PDF Version

November 4, 2020

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIX No. 63

The House met at 10 a.m.

MR.

SPEAKER (Reid):

Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Orders of the Day

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 1, Bill 43.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS.

COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Government House Leader, that

the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means to

consider certain resolutions and a bill relating to the imposition of taxes on

carbon products, Bill 43.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

motion is that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (P. Parsons):

Order, please!

We are now debating the resolution and Bill 43.

Resolution

Be it resolved

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

“That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting

the imposition of taxes on carbon products.”

CHAIR:

Shall the resolution carry?

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS.

COADY:

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

It's a pleasure to speak again this morning to

Budget 2020 . I will recognize that all

Members present have voted in favour of

Budget 2020 and this is the final piece of legislation to enact the

provisions within that budget. Madam Chair, I will say to everyone in the House,

I thank them for their co-operation throughout the last number of weeks of

moving expeditiously through the budget, through the support of the budget and

for the implementation of the enacting legislation that is required for the

budget.

I will say that this particular piece before us this

morning has to do with the carbon tax. As the Members in this Chamber and, I'm

sure, all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are aware, the federal government has

brought in measures to reduce carbon emissions in the country. In November of

2018, the province passed the Greenhouse Gas Act which saw the province agree to

implement the province's own carbon tax program custom to the province's

condition, rather than see the federal implementation. I think that's very

important, Madam Chair, that we recognize that we brought in measures that would

really work for our industries and the people of the province.

As we know, carbon is a growing problem globally. It's

not Newfoundland and Labrador's problem; it's a global problem and we all see

the effects of climate change and, of course, the chief cause of climate change

and global warming has been attributed to carbon. I can say, Madam Chair, that

over the last number of years there's a growing attention to this issue

globally. We all know about the Paris accord and other countries that are

putting in place measures to ensure that we recognize and reduce the level of

carbon. Now, we've done well in this country in terms of recognizing the problem

but, of course, it has to be addressed.

We really wanted to ensure, in Newfoundland and

Labrador, that we recognized the circumstances that we find within the province

and not just simply take the federal government's imposition of a tax for

carbon. We wanted to tailor make it to the provincial circumstances. So back in

2018, and brought into effect in January 2019, we did a tailor-made program. The

program really helped us to maintain competitiveness in taxation and trade

perspectives. It minimized the impact – actually, it really minimized the impact

on consumers and vulnerable groups, recognized a very large ongoing investment

to decarbonize electricity and it delivered meaningful reductions in greenhouse

gas emissions.

At the time there was very broad, public consultation

and support, and unanimous support, Madam Chair, from industries. I think that's

critical to this discussion and debate this morning. I know my colleague, the

Minister of Industry, will speak later this morning on the impacts to industry

and how important this program, the imposition of the

made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador solution was to this particular issue.

I can say some of the exemptions include home heating

fuels, including propane. So we were able to get an exemption for home heating

fuels. Very important for seniors and low-income families, in particular, but

all of us in terms of being able to ensure we have flexibility in our taxation

of greenhouse gas emissions.

We also were able to carve out some of the prescribed

activities in key economic sectors, like: agriculture; fisheries; mining;

forestry; silviculture; onshore and offshore exploration activities; electrical

generation, including isolated diesel generation – we were able to carve out

rules and the taxation around that – municipalities; and aviation fuel. To name

but a few of the carve-outs that I think are very, very important to ensuring

competitiveness within the province.

I will also say, Madam Chair, that Newfoundland and

Labrador is one of the first provinces in the country to agree to be net zero by

2050. I can say NEIA, Noia and many others were supportive of Newfoundland and

Labrador's attention to this matter and saying that we will be net zero.

What does net zero mean? It refers to the striking of a

balance within a jurisdiction, Newfoundland and Labrador, between greenhouse gas

emissions produced and greenhouse gas emissions eliminated or taken out of the

atmosphere, so it creates that level of net zero, that balance. It is critically

important as we move forward and address the challenges of climate change and

address the challenges of carbon.

I can tell you that Newfoundland and Labrador has one

of the lowest carbon per barrels of oil produced, globally. I think it's very

important that oil produced in Newfoundland and Labrador from our offshore is on

the global supply chain, because it is that lower carbon per barrel. Having that

as part of the global supply chain actually lowers overall the greenhouse gas

emissions. It certainly is of benefit to have Newfoundland and Labrador because,

otherwise, if we didn't have Newfoundland and Labrador's oil in the global

supply chain, of course, we'd only have higher carbon per barrel.

As you well know, Madam Chair, and others in this

Chamber well know, it is important for us to develop our oil. Not just from a

perspective of our economy, not just for jobs and job creation and activity, but

also to ensure that we are investing in lower carbon products and investing in

the opportunity, I'll say, of products and services that help lower the carbon,

globally. As you well know, we know that the oil and gas industry in the

province is continuously and continuing to lower the carbon per barrel, so I'll

say that again.

I know that this made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador

approach to carbon pricing minimizes the impacts on residents and on industry of

the amount of carbon, but it does address and it does help to tailor the

economic realities to the province. As I mentioned, home heating fuels, fuels

used by industry and fuels used in the fish processing, forestry, offshore,

mineral exploration are all exempt. I think that's positive.

What does this bill actually do? This bill actually

increases the price of carbon and increases the price of gas by 0.21 of a cent,

one-fifth of one cent, one-fifth of one penny. I understand somebody has done

the math and consumers will see an overall increase of 10 cents added to the

price of a 50 litre fill-up, 10 cents on 50 litre fill-up.

It's minimal, but it is impactful. We are moving from

$20 for carbon to $30 per ton on carbon and that is required under the program

that the federal government has imposed on the country. It meets all the

recommendations and requirements of the federal government. We continue to have

our own made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador solution that really does address some

of the industrial concerns and some of the, what I'll call, people concerns that

the carbon tax may impose.

By implementing our own

made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador solution we are able to have these carve outs

while we're still addressing the carbon per barrel.

Madam Chair, again, I will say that Newfoundland and

Labrador has brought forward that we will be net zero by 2050. Applauded by, not

just the people of the province, not just by the advocates for the environment

but also by industry. They are completely supportive of ensuring that we move in

this direction.

It does increase the cost of fuel, of gas by one-fifth

of one cent, so minor. There is an increase of two cents, 2.68 cents per litre

on diesel when the tax implications are all implemented and the revenue

collected from the carbon tax helps to fund other important climate change

initiatives.

Let me just talk for a moment about those climate

change initiatives because they are administered under the Department of

Environment, Climate Change and Municipalities, and I applaud the minister for

his work in this area. The climate change funding programs, just let me run

through them for the people of the province, so they're aware.

We have about $89.4 million allocated for the Low

Carbon Economy Leadership Fund. I think it's an important fund, Madam Chair. We

have six programs that are funded under the Low Carbon Economy Leadership Fund.

I know the minister is biting at the bit to have a few words on these particular

funds.

We have the Climate Change Challenge Fund and the

Energy Efficiency and Fuel Switching in Public Buildings. As you well know,

we're looking at switching public buildings from burning diesel to burning

electricity or even wood pellets. I know the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and

Agriculture would be keen on this particular program of utilizing some of the

forestry products in some of the as well. We'll be doing retrofits to existing

public buildings like post-secondary institutions and other facilities.

We also have the Energy Efficiency in Oil Heated Homes

Program. That provides rebates for insulation and programmable thermostats for

customers who heat with oil.

We also have the Freight Transportation Fuel Efficiency

Program. That's an application-based grant program that provides rebates to

retrofit existing heavy-duty trucks and trailers registered and plated in

Newfoundland and Labrador to reduce fuel consumption and greenhouse gas

emission. Again, another important program. We certainly encourage those that

are in the industry to take advantage. Anybody with a heavy-duty truck or

trailer can apply.

We also have an expansion of the Home Energy Savings

Program. It's delivered through Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation,

with repayable grants up to $5,000 for cost-effective energy efficiency

upgrades.

We also have the Nunatsiavut energy efficiency program

to enable households reliant on electricity and oil heat in Nunatsiavut's

communities to conduct energy efficiency retrofits.

Those are just some of the programs. We have the

electric vehicle charging infrastructure. We had the adaptation initiatives. We

had the Heat Pump Rebate Program and we had the Energy Efficiency Loan Program.

I'm just running through some of the programs that we are placing money in to

help people address some of their concerns around the cost of oil and the

increasing cost around this carbon emission.

Madam Chair, I will leave at that. I'm happy to take

any questions that may be placed before me on this particular issue. I will say

again for the people who may be listening, the budget has been voted upon on

multiple occasions and the budget has been passed. This is one of the pieces of

legislation that enables the budget to go forward. I'm asking the House for

their support for this legislation as part of the budget so that Newfoundland

and Labrador can keep the made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador solution.

As I've outlined, I think it's incredibly important to,

not just the people of the province but also industries in the province that we

do not have the federal program backstopped or implemented. Let us keep our own

Newfoundland and Labrador solution, which both the people of the province and

industry have been supported of, Madam Chair.

With that, I will listen to the debate. I look forward

to constructive comments and happy to answer any questions that there may be.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The

Chair recognizes the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR.

WAKEHAM:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm glad to be able to speak here this morning on this

particular bill. Again, as the minister has alluded to, this was part of the

budget that was introduced and that we have passed, but we all remember the

budget that we've passed is really an interim budget. In reality, it was a

six-month budget, obviously, because of the impacts of COVID on our economy and

on our lives leading up to that particular period of time. It's really a

placeholder budget to get us through this fiscal year.

What we really need now is to look forward to the

budget that will be presented early in the spring of 2021 and what that budget

will contain or not contain. Obviously, there are a lot of people. We know the

fiscal forecast talked about the elimination of, I think it was, 11,000 jobs or

something like that. Then we've had other issues since then with Come By Chance

and we know we have significant challenges with our offshore and what's

happening there.

Clearly, there is a lot to be done, lots of work to be

done and action need to be taken to get our economy moving again. All of those

items have a significant impact on the revenue of our province and our ability

to continue to offer the services that we do at the present time. The budget

itself, while this has passed, again, I think all of us are looking forward to

the next budget and what will be contained in there and where we go from there.

The carbon tax piece of this is something – as the

minister alluded to, it was a made-in-Newfoundland solution, because of a

program introduced by the federal government forcing provinces to either

introduce their own or have something pushed down their throats. Newfoundland

and Labrador decided to do their own thing. It's unfortunate that the federal

government chose to go that route.

Some of the challenges, I think, for us are getting the

recognition for some of the initiatives and the significant amount of money we

have already invested in trying to move to a green economy. I don't need to

speak anymore about that because everybody knows exactly the kind of monies that

we are on the hook for, but I think that at the end of the day, that is a

significant opportunity to get ourselves away from carbon.

