PDF Version

May 24, 2023 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 38

The House met at 10 a.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Government Business

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Order 4.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Speaker, I move that this House do now resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider

An Act to Amend the Revenue Administration Act and

an Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, 2000, seconded by the Government House Leader.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 38.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Warr): Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 38,

An Act to Amend the Revenue Administration Act and

An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, 2000.

A bill, “An Act to Amend the Revenue Administration Act and

An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, 2000.” (Bill 38)

CLERK (Barnes): Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The Chair recognizes the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

It's a pleasure again to get up and represent the fine residents of Topsail - Paradise in the House of Assembly and speak to some of their concerns, but also to this bill, which is a concern for just about every Newfoundlander and Labradorian. Anything dealing with taxes is certainly front and foremost for many of us in this day and age when the cost of living is skyrocketing and there are many, many individuals out there who are struggling.

When I look at this bill, if I'm talking to the Income Tax Act here and the increase in the tax credit for physical activity from 8.7 per cent to 17.4 per cent, the tax credit, and I go back to what was said when we last stood in this House and spoke on this bill, the $2,000 per family that was put in there. There are only 29,000 who took advantage of it when you're talking about that tax.

When you look at the carbon tax and removing the tax on carbon products, it's certainly something we have advocated for so long. We've advocated for a long, long time and government finally listened, to some extent, and will remove that tax. But it's only short-term relief when you think about it, when you think about the carbon tax, the federal tax that comes into play in July.

I look at this and try to figure out the logic of this tax. The claim is that eight out of 10 families will get the tax back. So you're taking money in carbon tax and it is going to go right back to individuals in the form of rebates. When you go to the whole purpose of the carbon tax, it is to deter individuals or maybe promote – look at it whatever way you want – but it is to direct individuals towards more environmentally friendly activities, using less fossil fuels and using less things that will affect our environment.

A tax, by definition, is a compulsory contribution to the state. It is compulsory. It is levied for a reason. But when we look at this and we say, well, okay, it is there to help lessen our carbon footprint, but if eight out of 10 individuals are getting it back in a rebate, my question becomes: How does that deter individuals? How does that deter individuals if what you pay in, you get back anyway? That becomes a big question here.

But the bigger question when you talk about carbon tax or any tax is the individuals, the residents of the province; those who are at wit's end at trying to pay bills; those who are trying to make ends meet; those who are making decisions between should I turn on the heat, is there anything to eat and some, as we know, are diluting medicines and rationing their prescriptions, so it becomes a very real issue for many.

So any kind of tax is an added burden on those individuals. I would argue that many of the individuals who are in those positions are not contributing to the carbon footprint. Those individuals probably don't own a car. As I said, they can't afford to turn on the heat. They, potentially, if they travel, it maybe with a bus pass, which, as we know, we're encouraging more usage of busing transportation is lessening the footprint.

So these are some of the individuals who are perhaps being negatively affected more than anyone and those are the individuals that you look at them and we say oh, well, don't worry because eight out of 10 individuals will get their money back in the rebate.

So I look at that and the many questions that I get asked on this are: Why put us through that to start with; why put those individuals through that to start; why tax them when they could be utilizing that money much better for themselves? I don't think when this carbon tax was first discussed, when we talked about this last year, people talked about oh well, you ignore or you don't agree with climate change, and that's so far from the truth. We all understand that we have to deal with issues around environment. We all understand that climate change is real and it needs to be acted upon.

What we argued for the last year or more as the Opposition – and I believe the Third Party and the independents were of similar – was that how is this mechanism working? How does taxing those individuals who probably have the smallest carbon footprint of all of us here in the province, how does taxing those individuals and giving it back to them later, their own money, how does that reduce the carbon footprint? How is that effective in the intention of the policy, the intention of the legislation? That's a good question, right?

So I was just reading a quote here from a Postmedia news piece back from March: “Canada's parliamentary budget officer says the average family in the seven provinces where Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's carbon tax now applies will pay hundreds of dollars more in carbon taxes this year than they get back in rebates.” So in actual fact, there are many who are paying these taxes and many are not getting even the amount they paid in back.

It goes on to say – another quote in the media – “Most households in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador will be worse off as a result of the carbon tax by 2030, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's last report.”

That tells us, some of these families, those families that again, as I said, may not contribute to any degree to the carbon footprint are being penalized I would guess in the short term, even though they will get some of their money back. Again, the issue goes to the mechanism that we're using or utilizing to address climate change and our carbon footprint.

The Premier will get up in the House or has gotten up in the House and has spoken to the fact that, well, the situation has changed. We no longer support the federal carbon tax, we think it's not timely and I wrote a letter. That's all great, but I would argue that nothing really has changed.

As an Opposition, what we argued last year, is the same as what we're going to argue now. It still had to do with the cost of living and putting a tax on individuals who could in no way – now way – afford to be paying those taxes, because they had other needs, more pressing needs for them, as I said, heat and food and medications.

Now, I am happy that as an Opposition – and I include everyone on this side of the House – that we were able to talk some common sense into government on this. Because this is where we talk about proactive and reactive; this is what distinguishing the two sides of the House here. We were proactive enough to see this coming. We knew how this was going to affect the public. We knew with the cost of living, that another tax was not going to be the way to go.

I'm glad government has taken this advice, later rather than sooner, but we still have to deal as well with the federal tax that comes into play in July. The individuals I deal with on a daily basis, and especially those who are seniors, seniors on fixed incomes who have to deal with this now, it is amazing. Rebates are great, but again I go back to the logic of, why take it? Why take the tax out of their pockets and hold on to it for however many months and give it back to them in a rebate? Leave it in their pockets. In fact, I would argue, if there's any way we can put more in their pockets, we should be doing that.

Leave it in their pockets and let's start looking at some more practical means in which to reduce our carbon footprint. Taxes, as I said, are perhaps the easiest thing to do as a government. When you don't have a lot of plans or initiatives to work, well, the default has always been to revert to taxes.

You talk about all the countries that are looked at this. You know, 27 countries, I think, was mentioned. They all agree. They all go on. They all speak that carbon taxes can be harmful to lower income families and I've already spoken to heating, transportation, food. This just makes this tax a regressive tax. There is no doubt about it – there is no doubt about it.

When we talk about this tax and we talk about trying to get people to be more active and talk about reducing our carbon footprint, I look at this and I say, where are the results of this? What are the perceived results? Yes, we always go back and we say, well, in this country or in this report and that report, this report it works.

Our demographics in this province are different from other provinces. Government has started to acknowledge that in ways that our demographics just shift, an older population and we have some of the higher rates of those on income support. All these have to factor in to any decision you make regarding any initiative, really, but especially if it includes taxes. If you're trying to reduce a carbon footprint through a carbon tax, then you really need to address, okay, who are those that are creating this larger carbon footprint? Who are those and how can we target those individuals, businesses, corporations, whatever, to lessen the carbon footprint? How do we do that?

What's been done here with this government is throw a blanket over everyone, tax them all, carbon tax and we'll give you back a rebate down the road. Like I said, eight out of 10 of those will get their rebate back. I'm not sure if that's the right thing to do. But, again, we argued this for a year.

I see the Minister of Finance wants to get up so I look forward to her comments. She's itching over there. I either said something right, wrong or hit the point.

I will sit down to give her my five seconds.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you.

I'm recognizing the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you very much.

I've been a long time, good friend to the Member and it is fun to be in the House of Assembly with him. He did give me one second on the clock, so that was very kind of him.

Allow me, Chair, if I may take a few more minutes because the Member from Topsail - Paradise opposite is correct that there are some challenges to what he said into the record. Allow me to take a few moments and tell the people in the province what is actually happening today.

This is all part of our budget; Budget 2023 is yet to pass the House of Assembly, hopefully in the coming days we'll be concluding the House of Assembly review and requirements around Budget 2023. This is one part of that where we are looking at any tax-related issues and anything related or impacting revenues.

So this act that we're debating this morning has three key components. There is, on the very positive side, an increase in the exemption threshold for the Health and Post Secondary Education Tax. That really is something that the businesses in this province have been calling for. I know the business community, it really is an improvement for the business community. It impacts tens of thousands, I believe, in the business community – no sorry, tens of thousands, my apologies, 1,250 businesses in the province, Chair, and I think it's very, very valuable. It gives up to $14,000 annually per business if you're getting the maximum tax savings here.

So it really does have beneficial impacts for the people of the province. Now, in listening to my colleague across the way, he was saying that there are challenges in this bill. I would say there are some very good points in this bill, that being one of them. When you're impacting positively 1,250 businesses in the province, that's a very positive thing.

The second thing that this bill we're debating this morning is doing is improvements to the Physical Activity Tax Credit. It's going to encourage and support physical activity in the province. Again, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador set its goal by 2031 to ensure that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are more healthy and more physically fit than they are today. So we are incentivizing, encouraging and improving opportunity with regard to the Physical Activity Tax Credit.

I listened intently to the Member from Mount Pearl North who gave some good suggestions and we'll be taking them into consideration for next year's budget around the possibility of doing something, in particular, for those of lower income, those on income support. Maybe we can support them. So I listened intently to that and I appreciate that suggestion.

In today's act, we're actually making improvements to the Physical Activity Tax Credit. We are improving it. The tax credit is improved and that is a positive thing for the people of the province. It's improved by, as this is a refundable tax credit, families can claim up to $2,000 in eligible fitness expenses and receive a credit of up to $348. Now, that's not an insignificant amount of money and we're trying to encourage people to be more physically active. I know a lot of people do online. You know, as long as they have a receipt, they can do online training. Some people go to a gym. Some people participate in hockey. Some people participate in soccer. All of those are eligible.

Chair, there were in 2021, the first year of this tax, 29,390 filers. That's a lot of people in this province in the first year of this tax credit to take advantage of that, where I do believe when we have the results of the 2022 tax year, it'll be higher than that and have a greater impact for the people of the province.

We, again, encourage people to be physically active, to get out there and participate in sports and activities. It's really, really beneficial, not only to your health but also to your well-being. The Member opposite and I used to row on Quidi Vidi Lake, so we both know the value of exercise and how important it is. I know that he was an exceptional rower in his day. Probably not today, but an exceptional rower in his day.

