difficult to afford or can't afford and we get a firm understanding of who is able to weather the storm more than others and find ways to target any kind of program towards the people that need it the most.

That requires planning and having a strategy on how you do it.

That will be my only criticism, I suppose. It just feels like it hasn't been planned out carefully enough, taking all those factors into account and really targeting people who are really suffering the most, who are really struggling the most. That would be my only criticism.

But beyond that, I certainly will support this initiative. Again, I think it highlights, for me at least, until such time comes that we have an alternate source of revenue that's going to replace our oil and gas industry, then to simply talk about shutting down Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore, I think is a bad idea. I think it's a very bad idea. It would leave this province in absolute peril. We wouldn't be in a position to do any of what we're doing. I mean it's a good thing that we're actually debating cutting taxes, being able to cut taxes. That's a good thing that we're able to do it.

To imagine that would not even be a possibility were it not for all the revenue coming into this province from our oil and gas industry. So it's very, very important that as a province we continue to support our oil and gas industry.

Once we get to a point that the economy is diversified in terms of whether this wind stuff is even going to work, I don't know. I mean it's really not proven technology. It is to some degree but it's in its infancy. I think the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology would acknowledge that it is in its infancy. It is brand new for us. It's not something that's being done all over the world, per se, and we really don't know what it's going to look like at the end of the day and how much revenue is going to be derived from it, how many jobs are going to be derived from it.

Whether it be direct or indirect jobs and so on, and whether that industry or any other industries that we try to develop, whether it be like the tech industry that is certainly another one that there's definitely opportunity, but whether that will be able to replace – and I know we're doing very well in mining as well and rare earth minerals will be another big one. But whether or not we will be able to replace those revenues that are coming through the door via oil and gas or when that will happen is a question mark in my mind.

When we get there and then we're able to pay for health care, pay for education, deal with cost-of-living issues, then I'd be willing at that point in time to say we have to transition out of this now. But until that time, I think it's a very, very bad idea for any of us to be bringing forward this idea that we're just simply going to shut down our oil and gas industry. I really think that would be a bad idea.

Again, I'm not saying this to dump on any of my colleagues. I'm really not. I respect the people who feel that way and are entitled to their opinion and I respect them for it. I really do. But the reality of it is you have to have money to spend money. You cannot have these programs if you don't have the revenue. We cannot continue to borrow and borrow and borrow. It's hypocritical for us to stand up in this House of Assembly and say why are we not spending more money on health care? Why are we not spending more money on education?

Why are we not investing more money in roads, ambulance services, air ambulance services, food subsidies for Labrador and so on? How can we do that on the one hand and on the other hand shut down our revenue source? We cannot do it; it just doesn't make sense. We cannot do it.

I'm glad to be able to support this bill. I'm glad that we are in a financial position that we're able to do it, but I do caution – and I know the minister knows this – I do caution again that every time we do these things, even though they may be good things, even though they may be needed at the time, we've got to recognize that that revenue that's going into this is revenue that's not paying down debt and paying for our other expenses.

It's a balancing act. I get it, a total balancing act. I think we've arrived at a fair balance, a reasonable balance in my mind and we could always argue over you could do a little more here, a little less there or whatever. But at the end of the day, it's about a balance. As one Member, I'm fairly satisfied with where that balance is right now. I'm fairly satisfied with where the balance is.

I'd love to be able to do more. I'd love for us to be in a position to hand out $2,000 cheques to everybody and cut all taxes. Wouldn't that be wonderful? But it is not realistic. When people talk about oh, the government got money. No, the government don't have any money. The government don't have any money; the government don't have a dime, actually. It's all our money. All we're doing is taking our money and then we're saying to the government, now, you spend it. But all we're doing is just spending our money.

Some people got this sense that – it's amazing actually – some people actually believe that the government is this entity that has this money. They actually think that the government will pay for this. The government will pay for that. Not thinking about well, where do you think the money is coming from that the government is spending? It's my money; it's your money. That's reality.

So with that said, Mr. Speaker, I'll take my seat and again I'll support Bill 27. It's something that certainly we had asked for on this side of the House. It's something the government delivered on and they're going to continue to do so, at least until March 31.

I do wonder why we keep going every quarter or whatever, it seems like we're approving it again, approving it again and approving it again. Arguably we should just approve it for a full year and be done with it until the next year. If I want to try to make it a little political, I suppose one could argue that by doing it this way then the government gets to make an announcement we're doing something every three months as opposed to one bang for the year to say we're doing it for the year and then that's the end of it. I don't know, but I will support it nonetheless.

Thank you.

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

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.

But I would argue again that if it wasn't for the people in Newfoundland and Labrador and my fellow colleagues, the people on this side, none of that would have happened. None of those decisions would have gotten made, because last March the government introduced their budget and called it a five-point plan and that was it. That was good enough.

But the people of Newfoundland and Labrador said no, it wasn't good enough. The people in our caucus, myself and others said no, it's not good enough. The people on this side of the House, others stood and said no, it's not good enough. As a result of all of that, we saw changes in the budget.

I know the minister is introducing her fourth budget this year, but some would argue it's her seventh. We actually changed the budget twice or three times in this past year, but it was for the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. So we're glad to see the government actually listen to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and make those changes because it did impact the people and it did save them money.

Today, the minister agreed with the PC Opposition and the people on this side of the House because she said it's a good investment and it's a wise decision. That is something that we have been saying for the last 12 months; that any time you can put money back in the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, it is a good investment and it is a wise decision. So I will support that because I agree that it is good.

We have stood here on this side of the House for the last 12 months for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have stood here for that senior who couldn't afford to fill up their tank with oil. We've stood here for the workers who had to travel two hours and the extreme cost of gas because of the high cost of gasoline. So we have stood for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and we will continue to do that.

One of the things the minister did not mention was the five cents that the Public Utilities Board continues to charge for the closure of the Come By Chance refinery, a temporary measure that is still being charged to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, the government on the other side have said there's nothing they can do. Their hands are in the air. There is nothing they can do. It's under the control of the Public Utilities Board.

Well, I can tell you, Speaker, those of us on this side of the House and in our caucus are going to continue to raise that issue because it's extremely important and it needs to be deal with. So we will continue to pressure and pressure the Public Utilities Board and whoever else we need to, to get that eliminated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: There is a real challenge though. The province is keeping the eight cents gas tax off for the current year, but what we are going to face and the people of this province are going to face on July 1 is a significant increase in taxes as a result of carbon tax and those increases will have huge impacts on the cost of home heating fuel and other fuels for the people of this province.