There are also a lot of things that can be done to

reduce our carbon footprint that don't necessarily impact the lives of everyday

people. Unfortunately, this carbon tax does that. It's a tax on people of our

province who fill up at the pumps every day. Again, it's something that the

federal government brought in and pushed down and forced provinces to do

something about it. I find it ironic because can they tell us exactly how much

our carbon footprint has been reduced since the carbon tax was put on the

gasoline here in our province? I'm not so sure they can.

Again, in some provinces it may be something, but

clearly with our geography and our lack of public transportation, it's very

difficult for a lot of people to give up driving. Yes, I think people have taken

the initiative. I think it's great to see more people walking to work and biking

to work and the bike lanes being put in in a lot of our municipalities and a few

other steps like that. I think those are all positive things. But I also think,

again in our own government, our own government buildings, I know there are many

buildings in my district that have these huge fuel tanks outside of the building

and they remain heated based on fuel. There are ways to reduce our carbon

footprint that maybe do not necessarily have to impact the lives of everyday

people.

My hon. colleague from Torngat Mountains has talked

about a road to the North. Imagine if we were able to do that and connect all of

those communities in Northern Labrador and they were able to come off diesel

generation. What kind of carbon footprint would that eliminate if we were able

to do that? Voisey's Bay and those other locations and all of the communities in

the North, and how much of that footprint would be reduced by moving that.

I also paid attention to the minister and her comment

about our offshore oil and the fact that we have some of the lowest carbon

footprint produced globally in the world and that it needs to be on the global

supply chain. I only wish that the federal government saw it the same way,

because I totally agree that our oil needs to be on the global supply chain.

Unfortunately, our federal government just doesn't get it, and that's a shame.

At a time when we have new discoveries, at a time when we're trying to move to

reduce carbon footprint, we find ourselves in a situation where our own federal

government doesn't step up to the plate.

As a matter of fact, Madam Chair, we'd be better off if

we had to have had two casinos, because apparently a casino is worth $200

million in Ontario for funding from the federal government. So maybe if we had

to have two casinos, we would've got $400 million. Instead, we got $320 million

for our entire offshore oil industry. It's a shame; it's a disgrace.

If you want to talk about lowering carbon footprint

globally, then do as the minister says: We need to be on the global supply

chain. The federal government needs to step up and put more emphasis on our

offshore oil and getting our projects completed and getting them producing. The

world still needs oil. We know we're moving away from it, but why would you not

support the production of a cleaner fuel than you have right now? That boggles

my mind and I still believe that the federal government needs to be held

accountable for that.

And what's gone on in the budget is that we've reduced

the tax on other gases to try to make this cost-neutral for people, and it's

unfortunate, because as we were reducing the tax that was imposed in 2015 down,

unfortunately, the federal government with a carbon tax kind of blocked our

path. Now while we reduce that particular tax, we have to add it on a carbon

tax. So again I find that somewhat ironic that that's had to happen.

This particular tax, as the minister alluded to, it's a

very small amount and it will be cost-neutral because of the fact that the tax

is coming off on the other end. Again, from a net-revenue point of view, we're

not gaining anything in terms of our provincial coffers because we're being

forced into this carbon tax. Again, when we think about this particular budget,

it has passed and will continue to move forward. I think that there are lots of

ways that we continue to look at how we might reduce our carbon footprint.

Some of the initiatives towards electric cars and

everything. Even that, I noticed in Ontario, I think the federal government

committed $1.9 billion to refurbish an automotive plant to produce electric

cars. It's a good initiative but I question why, as a province, they would not

offer some additional support here to ensure that our products, our oil gets on

the global supply chain. We continue to ask those questions and we'll continue

to ask for support for our offshore oil.

Again, there are a significant number of taxes. The

minister alluded that it would not be on home heating fuel which is good, or on

home heating propane. I notice that there is propane listed here but it's

probably more to do with the barbeques and other things. There is a significant

list of fuels: butane; ethane; gas liquids; gasoline; heavy fuel tax; kerosene;

light fuel oil; methanol; petroleum coke. Some I don't even know; I don't know

if I can even pronounce them. Marketable natural gas, high heat value coal, et

cetera. It has covered off everything.

I think, overall, people will not notice a difference

based on this but, of course, they do notice the difference recently when the

PUB was asked to increase the price of gasoline because of the closure of the

Come By Chance oil refinery. Again, another blow to our economy and something

that needs to be addressed. There are discussions ongoing, I understand, with

companies looking to purchase that facility. We look forward to a successful

conclusion of that as soon as possible so we can get all of those workers back

to work and get that refinery open. I look forward to that happening sooner than

later, at least to get to the point where we actually have a sale and then move

that forward.

From the overall budget perspective, this budget was,

as I said earlier, a placeholder budget. It's basically getting us through this

difficult year that we've had with COVID. We've seen now a rise in cases in

other parts of the country as the so-called second wave takes effect. We have

our challenges here in this province and we're dealing with all of that, but

hopefully the work is being done nationally and internationally on finding

solutions to deal with this particular virus. I know we all are looking forward

to the time when we can have a solution.

I was also pleased to see the significant uptake when

it relates to the vaccines and the flu vaccine with the people of our province,

so all of those are positive things. This particular bill is a bill that has

been passed in the budget and this will formalize the process. I want to

encourage what was said, that our oil needs to be on the global supply chain and

we need to make sure that the federal government steps up and does just that.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The

Chair recognizes the Member for St. John's Centre.

MR.

J. DINN:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm going to preface my comments with this: We have oil

workers out of work and there's no two ways about it, we have to be able to help

them. We can't have families that are going without. We know that families here

– that people need a future in this province. We also know that Newfoundland

does produce oil and it's a large part of our economy.

I look upon a tax in many ways, not only necessarily to

reduce the carbon footprint – and that's a large part of it – but also as a

source of revenue to invest. I drive vehicles that use gas; I heat my home with

oil. I also like to think that what we need to be moving towards is an economy

that is greener, but also that's going to provide an economic opportunity for

Newfoundland and Labrador as well.

While we have people who depend on the oil industry, we

also have a tremendous number of young people, such as those who showed up to

the climate change last year, and the one that my colleague across from me

attended recently this year. We have to be attentive to that.

I'm always leery about when we talk about how clean our

oil is. It's sort of like the whole notion of filtered cigarettes at one time,

regardless that they were healthier or the less harmful alternative. While

recognizing that our economy still very much depends on it, I think somewhere

along the line we have to start looking at the transition.

By definition, transition begins with an ending and

ends with a beginning. It usually starts with a door closing and then a door

opening. Of course, it's what we do in between. We somehow think too that, yes,

we're going to be depending very much on oil for quite a while, but let's not be

fooled. I would hazard to guess that the oil companies are already looking at

transitioning into something else, another form of energy that they can

capitalize on and keep making their profits.

I started thinking about the rapidity at which things

progress. I'm old enough – I'm 60; I'll be 61 this year – to remember the first

moon landing and the first heart transplant in 1967. I was about eight years old

and I remember reading about that, the very first human heart transplant by Dr.

Christiaan Barnard. The gentleman lived 18 days but it was proof positive that

it could be done. Thinking about that as a relative of mine went up for

open-heart surgery recently and the nervousness around it. I was saying to my

wife about it: For a lot of these doctors, this is just like going to work at

the House of Assembly. It's so routine. Think about the advances that have come

about as a result, not only replacing artificial hearts, artificial valves, knee

joints – you name it. That's in my lifetime.

That's a significant transition, the pace at which it

picks up and a large part of it because of the use of antibiotics as well and so

on and so forth. We're probably going to be going into another transition as

antibiotics become less and less effective, as to how we're going to engage in

these surgeries, but you know what, we will come up with something sooner rather

than later.

I think also of the cellphone. It's probably more

powerful than the computer that sent the first human beings to the moon, what

you can do on it. I can remember staring out at Holy Heart – so I was there,

that was after 2000 – looking out the window and phones were starting to come

in. You could see people walking up and down, they were clunky things and they

became much smaller and much more powerful. That is less than 20 years. The

speed at which change occurs, Madam Chair, is significant.

How many of us here are old enough – in the times when

we went to school, the first thing when you got a test or a handout from a

teacher you took a smell of it. You get the smell of the spirit duplicating

liquid on it? Anyone? I do.

HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR.

J. DINN:

Yeah, right.

HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR.

J. DINN:

That's right, the mimoids. That was it – ah, that smell. Now, I didn't know but

that was it.

Think about it. They no longer exist. They disappeared

a long time –

HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR.

J. DINN:

Look, go back to your diapers. You're too young anyway.

HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR.

J. DINN:

You're only a young boy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MR.

J. DINN:

Madam Chair, I guess I say that because at one time the spirit duplicator and

the Gestetner were significant, that's how we got our work out. Guess what put

an end to them? The photocopier.

My first piece of wonderful technology that I bought

for myself when I first started teaching to speed things up was the electric

typewriter and, of course, you had to put the whiteout. Then you had the

self-correcting typewriters. What put an end to them? No one uses a typewriter.

I remember I wrote up all of my assignments, I wrote up tests, but the computer,

the laptop, the iPad and on your phone now you don't even have to type it in,

you can dictate it. I would say there are an awful lot of people right now who

used to fix, at the time – who would service mimeograph machines and the spirit

duplicators. They had to get out of that business real quickly.

Here's another one. At the NLTA we purchased a brand

new printing press and within four years that press was obsolete – four years.

No one makes them anymore. What did we buy? We purchased brand new digital

processing, digital printing. Chalkboard; one of the things I always I wanted as

a student was that chalk holder. But you know what, no need for a chalk holder

anymore because we've gone from chalk holders to whiteboards to team boards.

That's within my teaching career.

Part of what I'm looking at here is that there's always

a transition. You know when the first electric lightbulb was invented it was

1879. Gas was the main way which they powered street lamps that they lit up. It

was a well-established industry. It was a mature industry but it was also an

industry that was declining in profits and also had some safety issues

associated with it.

It was 1910, basically, with the invention of the

tungsten filament lamp by William Coolidge of GE that basically put an end to

gas. Now, think about that, in that time the changes that have occurred. My

grandfather's house, I remember it out in Bay Robert's, the coal room. He still

had the Maid of Avalon stove which was a wood, coal stove and I'll tell you, the

best baked bread, the best meals you'd ever want to have. In the basement of the

floor there was a central furnace that made really – and each room, by the way,

had its own little fireplace, stove. Never used because you didn't need it

anymore.

I look here in Newfoundland at the things that occur

here. I remember the first movie I remember seeing made in Newfoundland was

The Rowdyman with Gordon Pinsent. I'm

dating myself here, no doubt about it.

HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR.

J. DINN:

That's right.

HON. MEMBER:

Mere youngster.

MR.

J. DINN:

mere youngster.

It's fascinating in that space of time I'm looking at

not one but two – I've had The Surrealtor

and Hudson and Rex in my

neighbourhood filming. It's a major, major industry.

Here's my point: We are in the process of transition

and we better be in a position to start using this. I see this money, the carbon

tax, as a way to invest not only in reducing our carbon footprint, but for

Newfoundland to capitalize and to get ahead on industries. To be a leader that

doesn't necessarily depend on our geography or our natural resources that we

take out of the ground, but the resources within in our people, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte - Twillingate.

