PDF Version (Day)

PDF Version (Night)

May 30, 2022

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. L No. 58

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

Before

we begin, I would like to welcome some people in the public gallery. First of

all, Mayor Maisie Clark from the beautiful District of Lewisporte - Twillingate,

the mayor of Campbellton.

Welcome

Mayor Clark.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Also, in the public gallery,

I would like to welcome Danielle Morin, vice-president of the Fédération des

francophones de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador; and Gaël Corbineau, executive

director of the Fédération des francophones de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

They will be here for a

Ministerial Statement today.

Also,

I'd like to recognize one of our pages, Leisha Toory. Leisha is helping the

community through Period Priority Project. She collects donations of menstrual

products and delivers them to local charity groups such as the women's shelter,

food banks and Indigenous groups. In just four days, from May 16 to 20, the

Period Priority Project distributed more than 400 menstrual products to the

various groups.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

SPEAKER:

Today we will hear statements

by the hon. Members for the Districts of Exploits, Placentia - St. Mary's,

Humber - Bay of Islands, Baie Verte - Green Bay and Ferryland.

The hon.

the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY:

Thank you, Speaker.

On May

26, 2022, I had the opportunity to attend a volunteer barbeque in the Town of

Point Leamington in the beautiful District of Exploits.

The Town

of Point Leamington held its barbeque to show appreciation to its local

volunteers and volunteer associations. Some of the volunteer organizations that

were honoured at this includes: the town council, fire department, recreation

and heritage committee, amongst many others that serve the Point Leamington

area. These volunteers are an amazing asset to this community and all throughout

the Exploits District, and indeed our province.

Speaker,

I would like for all Members of this House of Assembly to join me in thanking

all the volunteers in the Town of Point Leamington, and all of the volunteers

throughout the District of Exploits, and Newfoundland and Labrador for their

hard work, dedication and contributions to our society.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia - St. Mary's.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Speaker, in 1779, the Battery

was erected in St. Mary's to protect the coastal areas and the prominent fishing

grounds from privateers. The Battery remained active until 1815 through the

Napoleonic Wars and the War of 1812.

The

Battery volunteer restoration committee has worked hard to restore the site, an

important regional artifact. They have created a park, which attracts visitors

to St. Mary's as they travel around the Irish Loop on the Southern Shore.

The park

has cannons and various benches to enjoy the waterfront view. There are picnic

tables, if you wish to bring a snack and lots of interpretative panels to learn

more about the history of the area.

There is

a copy of the HMS Proteus , where you

can get your photo taken and a number of directional arrows of local communities

and those far away. The playground is dedicated to Sister Elizabeth Bonia. The

park is also a starting point if you wish to hike the coastal trail to the Gulch

Beach and Gaskiers-Point La Haye.

Join us

on Saturday, August 6, as the Gulch Beach committee along with the St. Mary's

Car Club hosts the annual Gulch Beach Festival, followed by a week long of Come

Home Year festivities.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE:

I rise today to recognize the

Templeton Tigers boy hockey team who won the double A provincial boys ball

hockey tournament held this past weekend at Templeton Academy in Meadows.

Coached

by Barry Park and Fabian Lovell, the Templeton boys won in the final

championship round against King's Academy from Harbour Breton, nine to five.

Seven teams participated in the tournament including Fogo Island Central High,

Canon Richards Memorial from Flower's Cove, J. M. Olds from Twillingate and St.

Michael's Regional High from Bell Island and Labrador Straits Academy from

L'Anse au Loup. All teams displayed great sportsmanship and team spirit, but the

Labrador Straits Academy received the team sportsman banner.

Templeton Tiger players included Kalan Murrin; Evan Janes; Joshua Hann; Marcus

Wells; Carter Burton; Curtis Murrin; Wade Mullins; David George; Reggie (RJ)

Ruth; Nick Greening; Jordan Blanchard; Ben Brake, who received the sportsman

award; and Ethan Janes who received the most valuable player award

ask all Members to join with me in extending congratulations to the Templeton

Tigers on their gold medal win and to all the teams for a great tournament and

the great group of volunteers, coaches, referees and parents who made this such

a successful event for the seven teams and all high school students.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay.

B. WARR:

Speaker, I rise to acknowledge a constituent of

Jackson's Cove, a published photographer,

Within Wild Shores: A Photographers Ode to Newfoundland by Mr. David J.

Tilley.

portrayed in the Ode to Newfoundland ,

photographer David Tilley, captures our smiling, frozen wind-swept land; from

sunrays to sunsets; from wild waves to pine-clad hills; from shortened day to

starlit night; the colours of each season to the captivating sunset following a

gorgeous summer's day; the lobster pots anticipating a great harvest to the

stare of a bull moose showcasing his antlers.

Mr.

Tilley clearly has a unique gift to capture the beauty of our glorious province,

from a spider's web to the rain droplets on a maple leaf. His publication

includes all aspects of our province, including weather-beaten wharfs and

seafaring fishing vessels, the internationally known tablelands, to our

province's uniquely named communities, including Nickey's Nose

ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Dave Tilley for his remarkable

undertaking and breathtaking photography of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL : Thank you, Speaker.

rise today to recognize and congratulate a wonderful group of volunteers from

the Town of Ferryland and surrounding area.

Sunday, March 27, I was glad to attend a fundraiser in aid of relief for Ukraine

at the Legion in Ferryland. A great show of kindness from all involved that gave

so freely of their time by donating baked goods and homemade crafts and as well

those who donated gift certificates and cash. Along with people who donated

items, there was a great show of support from some very talented musicians that

performed.

Last but

not least, a big thank you to the Legion in Ferryland for providing the venue.

The event raised over $2,000 that was given to the Red Cross to help with the

devastation that is happening in Ukraine.

Speaker,

I ask all Members of this House to join me in congratulating the Ukraine Relief

Organizing Committee in Ferryland on a job well done.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for Francophone Affairs.

S. STOODLEY:

Speaker, I'm pleased to

recognize today as Provincial Francophonie Day. The Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador has celebrated this occasion since 1999. This morning I was pleased

to participate in a flag-raising event organized by the Francophone Federation

of Newfoundland and Labrador. I was honoured to join students from école

Rocher-du-Nord and members of the community. Similar events are taking place

elsewhere today in places like Port au Port and Labrador.

travaille de près avec la Fédération des francophones afin de déterminer les

meilleures façons pour le gouvernement de répondre aux besoins de notre

communauté francophone.

Also,

the Office of French Services provided critical public health information in

French throughout the pandemic.

Monsieur

le Président, la semaine dernière je suis allée avec le ministre de l'Éducation

ainsi qu'avec des membres de la communauté francophone visiter les nouveaux

locaux de l'École Rocher-du-Nord. Nous voulons les aider à faire de ce lieu une

nouvelle plaque tournante de la communauté.

Today I

ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the francophone and Acadian

community of Newfoundland and Labrador on this Provincial Francophonie Day.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

Speaker, I want to thank the

minister for an advance copy of her statement. On behalf of the Official

Opposition I join in recognizing Provincial Francophonie Day. I was honoured to

attend the celebration earlier this morning and thank those who helped organize

the event.

I also

wish to recognize community leaders in my district for planning today's

celebrations in Port au Port. Stephenville - Port au Port has a proud

francophone history and culture. I am equally proud to represent an area of the

province where the first language of many residents is French. These residents

have taught me so much about supporting their culture and language as a way to

help encourage strong and diverse communities.

encourage all residents of the province and visitors alike to come visit the

Port au Port Peninsula and celebrate the French festivals that will happen this

summer in Stephenville - Port au Port. You will not be disappointed.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

J. BROWN:

Merci, président.

remercie la ministre de m'avoir fourni une copie de sa declaration. La

communauté francophone est un élément vital de cette province. Des cultures

différentes nous rendent plus forts en tant que société.

French language skills are not perfect, but I continue to try and learn. So I

call upon government to ensure that immersion resources are available for

French, but also for our province's Indigenous languages so that everyone has an

opportunity to learn and grow in this province.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Are there any further

statements by ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Speaker.

In the

Liberal five-point plan, and again in the budget, the Minister of Finance said

she was doing all she could afford to do.

Why did

it take the Premier almost three months to recognize his Finance Minister was

actually not doing as much as she could to help the suffering people of

Newfoundland and Labrador?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

course the Minister of Finance was doing as much as she could, with $142 million

within the budget. As I said, and as we have said, we are always responsive to

the situation, the dynamics of the world economy and the Canadian economy and

then, frankly, how it impacts Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Part of

this job is being dynamic; part of it is being responsive. We're listening;

we're trying to absorb the financial realities of our province in the face of

global turmoil and then adjusting the ship accordingly. Mr. Speaker, and I think

the Minister of Finance has done a remarkable job in doing so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Speaker.

The

people of Newfoundland and Labrador have been suffering for the last three

months again, with not knowing exactly how they were going to deal with the cost

of living.

Will the

Premier admit the only reason he directed additional measures on Thursday was

because the intense public backlash over the Liberals ' failure to act was

becoming a political liability?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As we've

said many times, we need to be flexible; we need to be dynamic. This is a

changing situation, as we've seen, throughout the world. Coming out of a

pandemic, who could have predicted that? Who could have predicted a war in

Ukraine, Mr. Speaker? We need to be responsive, we need to dynamic and those are

real forces at play in the world economy that trickle down to the forces in

Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

We are

responsive, we have listened and we continue to listen, and that subsequently

added extra measures as you saw last week, Mr. Speaker. And I think the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador understand that, and they appreciate it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Mr. Speaker, why did the

Premier not act for nearly three months, while the Finance Minister allowed the

people of the province to do without, knowing she had an extra $80 million to

work with?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

appreciate the question. I will say to the Member opposite, Newfoundland and

Labrador has done more to help the people of the province on the cost of living

than any other province in this country, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

S. COADY:

I will say to the Member

opposite that we have gone above and beyond this; we have done everything that

we can do –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

S. COADY:

I hear the chirping across

the way again, Speaker, interrupting –

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

S. COADY:

– the response, but I'll

endeavour on. These are extraordinary times. We did provide $142 million of

support within the budget. As we've seen, the price of fuel continuing to rise,

we acted to help the people of the province and that's why we introduced two new

measures last week, including the lowering of the gas tax and a supplement in

the fall for the home heat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Mr. Speaker, I guarantee you

the hundreds of thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are suffering

are saying you didn't do enough.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL:

We don't really care too much

about other provinces at this point when it comes to suffering Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians.

