PDF Version

May 17,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 20

The

House met at 10 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):

Admit strangers.

Order,

please!

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, for leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Natural Products Marketing Act,

Bill 10, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded by

the hon. Government House Leader that he shall have leave to introduce Bill 10,

and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, nay.'

Carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Natural Products Marketing Act. (Bill 10)

MR. SPEAKER:

Bill 10 has now been read a

first time.

When

shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 10 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, for leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Proceedings Against The Crown Act, Bill 11, and I

further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded by

the hon. Government House Leader that he shall have leave to introduce Bill 11,

and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

Those against?

Carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Proceedings Against The Crown Act. (Bill 11)

MR. SPEAKER:

Bill 11 has now been read a

first time.

When

shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 11 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call from the

Order Paper, Order 5, second reading of Bill 8.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 8,

An Act To Amend The House Of

Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act No. 2, be now read the

second time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 8 be now read a second time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability,

Integrity And Administration Act No. 2. (Bill 8)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am

standing here today in my role as Government House Leader to discuss

An Act to

Amend the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act.

Bills of this nature are entered into this House from time to time. I believe

this may be the second one of this nature that we've done this session, we may

have one more coming. We'll likely have them in the fall as well, given the fact

that we have been changing the various provisions of this act based on

recommendations provided by the independent committee.

Section

7 of this particular act is being amended by adding immediately after subsection

(2) the following:

(3) Where an officer referred to in paragraphs (1)(

a) to (

d) is unable to act by reason of absence, incapacity or other cause or the office

is vacant, the Speaker, upon the recommendation of the commission, may appoint a

person to act as that officer in a temporary capacity for a period that shall

not exceed 12 consecutive months.

Basically, this bill will provide for the temporary appointment of four Officers

of the House. It was approved by our Management Commission on March 15 before

being sent to Cabinet for final approval and the Office of the Legislative

Counsel for final drafting.

Section

7(2) of this act came into force in 2007 and requires that the Clerk, the Clerk

Assistant, the Law Clerk and the Sergeant-at-Arms of our House be selected

through a process that involves consultation between the Speaker, clerk of the

Executive Council and with the Public Service Commission. Basically, it goes

through this consultation process to determine an appropriate recruitment

process.

Following the selection process, which is under

section 7(1), the House passes a

resolution nominating the successful candidate. Once a person is nominated by

the House, the LGIC makes the actual appointment. It's a process that gets done

here; it's done publicly, involving debate.

It's

been followed for all the Officers who've been appointed since 2007, which

include our Law Clerk, our Sergeant-at-Arms and our Clerk; however, there is a

gap in this legislation, as it does not make any allowance for a situation where

one of these offices becomes vacant for a period of time and more importantly

where that occurs between sittings of the House.

It's

fine if the House is siting, you can immediately take action, but if something

were to happen where there's a vacancy, say during the month of July when the

House is not sitting. Traditionally, the House will not sit again until October,

November. That's a long period of time where this is an unintended gap we're not

able to remedy.

What

we're doing here today is we're amending it to take care and to fill that gap.

For instance, if due to serious illness or resignation, retirement or any other

cause, one of the offices is vacant, there is a need to appoint someone into the

position in a temporary acting capacity.

Now, this already exists in other legislation. For instance, under the

Citizens' Representative Act, the

Child and Youth Advocate Act and the

Auditor General Act , they allow for

the appointment of their statutory officers in an acting capacity when there's a

temporary absence. We don't have that here.

should be noted that under

section 10 of our

House of Assembly Accountability,

Integrity and Administration Act , in the absence of the Clerk, the Clerk's

accounting functions are carried out by the chief financial officer and the

procedural parliamentary functions are carried about by the clerk assistant.

Again, it's intended to be short-term backdrop only.

The

proper parliamentary functioning and daily administration of this House need the

ability to appoint a clerk in a temporary acting capacity. The clerk assistant,

Law Clerk and Sergeant-at-Arms have no such legislated backup and there are no

other similar positions within the House to fulfill the services that would

carry out their duties.

Under

this proposed Bill 8, which I'm assuming is going to get unanimous consent here

in this House, the acting appointment would be made by the Speaker following a

recommendation of the Management Commission, which for people out there, is made

up of all parties of the House and this acting appointment could not last for

more than a year. Therefore, within that year, a suitable candidate must be

found, following proper competition. The name placed before the House in a

resolution that would be debated and voted on by all the Members of this House.

Mr.

Speaker, I don't think there's any need to belabour this particular piece of

legislation much more. This was something that the parties were aware of.

Certainly, we've discussed it, various Members of this House in our roles in the

Management Commission.

I'm

going to take my seat at this point and allow the other Members an opportunity

to speak to this. I look forward to the Committee stage to answer any questions;

although, if there are questions, maybe we're better off asking the Speaker

those questions.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm pleased to rise this morning to speak to Bill 8,

An Act to Amend

the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act. I, as

well from this side, sit on the Management Commission and from time to time

there are various pieces of legislation that would come forward to deal with

particular changes or proposed changes to come here to the Legislature.

As the

minister has outlined, the intent of the legislation, I will just read briefly

the Explanatory Note: To amend the House

of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act to allow for

House officers to be appointed temporarily by the Speaker, upon the

recommendation of the House of Assembly Management Commission, in certain

circumstances.

The bill

would lay out what they would be, the reason for it and specifically states:

Where an officer referred to is unable to act by reason of absence, incapacity

or other cause or the office is vacant, the Speaker, upon the recommendation of

the commission, may appoint a person to act as that officer in a temporary

capacity for a period that shall not exceed 12 consecutive months.

This is

a piece of legislation, an amendment that looks at, if you will, the operational

requirements in regard to the House and various House Officer positions of a

temporary nature when as Bill 8 references there's a particular circumstance

that occurs and vacancies become apparent for various reasons. It's an ability

then to deal with that.

This

allows the House Officers to be appointed temporarily by the Speaker. That would

be upon recommendation of the House Management Commission which has membership

that is reflected by the government side of the House, the Official Opposition

and the Third Party. Through that, the recommendation would be made to the

Speaker.

The

current legislation, why we're doing this and why it's being presented I assume,

is the fact that there is no provision right now for anybody to be appointed to

these roles temporarily. As the bill references, this could be done for any

number of reasons, normal course of events in regard to people's careers and

whatever may happen along the way. It could be in a case of retirements or in a

case of extended sick leave. Obviously, these would be necessary positions in

regard to the functions of the House and therefore would need to be required.

I think

the minister also referenced the fact that a temporary appointment may be needed

as the public service undertakes the official recruitment and screening process

to find a candidate to recommend to the House to fill the position permanently.

So this would be an interim step to be taken, legislative authority given to the

Management Commission at a time when you needed to fill a vacancy on a temporary

basis.

The

Management Commission would make a recommendation to the Speaker who chairs that

Committee, and on a temporary basis that position would be filled. Then the

process would start, it's my understanding, on the merit-based principle per the

Public Service Commission and that process would be undertaken, a screening

process to find that candidate that would be recommended to the House on a

permanent basis.

When we

go back and look at the review that was done by Judge Green in regard to the

recommendation from his report, it was my understanding that there wasn't a

provision at the time included to allow someone to serve in an acting role.

Again, Bill 8 looks to address that interim issue and how there's a legislative

authority now being suggested in this bill that it would be allowed to do that.

Without

this provision or this amendment in Bill 8 there's no ability there for this

Legislature or the Management Commission or the Speaker to put someone in that

acting role. It could be a period of time to be extended for that position or a

position to be vacant, which could certainly affect the functioning of this

institution; therefore, this allows action to be taken.

various times, depending on what that role is, as I said, it could negatively

affect the operation of the House. That's what this Bill does, to amend that and

to make sure there's the ability for the Management Commission and then make a

recommendation to the Speaker that the position would be filled on an interim

basis. Then we would proceed to the normal course of events in regard to the

merit principle or what is usually the normal course of events. We go through

the merit principle and they would recommend, through the merit-based principle,

the possible candidates that could be recommended to the House for approval.

This is

needed. We certainly recognize that. Bill 8; we certainly support this bill to

make the amendment and to give the authority of the House to do what it's

intended to do, to allow to have the authority to make a recommendation to fill

a temporary position that may be due to any number of circumstances, but allow

the function of the House to continue without any negative consequences.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm

happy to stand this morning and speak to Bill 8 which has been explained very

clearly by the Government House Leader

An Act to amend the House of Assembly

Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act No. 2.

course, I'll be supporting this bill which is an important piece to put in.

Right now, at the moment, with regard to this

section in the

House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act ,

which I will call the act from here on in, the

section in the act which is

called

section 7 has two parts to it. One part names the Officers who are being

talked about. Both my colleagues have named those officers: the Clerk of the

House, the Clerk Assistant, the Law Clerk and the Sergeant-at-Arms.

Section

7(2) of the act currently, and will remain, says: Before a nomination is made

under subsection (1), that's where they're all named out the speaker shall

consult with the commission, the Clerk of the Executive Council and the

chairperson of the Public Service Commission to determine an appropriate process

for recruitment of suitable candidates for appointment.

Today's

bill is putting in a new

section not omitting anything that there is now

that is dealing with the fact that one of these Officers could be absent

temporarily because of incapacity or other causes, or the office could become

vacant.

Section 3 is dealing with what to do in a temporary situation because it

takes time to fill a position, it takes months and months to fill a position and

you can't have the position empty.

Once the

temporary period is over and that's a 12-consecutive-month period and a

permanent nomination is being made, then the

section that's already in our act

kicks in and the Speaker shall consult with the Commission, consult with the

clerk of the Executive Council, and the chairperson of the Public Service

Commission to determine an appropriate process for recruitment of suitable

candidates for appointment. That's where it stands when it comes to the four

Officers who are being talked about. Now we have something to cover both

temporary and full-time nominations and appointments.

The good

thing about saying the Speaker would now take recommendations from the

Commission is that the work of the Commission is open and transparent. So it

lends to continue the openness and transparency by saying it's the Commission

that would make the recommendations to the Speaker. The bill does not give any

details as to what that process would be, but as that process is worked out,

again, because of the nature of the Commission, we think this will be an open

and transparent process. I think that's what's important here.

There

isn't a lot more to say. It's important that we do this and it's important that

we do it in an open and transparent way. I think it's good for the public to see

that here in the House of Assembly things are being taken care of in an orderly

fashion, that there will be an objective procedure for the appointments. I think

right now people are looking for that kind of thing with regard to appointments

within anything that has to do with the House of Assembly.

I'm

happy to support this bill, but I do urge the Speaker to make sure that a

process for doing this gets worked out quickly so that people will see what

exactly will be the process for the recommendations from the Commission. Of

course, that isn't spelled out in the bill, the actual process for the

recommendations, how that would happen. I think we need to have a discussion on

that. That kind of thing is like a regulation. I guess it doesn't go into a bill

per se, but it would assume if there are going to be recommendations made, then

there has to be a process put together covering that.