It wasn't that long ago, maybe 18 months, that the Members opposite, the Liberal government stood and talked about their made-in-Newfoundland carbon tax solution – made-in-Newfoundland. Now, unfortunately, that solution was vetoed by the federal government and the government opposite were not able to convince their federal counterparts, their colleagues that they shouldn't do it. So they're moving ahead to tax the people of Newfoundland and Labrador with a carbon tax on July 1 that will have significant impacts on them.

We argued against the carbon tax, we voted against the carbon tax and we will continue to vote against the carbon tax. As I stand here today, I have not seen the evidence that suggests the carbon tax has lowered emissions in Newfoundland and Labrador because we all know the challenges we have in this great province of ours.

We have a large geography. We have very little public transportation, so people continue to have to rely on their personal vehicles to get to and from their destinations. Whether that's to a medical appointment, whether that's to work, whether that's taking your kids to hockey, you don't have a choice. That's why this measure today of retaining the eight-cent reduction on gasoline tax is so important. That's why it's a good investment. That's why it's a wise decision, because we're actually helping people of Newfoundland and Labrador and that's what makes it a good decision.

But if we go back and continue to think about it, where's the evidence to suggest that causing people more hurt, taking money out of their pockets, increasing the cost of our food and our supplies – because we all know that most of the goods that are brought into the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador are trucked in or come across on the ferries. So the cost goes up. Those fuel adjustment charges, they're all passed down and ultimately it's the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, when they go to the stores, that wind up having to pay those costs. That's what's happening right now. No evidence, other than the fact that people are being hurt and it's costing them.

I would make a similar argument, and I'd like to see the evidence that says a sugar tax that has been implemented in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has improved health outcomes. I'd like to see the evidence that suggests that because nowhere in the Health Accord in the 700 or 800 pages of that document did it even mention a sugar tax improving health outcomes. There were lots of other great suggestions in the Health Accord that talked about the social benefits of health and they talked about things that needed to be done. Let's get on and get those things done. But sugar tax was not one of them.

But what has sugar tax done? It has hurt people, it has taken more money out of their pockets and we'll see that when we see the actual revenue taken in. We'll see the success of the program when we see how much is budgeted for next year because, ideally, the whole concept was we wouldn't collect any money because people would have their – quote – behaviour modified. But there's no need for a sugar tax. There's no need for that.

Do an education program as my colleague from Bonavista talked about yesterday. Educate the public. We all understand that too much sugar is not good for you. We all agree with the Canadian Diabetes Association and all those reports. We all know about our lifestyle. But simply penalizing people and taxing people is not the way to go. So that needs to be eliminated now and there's an opportunity in the upcoming budget for that decision to be made. I look forward to that decision actually being made. But we will wait and see.

As I said, this kind of tax relief is about choices and making choices. Any time you choose the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, you make the right choice. That's what we've been arguing for, for the last 12 months, since that budget was first introduced. That's what we will continue to argue for, for the next 12 months and the next 24 months. Because when we make choices and when we bring down budgets, we should be focused on the simple question: How does this impact the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? How will this help the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

Those are fundamental decisions of any government that you have to make, so it cannot simply be about choosing one or implementing a tax unless you have the evidence to support that that tax measure will actually produce the outcomes you're hoping to achieve.

But we have no evidence of that and we continue to take money out of people's pockets because we have no idea whether that is going to work or not work. So why are we continuing to take the money out of people's pockets? If something doesn't work, admit it doesn't work and move on. That's what we should be doing. Making choices, always about choices. Let's keep making choices, but let's make those choices based on the evidence in front of us.

My colleague talked about the oil industry, the importance of the oil industry off Newfoundland and Labrador's coast. Make no mistake about it, if there is no demand for oil in the world, there will be no development off our shore. Those companies are not going to stay there if there's no demand for their product. You don't need our prime minister to be trying to shut down the offshore oil industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, he should be promoting it.

He should be arguing for an increase in production to help the world get off other oils that are out there, to stop Canada from having to import 130,000 barrels of oil a day. That's the kind of decisions we need to make. That the kind of decisions that our government should be pushing the prime minister of this country to make. Not simply to turn around and say, we're moving away from oil.

At the same time, our prime minister has a responsibility to stand up for Newfoundland and Labrador when it comes to all of the other opportunities we have as a province to create revenue and to help us, not simply to give us loans, but simply to invest, take equity stakes in projects. That's another thing that needs to happen.

Today, as I said, this is a good decision. This is a decision that I've been calling for, we have been calling for since months. Last year we were able to get the government to change their budget. We were able to get this eight-cent reduction on gasoline tax and the government acknowledged the issue and introduced it, and now they're going to continue. We were also able to argue about the high cost of home heating fuel and were successful in convincing the government to change their budget and produce a refund on home heating fuel.

Those are decisions that the government listened to. But those decisions would never have been made if it wasn't for the influence of the PC caucus and others on this side of the House who pushed hard for that, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who contacted us and I'm sure contacted their own MHAs about how they were being hurt, about the cost of living and how it was so important that they find ways to reduce those costs.

The government did listen. So that's good for the government that they listened. They listened, and that's what makes a democracy work. There is nobody has a patent on good ideas. So as my colleague alluded to earlier, I don't care whether you're a Liberal, a PC, an NDP, an independent, it doesn't matter. When we make decisions, as I have said, it should be about the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and how does the decision we're going to make help them. Or in the case of certain taxes, how does it hurt them?

Right now, people in this province are hurting. They're hurting big time. They're hurting because of the cost of transportation, whether it's to a medical appointments, whether it's the back and forth to work, whether it's to take their kids to any kind of an event. We are experiencing high inflation, almost 6 per cent, 5.9 per cent, I think, was the last estimate.

So with that kind of inflation still playing a big

part in the province, we have to do something. We have to find a way to help people. This tax reduction today, the continuation of this will go a step towards that, will help that. But, again, I would think the fact that the failure to be able to get the federal government to stop this crazy carbon tax that they're planning on putting in place on July 1, the increase – let me tell you about that one for second, because the federal government says, oh, no, no, no we're going to increase the tax on July 1, we're going to put it on home heating fuel, but we're going to give rebates back to families.

So think about it. On the one hand, the minister says we're going to charge a tax, but on the other hand we're going to give it back. Okay, the basic question: Why are you charging it in the first place?

They're going to spend millions of dollars to collect this tax. They're going to spend millions of dollars to give it back, but what they're not telling you is they're going to keep the 15 per cent of HST that they continue to charge on it. So at the end of the day, it is the people of the province, the people, the seniors of this province that are going to be impacted the most by this particular tax increase.