The

Liberal five-point plan: strike one. The Liberal budget: strike two. With the

minister now up at bat for a third time, does the Premier believe that finally

this time she has done as much as she can to help the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador? Or is it strike three and you're out?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

Thank you, Speaker.

I'll

address that question: $222 million we've returned to the people of the

province. That is over $4 million a week that we're returning to the people of

the province. And we're holding on to our financial measures, that we know we

have to put in place because, of course, we're borrowing $351 million this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

S. COADY:

I'll say to the Member

opposite, we've hit it out of the ballpark and we're going to continue to work

hard on behalf of the people of the province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Speaker.

I will

have to note, there is nobody in the ballpark watching you hit it out because

they can't afford to be there right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL:

When the new sugar tax kicks

in this year, on top of the higher carbon tax, the gas tax relief suddenly ends

at Christmas –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

D. BRAZIL:

– and the one-time heat

rebate is gone, will the Premier continue to tell suffering families his Finance

Minister has hit a home run?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

Thank you, Speaker.

I have

to say, the Member opposite is –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

The Member opposite keeps

making analogies to baseball. I'll say this, Speaker, we're working hard on

behalf of the people of the province. I think the people of the province

understand that we are borrowing this money, $351 million this year, and we're

still going to provide support.

That is

because, on this side of the House, we are strong financial managers, Speaker.

We have lowered the deficit; we are going to continue to lower the deficit. We

are going to continue to provide support for the people of the province. Unlike

the Members opposite who gave us things like a record deficit of $2.2 billion,

as well as Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

Speaker, it does nothing for

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to hear the Minister of Finance stand up

and talk about Muskrat Falls. They're talking about what are you going to do for

them today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

T. WAKEHAM:

In relation to the

announcement –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

If you

want to waste Question Period arguing back and forth, we can.

The hon.

the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

So, Speaker, I will ask the

Minister of Finance: The announcement made last week, is the home heating rebate

non-taxable, and when will the people be able to apply and receive their

cheques?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

Finally, a reasonable and

responsible question on behalf of the people of the province.

I will

say to the Member opposite, we –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

S. COADY:

– have to discuss with the

Revenue Agency of Canada. Speaker, they will give the final ruling. But we

understand the $500 that we'll be providing to families, who earn a family

income of under $100,000, will not be taxable. That's what we understand; it

will not be taxable.

In the

coming weeks, we will set up a portal as well as a telephone line to allow

people to apply. The cheques that will be provided will be provided likely the

end of September, early October of this fall.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

Speaker, we're glad that the government and the minister have finally realized

that the people need a home heating rebate. But I ask, again: Why do we have to

wait until October? They really need that money back in their pockets now.

So again

I ask: What does it take so long to process this and can people start applying?

How quickly can we make this happen?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

Thank you, Speaker.

I will

remind the Member opposite, as I've reminded him in this House, the home heat

rebate is rolled into the Income Supplement and the Seniors' Benefit. We are

giving a one-time supplementary payment for those that heat their homes with

oil. It will be provided in September.

This is

not the time of the year when oil heat is utilized greatly. We are going to wait

until September when we know people will be filling their tanks, getting ready

for the fall. It does take a number of weeks, of course, to get the information

that we need from the Canada Revenue Agency, as this is income tested.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

Speaker, I appreciate the

response from the minister again, but I would suggest that the pocketbooks and

the chequebooks and the bank accounts of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

have already been emptied by the high cost that they've already paid for fuel

over the past heating season. So let's not talk about next heating season. Let's

reimburse them for what they've already spent so far to date.

Speaker,

the gas tax relief is scheduled to end on New Year's Day. The House will be

closed, but gas prices might still be up.

So I ask

the minister: Will you remove the automatic sunset clause on this tax relief so

the relief stays in place as long as it's needed?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

First of all, Speaker, we

have provided relief for the people of the province. We increased the Income

Supplement by 10 per cent. We increased the Seniors' Benefit by 10 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

S. COADY:

We provided a special payment

this spring to those that are on income support. We provided them up to $400 for

their family. So we have been providing supports.

We also

reduced, by 50 per cent, the cost of registering your vehicles and we also

removed the retail sales tax on your home insurance. Speaker, so we have already

been providing support. This is additional support.

There is

a sunset clause, January 1, 2023; this is an important measure that we have to

put in place. We'll review this in the fall.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

Speaker, of everything that

the minister just said, the one thing she failed to say was that the Premier and

the minister both acknowledge that what they had done in the budget was not

enough. If it wasn't for this side of the House arguing for those additional

measures, we'd never have them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM:

So I go back and ask the

minister again: Inflation has no sunset clause so we need to know will you

eliminate that particular date and keep it until the people need it, as long as

prices stay up?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

These are extraordinary

measures and extraordinary times. This government has worked very, very hard on

behalf of the people. We've provided $142 million and the price of inflation

continues to rise. We're concerned about that. This is happening all across

Canada; it's happening all around the world. We've responded to what we heard.

We responded to the increasing costs and we'll continue to respond.

That's

$222 million, Speaker, that we have been able to provide back to the people of

the province. We're working very hard to make sure that we recognize and respond

to people's requirements, because of the high cost of living. We'll continue to

do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

Last

week, the province learned of the tragic story of Ashley Molloy, a vibrant young

mother of two living in Harbour Breton.

Speaker,

I spoke with her mother. She can see the local hospital from their front step,

but, tragically, the emergency room was closed. If this emergency room wasn't

closed due to the failure of this government, Ashely might be tucking her kids

to bed tonight.

I ask

the Premier: What does he say to this family?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

These

situations are very difficult and I extend our condolences to the family. I

cannot, beyond that, speak to the specifics of any individual case.

We, like

every other jurisdiction in Canada, have been faced with staffing and

recruitment challenges. We have announced in October, a $30-million package to

deal with that. We have an assistant deputy minister responsible for health

professional recruitment starting imminently. We have, in the meantime,

instituted a whole raft of measures included in the budget and outside the

budget to support primary care and virtual ER.

For the benefit of the Member opposite, for the

information of this House, this weekend there were six rural emergencies

departments closed in BC. We are not alone and we are better than managing with

the others.

SPEAKER:

The minister's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

Maybe the minister is better sent out in BC.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

P. DINN:

The one thing I'll agree: It is a difficult situation

but very preventable. Five hours – five hours, Premier. This is important. This

is very important.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Get

to your question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

It's shocking.

P. DINN: It took five hours for Ashley to be transported to

Grand Falls-Windsor. This young mother was failed by our health care system. The

long-term mental health supports were not there. The emergency room was shut

down when she tragically needed it.

ask the Premier: Will he take responsibility for the failures of his government

in health care and apologize?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

Again, it is a very tragic situation when things like this happen. The mental

health system in this province has undergone a significant transformation.

Services are accessible via a whole variety of means including telephone, face

to face, no appointments are required and you can even self refer to the FACT

teams – the Flexible Assertive Community Treatment teams.

These are difficult situations. I cannot and will not, in this House, respond to

the specifics of any case. Myself and predecessors from all sides of the House

have adopted that view and that policy in the interest of privacy and respect

for families.

There are improvements in the health care system. This is an unfortunate

situation and we are certainly looking to learn from it. My sympathies go to the

family.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

hear every day the shortcomings of the systems that are put in place. Speaker,

Dr. Wendy House, a general internist in Central has responded to this case.

Without physicians in place, like Harbour Breton, she says – and I quote – this

is probably going to be the norm.

ask the Premier: Will health care system failures like the Molloy family, that

they have tragically faced, continue to be the norm under his government?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

did see the interview with Dr. House on the media last week. It is difficult

when you have professionals who are tired and frustrated and burnt out, airing

their views in public. We need to hear them and we certainly worked very closely

with the NLMA on these issues in the past.

That is

why, having recognized that, we have brought in an ADM for recruitment and

retention. We have a work in progress with the NLMA to analyze those factors

that would make working in rural centres attractive and sustainable. The Health

Accord will provide us with further support to do that, and I look forward to

the blueprint report which I expect hopefully in the next week or so.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

J. WALL:

Speaker, today we celebrate

and recognize Provincial Francophonie Day. Ironically, my office has heard from

a number of parents who have registered for French immersion in September at

Holy Trinity Elementary in Torbay, but they are getting a runaround.

Thirty-eight families have registered for French immersion, but the school

district has capped the class size to 27 – 27 in Kindergarten.

Speaker:

Why are the 11 other students being denied access to a French immersion

education?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education.

T. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am

aware of the situation in the Member's district and the number of people that

are enrolled. The operations for these issues are generally handled by the

NLESD; however, myself and my staff have been looking at this issue, the

executive within the Department of Education. We've been looking at the issue,

Mr. Speaker. It's still under review.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

J. WALL:

Speaker, looking at the issue

and under review is not the answer that's being given to the parents. This

expanding the class sizes there.

If this

government is really serious about promoting French immersion education in our

province, why not split the full registration of 38 families into two classes of

19, a much more reasonable number than one class of 27?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education.

T. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do

recognize the points being raised by the Member opposite. Again, the issue as it

stands at the moment, the NLESD are looking at enrolment numbers, Mr. Speaker.

but I do recognize the point that the Member is saying and I do believe that it

is important for students in our province to have an opportunity for French.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

L. PARROTT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd

remind the minister that it's important for the students to have equal

opportunities right across the province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT:

With the pending announcement

on the resumption of work at West White Rose, much of which is being done in

other countries, will the minister commit to ensuring that all work that can be

done on the Bay du Nord Project will be right here by Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

happy to answer this question and speak to the successes that we've been having

as it relates to the oil industry as of late. When it comes to Bay du Nord, what

I can say is that there was a framework agreement in place in 2018. And I can

point out that this government has always gone out of its way to ensure that we

get as much work here as possible.

As we

move forward into the Bay du Nord negotiations, we'll continue to do that. I

think everybody on all sides of the House – well, most people on all sides of

the House want to see as much done on the oil sector here. So that is a

commitment that we'll make and we'll try our best to ensure that we have as many

person-hours here and as much of the work done here.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

L. PARROTT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have

seen the giveaways before and now is the time that we have to stop them. Bay du

Nord could be as much as five times bigger than we originally thought and the

commitment for 5,000 metric tons of work just isn't enough.

When

this agreement is reopened, what assurances can you give industry and workers

that this province will be the primary beneficiaries from not only operations

but also construction?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can't

speak to agreements that were sanctioned before our time or certainly before my

time. I can only speak to what has been done since I have been in this chair.