Having

said that, I thank the minister for bringing this forward and I look forward to

voting for it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for St.

George's Humber.

MR. REID:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just

want to make a few comments in relation to this bill. I think it's very

appropriate we have this kind of legislation come forward to look at the

possible absence of some of the staff here in the House.

I just

want to make a few comments. It won't take long. I think we have to also look at

succession planning here in the House and for the Table Officers in the House.

Succession planning is a big issue within the private sector and also in

government in general, about how we are going to move forward and the knowledge

that senior people in our organization have is not lost when they leave.

I think

as a House of Assembly we have to look at succession planning and what we can do

to sort of ease that transition as people leave employment here with this

organization and move on, to make sure that we have sort of a steady staffing

and steady knowledge in terms of the way we operate our House. Because these

Officers here in the House provide a great service to the House and I think we

need to look at the larger issue as well of succession planning and how we're

going to do it as a House of Assembly.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

If the

hon. Government House Leader speaks now he shall close debate.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

appreciate the commentary from my colleagues across the way, as well as my

colleague here on this side who certainly has a significant amount of experience

as it relates to parliamentary procedure. I'm not going to belabour this except

by saying I look forward to any questions or comments that come through the

Committee stage.

I'll

take my time to sit now and I look forward to having Committee on this and

moving this bill forward.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Is the House ready for the

question?

The

motion is that Bill 8 be now read a second time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, nay.'

Carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act No. 2. (Bill

MR. SPEAKER:

Bill 8 has now been read a

second time.

When

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

MR. A. PARSONS:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity

And Administration Act No. 2, read a second time, ordered referred to a

Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 8)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the House

resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 8.

MR. SPEAKER:

The motion is that the House

resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 8.

All

those in favour, aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, nay.'

Carried.

motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker

left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Dempster):

Order, please!

Before

we move on with the proceedings of Bill 8, I'm going to go back to yesterday. I

would like to make two rulings with respect to issues raised in this House

during Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, May 16.

The

first is a point of order raised by the Government House Leader with respect to

a statement made by the Member for Mount Pearl North. Hansard has been reviewed

and the exact words stated by the Member were: that kind of behaviour from a

minister is unethical, it's dishonest and it's deceptive.

While at

first glance, the comment is phrased so as not to appear as a direct accusation

against a specific Member, in the context of the questions and answers being

asked and responded to, it is obvious that this statement was in fact an

accusation directed at the Minister of Finance.

O'Brien

and Bosc states at page 618, the use of offensive, provocative or threatening

language in the House is strictly forbidden . At page 619, In dealing with

unparliamentary language, the Speaker takes into account the tone, manner and

intention of the Member speaking ....

I find

that the utterances of the Member for Mount Pearl North were offensive and not

conducive to the proper conduct of debate in this House. This is a violation of

Standing Order 49, and I therefore ask the Member to withdraw his comments.

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Madam Chair, I've reviewed

the recording from yesterday and I would encourage others inside and outside

this House to do the same.

I cannot

apologize for being asked

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

Is the

Member going to withdraw or not withdraw?

MR. KENT:

Madam Chair, I won't

apologize for being straightforward with the people of the province.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MR. KENT:

Whether in the House of

Assembly or outside the House of Assembly, we have to be honest.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

I will

continue with the second issue. The second issue that was also raised

AN HON. MEMBER:

No, no, if he doesn't

withdraw, he (inaudible) out of the House.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

The

Chair is speaking and I ask all Members for respect in this House.

The

issue raised was also raised later the same day by the Government House Leader

who was raising a further point of order under Standing Order 49.

Hansard has been reviewed and

showed that the Government House Leader stated that the Member for Mount Pearl

North had tweeted from the House that:

Hansard will have a record of the questions asked and the misleading answers

provided. The tweet has been captured and was indeed sent by the Member for

Mount Pearl North.

Again, in the context of the questions and answers

occurring in the House at that time, I find that the comment was directed at the

Minister of Finance. The issue is more complicated than the mere use of an

unparliamentary word such as misleading. Had the Member stated this openly in

the House, he would have been immediately required to withdraw it; however, he

chose to tweet his comment presumably from the floor of the House of Assembly

and certainly while the House was sitting.

Similar issues have occurred before. On May 9, 2012, the

Speaker of this House, while addressing a tweet made while the House was not

sitting stated: Had this accusation of lying been sent while the House was

sitting so as to escape being sanctioned for unparliamentary language, I believe

it would have been a prima facie breach of privilege.

While I do not believe this is a matter of privilege but a

point of order under Standing Order 49, I endorse the sentiment that this is a

breach and an attempt to do by the back door what could not be done by the front

door.

This is not the first time that this Member has been

the Member and I ask him to refrain from tweeting comments that could not be

said on the floor of this House.

I will one final time ask the Member: Will he withdraw his

comments?

The hon. Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Madam

Chair, thank you for your ruling. Unfortunately, I cannot apologize for what I

said yesterday.

CHAIR: Order,

please!

I ask the hon. Member to leave the House for the remainder

of today.

We are now considering Bill 8,

An Act To Amend The House Of

Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act No. 2.

A bill,

An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And

Administration Act No. 2. (Bill 8)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I wasn't

quick enough to jump up when we were doing second reading. So just for the

record, obviously, what's being proposed in this bill does make sense if one of

our Officers should be off with sickness or for any other reason that we would

be able to appoint someone to replace them.

So just

for the record, I support the bill.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Madam

Chair.

I don't

know if the Government House Leader has an answer to this because he did make

reference to maybe questions have to go to the Speaker. I would like to know if

there has been any thought given to what the process would be for

recommendations being made by the Commission to the Speaker with regard to the

temporary positions.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's a

good question by the Member. I probably can't say because, as it stands, I guess

I'm bringing this in in my role as Government House Leader, but really this is a

Management Commission and House issue.

What I

would suggest is that maybe at one of our next Management Commission meetings, I

think it's a good topic for us to discuss because, right now, I'd only be giving

my opinion, which has no more weight than any of our opinions on this. I'm not

trying to duck, but it really is a House thing. It's a good question that we

need to address because the recommendation carries a lot of weight.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Madam

Chair.

I really

appreciate the answer from the Government House Leader. We're all I mean, he

and I are both on the Management Commission, but I'm wondering since, as

Government House Leader, he was the one who brought the bill forward, will he

then be the one to speak with the Speaker, who is the Chair of the Management

Commission, for us to have it on the agenda.

One of

us has somebody has to take responsibility. I agree with what he's saying, but

one of us has to take responsibility. So I'm just asking: Will he take

responsibility for making sure we get this on the agenda of the House Management

Commission?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Certainly, I have no issue

with that, making sure that's a topic we discuss. I doubt it's going to be at

the meeting tonight but, definitely, it's something we should discuss soon.

Maybe

what I can do is, hopefully the House staff I have to give them credit for

even the notes I get can remind me to make sure that it goes on as well,

because if I don't bring it, it's not intentional. It's my memory and that's my

fault.

CHAIR:

Seeing no further speakers.

Shall

clause 1 carry?

All

those in favour, aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, nay.'

Carried.

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.

motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The House of

Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act No. 2.

CHAIR:

Shall the title carry?

All

those in favour, aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, nay.'

Carried.

motion, title carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report Bill 8 carried

without amendment.

All

those in favour, aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, nay.'

Carried.

Motion,

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

CHAIR:

The hon. the Deputy House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

I move, Madam Chair, that the

Committee rise and report Bill 8,

An Act To Amend The House of Assembly

Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act No. 2.

CHAIR:

The motion is that the

Committee rise and report Bill 8 carried without amendment.

Shall

the motion carry?

All

those in favour, aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, nay.'

Carried.

motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the

Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):

The hon. Deputy Chair of

Committees.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have

directed me to report Bill 8 carried without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Chair of the Committee of

the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them

referred and have directed her to report Bill 8 carried without amendment.

When

shall the report be received?

MS. COADY:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

When

shall the said bill be read a third time?

MS. COADY:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

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

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call

from the Order Paper, Bill 9,

An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

pleased to stand in the House this morning to speak to Bill 9.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MS. C. BENNETT:

Oh, sorry, my apologies. It

was a long day yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER:

Move and second.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 9,

An Act To Amend The Revenue

Administration Act, be now read a second time.

Thank

you for your patience.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 9 be now read a second time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act.

(Bill 9).

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was

saying, I'm pleased to stand in my place today to speak to Bill 9,

An Act To

Amend The Revenue Administration Act. This particular piece of legislation

relates to our government's commitment, as we stated in last year's budget, to

reduce the temporary gas tax that we had no choice but to implement as part of

last year's budget decisions. It's always a privilege and an honour to speak in

this House, particularly when we are able to say, do, and reflect the

information that we gave the people of the province by committing to reducing

that gas tax, which is what this piece of legislation will do, Mr. Speaker.

Over the

past two years, in the wake of a very serious fiscal situation facing

Newfoundland and Labrador, our government has taken a smart, focused approach to

financial management. The magnitude of the fiscal challenge we inherited cannot

be understated. The easy solution would have been to ignore the situation and

pass the problem on to future generations. Instead, Mr. Speaker, we choose to

make some very difficult and responsible decisions for the long-term benefit of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Our

government made hard choices and we asked the taxpayers to support those choices

so we could close the gap between our revenue and our costs. This included

implementing a gas tax increase. As we stated as part of

Budget 2017 , we are now on the path to

gaining control of our finances and striking the balance of better spending

controls and valuable investments. In fact, we are currently ahead of our

forecasting in terms of deficit projections and we are on track to return to

surplus in 2022'23.

As part

of this path to better financial management, we want to make clear that our

government is responsive to the needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We

committed to the people of the province that we would review the gas tax on a

regular basis and as soon as we had the ability to reduce this temporary tax, we

would do so.

We have

seen increased revenues since the temporary gas tax was implemented, and as part

of Budget 2017 , we felt it was prudent

to reduce the tax. We are listening and we are following through on the promise

we made to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

In 2017,

residents of this province will benefit from two reductions to the temporary gas

tax. Beginning on June 1, we will reduce it by 8 cents per litre and on

December 1, 2017, we will reduce it by a further four cents per litre for a

total reduction of 12 cents, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. C. BENNETT:

We will review the remaining

four cents as part of the 2017 fall fiscal economic update.

Mr.

Speaker, this reduction represents a 75 per cent reduction in the temporary gas

tax by the end of the calendar year. This will provide residents with more

disposable income, ultimately providing for a positive impact on the provincial

economy.