Chair, I will say, and this is getting to the point where the Member opposite focused, that was on the carbon tax, in this particular act that we're debating today, we are repealing the carbon tax. We're in essence taking measures to repeal the tax. I'm going to tell the people of the province again why we are doing that.

Now, Chair, I will say the reason why Newfoundland and Labrador negotiated with the federal government – so going back to 2016, the federal government announced plans to implement carbon pricing to help Canada meet its greenhouse gas emission targets. At the time of implementation, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador was able to negotiate an agreement to ensure that the impacts on consumers were minimized and to maintain competitiveness in taxation and in economic opportunity.

Importantly, the exemptions included home heat fuels, meaning no carbon tax on home heat and further exemptions from carbon tax were also negotiated by the provincial government included agriculture, fishing, forestry, offshore and mineral exploration. So there were really two areas where we were able to carve out from the federal government's carbon tax. One – and I think this is very important – home heating. The second big piece is economic activities, as I've mentioned: agriculture, fishing, farming, those types of things.

Now, the federal government has said the agreement that we had no longer meets with their benchmark requirements and they are imposing now the federal backstop in Newfoundland and Labrador. They're also going to be doing so in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and PEI. I will tell you that Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Yukon and Nunavut already are subject to the backstop. Now, we're finding this a very difficult and disappointing outcome as it means that the exemptions that we were able to have in this province will be removed.

These exemptions were fully implemented in January 2019, and again, very importantly, home heating fuel, aviation fuel for flights within the province, fish processing, mineral and offshore exploration, silviculture, on-grid electricity production that is not regulated by the Management of Greenhouse Gas Act.

So we have concerns and we are disappointed. Quite frankly disappointed, and we've been lobbying the federal government strongly on this matter and we have been clear to the federal government.

As stated by Premier Furey in his September 2, 2022, correspondence with the federal minister of Environment and Climate Change – and I'll quote it: “The current price signals being provided by the market are far stronger than the signals that removal of these exemptions would have provided under normal economic circumstances, and they are already generating the changes in perspective and behavior that the Federal Government desires.”

As a result of the federal government's decision to impose the federal carbon pricing backstop, we're repealing the carbon tax effective July 1, 2023. If we do not do that, then you would have a dual system. We don't want that. We obviously don't want that. We wanted the agreement that we had in place that would have ensured the carbon tax was not on home heating fuels, was not on agriculture, fishing, forestry and offshore mineral exploration. We wanted the agreement to stand.

So this bill today will allow us to increase the threshold on the Health and Post Secondary Education Tax and benefit 1,250 businesses up to, I think, $14,000 which is an incredible amount of money, up to$14,000 annually for some businesses in this province, an incredible improvement for these businesses. Especially when we're having some challenges with cost of living, some challenges coming out of the pandemic, this is a good benefit to them.

We're helping the people of the province become more physically active with the Physical Activity Tax Credit, very, very important. We're putting up to $330 back into the pockets of people. So I'm sure Members opposite will support that and we're repealing the carbon tax because the federal government is removing the exemptions that we had under agreement. We're repealing that and the federal government is coming in with their backstop. I implore the people in the House to ensure that we do not have double taxation under the carbon tax. Because if we don't repeal it and the federal government comes in with their backstop, that will be what will happen.

To improve things for the businesses in this province to give them money back in their pockets, to ensure that they are robust in their economic opportunity and to give back money to the people of the province upwards to $328 to the people of the province to become more physically active: That's what this bill does. I'm sure, Chair, that this is a very positive thing for the people of the province. This is giving money back to the people of the province and ensuring that when the federal government comes in to impose their backstop on the people of the province, that we do not have anything in the statutes of Newfoundland and Labrador that include taxation because that agreement is now gone.

So that's what this bill is doing. Please don't confuse it with other things that might be occurring at the federal level. You'd have to take that up with the federal government. What we're doing here today, again, is improvements and beneficial to the people of the province. I'm sure everyone in this House would support improvements and giving money back to the people of the province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you.

I recognize the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: Thank you, Chair.

That was quite the bit to listen to. I'm not sure if the Members opposite are agreeing with the imposed federal carbon tax, if they'd like to say, but you voted for it. You agreed with it. You said you wanted it. Now, all of a sudden, we put our backs up against it and now we have to impose a backstop on home heat fuel, agriculture, fishery, forestry, offshore and minerals.

In the previous speaker's amble, I guess, talked about helping 1,250 businesses with $14,000 each. I'll tell you who it's not helping: It's the 530,000 residents of Newfoundland and Labrador that can't afford a carbon tax, simple as that. You're doubling down. You got another sugar tax. Making choices for people – helping people make choices.

Speaker, $320 for active living. A $320 rebate on active living, on physical activity. Has anybody seen the prices of registrations and stuff? No, but you're sitting there saying how good this is. I mean to play house league hockey is $400 and then you still have to buy equipment, still got to get there, you still have to burn gas to there, burning carbon tax. It's not helping the people.

We understand on this side that we are moving, Chair, to a green economy. We do understand that. But it's not like flicking a light switch. That's not how it works. We can't impose it on the people to take money out of their pockets to make sure that this works. That's not how it should work. We're in this House to look out for the 530,000 people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

J. DWYER: We just passed the largest budget in Newfoundland history.

Anyway, Chair, I can't hear myself think. If the Member on the other side wants to stand up and speak after I sit down, then he's welcome to do.

CHAIR: I encourage the Member to move on with his speech.

J. DWYER: This is interrupting, talking straight at me.

Anyway, the cost of living here in Newfoundland and Labrador is so out of touch for the average person that it's just unbelievable. Then we're just taking more money out of their pockets. It just doesn't make sense.

Another one, we understand we have to reduce the carbon footprint. But when you look at the cost of living and there was also an increase in personal income tax. Instead of improving the economy and getting our people back to work – which I know that's what they want to do in my district because we have a very industrial district in Placentia West - Bellevue and we have a lot of big infrastructure implements. But people want to work. We want to get inside the gates and start utilizing these sunken costs to the benefit of the people of the province.

Anything that we do in here, it can't be for the benefit of a party or benefit of the individuals inside this House. We represent that 530,000 people. Therefore, we should all have a say in that. But when we make a decision, it has to be to the benefit of that 530,000, not a minute few. It needs to help everybody. That's the whole point that I'm trying to make.

We went up and we tried to argue to Ottawa and we believe in Ottawa taking the lead on carbon tax. But like I said before, if it's something that is a good news story, we announce it three and four times, four or five photo ops, all this kind of stuff. But when it's something that is regressive, oh, that's the federal government, we have no control over that; that's the feds. That's not how it works.

When we say about taking up an argument with Ottawa, I have a feeling that is what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador hired the government to do, to bring their voice to Ottawa. I can't really get into the six Liberal MPs that are not educating the people in Ottawa on how it is to live here in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is very much different, Chair, than it is in the rest of Canada.

When we talk about carbon footprint, we look at these larger centres like Vancouver, Toronto, Edmonton, Calgary, Montreal and stuff like that, they have subway systems and stuff like that, I can understand that. But Ms. Strowbridge out in Arnold's Cove is not going to take the subway to Clarenville to get to her doctor's appointment. She has to drive; she has to be transported to that location. She can't afford a new electric vehicle. She can't afford to retrofit her house from oil to electric.

One per cent of the population of Newfoundland and Labrador picked up on the electric car rebate. Less than one per cent; 1,500 people. So not even the richest people in the province are agreeing with it; they're not transitioning. They haven't jumped out of the gates and said let's do this. I think we kind of started with too lofty of an expectation, to be quite honest, starting with a vehicle. We could have started with something else that would have made more sense.

When you think about how we live our lives here in Newfoundland and Labrador, I don't think it is about trying to ruin the world. I think we're good purveyors of our land here in Newfoundland and Labrador and we utilize it to the benefit of the people and that's what it should be utilized to the benefit of.

But when we cave in on something like carbon tax, one minute we're saying that we want it and the next minute we're saying that it is a federal tax and you're trying to wash your hands of it, then it's time to stand up and be counted. Get your six Liberal cousins that are here in the province, go en masse and tell them July 1 is just not going to work. What a nice anniversary gift to the Blue Puttees on July 1; taxing the people that they fought for, makes zero sense.

So what we're trying to do here is we're trying to implement a tax to cut carbon emissions by putting people into poverty. The implementation of this is going to cause people to have to stay home and not drive their cars to job that's going to improve our economy. That's what's going to happen.

I can tell you right now it's happening already. People can't afford milk. We throw away more milk than we buys here in Newfoundland. We can't give it away; just as well to throw it out.

We all say it's about making choices. Well, that works for both sides of the House. You just move a couple of notches down the cooler door, you get a better option. Yeah, so let's tax water. It's bad enough to have a carbon tax, a very, very regressive tax that's not going to really improve the lives of people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

When we delve down on stuff like taxation, it's not the 1 per cent or the top 5 per cent of our society that gets affected. They can absorb the costs somewhat, but it's the people who can't absorb the cost that I'm here to talk about and to let the government know that this is really going to change the lives of a lot of people when it comes to the cost of living. To fight for exemptions in home heat and agriculture, fishery, forestry, offshore, minerals, all that kind of stuff, that's all well and good, but stand the ground and say no, it's not going back on these things and we're not accepting the federal backstop.

That's what we have to do as a province. We have to stand up for the people that we're here to represent, all 530,000 of them. This is not about party stripe. It's not about Ottawa. It's not about Newfoundland and Labrador. It's about all of us working together to find a solution to a real problem and that's the cost of living.

We have to move forward and we have to move upward as we move forward, not move backward and downward. It's not a race to the bottom. Newfoundland and Labrador is rich in natural resources, it's rich in people and it's rich in chutzpah. What we need to do is we need to stand up for ourselves, be counted and let people know in the rest of the country, that yes, we're very unique, due to demographics and geographics. But I'll guarantee you one thing, the amount of travel that we have to do to go from point A to point B in this province is not going to be helped by a carbon tax.

I really would like to see this government stand up for the 530,000 people in the province that are really going to be to the detriment of this tax.