Again, this particular tax reduction is a good one. It's a good one and I'm delighted to stand here and say that we will support it because it's something that we've been arguing for.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

I'm glad to get up and speak to this bill. I'm glad to say I fully support the bill. There's absolutely no argument there. Any opportunity whereby we can ease the burden on residents of Newfoundland and Labrador is a good thing.

I'm glad we talked about who takes credit for this and, I think, as Opposition and the parties on this side of the House, our job is to bring forth issues that are raised to us and, of course, this was a big issue that was raised by many people in, I suspect, every district in this province. So we were glad and proud, actually, to get up and voice our opinion on behalf of the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador and to see that government has extended this relief at the pumps.

We look at what exactly we're talking about here. I do want to just clarify because and I know most of us know this, but I think the point was raised by the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands when talking about taxes, just a definition here and I'm sure you could find other

definitions quite similar. A tax is a mandatory fee or financial charge levied by any government on an individual organization to collect revenue for public works, facilities and infrastructures. So, you know, that's how government operates. That's where we get the funds to do what we do – filling potholes to providing health care.

Again, the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands – he knows I'm listening to him – he talked about finding the balance. I would probably argue against that because it's not so much a balance as it is managing the revenue that comes in in an effective way to ensure that those in most need or those priorities are addressed.

You know, there may be some priorities low on the totem pole, so to speak, that are not able to be addressed, but, certainly, two of the big issues here in this province is the cost of living and health care. No doubt about it. This certainly looks towards helping out with the cost of living in terms of lowering the fees that we pay at the pumps. Does it help everyone? No, not really. It has the biggest effect on those who are driving, who have cars, who pull up to those pumps on a daily basis. It does also have an effect on transportation, those goods and services that require transportation. So it does affect the bottom line when it comes to costs of those services.

When you're talking about a tax, of course, and not taking it back so to speak, you're actually giving people back their own money. I mean, that's what we're doing here. When you're working into a surplus, as the minister pointed out we were at, government was able to offer the $500 cost-of-living cheques.

Well, many will agree that it was great to get a cheque, but many would argue that it probably should have been more focused on those in greater need because, as we know, we looked at a threshold of $125,000 per family and you received $500. We know there are so many in this province who are in so much need and perhaps a greater effort to look at how this money could have been distributed in a more effective manner. So, I mean, the $500 cheque to everyone was, I guess, a balance across the board, but was it effective in that or could it have been more effective? I certainly think it could have.

The minister mentioned – and I stand to be corrected, I'll try to quote her – cost of living here is not as significant as other parts of the country. That maybe based on an index, I don't know what it was based on, but I would argue that if you're looking at the effect of cost of living, it's not a subjective issue. It's an issue that is subjective to many.

You have to look at the individuals out there who are living below the poverty line, those that don't have shelter, those with health care who are splitting their prescription pills and diluting medicine because they can't afford to get their prescriptions renewed and those, of course, who don't have transportation to and from wherever they have to go.

We know food banks have been strained to the max. There are lots of communities – I know in my district there are people who have on the roads now, individuals that have created these little food pantries. That's where we've gotten to.

I'm suspecting many in this House, when you go home at the end of the day, the question is: What are we having for supper? A common question, but there are houses and there are people in this province who go home and say: Are we having anything for supper? That's not an exaggeration because there are homes out there, there are people out there who have to make other decisions with, I'll call it, disposable income, but, essentially, it's not disposable income when you talk about individuals who can't pay for heat or have to decide between heat and food. But that's a question that's being asked.

As we know we heard in this House, the home heat rebate, there's still about 20 per cent of those cheques have not yet gone out.

You think of elderly out there on fixed incomes and the amount of money to fill a home heat tank is unbelievable. My mother, she lives at home. For a 91-year-old, she's as healthy as they come, comes and goes and fills her oil tank. She tells me the other day a tank that would cost around $500 or $600 to fill is now $1,800 and greater. Imagine it now.

I'll talk with my brother here too, our mother has lots of supports around her. It's just a phone call and we're there, you know. She has lots of supports and she's quite able to get around and she'll tell us what to do and when and where. But there's a lot out there who don't have those supports who are living from day to day.

And we talk about this tax – again, any elimination of a tax is a good thing. But this government has a budget coming up. I really hope, and I don't care, as my colleagues have said on this side of the House, I don't care where you get the solutions. I really don't. Now, politically we'll say, yeah, we raised it, and in many cases we have, but we're getting it from the people, those with lived experience, they're telling us this. I do hope that the coming budget will give us a better insight into what's being done to ensure the cost of living is not literally killing us in some instances. That there are measures to help those who are most in need.

The minister did mention a significant impact this cut will have, this eight cents at the pump will have. But the question is on who? On who will this significant impact be? Will it be on the individuals who need it the most?

We talk about child care, the $10 child care, but we also know not everyone can access it. In fact, there are no seats available for many for child care. You're keeping individuals, mainly women, out of the workforce because some of them have to decide between their child and a job and that's really not a decision because most, you're picking your child. But they need to have that decision. They need to have accessible, available, affordable child care so that they can make that decision, but they don't have that. So I mean when we talk about focusing money towards an incentive, we need to start looking at our population, where the most need is.

In all of this, and I think that it was mentioned in the earlier, we talk about the second lowest tax in the country. As I said, we talk about how the cost of living has not been as significant here, but we really, really have to focus on what is here. Back in 2006, a previous Progressive Conservative government – I mean, say who it is – brought forward a Poverty Reduction Strategy for the province. That was in 2006. A report on the success of that was done in 2014. This strategy was lauded across the country and in some other nations as an outstanding initiative, a real comprehensive plan that was addressing poverty and the needs of those most in need in this province.

That wasn't something elected officials dreamed up. That was something experts dreamed up. There was a panel that developed that strategy and it was working extremely well. In 2003, this report spoke to 63,000 people were in low-income brackets and I'm not going to argue the stat but, by 2011, that number was reduced to 27,000. That's huge progress in poverty reduction and you can pull the report out. You can read everything in it.

But that's one point here. At the same time, in 2011, 8.8 per cent across Canada were considered low income while Newfoundland and Labrador, after the implementation of the Poverty Reduction Strategy, that was reduced in Newfoundland and Labrador to 5.3 per cent.

So when we look at measures we're taking, I would hope to see, and something we've asked for, we asked for it in health care, we've asked for it everywhere, where it falls in relation to a full-stage plan – what's the ultimate goal we're trying to reach? It's fine that political pressure or whatever reasons you may come up with this, but what is the full, ultimate plan? I hope to see more of that when the budget comes down. I hope to get a clearer vision of what we're doing.