As well,

Mr. Speaker, consistent with the phase-out of the temporary gas tax on June 1,

2017, the rebate for the Labrador border zones, which was set at 10 cents per

litre last year, will be reduced to 1.5 cents per litre until December 1, at

which time it will be discontinued. The affected areas are Labrador West, Lab

City and Wabush, and Southern Labrador with the Quebec border to and including

the community of Red Bay.

implemented in 2016, the temporary gas tax on the North Coast of Labrador will

continue to be reduced to the point that the tax per litre does not exceed $1.55

or the temporary gas tax is fully reduced. This will be evaluated over the

coming months. There will be no change to the tax rate on diesel fuel, Mr.

Speaker.

As a

government, we have established a vision for sustainability and growth in this

province, but in order to achieve that we must have a solid foundation in which

to work from. That solid foundation includes strong fiscal management. As part

of this, we know that tax increases must be balanced with tax competitiveness.

That is why we will initiate a comprehensive, independent tax review of our tax

system this fiscal year which will be completed within our current mandate.

outlined in The Way Forward , this

government must be redefined to address economic, social and fiscal challenges,

and strong fiscal management is a top priority, Mr. Speaker. With

The Way Forward providing us with the guiding principles of

developing a smarter approach to governance and management, we are methodically

and responsibly redesigning government to address our economic, social and

fiscal challenges. Our focus will always be on positioning our province to be in

an ideal place to raise a family with a competitive work and business

environment.

Mr.

Speaker, in order to return to fiscal balance we must think and act in a way

that is long term. We can no longer afford to be bound by short-term reactionary

thinking. That is why we reviewed the temporary gas tax we had in place and we

found we were in a position to reduce this tax and provide some financial relief

to the people of this province. It is also why our government is committed to

beginning a tax review this fiscal year.

As we

continue down the road of strong fiscal management, our government will make

decisions, such as reducing the temporary gas tax that are in the best interests

of good governance, responsible finances and the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

pleased to stand today to speak to Bill 9. As the minister said, this bill is

related to

An Act to Amend the Revenue Administration Act, and specifically

related to the gas tax which was part and parcel of last year's budget and part

of 300 fees and taxes that came about as part of this government's direction to

raise revenue.

This

amendment is revisiting that, one of those 300 taxes and fees. Revisiting it not

to remove the tax, but certainly revision of the current tax, what was

implemented last year in the budget and to reduce the gasoline tax as announced

in, as I said, Budget 2017 .

There is

also reference to subsequent necessary adjustments to the legislation to

continue the gasoline tax

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was

saying, the bill will amend the Revenue

Administration Act to reduce the gasoline tax as announced in

Budget 2017 along with the 299 other

taxes and fees. This is really the only one that's been modified from the budget

prior to this year. It will also make subsequent necessary adjustments to the

legislation to continue the gasoline tax rate within the Labrador border zones.

From the

technical side of it,

section 1, as you go through, allows for the reduction in

what was 16.5 cents in Budget 2017 . A

reduction of 8.5 cents per litre will occur on June 1, 2017. This is in the

portion of the bill 1(e)(ii). The gas tax will be set at $0.245 per litre for

the period beginning June 1, 2017 and ending November 30, 2017 .

further reduction of four cents per litre on December 1, 2017, for a reduction

of 12.5 from 16.5 I think last year, was implemented in the budget. This

provision is shown in

section 1(e)(iii) where you get $0.205 per litre for the

period beginning December 1,

Section

2 of the bill makes changes to the Labrador border zones gasoline tax. These

changes (

a) and (

b) reduce the border zone rebate so that the effective gasoline

tax which it paid in the border zones will remain at 23 cents per litre.

Currently, the Labrador border zones have a discount of 10 cents per litre

applied to their gas tax. This means that the gas tax at the border zone is

exactly at 23 cents. This is done, I understand, to prevent residents from

crossing the border into Quebec to purchase their gas. That zone, the Labrador

border zone, consists of Labrador City, Wabush and South Coast.

On June

1, 2017, the gas tax will be reduced through this bill, Bill 9, by 8.5 cents.

The border zone discount will also be reduced by 8.5 cents to a discount of 1.5

cents per litre. This keeps the gas tax rate for the border zones at 23 cents

per litre.

From my

understanding, the Labrador border zone discount will be eliminated on December

1, 2017. The entire province then will pay a gas tax of 20.5 cents per litre.

The

question of the gas tax and the philosophy behind it, and certainly the public

policy in regards to raising revenue through this method, there's been

significant discussion in our province since the budget, since this was brought

in, in last year's budget, 2016. We've seen the effect of it, and the ripple

effect, in regard to consumer's consumption tax.

When you

look at gas and what is required for the fuel in terms of operations from

families, take their kids to school in the morning; from business in terms of

able to operate, whether it's a small business, whether it's a large

corporation; emergency services. The full spectrum of what a gas tax and the

effect it has on society and economy is enormous.

We've

seen and hear it, I know last year on the gas tax bill itself, when it came to

the House, we had a filibuster on that gas tax bill. It went on for considerable

days. I know thinking back to that, the gas tax at that particular time and the

concerns people expressed in regard to what it believed it would do. The effect

it would have, the negative effect. We were here for days going through, reading

out letter, reading out emails on the gas tax that we're proposed to change here

today, not remove, but reduce it; literally hundreds.

I know

myself, it comes to mind on this particular public policy in regard to gas tax,

I read out middle-class families talking about the fact of how they're going to

be able to function and pay that consumption cost on fuel. While this bill here

reduces it, the whole philosophy behind it and the intent and how it's being

used and the effects it's having on society and on the economy still stands

today. There's no change from 2016 in regard to when it was brought in, to the

negative effect it's having and what that ripple effect is. When you put that in

with the larger view of the 300 taxes and fees and this gas tax was one of them,

it is significant.

I think

we heard that last year in 2016 when it was brought in. We heard it continuously

throughout the year. We continue to hear it today in regard to what those

concerns were.

talked about last year, too, and again this year, there was a financial

situation and you needed to deal with it. Yes, indeed. I don't think anybody

would dispute that, but the reality is there were choices you could make and the

policy decisions you make and the amendments to legislation you make, whether

it's gas tax or whether it's HST or whether it's fee, there's a balance and a

direction you take on where that threshold is to where you can tax and fee an

economy to the point where it becomes negative and you don't even reach your

targets.

It's

interesting enough and I'll speak to that in a little while when you look at

the targets that were last year or the target that was identified for revenue

from this tax, the target wasn't met. So let's think about that for a second.

You're setting a gas tax. You increase it 16.5 cents, which is negative to the

economy, and we've seen that over the past year. We continue to see it, but your

own target you set for this tax that was way out of proportion then anybody

would think was even realistic, you didn't even meet your target.

So you

have to ask your economic plan and your vision for raising revenues: How can

that even be on target? You raised the tax; didn't meet your target. So this

year and I'll speak to that in a few minutes you're going to set another

target to try and balance your books on the ledger. You don't even know if

you're going to meet the target because you didn't do it the first time.

Not only

didn't you reach the target when, again, we keep talking about industries and

how this gas tax affects them. In my own district, I speak to people all the

time, seniors and middle-class families in regard to this gas tax, a bill like

this. I've got processing facilities in the fishery. I've got fabrication

facilities in my district, as I said, all kinds of small business. So every cost

for every time they filled up a truck or a vehicle, where do you think that

they have a margin that they need to make, that's why they're in business. Once

you get into that margin, where's the cost going?

Well,

the cost is going on to the consumer. The cost is going on the person who walks

in and whatever they buy or whatever service they want, that's passed on to the

consumer. So that's passed on to everyday Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, when

they go in and whatever they buy, whether it's a service or a product, they're

paying that and they're paying this gas tax that we're talking about here today.

We've

seen it over the past number of months. We've heard from people in regard to

what it means to them and what affect this ill-conceived tax is doing. As I

said, based on unknown projections, they didn't even reach the projection that

they thought they would in regard to bringing this in.

This

actual gas tax wasn't done in isolation. It's just not one tax or two taxes and

say: This is part of a bigger plan. Through this gas tax, what we're charging

here, we have an economic development plan and we have targets and those targets

are going to be hit. Based on hitting those targets in employment, we're going

to raise so much personal income tax, we're going to raise so much corporate

income tax, so much business tax, whether it's payroll and that will offset and

that will show some of the revenue. So that's driving the economy with a

taxation system that's inviting, that allows investment, yet raises revenue.

So as I

spoke earlier in regard to this bill and this tax and fee structure that was

brought in, it's not balanced and that's the problem. When you negatively affect

the economy, you're not hitting your targets. You're not doing what you need to

do in regard to setting out that fiscal plan to make sure you can meet the

targets and what you need to do.

If we

look at Budget 2016 , the Estimates

that the revenues projected for '16-'17 excuse me, Mr. Speaker. In

Budget 2016 , if you look at the

Estimates, the revenues for the '16-'17 gasoline tax would be $328 million.

That's $328 million, as I said, taken out of Newfoundlanders' and Labradorians'

pockets, young families, middle-class families, seniors. That's gas tax that was

applied and would come out of all those businesses, various types, various

industries in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We're a

natural resource commodity market very much in Newfoundland and Labrador; we

produce. To extract those commodities, to transport them, to get them for

processing, to get them to marketing all involve fuel and fuel costs and it's

related to this bill.

That's

all put on that cost of operations. That's less people you may be able to hire,

that's less period of time you may need to operate. Based on all that, it

reverts to this decision made in 2016 to implement the gas tax. Now we see some

other revision here today, but that's all directed to negatively affecting the

economy.

As I

said, in 2016 the Estimate for the gasoline tax was $328 million; the revised

number for '16-'17 was $305 million, so it didn't reach the target. My

understanding for this particular year the target is somewhere in the range, I

think, of $273 million, $274 million. Looking at, as I said when I started, the

300 fees and tax increases in 2016, in 2017 this is the only one that's been

modified or adjusted in any way.

Even

with this one, in terms of revenue projections last year was off, coupled with

the negative effect it had on the economy and I'm sure it negatively affected

other things like sales tax and other things like that because it has an effect.

There's a ripple effect throughout the whole economy and those revenue streams

that any government has the ability to extract them or get revenue from. It

continually negatively affects those and then this year there's another

projection for almost $274 million.

What

faith do we have that this projection and all the others are going to be where

they need to be based on what we've seen in the prior year? This economic

indicator doesn't even measure what the effect is on the others. Now I don't

have The Economy , the document that

came with this year's budget, but if you were to look at that and go in and look

at the economic indicators, when we look at this gas tax that was brought in

last year, it shows what the performance of many of those economic indicators

were last year. For the most part, they were heading in the wrong direction.

That's related, to some degree a great degree in some cases to this gas tax

and what we're talking about here today.