Thank you, Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair is recognizing the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Thank you, Chair.

It's certainly always nice to get up here and support the people of my district, the people who put me here, and talk, especially when anything comes to gorge income tax, talking about a tax act. I'm sure they're interested and they would like their voice put forward with regard to a tax act because tax is not a word that my constituents or anybody around the province likes to hear at any time.

Certainly with the tax act, we've been talking about the carbon tax, of course. We all know climate change is real. We know it's coming. We know it's here. We've seen it time and time again. We've talked about the floods. It's only this year we had Fiona on the Southwest Coast. You can see the devastation that's caused. We can see that our climates are changing, that we need to do stuff to combat that. But does that come with a cost to residents? Does that come with a cost to every day individuals that they've got to pay for a tax to keep them safe?

I don't think that a carbon tax is the right way to be doing that to individuals, to residents, that just because climate change is here and we need to do our bit for carbon, but it doesn't come to a tax for a residents. We all know what tax do. You know how hard it is on the pockets. I know that the minister can say that they're giving it out through sports, they're giving it out through businesses, but that's coming from the individuals that can't afford another tax. They can't afford to do this.

To enforce the tax, we know that the Liberal feds came in with the carbon tax and they said that this is what we're going to do, we're implementing the carbon tax; we're going to have a carbon tax. I think we all saw it here in the House of Assembly, that side all stood up, same as the Third Party all stood up and voted for it – stood up and voted for it. The same as what they did in Ottawa; all the Liberals in Ottawa stood up, same as their cohorts with the NDP in Ottawa, same as the provincial one. They all stood up, all in support of it. So it was federal and provincial Liberals and NDP, all cohorts voted for the carbon tax and was forced upon us.

Now, you don't know if you should have done that or you shouldn't have. If you did it in the beginning, then we wouldn't have to be here today doing what we're doing because we knew in the beginning that the carbon tax wasn't the right way to go. We know that initial tax on fuels, how that affects the everyday people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

On July 1 another carbon tax is supposed to be coming into effect; 17 cents on diesel, 14 cents on some gasolines. Now, that will affect a lot of people in the province. That will affect the farmers. That will affect the business owners. It will hurt them.

The parts and everything that they have coming in to the province that affects their equipment to get their fields cleared, to help with growing our vegetables, that is certainly going to affect the farmers. How will the farmers get that back? They'll get that back through the grocery stores. They'll get that back through the prices that individuals will have to pay for their fresh vegetables, to put food on the table for the families that they're having trouble right now to put food on the table. This is a fact.

You can go searching for whatever you want to search for, but this is a fact that carbon tax is not the ideal tax for individuals right now, because people in this province are paying.

Again, we talk about seniors a lot – home heating fuels. Last year, I think every one of us received calls from seniors; they couldn't afford to heat their homes. It's going to be worse this year. By the time fall comes around, the winter comes around, they've been making choices now – they're certainly going to have to make bigger choices come the fall on whether they heat their homes, whether they have food on the tables. This is going to be devastating to the residents of this province.

Another tax on this is not where we need to be. Because like I said, with regard to the farmers, the cost of getting stuff in to pay for those supporting the programs that they need to get in here, that's not what this is all about.

When you decide what you want to do, if you want to support the carbon tax or don't want to support the carbon tax, this should have been done. We shouldn't be debating this part of the budget right now. No tax is good for any part of our economy right now. With regard to sports and initiatives, sports are expensive to play. The cost of the goods, whatever they need, protective gear, protective item for sports, that kind of stuff to play in those leagues and registration itself, as my colleague said, it's expensive. So when you put that towards the sports programs and whatnot, it's still expensive. It's coming from the taxpayers' dollars.

Again with a sugar tax, to make people make healthy choices, when the cost of our produce are going up and then people have to make healthy choices because the sugar tax is costing other products to go up like juices, milks, that kind of stuff, then they can't afford to buy those other goods.

So a tax in this sense does not help the people of the province. We need certainly to address those situations. It doesn't work right now. Another tax on products right now doesn't work and we need to certainly pay more attention to that.

You're going to find that on our shelves, because of those taxes, people will not be able to afford to eat this year. They're going to be making hard choices between food. They're going to be making hard choices between keeping warm, and that's not the choices that our residents of Newfoundland and Labrador should be making. They should be living more easily, making better choices. That even helps our health care system. When they're warm, when they're comfortable, when they're eating well, that even keeps people out of our health care system. This runs right down through the line.

It's not just because we're doing a tax that we're going to force people to do one thing or we're going to force people to do something else.

All this runs right through the system. When people are having a hard time choosing between food, when they're having a hard time choosing between being warm, that makes hard choices physically and mentally on themselves and they end up probably even having worse choices and then their health diminishes. So all this runs right down through all our systems and we certainly need to make better choices than what we're doing with regard to taxes. So we're going to see a difference in that in the coming months.

Other than that, Chair, I'll take my seat and I think some Members might have some comments on what we have to say here. I'll take my seat and let somebody else speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you.

I'm recognizing the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you, Chair.

Facts matter – facts matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. COADY: So I've got to correct the record on a few things that the Member for Exploits just said. Facts matter and I'm not wrong. You're absolutely correct; I am not wrong.

So allow me to say to the Member for Exploits what happened when the carbon tax was introduced back in 2016 – I've already read this into the record; I've already spoken these words, but I'm reminding the Member opposite in 2016, the federal government announced plans to introduce a carbon tax. As a matter of fact, they were elected on that very premise. They spoke about it in the 2015 election. They said that when they came in they were going to introduce carbon tax and they did.

What the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador did, and it was the right thing to do – absolutely the right thing to do and the Member opposite actually agreed it was the right thing to do in a roundabout way – is we were able to, at that time of implementation, it was coming in – the carbon tax was being imposed. Ontario had the carbon tax imposed. But what we were able to do, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador was able to negotiate an agreement that basically ensured that the impacts to the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador was minimized because the carbon tax was not implemented on home heat fuels. We negotiated that and that agreement was accepted.

That's very important because, up to this point, home heat fuels have been exempt from carbon tax. I know the Member opposite wants that. We all want that in this House. We want carbon tax not to be imposed on home heat. That is why we're repealing the carbon tax today. The agreement that we made with the federal government back in 2016 when they were imposing carbon tax, we were allowed to exempt home heat fuels and we were allowed to exempt agriculture, fishing, forestry, offshore and mineral exploration. All those things were exempt from carbon tax.

Now, last year the federal government came and said we are now making changes to the carbon tax and they are saying that the agreement that we had with them is no longer – I can hear the chirping across the hall. Chair, I know they're frustrated. I know they're frustrated but we are frustrated as well, that now the federal government is imposing the backstop, as of July, and implementing this on home heat. We have said to the federal government, that's not acceptable.

I've read into the record what the Premier has written to the ministers of the Crown of the federal government to say that that is not something that we accept. So in order for us to –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

S. COADY: I'm sorry. Did you want to speak again? Because you're certainly more than welcome to do so. You're more than welcome to do so, but if the Member opposite is going to speak again, please say factual things. Facts matter. Please say facts.

I know he's smiling at me because I can tell you right now facts matter and I'm giving the facts. The facts of the matter are in 2016 we had an agreement with the federal government. The federal government has said that agreement is no longer acceptable to them and they are imposing the backstop. What today's job today is, is to increase the threshold for the health and post-secondary education tax, is to increase – double actually – the Physical Activity Tax Credit and to repeal the carbon tax because we no longer have that carved out that we negotiated with the federal government. Those are the facts.

CHAIR: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. LANE: Thank you, Chair.

I agree with the minister: facts do matter. She is right. The problem is not necessarily with the facts. The problem, I guess, is some of the stuff that's not being said. I think that's some of the issue that people on this side might have. I'm not going to speak for them. They're more than capable of speaking for themselves, but the minister is right.

I can remember at the time when the carbon tax came in and Dwight Ball was the premier, at the time, and it was the made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador solution, I think is what he called it at the time. Basically, we were either going to be imposed with this federal backstop or the feds allowed the provincial government of the day to negotiate a carbon tax agreement for Newfoundland and Labrador.

She is right. That carbon tax agreement would not see carbon tax going on home heating. That was the rationale. While I, and I can speak for myself, and I know Members over here for sure, were totally against carbon tax. Well, I can't say all Members over here, but most of the Members over here, totally against carbon tax, period. I have been crystal clear, it's nothing but a tax grab. It's doing nothing to change anything.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. LANE: It's not going to change a thing. I'm driving as much today as I did last year and the year before that and I'm going to drive again next year. Nothing is changing, that's the reality, other than the fact that I'm having to pay more tax for it. That's the bottom line. Nothing is changing.

Now, the minister is correct, and that's why I begrudgingly, and I emphasize the word, begrudgingly supported that bill to impose the provincial tax because I was given an option: either take this one or this one is going to be imposed on us. One or the other, there's no – if I had my way there would be no carbon tax, I made it clear.

But given the fact that I have no choice, it's this one or this one, I'll go along with the government of the day and I will support that one because, as much as I hated all the carbon tax, I just could not bring myself to say we're going to have people who are struggling in Newfoundland and Labrador with their home heat, we're going to have to pay carbon tax on a necessity like home heat.

Now I would argue that a vehicle in the lives of most people is also a necessity. But you can't question that, especially if they have to go to work and everything. But at the end of the day, I wasn't going to have some poor old senior on a pension froze to death because she couldn't afford to put oil in her furnace because of carbon tax. I thought it was wrong and that's why I went along with it begrudgingly.

The minister is not wrong when she says that. She's also not wrong when she says that we are just simply repealing the tax. She's not wrong there either. All that is factual; I agree with her, facts matter.

But here's another fact that's not being put out there, though. This is the part that kind of gets my goat a little and others, perhaps, on this side of the House. It's that people, everyone in this House, most of our constituents who do have vehicles have been also struggling with the cost of living. Part of that has been at the pumps. Part of that has been at the pumps.