As the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands said, you can take your surplus and you can pay down the debt. No doubt about it, we got a huge debt here. But again, I go back and he called it a balancing act; I call it looking where your priorities are. So if your priority is paying down debt, then that's the priority you take. But at the end of the day, you still have to, as everyone in this province, as everyone in this House are, we're elected – I always say that I'm elected by the people to serve the people.

So you look at what's the most effective way to serve the people, and that all is based on a number of factors: timing, the economy, it could be based on anything. Times change as you move along. It's always a gerbil's wheel you're running on all the time, but at the end of the day, the end result, the end focus should be on what's the best you can do to manage the revenue to serve the people of this province. I understand you can't please everyone. You're never going to please everyone, but there are groups out there that probably don't have a voice that use us as their voice and won't speak out.

We've had that in the House the last couple of days when we're talking about long-term care. Long-term care, when we talk about our seniors who are in long-term care and home care, and they're in situations where they're either separated by policies and programs that one has to live in one home and one in the other. We've heard the horrifying stories of those suffering dementia and in homes who have been beaten or assaulted. These are places where we need to look at maybe funding going towards long-term care and measures and that can be taken to make it safer. Safer for our residents and our elderly. And, as I mentioned earlier, child care or lack thereof is a huge piece here.

So as we move forward, as we hear more on the budget, and as we've asked for – especially I, as the shadow minister for Health, I've asked for it in Health. Let's see more targeted approaches to utilizing our revenue, our surplus, to address some targeted area that residents of Newfoundland and Labrador need to be addressed, not want to be address. There's a difference between a want and a need, and we all have a lot of wants.

Everyone would want this and want that, but what are some of the areas we ultimately need to address? To some of us, it's obvious. In fact, I would suspect to many of us it's obvious: health care and cost of living. But bits and pieces and addressing it, as it appears, piecemeal without seeing a full laid-out plan, with benchmarks, with timelines, with targets, we're not seeing that.

Now, I hope March 23, government presents that in their budget and we see a clear road to what they're trying to do. I hope to see that and I'll wait for that to happen and I'll wait to hear the budget on that. But at the end of the day, we want to ensure that everyone in this province has what they should have, have the essential needs and services that they should have and should not be begging for something like food, shelter, transportation, basic health care. These are things that should be available to everyone.

Back to this seven-cent, eight-cent reduction at the pump is a good thing. None of us are arguing over here. I think this will be supported 100 per cent. I can't speak for the Third Party or the other independent, but I'm sure this bill will be supported 100 per cent.

But at the end of the day, is it having – well, not even a significant impact, but is it having any impact on those in most need? We really need to think about that. If back in 2003 we had 63,000 people on low income, you know, those are areas we need to address. What are their needs?

The seven cents is a good start, but it is a start and I'd like to see the plan that lays out how we get to that finish. That may be – and I hope it's looked at. Look at the Poverty Reduction Strategy of the past. Look at the results of that strategy because when the change of government happened in 2015, we saw a lot of that fall to the wayside.

So if it works, use it. That's all I'm going to say.

Thank you.

SPEAKER (Warr): Thank you.

I am recognizing the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, I remember a conversation I had many years ago when I was teaching up in Ferryland with a colleague of mine and I was sitting on the executive of the NLTA. The debate was with our health coverage – here is the question being posed to teachers – should we increase premiums or should we decrease benefits?

I remember this colleague of mine saying, you know, Jim, increase the premiums because you'll never miss insurance until you need it, or when you have to go and have a benefit and it's no longer there or it cost you more at that level. That's the purpose, I guess, of insurance. Insurance is not about hoping that you never use it. It's buying peace of mind more than anything else.

I would argue that taxes are very much the same. I will support this but I think when we go after eliminating taxes at many times, we're going after the low-hanging fruit.

So I've heard the minister speak to the gas tax to reduce the cost of living for individuals and businesses, and it seems that we're in a competition to become the lowest – I guess, when it comes to the gas tax, in Canada, we're the second lowest. I don't know if the benefits of lower taxes have actually attracted more business to the province. I am not sure. There are other jurisdictions that have much higher taxes. I think of the Nordic countries, even Quebec and they seem to be doing much better.

So let's talk about choices and about people not having the choice. I think, in many ways, I look at government choices over the years and of why we don't have a public transit system. That was choice, a choice by administrations. We had a rail system here; it no longer exists. We made a choice to use that money from rails to – at the time, I remember we were going to twin the highway right across the province. They got as far as Whitbourne and there are other areas on the other side that have it, but that's it. It's an expensive proposition to maintain roads.

But we had a system that we could have chosen to improve. How do we make this more efficient? How do we convert the mainline, for that matter, to a standard gauge? We didn't. We chose that option, the government at that time. No doubt it seemed at the time it was a good deal, but I would argue if you look at the state of our highways and the cost of trying to maintain them, maybe not such a good deal.

We don't have a choice; people don't have a choice because of choices that maybe governments at different levels make. Every time we open up a brand new subdivision and we increase the urban sprawl we're making the choice, and we choose not to invest in public transit – and I'll come back to that – we're actually increasing the expense on municipalities that have to maintain those roads.

A public transit system – now, it's interesting, because the gas tax will no doubt benefit anyone who drives, but for a lot of my constituents, people I meet on the bus when I take the bus in here, it's not necessarily helping them. They need a more efficient public transit system. I would say why not look at how we expand affordable public transit for those across the province who don't have their own vehicle?

It's interesting that in 2020 DRL was threatening to pull its buses from the roads because of inadequate government support during the pandemic – a choice. Now we have other measures. The minister mentions the $500 supplement to switch from oil to electricity. I would say that works if you've already got money in your pockets to do that. Income support payments went up by 5 per cent I think it was.

There was a reference there that we increased it. Yet, I'm looking at the income support payments right here. A single parent with children, Speaker, boarding with relatives, earns $299.50 twice a month. That works out to a little less than $7,000 a year, or $19.69 a day to support that parent and that child. If, on the other hand, they're maintaining a residence, it's $364.50 twice a month, $8,748 a year or $23.90 daily.

Now, they might have their rent subsidized but still that's the money they have if that child is school aged to pay for the necessities of life and so on and so forth, food, school supplies, you name it. So we can pat ourselves on the back, but, in the end, it comes down to legislative poverty.