I'd like to think that we have gone out of our way to show support for the

industry, but at the same time realizing that the resources belong to the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

So the

best I can say is that the assurance that I give is that at the end of the day,

I live here in this province. I have neighbours and friends, the same as we all

do, that work on these projects and we want to see as many of them gainfully

employed on this as possible. At the same time, dealing with the circumstances

we face when we look at these global companies and operators, there is always

going to be that pressure but we all want to see as many people working here as

possible.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista.

C. PARDY:

Thank you, Speaker.

The Fish

Processing Licensing Board, a group with a combined over 200 years of experience

in fisheries matters – 200 years – spent over a year meeting with DFO scientists

and industry representatives before they made their recommendation to the

minister on the addition of licences.

overruling the board, what research was his decision based on?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.

D. BRAGG:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

I take

the duties of the board very seriously as they take their duties very seriously.

They took some time to deliberate; they give me six recommendations about a

month ago. I took some time to think that over and talk it through with my staff

and we came upon a decision where four of the six recommendations were accepted

immediately and a decision on the other two were not in favour of the board but

it is definitely in the favour of this province and I stand behind that

decision, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista.

C. PARDY:

Mr. Speaker, the board had

done over one year of research. I'm not sure what research was done in the short

time the minister is referring to for him to be informed on his decision.

The

minister writes in his decision that DFO states: The outlook on the snow crab

fishery is only projected to remain positive in most areas up to two to four

years.. The board writes in their decision: Overall, the outlook on the snow

crab fishery is positive in most areas during the next four years and beyond.

Did the

minister consult with DFO and is the board mistaken?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.

D. BRAGG:

Great question, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I

wish I had that report at my fingertips. It's on my desk; I would gladly share

that with the Member opposite, in which the DFO actually said the next two to

four years, but with year one being done now puts us down one to three years.

So I

would gladly share that report with the Member opposite and he can see who was

actually clear in their deliberations and who is clear in the information. It

didn't take me a year to read it, Mr. Speaker. It took me a couple of days to

read that and that is the actual report.

Again, I

thank the board for what they did. The Member opposite was a little misleading

when he said they were a year deliberating; they were not. They were two days in

the process of a decision – two days – in April.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista.

C. PARDY:

I think the minister reads

his report and revisits; he'll find that it's clearly stated in the board report

that over one year they were analyzing the situation. But he'll revisit that in

the report.

The

minister states in his decision that more crab licences in 3L, Bay Roberts and

O'Donnells, will likely take workers or crab away from what is already there,

and you did not want to set somebody up for failure – quote.

The

board states that the total allowable catch has increased by 46 million in the

past two years and felt that based on economic considerations for the company,

it would be approved. They were seeking an allocation of 15 per cent of the

increase.

Is the

board wrong?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.

D. BRAGG:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

I would

like to ask the Member opposite what the members in his district told him of

their concerns of losing employment in their current fish plants. Just reach out

and see what they told him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

D. BRAGG:

There's quite a bit of

chirping going on there, Mr. Speaker, so I must be hitting a nerve.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I heard

the question; I want to hear the response.

The hon.

the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.

D. BRAGG:

Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the hon. Member to take his seat. It's not my place to do that, but since you

asked me for the response, I'd see him standing.

I was

answering the question that I know struck a nerve on the other side there, Mr.

Speaker. That's very unfortunate they weren't ready for the answer, but the

answer is quite obvious. I ask the Member, who is about to ask another question,

just get up and stand on his feet and tell me how his members in the Bonavista

fish plant felt and what he told those people at a protest of how he felt about

more fish plants.

SPEAKER:

The minister's time has

expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista.

C. PARDY:

I want to inform the minister

that I never had another question but I want to answer his.

The only

thing being, if the people in the Bonavista plant were worried and they looked

at that as an increase in $46 million in the allocation and it's expected to be

more in the following years. By allocating 15 per cent of it, I think they would

have been okay with that. Fifteen per cent of it, not the total allocation of

$111 million, but 15 per cent of the $46 million increase. That is what the

board decided.

SPEAKER:

The Member's time has

expired.

The hon.

the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.

D. BRAGG:

I thank the Member for

answering my question, Speaker. I thank him very much.

I guess

what the Member is saying is he is supporting 15 per cent of reduction for the

workforce for the plant in his district. I guess that's what he's mentioning,

Mr. Speaker. So they won't be looking for any support from us once people no

longer qualify for their EI income.

Thank

you very much, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

J. BROWN:

Thank you, Speaker.

In April

of 2021, the All Hands on Deck report

on post-secondary education was released. The overwhelming feedback from

apprentices to the review committee called for a review of our trades and

apprenticeship system in this province.

Speaker,

it's been over a year since the report. Why hasn't the minister acted on this

recommendation?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.

G. BYRNE:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

I'm very

pleased to inform the hon. Member that action is indeed being taken. There is a

review that is underway of the apprenticeship system. We've asked for additional

outside expertise, as well as expertise within the department, and also asking

those with the Apprenticeship and Certification Board to provide input into this

exercise.

Our

apprenticeship system is one of the best in the entire country; we're going to

keep it that way. We're going to do so by constant improvement; ever, ever

improving.

Thank

you very much, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

J. BROWN:

Speaker, we're supposed to be

part of the Atlantic harmonization for trades, but the feedback I constantly

hear from apprentices and educators in this province is that we are behind.

I ask

the minister: Will he listen to the tradespeople of this province and review how

apprentice training, including how block training is carried out in this

province?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.

G. BYRNE:

I can inform the hon. Member,

Speaker, that we are indeed a member of the Atlantic Apprenticeship

Harmonization Project. It's an initiative that went underway to be able to

create seamless capacities within the Atlantic region, to be able to foster

increased strengths. I can say that I am very pleased to report that the

Maritime provinces use our province as their gold standard in many of their

initiatives.

So we'll

keep on doing this, Mr. Speaker, we will indeed improve our education, our block

system. I would like to thank the employers from Lab West who participated in

some very novel, some very innovative training programs to be able to create

block training at home in Labrador West. The hon. Member may not necessarily be

aware of those programs.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

J. DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker,

it's positive to see that government is increasing the minimum wage to $15 per

hour, as recommended by the Minimum Wage Review Committee report.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

J. DINN:

Don't get ahead of yourselves

yet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

J. DINN:

Though 16 months is a long

time for people facing record inflation.

Will

government also adjust the minimum wage by the percentage change in the

provincial CPI plus 1 per cent on April 1, 2024 and April 1 for each year

thereafter until the next review is completed, as also recommended by the

committee?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for Labour.

B. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I

thank the hon. Member for a question.

I agree

with him, it is important to use minimum wage as an opportunity to improve the

lives of those individuals that are most vulnerable in this province, and that's

absolutely what we decided to do as a government last week. It came as a

recommendation from the Minimum Wage Review Committee – a unanimous

recommendation. There are five recommendations; we're working through the

process on the others.

I look

forward to making some announcements with my colleagues on those recommendations

in the coming weeks and months. But we wanted to give employers and employees as

much notice as we possibly can about the changes to minimum wage and include a

stipend for small businesses that are under 20 to help them make this transition

as well.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

J. DINN:

That's fine to hear, but in

many ways people are drowning now. Waiting several years to throw them the life

preserver is not going to help them.

The

authors of the report note that full-time minimum wage earners should receive an

income that exceeds the poverty line and that the CPI recommendation is

necessary to achieve this.

I ask

the minister: Why did he ignore this recommendation which would've stabilized

this and future increases in this province against inflation?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for Labour.

B. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That's

categorically untrue; I never ignored anything. We've said that we're going to

take those recommendations. I've met with the Minimum Wage Review Committee,

which represented employers and employees – two on each side and an independent

chair. We took their recommendations, we moved on the ones we could move

quickest on, which is what we've done. We didn't want to hold them back waiting

to evaluate some of the other recommendations that are there that are very

recommendations as well.

We're

working through that with departments that were involved and we're going to

continue to do that. I look forward to making some announcements in the coming

weeks and months.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

J. DINN:

Considering the fact that the

committee recognized that poverty reduction demands a holistic approach, will

government immediately strike the All-Party Committee on guaranteed basic

income, as called for in our unanimously approved private Member's resolution?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

J. ABBOTT:

Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to respond, and

excuse my voice.

know we have discussed this in the past in terms of the All-Party Committee and

we are waiting for the final report from the Health Accord NL and the blueprint

because in it, it talks about basic income. When we have that final

recommendation, I think we will be in the position, through our Government House

Leader, to talk to yourself and to the Opposition House Leader as to the

formation of that committee.

SPEAKER:

Time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service

NL.

S. STOODLEY:

Thank you, Speaker.

outlined in

section 56(1) of the

Automobile Insurance Act , I would like to table the Board of Commissioner of

Public Utilities 2021-2022 annual automobile insurance report. We have provided

six copies to the Clerk's Office.

Thank you.

SPEAKER:

Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of

Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 6. (Bill 64)

SPEAKER:

Any further notices of motion?

The

hon. the Member for Burin - Grand Bank.

P. PIKE:

Speaker, I give notice of the following private

Member's resolution, which will be seconded by the Member for Windsor Lake.

WHEREAS rates of firearm-related violent crimes are on the rise in Canada; and

WHEREAS according to Statistics Canada 59 per cent of firearm-related violent

crimes in Canada involve the use of handguns; and

and territories to ban handguns outright; and

WHEREAS rates of firearm-related violent crime were higher in rural areas than

in urban centres in most provinces and were notably high in the Northern rural

regions;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House declare its support for the

access to handguns.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Speaker.

accordance of Standing Order 63(3) the private Member's motion referred to by

the Member from Burin - Grand Bank will be the private Member's motion to be

debated this Wednesday, June 1, 2022.

SPEAKER:

Are there any further notices of motion?

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

give notice that on tomorrow I will move in accordance with Standing Order 11(1)

that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 31, 2022.

SPEAKER:

Are there any further notices of motion?

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move the

following motion, that notwithstanding Standing Order 63, this House shall not

proceed with Private Members' Day on Wednesday, June 1, 2022, but shall instead

meet at 2 p.m. on the day for Routine Proceedings and to conduct Government

Business and that, if not adjourned earlier, the Speaker shall adjourn the House

at midnight.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

Speaker,

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move the following notice: That

notwithstanding Standing Order 9, this House shall not adjourn at 5 p.m. on

Wednesday, June 1, 2022, but shall continue to sit to conduct government

business and if not adjourned earlier, the Speaker shall adjourn the House at

midnight.