Not only are the prices at the pumps impacting you directly when you go to fill up your vehicle, but because of the carbon tax it's also driving up the cost of food, because of transportation and so on: ferries take fuel, transport trucks take fuel, so it's all having a ripple effect and driving up the cost of living. So when the government comes out now and tries to position themselves in a way of, well, this is not our tax, we disagree with this tax and we're standing with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, it comes across as a little disingenuous. That's the problem.

Because at least under the federal backstop – now this is for people in terms of paying at the pump – you will get back a cheque every three months. I don't believe Seamus when he says that you're going to get more money than you pay in. That's a pile of malarkey as far as I'm concerned, but at the end of the day you will get some sort of a cheque, some money back.

Under the old system, which was adopted, the provincial government didn't give people money back. If you were against the carbon tax when the province was collecting the money, why didn't you write out cheques every three months and give it back to the people? You didn't do it. You took the money; you put it in the general coffers. You said the money was going to be used towards environmental initiatives. That's what you said. We challenged it numerous times. Oh, no, it's going to environmental initiatives.

I can guarantee you, if you take the money that was collected by the provincial government that went into general revenues and you matched that up with any new environmental initiatives, that money wasn't spent. It might have been a portion. Maybe it was 20 per cent of it. I don't know the percentage, but I can guarantee you the lion's share of that money went into general coffers and you spent it accordingly. That's where it becomes disingenuous and hypocritical.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a fact.

P. LANE: Facts matter and that's also a fact. That's the issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. LANE: That is the issue. If we're going to put the facts out there, which I totally agree with, we can't just cherry-pick the facts, we have to put out all the facts.

Government might argue we were in tough financial circumstances – which they were, no doubt – and we chose to keep that money in general revenues because we needed it for other things. At least be honest and say that. But don't pretend, all of a sudden, that you're against the carbon tax because when the money was coming in to the provincial government coffers, you had no problem collecting it and you didn't give it back.

Now the money is going to the feds. You're not getting any of it anymore. It's not going into your bottom line; it's going to the feds. At least they're giving some of it back. But I do still share that same concern that now that poor old senior that we're talking about that was going to be froze to death, that's what our federal government is doing to those seniors.

I don't believe they're going to get more money back than they're putting in. I really doubt it. We'll see. Shame on the federal government for imposing this tax on seniors in this province, in particular, and low-income people who have to heat their home with oil. Shame on them for doing it.

Shame on our federal Members who are not standing up – at least I'm not hearing them, I'm not hearing a sound. Quiet as a church mouse. Crickets from our federal Members who are not speaking out on this regressive carbon tax and the impact that's going to have this coming winter on seniors in our province.

We should all be outraged by that and we should be lobbying them, putting them on the hot seat. They're supposed to be Newfoundland's representative in Ottawa, not Ottawa's representative in Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. LANE: But that's not the way it is, unfortunately.

I'll support the bill because, obviously, we're going to repeal the tax, so why would I not support that. Unfortunately, seniors are still going to be hit this winter, thanks to the federal government.

I will support the government, once again, begrudgingly, but I will once again say for the record that carbon tax is nothing but a tax grab. It should be abolished, period, end of story.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair is recognizing the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

That was some great points by the hon. Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands. I'm going to touch on that a little bit more and go a little bit further.

There's a reason why our federal MPs are not voting against this and not standing up for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, there's a reason for that. I know the reason and I'm going to say it right now. The reason is those federal MPs are making $180,000 a year, most of their travel paid for. They're not backed into the corner most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are because, if they were, they would actually stand up.

You put any of those MPs into a corner, like most people are from Buchans, Lamaline, South Brook, all across this Island that can't afford to heat their homes, put food in their fridge and got to stick $8 worth of toonies and loonies in their car at a time because they can't afford anything else; you put them in the corner like that, I guarantee you they'd vote differently. That's the problem.

Whenever I debate or whenever I try to keep an open mind, I try to reverse the roles and put myself into the person that I'm debating on behalf of. It actually helps because you see different points. I see some points that the Minister of Finance was saying, but if you take an MP and you stick them into a corner, just like most of us are in, most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are in, I guarantee you they'd vote differently. But they don't have to and that's where we need the real power of a vote next election, I guarantee you.

We need to vote for people from now on that are going to truly represent Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that know the struggles b'ys.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. TIBBS: How can you represent a people that are struggling if you've never struggled before? Our current prime minister, I guarantee you, has never struggled in his entire life, financially. Most MPs are not struggling. Now, some may have seen what the struggle is like in earlier days but a lot of them forget pretty quickly.

So when we talk about now putting on a carbon tax for home heating fuels on a group of people who couldn't afford it before, who could not afford it before to heat their homes to keep their families warm and now we're going to charge them more. Shame on Ottawa for putting that on each province to have to deal with because now we have to deal with this. It was hard enough to deal with it before and now we have to deal with it again.

We've got to try to find a solution to keep those families warm throughout the winter. The solution is not putting on one heater in your house, closing all the doors and staying in that room because that's what people are doing. That's exactly what people are doing. They're going to try to call it behaviour management and that seems to be –

AN HON. MEMBER: Behaviour modification.

C. TIBBS: Behaviour modification, sorry. Yeah, behaviour modification, behaviour management, it's something that the government has been throwing around for quite some time now. Carbon tax is not going to do the job that it's purposed for. It will not do it. It's not going to lessen the carbon footprint in the smaller towns, these smaller rural towns across Newfoundland and Labrador. All you're doing is creating more pressures and stresses on the people that don't need those right now.

Of course, what does that roll over to? The mental illness and the mental health that we're trying to keep the people of Newfoundland and Labrador going. It's tough, it is, and it's a sin actually. It's a sin that this tax is going to come down now on top of people to heat their homes during the winter.

The Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands just talked about at the pumps and whatnot, people have to get around. Listen, we've talked about it over and over again but it holds true, to put a blanket carbon tax over an entire country, it's absolutely ludicrous. It's not fair and it's not just. We are not on a fair playing field so the rules shouldn't be the same for everybody. If they were on a fair playing field, absolutely.

If there was another way for people from Buchans to get to Grand Falls-Windsor to get the groceries that they need, the necessities they need, then 100 per cent I would love to see an alternate mode of transportation. I would absolutely love to see it, but it's not there. The option isn't there.

So when you impose a carbon tax on somebody in Toronto or Ottawa or Edmonton or Calgary, anywhere else, they have subway stations. They have above ground trains. They have buses. They have Ubers. They have so many different options, but we don't. So why blanket everybody with the exact same rules and regulations when they're not on the same playing field? I think that should come into play, but it's not talked about. That's not talked about up in Ottawa, but, unfortunately, we're going to be the casualties of that here, us and many other rural places across this country, unfortunately.

We talk about groceries being a necessity, so there's no tax on it, of course, and nor should there be. But travel is a necessity as well. We must travel to get to work. We must travel for extracurricular activities.

Vacations: we still live on an island; part of this province is an island, but, unfortunately, that's not taken into play because Marine Atlantic is now going to boost their tax as well.

It just goes to show that Newfoundland and Labrador, we are going to be paying more and, unfortunately, the people in Ottawa just don't get it. We have supply chain issues, of course, and whether it be in the Big Land or here on the Island, we have supply chain issues. We saw that with Snowmageddon; it shut down the Island for four or five days. It wasn't just the Avalon. We had empty shelves in Grand Falls-Windsor.

So our supply chain is so fragile that a carbon tax imposed on truck drivers, imposed on getting our goods here, you think that's not going to be affected. Of course, it is. We went a year trying to look for different medications in pharmacies. Children's cough syrup – empty. I mean, to not say that it's not going to be harder on Newfoundland and Labrador then some other places in the country is disingenuous. We need to ensure that we know it's going to be very, very tough.

I agree with some of the stuff government are saying, but one thing I don't agree with government are saying is that let's not try to spin this in a positive light; let's just call it what it is. It's a terrible tax for our province and the people who live in our province.

So let's just stop with the spinning of this. It's a terrible tax. Whether you're pushed into a corner to vote for it, for that backstop, whatever, but let's not spin it the way it's supposed to be. There's no Newfoundlander and Labradorian going to have more money in their pocket at the end of the day, it's just not going to happen. That's one thing that should come up in these conversations as well.

A couple of people have spoke about it before: Muskrat Falls. The Minister of Justice and Public Safety made it quite clear, last week or the week before, that it's the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that are paying for it. That's our carbon tax. We have a huge hydro project that we are paying for, that we are proud of or we will be proud of. It not just helps Newfoundland and Labrador, that project helps a lot of Eastern Canada. That project, if brought into the Loop one day, it's going to help a lot of Eastern Canada. It is going to help this country.

In a province of only 530,000 people, less than half the city of Edmonton, then I'm sure Ottawa should be able to look at us and say, do you know what? You guys are doing an amazing thing for this country. That's your carbon tax. That's what you have to pay for. That's what I'm talking about when I talk about a level playing field because it's not. It's completely not and we can do much better than this.

The resources in our province – Marathon Gold had to reconfigure all of their costs coming up for the project they have currently going on. By the way, they haven't made a nickel yet, but they're still going hard; they're still giving out the community benefits agreements and there are still lots of money to donations for different charities in my area but they haven't made a nickel yet. Their costs up, up, up, up – going up and it is. Unfortunately, it is.

So is that going to stop new businesses from coming into the province? I believe it will. It's hard enough to get business now. It is. I'm quite thankful for the resources but they come to an island and the added costs that we have here, it's going to be tough. All that I'm saying, my point here is that it's not a level playing field. It's completely not, nor should every province be treated like a level playing field, or city or rural area should be treated the exact same way. It's unjustified.

I'm not going to lecture our current provincial government about it, only them, because it's our federal government as well. Again, you take our current prime minister and you stick him into a corner where he can't afford to do the things he's doing, where he can't afford to feed his family, heat his house, drive his kid to hockey and pay for his kids' hockey registration, I guarantee you those attitudes will change in a hurry. But until we get people out there who can truly understand the struggles that are happening here in Newfoundland and Labrador because our current six MPs, they do not.

They do not, apparently. Until we get people up there who truly understand the struggles, we're going to have to put up with stuff like this from Ottawa for a very long time.

Thank you, Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear1

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: Thank you Chair.