Child care has been brought up already, $10 a day and it's great I'll tell you. Yes, if I could find a spot. But what savings are there to parents with children who have to make the decision to leave the workforce because they can't find a place to have their child taken care of.

I think in many ways, part of the thing here is that it's great, I will applaud the reduction in the cost of child care, but it's got to be in tandem with how do we make sure we increase the spaces because once you drive down the price you're definitely going to increase the demand, especially of people who might say, do you know what? I'm going to go back to work.

I remember a time when I was young when there was no tax on children's clothing, if I remember correctly. There was that time, and I think if we're looking at targeting taxes, we can look at that. An awful lot of people who have children, that will be a tremendous boom to them. Maybe we need to be looking at things like this as well. I accepted that I'm going to be paying taxes on any clothing item or luxury taxes or anything along those lines, but there are certain necessities when you got young children that you need.

The sugary tax drink, it's been promoted certainly as an attempt to increase health, but it's interesting how the sugary tax drink was implemented in the United Kingdom versus Newfoundland and Labrador. In the United Kingdom, it was introduced on the producers based on the amount of sugary drinks they produced. They were taxed heavily on that, forcing them into more alternatives. So it was penalizing the producers for basically producing the drinks and forcing them into less sugary drinks. Here the tax basically is penalizing the people who are going to purchase the drinks.

But I guess the part that bothers me the most about this is that even then I would still argue that a two litre of Coke or Pepsi still costs way less than a two litre of milk. It's still more affordable. So somewhere along the line, we've got to look at making the necessities of life more affordable and that ties into a point I'll bring up later with guaranteed basic income.

Now, it's easy to say that taxes are the culprit and the answer to the relief is to lower the taxes. I will be the first to say yes. I go to the pump and see that, wow, it doesn't take as much to fill up the truck or whatever this time, fantastic, love it. But in the end – and I do remember when we had George Murphy predicting the prices, let's get there Thursday night in the lineup or take a drive into Costco. I gave up doing that because I looked at the cost-benefit analysis of waiting an hour in the lineup versus the amount of money I would spend getting in there, I said in the end it evens out.

But what I have not heard here to much talked about, when we talk about the cost of living on people, the effect that the extreme cost of living, is the excessive profits, the record-breaking profits of our oil industries and our grocery stores, but we'll come down to taxes as driving up the cost of living. In the end, you look at the huge record breaking, billions of dollars of profits that they're raking in. Yet, we're told, thank goodness for the oil revenue because a year and a half ago we were spending hard earned public funds to prop up the oil industry, to companies.

Actually, these record-breaking profits are so great that it's prompted certain ministers to ball up their fists in rage.

We were spending, I guess you want to call it, corporate money a few years ago and this year, with the record-breaking profits, we're fighting here to make sure that when it comes to doing the topsides work, to do it here in Newfoundland. The companies will make the decisions based on their own bottom line. You would think they would make sure as hey, Newfoundland and Labrador, thank you for your support, we are going to make sure you get a lion's share of the work. But instead, we're fighting to have that here, to make sure our workers have something, to make sure that the communities which they live have some security and we can't get that from them.

Supermarkets are at record-breaking profits. Now, they might argue well, that's because of our cosmetic sales and so on and so forth. They haven't shown that to us. Yet, here we are – call it greedflation – we're paying the price for it.

Now, all this, of course, and even the discussion around climate change, we're ignoring the crushing cost of climate change, both individually, those who have lost their houses as a result of post-tropical storm Fiona, or in the amount of infrastructure that we've got to repair as a province, or the infrastructure that we've got to upgrade to withstand the storms. It's going to come out of our pockets.

Now, we attempted to have a mature conversation on this because we weren't talking about shutting down the oil industry today, tomorrow, this year or next year, but we did want to have a transition plan, just transition legislation that would plan for an orderly phase-out and diversification and to avoid the volatility of what we've seen in non-renewable resources because it might be good this year; a year or two from next year, we might be back in the same boat.

So how do we plan for this? How do we plan to make sure that we have our workers protected, our communities protected, our people of this province protected? Otherwise, the alternative is to wait until there's no demand for oil and therefore no offshore industry. We're not prepared to go down that route. It's about having a plan.

So in many ways, yes, a break on gas tax, we understand it, we'll support it, but somewhere along the line we've got to look at the bigger picture of how do we pay for things and, if we're going to tax, how do we tax smartly as well and who do we tax? But in the end, it's about having the common good.

I've said this before, taxes are the price that I pay for living in a democratic and a civilized society in the society in which we live. It may not benefit me directly, but it's about the common good. Whether it's about eliminating the 1.6-kilometre busing rule, all of these demands that we have. It's about making sure that we have the necessary funds, the necessary resources to keep the benefits, the services that we need.

Again, I pay life insurance, health insurance hopefully that I'll never have to claim. As a friend of mine used to say to me, buying life insurance is like betting on a horse you hope is not going to win. Now, I've had teachers who used to come to me: I don't need this insurance; I'm healthy. Maybe you are, but you're also contributing to the greater good of those people in the profession who aren't. But hopefully someday if you are sick, you have insurance there to look after you.

That's how I look at taxes. It's about the common good. Do I want a break at the pump? Yes. Do I want to see my personal income taxes reduced? Yes. But I also want roads. I want a health care system with well-paid staff, health professionals. I want teachers. I want parks. I want those things, not only for me but for everyone else and that's the purpose, I think, when we're talking about taxes. It's easy to get up and say yes, let's reduce this tax, but in the end I've got to think about, what is it that we need as a society?

A $500 cheque, we can pass that out, and very few people are going to turn it down, but a lot of the people we spoke to said: Why am I getting this cheque? We could have spent this better. I think in many ways we've got to look at how that money could have been spent to help people. I don't know, let's look at the number of people who have called my office because their oil heating supplement has run out and now they can't fill up their tank.

So, in many ways, I think maybe taking that money – or maybe we could have looked at a break on children's clothing taxes, or maybe we could look at increasing the supplement for those who need it or whatever. But I think, in many ways, the hard work is looking at how we move forward.

The Health Accord – and I'm coming back to this and I'll finish with this. Very clearly – because this is not Newfoundland alone, by the way; this is about the federal government itself. They're partners in this, we're part of a federation and it's not Newfoundland doing this alone. Whatever we choose to do, it's incumbent upon the federal government to provide the necessary support, whether it's about improving our health care system or about a just transition, whatever it is, they're partners in this, especially if they're demanding this of us.