SPEAKER:

Are there any further notices

of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER:

Thank you, Speaker, I

appreciate that.

The

background of this petition is as follows:

WHEREAS

there are no current major operations happening in Bull Arm – I've been

presenting this petition since 2019. There are people on here from Thornlea,

Bellevue, Sunnyside and Fair Haven. It affects us all in the isthmus area. I

want to put it out where the Bay du Nord Project is going, and probably an

update on the expansion of what's happening for the implementation of getting

the infrastructure ready for Bay du Nord and –

SPEAKER:

You have to read the full

petition into the record.

J. DWYER:

Okay, no problem.

WHEREAS

the site is world-class facility with the potential to rejuvenate the local

economy; and

WHEREAS

residents of the area are troubled with the lack of local employment in today's

economy; and

WHEREAS

the operation of this facility would encourage employment for the area and

create economic spinoffs for the local businesses; and

WHEREAS

the site is an asset of the province, built to benefit the province and a

long-term tenant for this site would attract gainful business opportunities; and

WHEREAS

the continued idling of this site is not in the best interest of the province;

THEREFORE we, the residents of the area near the Bull Arm Fabrication Site,

petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned, call upon

the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to

expedite the process to get the Bull Arm Fabrication Site back in operation. We

request that this process include a vision for a long-term, viable plan that is

beneficial to all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador first;

FURTHERMORE we request that government place an emphasis on all supply,

maintenance, fabrication and offshore workover for existing offshore platforms

as well as new construction of any platforms whether they be GBS or FPSO in

nature.

We have

the assets here, not only the infrastructure in places like Bull Arm and the

Kiewit facility in Marystown, but we want to ask the minister to make sure that

if there's any work that can be done here, it is done here and we get that

guarantee for our people. Right now, we're doing a lot of reports that are

looking at fees, taxes and how to save money, but I think that if we address the

economy and we make sure that we get our people back working, there will be

money in the coffers to take care of all these initiatives.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hera, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Industry, Energy and Technology for a response.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Speaker.

I am

happy to answer this. The Member certainly does bring this issue to the

forefront and it is an important issue. What I can say is that I agree with the

statement that we should not see this as a site that is not in operation. I

guess on the flip side of that is that it is an important provincial asset and

one that we certainly do not want to give away or not see full value for.

I can

give some update as to what has recently gone on there and sort of where we see

this going in the future. Most recently, Bull Arm was utilized for the quayside

campaign when we had the Terra Nova FPSO there. That started last September,

went until December until it was moved. At peak times, there were about 250

people working there on that campaign. DF Barnes currently has a portion of the

site leased; they continue to do some work there, as well as rig upgrade work.

So we're seeing some activity there as it relates to that.

What I

will say is there is a lot of interest as it relates to Bull Arm and the

possibilities of parties working there to advance Bay du Nord; that is a

conversation that is ongoing. Thankfully, we have a number of sites in this

province that are seeing increased activity. So what I would say as it relates

to Bull Arm is that we will continue to do what we can. We know the value of

having increased activity there.

What I

will say is that, overall, it is a much different conversation than it was even

a year ago in that there is more possibilities there, so we'll continue to work

towards those.

Thank

you.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

J. DINN:

(Inaudible.)

P. DINN:

(Inaudible.)

J. DINN:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to on a

point of privilege for unparliamentarily language towards his older brother.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

J. DINN:

Speaker, this is a petition

to keep senior couples together in long-term care. It is a petition that was,

basically, organized by Gavin Will, whose parents have recently gone through

this and he is in the House of Assembly today.

To the

hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Parliament assembled:

WHEREAS

senior couples should have the right to live together as they age; and

WHEREAS

seniors in Newfoundland and Labrador have worked hard to build this province and

deserve dignity in care; and

WHEREAS

separating couples has a detrimental effect on their health and well-being; and

WHEREAS

the province has a rapidly aging population, which is one of the most important

challenges confronting government;

We, the

undersigned, your petitioners, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to change its current policy of

separating couples due to their differing levels of care in a publicly funded

universal long-term care system, and direct regional health boards to do the

same and pass legislation to this effect.

Speaker,

there are a few things that stand out here. Certainly about separating couples

and having a detrimental effect on their health and well-being. One thing that's

very clear in the Health Accord was the importance of the social determinants of

health: the importance of family, of community, of allowing seniors to age in

place through that continuum of care. And when you look at it, for some couples

at this stage, they've been married 30, 40, 50, 60 years in some cases. So to be

separated at that time is a significant stressor and probably even detrimental

to their physical well-being and certainly their mental health.

We also

recognize that we have a rapidly aging population and that's one of the things

that the Health Accord looks at is that we have to change our model. So in this

case here it's a simple thing. It may be administratively challenging, but

certainly to the couples themselves it's going to be significant in making sure

that they age well, that health care costs are minimized and that in their last

final years that they are able to spend their time with the one they love and

ones that they have committed to and that family are there with support for

them.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker,

approximately 100,000 people in Newfoundland and Labrador live with mental

illness.

Only

about 40 per cent of people affected by mental illness and addictions seek help.

Seventy

per cent of mental illness is developed during childhood and adolescence, and

most go undiagnosed.

And less

than 20 per cent receive appropriate treatment.

Emergency and short-term care isn't enough and it is essential more long-term

treatment options are made readily available.

Therefore we petition the House of Assembly as follows: To urge the Government

of Newfoundland and Labrador to provide access to long-term mental health care

that ensures continuity of care, beginning with psychiatric and

neuropsychological assessments being more accessible to the public so they can

access proper mental health treatment and supports on a regular and continuous

basis.

Mental

health has become a huge, huge issue in this province and everywhere, really.

It's only the situation I alluded to earlier in Oral Questions around the young

mother, 27 years old, mother of two, young Ashley Molloy who had mental health

challenges throughout her life and committed suicide.

This is

tragic. But these are stories that are so common, individuals who find

themselves in a mental health crisis and are looking for help. I know there are

supports in line, like the 811 call line, but I still get people calling me and

saying that line's not working. They call the line, they get quality assurance

recordings; they get put on elevator music for three to four minutes before a

health care navigator comes online. So we really have to start taking mental

health more seriously here in terms of looking at long-term continuity of care

measures.

This is

not a band-aid solution, when you look at people dealing with mental health.

It's not an easy solution because everybody's situation is different. Protocols

in general are probably just the first phase, but each individual has to be

treated like an individual and the seriousness of mental health in this province

really needs to have more, longer-term continuity care measures in place, as

well as the staffing, the psychologists, the psychiatrists and the like, to help

deal with it.

Thank

you.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista.

C. PARDY:

Well said, my colleague from

Topsail - Paradise.

These

are the reasons for this petition:

acknowledge that as a society we need to curb our intake of sugar but strongly

feel that the provincial government's sugar tax is not the best way of effecting

change. After reviewing the literature and studies in relation to the proposed

tax, realizing that we are the only jurisdiction in Canada to implement and find

merit in its existence, and realizing that taxing a population during an already

significant time of inflation is unacceptable, we strongly disagree with the

implementation of a sugar tax in our province.

We, the

undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to spare the residents of the province another tax by

immediately cancelling the implementation of the sugar tax this fall, leaving

over $5 million in the pockets of struggling residents.

In the

couple of minutes I have to speak to it, I just want to cite the winter issue of

The Taxpayer. The editor wrote in an

editorial, the head of his column was: Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Andrew

Furey is coming for your pop. In the

article it says that it's the wrong move.

It says

in the

article that to add a 20-cent surtax to any litre of sugar-sweetened

beverage sold in the province, one of the biggest problems with these types of

taxes is that they hit the poor families hardest. It's not the editor that we're

going to reference; he references the Quebec National Institute for Public

Health. He quotes: “It is the tax's regressive nature that makes it effective,

most notably amongst the less well-off or, in other words, the poor people

should be thankful that government wants to take them back to health.”

Then he

cites the jurisdictions that did it. Mexico did it and found that it did not

affect the obesity of their population. He references other countries like

Denmark, France and Hungary have tried it. When, in our debate, we mention

Northwest Territories did an extensive study and said: not going there. The only

province or territory with a sugar tax will be Newfoundland and Labrador.

We just

went through a budget process to find that and we both agreed that the people

couldn't afford it. The only thing being, Mr. Speaker, we should debate the

sugar tax. We did it once and I thought that we had a good understanding, but to

know now that we're in extraordinary times and we're going to tax our population

again – unconscionable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

J. BROWN:

Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker,

once again the reason for this petition:

The need

for senior accessible housing and home care services in Labrador West is

steadily increasing. Lifelong residents of the region are facing the possibility

of needing to leave their homes in order to afford and to receive adequate care.

Additional housing options, including assisted living care facilities, like

those found throughout the rest of the province, for seniors has become a

requirement for Labrador West. That requirement is currently not being met.

WHEREAS

the seniors of our province are entitled to peace and comfort in their homes

where they have spent a lifetime contributing to its prosperity and growth; and

WHEREAS

the means are increasing the number of senior residents in Labrador West to

happily age in place are currently not available in the region;

WHEREUPON we the undersigned, your petitioners, call upon the House of Assembly

to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to allow seniors of Labrador

West to age in place by providing affordable options for seniors in assisted

living care facilities.

Once

again, I bring this petition again to the House because once again the people of

Labrador West are asking for the ability to retire and live in comfort in

Labrador West.

It's

interesting because I seen recently a senior couple living in a home that they

could no longer maintain, but they have nowhere else to go. They were

desperately looking for an apartment to downsize because they just can't

physically keep up their home anymore. They do not have the ability; they need

extra help. They can't clear the snow, they can't paint; they can't maintain

their home. They were desperately looking for an apartment because they just

can't do it anymore.

This is

the thing with Labrador West, there's nowhere for seniors to move into; there's

nowhere for them to downsize, there's no ability. They are trying to stay in

their community that they helped build and they just don't have the ability to

do it anymore. We've been asking and asking, and, like I said, we can go back to

the early 2000s, when there was a study done saying this needs to be done in

this community because you're going to get a big slot of seniors.

Even the

study underestimated how many people decided to stay after they retired and

after they aged. So even at that point, we just do not have the ability anymore

for our seniors to live in peace and comfort when they retire. I know the

minister has said he's spoken with the community and stuff like this.