If you

look in that document, The Economy ,

from the budget, you look at the current administration projecting what their

economic indicators and what the achievements are going to be this fiscal year

and they're not even the same. Most of them are worse than they were last year.

So,

again, if you factor in this tax and the effect it's having and the ripple

effect throughout, no doubt it's related. Whether you're building homes, you're

involved in extracting natural resources, whether you have a small business,

whether you have a fabrication facility, as I said before, it's all

interrelated. It's all a fee of operations.

If you

exceed that threshold and what someone can actually small business or a

family, what they can actually sustain and give back or give more of net dollars

out of their revenue, there's only so much they can do. So at some point they

have to stop consuming, or stop those activities, or stop buying, or stop doing

those things that drive the economy.

This

right here is one of the key indicators when people look at: Here's the income I

have, here's what I need to do to run my family. I have kids in school, kids in

recreational activities. We may take a vacation a year; we may go to the parks.

We may do a whole bunch of things, but there's a lot of reflection that's gone

on in the past year in this province, in 17 months, since some of these taxes

and fees were brought in. People are making tough decision, hard decisions

related to employment.

One of

the scariest things for anybody here who's elected and looks at the future of

our province is when you get young families saying: Is this too much? Can I

sustain our family here? Can we still stay here? Can we still pay the fees? The

gas tax is one of these that keeps coming up and is causing huge pain and hurt

for many families. That becomes where they make the decision of: Can we stay

here? Can we continue to build a livelihood here under this tax and fee

structure that's been put forth on them? This being what we're talking about

today, one of the ones that is concerning to them.

Back in

2016 when the budget was announced, the hon. minister at the time talked about

the fact that they needed to do revenue generation and this was one component of

it, this gas tax. Through that, there was going to be a matching exercise that

looked at reduction in cost. This gas tax was part of that revenue stream.

Months after, it was supposed to be a process for looking at expenditure

reductions and there was going to be a second budget. Would the second budget

look at these taxes and fees? We weren't sure. We didn't know but we were all

looking forward to it.

Lo and

behold, we never had a second budget. We never had an update. We still don't

know why. Then we flowed into the fall where there was supposed to be more

updates. Then we flowed into the next budget of 2017 and we see here today that

out of the 300, we're going to get a small reduction here in this particular

part of it and the results of that and what's it been over the past number of

years.

It's

concerning, this bill. We're certainly pleased to see some of the reductions.

But I have to say, based on what we've seen and based on the predictions in

terms of what the activity was going to be in the economy and what the returns

on this was going to be to the Treasury, they haven't been met. That's

concerning because, then, that questions further projections and where we're

going. Is there validity in those? Can we expect those to be achieved?

It's not

only the gas tax component in terms of the revenue. That factors into the whole

envelope of the budget and the whole envelope of revenues. Obviously, there's a

whole spectrum of areas where any government raises revenue. So if one component

of it is not hitting a target or any component, then where is that extra money

coming from at the end of the year? You've laid out what you believe your

expenditures are going to be and you've laid out what your revenues are going to

be, and one of those are tied to this bill we're talking about today.

they're not hitting those revenue targets, and more concerning, if you have a

piece of taxation or a bill that we believe and I think last year's economic

indicator certainly demonstrates it in some way slowed the economy. So if it's

slowing the economy and you have a tax that's supposed to deliver revenue based

on a buoyant economy and you don't have that buoyant economy, you're not going

to hit your targets.

So the

actual taxation scheme or plan is a disincentive to the economy and you're not

even reaching your other targets. As we look forward to we hope, certainly,

the targets are attainable, but what we've seen to date on this, it's

questionable on whether indeed they will be attainable and we'll hit those

revenue targets that allow us to deliver the services that have been outlined in

the budget and meet the needs and services of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Madam

Speaker, I certainly appreciated my time in terms of speaking to this bill. I'm

sure we'll have lots of questions when we get into the Committee. I'm certainly

eager to hear what Members on both sides of the House have to say in regards to

this particular bill.

The

amendment to it we're pleased with. We think there's more that could be done. We

think a more expansive and innovative approach to terms of taxation, fees and

reduction in costs on a broad sense, coupled with key indicators of how they

would drive economic activity, tied to job growth and subsequently to things

like other revenues, whether it's personal or corporate income tax, business

tax, which is a more fulsome approach in terms of the economy and management.

Rather than saying we're going to inundate Newfoundland and Labrador with a

whole scheme of 300 taxes and fees, and at some point this year reduce it a bit,

but still really drown the economy and the stability of the economy by this

approach.

As I

said, I look forward to debate as we move into the days and weeks ahead.

Thank

you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):

The Speaker

recognizes the hon. Member for Bonavista.

MR. KING:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It's an

honour to stand here to speak to Bill 9,

An Act to Amend the Revenue

Administration Act. What this act does is reduces the gas tax that we have here

in Newfoundland and Labrador by 8.5 cents on June 1 and another 4 cents on

December 1. The further 4 cents will be reviewed in the fall fiscal update.

I'm just

going to read a couple of paragraphs that I presented to the Bonavista-Trinity

Regional Chamber of Commerce during the Easter break, during their AGM

As a

government, we faced many challenges in 2016, but while others would run from

them and pass the buck to future generations, we faced them head on, as

unpopular as they may have been. In October, our Liberal Government released

The Way Forward document, which is our

action plan to achieve a strong, diversified province with a high standard of

living. This is a three-phase approach where we just finished Phase 1: Securing

our Footing. We all know that government has a spending problem and that we're

addicted to oil, that has to change.

Budget 2016

was tough but necessary to shore up our fiscal footing; however, we realized

that everything couldn't be put on the backs of the Newfoundland and Labrador

taxpayer. That is why over the past six months we have taken measures to reduce

spending and support economic growth. We're going to make every dollar count and

account for every dollar.

I don't

think there's a better place in our province than the District of Bonavista to

support diversification and drive economic growth.

Budget 2017 will help do this and one thing we recognize is that we

need to give people more spending power. This is why we are reducing our gas tax

by 8.5 cents on June 1 and another 4 cents on December 1 with the other 4 cents

being evaluated in the fall fiscal update.

As well,

we will once again be investing $120 million in the Enhanced Seniors' Benefit

and Newfoundland and Labrador Income Supplement which supports low-income

seniors, families and individuals. These two initiatives will have a positive

impact on your businesses.

That's

just an excerpt of the speech that I gave the Chamber of Commerce back during

the Easter week. They certainly appreciated the comments I made. I talked about

agriculture, forestry, fishery, tourism and other initiatives that were

important to them.

When I

talked to my constituents last year, and I held two public meetings after

Budget 2016. I didn't hide away. I

faced the people head on. I firmly believe you have to do that. You have to

listen to people. One of the biggest concerns that I got through those town hall

meetings and throughout the year and said: If there's anything that we could

change right away, what would it be? The first thing that came out of everyone's

mouth was the gas tax. I made a commitment to those people to bring that

information back to caucus and I did time and time again, such as other Members

of the government caucus.

Budget 2016

wasn't the budget that we liked but it was a budget that we needed. I thank the

people in the District of Bonavista and the people in Newfoundland and Labrador

for standing with us and taking the brunt of this gas tax. It helped us get our

financial footing in order and now that we're able to reduce that tax, we're

going to do in June, December and, hopefully, with the remaining 4 cents

sometime in the near future.

What

also got announced in Budget 2017 is a

full tax review for taxation here in Newfoundland and Labrador. That's long

overdue, Madam Speaker. I look forward to the results of that because it could

lead to some very sweeping changes to our taxation here and certainly that would

be a benefit to, not only people in the province, but businesses, anyone who

wants to invest here as well.

That's

pretty much the gist of what I wanted to talk about. I know others will echo my

sentiment, but I'm glad that we're here debating Bill 9 where we'll see the

reduction of our gas tax and I fully support it.

Thank

you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The Speaker recognizes the

hon. Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Madam

Speaker.

I am

pleased to stand today and speak to Bill 9,

An Act to Amend the Revenue

Administration Act. Of course, as has been pointed out by the minister and

speakers previous to me, this has to do very specifically with a reduction in

gasoline tax, but the reduction is in a very particular gasoline tax which was

leveed by this government in the 2016 budget, the austerity budget they put in

place. This tax, the tax they brought in 2016, which was a 16.5 cent temporary

tax, was quite a regressive move along with so much else that was in the 2016

budget.

It's

very interesting; I know it was called temporary and it's good to know this

budget is reducing the tax that was put in place, but it's interesting to note

that they had great plans for the new tax they brought in and had estimated $328

million as the revenue from that tax, as has already been pointed out by my

colleague from the Official Opposition. The revision of their estimate was

actually $23 million lower.

We do

know there actually was a reduction in consumption by the motoring public

there was actually a reduction. I think the minister already noted that herself

a few months after the tax was imposed. So when it comes to that tax, Madam

Speaker, the proof is in the eating for sure because the fact that consumption

went down showed that people in this province were basically negatively affected

by that tax. They obviously were using their vehicles more carefully. They had

to probably not do things for pleasure, using their vehicles because of the

extra burden that had been laid on them.

So, yes,

I'm glad the 2017 budget is reducing that tax not removing it completely, but

reducing it. I'm glad of that, and obviously I'm going to vote for it, but I

think we need to look at the context in which this is happening and make some

important points about that context and ask some questions as well.

As we

know, and has been said already but I will repeat it, we'll actually get the

first reduction on June 1, in a couple of weeks, and that will be a reduction by

8.5 cents. Then on December 1, it will be another reduction of four cents, for a

total reduction in this year's budget of 12.5 cents. So there's still a

four-cent temporary tax on gas. We still have some tax that is still part of

that temporary tax, that is four cents.

Now,

government has said it is looking at reviewing the idea of dropping that four

cents as well as part of the 2017 fall fiscal and economic update, but I don't

put too much hope in fall updates. When I think of 2016, the government had

everybody geared up for their big fall, fiscal update, which basically gave us

nothing. So we'll see whether or not the 2017 fall fiscal update will drop the

rest of this temporary tax.

Now, the

government has said this reduction will be in conjunction with a comprehensive

independent review of the tax system this fiscal year. I have to say, I really

am looking forward to some information from government on the independent review

of our tax system, because we have a tax system that is becoming more and more

regressive with more and more dependence on consumer taxation, which is very,

very problematic.

We have

to look at that budget in the context, not just of taxes that are called taxes,

but also fees and levies. We do know the 2016 budget had 300 very unpopular

fees, onerous fees in some cases, and taxes and levies on the people of the

province. So I hope when the minister says there's going to be review of our

taxation system, that that review would include not just looking at the levies,

which are actually called taxes, and consumer taxation in particular, but also

look at all the other fees and levies which are out there, which are part of

taking money from people.