MR.

BENNETT:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, I'd like to thank the Member opposite who

just spoke for the history lesson. I see my colleague for Virginia Waters -

Pleasantville and also Labrador West were looking at each other wondering what

he was talking about for most of the things. A lot of the items he discussed

weren't invented when they were born. I'm sure we learned a little more about

climate change and history this morning. I appreciate him for his comments.

Madam Chair, it's an honour to speak to Bill 43,

An Act

to Amend the Revenue Administration Act. Our government is focused on taking

positive steps towards environmental protection and climate change, while

addressing the needs of residents in municipalities. It is an honour for me to

speak today as the Minister of Environment, Climate Change and Municipalities to

talk about our made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador approach to carbon pricing.

Madam Chair, there's no question that climate change is

having an impact in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have more flooding due to

frequent storm events, such as coastal erosion, storm surges, reduced

permafrost, sea ice and also more invasive species. Scientists all over the

world have shown definitively that human activity is affecting global climate

change. We have to do something to tackle the problem for the sake of our

generation and future generations.

The federal

Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act requires all jurisdictions in our

country to put a set price on carbon. Our carbon plan was accepted by the

federal government in October 2018 and it came into effect January 1, 2019.

We are implementing a made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador

approach that reflects the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and

supporting efforts in our province to produce green renewable energy, while

minimizing the impacts on consumers and supporting industry growth. This allows

us to direct carbon tax revenues to made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador greenhouse

gas reduction initiatives, while maintaining needed exemptions such as those for

home heating oil, offshore oil, mineral exploration activities and also

municipal operations.

In 2019, the carbon tax rate was set by the federal

government at $20 per ton of greenhouse gas emissions and is set to rise to $30

per ton this year. To ensure compliance with the federal regulations, this cost

will continue to rise by $10 per ton until it reaches $50 per ton in the year

2022. Our approach is assessed on an annual basis. Non-compliance could result

in a federal backstop being imposed and that would trigger taxes on current

exemptions, such as those as home heating fuels.

Madam Chair, our approach to tackle climate change in

Newfoundland and Labrador forms part of a collective of the Canadian and global

efforts that are needed to address climate change. Our government has committed

environmental protection and reducing carbon emissions. It is our responsibility

to safeguard our land and waters for future generations. Our government

continues to support the development of a green economy and initiatives to move

the province towards an environmentally and economically safe path forward.

Madam Chair, electrification of Newfoundland and

Labrador's economy is a key energy priority, as 98 per cent of our province's

electricity will come from renewable energy by 2021. Our five-year Climate

Change Action Plan aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, stimulate clean

innovation and growth and build resilience to climate change impacts.

We have announced six programs for residential,

commercial and municipal energy efficiency and fuel switching, as well as

industry-focused and municipal climate change adaption initiatives. By 2030,

these programs are anticipated to deliver 830,000 tons of cumulative greenhouse

gas emission reductions while creating 650 direct person years of employment.

The Climate Change Action Plan guides the investment of

multi-year funding commitments in the $89.4-million Low Carbon Economy

Leadership Fund and $300 million for green initiatives through the federal

Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program.

As of March 31, 2020, the provincial government has

spent or encumbered approximately $50 million through the Low Carbon Economy

Leadership Fund. Of this amount, approximately $38 million is for upgrades and

fuel switching of provincial government buildings and about $12 million is for

residential, commercial and municipal upgrades and fuel switching. Of that $12

million, approximately $2.8 million has gone for municipalities. The Low Carbon

Economy Leadership Fund program has been extended to March 2024 from the

original date of March 2022 to accommodate delays experienced during COVID-19.

Madam Chair, some of the projects that have been

approved under the program include the Town of Gander's project to upgrade

Steele Community arena and other town buildings. The Town of Grand Falls-Windsor

project to upgrade Joe Byrne arena and also other town buildings within their

community. Memorial University's Marine Institute also received funding to

install new firefighting training infrastructure at the Foxtrap training

location.

We are supporting the transition to clean energy in the

future and supporting consumer choices by installing a fast-charging electric

vehicle network across the Trans-Canada Highway. To that end, I'm proud to say

provided $770,000 to purchase and install 14 Level 3 high-speed electric vehicle

chargers and 14 Level 2 chargers along the Trans-Canada Highway. They will

extend from St. John's to Channel-Port aux Basques and also up the Northern

Peninsula.

In addition to these initiatives, the province

continues to implement the Management of

Greenhouse Gas Act to reduce industrial emissions onshore and in the

offshore through set reduction targets. The Department of Environment, Climate

Change and Municipalities continues to work with the federal government to

create jobs in a green economy and reduce the impacts of climate change and

carbon emissions.

Madam Chair, I know that taxes can be challenging for

residents, but it is needed as we move towards a greener environment and

economy. Working together, we can make changes to better our province for a

sustainable and greener future.

Madam Chair, I've been in this role for eight or nine

weeks now, and being a new grandfather – I have a grandson just a little over

two years old and a granddaughter that's just a little over three months – I can

honestly say that everyday I walk into this office, whether it be in my District

of Lewisporte - Twillingate or here in the Confederation Building, my number one

goal is to be able to look at my grandchildren to say when I left this job, we

left our province in a better condition than when we found it.

We battle with a number of environmental issues and we

are working to combat the effects of climate change and greenhouse gas

emissions, and we will continue that.

I just wanted to say, in closing, that I am in full

support of Bill 43,

An Act to Amend the Revenue Administration Act. I will be

supporting it, and, hopefully, our colleagues will also support it.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Conception Bay

South.

MR.

PETTEN:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's a pleasure, as always, to speak in this House.

Sometimes we take it for granted, but it is a pleasure, as usual. We don't know

when we leave this House, when you come back sometimes, so you never take it for

granted.

Bill 43, when we look at the increased tax on carbon

products, there last week another piece went through to decrease the gas tax as

an offset, which is fine. I know I was the Opposition critic for Climate Change

for several years in the last session. When all this legislation went through, I

was the critic and I kind of got a crash course in climate change and carbon

pricing. I really didn't have a great knowledge of it, to be quite frank with

you. A lot of us do when we come into this role and take on different areas and

it broadens your knowledge, so I did learn a lot.

It's a fair statement: We have to look after our

climate, our environment. I get all that. I think everyone in this House,

everyone in the world gets that. It's how you achieve it. As we've spoken – and

I spoke many times – we were never in favour of a carbon tax, per se. The

made-in-Newfoundland approach was tolerable. It was better. It was less

impactful than what was the original plan but it was a top-down approach.

It was the commitment by Prime Minister Trudeau. It was

a commitment he wanted to follow through on and he was doing it regardless. It

was something that he committed doing, it's fine, but then they had to make some

of these separate agreements with other provinces to get it through. There was

the made-in-Newfoundland approach and there were other provinces that had their

own approach as well.

At the end of the day, it's still a tax. Again, it's

probably not as hard as it would be but it's going to continue on. The price per

ton will go up to different levels. You talk about your net zero and that's the

goal. That's fine, too, but there's a cost involved with all green technologies.

All green energy has a cost. It's not cheap. If you look at it and you research

it, green technologies are very, very expensive.

I'll just use one example: the electric vehicles.

They're price prohibitive when you go to car lots. The price of most of these

electric vehicles are out of the price range; they're incomparable. Beautiful

cars, but the gas-powered ones, gas and diesel cars, are a lot cheaper because

the technology is more proven, the manufacturer supply. We've perfected that

industry and it's less costly. Electric vehicles, we have these plug-in stations

all throughout, and that's what we're trying to promote, but they're out of most

people's price range.

Then you're bringing in all these great ideas and that

and there's a cost associated. These costs come to industry, which government

ends up having to backstop a lot of this and support the investment. This costs

a lot of money. You get that money from your existing industries. You can't have

a green economy without having something to pay for that green economy, even the

transition. Right now in Newfoundland and Labrador, we always had the fishery as

our backbone, but tourism has picked up a lot of times. Oil and gas is where

we've been. We've been an oil-producing province now for the last 20-some-odd

years and it's brought a lot of revenues in to our province. That's how we

offset the costs for our green technologies.

You can't have one without the other. There was a

commercial on one time, and I can't remember when I saw that, there was

something that goes hand in hand. You can't have your green economy without

having the oil and gas industry. This is the big divide. This is where I think

the federal government are really missing the ship, in their focus of being

green, focused on green technology, being green. That's all fine; no one

disputes that. That's good. They can't be done in separation; they can't be done

in isolation of one another. It has to be done together. You don't cripple an

already hurting industry in oil and gas because you want to move away from the

oil and gas and the coal.

We're years and years away from ever turning into any

sort of a major green economy. We're getting there but we have a long ways to

go. How are you going to pay for that? Who pays for it? Obviously we're going to

pay for it through gas taxes and other taxes. The carbon tax is the mechanism

that drives it. There's a cost and there have to be revenues. It's a simple

process. It's economics as basic as it gets.

Right now we're faced with we're given $320 million.

Like my colleague for Stephenville - Port au Port said, there is $200 million

being given to a casino in Ontario. That should be offensive to every

Newfoundlander and Labradorian. When your oil and gas industry, the backbone of

your economy, is struggling, you give them $320 million, but you give $200

million to a casino in Ontario. Think about that. That's where the mass of votes

are. That's the federal base. We all get that. We understand the federal

government goes the colour Ontario goes. We understand that. But $320 million

and you're on your own.

Figure it out. We have to wait three months to figure

out where that money is going. We don't know where that money is going. We're

asked that question every day but we don't know. Then you go up to Ottawa and

our federal minister goes up looking for money for the oil and gas and the

green-minded ministers and close ties to the prime minister, they don't want to

hear tell of oil and gas. We're given our 8.5 equity stake, the revenues from

that. That's the money that was given to us.

They're only giving back, really, what we rightfully

own and what we should have and we should have been given a long time ago. That

share has been long paid. If we had a proper place in Confederation, we would

have that money. We would have our share, but no, that's kept for rainy-day

money. I guess for them to pay the $200 million to the casino in Ontario was

coming out of that fund that they're getting off our offshore, out of our

Hibernia platform. But we kicked up, we pleaded and there were rallies and that,

rallying cries.

There was a lot of pressure on the federal minister, so

his green friends in Ottawa decided we'll give you $320 million. It's crumbs. In

the big picture, it's crumbs. You're paying billions of dollars for pipelines

because of political advantages. I don't know if that really worked out well for

them up there in Alberta the last election, but it was done. It was done with

some outcry but it was done. I think it was done for the right reasons. You're

trying to keep the country together; that's their industry.

What makes us any different? I'll say this in this

House and I'll say it again: We're all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Why do

we have to go with cap in hand and be grateful for whatever we get? No one ever

answers that question. We give our share to Confederation, to this country, but

we've never gotten our fair share back. That's a long been debated issue. There

are all kinds of figures. I'm not even going into those numbers but think about

that. Why should we be so grateful that we're getting something from Ottawa?