I'll

continue to bring this petition forward because it's something that needs to be

talked about, something that needs to be in the forefront, seniors do need the

ability to be able to age in place, live in comfort and enjoy the communities

that they helped build.

sending them off to Corner Brook or Goose Bay or anything like that is just

doing a disservice to those people, because they just want to be surrounded by

their family. Sending them five to 1,000 kilometres away is not doing them

service, it's not showing appreciation for what they've contributed to this

community and this province.

With

that, Speaker, thank you.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development for a response.

J. ABBOTT:

Speaker, thank you for the

opportunity to weigh in on this.

I just

want to let the Member know that the prayer of the petition is certainly

resonating with me as Minister Responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

Corporation. We're working with the community, working with the pioneers,

working with advocates and we see a path forward that will help address the

affordable housing needs of seniors in Labrador West in the very near future.

SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Speaker.

I call

from the Order Paper, Motion 1.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

Oh,

sorry, the hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Sorry, Tony, wrong one. Just

give me a second.

SPEAKER:

My apologies.

S. CROCKER:

Sorry, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that pursuant to Standing Order

11(1) that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Monday, May 30.

SPEAKER:

Is it the pleasure of the

House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Motion

carried.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that this House resolve itself

into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 60.

SPEAKER:

Is it the pleasure of the

House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Motion

carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself

into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Warr):

Order, please!

We are

now debating a resolution and Bill 60,

An Act To Amend The Revenue

Administration Act.

Resolution

“That it

is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the imposition of taxes on carbon

products.”

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

Thank you, Chair.

It's a

pleasure once again to stand in the House representing the District of

Stephenville - Port au Port and to once again be talking about a tax, which I

think is not appropriate at this time. We will certainly be voting against this

increase in carbon tax. I think that the inflation alone has put enough pressure

on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, with rising prices for gasoline,

that the imposition of carbon tax is no longer needed and, certainly, to turn

around and increase it is simply a slap in the face to people who are struggling

to pay for their gasoline prices right now.

I would

argue that, at the end of the day, this province has probably paid more towards

reducing the footprint of carbon in this country than anywhere else in Canada.

The Members opposite have reminded us on many occasions about the cost of the

electrical project, which, in fact, was a project, not only for the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador but for the country. The federal government provided a

loan guarantee to the project so that it would help the Province of Nova Scotia

reduce their carbon emissions. Yet, it is the taxpayers of Newfoundland and

Labrador who will bare the brunt of the cost of a project to make Canada a more

carbon-neutral country and will go significantly, when the project starts, to

reduce the carbon footprint of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador by, if

not eliminating, then certainly reducing the amount of carbon footprint coming

out of the Holyrood generating station.

So I

would argue that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have contributed their

fair share. In actual fact, more than their fair share in terms of the billions

of dollars that they will pay for the project. In funding that project, the

federal government, despite its assistance in providing rate mitigation, failed

to take an equity stake in a project which was of benefit to the country, not

just the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

They

turn around and talk about the project as part of an Atlantic Loop, yet we

receive no benefit from a carbon reduction point of view for what we have

undertaken as the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, what we will pay for as

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and a significant, as I said,

reduction in the carbon footprint that will be eliminated when the project comes

on stream.

So,

again, for the federal government to simply – and I don't know if it wasn't

negotiated or talked about but the bottom line is why are we seeing, as a

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador – I would argue, why do we even have to

introduce a carbon tax in Newfoundland and Labrador, considering what we have

already invested in turning this country into a green energy and moving forward.

Secondly, I would argue why are we talking about a tax increase on carbon tax

the very same day that the Minister of Finance brings in notice that we're going

to introduce changes to the finance act to lower the gas tax in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador? We are standing here in the House getting ready to

approve another tax increase on gasoline. How ironic is that? On the one hand we

giveth and on the other hand we take it away. And that's exactly what we're

doing by supporting a carbon tax increase.

For the

longest time we heard that we could do nothing with our own gas tax because the

federal government would not allow us to do it. We could not do anything with

our own gas tax because the federal government wouldn't allow us to do it.

We seem

to have overcome that hurdle with the announcement that was made last week. I'm

not sure, as has been pointed out in Question Period today and by others, as to

why it took so long to come to that conclusion. Why couldn't we have done this

six months ago? Why couldn't we have done it three months ago? But nobody seems

to have the answer to that. But at the very same time, as we now introduce a

bill to reduce our sales tax, we're going to stand in the House today and talk

about approving an increase to carbon tax. It does not make sense.

I would

go back and also argue that for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and

perhaps others the high cost of inflation, the fact that the price of gasoline

has almost doubled is more than enough deterrent for the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador to try and reduce their consumption of gasoline. Unfortunately,

many people do not have the ability.

We all

know that carbon tax is not suited to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We do not have the infrastructure in place to support significant public

transportation. We have it in the capital city and some of the surrounding

areas, but outside of that we do not have public transportation.

Some

would argue you have taxis and buses. Well, guess what? They also burn fuel and

they increase their prices. And when you're trying to get to and from work on a

daily basis and you commute more than an hour back and forth five days a week,

you simply can't not use your vehicle. That's the reality of what people face in

Newfoundland and Labrador, especially in areas that I represent.

Government has introduced some measures about buses and gave money to different

towns and communities to organize a bus program. The only problem with that is

the bus only runs one day a week. And why does it only run one day a week?

Because there's no money for the operation of it. There's no money for the

drivers. It's very difficult, as the minister would know, and others, to get

volunteers and so the bus relies on volunteer drivers.

That was

a great announcement, I thought it was a great announcement, it was there, but

the fact of the matter is, it's now because we don't have the operating funds to

be able to keep it going on a daily basis; it operates one day a week.

So,

again, there are things that we can look at doing, but I firmly believe, as I

have said, that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador – we should be

fighting Ottawa about carbon tax. We should be standing up and saying no to this

increase. We have done enough. We have done more than our fair share. We have

paid the price. We are going to continue to pay the price.

at the end of the day, think about what we are going to give back to the country

of Canada; think about what we are going to give back in terms of what help Nova

Scotia will get when their electricity comes online, how they eliminate their

coal; think about what will happen if Atlantic Loop ever happens and the

potential that this province has. That's why the people in Newfoundland and

Labrador, in my opinion, do not deserve another carbon tax increase.

colleague alluded to another tax in his petition called the sugar tax. Again, I

simply argue, how ironic is it, on the day that you announce that you are going

to help the people of Newfoundland and Labrador with a home heat rebate program,

with a reduction in gas prices, we sit here knowing full well that there is

another $5 million to come out of their pockets in the budget for sugar tax.

Surely, given these times, this is not the time for that sugar tax to be

implemented. It is scheduled to come into effect in September. Surely that could

be pushed out. And when it comes to finding that $5 million, I am sure there are

lots of ways we can do that. I would gladly make some suggestions on it when I

stand up again to speak on this particular carbon tax bill.

Thank you so much for your attention and I will take my seat, Chair,

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The

hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

am going to stand and have a few words on this and support the Opposition in not

going with the carbon tax. I tell you, Mr. Chair, and

Hansard will reflect this, if you go

back on my words and I said it numerous times when we said we should reduce the

gas tax. If we never heard 50 times the Members from government saying we can't

because if we reduce the gas tax here the federal government is going to

backstop it. If I never heard that 50 times – whoever wrote your notes you

should fire them. Because I knew the difference. I knew the difference and to

stand here for two to three weeks and tell the people out there who are

suffering that we can't do it because the federal government is going to add on

more carbon tax was just false. It was just

false.

What do

we do? What did the government do? Decreased the provincial sales tax, which

we've been asking for, for the last three or four or five weeks. It's just

false. When you have people struggling, Mr. Chair, and there are people

struggling, trust me. I know the government Members hears it also, I know that.

I know the Liberal government Members hear that, I know for a fact. But to stand

here in this House for week upon week upon week upon week and say we can't do it

because the federal government, what they'll do, they'll just backstop it, is

just false.

You

wonder why people don't believe sometimes what ministers says in this government

and Members say, because someone hands you something, you'll stand up and read

it, and you stand up and read it when there's no validity to it, absolutely no

validity to it.

I said

on numerous occasions – I was a part of that carbon tax – you could do it. You

can do it. One of the ministers – I won't say who – he's shaking his head. You

just did it. It's introduced today. Shaking your head – it's just introduce b'y.

Mr.

Chair, the other part about it, you can reduce the income tax for people. There

are numerous ways to help out people; it was done on numerous occasions. We hear

on a regular basis here is that this is unprecedented times. These are

challenging times. Why don't we step up if these are challenging times?

COVID

was challenging for everybody. A lot people lost their jobs because of COVID.

The war in Ukraine, that is challenging for the whole world, Mr. Chair, so what

do we do? Put our heads in the sand and say we already gave the people $142

million.

Something I have to put on the record: You gave the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador – it is their money. It is their money. So this idea of saying we

already gave back, gave you a certain amount – it's their money. They need help.

They need assistance.

I hear

on numerous occasions they were talking about the youth, the minister talking

about the youth, how we can't put it on our grandkids. I can tell you right now,

I'm dealing with it. There are a lot of youth, a lot of children, a lot of

grandchildren, who are helping out their senior grandparents and parents as we

speak. A lot of them right now are filling up their oil tank. A lot of them

right now are paying for their medication. So this idea, this foolishness of

saying that we can't help anymore because we have to worry about our children

and grandchildren. They are stepping up to the plate right now as we speak.

I can

name the people who went down and filled up their mother and father's oil tank.

I can name the people who paid for their medication. I can name the people who

helped them on their city taxes. I can name people right now who are driving

back and forth because they don't want mom or dad to spend their gas. I can name

them.

What I'm

trying to say to the government, let's not say it's us against you. I said it

and I made the suggestion on numerous occasions, get the Government House Leader

and the Minister of Finance, sit down with the Opposition Finance critic, the

Member for Stephenville - Port au Port, sit down with the Leader of the Third

Party and come up with something you could bring back to the House. That is a

fair solution.

always hear about bipartisan; we all have to work together. I made that

suggestion here on numerous occasions. The Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands,

I even said on his behalf that what three of them agree with, we would support.

Because I know it would be hamming out a fair deal.

Guess

what? For three weeks, four weeks since I made that suggestion: we can't do

anything. The federal government will backstop the carbon tax, they will add

more on to it; they will stop the program.