What we

need to see, I think, in doing your review is what is the impact of all of those

fees and levies, and how could the money the government takes from fees and

levies be incorporated into a progressive taxation system, not a regressive

taxation system, which we are definitely part of and which is getting worse.

This year there was nothing new, but 299 things remained. The only thing that's

being changed is this temporary tax. We still have 299 other taxes and fees and

levies that this government put on the backs of the people of the province.

Now, the

thing I'd like to broaden into is the context. I have to ask if government is

doing this in anticipation of a federal tax that is going to be imposed,

depending on other things that this government does. Liberal Prime Minister

Trudeau has said he will impose an 11 cent per litre federal gas tax if

provinces do not come up with their own scheme by 2020, their own scheme with

regard to carbon emissions. He's imposing it.

This

government has an agreement with the federal government, has accepted the

agreement with regard to the greenhouse gases and with regard to the federal

plan that's been put in place. Part of that is if the government doesn't come up

with their own scheme, their own gas tax or some scheme around gas tax by 2020,

then there will be an imposition by the federal government of 11 cent per litre

federal gas tax.

We have

to know, what is government's plan with regard to this carbon tax imposition?

They have said, I remember hearing them say, they've suggested in the media that

at least part of the increased gas tax they had in place in 2016, but which is

now being reduced, could be converted into a carbon tax to meet federal

government requirements.

remember the Minister of Service NL I think that was the minister who said

publicly that the government certainly would not want to have both provincial

gas taxes, especially the temporary one and an extra carbon tax on top. They

would find ways to make the federal government understand that the tax they've

put on could be something that could be considered into the whole scheme around

the carbon tax scheme.

I don't

know where that sits right now when you look at the fact that they are reducing

the temporary tax. But, you know, just as they put the tax on and now they're

reducing it, they could also make a decision again to increase that temporary

tax. So everything with this government, we just have to wait and see for a lot

of the things that they're doing.

I would

like to know, it would be good to know, where the government is standing with

regard to the carbon tax. What are they going to do between now and 2020? That's

just down the road. They have to plan for it. I would like to know if there's

any connection between the reductions of this tax in preparation for putting on

a carbon tax which is being imposed by the federal government.

I think

that this is an important question. The very fact that we seem to just accept

it, that carbon tax is the way to go when dealing with greenhouse gas emissions,

is another issue. I really do want to know where the government stands on this.

Everybody in the province is being affected by our cost of gas. As I said, that

certainly is obvious in the fact that consumption has gone down. Consumption is

lower than has been anticipated.

I'm sure

the people of the province also want to know where government is really sitting

with the whole carbon tax because if the carbon tax goes on and it's part of an

agreement with the federal government, it's not going to be something that this

government is going to be able to put in one budget and remove in another

budget. It's going to be there. The people of the province have been heavily hit

by the increase, as I've said, in taxes, fees and other levies heavily hit.

People

are being impacted. Our economy is going down. Our GDP is going down. All of

that is true, and as we've pointed out before, all of the indicators are there

that we are in a repression time when it comes to our economy. That's a fact.

At the

moment, this one little move will obviously help. How much it will help, I guess

we're going to have to wait to see as the year unfolds, the degree to which this

small move by government is going to help our economy and going to help the

people of the province.

Having

said all that, Madam Speaker, I may have some questions for the minister in

Committee. Having said all that, obviously, I am voting for the bill because it

is undoing something that shouldn't have happened in the first place.

Thank

you very much, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER:

The Speaker recognizes the

hon. Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It's a

pleasure to speak to a bill that's going to amend the

Revenue Administration Act , one of which we will see a reduction in

gas tax by 8.5 cents per litre starting June 1, plus the HST that would be added

to that. So that's almost 10 cents, it's 9.8 cents per litre that consumers will

see relief in just a couple of weeks which is very important. As well, further

relief will happen on December 1 of another four cents per litre.

This was

a temporary measure. We have reviewed where we are financially as a province. We

are meeting our targets. It's very clear that we have a plan to get back to

surplus. This was one of the measures that we had to put in place last year to

deal with the financial situation of the province. As we have the ability to

act, we are doing so and giving back to consumers.

I want

to say, too, there are other aspects of the bill that deal with Labrador and the

Labrador border. I will leave it to my colleague, the Member for Labrador West,

to address those.

I want

to say, though, the Member opposite, when she talked about consumer and consumer

behaviour; I think consumption is an important issue when you talk about

consumption. Any type of temporary measure or a gasoline tax that exists and

they exist in all provinces across the country. Quebec has over a 20-cent

gasoline tax and it varies from province to province and other jurisdictions.

Some

jurisdictions have implemented a carbon tax as the Member opposite is talking

about. When you look at implementing a temporary measure and if it drives local

behaviour to reduce consumption of fossil fuels, that's not necessarily a bad

thing. As well, there's more effort being placed on people looking at the

choices they make about having more fuel-efficient vehicles, more vehicles that

are environmentally friendly, as well as vehicles that don't use fossil fuels

and gasoline such as those that are using the electric charge.

We have

a minister here that's using an electric vehicle. We talked about yesterday in

the House. The Member for Mount Pearl North advised of a business that's there

in Mount Pearl that's Green Rock. They have charging stations.

There

are different things that are happening; more effort and investment from the

federal government around enhancing public transportation. We're seeing where

bus service is looked at being added at the airport and other areas of Paradise

and growing communities. These are positive things that are happening. As the

minister responsible for industry here in this province, I want to talk about

that we're cognizant when we make decisions and the impact that it will have on

business and industry here in the province.

There

was a rebate that remained for loggers, for the fishers, for farmers, for

manufacturing and processing, for transportation by boat, locomotive, and other

measures that existed so that those industry players would get the full

temporary gas tax which was 33 cents per litre back. They could apply

through the Department of Finance for that mechanism.

I also

want to point out that from a tourism point of view when this temporary gas tax

was put into place, people were saying: You're going to drive away tourists here

in this province; people are going to cancel their trips, their vacations and

their bookings. That didn't happen.

Despite

the doom and gloom from Members of the NDP and the PC caucus, we saw the busiest

year at the St. John's airport driven by tourism; 836,000 passengers. The

busiest year in the 70-year history of the airport was during the summer season

last year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. MITCHELMORE:

The temporary gas measure did

not drive or detract from tourists coming to our province.

As well,

Deer Lake Airport: busiest August in its history, 50,000 passengers. They broke

a record. Marine Atlantic last year saw over 100,000 non-resident visitors

coming by rubber tire traffic. That's year over year, two years, for the first

time in 20 years have we have had over 100,000 non-resident passenger traffic.

It shows

that people are coming to Newfoundland and Labrador. They want our product. They

want our experiences. They want our unique offering of our people, our culture

and our place, and tourism is driving and stimulating that. There are good

things that are happening in the economy despite what Members opposite would

like to think.

I'm very

pleased to support this bill, this legislation that's coming forward. I would

say the onus is on all of us to support a bill that is going to reduce the

gasoline tax by 8.5 cents here in this province on June 1, plus the HST, which

is almost 10 cents per litre in just a couple of weeks; another four cents on

December 1, plus the HST there.

You're

going to see a significant reduction in gasoline tax, which is good on the basis

that it's going to allow for people, from a consumption point of view, to do

more travel. We also want to be cognizant that we want people to be cautious of

the fuels they are using and how they use and how they spend when it comes to

travel, from a fossil fuel point of view. It is the responsible thing to do.

Seeing a

reduction in consumer or local demand is not necessarily an indication of what's

happening in the overall economy. I think this is a good thing, this is very

positive and I would say the onus is on all of us to support this piece of

legislation to reduce the temporary gas tax. It was a temporary measure. It was

something we said we'd look at and do as the financial situation of the province

improved.

Things

are improving. We have a very strong team here led by our Premier, our Finance

Minister, our team of Cabinet and our caucus that are feeding in to helping the

economy of Newfoundland and Labrador thrive.

Thank

you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The Speaker recognizes the

hon. Member for Mount Pearl Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I'm

certainly pleased once again to stand and speak to Bill 9. I will say, first of

all, obviously I'm supporting this bill; obviously all Members are supporting

this bill.

I'm not

going to give the government any pat on the back because they're the ones who

put all these taxes in place to begin with. I'm glad they're going to reduce at

least one of them. I will add this is the only one, but that is happening

nonetheless and we are going to see a decrease of 8 cents in June and another

four cents on December 1.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Plus HST.

MR. LANE:

Plus HST, as the minister

pointed out. Interesting, he throws in the HST to make it seem bigger now, but

at the time when the tax was added didn't want to talk about the HST. They only

talked about 16 cents. When we were talking about almost 20 cents, they were

saying what are you talking about, 20 cents, it's 16 cents. So we were saying

no, no, it's 16 cents and HST on top of that.

They

didn't want to talk about that but when we're going the old reverse, now all of

a sudden we're going to throw in the HST. He is being accurate but I wish we

could be accurate when we're debating both sides of the equation, not just the

one that suits them.

I would

say as well, Madam Speaker, the minister just spoke about the benefits of this

exercise. I have to say that the argument I believe the general public are

listening. I think they would feel that those arguments were pretty weak when he

talks about increasing this gas tax on people in Newfoundland and Labrador. That

was a good thing, because now more people are taking the bus. That was a good

thing, because now people have electric vehicles.

I'm not

sure who has electric vehicles. The Minister of Service NL does, but I'm not

sure who else has one. I don't know anybody else. Maybe there are a few people.

People can't even afford a regular vehicle, let alone electric vehicles. There

are certainly no used electric vehicles out there, I don't think. I have to say

that was a bit of a stretch but I'll give it to him for at least throwing it out

there. He did throw it out there and good for him for trying to defend the

indefensible, I would say, Madam Speaker.

Now,

Madam Speaker, when we talk about the gas tax, and, of course, this was one in

many taxes which I guess were thrown upon the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador last year. This has had a major impact. It has had a major impact and,

as has been said now by my colleagues in the NDP and the Official Opposition,

consumption is down. The numbers are there. Consumption is down, and consumption

is down for a reason.

I'm

going to just give you one example. This is an individual who lives in my

district, a couple. This is a retired couple. They are ordinary folk; they're on

a fixed income. They have very little expendable income to begin with. They're

not in a position to be able to go down to Florida for a couple of months to get

away from the snow and so on. They don't have that ability. They're on a fixed

income and they just don't have it.

In their

retirement days they get a little bit of pleasure out of life, I suppose, in

terms of they are involved in their community, very much involved in their

community. They're involved with our seniors' organizations. They're involved

with the sporting community. They're involved with the volunteer community. They

told me, they said: Paul, you know, when you talk about the gas tax, this is how

it impacts us. The one little thing we look forward to on a Sunday afternoon is

to get aboard our car and drive over to Bay Roberts.