I will say this: The Health Accord is not a cheap proposition. It's a lot of upfront money, a lot of upfront investment with a long-term payoff and that's where we have to hold the course. In the end, if you look at the stats and the figures in the Health Accord, 20 per cent of a person's health is related to the health care system – 20 per cent of our health. Sixty per cent of our overall health and well-being is related to the social determinants of health.

Our ability to put food on the table, the ability to put a roof over our heads, the ability to enjoy life, recreation, you name it, to get a good education, all of these things. That's fully 60 per cent, and if we follow that logic then, really, we have put a significant investment in addressing the social determinants of health so that we have healthier people who no longer need to rely on the health care system as much and tax it as much. That's what it comes down to.

I am committed myself to a basic income because any of the research I've read shows it has significant benefits. The downsides of it have not been proven. But I think, going forward, it's about providing the people of this province, all people of this province, those are who are maybe on income support, those who are in precarious employment, those who are in the gig economy, those who are making minimum wage, those who find themselves thrown out of work, have some form of a consumption insurance that smooths out the shocks, that protects people.

That's not Newfoundland and Labrador alone, but that's Newfoundland and Labrador and the federal government as well. Because I think if you want a healthier province, then you have healthier people and you start looking at the things that impact our health. Not just a car accident, but the ability to eat healthy food, the ability to not be stressed out by the next food bill or whatever else. It's those things that will increase our health.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Thank you.

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

E. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll stand and have a few words on this Bill 27 and the seven cents. Of course I'm going to vote for this bill itself to help out people with the high cost of the gasoline, the high cost of living. I just want to bring one little issue up that a few ministers brought up yesterday, about the sugar tax.

The issue was brought up about the sugar tax, about the great work that's being done with it, no doubt. But one thing they're leaving out – and I just want to put this in because if we're planning on having an open debate, we should put all of the facts on the table. When myself and the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, last year, when we broke the deal to get this bill through this House which we did out here, the minister made a commitment that the funds that you got from the sugar tax would not go to any existing government program. It would go to education. That was the commitment.

No one here is going to deny that giving money for the school food program is an issue. But when the minister made that commitment, the idea was to put it out through new programs that would educate people on healthy eating, healthy living and the drawbacks on it. That was the commitment and the other commitment that was made was that you would have a line item on exactly where the money went and some of the organizations that we agreed to out there – Heart and Stroke, diabetes of Newfoundland and Labrador and any other program that's going to provide education.

So when the minister stands up and wants to talk about the sugar tax and the great work they're doing, there's no one can deny that. There's no one going to deny that. But when you make a commitment that you're going to use that money for promotion, down the road, you should follow that commitment. I firmly believe that when the minister made that commitment that you wouldn't use it for existing programs and you took the money and put it in existing programs, then you question every other piece of legislation that comes through this House.

I know it was brought up in this House about the use of the Canadian Diabetes Association but if you look at the actual report – and I haven't got it in front of me, but if you look at the actual report they made a list of seven or eight recommendations that could be done to help with diabetes in this province. They actually list them on what can be done.

So if we're saying here today that all these taxes that are coming in and some coming off are going to be for the benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador, like the sugar tax, and using this group, the Canadian Diabetes Association, we should follow through and try to work on the recommendations they've got there that's going to improve healthy living for the people of the province.

The Member for St. John's Centre, he brought up the living wage for people and some kind of a base for people. Do you know that's one of the recommendations there? That's one of the recommendations in the Health Accord, Sister Elizabeth Davis put in there that we have a basic income for people.

If you look at the study from the Canadian Diabetes Association, you'll find out that the lower end of income are the ones with the greater chance for diabetes. In Newfoundland, it's part of the geography that we have in rural Newfoundland to get the care that people need.

So when you want to stand up and talk about the sugar tax, we should put it all on the table that when we all agreed with it here, there was a commitment made and then we were hoping that the commitment would be followed because if you gave, just for an example, a million dollars to the Heart and Stroke Foundation, what an education program they could put across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador or you give to the Canadian Diabetes Association to use for Newfoundland and Labrador, what an education program they could do in schools and other places to promote healthy living.

I just want to put that out there that no one is ever arguing about the programs that are here in the schools for food and helping kids out and healthy eating. No one is going to deny that, absolutely no one, but what we have to do is to find some way that when we make a commitment, to keep that commitment.

I'll leave that there now, Mr. Speaker.

P. LANE: Didn't talk about gym memberships, did we?

E. JOYCE: Pardon me?

P. LANE: Didn't talk about gym memberships.

E. JOYCE: No, that's right, we didn't talk about gym memberships, talking about using some of that funds to put it towards gym membership, where you have to spend $3,000 or $4,000 to get back $100 or $200. If you look at the studies around, a lot of people, low income, can't afford to pay the $3,000 or $4,000 gym memberships or $3,000 or $4,000 to go and do their downhill skiing and do things like that. They can't afford to try to get back $200 or $300. They can't do it.

So when you take that money, which was committed for education, for healthy eating, and put it into gym membership, where a lot of people that we should be targeting can't use that, that's not what we all agreed to and that's not how the minister made that commitment to us. There was four or five us out front, the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands was there, that we agreed to.

P. LANE: CBS.

E. JOYCE: Pardon me?

P. LANE: CBS, maybe?

E. JOYCE: The Member for CBS, he was there, yes, and the Government House Leader at the time was there also.

Then, again, I look at this seven cents off and probably eight cents when you put in the HST, eight cents off gas and I just think about some of the things that can be done. Just think about it, Mr. Speaker. Here we are, it's great news, seven cents off the gas. Just think about if this province right here and now with a stroke of the pen could take care of 800 seniors for cataracts in Corner Brook, not just Corner Brook, Western Newfoundland. Just think about it. They can do it with a stroke of the pen. They just did 3,000 for St. John's region. Not saying you didn't need them, not saying there's not – but there's no intake officer.

This government tomorrow morning could go into office, stroke of the pen and get rid of the wait-list for the cataract surgeries in Western Newfoundland and won't do it. Here we are today saying oh, what a great announcement, we'll take seven cents off. It is a good announcement. It is going to help out a lot of people, absolutely not denying it. I will vote for it, no doubt.

But we always hear in this House: What is it we can do now to get things done? It is astonishing, it's absolutely astonishing that we see bills coming in here – some are good bills, absolutely. It's hard for government. I'll be the first to say that it's hard because you've got people who are always going to look and say well here's another concern. You can't meet all the concerns. Absolutely, you can't, no way.