It's always a privilege to stand in our space here – of course, I represent the strong District of Harbour Grace - Port de Grave and it's my first time actually speaking to this particular money bill. I just want to get up in the spirit of healthy, fulsome debate and we're talking about Ottawa and the treatment of Ottawa to the provinces, in particular Newfoundland and Labrador. But I just want to remind the hon. Member across who just made some points about the current prime minister. I just want to take us back to a previous prime minister, Stephen Harper, who we all remember.

I'll never forget; I was actually a journalist at the time, Chair, and we talk about what's good for Newfoundland and Labrador. I remember at the time that this particular prime minister took away our Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre as a political punishment that happened here in this province. I see the Members over there chirping now and they're putting expressions on their face, but it's true.

It was only two provinces in Canada that we're slated to lose their maritime rescue sub-centres, which was Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as Quebec. At the time Quebec didn't end up losing theirs, but we certainly did and it was a political punishment. I remember the rallies on the waterfront. All parties came together. I mean, what better way to hit Newfoundland and Labrador where it hurts than take away our Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre.

So we want to talk about the cold comfort and the cold treatment from Ottawa, but let's just remind the Members in the not-too-distant past what we had to endure here. I will say for the record that since the Liberal government in Ottawa took office, this is the most financial support that we have ever seen in Newfoundland and Labrador from Ottawa.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. PARSONS: Who can argue any different? Look no further than rate mitigation. I asked the hon. Members across the way just back in 2014, 2015 when the infamous Bill 29 was brought in to block information to the media, to members of the public and even to Members of this hon. House of Assembly, to pass what we know as the Muskrat Falls. We know that we're dealing with it; our ratepayers are dealing with it.

I will also remember it was this Premier that went to Ottawa, that called Ottawa, that's on the phone with Ottawa every other day and look what was secured with rate mitigation to protect the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. PARSONS: Talk about (inaudible). But it is true. So imagine if the rate mitigation did not come through from Ottawa for the people of this province. Imagine if this Premier could not secure that. Where would we be?

We know what we're seeing with the cost of living and it's not just unique to Newfoundland and Labrador. Everybody is hurting. I hear from my constituents in Harbour Grace - Port de Grave. We all hear it, all 40 districts here in this province, about the cost of living. We know that much of it is beyond our control. But I would like just to set the record straight because just if you get up and people just tuning in, listening to some of the Members across the way just spewing the propaganda, eliminating facts, they would be under the misconception that it's this government that's bringing in a carbon tax.

Again, I just want to set the record straight: This Premier, as well as this side of the House, have been to Ottawa to argue against the carbon tax and we know that. So I just want to set the record straight for the people at home or tuning in that we are not in agreeance with a carbon tax on the people of this province or any other province across Canada.

Facts do matter and, again, rate mitigation. I mean, God, just look how far off we would be or how worse off, rather, we would be in this time in this climate of cost of living. Just setting the record straight about – just make sure that the Members across the way are putting forth the facts – the facts. That's it, Chair, I'll take my seat and I won't belabor this debate further.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you.

I recognize the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I watched a movie last night in my hotel room; it was called Hot Tub Time Machine and it was about the Liberals and how they could always go back in time to every previous administration and find a solution. By God, they're in it right now, just imagine.

AN HON. MEMBER: You got to know your history.

L. PARROTT: Listen, I know my history pretty well. As a matter of fact, I'll tell you that I worked in search and rescue when JRCC was cut and I understand fully how it affected this province. If you want to have that debate with me, come on over, because I know more about search and rescue than you ever will know. Come on over.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Agreement: a negotiated and typically legal binding arrangement between parties as to a course of action. That is what we had in carbon tax. I'm not saying that our previous agreement was good, but I can tell you what, it was much better than what we have right now.

Now, I'm not going to debate the fact that we're repealing what our agreement was in order not to pay twice. I get that; the minister's not wrong when she says that. It is a fact. But here's the other fact, every Member in this House, collaboratively, along with the provincial Members, should be standing on their desk jumping up and down saying that what's happening in this province with this new carbon tax is not fit, not fair, won't work and we can't have it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Newfoundland is not the same as every other province, and it's about time that the federal government understood that. If you go to rural Newfoundland, you will quickly understand how this carbon tax is going to affect them simply with home heating fuel.

Now, I'm not going to argue the fact that we're trying to get heat pumps into houses, but we've debated that in this House. We understand that there are lots of people who cannot get a heat pump based on the electrical systems they have in their houses, 100-amp systems. They can't afford to do it; it's just simply a fact.

Now, we're going to let them implement carbon tax on rural Newfoundland. This is a sin tax, make no mistake about it. If you don't believe the fact that it's a sin tax, think of this. Last year on Open Line the Minister of Immigration said the intention of the federal government is to increase the price of fuels, that is how, just like a sin tax, you know, that is how you dissuade people from burning fuel and from crediting carving emissions. That is the federal government's carbon strategy. That's a formal federal minister's quote and he thinks it's okay. Think about that.

We sit here and we've listened all of this session about the provincial government saying you guys are going to vote against the budget. Not once have I heard anyone say: we voted for the carbon tax. Well, you did. You all did last year. You all thought it was great because it was a made-right-here solution.

Now, all of a sudden, the made-right-here solution is apparently being taken away and we don't hear a word. It's okay to say oh, the Premier wrote a letter, or the Premier went up and he talked, but do you know what? We should be offering solutions instead of saying we wrote letters. We should be saying let's work together. Let's go together. Let's fight together.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Let's lobby the federal MPs. We're not saying that. It's not being said and it should be said. It should be said on a regular basis. If you want collaboration, you have to offer it up. At the end of the day, this carbon tax is going to hurt people in this province in a way that no other tax will.

When the minister got out of her hot tub time machine, she talked about the good things that they've done. They never mentioned anything about the tax that was imposed on Marine Atlantic; never mentioned the sugar tax; never mentioned a lot of stuff.

Now, we can talk about the feds or the provincial taxes. We can take our time machine and go back to 2015 and talk about the 320 increases that were put in, I think it was 321 or something – facts. Wow. We forget about those facts.

Some of them have been –

S. COADY: (Inaudible) Muskrat Falls.

L. PARROTT: Oh, she wants to talk about Muskrat Falls.

So carbon tax: carbon tax was implemented to build a low-carbon economy. Think about that. Part of a low-carbon economy would be what? Hydroelectric facilities, just imagine.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: It's the cost of doing business.

Now, I'll remind you guys of something. You guys had a plan to put a prison in: $250 million. It's gone to $500 million. Do you know what you called it? Inflation. But when Muskrat Falls doubles over eight years because of your failure to deliver, your inability to build it –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: – it got nothing to do with inflation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: You cannot have it both ways.

Just because something doubles for you guys, it's inflation. Come on, you have to make your mind up. Which side are you talking out of today? Oh, I know.

Listen, the bottom line with Muskrat Falls is it's a key to a green economy. It costs us a fortune. It costs us a fortune. It was mismanaged. There were missed steps. We should learn from that. Yes, it cost us money, but the reality of it is we can't brag about what it's going to do for our green economy in one breath and the next breath say how terrible it is. We either want it or we don't.

Here you guys are talking about Gull Island and an Atlantic Loop. I have an idea, Quebec got cap and trade for carbon tax. Quebec gets cap and trade. They are under a totally different scheme than we are: 23 per cent per ton by 2030; we're going to be paying 30-something. We're not even talking about that. We're going to negotiate an Atlantic Loop with the federal government and with Quebec and we should be holding that as leverage. We should be saying, do you know what? This carbon tax don't work. You're not getting Muskrat Falls. You're not getting Gull Island.

You're not penalizing us for the things that we're doing right. But that's what we're not saying, I can guarantee you that. We should be saying that.

There are ways for us to move ahead, instead we find ways to step back, bow down, cow tail, I don't know maybe it's because it's your cousins, I don't know. I have no idea, but it does not make sense. At the end of the day, if you talk to anyone in rural Newfoundland who doesn't have public transit, who pays extra money to get stuff in; if you talk to the fisher people; if you talk to the Coast of Labrador, goods being shipped up; if you talk to Labrador West; if you talk to anywhere where there are thermal generation plants, we can't have those two arguments. At the end of the day, we are in a situation where this is not good.

Now, again, I'll go back, our Finance Minister is not wrong. There are good parts to this bill, absolutely, and they are not imposing a carbon tax. The carbon tax is being imposed by the federal government. But we need to fight harder against the federal government.

I can tell you, I don't think there's one person in this House that wouldn't stand with the Liberals to fight against the federal government on this carbon tax and implementation on home heating fuel. People can't afford it.

It's not just a rural tax. The people who live in the urban Newfoundland all have family. We all come from rural Newfoundland at some point. We all know how it affects those people, we represent them. We go into our ridings, we see how this affects infrastructure for roads. We see how it affects everything, but we don't say a word. We need to find a way certainly to minimize the impacts of what's going to happen here.

I said the last time I spoke about this carbon tax bill: talk about heat pumps. The lowest income people in this province are most likely burning oil. Certainly the ones that live in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. I've talked to the minister about it. They've done some pilot projects, but they haven't gone out around the bay and done the pilot projects. I think they need to. We need to look at a way to do those things. Instead, we just sit here, we spin our wheels and we argue back and forth about the same thing.

Mr. Chair, this carbon tax is not going to serve anyone in this province at all. The previous carbon tax, as bad as it was, was a much better option than this is. Now when you take home heating fuel and you put it into the equation, my God, rural Newfoundland will either relocate – it's almost as if we're trying to force rural Newfoundland to relocate. They can't afford to stay where they are. They can't afford to drive back and forth.

When we talk about tax, the one thing we don't talk about is the fact that if you live in rural Newfoundland, you drive 100 or 150 kilometres to get your groceries. You're already paying carbon tax on your fuel. Then you go home and you pay carbon tax to heat your house.

If you can't afford your fuel, you're driving all that way to go to a mall and walk around and stay warm and do things. It's really a regressive tax. No different, like I said, than the Minister of Immigration said, he himself, called it a sin tax. He said just like a sin tax. His words, not mine. We shouldn't be okay with it.

Anyway, on that note, Mr. Chair, I'll take my seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you.