They

usually go up through the old Conception Bay Highway and they go up to Bay

Roberts and Carbonear and whatever. They said we usually might stop at Fong's or

something like that and have lunch or whatever the case might be. That's our one

little thing we like to do on a Sunday afternoon.

Well,

that's been taken away from us. The ability to do that is gone. That was the one

little bit of enjoyment we got, that's gone. Now, I'm not saying we'll never be

able to do it, but we used to do it probably in the summertime they'd do it

every Sunday or every second Sunday. They said, now we might get to do it once

or twice over the whole summer, because we legitimately can't afford to pay the

gas. On top of the insurance and everything else, we can't afford to do that.

Obviously, if they're not doing that, then their consumption so when we're

talking about consumption being down, that's why consumption is down because

there are so many people who are in that same boat.

Now,

yes, there are lots of people in my district, I can guarantee you, who live over

in the Southlands area and Admiralty Wood and so on, they haven't change their

habits. They're still driving and doing everything they always did, for the most

part, because they have that extra expendable income and they're going to

continue on.

Their

attitude is we don't like the extra taxes but I'm able to suck it up. I have to,

I have no choice. I'm certainly not going to sit around the house all day and

not do things like I did, not take the kids here and there or whatever because

of the gas tax. I'll do it. People have to go to work and so on. No choice there

and they're not prepared to take the bus. That's reality.

We can

talk about buses and all that all we want, and I'm not saying that buses are a

bad thing and they're used more in other provinces and so on, but a lot of

people, you can put as many buses there as you like, they're just not doing it.

They want the convenience of getting aboard their car and going where they want

to, when they want to go and not be waiting, not having to go circling around

through different neighbourhoods to get where they're going. They're going to

take the car.

There's

no doubt, a lot of it's going to happen anyway. People will begrudgingly pay the

extra gas tax, but the people on the lower end of the scale are the ones who

couldn't afford it. As a result, the consumption is down.

When

you're looking at gas tax, or any tax for that matter, you have to bear in mind

those things. There is a tipping point, and the trick is finding that balance

because there's a tipping point. There's a point where you could increase the

gas tax or you could increase the HST or you could increase other taxes to a

point where people are able to suck it up, so to speak, but they will still

continue with their habits.

Once you

go too far, then all of a sudden people can't continue with their habits. All

you're doing is you're penalizing people who can least afford it and, at the end

of the day, you're not getting the revenues you projected you were going to get

because people couldn't use their vehicle. So all you did was tax people to

death for nothing, to some degree. You might have gained a little bit but you

didn't gain near as much as you thought you would because you went too far.

That was

what we were saying from the very beginning on

Budget 2016. It was a matter of how far it went. It was a matter of

degrees. We felt it went too far and that it would impact people.

Now,

we've seen the taxi industry (inaudible) talk about gas tax the taxi

industry. We see the issues they have. Now, I know their biggest issue is

insurance, which is brutal in itself, and I really hope we can work to,

hopefully, make some changes to the insurance system for sure, but another

factor in it for them is the gas.

Not only

are they getting hit with high insurance, not only are they getting hit with 2

per cent extra HST every time they get repairs on their taxi cabs and they buy

windshield wash, antifreeze, windshield wipers and do repairs, but they're also

getting hit by the gas. These are people that are working, in a lot of cases I

don't know if you know any taxi drivers. I know a number of them and, man, they

work an awful lot of hours just to survive. They're not making any big money.

Maybe the owner of the stand, of the business who has 100 or 200 brokers working

for them, they're doing fine I'm sure, but the average person who just is

taxiing with their own car, they're just barely struggling as it is and this

made it worse for them.

We also

look at the impact that it would have on goods and services. We all know when we

start increasing these taxes, other goods and services are going to go up. I did

hear the minister talk about for certain industries they could get a rebate.

That's a good thing, but not every industry, every business is getting that and

they're going to pass it on. That's just reality; they're going to pass it on.

And when they pass it on, who do they pass it on to? They pass it on to the

consumer. They pass it on to the same person who is hit with all the other

taxes. Now they're going to be paying more for goods and services because

businesses are going to pass that expense on. They're not going to absorb it,

the taxpayer will.

I'm very

glad to hear the minister talk about tourism and that tourism numbers were good.

I'm glad to hear that. We all are. Sure we are. It's fantastic, actually. I

don't doubt his numbers but I guess that's fine for people who are coming to the

province. In terms of staycations, I wonder how many residents who look forward

to taking their family out to Terra Nova for a holiday or out to Gros Morne or

whatever

MR. HOLLOWAY:

(Inaudible.)

MR. LANE:

I say to the Member for Terra

Nova, I spent many, many a summer, year over year, with my family when they were

growing up, in your district in Eastport and all of that. It's a beautiful spot

beautiful.

I was up

to the Northern Peninsula last year. First time there it was only my second

time, I think, ever there. My dad was from the Northern Peninsula, born in

Englee. I was up there last year and absolutely spectacular. I can see why

people want to travel that district because it's an absolutely beautiful

product; pristine.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Good roads.

MR. LANE:

The roads weren't great, I

have to say. He said good roads; the roads weren't great. I hope they're in the

plan. I haven't seen the roads plan. I'm not sure. I hope some of them are in

there because they do need work, but a beautiful area.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Did you go across on the

Apollo ?

MR. LANE:

No, I didn't go across on the

Apollo .

AN HON. MEMBER:

Are you going to Burin

Grand Bank?

MR. LANE:

Planning on going to Burin

Grand Bank this summer.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. LANE:

Yeah, a beautiful area.

Although I was there with the Member for Placentia West about a year ago, we

were down in that area, down to the we were in Marystown.

There's

no doubt we have a beautiful tourism product here to offer, there's no doubt,

and I'm glad the message is getting out. There's no doubt that all the work

that's been done on those ads, commercials and other initiatives that have been

taken by the former administration, and this administration as well, that we are

getting more tourism. That's an excellent thing. I think there's going to be

more opportunity to get even more tourists. I think the key now is to try to

enhance tourism in the winter and the shoulder seasons and so on. That's really

where we need to go, I believe, for sure.

In terms

of the gas tax, while it's not preventing those people obviously it didn't

I wonder does it prevent people within the province from taking those

excursions around the bay, if you will, which is good for all the districts and

all the towns. We all know a lot of the towns in Newfoundland and Labrador

really some more than others. I know the Terra Nova District and I'll just

use an example, Eastport, Traytown, that area rely very, very heavily in the

summer months in particular on tourism, because they have so many cabins and a

beautiful sandy beach. They have a lot there to offer and the location is pretty

good. It's only an hour and a half, a couple of hours out of town.

I wonder will that impact those towns in that area in terms

of people not travelling from, say, the Greater St. John's area, not going there

because of things such as the gas tax? I hope it doesn't have an impact but I

have a feeling it is having some impact for sure. Madam Speaker, really what

we're talking about here is a ripple effect that the gas tax has had, and

particularly combined with the other taxes.

I am glad. I will end off by saying once again that I am

glad to hear that we will now be

seeing a reduction in the gas tax at least. That's a good thing. It's obviously

something that we're all going to support.

I hope

that as time goes on it won't be going on now, I wouldn't think, in this

sitting of the House, but I certainly hope in the not too distant future we'll

see some movement on some other things, perhaps the levy comes to mind as one.

Hopefully, we'll see some movement on some other things as well that will

relieve the burden that's been placed on the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

As I

said, I will support this bill, Bill 9, because it does relieve that pressure,

at least, to some degree. Hopefully, as times goes by, like I said, we'll see

more.

Thank

you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

Speaker recognizes the hon. Member for Labrador West.

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I feel

honoured to be able to rise here this morning and speak on Bill 9, which is a

very important measure that our government is taking to reduce the burden on

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Do you

know what? We're not ignorant enough on this side to believe that the measures

we brought in during Budget 2016

weren't hurtful to the people. Of course they were. That's not something we

wanted to do, but when you're faced with a $2.2 billion deficit, you cannot

allow the province to continue down that road. They're measures that had to be

taken.

One of

them was a gas tax and we said it when we implemented that, that it was a

temporary gas tax. Here we are today, honouring that commitment. It is temporary

and we're reducing it in the next few months by 12 cents down from 16 cents.

Yes, of

course, people felt the hurt from increased taxes, not only in gas tax but any

tax that's increased is not good for the people, but, in fact, neither is a

bankrupt province, Madam Speaker, good for the people. So there were measures

that had to be taken. They were drastic measures and here we are today trying to

give some relief to the people of the province from those measures that we put

in place.

Madam

Speaker, I want to bring it a little closer to home and include your district in

this as well, at least the southern part of the District of Cartwright L'Anse

au Clair and the District of Labrador West, who, by the way, when you talk about

gas prices, the people in Labrador have always paid the highest gas prices.

When we

think of Labrador today, we certainly have to think about what's happening in

Lake Melville area with Mud Lake people. They've been evacuated from the

community. We pray and hope that everybody is safe and that the damage is

limited to their properties. It is unfortunate at this time of the year these

things are prone to happen.

I know

the Minister of Service NL, the minister who represents Lake Melville, is on his

way there. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment who's responsible

for Fire and Emergency Services has been on the air this morning explaining to

the people what's happening and all our resources have been deployed. We're

doing what we can to help the people of Mud Lake. We wish them well and hope

that they all stay safe.

Madam

Speaker, I just want to touch on the border zones. Now, as you know, when you

talk about gas prices in Labrador, my colleague the Member for Torngat

Mountains, when you're talking about capping it at $1.55 a litre, you have to

put that in perspective. We are talking about you go from the Avalon to that

part of the province; it's quite a disparity in the price of gasoline.

applaud the government, and I applaud the minister and Cabinet, when they were

implementing these measures around the gasoline tax, they took into

consideration that there are parts of this province, namely Labrador West and

your District of Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, that are bordering on the

Province of Quebec. There comes an issue of, I guess, competition and being able

to go across the border and get things a lot cheaper.

I know

when this happened they took this into consideration. No different than what has

been done with the tobacco tax. When you talk about the zone of Labrador West,

you're, of course, talking about Labrador City and Wabush. When you're talking

about Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, the southern part, you're talking about from

L'Anse au Clair up to and including the community of Red Bay.

When you

look at the 16 cents, if you put that on to those areas, when you can drive

like in the case of L'Anse au Clair and that area three kilometres or four

kilometres, you can get gas for 16 cents cheaper, you know what was going to

happen. You were going to destroy the entrepreneurs that are in that region

trying to make a living.

So we

implemented a subsidy, a rebate, I guess you can call it. No different than we

did with tobacco tax when we brought in 16 cents, that limited it to 4 cents.

Here we are today, we're lowering that. It's 10 cents or 6 cents rather than

4 cents.