I'm

willing to bet, Mr. Chair, I'm willing to bet my bottom dollar you will not see

the federal government come in now and say, oh, by the way, Newfoundland, you

just reneged on your deal so we're going to impose our own carbon tax. Not going

to happen. Not going to happen. For the last four weeks we've been listening to

that rhetoric.

I'm

suggesting again what the government put in, I think, unless I'm wrong – if I'm

wrong, I'd like for someone just to correct me – what the Premier put in with

the eight cents that they're going to get, people are going to save $100 a year;

eight cents on the gas reduction, I think that was in his press release, $100 a

year and then if people are going to get $500.

Just to

let you know: an average tank these days is what, 400 litres? That's an average

tank and a larger one is 800 litres. Just take this: what it's going to cost to

fill up a senior's tank today will not cover what they just put in. It won't

even cover a tank of oil, won't cover it. And then the people who have to drive

back and forth to work on a regular basis who had to commute a bit further, what

you're going to save is $100 over the year on your gas tax.

These

are unprecedented times. That's what this is. Mr. Chair, when you get a

situation like this, when there's a crisis, we should come together. I'm

confident that if the Minister of Finance sat down with the Opposition critic

and the Leader of the Third Party and they hammered something out, wouldn't it

be nice that next year's budget say, yeah, we have a bit higher deficit or we

never knocked down the deficit as much. But have everybody in this House stand

up and say we support that because we helped people in need.

Wouldn't

that be reassuring to the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

Wouldn't that be reassuring that the 40 people in this Legislature came together

and worked something out? Because when you banter back and forth – I've been on

both sides, several times actually. I understand, but there are times when the

House of Assembly came together as one. There are many times when that happened.

When you do that people have confidence in the Legislature, they have confidence

in the government and they have confidence in their MHA that we're doing work

for them.

There

are people still suffering. I said to the minister before, you can reduce the

gas tax. Guess what? The gas tax is reduced. When you start hearing excuses why

you can't do other things, that's our role, as Opposition, to question it,

especially when you know the difference; especially when you're a part of the

solution with the carbon tax; especially when there are other ways that you can

help, definitely other ways, that has nothing to do with the gas tax. There's an

income tax that we can help out. There's a subsidy we can help out for

low-income earners. There are ways that we can help out.

So when

you hear the government stand up and say there's nothing else we can do. Don't

take it; take it on face value. Because this is a prime example – and I give the

Opposition and I give the Third Party and I give myself and the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands, we stuck together. We got something. There could be more

done. There could be more done, but we stuck together and said we're getting

something. The government said okay, here's what we can do and this is all we

can do. Do I believe that? No. Because when you look at this debate in the last

month, we've been saying you can't do this, but we could, and we did.

I don't

know what the plans are to push this further, but I can tell you when you have

people filling up their mother and father's tanks, when you have grandkids

helping out their grandparents and you want to stand in this House and say we

have to worry about the grandkids; when they're saying, worry about mom and dad,

worry about grandfather and grandmother right now, because they can't get their

medication.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair. I'm sure I'm going to be back again to have another few words.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The

Chair is recognizing the hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY:

Thank you, Chair.

It's

always a pleasure to represent the District of Exploits. Over the weekend, I did

have a chat with some of my constituents again with regard to the cost of living

and those sorts of things.

I would

just like to acknowledge one of those constituents; actually she said she would

be watching today, so I would just like to say good afternoon to Doreen Carter.

Thank you for some of the advice she gave me over the weekend. I appreciate

that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

P. FORSEY:

So it continues again that

I've been hearing stories with regard to the high cost of living. People just

can't afford it and to introduce a carbon tax right now, it's just unacceptable.

People are not ready; they don't want a carbon tax. There is no way that they

can afford it. I think the government needs to draw back on the carbon tax at

this time. People just don't need it.

I know

my colleague for Stephenville - Port au Port just mentioned it, you're giving

eight cents back and you're going to grab 11 cents on the other side. That's not

what people want. Everybody out in my district is saying that this just doesn't

go far enough with regards to the eight cents tax because they're not gaining.

They're going to have to pay 11 now, so it just doesn't add up.

The high

cost of living certainly is driving up the fuels; it is driving up foods at the

grocery stores. As the fuels go up the meats and groceries, everything goes up

in the grocery stores and people just can't absorb anymore of the tax increases,

especially something like carbon tax.

We have

paid for our carbon tax. I know it has been mentioned here numbers of times that

we have paid for our carbon tax – we've paid it through Muskrat Falls. I know it

is a sore spot for the governing party but it is there. It has been proven that

it's going to be a greener future for our province and that's already been

there. Our province right now will be a leader in green energy; we already know

that. So people just can't understand another carbon tax at this moment.

With

regard to fuels, Mr. Chair, not only is health care out there bad enough now in

the Central region, health care is deplorable, it's causing people right now

tremendous pressure, tremendous stress. Every emergency department in Central

has been closed at one time or another, sometimes all of them at one time, which

is causing long drives for patients, long drives for ambulances, especially from

Harbour Breton up to Grand Falls-Windsor, you're looking at over a two-hour

drive. That's on a good day. Now they're going to put a carbon tax on that.

Don't

get sick in the middle of the night down that way. Don't get sick down in

Leading Tickles or Fortune Harbour and Botwood in the middle of the night down

that way, you fellas got a two-hour drive as well. Not only that, we're going to

put another 11-cent carbon tax on you guys so that you mightn't be able to get

your mother to the hospital, or you mightn't be able to get your son to the

hospital. We're going to give you more taxes so you can't afford the fuels to

get there.

That is

ridiculous. That is outrageous. We should not be imposing this carbon tax on

those individuals right now. We've got people already missing appointments right

here in the city, from the Central area. They're already missing appointments;

they're turning down appointments. They can't afford to come in here. They

really can't. What it's costing them now on a daily run to come in from Central

Newfoundland into the Health Sciences Centre is probably $150 worth of gas, one

way. Now to come in on a day and go back again, that's $300 worth of gas just to

see a specialist, and we're going to throw in a carbon tax.

No,

b'ys, I certainly can't vote for a carbon tax at this moment. Not for what's

happening just in the health care system alone. Because people have to drive,

it's an emergency situation, it's really needed and to force people with the

fuels and the high cost of living to have to come to St. John's, a burden like

that, we don't need to do this. We've got to stop this. Again, like I say, with

regard to the long drives themselves to get to the hospitals from the emergency

units and from long distances, it's just not right.

So this

is just tax after tax and that's all people see. They see tax after tax. They

can't absorb it anymore. They're frustrated. They're at their wit's end. To say

another tax, we're just going through a tax, you're going to take a small amount

off here and give us another tax. People just don't want it. They really don't.

So we need to go to Ottawa, contact Ottawa and say, look, we don't need this

carbon tax. We can't do this carbon tax at this time. We have to draw back on

this carbon tax.

The

taxes: again, I mentioned the fuels. Healthy living: people can't afford to buy

milk anymore in the stores for their children. You want to push a sugar tax,

that's another tax that's going to come the fall. Now you want the children to

be buying milk, buying good drinking quality supplies, healthier living. We're

all the time pressing for healthier living. People just can't live healthy

anymore. It's just not there. This is rubbing off on the health care system. We

can't afford to do this. It's causing people to be sicker because they can't

afford to eat healthier. I don't know what kind of plan you're going to bring in

for that, I don't know, because now they can't eat healthier.

already said about the emergency units being closed. People can't get there. Now

we have more people added to that again because of the high cost of living, that

they can't eat healthier – sugar tax being put in there. It's causing more

stress. The health care system alone, because of the carbon tax and the taxes

that you're putting on there, it's causing people not to able to eat healthier.

They can't get to a hospital. They can't get to appointments.

The

health care alone, because of those carbon taxes, because of the taxes that

they're paying, is causing people stress. It's causing them stress and they're

worried. They don't know what to do anymore. Once health becomes a big issue,

then the mental health becomes worse. Then people get worried about themselves.

They wonder what we're going to do. Will I lose my home? Where am I going to get

my next cheque? How am I getting my fuel to put in my oil tank on a cold

February night? That causes stress on people, it really does. By causing stress

on the people, we're causing more stress on the health care system.

If we're

going to implore tax after tax after tax on people's lives, on their well-being,

then that's not the way to do it. We have to find better ways of addressing the

taxes that people have to pay, and carbon tax is certainly not the one to do so.

implore the government to draw back down on the carbon tax. I certainly won't be

voting for it; it's not a tax that we can absorb right now, it's not a tax that

the residents of the province can absorb. It's certainly not a tax that my

constituents can absorb in my district.

Like I

said, I just mentioned the health care system alone; we don't have an adequate

health care system in Central Newfoundland. We have to go to St. John's for most

of our specialists, that sort of stuff. We have to come to St. John's or

elsewhere to see a specialist, which costs more money, which causes more stress

on the people of the Central area.

We have

to find better ways; carbon tax is not doing it, it just drives up the cost of

eating healthy, just drives up the cost of being able to live comfortably and to

be able to do what you want to do, which causes, like I say, more stress on

people and patients from everywhere in the Central district.

Mr.

Chair, I'll finish off my time here now and just say that, again, I can't

support this motion on the carbon tax.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

B. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd just

like to say thank you for the opportunity to speak again today. I've got to

start off first by just correcting the record for my hon. colleague for

Exploits, who talked about the sugar tax being placed on milk. I don't know

which piece of legislation you looked at, but that's categorically untrue. Maybe

it was just a mistake, but it's categorically untrue.

So in

addition to that, we're talking about –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

B. DAVIS:

– carbon tax. I like how he

tied things together in a nice bow from many conversations, but I can't let it

pass when we talk about a sugar tax. We have every question period in this House

for the last – since 2015, since I've been here – there's been multiple

questions about health care and health outcomes – multiple. I think there was

one day since 2015 that the Minister of Health and Community Services never had

one question. I think there's been one day.

So I can

appreciate why the Opposition cares so deeply about health care, because we all

do. And this is important. When we have a province that has the worst outcomes

and we're trying to make changes that will improve the outcomes – sugar tax on

regular pop – this is what we're talking about here, we're talking about regular

Pepsi.

Diet Pepsi is not included in that. So if we want to

actually tell full truths in this House, this is where we have got to be. We are

not putting tax on diet drinks. We are not putting tax on milk.

It's all about being open and transparent – fair. That's why I had to correct

that statement because I do think the hon. Member did not mean to be untruthful.