But when you can take care of 800 people and no one here in this House of Assembly – I challenge anybody to debate me on why this can't be done, anybody. Any minister, any former minister, challenge me, debate me in this House why they can't get those 800 seniors – and you want to talk about the waiving of seven cents. Do you know those 800, most of those 800, right now as we speak, they're not going to be able to use this here because they can't drive because their licence is taken away.

So I'm going to go back to someone now and say oh, yeah, they just reduced the gas tax by seven cents. Well, that don't bother me because I can't drive anyway, they took my licence away because I had to wait to get cataracts surgery.

So when the government wants to come out with good news, let's do the things we can do. Let's do some of the things we can do. Then there are a lot of other issues that we have, like education. People are always saying we need more funding for education. We need more nurses.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if it's appropriate but I have a note here from a nurse practitioner. I could read it out about how nurse practitioners could actually save money. I don't know if I can read this or if it's leave of the House – well, I don't need leave of the House, Mr. Speaker. You want to talk about saving money and how nurse practitioners can actually save the province money. I'll do that another time when another bill comes up instead of this, Mr. Speaker.

But this is from a nurse practitioner who wrote a letter to me asking me to read it in the House of Assembly to show how government could alleviate the shortage of doctors in this province. That's what it is, Mr. Speaker, that's exactly what it is.

So while we're here debating Bill 27, there are a lot of other things that we can do as a government. There are a lot of other things we can do as a province. I know the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure is there. I know that he came out with the big road plan. I can tell the minister now, and I make no bones about it, that when you have people talk about the gas tax, that some money should be put toward the roads.

I can tell the minister that if he took every cent in his budget that he had in his department, forget everything else, every cent and spent it, there would still be people saying we need parts of the road done. There are certain sections we need done. That is a part of people saying there are certain areas not done and that bigger

part is that we don't have enough funds to do everything everybody wants in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is just an example.

I look at other ministers over there that are in the same predicament. The Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, when it comes to Capital Works, the requests that are made to the minister well exceeds any funding he can put in there. Yet, you have to have people saying we're a priority. This is where the government can't do everything for everybody in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but we need to balance.

I've been talking about this, Mr. Speaker, the balance. When you can put nurse practitioners in there to help out with the doctor shortage and the long waits at the emergency room, why don't we do it? If we could do 800 cataracts, the people on the wait-list, why don't we do it? Why are we making people suffer? Why?

On one point you can't do everything, on another point there's a lot you can do, but you won't do for some reason. I think I know the reason, but for some reason you just won't do it. This is where people become skeptical. I was just on Open Line talking about the cath lab and people in Western Newfoundland. One person waiting 45 days. Problems with air ambulance – I brought it up yesterday, waiting for air ambulance. It is not out there; they're bringing people in.

Whatever happened to this fly-in, fly-out for a day? What happened to it? Where is it? People are out there waiting to get in. People are waiting up there and there are people out there now and they admit – again, it's a tough one because there are a lot of people who need it. But if you're going to make an announcement about we're going to fly you in, fly you out the same day, let's do it. Let's do it. You wouldn't have a wait-list out there. You wouldn't have people calling our office and other offices from Members out on the West Coast also. They know who I'm talking about, if they took their calls.

They know who I'm talking about. Those people up there, one person, Mr. Speaker, I was told was waiting over 40 days. Another person was ready to go and the air ambulance didn't come out to get them.

This fly-in, fly-out, if we're going to say we're going to do it, let's do it. If we can't do it, let's just say it's not going to work. These are the issues that came up – when you hear something, oh, we're going to get the gas tax, seven cents gone off it, that's great. But there are other things that we can do.

I'll take my seat now and, again, I'll have that opportunity to speak on this on many occasions here in this House. But, in closing, I'll repeat myself again, because I won't give up until it's done. Why won't we do the 800 seniors – mainly seniors – in Western Newfoundland who need cataract surgery when it could be done with the stroke of a pen? The money is there to do it. Absolutely, the money is there.

There's not a person in this House who could debate me and any information that I put in that it's cheaper to do it at APEX than the hospital. You'd get more people done and there's a wait-list too in Corner Brook. Mr. Speaker, there's no one here who knows the difference, because they all know it's true. They all know it's true, but it won't be done. Why don't we take the nurse practitioners and use them to their full skills? Why don't we do that?

P. LANE: Let them bill MCP.

E. JOYCE: Let them bill MCP and if they have to go out on their own to do it, let them bill MCP. Let them bill MCP. Why can't they bill MCP? I have yet to get a reason.

I'll just give you an example. If they went out on their own, say you've got nurse practitioners that went out and set up a practice on their own, they can't bill MCP, yet Eastern Health can hire people – and so do Western Health, by the way – they hire nurse practitioners, they can hire them through their own system but they wont set up an office for them to let people go through it. They'll hire them within the system, pay them.

They're getting paid, but they will not hire them to go out and set up and say okay, you're working through Eastern Health or Western Health, you can go off and you can see people and do the same thing they are doing in the private practice, only they can't bill MCP. If they do it and get remunerated for it for Western Health under Western Health, get paid under Western Health, they could actually do the same work for the prescriptions or people who need blood work done, they can do it. It's an easy fix.

But for some reason, we – and I'm not talking we as a government, but we as parliamentarians in this House – can't get it done. Just can't get it done. We always said in this House if you want to know the right answer, go to the people who are affected most, go to the nurse practitioners and ask them, go to the ones that I know out on the West Coast and ask them could they help take care of the people who haven't got a doctor. Yes. If you start seeing patients, would you help with the stress and the long waits at urgency? The answer is yes, and we won't do it. We won't do it.

So this is the role of the Opposition. I know any concerns that I get from people on the West Coast I will bring up, and there are three or four that I know that is very concerning. I'll just say again that I'll sit down but I'll have lots of opportunity and when we get into the main budget, Mr. Speaker, I'll read this out and talk about a nurse practitioner, for themselves, of what they think they can do and why their full scope of practice that they can be utilized much better and help out the 130,000 people who are without family doctors in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

They're the experts. They know what they can do. They're already registered. The government knows what they can do. They hire them in the health authorities, so I'm just asking government again to review that one on the nurse practitioners, get the cataracts done because it's a crime what we're doing. I'm going to leave this off with the cataracts, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to leave this here with the last words on the cataracts. I've got to ask you a question. I'll ask any Member in this House a question: If there's a senior outside that door that needed help, how many of us would go out? Every one of us. Every one in this House would go outside that door and do what we can.