Today,

we are looking at a bill here that reduces the rebate or the gas tax by 8 cents

which means that the rebate now in the border zones will be 1 cents until

December. When the gas tax is further reduced by another four cents in December,

then the rebate disappears so that everybody across the province then will be

paying the same gas tax. That's 20 cents per litre.

Madam

Speaker, in the case of our border zones, that still makes us very competitive

with the cross-border shopping and gasoline price in Quebec. The Quebec tax is

21 cents per litre and we'll actually be at 20.5 cents. When you include the HST

in that, it makes it even more, but we become very competitive then. We remain

competitive with the Quebec border crossing area in those regions.

I think

it's very methodical that this has been done, taken into consideration and still

being realistic about the financial situation of the province. We're not out of

the woods yet but we have reduced the deficit from $2.2 billion, when we

implemented this, to just around $780 million today. Obviously, with the

measures that we've put in and the other not only the tax increases but all

the measures that we've put in are working.

I've

gotten up in this House a couple of times now and mentioned what the C. D. Howe

Institute has put forward. They confirm that the measures that we've taken are

working and we are being accountable. In fact, they've raised our accountability

rating from E in 2015-'16 to B last year. We're doing things right. We're being

very prudent and we're being very responsible.

As the

financial situation improves, of course, we'll be looking at other measures that

we can to ease the burden on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Of course we

will. That's what this government is all about. But until we get our fiscal

house in order, we just can't sell the farm, we have to still be responsible and

prudent.

Madam

Speaker, that's about all I wanted to say on this bill. I think it's a very good

bill. The fact that we can implement this bill so early in our mandate after

what we were faced with on December 1, 2015, when we were faced with the minimum

of a $2.2 billion deficit, and to be able to start giving relief less than two

years later speaks well of the measures that we've done and the work that we've

done and the work that we've done as a government to get our fiscal house in

order.

Madam

Speaker, thank you very much for the time. I look forward to getting support of

all the Members of this House on this very important bill today one that will

help Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It's

good to get up to speak on this bill, Bill 9, reducing the gas tax by 8.5 cents

in June and another further 4 cents in December. We're pleased that this tax is

being reduced, obviously. Any reduction of any of these 300 taxes and fees that

were introduced in Budget 2016 it is

always good to see some reduction. We would have liked to have seen more taxes

and fees reduced, obviously, as most of the public would because any tax,

especially this gas tax, it has had huge impact on our economy, on our different

sectors and on just the general population, especially the middle class, Madam

Speaker.

If you

take everything in context, I guess the gas tax as a MHA for the district I

represent and Member of the House, it was one of the most talked about taxes of

all the taxes and fees, the 300 we had. It was one of the most talked about

taxes that people actually expressed frustration to me about.

On that

note, that's the good part, we're seeing some reduction, but it's still there.

We still have 300 fees and taxes and it's still having a negative impact on our

economy. You talk to a lot of business owners I know I've talked to numerous

ones in my own district. I guess a combination of all the taxes and fees had a

negative impact little by little, but, ironically, the gas tax appeared to have

one of the biggest impacts, they actually started to notice. Now, whether that

was the proverbially straw that broke the camel's back, I do not know, but,

ironically, that's the tax that people keep mentioning to me the most, among

others, but that one always seems to arise.

Generally, it's a good thing to see any reduction. We would rather not see any

of these or a lot less of these fees and taxes that we put on the backs of our

taxpayers, the hard-working people in our province that struggle to survive,

that were having trouble surviving without any of these taxes and fees.

You look

at a family that was struggling to make ends meet prior to

Budget 2016 . Then with this extra burden placed on them, you can

only imagine what that's done to the family model and trying to make ends meet

in this climate.

When you

look at the gas tax, that was a 16.5, plus HST, that went directly on gas right

at the pump. As we know, in today's society everybody drives. I know in my

district, for argument's sake, I don't have public transportation. There are no

bus routes. It's either taxi, friends, family or have your own vehicle.

Obviously, I would say the majority if not all not all, obviously, but a high

percentage of my constituents drive. They have their own vehicles. They have no

choice; they have no other options. It's the only way they can afford to get to

their medical appointments and what have you.

Most

everything is in St. John's. If anyone is not sure, CBS is only 20 minutes

outside of the city so most of our commercial activity and most people who work

commute to St. John's. This has had a significant impact on my own district and

I'm sure a lot of other Members, my colleagues and the Members across the way.

Once again, I'll reiterate that it is a good thing to see some reduction.

A couple

of Members opposite acknowledged that this tax did hurt the economy; it did have

an impact on individuals, which is true. It's good to see they acknowledge that.

The only thing that jumped at me when I heard a few Members opposite say that

was, why would you take credit for it now, reducing something that hurt our

economy and hurt individual's ability to be able to pay their own bills, to be

able to operate in our society?

I guess

you take credit for something you shouldn't have done last year. There have to

be some small wins for everyone. That's how that's being portrayed across the

way.

The

Minister of Tourism, Culture, innovation and I always struggle with the name

so apologies for that TCII, got up. I heard him say it several times and I

had the opportunity to spend numerous years in that department in my previous

life, so I do have a fairly solid grasp on the tourism industry and how it

works.

He was

talking about the record number of visitors in our airports and what have you

last year. That's a result of 2015. Tourism was always that year behind so the

effects of the 2016 budget will come out in the data following this tourism

season. People plan a year ahead. Most of the stuff, the numbers, the trip

planner thing, they've done that in 2015 or 2016 and what have you.

The

record numbers that have shown up, that's good to hear. It's always good to see

visitors come to the province. Our tourism industry is a thriving industry and

it's great to see we have a record number of visitors. We applaud that and the

more the merrier. We think that's a wonderful thing.

I don't

think there's any need of taking credit for the record numbers of people showing

up based on this economic decision that's been made across the way, especially

this gas tax. I guess if he's applauding the record numbers, he needs to thank

the former administration for the benefits that this current administration

seems to be seeing with the travellers. It's always a year back and I wanted to

point that out.

Madam

Speaker, we've seen in the news this past week with the taxi industry and

insurance rates but, obviously, that's one piece that's being dealt with and

worked on. There's been a lot of back and forth on it and in the public media.

You're looking at they're struggling to pay their insurance. The gas tax; you

can imagine what effect that 16.5 plus HST has had on their day-to-day

operations because, as we all know, that's their lifeline. Obviously, it's a

huge cost to each individual taxi owner and cab company with the price of gas.

That's

hurt them, obviously. It's hurt the middle class, so much so even the food on

our shelves everything in our province, being on an island, as we all know,

it's trucked in here, it's shipped in here. Most of it is trucked across the

Island from Port aux Basques, so that additional gas tax does reflect on the

store shelves. That does reflect in what goods we buy, merchandise we buy and

furniture we buy. It all has an impact. Everything is always added on. As their

costs go up, our costs go up.

As a

consumer and a resident of the province, as most of us are, we're paying it at

the pump and we're also paying it when we go to buy a new piece of furniture and

we go to the grocery store. Again, I'll say to take credit for reducing it,

well, that's fair enough. I understand the politics of that. You have to score

some you have to find a win. I'll reiterate again that we are content to see

some reduction in this tax. I think it was one of those taxes that could have

been probably thought out better, could have been a better way around.

We know

you're trying to generate revenue. I just think it was one of those taxes of the

300 that there could have been more alternatives found to find that revenue

because that one really has had a negative impact. It continues. It's still

there; it's just less of a tax. On that note, we're going to have 12 cents

removed; we still have four cents left, which if anyone has been paying

attention to the carbon tax topic that will be our new carbon tax thereabouts,

roughly.

I think

everyone is accepting of that fact because they know it's coming. Now, I'm not

so sure, I still think that's an argument for another day and I've made it many

times in the House. There's an element of: Should we have to pay that four

cents? Aren't we already paying our fair share on a carbon tax in the province?

I'm not

sure how people will react to a portion of this former gas tax becoming a carbon

tax at the gas pumps because I'm sure that's what's coming. I've said many times

that will be a new tax. This tax was introduced as a temporary gas tax,

temporary revenue-generating measure, but if you leave a portion of that four to

five cents on the gas, that will become a permanent tax. Realistically, we still

have 300 taxes and fees; although less, it's still there and it's still going to

have an impact on our individuals of the province.

I'll say

again, the middle class, high-income earners no one likes to see extra fees

and taxes or extra costs, they can absorb it. When you have the middle class,

a family of four two children, working, making average wages, it's a real

struggle to survive in this world.

Before

we had these fees and taxes, our economy was on fire. The cost of goods and

services are increasing, the cost of building a home everyone has seen the

cost has risen across the board. They were struggling as it was. Then, we

introduced this gas tax which, like I say, is putting an immense burden on our

middle class mostly. Middle-and low-income earners are struggling anyway and

this hasn't been good.

When we

speak of the gas tax, like I said about our store shelves, your trucking

industry, our fishing industry; we always talk about our fishing industry. That

has an effect on each individual fisherman. Everyone uses gas.

As I

said, it's not a luxury in Newfoundland to have a vehicle, it's almost a

necessity. We don't live in compressed areas where you can hop on a bus or you

walk around the block and you're at where you need to be. The geography of

Newfoundland prohibits or it makes it almost impossible not to have some sort of

transportation of your own. With that comes this extra cost.

You look

at your fishing industry; look at agriculture, another industry that we're I

give credit. The Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources is working to grow our

agricultural industry and I'm generally supportive of that. My community,

Conception Bay South, was always founded on agriculture. As opposed to a lot of

Members, the fishery was the foundation. Agriculture was always the foundation

in Conception Bay South and it still is to a lesser degree today.

You look

at all your farmers. They use gas, obviously. Again, it just affects every

industry, affects every single person. When you bring in a tax of this nature,

if some more thought could have gone into it I've talked to people that said

we could have adjusted probably with the income tax rates and adjusted on the

high-income earners, the middle, and done some tinkering to generate the

revenue.

It's

fine to say get rid of the gas tax but government is saying we need the revenue.

My argument is as an alternative, there was a way to find that other revenue and

it could have been done with less impact and less obvious impact. I'll go to the

middle-class and low-income earners again, if it would have been done

exponentially based on your income, you would have gotten the revenue and it

wouldn't have had that impact at the gas pumps.

When you

say 16.5 cents, in essence, it's almost 20 cents when you add HST. As my

colleague for Ferryland pointed out when he spoke earlier, we filibustered here.

We read email after email after email, and a lot of people had a real, huge

problem. I know Members opposite, when I say it I don't if they listened to them

all, but we read a lot of emails and lot of them had great concerns over this

gas tax.

saying that, the tax is still there. It's less, and it will never totally be

eliminated because it will go from that to be a carbon tax. So it's still an

issue and, like I said, we still have our 300 taxes and fees. I'll say it again:

The gas tax was by far the most discussed tax increase out of the 300.