I'm recognizing the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to stand up and address some of the comments made by some of my colleagues across the way, and support my colleagues on this side of the House that deal in the realm of facts. I think I would like to send kudos to the MHA for Topsail - Paradise because he always uses the line of facts matter. I appreciate that. At least someone on that side actually believes that facts do matter.

I don't have to shy away from any words I've said in this House of Assembly at any time. Hansard will show the record of what I've said. We did unequivocally support the carbon tax that was a made-here-in-Newfoundland approach last year. No doubt. I'm not going to stand here and say I didn't. I spoke to it many times because it was something that we could support based on what the exemptions were. That's changed.

Fast-forward a year from that and we're in a situation where I think the Member from Terra Nova highlighted that was better than what it is today. That's why we sent letters to the federal government on September 2, the 2nd again, the 9th, the 16th and the 3rd. Numerous phone calls, numerous lobbying efforts to try to get the federal government to move and leave our Newfoundland-and-Labrador approach in place because we think that it's much better for the people.

The Supreme Court of Canada has determined that the federal government has the ability, let the blame lie exactly where it should, at the feet of the federal government. They've established this, not the provincial governments, not Newfoundland and Labrador. So it's at the feet where it should lie with the federal government. They made the decision. The Supreme Court of Canada supported that decision and that ability for them to force that on the people of the country, not just here. So from my standpoint, that's why I said what I said last year, that's why I'm standing up here and very happy to repeal the carbon tax based on this year.

The changes are not in the best interest. I would tend to agree with many of the colleagues that have spoke earlier that said the costs have risen. The measure that the carbon tax was trying to achieve is already being achieved by the global pressures in the marketplace. That's why we were talking to Minister Guilbeault, as well as the prime minister, to pause on the carbon tax. That's what we fought for, that's what we will continue to fight for.

But let there be no mistake that, as a government, we are firmly fighting this approach to ensure that there was a Newfoundland-and-Labrador approach. We walked away from the table in 2016-2017 when there was negotiations about carbon tax to get the made-in-Newfoundland approach. I know Members opposite that sat on this side understood that very well . Members on this side understood why we did that and I would hope everyone on that side still do.

It was important to us to get those exemptions from home heating oil. That is why it is such a big, important factor for us in our change to the new program that we're putting in place for oil to electric. That program is going to address some of the concerns raised by hon. Members across the way that deal with the most vulnerable in our community that may not be able to afford to have that upfront cost of upgrading the electrical panels, changing out to electric furnaces or changing out to mini-splits or full change out for the systems.

They may not be able to afford those changes so that's why the program has changed into allowing us to pay that to suppliers, giving a much more generous to those that require it the most – the most vulnerable, the lowest income level – as well as the highest level of technology change. So we're going to continue to try to push the envelope on that.

I know there are many people on the other side that throw things like, why are we moving with electric vehicles. Every jurisdiction in the world is moving in this direction. Every jurisdiction in the world is moving this direction. We can say that it is only 1 per cent but 1 per cent made that choice this past year. There is going to be much more over the next couple of years as infrastructure catches up and as supply chains catch up. The prices of electric vehicles are coming down every day to better match the cost of internal combustion engines. That's what's happening.

We're not doing that; the marketplace is doing it. Those are things we're going to continue to focus on and we're going to continue to do those things.

I'm never going to sit in my seat and shy away from when someone asks me to stand up to talk about what I believe. I believe that it is very important that we wrestle with carbon tax; wrestle with the carbon that we're creating in this society. I think everyone in this House understands how important that is. I think the hon. Member for Exploits said he believes in carbon tax. We got to do something about it. That's what we're doing.

I don't necessarily agree with everything that we have to do but every one of us has to pick up and do a little bit more – every one of us, because we're going to see what is happening in the southwest coast of our province happen more often and more devastating. We don't want that. We have coastal communities in this province. We want to make sure to protect our societies and the best way to do that is make all the changes we can easier.

Nobody wants to put extra cost on people. That is not what anybody wants to do in this House, on both sides, but it is important that we got to wrestle with that because the costs are going to have to be paid, whether it is paid through fuel or reducing fuel, which is what our approach is. Putting money in the hands of people to make those changes so there's less carbon footprint there.

I could go on and on. I'm not going to today because I think there are other people who may want to stand up and speak. But I do want to say anytime you have any questions about programs that we're doing in the Department of Environment, please feel free to reach out for your constituents and for you as well.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: I'm recognizing the Member for Torngat Mountains

L. EVANS: Thank you, Chair.

Just going to speak briefly on the bill, Bill 38 and for people out there who are just tuning in, one of the important reasons why we have to introduce this bill is if we don't, there will be double taxation. So people in the province will be paying the carbon tax twice.

Also, there's a Physical Activity Tax Credit. The Minister of Finance spoke about it, and with the intent of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians becoming more healthy and physically fit. I agree with that totally. She talked about improves to expanding the credit so people can claim now up to $2,000 and get a refund; I think it's for a family up to $348, something like that. That's really important. We need to take more initiatives to increase things that will actually improve the physical fitness and overall health of people in the province. So I have no problem with that.

Also, I will make note that there are a lot of barriers to people in rural Newfoundland, not just in my District of Torngat Mountains, for accessing this Physical Activity Tax. For us a lot of times we don't have access to gym memberships. We don't have the equipment in our communities to be able to exercise for people. Like if you live in St. John's or in some community, more times than not you can buy physical equipment, like a treadmill; but for us to buy a treadmill, if they'll actually ship to my district, we pay more than the maximum $348 in just shipping for a treadmill.

That's not including the cost and if we have to buy the treadmill in Goose Bay, we'll probably almost pay twice as much as we would pay most of the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. So it's important to put things into context, and that's the reason I keep advocating for shipping, for food.

Now, just looking at the carbon tax. A lot of banter going back and forth here about the carbon tax and why it's important to have a carbon tax. The carbon tax is a government solution to helping reduce climate change or slow climate change. There are a lot of people who talks about is climate change real or not real. I remember, as a young university student, actually dealing with the potential of climate change, because even back then, many, many generations ago, when I was in university, we knew that increasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere was going to result in climate change.

Then we look at the last 10 years, the last 15 years, we saw a drastic changes that made the facts true. That people could actually see the facts and believe it.

Now just looking at my time, I want to maximize the use of my time. So climate change, we talk about global warming, greenhouse effect, but most of it we know is about the carbon dioxide release into the atmosphere. We see in my district and we see in other parts of our province and even across Canada, like the fires in Alberta; we see the floods across the world; insect and animal invasion. That's all a result of climate change.

In my district, the ice is freezing later so it impacts our ability to travel, to hunt, to fish, to gather. Also, we lose the ice more quickly in the spring. So, for us, being able to travel, being able to hunt and fish is really, really impacting the people in my district and it's really impacting our health. It's also impacting our physical fitness because what ends up happening is nutritious food is a lot of times priced out of the reach of people. I talk about that a lot in the House. So the intent of the Physical Activity Tax is good. But in actual fact, in my district, we're not benefiting very much.

So how do I feel? How do I feel about a carbon tax? I'm a biologist by profession. I worked in the environment for most of my adult life, so how do I feel about a carbon tax? I'm sitting over here with the Third Party. Everyone wants to point out how the Third Party supports the carbon tax, is trying to get something done about climate change. So how do I feel about it? I actually stood up in the House of Assembly and asked for the tax to be taken off the stove oil. So that sounds like it's making me a hypocrite.

But, in actual fact, in my district we have to look at what are our options. This government had 20 years to prepare. Canada had more than that to prepare, to change the technology, to give us options. So when we go to the gas station to fill up our jerry cans to go out in a speedboat in my district, we don't have an option. There's no electric option; there's no renewable energy option. For us, if we want to go out and get fish, seals or birds to offset the high cost of food in the stores, we have to go to the pump. We actually have to pay the taxes.

I want to talk a little bit about the reality in my district. I had better talk about it because I am going to run out of time. I asked for tax to come off the home heating fuel, the stove oil. In my district, right now, we're paying $2.0863 a litre. That's 208.63 cents a litre. In St. John's, here, they don't understand. How can anyone understand when they're being charged $1.158? I'll tell you what the difference is. The difference in what we pay between here and St. John's is 92.76 cents a litre. So 92 cents a litre. Actually, it's 93 cents a litre.

If you want to look at the tanks outside the house, the 1,000-litre tanks for stove oil, for people who have actually got furnaces. There's a huge incentive now for you to switch over to electricity. That 1,000-litre tank – here in St. John's, in actual fact, when you fill it up, you will pay $927.60 less than people in my district. The most vulnerable – $927.60 less a tank.

Looking at the Northern Peninsula on the Island, because I always talk about Labrador being treated differently than the Island. On the Northern Peninsula if they fill up that 1,000-litre tank, that red tank outside the house, they're going to pay $862.26 less than somebody in Nain or Hopedale in my district.

Now, the huge initiative to switch over to electricity – how can we switch to electricity? Well, first off, we're still going to be contributing to the carbon tax because our diesel generating stations that actually powers the electricity that we use in our district is fuelled by diesel. So there's no savings to the environment, yet we're paying these huge costs.

Really, the biggest thing for me is our seniors who can't haul wood, people with disabilities or people who don't have the physical ability, the manpower, to haul wood are stuck paying for this stove oil because we can't use electricity. Nineteen cents a kilowatt hour – now, what about hauling wood? We pay $2.063 cents a litre in my district for gasoline. That's how we haul our wood. That's how we hunt. That's how we fish. Right? So what's the difference? Now, for somebody in St. John's to fill up their tank, they're going to complain about it when they go in to pay the money.

If you're in my district, you'd have to pay an extra $23.28. So, for me, it's we are being harmed over and over and over again. We want to talk about the carbon tax, in actual fact, none of it is helping people in my district.

So, Chair, I'm going to sit down now.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Chair is recognizing the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you.

Chair, first of all payroll tax, exemption increase, nice gesture but still doesn't address the long-term vision to help businesses and workers move to a living wage. Physical Activity Tax Credit certainly works for those who can already afford to have these memberships and engage in these sporting activities. But I do want to talk a little bit about the carbon tax, since this seems to be the bait that preoccupies this debate, the issue.