It's almost like you got it and how wonderful are we?

Up in Quebec, I was there two years ago. I was blown away. This province is on

equalization. You have to go there, $14-billion, $15-billion equalization a

year. There's construction. There are multi-billion dollar bridges going

everywhere. The economy is on fire. No one talks about financial problems. They

get what they want and when they're given something, they're not beholden to the

federal government. They almost think they never got enough and everyone thinks

that's fine. I tip my hat to them, good for them, but what makes us any

different? Why are we so wrong to fight for what we rightfully deserve?

No one can explain that and that debate has gone on

forever and it will go on long after all of us are left this Legislature. There

comes a time when you stand up for what you believe in and you stand up for what

you rightfully deserve – and I've said this in this House over and over again; I

continue to say it. Why do we have to take so little and be happy and go our own

way and not be critical of it because we're afraid we might get no more? That's

what it's like. We can't say anything. We have to be thankful for that because

we might not get anymore.

That's not the way this works. That's not the way we're

set up. That's not Confederation. We're all part of one country, and we're part

of a great country when you look at what's going on down south of us. I think we

need to be treated fairly, and right now I do not believe we've been treated

fairly and we've never been treated fairly. It takes more than nice words to do

it right. There needs to be more action than words. I keep saying actions have

to match your words.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The

Chair recognizes the Deputy Government House Leader.

MS.

DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll take a couple of minutes to speak to Bill 43

today,

An Act to Amend the Revenue Administration Act. Madam Chair, it's a bill

that would amend the Revenue

Administration Act to increase tax rates on carbon products. It absolutely

goes without saying, nobody likes to sit here and have those conversations

around carbon tax. I was pleased that in

Budget 2020 we were able to coordinate to bring in a decrease to help offset

the impact of the carbon tax.

I go back to, Madam Chair, the summer that I spent in

Municipal Affairs and Environment. It was quite a learning experience for me to

learn about carbon tax. As I would have briefings in the department, I began to

put it together with knowledge that I would hear elders back in my community

say: The ferry didn't go today; the ferry didn't go yesterday. Then some elderly

folk would say: Well, my dear, we're getting windier weather and things than

we've ever had in my day.

Then you put it together with what you hear around

predictions going to warmer, windier, wetter climate and you put it all together

and you see that it's not just something that –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MS.

DEMPSTER:

Madam Chair, I'm finding it difficult to hear myself speak in the House this

morning here.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MS.

DEMPSTER:

lot of side conversations and it's a little bit distracting when you're trying

to speak.

Madam Chair, snowmobiling is a very – not just here on

the Island. Sometimes there are groomed trails and we snowmobile for leisure,

but on the Coast of Labrador snowmobiling is used to get your wood out, it's

used to harvest from the land. It's a very big part of people's diet. We've seen

the impacts of climate change.

I remember on my 17th birthday – now that's some time

ago – heading, what we call, up the bay on snowmobile for my birthday at a cabin

on the 24th of May. I can tell you in recent years you don't go up the bay on

snowmobile the end of May, because probably like a month earlier the harbours

are breaking out. There are all kinds of stories we could share like that.

Trevor Bell, from Memorial University, has done some

really important work on the North Coast around smart ice and the impacts it's

having even on Indigenous communities who live a way of life and carry out these

cultural experiences. We're seeing that climate change is having an impact on

all of that, so certainly real.

Then we find ourselves in a situation, Mr. Chair, where

the federal government has put in place a carbon pricing regime across Canada.

How do we deal with that? We're a small province here; we're spread over a very

large land mass. That brings our own set of problems when it comes to a

government that's bringing in only a certain amount of revenue and you have all

these expenditures in all the nooks, coves and crannies around the province.

There's been a lot of back and forth. I want to commend

the Deputy Premier for the work she's done in Finance and the Finance minister

before her; many conversations around what do we do here. The only choice really

that this province was given and this government is that the carbon tax is

coming, the federal government have made that very clear. We can either look at

what is the best approach that we can do for the residents of Newfoundland and

Labrador or the federal backstop would come in.

We didn't have to look too deep at the federal backstop

to clearly see that will impose harsher restrictions on our residents. We have

to have some say here. Mr. Chair, that's where the hybrid approach came. That's

where we said we need a made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador approach; we need to

have some flexibility. If this is coming from the federal government, we need

the flexibility to massage this a little bit and at the end of the day have the

least impact on residents. That's where our approach to carbon pricing is

tailored to the economic realities that are here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I have a sister that lives in Fort McMurray, and I can

tell you any time when I'm visiting Alberta it's very different when you look at

Newfoundland and Labrador and where we have depended on our revenue versus other

provinces on the west coast.

Home heating fuels are exempt. Again, when I look at

communities in my District of Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, when I leave here

now on any weekend – last night I left the Legislature and it was 14 degrees or

something here in the city. We're in a winter wonderland up in Labrador already.

So people rely on home heating fuel for much longer in each calendar year than

they do here in places even on the Island and other parts of the province. I'm

really pleased to see that home heating fuels are exempt, because we recognize

that imposing the federal tax would put undue pressure on many low-income

individuals in this province.

Just yesterday, Madam Chair, one of the Members in

Opposition asked a question about what are we doing for seniors. Well, I can

tell you when we formed government in the spring of '16 there were not too many

money trees out behind this Legislature, but we did put measures in place. Like

the low-income supplement, the seniors' supplement, $123 million put aside to

protect seniors.

It was important for us that we set up the Seniors'

Advocate, an independent office of this House; only the third such one in the

province. Despite the tough fiscal climate – and I'm digressing a bit now, Madam

Chair, but I'm passionate about these things – more than a hundred poverty

reduction initiatives, $286 million, the most ever of any government in history.

It's what this government has done in a tough fiscal climate because we do care

about seniors. Sometimes we get asked questions, and they forget that seniors

are in our families too. The seniors are in our communities and we care a lot

about them and we want to do what we can for them.

One of the other things really important to districts

like I represent, Madam Chair, is our plan has exemptions in place for fish

processing. I can't emphasize how important that is. Cartwright - L'Anse au

Clair, we have five fish processing facilities. By making it feasible for

companies to come in and do business that in turn allows our people, the people

that I represent, to earn a good, honest living and to pay their own way.

Places like Black Tickle that don't have a lot of

options, an island off the Coast of Labrador and we have the shrimp company

doing a little more, going back year over year in there.

Community employment enhancement, when I started they

would often need $125,000 a year just to help them get enough hours for EI. This

year, Madam Chair, thanks to the fishery, thanks to measures that have been put

in place, they needed less than $23,000. That's the change we've seen. That's

what happens when we make small investments to help people go out and earn their

own income.

Madam Chair, I was really pleased to see the work of

this government, working with what we had, always difficult any time you're

discussing taxes but to see provisions put in place to protect things like home

heating, fuels used by industry regulated under the management of the

Greenhouse Gas Act are exempt from the

provincial carbon tax; forestry, offshore and mineral exploration.

Madam Chair, last night, the Minister of Industry,

Energy and Technology, I joined him as he sat down with leadership right across

Labrador, the executive of the Combined Councils of Labrador and there was much

discussion on mining because as we look across the globe and the impacts on the

oil and gas right now, we know that mining is going to be very important.

Really pleased to see exemptions here for mineral

exploration because there are lots of positive stories around things like mining

and even though we're in this difficult situation – I keep looking left, I say,

Madam Chair, to the clock because I'm quickly running out of time.

There are lots to be hopeful about in this province and

when it comes to Labrador, when it comes to things like mining, we have not

begun to tap in to the tremendous potential that's there, Madam Chair.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak for a few

minutes to Bill 43.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR.

LANE:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Always great to have an opportunity to speak in this

hon. House. Of course, today, we're talking about the carbon tax. As we all know

this is a money bill so it gives us the flexibility to speak about basically

anything we want, but I'm going to try to, as most people have done, actually

speak to the bill.

It's kind of interesting, I said to one of my

colleagues: Are you sure this is a money bill? Because everybody is actually

talking to the substance of the actual bill itself, which is very unusual

because normally when we have a money bill, people are talking about anything

but the bill. This is kind of an interesting one.

Anyway, I will be talking about stuff other than the

bill when I speak again because I'm sure there will be lots of opportunity. For

now, I do want to make some comments about this particular bill.

Of course, as I said, we're talking about the carbon

tax. The reality of it is, this is a federal initiative. For anyone who might be

out there listening and sort of trying to pin this on the provincial government

of taxing people and so on. In this particular case, this is really driven by

the feds, the carbon tax.

If anything, I will acknowledge and give some credit to

our provincial government, in this particular case, that they're actually

offsetting the carbon tax increase by decreasing the provincial gas tax. There's

still a slight increase that we're going to be voting for here – a slight

increase – but albeit it could've been a much bigger increase had the government

decided that they would just go ahead with the federal carbon tax and leave our

own provincial gas tax rates the same. I think it's important, just in fairness

and in accuracy, to acknowledge that fact. This could've been much worse for

people.

Whether this should be a tax or not, that's a

debateable point. I always felt – and this is just my personal view – that this

whole thing is nothing but a tax grab anyway, implemented by the federal

government. If we're going to be dealing with climate change and so on – by the

way, I am not a climate change denier. There are people out there – we have a

former, well-known mayor in this city who said that climate change was

foolishness and so on, at one point in time, who I've had some encounters with.

Anyway, I'm not one of those people. I don't deny

climate change. I do believe that we do need to deal with climate change because

right now we're reacting to climate change, but we have not been doing enough to

prevent or at least slow the progress of climate change. Action definitely has

to be taken.

With that said, simply taxing people when they go to

the gas tank to fill up their car, I'm not so sure that does anything to lessen

the impacts of climate change. The reality of it is, if you're going to throw an

extra couple of cents on the gas pump, I still need gas. I'm not going to stop

driving to work because there are a couple of cents in carbon tax or whatever on

the gas pumps. I'm still going to do it anyway. I think 99.9 per cent of the

people are still going to carry on as they always did. They're not going to, all

of a sudden, stop driving because you have to pay a few cents gas tax.

To my mind, if the federal government were totally

serious about climate change and in dealing with it, then, to my mind, they

should be going after the big polluters and perhaps, on the one hand, offering

incentives. So if you have a big industrial plant that's spewing carbon up into

the air, perhaps offer some sort of incentives for them to put in scrubbers and

other technology so that that wouldn't be happening. If they didn't do it, then

to nail them with taxes and let them pay for it.

To my mind, that would be much better than going to the

average citizen, many people who are just struggling to survive. That doesn't

apply to people in this room, of course, but there are a lot of people, a lot of

our constituents, who are struggling to survive, making low wages and so on. So

rather than making them pay a little extra at the pump, all you're doing is

you're gouging them and taking more money from their income. They still need to

drive to work regardless. They still need to drive the kids to school, whatever,

regardless. I just think the whole approach by the federal government is not

well thought out. That's just, of course, my opinion.