I'm glad

to see there is a reduction. I would have liked to have seen a better plan in

place when the tax was introduced to find another alternate means to generate

this revenue that wouldn't have had the impact it had on each and every

individual in the province.

Thank

you very much, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER:

The Speaker recognizes the

hon. Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Madam

Speaker.

Again,

it's a privilege to get up here to represent the beautiful people from the

District of Cape St. Francis.

First of

all, before I start to speak about the gas tax today, I'd like to just say my

thoughts and prayers are with the people out in Mud Lake. I know Members from

Labrador, they're majorly concerned. The minister representing that area is gone

down to see if he can do any assistance at all.

I heard

earlier today the Minister of Municipal Affairs saying Fire and Emergency

Services are there. Our thoughts are with those people today. I know there are

some people evacuated. Please God, there are no injuries or anybody gets hurt

and people get back safely to their homes.

We're

all people of a great province, and Newfoundland and Labrador is that great

province. I just wanted to say that before I start off this morning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. K. PARSONS:

Madam Speaker, reducing the

gas tax is a great thing. It's a great thing. Any time we can put money back

into the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and relate I guess what

it is you're relieving burdens that they find every day in their lives.

When

people look at a person's health and people will tell you this all the time,

stress is a huge thing. Stress that people have in their lives can cause so much

havoc. And I don't know, I'm not a doctor or anything like that, but I know my

mom was a public health nurse. She always used to say stress was a killer just

like cancer or anything else because people really find it hard sometimes to get

by. If this takes a bit of stress off the people that are there finding it

really hard today, I hope it does because that's what we have to do, is make

sure we do the best we can for the people of the province.

When we

go back to last year's budget, we look at last year's budget and there were some

300 fee increases and 50 new fees added. That was a lot of stress added to a lot

of people. The comment I heard more so than any other comment was: It was too

much, too hard. Too hard on people to be able to absorb the bulk of what the

government was trying to do.

The

minister said it even this year in her statement and I get up every time I

talk on the budget I talk about it how it's reaching in the pockets of average

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That's what was done last year because the

total amount to the average family last year, when it comes to what the fees and

the new costs, whether it's income tax or anything, was approximately $6,000 per

family. That's a lot of money and it's a lot of stress on families and

everything else.

It's

good; I have to say it's good. I would love to see the increases that were done

last year all of them reduced. To be realistic, we know that couldn't be done,

but there are some things we can do to take away the stress that's on every

family in this province.

The gas

tax is a tax that affects a lot of people. It affects so many, a different

variety of people. Sometimes you don't see it until you talk to people in

construction industries and you talk to people who are in different industries

where gas is used a lot.

The

other day we had taxicab drivers in here. I met with them also. I asked them a

question; I asked them point blank, if your cost is going up so much, well,

obviously you're going to have to put it on to the consumers. They said, no, if

we put this on to consumers consumers just can't afford to pay for it, so they

won't use it. They'll drive impaired. They'll leave and go this way and they

won't use our services. So we have to stay in that consistent rate.

I looked

at that and said, yes, you're right on. It's an expense, but then there's also

I'm sure the trucking industry and people that use the trucking industry, and

they all got families.

When you

look at small business, small business may employ 20 employees but overall, the

effect they have on the economy could be up to 100 employees. Businesses that

are shutting down and businesses that are finding it hard to survive in this

economy, they're finding it hard because they are paying out so much money.

Even the

other day, I know there were some questions asked here in the House of Assembly

on bankruptcies. As far as I know, I think it was 30 per cent this year or last

year; 30 per cent more bankruptcies in the province God, that seems to me to

be a hard number.

That's a

number that's not just affecting the big businesses. That's not affecting the

Walmarts or the Sears or the Sobeys or any of those. A lot of that is just

affecting a lot of families, homes, people who can't afford to pay for what they

had before, their vehicles, their home or whatever.

I don't

know, but I would imagine that's the last resort, bankruptcy is for a person.

When they realize they get to that much stress in their life, like I said

earlier about stress, they get that much stress in their life they have to go

and declare bankruptcy.

Once

small businesses leave our communities I come from a very small community,

1,400 people, but every time you turn around in that community and look for

somebody to sponsor a softball team or donate to a senior's party or donate to

anything and everyone over on the other side will know what I'm talking about,

because we can't survive without small businesses in our community. Not because

they employ people, because they do, not because they pay taxes in their

communities and they do, and keep our tax rates going, but because they support

our communities.

They're

the ones when we have a fireman's ball, and you need a few prizes, that the

volunteer fire department calls upon. When you have a senior's party at

Christmastime and you want to give out a few prizes, those are the people that

will come through every time.

Small

business this tax, the gas tax itself, the effect it has on small business is

unbelievable, because they don't work on margins that are millions of dollars.

They work on margins that are enough to pay they have to make sure they have

their bills paid and they have groceries on their tables during that month.

Not only

that, I spoke the other day to a company in my community, it was a roofing

company. He employs probably 10 or 12 people during the summer months and is

very busy. Every year he is flat out busy all the time. When I spoke to him the

other day he told me: Kev, it's going to be hard; it's going to be really hard.

I said how are you doing with it. He said this is going to be the worst year

ever, I can see it coming. He said construction is way down, people are not

building houses. The people who are trying to do renovations on their houses

have to make a big decision because they don't have the funds to do what they

wanted to do. So if somebody is going to shingle a roof, they said my shingles

are 25 years old, I should replace them this year, but if I don't have the money

I can't do it.

That's

what these taxes and fees have done to people. It's great that the gas tax is

coming down. It's great, it's good news. I listened to a Member earlier today

it's 8.5 and the minister apparently said it's 10, but there was a 20 cent

increase on our gas tax last year. That was a lot. I tell you, when you look at

the bankruptcies

AN HON. MEMBER:

Plus the HST.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Plus the HST, but when you at

the bankruptcies and what it's done to small business and the biggest thing

that any tax, and we listened to it when we were on that side of the House I

listened to Members, and I always listen to Members. I listen to everybody and

what they have to say in this House of Assembly, and it's important that we do

because everybody has a point of view. It should be expressed and it should be

listened to.

When we

were on the other side of the House we were told you can't increase taxes. You

can't do that. It's a job killer. Well, you did it and you saw the effects. You

saw the effects that these taxes and fees have had on the people. The numbers

don't lie.

Our

unemployment rate is the highest it ever was. We have more bankruptcies than

ever before. We have small business and like I said, small business is the

heart and soul of our communities are struggling. There are a lot of people

struggling.

I think

most politicians and most people in this House come to represent their

constituents, to make sure that if there's anything we can do for them, the

hardships they find, maybe there's some relief that we can get them. I know the

relief is coming through this gas tax relief and that's good, but I don't think

it's enough.

I think

the budget should have gone further this year to give people: our seniors,

people on fixed incomes, people with disabilities, people who are really

struggling out there they were looking for a break in this budget. They were

looking for a break, not only in gas tax; they were looking for a break on

over-the-counter drugs. They were looking for a break on insurance.

The

insurance is as far as I know we're the only province in Canada paying that

tax. I think Saskatchewan has a tax but the government subsidizes it to a large

tune. It's the effect that it's having on so many different individuals in our

province. Again, it goes back to taking too much and doing too much and hitting

people too hard. That's what last year's budget did. This year's budget, while

there is a little bit of relief, a small bit of relief, it's not enough.

Madam

Speaker, I look at students and I watched lately what's happening with students.

My two are not students anymore, but I can imagine when they were going to

school and they got their first cars. I tell you, dad put a lot of gas in those

cars to try and get them back and forth and make sure that they had to do it. I

know the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island is agreeing with me

because it's a huge expense, but the extra cost of the gasoline last year, the

extra cost of the high prices that we're paying for gas now makes it difficult

to do other things that you want to do for them. It makes it difficult for

families to do that investment.

Today,

they need the transportation to get back and forth to college or get to trade

school or university or whatever. Or most of them today, I know young people

today I look at the young Pages here in front of me now have that job. They

work hard for their money and they have to pay the taxes too. It has a big

effect on young people too, because there's so much more they want to do.

believe it all comes back to the fact that last year's budget didn't have a

plan. There was no plan in place and analysis that whenever you do what was

done last year with 300 fees that were out there. Now, these weren't new fees,

these were 300 things that were there, but there were 300 increases on those

fees. They increased everything they could and then they added 50 more on to it.

So you had 350 fees that were either increased or new fees were started.

Again,

that's a lot and it's hard on everyone. It's hard on people that are trying to

for example, over-the-counter drugs. I know that when I speak to seniors in my

district, it's only probably $5 or $6 or $7, but at the end of the month it adds

up to $30 or $40 or $50. When you're on a fixed income, to come up with that

kind of money month after month after month; this is not just a one-deal thing

that you have to pay for it and it's all done, taxes are something we continue

to pay and continue to pay.

I said

the gas tax; I would have liked to have seen it eliminated altogether, to tell

you the truth, because I think it would have had a good effect. I think that we

as politicians and the government on the other side should look and see the

effects that these taxes and fees are having on the economy, having on

individual families.

As a

province we talk about trying to keep people here, trying to make it better for

our families to live here. Recently, I had a friend of mine who came home from

Alberta. His mom died and he came home. We were at the house for a couple of

nights and he came by and he said: Kev, I can't believe it, everything is after

going up.

We don't

see it as much as they see it. He said: I don't know how you live here anymore.

It's so expensive to go anywhere now. He used to go out to I won't say the

name of the fish and chip place but out on Torbay Road. He said: I could get

fish and chips for $9.99. He said that he and the wife went out and had fish and

chips, the same thing they always had, and it almost cost $40. That's the cost.

Things

have gone way up because businesses need to survive. If they're going out and

they have deliveries to do or they got trucks that are coming to their place

with produce or fish or whatever, they need to survive because of the extra cost

of all these fees and all these extra fees that they're paying. So it's hard on

business.

Even the

people from away we don't see it. We go out and I know we see an increase in

fish and chips or chicken and chips or whatever it is and we just take it for

granted. But people that come from away and come home and see the changes the

last couple of years, they're amazed with it. They really are amazed with the

added cost of what it costs to live here.

Those

are the people we want to come back. We want people to come back to our

province. We want people to work in our province. We don't want to see anybody

leave our province, but it's a job to convince people to come back to this

province if it's so expensive to live here.

When you

look at our gas I know I go on gasbuddy.com every now and then and I have a

look at the prices right across Canada. When you see that ours is up over 20

cents to the next lowest and then you look across Canada and see that some

places in Canada are paying 30 cents a litre less than we are, people that live

in those areas are going to say: How can you guys afford to pay for that?

They're not going to come back and want to pay $1.30 or $1.40 for a litre of

gas.

That's

what's happening in the province. That's what's happening to people outside our

province. People look at this place and they say anyone that's li