Certainly from our point of view, when it comes to home heating, yes, it's a significant problem for those who heat their homes with oil. But also, and maybe this is where we need to be going, the programs that are out there need to be a little bit more affordable, a lot more affordable. It works, a lot of them, if you've got the money to make those changes but it's got to be a little bit more affordable for those who are on fixed incomes.

However, I do want to interject with regard to the carbon tax and three things in particular. That the carbon tax is not necessarily the culprit or the boogieman that it has been made out to be here. There are other factors that are contributing to the lack of affordability, which I haven't heard the outrage over, namely the record profits of oil companies that have been driving it up. I've actually heard from my colleagues here, certainly maybe a little bit of an NDP approach, an acknowledgement that it comes down to income or the lack of income that affects affordability, which is why we promoted such things as a livable minimum wage and guaranteed basic income.

Finally, while there's an acknowledgement that climate change is real, everyone knows it's real, acknowledging it and platitudes will not solve the very real consequences and costs that will come our way. I would submit that it will affect and cost those who are most vulnerable. They will be the ones that will suffer the most.

Now, in his article, “Ten reasons we can't blame the carbon tax for inflation” – this is by Jim Stanford, a very well respected and noted economist, 10 reasons. I'll just quickly go through them.

The surge in inflation since the pandemic has been experienced across almost all industrial countries, whether they have carbon pricing or not. The US doesn't have a carbon tax. It experienced higher inflation than Canada. Japan and Korea both have carbon taxes, and their inflation has been even lower than Canada's.

Two, increases in the carbon tax have been gradual, and started long before recent inflation that's wreaking havoc on a lot of people. It's decelerating rapidly – even as a larger $15-carbon tax increase is absorbed. The Bank of Canada expects inflation over the coming 12 months to fall back within its target range. In short, there is no visible correlation at all between carbon tax increases and the rate of inflation.

The impact of the carbon tax on final prices is small, even on fossil fuel products. At current average gasoline prices at $1.50 per litre, that's a 2 per cent increase. A $15-carbon tax increase translates into a direct 0.08 per cent increase in overall consumer prices. That is, less than one-tenth of 1 percent.

In the year ending in June 2022, when inflation peaked in Canada, the price of gasoline increased by 75 cents per litre. So that increase was almost 40 times larger than can be explained by the change in the carbon tax in that time. Gasoline prices have come back down, even as the carbon tax increased.

Clearly, it is other fluctuations in energy markets, not the carbon tax, that have dominated energy price changes, and the overall inflation rate. That's number five. Here is where we need to consider this: Increased fossil fuel prices by 30 times as much as the $10 carbon price increase in the same period.

What happened? Record profits, greedflation – not only by oil companies, but also by grocery chains. Galen Weston stepped down because he was a distraction from their corporate profits. But not once have I heard outrage expressed at the record profits and how that is impacting our seniors, our people on fixed incomes, the people who drive.

Let's take a look at the real reason; the ones who I guess are supporting the campaigns. That's what this comes down to. Let's talk about how we resolve that.

In February, the Bank of Canada reported to the House of Commons: “… that the $15 per tonne annual increases in the carbon tax raise the average economy-wide price level by 0.1 percentage points. That can hardly be measured ….”

“The whole point of the carbon tax is to stimulate economic adjustments aimed at energy conservation, investment in non-polluting energy systems ….” Changes are already happening.

Now, any vehicle we drive, just about all of them have powered windows. At one time, they were a luxury item. Prices came down. That's what happens as the technology expands. It happens.

The price of electricity is coming down. The price of electric vehicles is coming down. If we're talking about affordability, I would suggest that there are many people who could not afford a gas-powered internal combustion engine even before the prices went up. It was out of their price range. A lot of seniors gave up driving for a lot of reasons. Affordability is one; nothing to do with the carbon tax. A lot of people rely on an inadequate public active transit system, which we have failed to create because it has not been a priority if we want to talk about making it affordable.

“Once we consider the direct and indirect impacts on prices, the net effect of the carbon tax on the overall price level could be negative ….” Certainly that's the result of a study by Oxford Academia entitled the Journal of the European Economic Association . They did a study basically of Europe and Canada and found that certainly in Canada it was slightly deflationary; stimulus investment that's being provided by the carbon tax.

Have habits changed? I've driven a lot less and part of it is because if I'm going to preach it, I'm going to act it, if I can. So that means biking, taking the bus, walking where I can. That's not for everyone, but I will tell you that if we want to make it affordable for seniors, for people that can't afford a car to begin with, let's start looking at where we need to put the investments.

Basically, here is the thing: “Most of the revenue from carbon pricing regimes in various provinces is rebated back to Canadian households” mostly to those with lower incomes. I tell you the story again of the individual who lives in a small cottage, about 500 square feet, does not heat the place with oil, does not drive and will receive four quarterly payments, Chair, of $163, roughly $652. I would say this person is going to be in money.

Here is the thing that bothers me the most, simply acknowledging climate change is real will not stave off the inevitable cost and tragedy that will await for us. I would argue that many of the people that are going to pay the price because of this cost of inaction will be negatively affected more so than they will be by the carbon tax.

We want to look at seniors; let's talk about affordability, Chair. Pharmacare, indexing of pensions and wages, livable wages, rent control for seniors whose incomes are fixed, dental coverage; if we want to talk about making like affordable for seniors and for those on fixed incomes, those are some real ideas – a liveable minimum wage.

It has been acknowledged that MPs, and I would suggest people in this House of Assembly, are not worrying because the income is sufficient. If we want to address affordability issues, let's take a look at the income which people are forced to live on. Let's talk about affordable housing. Let's talk about transportation and ways in which we can make life affordable.

In the meantime, yes, let's make sure that we're not punishing those seniors who are forced to use oil to heat their homes, but let's find a way to help them in the long run as well.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Chair.

I move that the Committee rise and report progress on Bill 38.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

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

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

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

B. WARR: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the report be received?

J. HOGAN: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the Committee ask leave to sit again?

J. HOGAN: Tomorrow.

SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Motion 1.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

SPEAKER: Division has been called.

Call in the Members.

Division

SPEAKER: Are all Members ready?

Are the House Leaders ready?

All those in favour of the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Andrew Furey, John Hogan, Lisa Dempster, John Haggie, Bernard Davis, Tom Osborne, Siobhan Coady, Pam Parsons, Elvis Loveless, Krista Lynn Howell, Andrew Parsons, Steve Crocker, Sarah Stoodley, Derrick Bragg, John Abbott, Brian Warr, Sherry Gambin-Walsh, Scott Reid, Lucy Stoyles, Eddie Joyce, Paul Lane.

SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please rise.

CLERK: David Brazil, Barry Petten, Helen Conway Ottenheimer, Paul Dinn, Lloyd Parrott, Tony Wakeham, Jeff Dwyer –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

CLERK: – Pleaman Forsey, Loyola O'Driscoll, Craig Pardy, Joedy Wall –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

CLERK: – Chris Tibbs, James Dinn, Jordan Brown, Lela Evans.

Speaker, the ayes: 21; the nays: 15.

SPEAKER: I declare the motion as passed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 2.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions for granting of Supply to His Majesty, Bill 26.

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

S. COADY: Thank you, Speaker.

I received a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

SPEAKER: All rise.

Dated the 2nd day of May 2023:

As Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I transmit Estimates of sums required for the public service of the province for the year ending 31 March 2024, by the way of further Supply, and in accordance with the provisions of sections 54 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these Estimates to the House of Assembly.

Sgd.: _________________________

Lieutenant-Governor

Please be seated.

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

S. COADY: Thank you, Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Member of the House of Assembly for Placentia - St. Mary's, that the message be referred to the Committee of Supply.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply and that I do now leave the Chair.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Warr): Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 26,

An Act for Granting to His Majesty Certain Sums of Money for Defraying Certain Expenses of the Public Service for the Financial Year Ending March 31, 2024 and for Other Purposes Relating to the Public Service.

Resolution

“Be it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:

“That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to His Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2024 the sum of $5,772,561,200.”

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

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

S. COADY: Thank you, Chair.

The Supply Act, 2023 is the main supply and it's introduced following the completion of the budget debate. The requirement is to introduce debate and pass a main Supply bill to cover government expenditures during the fiscal year. It's a requirement of the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Financial Administration Act . Approval of this bill will ensure funds are available to meet government expenditures during the '23-'24 fiscal year and provide sufficient legislative authority for government to meet its financial obligations. The main Supply bill is a routine and administrative measure.

But I want to take a moment to thank Members of this House of Assembly for their scrutiny, their debate, their review, their support, their late hours and their hard work. I also want to recognize and thank all public employees who have been engaged in this very intense process and for their efforts and for their involvement and for their insurance that the people of the province have a budget that will work on their behalf.

I want to specifically and especially thank the hard-working professionals in the Department of Finance for their skill, their knowledge, their hard work, their extra efforts and, most of all, for their professionalism. We are very, very blessed in this province to have exceptional public employees.

I want to thank them on behalf of the Legislature, on behalf of the people of the province and thank this House for their efforts in ensuring that we have a budget for '23-'24. I think it's a good one for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

A bill, “An Act for Granting to His Majesty Certain Sums of Money for Defraying Certain Expenses of the Public Service for the Financial Year Ending March 31, 2024 and for Other Purposes Relating to the Public Service.” (Bill 26)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 through 4 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 through 4 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 4 carried.

CLERK: The Schedule.

CHAIR: Shall the

Schedule carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion,

Schedule carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

WHEREAS it appears that the sums mentioned are required to defray certain expenses of the public service of Newfoundland and Labrador for the financial year ending March 31, 2024 and for other purposes relating to the public service.

CHAIR: Shall the

preamble carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion,

preamble carried.

CLERK:

An Act for Granting to His Majesty Certain Sums of Money for Defraying Certain Expenses of the Public Service for the Financial Year Ending March 31, 2024 and for Other Purposes Relating to the Public Service.