I also look at manufacturing. There was a story in, I

think it was, The Telegram , maybe a

year, maybe two years ago. It was about this Newfoundlander, actually,

interestingly enough, a Newfoundlander again who had invented some sort of a –

I'm going to call it a catalytic converter. That may not be exactly what it is,

but it's the concept. A device, I'll say, he invented that could be attached to

snow blowers and lawn mowers and all those types of garden tools and stuff that

would eliminate the carbon footprint left by those types of things, from snow

blowers and all that. It was developed here in Newfoundland.

Why not the federal government say to the manufacturers

of these snow blowers: Here's the technology, if you want to sell a snow blower

in Canada, it must have this or we're going to ban it. If we can't ban it, we're

going to jack the taxes up so that you're not competitive with the guy that does

have it. In other words, force the big companies, force the manufacturers to put

the technology there so that it's not having that impact on our environment.

Force them to do it as opposed to going after the little guy every time you go

to get a drop of gas. You're not going to change the habits; all you're doing is

taking more money out of people's pockets.

I just personally am against the way the federal

government has done it. With that said, they've done what they've done. They're

the federal government. I can't control it; I can't stop them. They've done it

now.

They would have forced their plan down our throats if

the province did not do what they're doing, which they're referring to a

made-in-Newfoundland solution or whatever they're calling it. If they had not

done that, then there would have been something forced upon us anyway. I do

agree with what the province has done.

I know there were a couple of provinces – Ontario and

so on – that were going to take the federal government to court on this. I don't

know whatever became of that, if they did take them to court or what the results

were. Maybe I missed that in the news, I'm not sure, but there were some people

saying we should have done the same. I don't know if that would have been worth

our while or not.

HON. MEMBER:

They lost.

MR.

LANE:

Someone said they lost. Okay, there you go. I'm told they lost. I missed that

news clip, but they lost.

I think we did do the right thing. I do support the

bill. Again, I support what the government is doing in terms of offsetting it by

reducing the provincial gas tax. I have no issue with supporting the bill; I

have no issue with supporting our government and what they've done. I think

they've made the best of the situation that they could. I appreciate that and I

support that.

I just think the whole logic used by the federal

government, to begin with, is the part that I have a problem with. Go after the

big polluters, go after the manufacturers, go after the people that are causing

the problem and leave the little guy alone. People are being taxed enough,

they're paying enough and they're not the problem. The problem is the

corporations, the huge industrial facilities that are causing all the problems.

They're the problem. Make them solve the problem. Don't expect me as a taxpayer

to solve their problems for them.

Thank you.

CHAIR:

The

Chair recognizes the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR.

LESTER:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The carbon tax is a Pigouvian tax. Does anyone know

what a Pigouvian tax is? According to the Internet: “A Pigovian (Pigouvian) tax

is a tax assessed against private individuals or businesses for engaging in

activities that create adverse side effects for society. Adverse side effects

are those costs that are not included as part of the product's market price.”

What kind of adverse effects is the carbon tax going to

mitigate in our province? Well, as we all know, we're subjected to the

extremities of climate change and, yes, that is causing havoc within our

environment and our natural resource industries. It's disrupting what we've

known as the pattern of nature and life in our province.

So let's look at the activities which are being taxed.

We're looking at driving. We are looking at importing and exporting products,

all of which are essential to life here on an Island and on the peninsula of

Labrador.

Madam Chair, while I do recognize that this is a

federally imposed tax, what this has done to our province and our province's

revenue stream, it has further handicapped us as a province to expand our export

industries. Not only that, we as a province have had to remove the gas tax

portion on a litre of fuel so that our people can afford to drive. They can

afford to drive because we are going to now replace the money that we collect

through the gas tax with added debt to our provincial deficit.

Who is responsible for that? Is this government

responsible for that? Do you know what? They are not responsible for that,

because do you know who is responsible? Our good friends in Ottawa, so that they

can impose this tax upon the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, making it more

difficult to live here in the province, making it more expensive to live here in

the province and adding to our provincial debt every year.

Tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars every

year which we would normally collect with the provincial gas tax are now going

to be replaced by the carbon tax. The infrastructure, the roads, the programs

that are funded through the provincial gas tax are now going to be funded by

additional provincial debt of which we have no plan to repay.

I support the concept of a Pigouvian tax. I support

making the polluter pay, but in a position where we are so dependent on products

for our everyday lives being imported into this province, largely on

diesel-powered vehicles which, as mentioned, diesel will actually go up by

almost five times the rate of gas in incremental price. How do we do that? How

can we substantiate in this economic time in our history to increase the cost of

living here in the province?

I often listen to the Member for Burgeo - La Poile, and

he talks of the IT sector. While I disagree with him on most things he says, I

do agree with him on the success and the, I guess, establishment of an IT sector

here. IT sector is largely based on human resources. Humans like to live in

places where they're comfortable. How are we going to make this province

comfortable when we are continually burdening our people with additional tax?

How are we going to do that?

These fantastic companies and fantastic people that

have chosen to work here in the IT sector can really pick up and move anywhere

else in the world. Before they start to have that kind of inclination, we have

to start to move on making our province a much more affordable place to live,

and that is pushing back against the federal government and their Pigouvian tax.

Why don't they look at more avenues where they would be

able to tax, such as international recreational air travel? International

recreational air travel, while I do appreciate the occasional excursion down

south myself, it is not necessary to the existence of our province, nor the

existence of our people. So those who can afford it can afford to pay the extra

tax. It's a choice they can make.

Right now, when we pull up to a gas station, whether we

are on income support or whether we are the top income earners in the province,

we are subjected to having to pay the tax. When we go to pick up our groceries

in the store, no, food is not subject to the carbon tax, but the transportation

that brings most of our food here to the province is subject to the tax. We have

no choice but to buy food. We have no choice to buy gas. If we want to travel

from one place to another, we have to buy gas; we have to buy diesel.

How are we ever going to be able to rise from where we

are today to where we should and truly deserve to be if the way to do it is tax?

As a province, we have done far more than our share of contribution to reducing

the amount of carbon produced by our own footprint. Pretty soon all of our

electricity will be coming from renewable, non-carbon-based generation.

Another thing I've often heard of as we discuss this is

the transition of government buildings from oil heat or oil power to electrical

or natural biomass. I, personally, do not see the value of changing our

buildings from oil to electricity. I do see a value in changing from oil to wood

pellets or some other biomass. The reason being is we need to increase the

available electricity to businesses in our province; we need to increase the

availability of excess power that we can sell off the province or, more

specifically, use right here in our own province for industries to expand and

establish.

Further to that, there will be an immense cost in

changing over from oil to electricity. Right now we have many public buildings

that could reduce the amount of carbon that they do produce by just installing

some simple efficiencies. I'm sure everybody drives up and down Prince Philip

Parkway at night and actually sees how many lights are left on in this building.

How much heat is generated in this building?

As we've seen through COVID-19, many of our people have

been able to work from home; many of them are still working from home. This

reduces the amount of office space, reduces the amount of heating required and

reduces the amount of travel back and forth. Those are things that we can look

at and not burden extra tax or extra cost of living on people. That's what we

have to do as a province. That's what we should be doing as leaders.

I do give the government credit for their

made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador tax. But I tell you, I would almost fight to

the last drop of blood within me to not have to pay that tax at all. We are

doing more than our fair share. Yes, we do need to do more, but by burdening the

people of our province with an extra cost of living and at the same time

removing a revenue generation for our province, it's only going to make it

harder for the everyday person to live here in this province.

Being a money bill, I am allowed to veer off the bill a

little bit, so I think I will. Over the past month, many of the subjects of

conversation here in the House have been the decimation that our oil industry is

receiving through the, as the minister has said over and over again,

trillion-dollar loss. I want to know if the minister and the government realize

that within every challenge there's always opportunity. Yes, the demand for oil

is shrinking. Yes, the demand for oil products will shrink over time, but there

will still be a demand.

We need, as a province, to position ourselves to be the

leaders in that. We need, as a province, not to back away from this

trillion-dollar loss; we have to look for the opportunity within. I don't want

to see us raising a white flag. That's my big concern.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Virginia Waters -

Pleasantville.

MR.

DAVIS:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I don't even know how to start with the white flag

comment, because this government, the House on this side, is not about to raise

the white flag on anything. But I am happy to speak to the hon. House about Bill

43,

An Act to Amend the Revenue Administration Act with respect to carbon

pricing.

I'd like to thank the hon. Members that spoke before me

about some of the history lessons that I received, which was excellent. I'm

going to search on the Internet now to figure out what some of those things are,

which is excellent. I think I'd like to take on a point that the hon. Member for

St. John's Centre actually did say that resonated with me. Things that develop

over time is why we're in the situation we're in today.

The hon. Member for Conception Bay South talked about

the extreme cost associated with electric vehicles. Although I do agree that

they have come down quite substantially in price, they are still a little

pricey, but no different than the cellphones we all carry today. When cellphones

were first invented, they were cumbersome and very expensive, very few people

had them, but now you'd be hard pressed to find somebody who doesn't have them.

The costs have come down quite substantially. That's something that we all have

to wrestle with, with respect to this.

As more people come into the technology and take on the

technology, those costs will come down. The car initially came in to replace the

horse and buggy. I was surprised the Member for St. John's Centre didn't address

it. The car was expensive and that came down in price. It's an expensive thing

to try to improve technology. We see it here in the province every day.

I do want to ask the Member for Conception Bay South:

If not now, when? If not us, who? It's a simple question to ask for all of us.

If we don't start to move on this now, it's going to be too late for generations

that come after us. I had the opportunity, like the hon. Minister of

Environment, to attend the Fridays for Future events. I've attended a couple of

them. I think they're amazing, to see the young people pushing passionately

about what they believe in the future they want to see, what they want to live.

They want to push us, as the decision-makers, to make the right decisions so

their futures are stronger and the kids that they will have in the future will

be stronger.

That's an important piece that all of us should not

forget about when we sit at these vintage desks. We're here for a reason and I

think the environment and – you don't have to look very far. I mean, you can see

in our own environment here that it's changed.

I don't think anyone in this House, like the hon.

Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands said, is a climate-change denier. I do know

some, but at the end of the day, we've seen this young person movement of

Fridays for Future in over 7,500 cities now, 13 million people participating.

They're on all continents around the world. I think that's an important piece

for us all to understand.

I'd like to address a couple of points that the hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl North suggested about the tech sector and the clean

tech sector. I think that's an important piece for us all to understand as well.

I do like the fact that he agreed with the Minister of IET on the tech sector.

He may not agree with much else but at least he's smart enough to agree on that

with us for sure. Because the tech sector is a huge impact for our province –

huge impact. From my standpoint –

CHAIR:

The

Chair recognizes the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR.

LESTER:

Point of order,

section 49, I do take offence to the Member's comments in

regards to my intelligence. I would request that he withdraw that comment and

apologize.