I don't believe that and he is nodding, which is great, because I definitely

thought he didn't mean to be because I know him to be an upstanding individual.

I'm

actually going to try to stay focused on the actual conversation about carbon

tax. I know other Members on the opposite side do not like the fact that I talk

about carbon tax with the intention that is what it was built for. Carbon tax

was pushed onto the provinces, not just our own, by the federal government. They

made a decision. It was a policy decision that stood the test of court

challenges from other provinces, not ours. But other provinces have challenged

it and lost that the federal government had the ability to exercise that option

to put carbon tax in there to make a movement for people to move away from their

dependence on fossil fuels.

Now, I understand that is hard for people to understand and people to get

behind. I completely get it, but one thing that a hon. Member mentioned earlier

– that they were involved in the process, and this is true.

B. PETTEN:

(Inaudible.)

B. DAVIS:

The hon. Member for CBS is going to get his opportunity

to speak, too. I can't wait to hear him because I always love to hear him.

All

I can say is that it is really, really important for us to understand that this

government here believed that if we were going down the road of climate change,

which we all know we are, if we are going down that road of climate change and

the effects of climate change, then we have got to do something about it.

Now, the hon. Member that was involved in the process before had said that there

are lots of things that we argued for and were very successful. Previous

Ministers of Environment argued with the federal colleagues about what we could

have exempt from carbon tax.

I want to talk a little bit about why carbon tax and the urgency that is related

to climate change is such an issue. We can tie it to anything we want, but this

is the actual bill we are talking about and I am going to try to stay as

relevant as I possibly can to that.

all know that every impact that we do, whether it be individual, government,

industry, company, right down to municipalities, the way the trucks are driving,

the investments they put into their infrastructure, all of those things impact

climate, impact greenhouse gas emissions, impact what we do.

the federal government recognized this as an issue.

They needed urgent changes on

that, so they put things in place whether it be the Climate Change Action Plan

from our standpoint, or whether it be the Low Carbon Economy Leadership Fund

that they put in place to help transition people to much better ways of doing

things.

What we

need to do and what I've always said about this bill, it may not be something

that we're all excited about, but it's something that's going to help us in the

longer term. Now there are things that we can do. The Premier has had the

ability to work with relationships that he's built in Ottawa to try to move so

that we could make changes to gas tax to allow us to lower that without

implementing the backstop, which is an impressive piece because we haven't been

able to do that. We haven't been able to get by that and we have been able to

identify that now as an opportunity.

Every

decision that we make on this side has ramifications. I have no issue with

supporting a carbon tax based on how we're going to be moving as a people, not

just in this province, not just in this country, but in the global community.

That's where we have to be. Now, what we've been able to try to do is find that

balance of the reinvestment of the infrastructure, that money into

infrastructure to mitigation, adaptation and help people transition. Those are

things that we're moving towards. Every opportunity we do that removes another

barrier for some individual to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, which is

what each and everyone us needs to be trying to do.

So we

can try to move the issue and talk about things other than what this is intended

to do, this piece of legislation, which is reduce carbon tax. When we get to

another bill, where we've talked about things we've made to help offset costs

for individuals in this province, that's when I'll talk about that portion, but

it's not where this is focused right now.

This is

focused on the betterment of future generations, ensuring what the federal

government has pushed on us is not taken in the wrong vein so that we lose

exemptions that we have. One of those exemptions is the exemption on home

heating oil, which is something that was negotiated by a previous minister – I

won't take credit for that. It was negotiated by previous ministers that worked

with the federal government to ensure that those individuals that have home

heating oil do not get hit with those carbon tax. That was an exemption.

If we do

not follow the rules of the federal government, like some other individuals may

want us to, that's where we get the backstop, which is where we get those things

taxed, whether it be in our fishing enterprises, our forestry enterprises, those

things that we need to do that will instill a lot of jobs in this province for

prosperity, we don't want those things to falter.

One of

the things we've done is trying to maintain the exemption. This is why this bill

is before the House of Assembly, it's a directive of the federal government.

We're going to continue to move forward with it because it's good policy

decision to ensure that those individuals make those transitions.

All I

can say is that I'm very supportive of what we're doing with respect to the

carbon tax. I think it gets us to where we need to be for individuals to make

those choices that will come from.

One of

the good things that we do have is we have other pieces of legislation that we

can do. The Minister of Finance has talked at great length about the $222

million that we put in place to help alleviate some of those costs. I might add

that that's the single biggest investment right across this country, per capita.

So one

of the things is that I'm pleased that we can do that. I could go on about

carbon tax and the fact that we need to do everything we can to combat climate

change, but I'm sure I'll get another opportunity, seeing how the other

individuals in the House of Assembly may or may not agree with me, but I'm sure

that some do. I can't wait to have this implemented so we get through this

process now.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The

Chair is recognizing the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN:

Thank you, Chair.

Always

wonderful to get up and speak on behalf of the wonderful residents of Topsail -

Paradise. I think something we realized or recognized since we started the

debate on this bill is that nobody's debating climate change. I think it's all

been agreed upon, it's all been said by many in terms of climate change. We

recognize that it's happening. What the focus of the debate has been on is

another tax – a tax.

Now, we

understand carbon tax, we understand why it's there, but we also understand the

situation residents of Newfoundland and Labrador are in currently. Like I said,

any tax, whether it's a gas tax, whether it's an income tax, tax is placing a

burden or an unnecessary strain on individuals. I mean, that's what a tax is.

That's what tax does. And here in the cost of living, we see the price of gas,

the price of home heating fuel; it's driving prices through the roof for

everything and people are making serious decisions.

Part of

that whole gas tax or price per litre is, of course, the carbon tax. That plays

into it. We've used this debate to bring to the forefront and to bring what

residents are telling us about the struggles they're going through and to look

for some action to help ease the burden or strain on residents of the province.

Government is starting to hear that. They've made some changes: an

eight-cent-per-litre reduction and a one-time subsidy. You're not going to

please everyone, there's no doubt about it, but you have to do something.

that's a step, but there are some issues there as well. You look at the timing

of this; the eight-cent decrease is in effect until December 31, 2022. Now, I

can't predict – in fact, I say most economists can't predict – where the price

of gas will be at that date. You can look at trends, I mean that's what you do,

you look at trends, but you won't know exactly where it's going to be. But what

I can tell you, with some certainty, is that date is just prior to the coldest

months of the year. The coldest months of the year here in the province:

January, February and March. So we give a break to our residents up until

December 31.

Not only

that, but for residents who can afford it, and I suspect it will be less this

year, who can go out and purchase Christmas gifts and the like for their loved

ones and their kids and even make donations to Christmas hampers and the like,

those are all bills that come due after December 31. So you see an attempt here

in terms of lessening the gas strain – the tax on people – but you put a date on

it.

In my

mind, that's perhaps the worst date you can put on it. When people come out of

Christmas with their bills and Visa bills to pay. We know, from those calling us

now today, that they have delved into their savings to pay for medications, to

pay for food, to pay for heat, to pay for gas. So the strain on them is going to

be even more. So you see this gas tax easement gone, you see them inundated with

huge bills to pay, you see them going into the coldest months of the year, I

just question the logic around it, in terms of that.

I keep

going back to the theme of Mental Health Week, which was “This is empathy.

Before you weigh in, tune in.” And that's a bit of what should be done here.

When putting this together, I don't think the channels were finely tuned in

terms of looking at, okay, how does this date affect individuals? How does this

date affect the public out there? It's going to affect them hugely – hugely.

When we

talk about seniors who are on fixed incomes, we've heard it, who're paying more

on their home heating fuel and we talk about the one-time subsidy. We haven't

been given a definitive time, other than it will be soon, in terms of how we can

access that subsidy. But that will be long gone and utilized prior to December

But when

you look at what's involved in a litre of gas in terms of taxation; I think I

looked at it and taking in HST, carbon tax and this tax, I think the tax is

somewhere around 60-odd cents per litre, give or take. That's a lot to ease off

in terms of taxes. But you look at what it does to help. Okay, well you might

say, well, if we take off the taxes, what does that do to us in terms of

revenue? But what does it do if you don't do it?

I have

residents calling me now: single parents supporting their kids on a single

income – and this is not an exaggeration – who have come to me and asked how can

I apply for income support? Because it's not worth it to me now to continue to

work, to continue and try to get back and forth to work and support my kids.

They would be better off on income support. That's what they're saying.

So the

benefit of what we do with our tax relief is going to have long-term effects. So

a little bit more relief in terms of taxes here will certainly make life more

bearable for those in the future and those who – because I'm telling you, once

you're out and you're on income support – and I worked in the department – it's

a hard cycle to get out of. But that's just one example. We have to look at the

cost, the opportunity costs, when we put in any kind of tax, or we look at tax

relief.

Again, I

don't know the reason for a definitive end date. I don't know the reason for a

definitive end date that's, in my mind, the worst time of the year for these

individuals. But I think we really have to look at this and say, okay, is there

more we could be doing, or if we could tweak this to be more effective. There

are a few things to do there. The carbon tax, of course, is one part of that

whole equation. If government has the relationship they claim to have with the

federal government, then maybe we should be able to get the four or five or six

month break on carbon tax. We're all going through this, the cost of living, and

it's all affected by the cost of diesel and gas.

If we

really have that relationship, and we're all hearing it in all our districts,

then we should be up there and talking to the prime minister and saying we need

this break. We're not looking for a hand out; we're looking for a hand up. Let's

give them a break that works, keeps people in the workforce and keeps people

from becoming sicker because they can't afford medications. We just have to do a

little bit more here, a little bit more to ensure that people live a proper

life.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER:

Thank you, Chair.

The

carbon tax is up for debate today and I think that we've kind of jumped into it

a little bit, kind of with blinders on I guess kind of thing, because I'm going

to take it from a perspective of the department that I service as a shadow

Cabinet minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development; Status of Persons

with Disabilities; the Community Sector; Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and

Income Support.

We on

this side on the House, Chair, do understand that we have to be stewards of our

environment and we do understand that it's our responsibility to pass on a world

to, let's say, our kids and grandkids that is viable and that they can

peacefully enjoy . But when the Environment Minister speaks about the

carbon tax and going into a green economy and all of this kind of stuff, I do

understand that and I know that is the direction we are headed. But I don't

think we should be pushed as abruptly into it as I see that is happening.