CHAIR: Shall the

long title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion,

long title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the resolution and Bill 26 carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

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

S. COADY: Chair, I move, seconded by the Member for St. George's - Humber, that the total contained in the Estimates in the amount of $8,746,723,900 for the 2023-2024 fiscal year be carried, and I further move that the Committee report that they have adopted a resolution and a bill consequent thereto.

CHAIR: The motion is that the total contained in the Estimates in the amount of $8,746,723,900 for the 2023-2024 fiscal year be carried and that the Committee report that they have adopted a resolution and a bill consequent thereto.

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

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

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

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

B. WARR: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have passed the amount of $8,746,723,900 contained in the Estimates of Supply for the 2023-2024 fiscal year and have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and directed him to report that the Committee have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

When shall the report be received?

S. COADY: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that the resolution be now read a first time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the resolution be now read a first time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

CLERK: “

Be it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:

“That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to His Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2024 the sum of $5,772,561,200.”

On motion, resolution read a first time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that the resolution be now read a second time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the resolution be now read a second time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

The motion is carried.

CLERK: “

Be it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows :

“That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to His Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2024 the sum of $5,772,561,200.”

On motion, resolution read a second time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, for leave to introduce the Supply Bill, Bill 26 and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce Bill 26, the Supply Bill, 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.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion, that the hon. Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, “An Act for Granting to His Majesty Certain Sums of Money for Defraying Certain Expenses of the Public Service for the Financial Year Ending March 31, 2024 and for Other Purposes Relating to the Public Service,” carried.

(Bill 26)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act for Granting to His Majesty Certain Sums of Money for Defraying Certain Expenses of the Public Service for the Financial Year Ending March 31, 2024 and for Other Purposes Relating to the Public Service. (Bill 26)

On motion, Bill 26 read a first time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that the Supply Bill be now read a second time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the Supply Bill be now read a second time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act for Granting to His Majesty Certain Sums of Money for Defraying Certain Expenses of the Public Service for the Financial Year Ending March 31, 2024 and for Other Purposes Relating to the Public Service. (Bill 26)

On motion, Bill 26 read a second time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that the Supply Bill be now read a third time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the Supply Bill be now read a third time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act for Granting to His Majesty Certain Sums of Money for Defraying Certain Expenses of the Public Service for the Financial Year Ending March 31, 2024 and for Other Purposes Relating to the Public Service. (Bill 26)

SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, “An Act for Granting to His Majesty Certain Sums of Money for Defraying Certain Expenses of the Public Service for the Financial Year Ending March 31, 2024 and for Other Purposes Relating to the Public Service,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 26)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I move that this House do now resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 38.

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

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Warr): Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 38,

An Act to Amend the Revenue Administration Act and

An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, 2000.

A bill, “An Act to Amend the Revenue Administration Act and

An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, 2000.” (Bill 38)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The Chair is recognizing the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE: Thank you, Chair.

I wasn't going to speak on this today but there was a certain speech in this House this morning that made me stand up and speak on this. I agree that I will reluctantly vote for it, same as my colleague from Mount Pearl - Southlands.

The people I get calls from are mostly women, low income, or seniors living alone; mainly women living alone that either their spouse passed away or some other reason. When I heard the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality stand up this morning and she got on about Stephen Harper. The Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality not once in her speech mentioned the hardship of the women in this province with this carbon tax, so I'm forced to stand up and defend those people.

It is just shameful. It is just shameful how to Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality would not mention the hardship that the women, the people, the widowers in this province are going through. But she decided to take a political hack to try to embarrass everybody in this House. It's just shameful. I just can't stand for it.

You want to bring up Stephen Harper, so I'll just give what the minister didn't speak about. Does carbon tax help the environment? The government website: It creates a financial incentive for people and businesses not to pollute.

Here is the question: If you have a senior, a widower on fixed income, she now has a carbon tax on her heating oil, what does she do? Do you know what her incentive is? Get cold; put on an extra shirt; pay for oil; don't get medication; don't get enough food. And you have the minister standing up and not even speaking about those people.

I bet you, Mr. Chair, you mark my words, I doubt if there are not going to be two, maybe three, on that opposite side standing up now hammering on the Opposition and talking about Stephen Harper back 10, 15 years ago. How many of them are going to be running for the federal Trudeau government? How many of them are going to be out knocking on doors on the federal Trudeau government? They're talking about it is not us; we don't support it. Let's see how much they're going to go out and support their federal colleagues. Let's go see it. It is shameful. It is actually shameful. And they're saying, oh, it is not us. I know it is the federal government, but there has to be more we can do.

The insensitivity from the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality this morning showed me the disdain that they have for the widowers, the seniors in this province, people on low income and that is a reflection of the government. I got to say if anyone over there wants to stand up and talk about they know the hardships, we all understand them.

And we all understand the hardships that people are going to have. Absolutely, no doubt, this is wrong. But to not recognize that and try to take a political hack and try to banter on this Opposition because of Muskrat Falls. And then talk about Stephen Harper; most people weren't even here when Stephen Harper was there. Most people weren't even here. I don't even know how many people were here from Muskrat Falls. It might be three.

P. LANE: The PCs didn't even support Stephen Harper.

E. JOYCE: The PCs didn't even support Stephen Harper.

But maybe three or four that were here from Muskrat Falls. I was the one that led – and the Member for Burgeo - La Poile was another one who helped lead the filibuster on it. So don't go using over here and bantering about Muskrat Falls and not recognize the honest, legitimate pain that it is going to cost the many seniors and widowers and low-income people. Please don't do it because it is not worth it. It's really not worth it.

If I want to stand up here now and have some political shots at a lot of people, it is easy for me to do; I have a good memory and I have a long memory but I won't do it because this issue is too important. I just want to read a little stat. A lot of this here comes from Trudeau wanting to be on the international stage, that what we're doing for climate change and all that. We all understand climate change is real. There's no one here going to debate climate change is not real, that we all do our little part.

I just want to put this in perspective, Mr. Chair. Two plants a week in China are opening up burning coal. There are 89 million tons this year alone; 300 million tons of coal added to China in 2022. Here we are forcing the federal government, forcing those seniors to either don't take your medication, don't have extra food or stay cold in your house because he wants to be on the international stage and what he's doing here for the 45,000, 50,000 households here in this province is just absolutely shameful.

We heard people say we're trying to get them to change to electricity. I have to say that is one of the biggest fallacies that I heard here when the government stands up and trying to say let's make them change to electricity. Just go through the process if someone is on oil now. They have to put in electricity. They have to get rid of their hot water tank. Just the cost alone: $30,000. I spoke to a senior, went down to her house and do you know what she had to do? She had to get her electricity upgraded, go right through her house, another $10,000.

Yet, we're going to be here in this House and the Member who's responsible for the Status of Women won't even defend them. Just won't defend them; it's shameful.

That's what forced me to stand up here today because the majority of calls that I get are from low income, a lot of females, widowers who just can't afford to stay in their homes. They can't go into a home because there's no suitable accommodations, so what do they do? I'll guarantee you, Mr. Chair, they're all up here now bantering, Prime Minister Trudeau. They're all up here bantering him. It's all the federal government. If he was down here tomorrow, there would be a stampede to try to get through the door. They'd be a stampede.

When you bring up some of the stuff that the federal government has done for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, there's no doubt that there has been good things. But when you target a group mainly seniors, mainly widowers, low-income individuals, this is what we need to stand up for. It's not the big businesses. It's not the business who going to make it no matter what happens; they're going to find a way. It's not the one who's getting the financial incentive. It's the people who are struggling. That's what we're here for.

If we don't stand up and if we don't fight back some way, more though than saying we wrote letters – the easiest thing to do is write a letter and wave it back and forth. Easiest thing in the world to do. Say look, here's what we did. But if we don't stand up for the people less vulnerable, what are we doing? What are we doing in this House of Assembly?

If we want to stand up and just banter back and forth on politics here when there's something so serious as people who can't heat their home, can't afford their medication, we've reached a level that I've never seen. This is why I had to stand up today to remind the people in this House – and I know most people understand it and most people will do whatever they can.

But after that speech today from the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality and never mentioned seniors once, never mentioned widowers once, never mentioned low-income people, that just shows how certain Members on the opposite side, all they want to do is stand up and play politics. They missed the vision. They missed the vision of why we're here. It's to help people who are less vulnerable and help the people of the province no matter what their status is, to lift them up a bit.

Mr. Chair, I'm going to take my seat today but I can guarantee you one thing, I'll never forget that speech because anytime now that I hear that minister speak in here, I'm going to question is she really concerned or does she just want to make some political points here on the opposite side of the House.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move that the House now rise and report progress on Bill 38.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Those against?

Motion carried.

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

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

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

B. WARR: Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the report be received?

J. HOGAN: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the Committee have leave to sit again?

J. HOGAN: Presently.

SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again presently, by leave.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I move that the House do now recess.

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

Recess

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

Before we begin, I'd just like to take a minute to wish the hon. Minister of Labrador Affairs a very happy birthday today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: I'm told she's 29-plus, I'm not sure how far plus.

Happy birthday.

Also in the Speaker's gallery, I'd like to recognize people here for a Member's statement. They are Jaida Lee and her mother, Amanda.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: We also have several visitors in the public gallery this afternoon.

I would like to welcome Jabez Seymour, who will be recognized in a Member's Statement. He is joined by his mother Melissa, stepdad Jason and sister Cassandra.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Lastly, visiting us this afternoon for a ministerial statement, I'd like to welcome Roland Beanland and John Tobin.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

SPEAKER: Today, we'll hear statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Humber - Bay of Islands; Labrador West; Baie Verte - Green Bay; Harbour Main; Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, with leave; Gander, with leave; and Virginia Waters - Pleasantville, also with leave.

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

E. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Jacey Matthews who was recently awarded a 2023 Research Inspired Student Enrichment Award. This award recognizes students who demonstrate academic excellence in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

Jacey, a Level II student at Templeton Academy in Meadows, will be attending a three-week program at the Boston Leadership Institute in Wellesley, Massachusetts. The program provides students with an opportunity to develop high-level research skills and subject matter expertise through lectures, presentations and hands-on experiments.

Jacey has been involved in many leadership roles in school including the School Student Leadership Team, Identity Committee