There are 800 in Western Newfoundland who need that help and we can't give it to them. It's sad. It's actually sad. It's a sad state when I can stand in this House and I have to stand in this House saying, with a stroke of the pen, we can take care of 800 people in Western Newfoundland and give them back their quality of life, give them back their dignity, give them back their sense of value, give them back their family, give them back their mothers or fathers, and we won't do it. Yet, if there was someone outside that door right now, every one of us would rush out to help. It's sad. It's actually sad and it's all over personalities, period.

We're making seniors suffer all over personalities. They know it, I know it, yet we can't get it done. It's a sad day that I have to stand in this House of Assembly and give a government an option to help out over 800 people in Western Newfoundland and they won't take it and it won't cost them a penny, a penny extra. It's going to be cheaper on the taxpayer of the province, and it won't be done.

So when the government stands up and says –

P. LANE: The Premier's own constituents.

E. JOYCE: Pardon me?

P. LANE: The Premier's own constituents.

E. JOYCE: Some of the Premier's own constituents are calling me – own constituents. The Member for St. George's - Humber, constituents of his. The Member for Corner Brook, constituents of his, and you know it, they're calling you. You know it. I know he's shaking his head it's true. Let's get it done. Let's get it done. It's an easy fix I say to the Member, and I know you're concerned about your constituents. I know you are. Let's get it done. Let's work together, put it a bit of water in our wine and let's get it done to help out those people on Western Newfoundland.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

The motion is that Bill 27 be now read a second time?

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against.

The motion is carried.

CLERK (Barnes): A bill,

An Act to Amend the Revenue Administration Act, No. 3. (Bill 27)

SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time.

When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?

J. HOGAN: Now.

On motion, a bill, “An Act to Amend the Revenue Administration Act, No. 3,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 27)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 27.

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

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against?

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Warr): Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 27,

An Act to Amend the Revenue Administration Act, No.3.

A bill, “An Act to Amend the Revenue Administration Act, No. 3.” (Bill 27)

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:

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 Revenue Administration Act, No. 3.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you Chair.

I move that the Committee rise and report Bill 27.

CHAIR: The motion is the Committee rise and report Bill 27.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the Speaker returned to the Chair.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.

B. WARR: Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 27 without amendment.

SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the committee have considered the matters to them referred and directed him to report Bill 27 without amendment.

When shall the bill be received?

J. HOGAN: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the bills be read third time?

J. HOGAN: Tomorrow.

SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Further to a point of order that was made yesterday, I want to retract that comment I said that government took offence to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

I move that the House now recess.

SPEAKER: This House do stand recessed until 2 p.m. this afternoon.

Recess

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Good afternoon, in the public gallery I would like to welcome Gary Martin, who is to be recognized in a Members' statement this afternoon – actually, he is in the Speaker's gallery.

Welcome, Gary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Also visiting us today in the public gallery for a Members' statement are Gail Brown, Reg Durdle, Eliza Swyers and Helen Durdle.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Joining us this afternoon for the private Member's resolution, I would like to recognize Tom Johnston, of the Holyrood Fire Department; Ron Ghaney, Conception Harbour Volunteer Fire Department; David Peddle with the Bay de Grave Regional Fire Department; and Lacey Pottle with the Bay de Grave Regional Fire Department.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

SPEAKER: Today we will hear statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Labrador West, Lake Melville, Placentia - St. Mary's, Bonavista and Mount Pearl North.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you so much, Speaker.

I rise today to pay tribute to Joan Stamp, a pioneer and resident of Labrador West who passed away at the age of 96. Joan, like many of our pioneers, moved with their families in the 1960s to what was then Carol Lake, now known lovingly as Labrador West. Joan spent 61 years in Labrador West and, from the very start she was devoted to the area. Her motto and secret to a long and happy life was simple: Keep busy.

Throughout her time in Labrador West, Joan raised her family, volunteered with countless organizations and loved to be on committees. She held a position with the Status of Women until her final days and was one of the longest serving members.

Joan brought a light to our community with her sense of humor and her ability to light up a room. We certainly will miss her laugh and the presence she brought to our community events, especially at community dances which she loved so very much.

I ask all hon. Members to join me in remembering Joan Stamp for her dedication to her family, our community and thank her for being an inspiration to so many people.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

P. TRIMPER: Thank you, Speaker.

Happy Valley-Goose Bay recently lost one of its most passionate community builders, Charles Warr. A dedicated resident since 1964, Charlie started Warr's Pharmacy, the first such business in Labrador.

It did not take long for this pharmacist to become much appreciated by employees and customers alike. Charlie served on the town council and was a tireless community supporter of numerous causes, including the creation and operation of the Paddon Home, the first seniors' complex.

Other community initiatives involved the support and development of various sporting organizations and infrastructure. A competitive athlete in many sports, he was an early promoter for the E. J. Broomfield arena. From softball to soccer and more, many generations received generous corporate support through his various teams of Warr's Warriors.

A favourite memory for many is of the pilgrimages the Warr brothers, other family and friends would make to Montreal to watch their beloved Habs. While what happens on the road stays on the road, it is well known that this pioneer in business, municipal governance, sports and community well-being will have a long-lasting legacy in Central Labrador.

I would ask this House of Assembly to recognize the achievements and contribution of this remarkable builder. Thank you, Charlie.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Speaker, on January 2 of this year, Mrs. Elizabeth Critch of the Gaskiers, St. Mary's Bay, turned 100 years old.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Mrs. Critch is the youngest of nine siblings, born to Patrick and Jane Tobin. She married Joseph Critch in May of 1946 and they raised eight children together. Today she has 19 grandchildren, 29 great-grandchildren and one great-great-grandchild.

With five hours of home care a day, Mrs. Critch lives in her own home surrounded by family and friends. She continues to cook meals with her home care worker and loves blue potatoes, fish and homemade bread. Every Sunday the tradition of eating Jiggs' dinner lives on, cooked in her home or brought to her by a family member.

Another favourite of Mrs. Critch is when the door to her house swings opens. Mrs. Critch enjoys company and gets lots of visits from family and friends. She loves a good game of cards, especially 120s. Every evening, you will find her watching the NTV Evening Newshour , followed by The Young and the Restless and Family Feud as she enjoys the warmth from her kitchen woodstove.

Please join me as I wish Mrs. Elizabeth Critch a happy 100th birthday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Speaker.

It is a privilege to rise today to acknowledge the many residents of the Bonavista and area who initiated a rally line in support of health care in the region, where they gathered on Hospital Road for an hour each day. This rally began in July of 2022 and continues today during the cold days of winter.

The organizers of this rally line – Gail Brown, Reg Durdle, Eliza Swyers and Helen Durdle – have dedicated much time and effort to peacefully rallying and advocating for