If we want to be stewards of our own environment and

make sure that we are passing on a good environment to people, I would suggest

that we tackle the 200 communities in our municipalities in our province that

are on a boil order for more than 10 years. I think that is the lifeblood. That

is the lifeblood of survival. I mean, to not address that and offer people a

stipend on buying an electric car or switching over their house or anything like

that, there are a lot of people that struggle and they are not in that position

right now – currently, they are spending extra money on having to boil their

water because it is not potable.

would recommend that maybe people listen as opposed to chirping across the floor

in order to get some ideas of how we can move forward. Instead of driving a

carbon tax, we can talk about helping people in our municipalities that have

been on a boil order for more than 10 years, because it's really not giving us

an opportunity to succeed as a community.

From the children's side of it, for the department that I represent, you know,

children suffer from poverty as well and it impacts their lives. The Health

Accord is telling us this and it is very plain to see that one of the biggest

social determinants of unhealthy outcomes is poverty and another carbon tax on

top of the taxes and fees that are already being paid with the increase in the

price of fuel and everything like that, then raising taxes and prices is only

going to reduce family incomes, which impacts the quality of life for children.

had a lady approach my office and she said that with all of the new taxes and

fees they are not even able to take the kids out for a treat – like a scattered

bit of McDonald's or an ice cream or a bag of chips even for this matter because

(

a) they can't go for that Sunday drive anymore as a family and (

b) the prices

are so out of reach that they are not able to do it. The income at the end of

the day is just not there for them to enjoy some of the creature comforts, I

guess you would say, in life. And children deserve those because that gives them

that little piece of mind to know that their family is probably not doing too

bad. But once you take

away those little creature comforts, it starts to sink in to the children; they

realize also the financial strains that are on the parents and the financial

strains that are on the family, the financial strains that are on their

community and the financial strains that are on their province.

That is

why I think this government needs to talk to our federal counterparts. We're not

asking them to cancel the carbon tax; we know that we have to be stewards of our

environment. We are asking that it be postponed for now, because we are dealing

with another economic outcome that's really not going to help anybody, and

that's the rising price of fuel already. Putting more taxes and more fees on

fuel is only marginalizing us just a little bit further down the road, which is

very disconcerting to me. Because at the end of the day what we're here for is

to make sure that people get to peacefully enjoy the province they live in, no

matter if that's in the metro area or if it's on the West Coast or on the North

Coast of Labrador.

We have

to treat people with dignity and respect. We have to stand up for them and make

sure that they're not overtaxed. Right now, we're the most taxed in the whole

country, so to talk about what other provinces are doing and stuff like that,

that's fine, but they're also dealing with a different economy than us. They're

also dealing with a different population than us. They're also dealing with a

different demographic than us. Because we're so spread out, we have to travel to

get certain services.

Another

one for me is our seniors. Our seniors are being further marginalized because

they suffer enormously. They're usually living on low or fixed incomes and

cannot bear any cost increases. They have higher costs due to their frailty and

illness that often come with age. But many are already dividing their medicines;

they're not eating well and they're keeping their thermostats at unhealthy

levels when they need to stay warm.

In their

golden years, seniors are being forgotten. That's just not good enough, just for

the simple fact that by having these increase in taxes, especially around fuel,

with the state of the health care right now, a lot of our seniors are having to

travel further distances to get the services they require. Increasing those

taxes are further marginalizing them in their daily life. They're having to rob

Peter, we'll say, to pay Paul. I think they deserve better, to be quite honest.

They blazed a trail for us and we need to make sure that trail stays clear for

them to peacefully enjoy their retirement years.

Again, a

lot are outside the overpass, I'll say. A lot of our seniors and a lot of our

communities are aged, which with carbon tax, all the sugar tax and all this kind

of stuff is further marginalizing these communities, which doesn't make any

sense. We're here to represent them and give them that opportunity to succeed;

therefore, I think that we should be better stewards in looking at the fact of

taking off as much as we can.

Again,

we're not here to say that it's not a step in the right direction; it just

doesn't go far enough. That's the issue. What about the five cents? How come we

haven't lobbied the PUB about the five cents that went on during the refinery

sale? That should never have gone in there. It shouldn't have been approved in

the first place. As soon as it got approved, that's when we should've been

approaching the PUB to make sure that the checks and balances were in place to

make sure that was okay to do.

From my

understanding it was only one company that got on board with this extra five

cents; the other two companies weren't even consulted. So from my understanding

it has to be a concerted effort in order for the PUB to move forward. Therefore

I think that lobbying the PUB at this time, it might be too little too late, but

again, on behalf of the people of our province we must do so, there are no two

ways about that.

With

saying that, I have other headers that I'm certainly going to address. I

wouldn't want to do that in the minute and 20 seconds that I have left because

I'm not here to further marginalize anybody that I look after or that needs my

help. I'm here to represent the people of the beautiful District of Placentia

West - Bellevue and that's what I'll do. Like I said, with the increase in fuel,

I think our federal government needs to recognize the actual situation that

Newfoundland and Labrador is in right now, as opposed to comparing us to a

blanket over the whole country, which has a whole different demographic and

population density compared to us in certain metro areas.

With

that being said, Chair, I'm going to take my seat. Like I said, I would ask the

government that they would talk to their counterparts at the federal level to

make sure that we can postpone the carbon tax. We're not saying get rid of it or

eliminate it, we're saying just postpone it because we just can't take that hit

right now.

Thank

you, Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The

Chair is recognizing the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's

great to have an opportunity to say a few words again.

Mr.

Chair, we're talking about carbon tax again today. I know a lot of my colleagues

have been raising the concerns that they're hearing from their constituents. I

know I'm hearing the same issues from my constituents as it relates to the high

cost of living. Of course, this is about actually making it even worse on people

by raising the carbon tax.

understand it's a federal program, no doubt, but the province is the one who

reaps the benefits in terms of that's where all the revenue goes in this

particular deal; it goes into provincial coffers, not into federal coffers. It's

important we're clear on that. That while the initiative itself may have been

federally driven, the money is not going to Ottawa; it's going to Newfoundland

and Labrador. It's going in our bank account here.

That's

not necessarily a bad thing, by the way, in the sense that if the money is going

to go somewhere, it's better for it to go here than to go in Ottawa, from my

perspective at least. But it also means that if the revenue is coming here, that

means we have more control over what we do with that revenue as opposed to the

federal government.

I have

to say that there are a couple of things, Mr. Chair, when we talk about carbon

tax. I've stood in this House of Assembly on numerous occasions and –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

P. LANE:

– spoke to the fact that I'm

certainly not –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

P. LANE:

– a proponent of the carbon

tax in general. I really believe that if we want to deal with climate change

that we should be going after the big polluters. If we want people to drive

electric cars, then we need – and I understand from the minister, I think last

time I spoke, Ottawa does have a plan in that regard, and that's where we need

to go. To say to car manufacturers that by a particular date there will be no

more combustion engine vehicles, that it will be electric vehicles and force

them to act, to pivot and change their business model, that's what needs to

happen.

Simply

charging me extra money at the tank is doing nothing only taking money out of my

pockets and other Newfoundlanders' and Labradorians' pockets. Just it's another

tax going into the government. If people need to drive to work, drive to

doctor's appointments and so on, they're going to do it anyway. If you want

people to buy electric vehicles, then there has to be an option – there has to

be a comparable option – for people to do so. Right now, at this point in time,

we don't have this comparable option because of the cost of an electric vehicle

and the fact that we just don't have that infrastructure across the province at

this point in time, really, to accommodate electric vehicles, not to mention the

costs of the vehicle.

Now, I

understand the government brought out a program – a $2,500 rebate and I think

the feds have a similar program, and that's all to help, but, at the end of the

day, the cost of electric vehicles is out of reach for the average

Newfoundlander and Labradorian. Once we reach a point in time where the

infrastructure is in place and the vehicles are readily available at a price

point that the average consumer can afford, then I would submit you penalize

somebody at that point if they choose to continue on driving a combustion engine

vehicle. But at this point in time they really don't have a choice; they don't

have an option. So you are penalizing them for something that they really have

no control over and, at that point, it just becomes nothing more than a tax

grab. That would be my position on the carbon tax – always have been; always

will be.

Then you

look at, well, the money that is coming in, what are we doing with the money,

and that is the other thing. I don't know about other Members, but I had a

number of people contact me over the weekend and I have certainly seen a lot of

announcement, as an example, that $250,000 went to Labatt Brewery.

Now, I

got nothing against Labatt Brewery; I drink Michelob Ultra. So I have no issue

and this tank here can hold a few litres, I can tell you. So it is no issue with

Labatt, no issue with beer, no problem there –

AN HON. MEMBER:

You're a sponsor.

P. LANE:

Yeah, I'm a sponsor.

problem there, but the reality of it is that $250,000 of provincial money that,

I guess, came from the carbon tax goes to a private corporation that is doing

quite well, part of a larger corporation that is making huge profits – billions.

We take

$250,000 of the money that the average person is paying every time they go and

they fill up and the price of gas is through the roof, a portion of that money,

being the carbon tax. Instead of taking that money and investing it back into

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, we give $250,000 of it to Labatt

Brewery. And then the federal government comes in and they throws in another

$250,000 for a profitable corporation that could easily afford to do it on their

own. They didn't need the money.

Do I

blame them for taking the money? Of course not. Anyone who operates any kind of

a business, you'd be a fool to say, no, b'y, I don't want it. Of course they're

going to take it. The question becomes one of: Is that the best use for that

money? That's the question.

I think

if you were to poll the average Newfoundlander and Labradorian, right now, they

would say: No, that's not the best use of that money. I would prefer to see that

go back to the consumer in the form of additional rebates or whatever the case

might be, or to help the people on the lower end of the income scale and so on.

And that's not to diminish the 144 – jeez, I should know the number off by

heart; I heard it so many times. I am not sure if it's 144 or 142.

AN HON. MEMBER:

P. LANE:

The $142 million that the

Minister of Finance keeps talking about. I'm not diminishing that. That helped a

segment of people, and this latest announcement is going to help a broader group

of people, and I appreciate that. I'm sure the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador appreciate anything you can do. I understand also that it has to be

weighed out against the fact that we are up to our necks in debt. We can never

lose sight of that, of where we're to in terms of our provincial debt and our

year-over-year deficits.

Now,

thankfully, my understanding – I could be wrong – is that because of the

additional revenue coming in on the price of a barrel of oil, our projected

budget will remain the same. It's not going to increase our projected deficit.

Now granted, our projected deficit could have been lower had they not