Thank you.

CHAIR:

ask the Member to withdraw.

MR.

DAVIS:

Absolutely. I did not mean it that way. Unequivocal apology. I did not mean to

say that. He would know better than that. I didn't mean it that way. But I did

say that I'm glad that he agrees with the Minister of Industry, Energy and

Technology. It is the tech sector that's going to be the future of our province.

That tech sector is not just working with the oil and

gas sector, which some of the tech firms are. They're also working in clean

tech, which is something that we have a lot of opportunity for us to grow in as

a province. From my standpoint, I see us very well positioned for us to move

forward on how we can deliver on a tech sector. I think there's a significant

amount of employment opportunity there.

We heard the hon. minister mention in the past about

the number of employment that will be created by the tech sector in and of

itself – some 2,000 over the next couple of years, which is impressive in and of

itself. From where I sit, I think that's an important piece that we need to

focus on in this province.

The changing system with respect to how we see carbon

pricing and taxing, it is right. The hon. Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands

was correct in saying that it's a federal initiative that's been pushed to the

provinces to do. But one of the things that was unique about our approach – and

I thank the hon. Member for agreeing with it in principle – the fact that we

made a Newfoundland-and-Labrador approach.

Nobody likes increasing taxes on anybody, for sure.

From our standpoint, what we want to do is try to increase ways in which we can

increase jobs in this province, which is a thing that everyone in this House

talks about almost every day in this House. I think that's an important piece to

take that money that comes in from the carbon tax and invest it in clean tech as

one opportunity, and invest it in our people in the province so we can support

small business growth.

One of the things the Member for Mouth Pearl North

talked about was maybe we should create a fee or an additional charge for

recreational travel. As the Tourism Minister I would speak quite actively

against that. Over 50 per cent of our tourists that use this province are from

non-resident travel. So if that was to be implemented by the hon. Member, it

would devastate our already hurt industry in tourism. We all know that we've

been through a very challenging time in that industry and any opportunity that

we can to ensure people coming to this province – and cut down those stumbling

blocks.

We're working with the federal government to create a

recovery plan for the tourism section, not just in this province but right

across the country. There may be initiatives that would encourage travel and

that would discourage travel within the province or travel to the province.

Those 20,000 jobs are an important piece. It's a $1.14-billion industry and

there are 2,700 businesses that are reflective of that. I think it's a real

important thing for us not to make hasty decisions on putting a tax on

recreational air travel. I think that would be a wrong move. Maybe he will

clarify that in future speaking. Maybe that's not what he meant but that's what

I heard.

We all know how hard the air industry has been hit, not

just in this province but in the global community. We want to make sure – I know

the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port would agree – that anything we can do

to support airports and airlines, in particular, we should always try to do,

because that's how we link our province and our country together. I think that's

an investment that we should all be talking about and trying to work towards.

I won't go on for too, too much longer, Madam Chair,

but I do want to say that I support this bill and I hope everyone in this hon.

House does. We've done everything we can to offset most of any of the increase

there. I understand any bit of tax increases is a problem. We want to try to

ensure that individuals' cost of living don't increase.

One of the nice points that I want to talk about was

the tech industry. I've had the opportunity to travel around a little bit and

see some of the tech firms and meet many of the start-up entrepreneurs that were

there and their employees. One of the things that they've been very committed in

is that they always want to leave the planet a little bit better than when they

received it themselves. I know that they're a very young group of entrepreneurs

in this province that are in the tech sector. I know they would be interested in

what we're doing here today and be very supportive of this, just based on my

talking with them over the past number of years.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I look forward to

this passing very quickly through the House of Assembly.

Thank you.

CHAIR:

The

Chair recognizes the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

MR.

P. DINN:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's a pleasure to speak in this House on Bill 43, An

Act to Amend the Revenue Administration Act and, more specifically, this bill

amending the Revenue Administration Act

to increase taxes on carbon products. Madam Chair, carbon taxes or the tax on

carbon – I guess the whole intention of this is to reduce carbon dioxide

emissions, or as some people refer to it, greenhouse emissions. They reduce that

by increasing the price of fossil fuels; thereby, the intent is that would

decrease the demand for them.

By reducing the demand, of course, we drive people to

look for more energy-efficient options, and some do and some don't. I know the

extra cost on gasoline, most of us perhaps today will not even blink at that

increase. It is a very small increase. As the Minister of Finance said, it's

one-fifth of a cent. But we do have individuals out there – we only recently

spoke to a private Member's resolution around guaranteed income, basic income.

There certainly are families and individuals out there who live day to day on

every cent they have. There will be some effect. Now, I do understand there are

exemptions. They're going to work well on home heating fuels for seniors, for

individuals with fixed incomes. It certainly will help there.

There's no argument. Most economists will tell you that

the carbon tax is one of the most effective ways to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Not the only way; it's one of the most effective ways. It does create more

people with the ambition to look at more innovative ways of doing business. At

the end of the day – and it was already mentioned here in the House – some of

these increases trickle down. They trickle down to the final consumer and I

suspect they get bigger and bigger as they get passed along.

Food security is one issue here in the province that we

deal with. Any taxes that affect transportation costs are going to be tacked on

to food costs or anything that's transported to the province. It may not be a

huge amount but, at the end of the day, some families will certainly feel the

pinch on that.

We also look at some businesses for COVID. We've had

some businesses close shop. We have businesses that just couldn't keep up. A big

part of running a business is the fuel supply and the costs that affect their

business.

One of the Members in the House mentioned about taxing

the big polluters. That's perhaps, in my mind, an option here as well. Right

now, this is a blanket tax that covers everyone. Again, I know it's a small

amount but it covers everyone. There's an opportunity to increase on our

made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador approach and perhaps look at some other taxes

or larger taxes on the bigger polluters.

There's some argument over whether it actually

minimizes impacts on consumers. It may in general be minimum impact on consumers

but, at the end of the day, there is an impact. Some will say that it's not

impeding business growth but in some instances it will. It certainly promotes

innovation.

One of the Members talked about, or there was some

discussion, on the recreational vehicles and the tourism industry. I agree that

people come to the province and avail of a lot of activities that require

gas-operated vehicles and the like. When we go to environment and looking at

innovative ways, maybe the tourism sector also should start looking at more

environmentally friendly activities to take the place of some of the motorized

activities that take place. This won't happen overnight; we know that, but, as I

said, increasing the tax does increase innovation. Having greater looks at more

environmentally friendly ways of getting around or more environmentally friendly

activities in tourism is certainly a way to go.

It gets mentioned here in the House of Assembly and

it's always looked at in such a very negative light, and I tend to agree. It has

a huge impact on residents of the province, but most of the people in this House

weren't around when this came down. That is Muskrat Falls. I'm going to talk

about Muskrat Falls because we talk about the electrification of Newfoundland

and Labrador and that is a huge resource up there – not without any

environmental impacts, because certainly there were environmental impacts due to

this project.

When you look at the report and it talks about a

misguided project. Yeah, there's been a lot with this project, but for me coming

in as a new Member in this House – and many people in this House came in – I try

not to look back. I try to look forward; I try to look at opportunity here. Yes,

it's a big challenge to look at the rate mitigation. Government here had

guaranteed 13.5 cents in their report that came out – per kilowatt hour. We were

a little bit higher on that, looking at 15.1 cents. Actually, 15.1 cents, we

took into account the regular rate changes.

I look at a quote: The hardest part about moving

forward is not looking back. We do have to look back. There's no doubt about it.

We have to look back. But if we're truly engaged in looking at carbon footprint

reduction and looking at costs associated with our residents and that, then we

really have to look forward. We have to say that Muskrat Falls is a good thing.

How it was managed was not, but going forward we can be a world leader, if not

already, in electricity generation – we certainly can.

That's something we have to really work on. It's a huge

challenge, the rate mitigation, there's no doubt about it. But imagine, we could

be totally self-sufficient in electricity and not at all burn any more fossil

fuels to generate it. That would be a lovely goal to look at.

When Muskrat Falls – I was a bureaucrat, I worked in

government when this first came about, was first mentioned. My first thought,

before all this mismanagement, misguided happened, I said: Wow, that's good,

that's great if we can use our resources up there, our green resources, and

generate electricity. Hopefully, we'll keep moving forward with that file and

not looking back. It's a challenge going forward.

In the minute and a half I have, I just want to also

quickly speak about my district. I know we're all coming up on the Christmas

season; it's not too far away, less than two months. It's going to be hard on

some families. Families who are worried about their jobs, families who are

currently on strike. It's going to be hard on our volunteer groups because they

have the greatest demand on their resources during this time of year when it

comes to food banks and the like. Our essential workers who put in such a hard

year. Christmas holidays, major holidays, just thinking of them themselves have

stress associated with them.

So when I think about my district, it's a young

district and it has a great seniors' community. We have such a great volunteer

community. I'm hoping that they have the ways and the means to do what they do

every year, maybe a little differently, but just to ensure that those out there

who don't have a lot, those out there who are vulnerable, those out there who

need a hand up, those out there who need someone to just acknowledge them.

We've had a hard year. I know that the residents of

Topsail - Paradise will answer the call and we will make sure that no one in our

district, or in my district, has an unhappy Christmas.

Thank you.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

The Member's time is expired.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Lake Melville.

MR.

TRIMPER:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I was trying to think how I was going to approach my

remarks over the next 10 minutes here. It was the Member for St. John's Centre

who got me thinking about his historical retrospective. I think I'm going to

talk a little bit about that and put the essence of this bill and why we're here

and why this is such an important debate today.

First of all, back on his comment about the Gestetner,

I remember it well. I don't understand why, but our teacher made us all line up

with a jug – I was probably in Grade 6 or 7 – of that amazingly terrible

chemical and we all had to line up and have a big sniff of this methyl, whatever

it was that was in there. It was absolutely terrible. It just about knocked each

of us out. Somehow the skull and crossbones on the side of the bottle wasn't

sufficient. He felt we all had to have a big inhalation of that. Anyway, I've

probably never forgotten him for that.

I wanted to speak about, again, from a historical

perspective, how we got to this point and this made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador

position that we've come about with this government. I go back to Bill 34. When

I was minister at the time, in the summer of 2016 and we had just completed a

four-day filibuster with all of our great friends in this House of Assembly. I

remember we were wrapping up that bill, and the efforts and the intensity that

was around it. That was our first bill dealing with climate change in the

history of this government and it was all around the management of greenhouse

gases. It was targeted, at the time, on large industrial emitters.

There was an event that happened, just a short time

thereafter, that was essentially sort of a next big step, I would suggest, Madam

Chair, that occurred. It was in Montreal and it was a meeting of ministers and

their teams around climate change, in the entire country.

All the federal, provincial and territorial delegations

were there. I still remember walking into the room. It was a very impressive

setting as it always is. You're very proud to represent your province at such a

table at a national level. To walk into the room, there we were. Myself – I'm

going to mention them – Jackie Janes and Emily Timmins: That was the

Newfoundland and Labrador delegation. When I walk into the room, I see Quebec,

Alberta, Ontario and there's maybe another six behind them, these big groups of

scientists, communications people, politicians all there and the three of us,

from lowly Newfoundland and Labrador.

I've mentioned this before in the House but I feel I

want to do it again today: When you have that opportunity to represent your

province and you go in with the people of the calibre that we have in our

various government departments, and I walk in, there are the lowly three of us

sitting over in the corner, and I watch the lead scientists from Quebec,

Alberta, Ontario come over and ask Jackie Janes questions about this particular

situation because of her background and the capability and so on. I just always

like to talk about that because we should never sell ourselves short in this

province. We are very proud of who we are, what we can do.

I have to tell you, when you go at a national forum and

you're dealing with issues as tough as climate change – we were very well

prepared. Madam Chair, we did a good job because on that particular day, that

was a very important day. That's when the federal government – we were preparing

the final chapters of the Pan-Canadian Framework on climate change.

We were down to probably two hours left of work to do

on this. It was all around pricing carbon and so on. I remember the minister at

the time, a good friend, standing up and revealing how carbon was going to be

priced in this country. I was digesting it at the same time. I remember the

prime minister was on his feet in the House of Commons reading the exact same

speech.

I asked Jackie to go over to the federal table because

I said, surely to goodness – they talked about some exemptions for communities,

for example, north of 60 degrees in the country. If you're in a diesel-dependent

community for energy, if you're north of 60 you'll get an exemption. I said

surely to goodness that must also relate to the several dozen communities in

Newfoundland and Labrador that are in a similar option; otherwise, it's just

going to be more expensive for us to live there.

That was one big thing on my mind. Another was our

offshore, of which we have been preoccupied for these last several months.

Frankly, we are always preoccupied with it because it's such an important

industrial sector.

Just a little technical detail, if somebody knows

anything about carbon pricing: To find efficiencies in our offshore – given it

is some of the best technology if not the best technology in the world in terms

of extracting hydrocarbons, using it and getting it on to ships and so on so we

could process it – you would have to move carbon pricing. We're talking about

here today moving it to $30 a ton per ton of carbon dioxide. We'd have to get it

to $130.

I may lose you quick but just to say that we already

have a very efficient, very conscientious industry extracting low-carbon oil

from our offshore. I couldn't agree with the Member for Stephenville - Port au

Port any more that, absolutely, this is a very important industry, not just for

Newfoundland and Labrador but for the entire country.

Push just came to shove. We could not stand there by

our flag on that day and support a strategy that was going to make our offshore

more expensive, was going to make our food on the table more expensive, it was

going to do all these things. You essentially propose a tax when you're looking

at a way to move society in another direction. When you're in a diesel community

on the Coast of Labrador, Madam Chair, right now you don't have an alternative.

It just was going to make the price of living there all the more expensive.

We walked out of the room that day. It was a very tough

day, but we got back to the table and we kept working on it. After I left that

position of the minister responsible, I know successive ministers, and some of

them that are in the room here today, they all worked on it. This was a

collective series of small battles that got us to this point where we are here

today talking about moving this to $30 a ton and what that will mean.

I did want to jump on a couple of my colleagues,

however lightly and slightly. I know the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands was

indicating he felt that we should really be focusing on the big emitters and put

the cost of pollution on them. Absolutely, I agree, that's an important source.

I would remind him that one-third of the emissions in this province come from

transportation. I'm not sure what vehicle he drives, but if it's an internal

combustion engine, like most of the people in the parking lots around

Confederation Building, you're probably burning some four to five tons or

emitting four to five tons of greenhouse gas emissions a year.

To put that in perspective, at 20,000 kilometres you

are – for example, I think it's the community of Makkovik, Hopedale, some of

those sized communities, they emit around 500 to 600 tons of greenhouse gases a

year. That's like a hundred cars. Yes, on an individual basis you're not a big

contributor, but when you look at all the people around you, all the people in

this room and so on, we are probably equivalent to a community that's dependent

on diesel. We need to get this figured out and we need to recognize that we can

all make a contribution.

My final thing I wanted to put out there, my final

point, and it's one that I've been working on recently and I'm very proud that

it's getting started in a robust way. There are three crises facing this

province right now: our fiscal situation, which is very much of a dominant

force; COVID-19 has become a new crisis that's affecting the future and where

we're going; but frankly, the most serious, bar none, is that of climate change.

I just think about myself and the community that I live in, Happy Valley-Goose

Bay, and the projections over the next couple of decades. We're going to see a

sum like a 6.5-degree increase in our average temperature. That is a shocking

situation. This does require fast action and we require it now.

Finally, I want to go back to my former critic, the

Member for Conception Bay South. He and I worked very closely as we were working

through some of these issues on climate change. I want to refer him and his

colleagues to the whole strategy –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MR.

TRIMPER:

the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. This is where anybody

who has any question about carbon pricing needs to go, because this document

just came out and I'll quote from them: “Putting a price on carbon is widely

seen as the most cost-effective and flexible way to achieve emission reduction”

bar none.

These are hundreds of scientists, dozens of

jurisdictions all around the world. This is what we need to do. Yes, it's going

to be a little painful, but you know what? We're going to incent ourselves to go

to some of these other strategies that each and every one of us can avail of and

get it done.

With that, Madam Chair, I thank you very much for the

opportunity to speak on this very important bill and to reflect back on how we

got here.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR:

The

Chair recognizes the Member for Ferryland.

MR.

O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll just take a few minutes to touch on that subject

as well. As you know, I came from the car industry and dealing with vehicles,

electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles. There wasn't a big call for electric

vehicles when I was selling vehicles; we'd have one or two on the lot at a time.

There was some competition out there and they're all trying to see which one is

best, which one goes the furthest and all that stuff.

When I look back when they first started at electric

vehicles, Ontario had a $10,000 credit for anyone that was interested in buying

an electric car at the time or a hybrid car, before Doug Ford came in and took

the tax and wiped it out. They were promoting electric vehicles in Ontario at

that time. With people here in Newfoundland and Labrador, we didn't promote it

like that. Anyone who wanted to buy one, they would come in test drive it, take

it out. It would be a great vehicle, no question; they're always high end. The

lowest priced one we had at the time when we were in there was $42,000 to

$45,000.

If you're going to buy an electric vehicle you have to

weigh that out over a car that's $30,000 – and it was a car. It wasn't a truck;

it was a car. If you weigh out $10,000, $12,000 over a period of time – if

you're financing five, six or seven years, then when you weighed out $10,000 or

$12,000, how much were you saving on fuel over that five or 10 years and was it

$10,000 or $12,000 that was extra or worth that money?

You really had to have all your ducks in a row to know

where your budget was in regard to how much fuel you're going to spend and based

on your average kilometres a year when you look back at it. A lot of people

looked at it; they'd love to have them but could they afford $10,000 or $12,000

on their payment over that period of time. That was the big issue.

The other issue that I would look at – and I'd never

bring it up because I was trying to sell it, obviously. If you had an issue with

an electric vehicle or you kept the car for six or seven years and in five

years' time the battery goes in your electric vehicle, they only have so much

warranty. It's like any car has a three-year, 60,000-kilometre warranty, get a

powertrain for five-year, 100,000 and they might put a warranty on the battery.

When the battery goes, that's $4,000 or $5,000.

When you're going to get a car five or six years old

there has to be thought put into that. You have ATVs and you have cars and the

batteries go in them after three or four years at times, or you get a faulty

battery through no fault of the customer and the battery goes. Five thousand

dollars or $6,000 is not easy to come up with when you're trying to look at

that, so it was always a thought that I had in the back of my mind. Again, I was

trying to sell a vehicle. I'd never try to talk someone out of it because most

times when people are coming in to buy electric vehicles, they know what they're

looking for, they have their homework done and most likely they knew more about

the vehicle than I did.

We had two vehicles on our lot and you'd go and do

training on it. The customer definitely knew more about electric vehicles than

we did even though we did some training. They really had it scoped out on the

Internet and how it all worked and how it all regenerated. There's a lot of

technology that goes into that.

Also, I remember one year we had two hybrid trucks.

When it comes to after December the programs are gone on vehicles. If you're

selling vehicles you would know that programs are good until December, lease

prices are good until November. Right now you have 2021s on the inventory. The

incentives for leasing would be on the 2021s because they're starting to go on

the 2020s. When we got to December or January in the car industry the two

vehicles or two trucks we had left were hybrids, so they're $10,000 more at the

time. Yes, they'd power down or they'd shut off the way most vehicles do now,

but it was hard to convince the customer to buy one of those for $10,000 extra

unless there was something in it that he was going to do.

Now, we did have people that were trying to be green

and trying to represent their companies to be green, so they'd come in and buy

them because they were company vehicles. They basically weren't paying for it;

the company was paying for it. They tried to push forward the green initiative.

I could see it but we really didn't get behind it as, I'm going to say, a

federal government or a provincial government. If it's going to change then that

has to happen. That's one of the incentives I see going forward in the car

industry. They need to incentivise buying those electric vehicles. If not, then

most people can't afford them.

I just want to touch on a couple of other little topics

in my area. I'm trying to touch all the communities again. I apologize for

anyone that I missed but I'm trying to touch most areas. I was speaking to a

gentleman yesterday in my district. He asked me how do we fight for a recreation

centre in our area. That's in Goulds.

They have a recreation centre in the Goulds that if you

go in to play basketball you can't play it in this because the ceiling is not

high enough. It's good for kids that are seven or eight years old, but when you

have a recreation area like – you'd use a school or a gymnasium in a school.

That's the kind of gym that you need if you're going to have a recreation

facility in your town. Right now, with the way the schools are going – and

people can't use the gyms the way they could previously in the schools.

This community in the Goulds does not have, I'm going

to say, a satisfactory recreation facility. I'll give you an example. In the

minor hockey systems between Southern Shore and the Goulds, there are 500 kids,

probably 520 kids. Half of those kids are below the ages of eight and nine years

old. It's a very growing area. It's a young area, and it's good for minor hockey

that they're below the age of nine. The IP program, I think it's called, kids

that are – half the registration is more than 250 kids. So it's good for the

area and good for the district as well that we have that many kids at that age.

Some of the infrastructure that we have in our area

definitely needs to be upgraded. It's a growing area and it's something that we

definitely need to look at as a group. I spoke to him yesterday and it's a

concern. He has a kid that's seven years old. He's going to start at that now.

By the time he gets a recreation centre in that area, the kid is going to be 10

or 11. By the time his kid grows up, he's probably not going to be involved in

it at all, other than he's going to be instrumental in trying to get it there. I

hope he keeps pushing, and I'll keep pushing on my end. It's something that we

definitely need in the area. Like I said, it's great for the area.

Also, I'd like to, this time of the year and Christmas

coming up, touch on all the volunteers in the area and all the 50-plus clubs

that try to do everything to raise money for the food banks or for Christmas

hampers. Our schools do that as well. I'd like to thank them in advance before

they start this. They have some ticket drives and some fundraisers they try to

do as well.

We have the Goulds Lions Club there in the Goulds. We

have the Kinsmen in Witless Bay. Again, I hate mentioning it because I might

miss one along the way. We have some legions along the way as well, one in

Ferryland, one in Trepassey. I'm trying to make sure I'm not missing one here,

but they do such great work in the area in regard to fundraising. I'd really

like to thank them in advance, and if you can support them in your areas, I know

you will. By all means, we'd certainly like to thank the volunteers.

I'll pass on my time now, just to give someone else a

chance to speak on this before the bill is up.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

Shall the resolution carry?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I move that the Committee rise and report progress.

CHAIR:

it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and

ask leave to sit again, the Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR.

SPEAKER (Reid):

Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

MS.

P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Committee of Ways and Means have considered the

matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have made

progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

Chair reports that the Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means have considered

the matters before them, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee

ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

We'll now take our recess for lunch, according to the

Standing Orders .

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

This House stands recessed until 2 o'clock today, when we will proceed with

Orders of the Day.

Recess

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

MR.

SPEAKER (Reid):

Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR.

SPEAKER:

Today we will hear Members' statements from the hon. Members for the Districts

of Ferryland, Conception Bay South, St. John's Centre, Topsail - Paradise and

Placentia West - Bellevue.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR.

O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm honoured to have the opportunity to recognize Mayor

Harold Mullowney as a member of Bay Bulls town council for 30 years.

First elected in 1990, he served as a councillor for

four years. In the last 26 years, Harold has served as deputy mayor for 12 years

and mayor for 16 years. Under his leadership, the Town of Bay Bulls has won six

Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador (MNL) Torngat Awards, including three

for Excellence in Governance.

Harold's commitment to his community goes beyond his

years in municipal service. He is the current chair of the Eastern Regional

Service Board, the Bay Bulls Regional Lifestyle Centre board and the Southern

Shore Joint Council. Harold is a member of the East Coast Trail Association

Board of Directors and former Chair of the Irish Loop Development Board and

former member of the Harris Centre board of directors.

In recognition of his community contributions, Harold

was awarded the Community Economic Development award for Outstanding Individual

Achievement in 2004 and Memorial University's Tribute Award for Outstanding

Community Service in 2009.

I ask all colleagues to join me in congratulating Mayor

Harold Mullowney on 30 years as a member of Bay Bulls town council.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR.

PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Bright Business Achievement Awards recognize

businesses in Conception Bay South that go above and beyond. This year the 9th

Annual Bright Business Awards were held on October 20 as a part of Small

Business Week.

The annual event is hosted by the Town of Conception

Bay South and it is a great opportunity for local entrepreneurs to network and

showcase their individual businesses in our community. Since 2012, the town has

recognized the achievements of 399 local businesses.

The Bright Business Achievement Awards help recognize

the contributions of local businesses that have gone above and beyond. This

year's award winners are: Beautiful Business, Multi-Tenant Award, Around the

Block Quilting and Fabric; Single-Tenant Award, Heritage Square Retirement

Living; Downtown CBS Member of the Year, The Hangout; Community Pride and

Partnership, Funky Junk Home Decor; Dave Murphy Chamber Leadership Award,

Taylor's Fish, Fruit and Vegetable Market; Noseworthy Award, Bob Wiseman,

Musically Inclined; Established Business, Taylor's Fish, Fruit and Vegetable

Market; New Start Up of the Year, Frida's Riverside Cafe.

I would like to extend my congratulations to the award

winners, nominees and sponsors. The COVID-19 pandemic has been particularly hard

for local businesses this year and I wish them well and encourage everyone to

support locally.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MR.

J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Salvation Army Ches Penney Centre of Hope recently

moved from a 2,000-square-foot temporary location, and now operates out of its

new 40,000-square-foot location on 18 Springdale Street.

Captain Tony Brushett and his team currently serve

close to 600 hot meals for lunch each week and help some 100 to 150 families a

week with emergency groceries and clothing. Starting this Friday, and every

Friday until December 11, volunteers and staff are registering families for

Christmas hampers and toys for their children.

One of the key reasons The Salvation Army opened this

new facility was not only to look after those who are struggling with issues

during a pandemic or Snowmageddon or Christmas, but to be here, to be present to

help those struggling with food insecurity, homelessness, medical care,

addictions and so much more every week of the year. They are a mission-minded

team, dedicated to serving all in need, completely without any judgment.

They love what they do and those they serve, but they

cannot do it alone. If you are able to help in any way, please feel free to

reach out by calling 237-0273 or emailing Captain Tony Brushett at

tony.brushett@salavationarmy.ca

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

MR.

P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this past year I had the pleasure of

attending the Conception Bay South Lions Club Charter Night, the anniversary of

their official charter. This group was formed 49 years ago when 25

community-minded citizens got together to provide programs and services within

the community.

Known to be some of the most active volunteers across

the province, the Conception Bay South Lions Club have done so much over the

past 49 years helping those in need. The club has become something of a

household name, thanks to its members' constant efforts to better the community.

They can be found at an array of events, preparing hot breakfasts at local

schools, supporting the local food banks, fundraising, sponsoring junior and

senior speak outs, providing high school scholarships and Scout groups, and they

also support a blind hockey program which helps visually impaired children

participate in a hockey program tailored to meet their needs.

Mr. Speaker, their motto is: We Serve – and they

certainly do that.

I ask all hon. Members to please join me in

congratulating the Conception Bay South Lions Club for their endless

contributions to their community.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

MR.

DWYER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I would like to take the time in this House to

acknowledge a very talented man from my District of Placentia West - Bellevue,

Mr. Earl Pardy Jr. This year on November 9, Mr. Pardy celebrates his 50th

birthday.

Mr. Pardy is a great entertainer. With his accordion

he'll play you a show like no other. Mr. Pardy is very community minded and

gives back to the many organizations and events in the great Town of Marystown.

You will see, and most likely hear, Mr. Pardy's music at any festival on the

Burin Peninsula, and I hope I can help fulfill his lifelong dream of playing in

the Newfoundland and Labrador Folk Festival.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Pardy is a very humble man, and when

asked where he learned how to play so well, he will always accredit his mentor,

the late John Joe Pidgeon of Shoal Point, Marystown.

I ask all hon. Members of this House to join me in

wishing Mr. Earl Pardy Jr. a very happy 50th birthday. Happy birthday, Earle,

enjoy your next trip around the sun.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Education.

MR.

OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm pleased to inform my hon. colleagues today of a new

reading bursary of $500 per successfully completed course for Newfoundland and

Labrador public school teachers pursuing the Graduate Diploma in Education –

Reading Development and Instruction at Memorial University.

The initiative stems from a recommendation of the

Premier's Task Force on Improving Educational Outcomes to explore options with

Memorial for a graduate level specialization program to prepare reading

specialists.

The department immediately began discussions with

Memorial and the Faculty of Education decided to develop both a diploma program

and a master's degree program providing teachers the opportunity to develop a

specialization in reading.

The intent of the reading bursary is to provide

financial assistance for eligible candidates and to encourage teachers to pursue

this new opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, reading specialists are leaders who build

and sustain a culture of literacy in schools. They advocate for students by

providing reading instruction that is engaging and responsive to the needs of

all learners. They do this by working collaboratively with other educators

within our schools.

The new diploma program will be available in winter

2021. Information about the reading bursary is available to teachers on the K-12

Professional Learning website. We encourage teachers pursuing the graduate

diploma to apply for the bursary.

I commend Memorial for their work to fulfill this

recommendation of the Premier's Task Force. The new programs, and the reading

bursary, are important initiatives to enhance learning for students across the

province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

hon. the Member for Bonavista.

MR.

PARDY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to thank the minister for the advance copy of

his statement.

Mr. Speaker, I join the minister in welcoming any

investment we can make to further professional development amongst our teachers.

Continuing education is often very expensive with tuition, textbooks and other

material. Anything we can do to help is indeed good news.

As a former educator and principal myself, I can

personally attest to the challenges students are facing in the classroom

learning the fundamentals. Reading is a basic and fundamental skill students

absolutely need to go on and do almost anything in their lives. Teachers must

have the latest skills and knowledge to help all children excel in this area. I

hope this small step will help in that regard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MR.

J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Minister of Education for the advance copy

of his statement and applaud the $500 reading bursary for teachers pursuing a

graduate diploma in education – reading development and instruction at Memorial.

It is indeed a positive investment.

However, if we are to sustain a culture of literacy in

schools and respond to the needs of learners, then government must also address

the serious issue of child poverty and establish class sizes that allow time for

more teachers to interact with students one-on-one.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and

Infrastructure.

MR.

BRAGG:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today I'd like to provide this hon. House

with an update on a very important construction project being led by the

Department of Transportation and Infrastructure.

In August of 2019 we awarded a $6.1-million contract to

Brook Construction to construct a protective care unit extension at the Dr. Hugh

Twomey Health Care Centre in Botwood. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to say that

construction is nearing completion and we anticipate the extension opening in

early 2021.

The new extension has room for 20 residents, a lounge

and a nursing station. Work also included a wander garden, new asphalt and

landscaping around the extension. This work is also being completed by local

workers, Mr. Speaker. Our loved ones and family members sometimes require

protective care residences at our health care facilities and our government is

proud to be able to provide that space so residents in Central Newfoundland can

receive the care they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, last winter we were happy to see the

construction of the long-term care home completed in Corner Brook, and the

long-term care homes in Gander and Grand Falls are also on

schedule to be

completed next spring. These long-term care homes, combined with the protective

care unit, the mental health care unit in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, of course, the

new hospital in Corner Brook and the new adult mental health and addictions

hospital in St. John's, are resulting in Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

receiving excellent care in excellent facilities in this province.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. Member for Terra Nova.

MR.

PARROTT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'd like to thank the hon. minister for an advance

copy of his statement.

Mr. Speaker, I join the minister in marking the

progress on the Botwood protective care unit. This will be an important addition

to provide specialized care for the residents in that area.

However, as my colleague the Member for Exploits has

noted numerous times, this government has turned its back on the residents in

that region when they arbitrarily stripped away 24-hour emergency room service

in 2016. Worse still, full reinstatement was promised by the former premier

during the election campaign last year. They reneged on that again. What an

insult.

Mr. Speaker, I must also note that the minister boasts

about local employment in various projects. Again, we continue to see outside

workers from Quebec and other provinces who immediately go to work on jobs in

Newfoundland and Labrador when Newfoundlanders can be doing this work. When is

this minister going to stand up for Newfoundlanders and get them work?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR.

BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to thank the minister for the advance copy of

his statement. We are glad to see that these integral projects are coming along,

but health care facilities are only a part of the equation. We are still facing

shortages of health care workers, home care workers and family doctors.

As these projects wind down, a staffing plan is

required to meet the needs of these regions and other regions in Newfoundland

and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear