PDF Version (Day)

PDF Version (Night)

May 11, 2022

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. L No. 52

The House met at 10 a.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett):

Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Government Business

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 3.

SPEAKER:

The

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

COADY:

He's very quick this morning. Thank you, 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

Revenue Administration Act , Bill 60.

SPEAKER:

is moved and seconded that the House do resolve itself into a Committee of the

Whole to consider the said bill.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Trimper):

Order, please!

We are now debating the related resolution and Bill 60,

An Act To Amend The

Revenue Administration Act.

Resolution

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

“That

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

carbon products.”

CHAIR:

Shall the resolution carry?

The

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

S. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

appreciate the opportunity this morning. As part of its election promises and in

order to meet Canada's greenhouse gas emission targets and work towards

improving greenhouse gas emissions in the country and addressing climate change,

the federal government implemented carbon pricing. That was back in 2016. At

that time the provincial government, in discussions with the federal government,

tried to minimize the impact on residents and maintain the province's economic

competitiveness.

the goals at the time, in discussions with the federal government, were to

maintain the competitiveness for trade and taxation; minimize the impact on

consumers and vulnerable groups; recognize the considerable cost that we are

already paying to decarbonize electricity; and to deliver meaningful reductions

in greenhouse gas emissions.

Now,

at the time in discussions with the federal government, those were our goals and

we were able to ensure that, for example, the carbon tax had a number of

exemptions. Those exemptions included, for example, home heat. So there is no

carbon tax on home heat. Fuels that were exempt for offshore petroleum

explorations: for fuel sold on reserves, for fuel sold in sealed prepackaged

containers, for aviation fuel, for gasoline use for electricity generation.

As I

said, fuels used for home heating, gasoline used for farming equipment, gasoline

used for forestry activity, commercial cutting, harvesting logs, wood

chippers, debarkers and silviculture. Gasoline used in a vessel or a boat by a

fisher for commercial catching, gasoline used in a vessel or boat used for

commercial transportation of fish and gasoline used in construction equipment

for such purposes as rock crushing and screening aggregates, other than gasoline

used in trucks, power shovels, tractors, loaders and drills. Gasoline used in

manufacturing equipment and as a raw material in manufacturing, and gasoline

used in equipment for exploration of a mineral. All those, we were able to

negotiate with the federal government to be exempt from carbon tax.

Today, we are introducing amendments, as is required

under the carbon tax requirements of the country, that we introduce amendments

to the Revenue Administration Act to

increase the tax rates for carbon products. We are fulfilling the commitment to

the federal government, and it has been implemented in every other province in

the country.

So to comply with the federal government requirements,

which sets the price of carbon, Newfoundland and Labrador implemented a carbon

tax, originally in January of 2019, and now we are required under this federal

requirement to move the tax rate to $50 a ton in '22-'23. It was effective May

1, and the change has already been implemented by the Public Utilities Board.

The requirements are to amend the

Revenue Administration Act to $50 per ton, as outlined in

Schedule 2

of the federal Greenhouse Gas Pollution

Pricing Act . Non-compliance would result in the federal carbon tax being

implemented on those exemptions that I've just listed. So if this carbon tax is

not implemented, this change in carbon tax is not implemented, it would

eliminate all the exemptions that we have been able to negotiate with the

federal government. So the exemptions on home heat, the exemptions on fisheries,

on forestry, on agriculture, on silviculture, on exploration, all those would be

lost and the federal tax would apply if we do not do this.

The provincial system currently includes exemptions not

offered under the federal system including, as I said, home heating fuel,

mineral and offshore exploration, forestry and other operations. It also

includes broader exemptions on fishing, farming, marine and aviation fuel.

The

carbon tax revenue will increase by $30.6 million in '22-'23 and the increase is

found in the budget Estimates book so I wanted to draw that to the attention of

the House. The increase in revenue reflects the increase in carbon tax to $50 a

ton and increased fuel consumption as the economy recovers from COVID-19.

It is a

very simple act but it has profound implications. It has already been

implemented, as I said, all across the country in all provinces. Either those

that have the direct federal implementation of the carbon tax or those who have

been able to negotiate, as Newfoundland and Labrador has, for certain exemptions

or changes to the carbon tax requirements.

This is

important, obviously. The federal government has made it a key stake in

addressing climate change and addressing carbon emissions in the country. They

think it's a key component, of course, of meeting the requirements under the

Paris accord and meeting some of the expectations that Canadians and, indeed,

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have of making sure that we are addressing

climate change.

As I

said, it has already been implemented across the country. It has already been

implemented in Newfoundland and Labrador in terms of the change at the gas

pumps. But, today, we are bringing it through the legislative process and making

sure that we have a robust debate on this particular bill, Bill 60.

I will

say, again, that we worked very hard to ensure that carbon pricing did minimize

the impacts on residents as best we could, while maintaining the requirement of

addressing climate change. We struck an advantageous balance of making sure that

we didn't impact home heat fuels, we didn't impact fisheries, forestry,

agriculture and exploration, but that we were responsive to the federal

governments requirements around addressing climate change. I think it does

strike that balance and this is now the implementation of the requirements for

the 2022 year.

On that

note, I will listen to debate and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to it.

Before I

conclude, I will say, the additional revenues that we will gain from this tax

this year has already been allocated and I believe my learned colleague, the

Minister of Environment and Climate Change, will go through where the monies are

being allocated in the climate change funds this year. So when we get to that

portion of the debate we will certainly hear how we are utilizing that

additional revenue that are being garnered from here.

I can

assure the people of the province, they're being put to good use to ensure that

we do address climate change, that we do take that responsibility seriously and

that we do address the concerns that we all have around the environmental

impacts of fossil fuels.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Minister.

I next

recognize the Member representing the District of Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

Thank you, Chair.

I don't

know if anybody else feels the irony that I do today, that we're standing here

this morning debating a bill to increase taxes, when we just had a budget

delivered that promised no tax increases. A budget that says no tax increases

and this morning I stand in the House of Assembly to talk about passing a bill

to increase taxes. Don't see the irony in that at all.

Not only

that, when I go through the bill, there are at least 20 different items listed

in the bill that will result in tax increases. Now, we can talk about blame, and

who's to blame for carbon tax, but I think the minister opposite of Immigration,

Population Growth and Skills said it right when he referred to this on his

Open Line comments as a sin tax. And

that exactly is what this carbon tax is. It's simply a sin tax. It's meant to

punish the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for using their vehicles to and

from work, to and from medical appointments and just to be able to get where

they need to go.

Those of

us that live in rural Newfoundland and Labrador do not have the advantage of

transportation such as Metrobus or subways or anything like that. We have to use

our vehicles. For many people, that is the only method of transportation they

have, and right now they are feeling the pinch. As a matter of fact, I would

argue, with a war and a pandemic that are driving inflation, the likes of what

we have not seen in decades, this is no time for tax increases. This is not the

time for tax increases.

So we

can blame it on the federal government, you can blame it on whoever you want,

but the bottom line is, this is not the time for tax increases. The budget

promised us no tax increases and here we are this morning talking about a tax

increase. That, in itself, should be of concern to everybody.

Right

now, the people of our province are struggling with the impacts of inflation,

they're struggling with the impacts of high costs and they're now struggling to

pay an additional amount of money as a result of an increase in carbon tax.

It's

interesting that the minister referred to it as fulfilling their commitment to

the federal government. I would argue that we should be fighting with the

federal government to defer this increase in carbon tax. That this fight should

not be given up.

It's

interesting that we certainly are in extraordinary times when you think about

the impacts of COVID and the impact that has had in the last two years and how

the federal government were able to step up with all kinds of COVID relief.

We're waiving rules when it comes to helping people from war-torn countries,

refugees come to our province, come to our country, but surely halting a carbon

tax increase would be considered a measure that should be put in place now

because the people of our province certainly need that.

I guess

the biggest question that we have is: Does the government opposite support a

carbon tax increase? Do you really support a carbon tax increase? You can say

that you're forced to do it by Ottawa, but the fundamental question is: Do you

support a carbon tax increase? The people on this side of the House do not

support a carbon tax increase.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM:

It's as simple as that. We do

not support a carbon tax increase.

The

whole concept of carbon pricing in Newfoundland and Labrador is flawed. We do

not have the alternatives to be able to switch from driving our vehicles. I'm

sure lots of people in Newfoundland and Labrador would love to be able to park

their cars in their driveways and have an alternative way to get to work, an

alternative way to get to their medical appointments, an alternative way to do

their shopping. But we don't. We don't have those luxuries. We are forced to use

our vehicles. There are people who are commuting every single day to maintain

their jobs.

I spoke

yesterday in the House about the single mother making just above minimum wage

who drives to work everyday 58 kilometres and the impact of gasoline increases

in prices on her. There are examples that my colleagues have provided on the

high cost of gas throughout this province, including the fact that we get many,

many people from government Members' districts calling us and telling us about

their own personal situations. So it's not just about the people on this side of

the House. It's about the fact that everyone in this province is feeling the

impact of high gasoline prices.

I can

assure you, if you were to go out and ask the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador if they supported a carbon tax increase, I suspect the answer would be

no. As a matter of fact, I'm quite confident the answer would be no.

The next

challenge will be will the people of Newfoundland and Labrador support a

government who supports a carbon tax increase, because that will come. That will

come. Change is coming. CHANGE is in the

air.

I'd also

suggest to you that the fuel inflation is disincentive enough; we don't need a

tax to disincentive us from actually using our vehicles. People are now choosing

not to take those trips. They are choosing to stay at home. You don't need an

increase in taxes because of the high cost of fuel, the high inflation factor on

fuel. The last thing we need is to have an extra tax added on.

Instead

of looking for ways to increase taxes, we should be fighting harder to say no to

the carbon tax increase. We should be standing up and saying no to the federal

government, because if the federal government can spend billions and billions

and billions of dollars on COVID relief, surely they can find a way to put a

freeze on carbon tax. There is no need for this increase in carbon tax at this

time. Absolutely no need.

Simply,

what we're doing is fulfilling our commitment to the federal government. Not

good enough. Not good enough.

should not allow the federal government to control taxation in Newfoundland and

Labrador. Yet, that is exactly what we have done. We have allowed the federal

government to control our gas tax in Newfoundland and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

T. WAKEHAM:

You can say what you want,

that's exactly what we've done.

The

federal government says, no, you cannot lower your gasoline tax. Simple as that.

Because if we lower our gasoline tax, we will be penalized. We will be

penalized. That's correct. If we lower our gasoline tax, we will be penalized.

That's the deal. We will be penalized.

We all

know what the high cost of taxes, the impact it has on businesses and the impact

it has on consumers. The cost of delivery of products and goods right now in

this province has exceeded, I would suggest, levels that we've never seen

before.

The fuel

surcharge that's being applied is really outlandish, but they have no choice

they have to try and recover. The cost of filling up a diesel, which is expected

to go up again tomorrow, I heard. Those are things that are going on right now.

There's no reason for an increase in carbon tax. None whatsoever. There is no

reason for it.

People

of this province are paying enough in taxes. At the same time, you can agree or

disagree, but every time the price of gas goes up, you know you collect more

revenue in HST – fact. Every time the price of a pop goes up or a bag of chips

goes up or any product goes up, you collect more money in HST. That's a fact. So

you are benefiting from those.

Again,

the fact that we're here talking about tax increases in a budget that said

there's no tax increases.

S. COADY:

No provincial.

T. WAKEHAM:

No tax increases. No tax

increases.

Well,

you're arguing saying no provincial. Well, I'm sorry but the last time I checked

it was the people living in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador who are

actually going to pay this tax. If that's not provincial, what is?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM:

That's provincial; we're

here. We live here. We're paying an increase in tax. I'm not talking about Nova

Scotia. That's what we're doing; the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are

paying this tax, paying the tax increase. And the reality of it is, we're

fulfilling our commitment to the federal government because we have no control

of the gas tax anymore. We have no control over our provincial gas tax. That is

exactly what has been said to us today. That is exactly what has been delivered.

Again, I ask: Do you believe in a carbon tax increase?

Are you supporting – I ask the Members opposite – when you stand up to speak on

this, are you going to stand up and say you support a carbon tax increase?

Simple as that. Because I can tell you the people of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador do not support a carbon tax increase.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

WAKEHAM:

simple as that. And you can frame it whatever way you want, blame it on whoever

you want, talk about it in any way you want, but, fundamentally, when you stand

up to talk about this bill, I ask each and every one of you: Do you support a

carbon tax increase? Simple as that.

HON. MEMBER:

Because we don't.

WAKEHAM:

No,

we do not. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador do not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

WAKEHAM:

And

that is exactly why we are opposed to this and that is exactly why we are going

to stand in this House and we are going to keep going and going and going and

deliver the message because the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want us to

deliver that message loud and clear, whether we are delivering it to the people

on the opposite side of the House or whether we are delivering it to the federal

government.

But each and every one of you, when you stand up today

to speak, ask yourself: Do you support a carbon tax increase? As simple as that,

because the people in your districts want to know. They want to know whether you

support it or not. And we will find out. We'll find out exactly. We will find

out this afternoon. Maybe not this afternoon, maybe this evening. No, maybe not

this evening.

COADY:

Maybe next week.

WAKEHAM:

could be next week. Yeah, it could be next week, exactly. That's a good point. I

am glad the minister agrees.

HON. MEMBER:

maybe by lunchtime, we don't know.

WAKEHAM:

Maybe it will be withdrawn. They don't know. We don't know.

But I would argue, again, the scary

part in all of this

is where this carbon tax is scheduled to go. When you start looking at what we

are paying now per ton and the projection of where this is going, that is very,

very scary. Go back to what the current minister said: It's a sin tax. It was

conceived – it's the wrong tax for Newfoundland and Labrador. I would suggest a

lot of other provinces would say the same thing.

But, again, it comes down to what you believe in,

whether you believe this is the right way. Do you support a carbon tax increase?

Simple as that. Do you support a carbon tax increase?

We all

believe environmental change is necessary, but there are different ways of doing

it. I would argue, Member, that there are lots of different ways to do it.

Simple question to you – you need to tell us; you've imposed the tax. It is as

simple as that. You have imposed the tax. When we are sitting on that side of

the House, I will gladly tell you how we are going to do it.

I can

see my time is running out.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

The

Member's time has expired.

T. WAKEHAM:

Anyway, I look forward to all of you saying no to carbon tax increase.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY:

Thank you, Chair.

We are

here today to talk about the carbon tax. I know the Member opposite has just

asked some important questions: Do we support carbon tax? It comes down to what

you believe in. I would just like to correct some things for anyone listening

and for Members opposite who obviously don't understand what is going on here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

S. STOODLEY:

The federal government has

put this in as a tax policy. It is the

Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act . In 2019, Manitoba, Ontario and

Saskatchewan took the federal government to court.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

We're

going to have some order here.

S. STOODLEY:

Thank you, Chair.

In 2019,

Manitoba, Ontario and Saskatchewan took the federal government to court arguing

that carbon taxing should not be imposed and that the

Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act was not constitutional, Chair.

So, in

2019, those provinces took it took court saying that it was not constitutional.

They were overruled by the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Court of Appeal for

Saskatchewan. It was also overturned federally. I would like quote a justice in

saying, “… federalism is no constitutional nicety; it is a defining feature of

the Canadian constitutional order that governs the way in which even the most

serious problems must be addressed ….”

At all

levels of our judicial system, it has been decided that it is the federal

government's prerogative to impose a carbon tax on the provinces. As the

Minister of Finance has mentioned in this House many times, Chair, we have

proposed our own Newfoundland and Labrador model of carbon tax, knowing that we

would have to have a carbon tax model.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

I want

to be able to hear the Member.

Thank

you.

S. STOODLEY:

Thank you, Chair.

It is

our model or if the federal government doesn't like our model, they impose their

model on us. So, Mr. Chair, we have negotiated with the federal government the

current model that we have so that one of the big defining features is that

there is no carbon tax on home heating fuel. If the federal government decided

that they were no longer happy with the carbon tax that we had in Newfoundland

and Labrador, they would impose their taxes on us that would not be of our

creation and then that would result in an increased tax on home heating fuel.

I know

the Members opposite are always asking for breaks on home heating fuel costs,

and if we did not have this carbon tax regime that we currently and negotiated

with the federal government, the federal government would be imposing an

additional carbon tax on home heating fuel, which I know the Members opposite

would not want.

This has

gone through our judicial system and it has been verified by the Supreme Court

that this is not a provincial decision. The federal government has the

constitutional authority to put this in place, so this is not a provincial tax.

The federal government is imposing this on us. Mr. Chair, I just want to make

that clear, for anyone listening and for Members opposite.

The tax

policy around this is the federal government have put this in place to curb

behaviour. That's kind of a policy decision that they've put in place. Now,

obviously, with greenhouse gases and climate change, it's important, Chair, that

we do curb our carbon emissions. That's really challenging in Newfoundland and

Labrador. I do think that urban planning and urban design is a big factor in – I

know the Member opposite talked about people need to have their cars, and I

agree. In my district, Mr. Chair, some of my district is conducive to public

transportation; some is not, the way our public transportation is structured.

In Mount

Scio we have the area around the university, and there is excellent public

transportation around that area. Students can get around. They can get to the

mall, they can get to the grocery store and they can get to their appointments.

People can get to work; it's great. Other parts of my district, Chair, we have

Kenmount Terrace and Elizabeth Park in Paradise. Those areas are not as

conducive to public transportation. It's more important, Chair, that people who

live in those areas have cars, because they cannot rely on public

transportation, unfortunately, which is something that we can certainly look at

increasing investment in public transportation.

But in

order for me to get more investment in public transportation, in Mount Scio, I

also recognize that my colleagues who aren't as fortunate, or don't live in the

metro region, it's more challenging to have public transportation in those

areas. I know that public transportation is a big part of the carbon tax, which

is why the federal government have decided as the tax policy initiative to tax

fuels, because they want people to consume fewer fuels. They want people to buy

electric cars, walk and cycle, Mr. Chair.

I'd like

to talk about, I guess, the urban planning element a bit more. If you live

around the university and Mount Scio in my area, it's easy to walk to the

grocery store. It's easy to walk to the bank. You can walk to work. I'm

fortunate enough to be able to work, Chair. But if you live in other parts of my

district, it's not feasible to walk to work. The way the subdivisions are

designed, in Kenmount Terrace, you can't walk to the bank; you can't walk to

anywhere.

So I

think urban planning has a huge role in carbon tax, in our decisions of do we

have a car, do we not have a car. A lot of those are municipal decisions. I do

think that, as a province, there are legislative areas that we can influence

that as well.

Chair, I

used to work in Oxford, in the UK, and that's a really interesting city. They

purposely have poorly designed roads and highly congested roads as a policy

decision, because they don't want people to drive. The City of Oxford does not

want people to drive in their city centre, so the roads are – there's a huge

amount of traffic, but they have one lane, one way, very complicated, convoluted

driving system.

They do

not want people to drive in the City of Oxford. They want you to take the bus,

they want you to cycle, there are excellent cycling lanes, but they do not want

you – oh, I'm just getting a text message from a city councillor, someone who

ran for city council I think, praising me in talking about urban design and the

importance of that on carbon tax. So thank you in real time.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Someone's listening.

S. STOODLEY:

Someone's listening, yes.

I guess

just to talk about the specifics of carbon tax; I was having a chat with a

constituent recently about the breakdown of gas prices, because I think it is

really complicated. We'll speak about this also at a future time when we talk

about the Petroleum Products Act , when

I bring it to the House of Assembly, which is on the Order Paper, Chair.

So when

we look at the price at the pump and the maximum price right now by the Public

Utilities Board is 217.3, which is a lot. There's a lot of confusion about how

the carbon tax works and all the elements that make up gas prices. The carbon

tax is – for gas, what we're paying at the pumps – is 11.5 cents, Mr. Chair.

Then there's the provincial gas tax, the federal excise tax, and all this, the

breakdown is available on the Public Utilities Board website.

There's

a zone differential, and there's a total allowed markup, Chair. So I think while

we're here today talking about the 11 cents carbon tax, and you can agree or

disagree with that from a policy perspective, but from a judicial perspective,

it has been proven through the courts that we have no choice but to pay this.

That's just a given, and it's not about whether I want it or whether the Members

opposite want it, or whether the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want it,

it's a constitutional – the federal government has put this in place as a tax

policy, and the judicial system has decided that they have the authority to do

that. So this is the made-in-Newfoundland solution that we've been able to

negotiate with the federal government, Chair.

So the

other element, which we're hoping to demystify, Chair, is the total allowed

markup in the gas price, which at the moment the maximum is 25.93 cents. That

makes up the wholesale markup, the retail markup, all the allowed servicing

costs, Mr. Chair. While we do see where the carbon tax goes, and we see the

makeup – the federal government has decided the amount of that – the total

allowed markup is something that we do not have a good idea of how

that arises.

So the Public Utilities Board works with the

wholesalers and retailers and takes their costs and creates this total allowed

markup, Chair. When we get to the

Petroleum Products Act we're going to talk about that further. But I think

all the elements of gas prices are really important to consider when you're

talking about a carbon tax and the 11 cents that we're talking about here in

terms of the range of carbon taxes that we're imposing.

So thank you very much and I hope that clarified a few

things. This is not a provincial tax and this is not something that we want to

do. This is a made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador solution, given the fact that we

are constitutionally obligated to impose this tax as required by the federal

government in the Greenhouse Gas Pollution

Pricing Act .

Thank you very much.

CHAIR:

Thank you to the minister.

I next recognize the Member for Bonavista.

PARDY:

Thank you, Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

Let's hear from the Member.

PARDY:

Just for the record, representing the District of Bonavista, we are in favour of

reducing greenhouse gases. I think everyone in the Chamber is in favour of

reducing greenhouse gases. The only thing we would disagree with is a carbon tax

and how we get there.

My hon. colleague next door referred to it as a sin tax

because we don't give people an alternative. So someone in Bonavista, they can't

access an electric vehicle now. They can't access it because they're not

available or, alternatively, they can't afford one. But we're still going to

increase the carbon tax and create an imposition on them, but they don't have an

option. That is the crux of what I would look at.

Newfoundland emits 11 million tons of greenhouse gases

a year. That might seem shocking, but 11 million tons we emit each year. The

world: 35 billion tons a year. So while we're 11 million, not to diminish it, in

relation to the world, we're not a really significant amount of greenhouse gas.

I had a learned friend – and I won't use his name

because he might not want me to use his name – and many of you would know him,

he suggested reading on climate change and greenhouse gases a book by a

gentleman named Bjorn Lomborg. B-J-O-R-N L-O-M-B-O-R-G and the title of his book

was False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic

Costs Us Trillions, Hurts The Poor, And Fails To Fix The Planet.

Now, you might say who is this guy Bjorn Lomborg? Well,

he is the president of the

Copenhagen Consensus and he is a visiting fellow at Stanford University. S o

just the fact of being a visiting fellow at Stanford University one would say

that he has a high degree of credibility. I just want to cite a few things from

his book.

On May 17, we will have royalty visit us and many in

the District of Bonavista are looking for that, but three years ago Prince

Charles announced that we had 18 months left to fix climate change. And that

wasn't his first attempt at deadline setting because 10 years earlier, he told

an audience that he had calculated we just had 96 months to save the world.

And just a couple of others ones before we go to talk

about the carbon and this is related to the carbon.

In 1989, the head of the United Nations'

Environment Program declared we had just three years to win or lose the climate

struggle.

In 1982, the UN was

predicting

planetary devastation as complete, as irreversible

as any nuclear holocaust. And that was by the year 2000.

The UN Environmental Program director

warned that the world had just 10 years to avoid catastrophe. And he stated that

in 1972.

Bjorn Lomborg states that: They were all wrong because

the one critical part they were missing when they stated that was how we adapt

human ingenuity. That means if we have challenges, we meet the challenge. If

there is something that we find that is unacceptable in today's world, then we

adapt. And we do that.

So when we talk about the carbon tax, as I stated

earlier, we had stated that we have two options for the residents of

Newfoundland – or in, say, the District of Bonavista, Newfoundland and Labrador

– buy an electric vehicle, invest in the money to upgrade your home in order to

charge it, but if you can't afford to do it, then that's a problem. But we're

going to roll out the carbon tax.

My colleague stated that we're now 11 cents, and 11

cents during an inflationary time is a significant amount. We all agree with

that. At a time we find ourselves in now with 11 cents, we are in a significant

position and it hurts. Who does it hurt? John Risley would say it hurts the poor

– mostly, it hurts the poor. Those ones with a very low household income.

We should have waited for the ingenuity, and if

electric vehicles rolled out that were cheaper than gas combustion engines, hey,

you wouldn't need to be penalizing residents in Newfoundland and Labrador

because they have an option to buy an electric vehicle, which is cheaper than a

gas combustion. And that is what we would like to see.

One thing I would say to you, in 2030, the residents of

the province, is that the federal government will be charging, then, $170 a ton

for carbon. Your carbon tax in 2030, if everything stays the course, will then

be 37 cents a litre. Today, in 2022, it's 11 cents. In 2030, we will arrive at

37 cents a litre.

The last note I say, and I won't reference Mr. Lomborg

anymore, but one thing he did mention, he mentioned an academic study. I

mentioned that to the minister in Estimates and I'm not sure if he – he didn't

disagree with it – the academic study of young people worldwide found that most

suffer from eco-anxiety – most do. Two-thirds are scared and sad, while almost

half say their worries impact their daily lives. He says it's irresponsible to

be scaring our youth with the climate change.

I tell a

humorous anecdote: My youngest son came home and he talked about climate change

and he discussed with me – and, again, I am very sensitive and wish to reduce

the greenhouse gases. I'm in favour of it.

He came

home and, ironically, he came into my house and he had stated about people still

burning oil. So I told him there are people burning oil because they don't have

any recourse. They don't have an option. But then I slipped in the piece of

information to him, that I'm on a street with 24 houses, on a subdivision, and I

asked him: Did he know that he lives in the only house that burns oil on the

street? That was the reality. He didn't even know that he lived in an

environment where we were burning oil. I would say, it is a big transition to

change from oil into electricity.

Hopefully, I get a chance to speak again. I would like to look at the Canadian

Provincial Energy Efficiency Scorecard that we can look at where we, as a

province, fit in to that.

So, in

conclusion, I disagree with the carbon tax, but I know it's not a provincial; I

know it's a federal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

C. PARDY:

I do think that we should be

putting up stronger opposition to it, because we do know that we've got people

hurting in Newfoundland and Labrador. They're hurting in the District of

Bonavista. So I would we can unite, put up a stronger opposition to it and state

that we all disagree with the carbon tax.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

Thank you.

I now

recognize the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

P. PARSONS:

It's always good to speak on

behalf of the people of Harbour Grace - Port de Grave District. It's always

quite the honour. No matter what the topic is, whether it's a carbon tax,

whether it's any kind of tax, any kind of legislation that's passed here in this

House. Of course we are debating this bill, Bill 60,

An Act to Amend the Revenue

Administration Act.

I want

to commend the Member for Bonavista and how he, unlike his colleagues,

unfortunately, on the other side of the room, certainly outlined and recognized

that this is indeed a federal government tax that's imposed on not just

Newfoundland and Labrador, but across the entire country.

So I

appreciate that because, as we know, we have multiple levels of government here

in Newfoundland and Labrador and across Canada. We've got our municipal, our

provincial and our federal. I find it really hard and disheartening to sit here

and listen when I hear Members talk about the federal taxes and painting them as

if they're brought in by Newfoundland and Labrador, by MHAs in this House of

Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador and we know that is not the case. We have

to do our best – I think it is due diligence, to be honest, and to do what we

can to come forward with the proper information and the proper details on how

legislation is created and passed and who is responsible for it and what levels

of government.

certainly commend that Member for Bonavista for outlining that because we've

seen it here throughout this whole sitting, through Question Period, about

misleading information as if the government is responsible for gouging gas

prices and taxes are the jurisdiction of the federal government. We know that is

not the case, so let's all be clear on that and outline what the actual truth

is, because it is not fair to mislead the public. We all know right now it is a

hard time that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians facing, but not just

Newfoundland and Labrador, we see it across the country, Atlantic Canada. I have

talked to friends in Halifax just recently; they're all experiencing this. So

this is not unique. The politicians in this House of Assembly didn't create

this.

What I

will say and what is also lost a lot and, unfortunately, the Members responsible

don't take the responsibility for Muskrat Falls. We can't ignore the fact – I

know they get upset and they don't want to hear the truth, but that is the case.

The fact is if this government –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

P. PARSONS:

If this government did not

intervene and do what we could to lobby the federal government to stop the power

hikes – the rates on our bills, we would see – say, for example, if Aunt Nelly

and Uncle Joe got a power bill of $400 monthly. If this government did not work

tirelessly to lobby the federal government, it would have doubled to $800 a

month. Imagine that compounded on what we're facing today as residents in this

province and across the country.

I find

it really disheartening – my background as a former journalist, I reported

facts. That is the mandate and the bias of any journalist is to report facts.

Not to include opinions in their articles or their stories or their scripts. It

is about presenting facts so the viewers, so the people in the province and

across the country can make up their minds based on having all the facts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

P. PARSONS:

I'm hearing all kinds of

chirping again, Mr. Chair. I mean, we talk about a respectful workplace.

CHAIR:

Yes, some order, please. I

want to hear from the Member that has been identified.

Thank

you.

P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Chair, for your

protection.

Again,

it is about presenting the facts. So stand up – and we all know; we can't ignore

it. It is like racking up a credit card debt and just because you racked up the

credit card, you flicked it off to the other people to pay it off; we still have

to pay it off. It didn't disappear. It wasn't poof, be gone, like Harry Potter

magic; it is still here to deal with, so we can't ignore that.

No one

in this House of Assembly wants to see the prices that we're paying at the

pumps, I certainly don't. I know my constituents don't. We hear from them on a

daily basis, on all matters. So the Members say that we must not be hearing or

our constituents are calling them. No, I can reassure everybody that my

constituency office located in Bay Roberts is quite busy, and my CA is full tilt

all the time providing them with the information. And people are calling and

they're wondering.

But the

fact is as well that we can't ignore that this is a federal jurisdiction tax.

What has been made clear is that if we don't impose our own approach to this

tax, it's currently no carbon tax on home heating fuel, aviation fuel for

flights within the province, fish processing, mineral and offshore exploration

and government operations, including municipalities. The new carbon tax rates

were effective May 1, 2022, and the rate change has already been implemented by

the Public Utilities Board.

So if we

were to opt out or go off the rails and not do this, the federal government

comes in and taxes the home heating. Are the Members opposite suggesting that

that's what happens to the seniors who are hurting? We know they're hurting;

we're hurting.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

P. PARSONS:

But it's a fact – it is a

fact.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

P. PARSONS:

We are a part of Canada; we

joined Confederation. We all know that and we're happy to be part of this

wonderful country we live in. This is a federal jurisdiction that has been

imposed not just on Newfoundland and Labrador, but across Canada. So if we don't

do what we can to mitigate the impact on the people living here, the feds come

in and they do it differently, and the information, what we have, it would be

much worse. Because right now, as we know, home heating oil is not impacted, and

we know there are a lot of people still in this province that are still relying

on home heating. And we hear the problems that they're facing and the challenges

that they're facing.

So we

have to do what we have to do. We don't have the option to say, nope, not

happening. We have to work with it, but we have to protect the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. I sincerely believe that we are doing the best we can

with the options that we do have, again, keeping in mind rate mitigation that we

have to eat for breakfast, lunch and dinner every day. And those are the facts.

To get

up and wipe your hands clean and say it doesn't exist anymore, oh, the past is

the past. Now, it's not that long ago; it's only several years. But the fact is

no matter what we do, no matter what we implement, no matter what programs we

bring in or what initiatives we take in our budget, we still have this looming

debt that we can't ignore.

Again,

the credit card analogy is the perfect analogy. Someone goes and racks up a card

and they said, oh, I can't pay it now, but they're going to flick it off. Mom

and Dad are going to pay it. But you know, it's still there and still have to be

paid.

But I

also want to talk about what initiatives have been brought in for

Budget 2022 , the measures that are

being taken, that is within the control of all Members here in this House, and

the government, of course. The elimination of 15 per cent retail tax on home

insurance for a year, that's going to help, and those were measures that we can

control. We can't control the gas prices.

can't control the world private markets. We know what we are seeing.

A 50 per cent reduction in registration fees for

passenger vehicles, light duty trucks and taxis for a year. That's a significant

help. I know when I go to register my vehicle that's going to be a help to me.

It's going to be a help to my neighbours. It's going to be a help to my

constituents. Unfortunately, it's not going to fill up their tank but it is

certainly going to help in the overall costs.

Lower cost for child care from an average of $35 per

day 18 months ago to $10 a day starting in January 2023. Now I know for a fact,

I have received good feedback from constituents in my district and community

stakeholders that I deal with from my portfolio, that this is certainly an

awesome initiative for quality $10-a-day daycare. That's going to help.

The fact is it will help moms and women get back into

the workforce and not have to settle for those part-times jobs where we see

where they are not making the amount the money that our male counterparts are

making. It's these barriers that have prevented women for years and years and

years. But we are taking concrete initiatives to help and to support women,

especially, in venture capitals that the government has invested in.

The prenatal infant nutrition supplement increasing

from $100 to $150 per month for low-income pregnant mothers and for their

families with children under age one. A one-time payment provided during the

month of the baby's birth increasing from $100 to $150. Now, you tell me, Mr.

Chair, who is not going to be happy about that? You know, these mothers not

going to happily take this support.

Metrobus here in the metro region, passes for Income

Support clients in St. John's, Mount Pearl and Paradise expanded to seniors who

are receiving Guaranteed Income Supplement, youth in care, those receiving Youth

Services programming.

A 10 per cent increase to Income Supplement; 10 per

cent increase to Seniors' Benefit; a one-time benefit for Income Support;

assistance, of course, to change from oil to electric home heat; electric

vehicles charging infrastructure; and rebates for consumers.

We are going to see these initiatives ongoing because

we have no choice. I mean, no one wants to pay increased taxes. I can't see any

resident in the world, in North America, who wants to pay more taxes, but,

unfortunately, the reality is that is how we pay for our hospitals, our schools

and every service that we receive and what we can provide for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

So on that note, Mr. Chair, I see my time is winding

down. I get it; I think we are all on the same page here. It's a hard time and I

want to make sure that my constituents know it's not lost on any of us, but we

are dedicated to doing everything that we can to help mitigate the negative

impacts on people here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I look forward now, Mr. Chair, to listening to the rest

of the debate.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

I next

recognize the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Sweden:

Sweden's carbon tax is $140 per ton of carbon pollution. They've had a carbon

tax since 1991. Since the carbon tax was introduced Sweden's economy has grown

by more than 100 per cent. That country recently ranked fourth in the world in

terms of economic competitiveness.

I'm

listening to the debate and I'm thinking of the saying I heard many, many years

ago that everyone wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die to get there.

That's what I'm hearing here, because somewhere along the line I'm hearing we

all support the reduction of greenhouse gases, we all recognize the climate

crisis, we all want to do something to avert climate change, but not this.

Well,

where are the solutions? I do know that if you look at it a carbon tax is one of

the most powerful incentives that governments have to encourage companies and

household to pollute less by investing in greener technologies, and adopting

greener practices. The carbon tax puts a monetary price on real costs – and

there is the key word – real costs imposed on our economy, our communities and

our planet by greenhouse gas emissions and global warming they cause.

We are

assuming for a minute that climate change, the increase of greenhouse gas is

cost neutral, that is does not cost us, that we are not already paying the

price, that we will not be paying more. It's costing us. We're just not seeing

it at the pump as such.

I'm

hearing here, well, none of us support this, but this is imposed on us by

Ottawa. Let's own up to it and say if we believe that we've got to avert this,

if we believe that climate change is real, that we are indeed facing a crisis,

that we need to make sure that this world is protected for our future. We are

stewards of this planet, we are not owners of it, but we are stewards. I want to

have a world that my grandchildren will thrive in.

So to me

it's not supporting government, it's supporting an initiative here that is –

unless we've got something better, I haven't seen it. I haven't heard it. Give

it to me and we'll talk about it. If we're going to go with a cap and trade

system where we're going to set limits, then show me what it is. Show me these

things that are going to work, because, I'll tell you, I'm seeing plenty of

evidence.

Last

year, I fished on the Gander River in July and every person who fished there

said this is the lowest we've seen it. We have August conditions on the Gander

River in July. Think about that. You could walk across the Gander River in

places in the first of July.

AN HON. MEMBER:

The year before it was

flooded (inaudible.)

J. DINN:

I thank the Member for

pointing that out, because that is the issue with climate change, the

unpredictability, the wide swings. Thank you for that piece of evidence. Thank

you for bolstering my argument. That is the issue here.

everyone wants to go heaven but no one wants to die to get there. I guess it

comes down to what do we believe in, because in the last few years, think about

this, we've had Snowmageddon, we've had atmospheric rivers – never heard that

term before until a few years when it washed out the Trans-Canada Highway and

all of a sudden realized just how vulnerable we are to supply chain issues. The

ferry can't get across the Straits to supply us food. Every case it has an

impact on us. It's costing us already.

Health

and liveability: It's clearly stated in the Health Accord that climate change

has real costs to health. We're paying a cost already. Do I necessarily want to

be paying taxes? I don't know, but to me taxes are what I pay to have the

services I need. But I also believe that if we're not careful we're going to see

challenges to our fisheries. It's going to have a deeper economic impact than

any carbon tax. Then we're going to be struggling because that's the one thing

about politicians, all of us, we try to kick things down – we make our decisions

based on the election cycle. This is not a popular decision, I will admit to

that.

But

somewhere along the line, either we believe it or we believe it's made up, it's

meant to create anxiety. It's meant to do nothing more than that. We believe it

or we don't, because if anything else, the weather has become a lot more

predictable.

I had

one person write to me saying: Jim, all these measures will not save a few

glaciers melting. Now, if that's all it was, just a few glaciers, that's all I'm

out to protect, just a few glaciers from melting, then we're going down the

wrong hole. To me, glaciers are the canary in the coal mine. We're seeing the

warning signs all around us.

1973-1979 during the oil crisis – 1970 is when the compact car started in North

America. My first car was a Pontiac Parisienne, a tank of a vehicle. We talked

about eight cylinders, 454 four-barrels; they're muscle cars. But with the Arab

oil embargo, guess what spurred their – that's when the fuel efficiency measures

started and you saw the changes in the automobile industry.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

J. DINN:

What I'm driving now is

right, but I will pay the tax and the gas on that. That's the price I'm paying.

But I

will also say that right now, I've already started making this –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

J. DINN:

I've already put the measures

in. My next vehicle will be electric; house will be converted to electricity.

Because I know it's coming – I know it's coming. But I'm not going to complain

about the price of filling up my truck because I made the choice to buy it.

And just

so you know –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

I'm

going to hear from the Member identified.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order!

J. DINN:

Thank you, Chair.

And just

so you know today, folks, you're welcome to join me. I cycled in. I'll be

cycling back.

Eleven

billion dollars profit from BP, $9 billion from Shell, and we're worried about

here – the bigger issue is we need to be looking at the oil companies. And

hopefully, as I understand, there's going to be plenty of opportunity to speak

later tonight, and that's good.

But

let's talk about solutions. There are more cars in Newfoundland and Labrador

than there are people. That was a fact (inaudible). You got more cars than

people in this province. And we talk about choice, and you're right. At one time

we used to have the CN Roadcruiser service; lost it. DRL took it over; gone.

We have

no regional transportation, so that anyone who is unable to drive has no way of

getting around this province, except maybe the private taxis, the vans. We have

no system. If anything else, we've pumped more money into twinning highways and

everything else to make it easier to use cars. We have done nothing to develop a

regional transportation system, like they have in other jurisdictions in this

country, that would make it more efficient for people to get around. At one

time, you could get out to the Gander River on the train. You can't do that.

But

we've made choices in each case along the way to make it more difficult.

Eco-anxiety: I'll compare that to nuclear anxiety. Because during the 20th

century I would say the big issue that people had there was whether we were

going to make it out of the 20th century alive, we're that close to a nuclear

war. But guess what happened? There was a move afoot then to disarm and to stand

down. Because if you look at it, at that time, our method of protecting each

other was mutual assured destruction. That was very real.

McDonald's used to serve its burgers in Styrofoam packs until people said it

contained CFCs and it affected the ozone layer. Until people starting thinking

we want it in paper. We want to get rid of it. They got rid of the use of

Styrofoam. That was a grassroots approach.

I will

suggest here that we're on the cusp of where we need to start looking at how are

we going to solve this issue. I do believe that we provide help to anyone who

needs it. There has got to be a short-term solution to this, Chair. You have to

protect people now, but we've got to have an eye to the future of this province

and this planet.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

I now

recognize the Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation,

and Labrador Affairs.

L. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Chair.

It's

interesting debate we're having here in the Legislature this morning. It's a

heavy topic. It's not an easy one, but I can tell you, and I will, over the

course of the next 10 minutes a couple of things. None of them will be a

surprise to you, coming from Labrador as well. Some examples of how climate

change is real, and to talk about this being imposed by the federal government

and the choices that we were left with, and how we tried to navigate, through

that, the best deal possible for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

remember back when I was in municipal affairs and environment, back in the

spring and summer of 2019, and you go into a department and as a new minister

you start getting briefings in the first week. When the briefings started on

climate change, there were two or three key messages that I took away, that I

still recall today. One was that you will see the weather getting wetter, warmer

and windier. We've certainly seen that.

My hon.

colleague for St. John's Centre mentioned the ferry in the Strait of Belle Isle,

and we certainly have our challenges there with increased wind and ice coming

down through in the wintertime.

Often,

when I am travelling through my district, and I pop in and see – my colleague

just mentioned earlier Aunt Nelly and Uncle Joe. Often, when I pop in and see

someone, they'll say, my dear, we've had some wind this winter. Blows a storm.

Years ago, we never ever had this. So all these little conversations from our

elders that have so much knowledge and that have seen a lot of changes through

the years, Chair.

Sometimes Members opposite will get up and say: We're getting calls on the cost

of living; we know you're getting them, too. Yes, we are getting them, too. I

guess I'm someone truly, truly humbled that I've had very strong support in my

district, in a by-election, a hotly contested nomination, and three general

elections, strong support. When you represent people in a small district – yes,

it's spread over a large land mass, but small in numbers, you build

relationships with people.

I'm not

going up and down streets knocking on doors and passing in literature. I know

when someone's having a 50th anniversary. I know when someone is celebrating a

birthday in the family, or I know when a new, even family pet comes in

oftentimes, because those are the relationships I've built. Do we care about

those people? Absolutely we do. You know, as parliamentarians here in this

House, and as representatives of our 40 districts, I think we all want what's

best for our people.

We've

seen the substantial increases in the cost gasoline and home heating, and we

know this is a serious and difficult situation that is impacting people. I also

will say I understand that the Opposition has a role to play. I was over there

for two years, and I'll tell you, there was no one who spoke – I was on my feet

every opportunity that I could get. I spoke with passion when I was up. But, at

the same time, when you come over and you sit on this side and you have to put

together a budget and we start that months in advance of the budget, there's all

these tremendous needs that come in and you want to balance it out.

I know

sometimes we get hammered for mentioning Muskrat Falls. I don't think we debate

any longer the merits: Was it good? Was it bad? It's just a fact. It is a fact

that we have to take half a billion dollars when we start at the table and we

have to park that, to mitigate the rates so seniors can keep the lights on in

this province. Then we have almost a billion dollars that we have to park for

interest and other things.

So there

are lots of challenges. At the end of the day, the cost of living is top of mind

for all of us. In this budget, it's already been outlined here this morning,

that we did put a number of mechanisms in place to try and help. As we get the

fiscal state of our House in order in this province, we will certainly do more,

Chair.

I want

to talk for a minute on the impacts of climate change, and how real it is. I

represent, and was born and raised in Labrador, grew up in an isolated

community. Since 2001, we now have a road connection. We live off the land in a

very big way; not as much as years ago. I think about the isolated Indigenous

communities in Northern Labrador, and whether I'm up there meeting with the

elected – whether it's the Inuit AngajukKâk and the Inuit community governments,

whether it's with Nunatsiavut, one of the things I hear all the time is the

impacts of climate change.

Northern

Labrador don't have a highway, yet, like we do in Southern Labrador and in other

parts of the province, but we do maintain about 700 kilometres of groomed trail.

Just next week, I have a meeting set to meet with leadership in the Torngat

area. The topic and why they reached out to me is to talk about climate change

and its impact. We're actually having to change snowmobile routes. This is how

their goods are brought in during the winter. This how people move to and from

communities. This is how they still go out on the land and that's their dominant

choice of diet. I do believe that no one would argue that it's probably the

healthiest diet.

Climate

change is real. Polar bears: I represent a little community, Black Tickle, and

we have polar bears that go through all winter long. With the change in the sea

ice and things, it's impacting polar bears. I have a sister in Alberta, I have a

mom in BC, they've been going through the fires, the flooding, it's been a

really, really terrible time.

So there

are all kinds of examples. I don't know anybody who will stand here today in

this House and would argue that climate change isn't real. It's certainly having

a serious impact in northern areas. So we know, Chair, that the federal

government have set a price that emitters must pay for each ton of greenhouse

gas emissions that they emit.

In this

whole process, the end goal, at the end of the day, is that businesses,

consumers and individuals right down to your recycling and things, as the

previous speaker just talked about, business and consumers will take steps such

as switching fuels or adopting to new technology to reduce emissions.

I can

tell you the change of thinking even in my own home from a few years ago when we

would take a can and discard it in a garbage container and not think twice. The

changes in the little day to day. That is the direction that we need to move,

everybody needs to play their part.

One of

the things I want to say, Chair, is when Ottawa began talking about a carbon tax

we had many, many conversations – many that I was a part of. I'm sure you were

too during your time in Municipal Affairs. There were several options on the

table. Every province is different. What works for one province doesn't

necessarily work for another. We're a small population, 526,000 people spread

over a very large land mass. There are lots of big pickup trucks. There are lots

of big industry here that have sustained us through the years.

So we

wanted a deal at the end of the day that was best for the people that we

represent. And when we look at what some of the other options that other

provinces chose, this was the best for Newfoundland and Labrador. We felt that

we had the best deal. It's already been outlined, the areas that we now have

exemptions in.

carbon tax on home heating fuel. At this time, when the cost of living is so

high, we don't need a tax on home heating fuel. When I think about the cost of

flying, how COVID has impacted and really decimated the airlines and we're

working our way back and the high cost of flying right now. Currently, there's

no tax on aviation fuel for flights.

Fish

processing: In the district that I represent, we have five processing facilities

and having this tax break, all these things that are so meaningful and they're

so important, Chair.

People

say stand up to Ottawa. And this might seem like a funny analogy, but my mind

went back to we had a Westie for a long time, and if you know about a Westie,

they're the size –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

Just a

little difficult to hear the identified MHA.

Thank

you.

L. DEMPSTER:

A Westie is about the size of

a loaf of brea d . And we'd always stop for a break coming through the mountains

in Wiltondale and there was always a horse there. The minute we let our Westie

out, it would just go. In his mind, I think he thought he could take on that

horse, really and truly. It was always quite humorous. He was about the size the

horse's head.

We can

stand up. We have stood up. There was much, much, much negotiation back and

forth. This is a difficult one. On one hand, climate change is real, you can't

argue, the facts are there. On the other hand, we're in a very challenging spot.

I mean, two years ago who thought we would go through COVID? Look at the

tremendous cost that that has been in our province and around the world.

It's a

difficult time, we have to find our way through, Chair, and we will always do

the best that we can with what we have for the people of the province. I think

the message here is: Had we said no, we would be in a much worse spot than we

are today.

I thank

you for your time, Chair.

CHAIR:

Thank you very much.

I now

recognize the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The

intention of the federal government is to increase the price of fuels, that is

how, just like a sin tax, you dissuade people from burning fuel and from

creating carbon emissions. That is the federal strategy. Former federal minister

and current Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills, that's the

quote that he had on VOCM last week.

Basically, he said, government is trying to price people out of being able to

live and they're okay with that. The problem is we are okay with that. We sit

here and we talk about this tax – we call it a tax, we call it a sin tax, we

call it a carbon tax, we call it a provincial tax, we call it a federal tax. I'm

going to call it exactly what it is: it is a Liberal tax.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT:

And it is Liberal tax that

doesn't have to happen right now.

Now, I

agree, maybe we're not in control but we ought to be yelling and screaming at

the federal government and trying to tell them that the timing for this increase

right now is not acceptable. They can delay it; they have that power. They are

not going to do it if we're not asking. They are not going to do it if we're not

asking.

What

really bothers me about this is how disproportionate it is across the province

and nobody is saying a word about it. You come to St. John's and seniors can get

on a bus and they can go to a grocery store or a hospital or wherever they need

to go. But I can tell you, my constituents that live in Petley on Random Island,

they have to drive 300 kilometres to go to their doctor.

Think

about that, they pay carbon tax on that fuel. The lowest income people in the

province pay disproportionately more in order to get everyday services. How can

we be okay with that? It makes no sense. These people have to drive to a doctor

or a grocery store. They drive multiple kilometres in order to do anything on a

daily basis. And guess what? Every litre of fuel they pay their 11 cents. And

guess what? It's going up and it's going up substantially.

The

current Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality made a comparison

between Muskrat Falls and carbon tax and Ottawa and federal and the funding that

was going there, the $500 million – she made that comparison. Ottawa's 2030

Emissions Reduction Plan applauds the conversion from fossil fuels to

hydroelectricity as a good thing.

Let's be

clear, Ottawa supported Muskrat Falls from the very beginning and, as a matter

of fact, they made it happen. If Ottawa wasn't involved in this national

project, it never would have happened – ever.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

L. PARROTT:

It is true.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

L. PARROTT:

Perhaps when you stand up and

speak you can explain how we would have done it without Ottawa. I would love to

hear that.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

L. PARROTT:

You'll have the opportunity.

We sit

here and we are talking about an increase in tax, whether it is provincial or

federal or it's coming from a different country, it doesn't matter, the increase

affects the men and women in this province that we're here to represent. We

ought to be telling our federal partners that we don't want it right now. It

doesn't work right now. The timing is absolutely terrible.

In the same breath, we are trying to increase industry.

You think about things like mining, the Bull Arm facility and other issues that

are going to end up paying way more because of this. How do we attract business

if it is too expensive to be here? Newfoundland is already disadvantaged by

being on an island.

I say all the time that we need made-right-here plans

and this government says that this carbon tax is a made-right-here plan and they

negotiated it, but let's be realistic. We are not attached to the Mainland. The

cost of everything here is way more.

HON. MEMBER:

Labrador.

PARROTT:

Labrador is attached; I agree. Not necessarily always passable, but the reality

of it is the fact that we pay more means we ought to be treated different. We

pay 11 cents in carbon tax. We don't get it all back. Think about that. If we

were getting our transfers from Ottawa that we should be getting on a regular

basis – we are not talking about $10,000 or $100,000 or $1 million. We are

talking about billions and billions of dollars that have been withheld for a

long time.

Now they want more tax. Guess what? So they can take

more of our money and invest in green technology. I firmly belief that the

Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology would be – he is out there now, as

is everyone in this House, looking and meeting with companies about renewable

resources: hydrogen, wind, everything we need. We ought to be captains of our

own ship. Ottawa is dictating how we are going to do this.

You think about, you know, we are talking about all

these renewables and what is going on. Interesting news

article this week about

the cost of cooking oil. Now, think about this. Immediately the blame goes to

the Ukraine. Well, I will ask you a question: When we transfer from our carbon

economy to biodiesels and we start utilizing those same types of fuel sources

that are used in cooking oil as fuel sources for cars and planes, what do you

think is going to happen to the cost of living? What do you think is going to

happen to the individual that's got to go buy canola oil or sunflower oil? No

more deep-fried fish in Newfoundland. You won't be able to afford it – true

story. Who's doing that?

HON. MEMBER:

Out

of order on that.

PARROTT:

Out

of order, no doubt.

But just think about what is going to happen to the

cost, and nobody is having this conversation. The problem with a green future is

we have to look into the future, too, and we make decisions today that don't

necessarily serve us well tomorrow. When we start the production of all of our

biofuels, it is going to drive the cost of everything else through the roof,

make no mistake about it. A cost that people already cannot afford. A cost that

people cannot afford right now.

We have men and women in this province that are

struggling every single day. Now, it is great. The carbon tax is not on home

heating fuel. You know what? There shouldn't be any taxes on home heating fuel.

There shouldn't be a tax on any electricity. I understand the fiscal situation

we are in, but what we don't understand in this House is the dire situation that people are in that

aren't in this House. People are hurting in ways that we do not recognize. An

increase in carbon tax, or any tax, the upcoming sugar tax – that's two taxes in

a budget where there was no going to be no new taxes, or increases in taxes, are

hurting people in ways that we need to recognize.

Nobody

in this House has said eliminate all of this. The timing of this is just

terrible. The timing, at a time in our life – probably the worst fiscal state

we've ever been in, and certainly on the border of a recession, I would argue,

and here we are saying we're going to increase, and we're okay with it. No, it's

not our fault. It's our federal cousins who are doing that. We're not doing it.

We are actually doing it.

If we're

not doing it, we're not standing up against it, which is just as big of a

problem. We have an opportunity in this House to come together, unite and say we

believe that we need to make a green transition. Make no mistake about it, I've

got two small children – like the hon. Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair,

I grew up in Labrador. I can tell you the stories that I see. There's zero,

zero, zero question that climate change is real. I can tell you as a boy growing

up, my dad didn't put his boat in the water until the end of June, because there

was ice on the lakes in Labrador West. Well, now people are in that lake in May,

every year – not some years, it wasn't an anomaly.

Climate

change is real. But I can tell you something else, what Newfoundland does to

climate change and the 11 cents, how this affects the global economy, is

miniscule. The reality of it is we have a Muskrat Falls Project, Churchill

Falls, Bay d'Espoir. We've got a renewable resource, biofuel refinery coming

online. I think we are very good stewards of the environment right now. I

believe we're growing pretty quickly. I think we have a long way to go, but I

can tell you what else, the 11 cents isn't going to put us there. That 11 cents

in someone's pockets so they can go get groceries or pay their bills, that will

help a lot more, I can guarantee you, there's no question.

talked about – and not a slight against the Member earlier who talked about

going to the Gander River fishing, but think about being able to go to the

Gander River fishing and recognizing the water levels, but now reverse the role,

and think about living in Gander Bay and not being able to afford to come to St.

John's to see a health care professional. Imagine being out there with cancer

and having to buy gasoline, and you can't afford to do it. Imagine having a

minister looking at you and saying, our MTAP program is perfect, 20 cents a

kilometre, after 1,000. It's not means tested, but it's perfect.

Think

about that, and that's the situation that people are in in this province. This

carbon tax timing is not even suspect. It's absolutely pitiful, and we all ought

to be fighting back against it. Whether it's a provincial initiative or a

federal initiative, that doesn't mean we can't stand up and be counted and say

that we don't agree with this.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair, and I'm sure you'll hear more from me later on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

Thank you.

I now

recognize the Member for St. George's - Humber.

S. REID:

Thank you, Chair.

It's

great to have an opportunity to speak in this House on this motion. I've been

listening to what other speakers have had to say and I'm finding it's quite

interesting. It's a very good debate. We're hearing some constructive ideas and

some constructive solutions, and it's very encouraging to hear some of the

things that people are saying.

The last

couple of years we've been through, it's been a rough time for many people.

We've had one thing on top of the other. We've had COVID, which has had a

serious impact on our economy, which has caused individuals to have many

problems. That, as well, has had an impact on society in many ways in terms of

mental health and things like that that has become evident. More recently, on

top of this, we've had the invasion into Ukraine by Russia, which has thrown the

world economy into a tailspin again, causing an increase in fuel prices around

the world.

So this

is a global problem, and it's one thing on top of the other that we've been

facing. So it's many challenges that we're having. I was interested – this

debate is about the imposition of the carbon tax, which the federal government

has applied all across Canada, and that's what we're debating today. I guess the

starting point for that debate is: Do we believe that climate change is a fact?

Do we believe that it's actually happening? Do we believe that it's overblown,

as some Members of the House have implied, or do we think it's a serious

challenge that we have to work with other nations in the world to address?

That's

the issue, the starting point for this debate. Do we believe that we can do

anything constructive here as a province towards dealing with the climate change

issues that exist? Now when we hear about this issue and this question, a lot of

people look to things that are rather remote from us. We talk about the

shrinking ice caps some people have mentioned and we hear reports of forest

fires in places around the world. We hear that places around the world, the heat

is going up to the point where some cities in the world may be uninhabitable at

this point or in the next few years.

We see

this evidence that climate change is real in other places, but I would submit

that we also see it here in this province. For example, on the West Coast this

winter, this fall, we've seen some severe weather conditions. We've seen roads

washed out; we've seen situations that we haven't seen, weather conditions.

Those things come with a cost as well. It disrupts people's lives, it disrupts

the economy and it costs more to repair and put in place these things that are

happening. So we have to look as well at the cost of not doing something about

climate change in this province.

Another

thing that I've noticed in my district as well is that we're seeing coastal

erosion in some places. Last year, we had to replace a road in Flat Bay. I know

the same situation exists in other districts as well. The Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port has a similar problem in his district where the road

is near the ocean and it's falling over the bank. I know some people's houses

are close to the banks and are in danger of falling over. These are real things

that we have to deal with as a province, right here in Newfoundland and

Labrador. I think these are things that we have to realize and we have to

realize that there is a cost to these things.

In times

like these I think we have to move – when we have a challenge like this that's

so big, so enormous and so controversial, really, in the way we approach it and

the way we deal with it, we have to put our sort of normal politics aside. We

have to stop looking at this from a point of view of, okay, we can point the

finger at who caused this problem and not deal with the issues that are about.

We can try to score political points based on a crisis, or we can actually have

some constructive debate about solutions and how to find solutions to the

problems that exist. So those are things that we need to do.

Some of

the things we have to – and I think we all would agree in this House, and I

listen to what people have said and I certainly listen to what people have said

in my district as well. I think it's fair to say that the burden of solving the

issues of climate change should not fall on the poorest people within our

society. I think we as a government, and we as a province and a society, need to

think about how we can address these problems without imposing the burden of

this on some of the people in society who are already disadvantaged.

When I

look at some of the things that are being done in this most recent budget, I

look at some of the things that are being done to mitigate the impact of some of

these cost increases on individuals, I think that's the right direction to be

going in and I think that's a very positive approach. In terms of dealing with

this problem, this crisis, I think we have to look at both short-term and

long-term solutions in the way we deal with this, and the way we mitigate the

impacts upon people.

Some

people have talked about the impact of moving towards electric cars. That's one

of the incentives that have been supported by this government. I think there's a

strong case to be made that we're just in the early stages of bringing electric

cars to this province. I think there's certainly a strong case for providing

incentives for people to purchase cars, to put in place the infrastructure

needed to have electric cars. So I think those are things that we need to be

addressing.

As well,

if you look at the impacts of fuel prices on foods and things like that, I think

in this transition that we're in we have to look at other solutions to those

problems and transitioning to locally grown foods in this province. I think we

have to do things that help people grow – make us more sustainable as a province

in terms of what we are able to grow in this province. Rather than

shipping food from halfway around the world, we have to look at how we can grow

things here in this province and how we can do that efficiently.

In the fishery it's interesting. I visited the Marine

Institute a little while ago with the Minister of Fisheries. We looked at some

of the research they're doing up there in terms of fishing and how people are

able to catch their quotas efficiently. I was interested to see the things they

are doing in terms of fishing gear and how they can make pots more effective in

catching crab and things like that, so that fishermen and women can catch their

quotas more efficiently.

So those sorts of transitions are happening. They're

important. My time is running out. I may have an opportunity to talk on this

motion later on today.

Thank you, Chair.

CHAIR:

Thank you to the Member.

I now recognize the MHA representing the District of

Exploits.

FORSEY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, it is always good to get up here in the House of

Assembly and represent the people of Exploits in my district. Only this morning,

actually, I was on the phone with two constituents from my district. They

relayed to me that: Pleaman, we just can't take any more. We can't absorb any

more. What will we do? How are we going to make it? We just can't take any more.

I don't even know if I am going to get to work this morning.

This is sad. This is just what I heard this morning.

People can't absorb any more. Now, we are looking at staring down another tax

and it is just another tax. The reality is it's just another tax, something that

my constituent, the one who can't even get to work this morning, got to bear

another cost again tomorrow or the next day, whatever.

So they just can't afford to go any further with this.

It's impossible to even think that we can impose another tax on those residents

that can't even get to work anymore. This is not reality anymore. We're driving

them to poverty and that's not the way this is supposed to be. Whether it is

coming from the country, coming from the feds, coming from us, this is not the

way it is supposed to be. We have to make this different. We have to do for

these people what we need to do.

This

carbon tax is not right at this moment. I don't know if it will ever be right,

but it's not right at this moment to impose that tax on those people that cannot

afford the day-to-day items right now, especially fuels to go wherever they

like.

I heard

the comment: we could walk to the bank. Go out in my area, go out in my district

and tell somebody down in Leading Tickles that they have to walk an hour and a

half to get to a bank, or wait until they get an electric car. Electric cars are

probably years out. So they still have to be burning fuels until they're able to

get that electric car for years out. They can't walk. They can't get an electric

car so they still have to be using gasolines and fuels to get to that bank.

I'm not

just trying to make political points here. This is facts. This is facts in my

district. I see it every day. To go to a doctor in my area it's an hour and a

half away. They have to go an hour and half away to get to a doctor most times.

So now we're going to impose another tax on them. This just don't work. It's not

adding up here and I can't agree with this carbon tax right now and I certainly

won't. I will be opposing this carbon tax.

Only the

weekend I had some conversation with some farmers. I know the minister got up

and said we're protecting the farmers, we're protecting the forest industry; we

made a great deal for those people. They're still paying double for their

fertilizers. That's not going to change. That carbon tax is still going to add –

probably put the fertilizers up even more. That's not supporting our farmers to

a great point. That's still putting their fertilizers way out of whack, and

that's where the cost comes to our tables. Again, right to the end-users who

can't afford it right now.

With

regard to parts and new equipment for the farmers, parts and new equipment are

gone up 40 per cent. Maybe the fuel that you're going to give them to put in,

maybe you did do a little deal on that one to save some tax on the fuel that

they're going to use in them, but they sill have to buy that equipment. They

still have to fix that equipment. In order to get that in, that's a cost to

them, extra cost, 40 per cent to get there. So what you're going to save them on

one end, you're going to grab back on another end. It just don't add up, it

really don't.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Pay me now or pay me later.

P. FORSEY:

Pay me now or pay me later.

You're exactly right. So they're still getting it.

So when

you sit there and say that we've made a great deal for our forest industry,

great deal for our agriculture and food, then it doesn't seem like all that

great of a deal. So I don't know how you can say that we need to pay this and

that you agree with this, at this time, to force the cost to go back to the

end-user to our plates, to our mother's and father's plates, to some relative,

to some friend of ours that can't even afford to do it right now. They're going

to food banks to do it. So it's not such a great a deal to the farmers right now

that's going to pay on the back end. Like I say, that drives the cost right down

to every one of our plates and that's very, very unfortunate.

Other

things there like we're hearing all the time that people can't buy food and

can't buy milk now for their children. We've talked about another tax, the sugar

tax. They can't buy milk now for their children, so what are they going to do

when the sugar tax comes in or the farmer has to put that milk up again, another

cost. They're up 8.4 cents now – yeah, 8.4 per cent, really. So now they have to

put this up, because all this drives the cost up to the end-user.

So how

can we tell parents or tell children to eat healthy, to move to healthier diets,

which goes to, again, the medicare. It's in the plan for the health care, to eat

healthy to save on medicare.

All this

has to cycle down through. So as the farmers have to put up those increases,

especially dairy farmers, for the cost to children and this is going right to

the end-users, and they just can't afford it anymore, they just can't, to impose

another carbon tax on top of that right now.

I know

you say you're trying, but you're not trying hard enough. We need to go back to

Ottawa, we really do, and say we just can't pay this carbon tax.

Our

fishing industry, of course, they still have – everybody has to buy equipment,

everybody has to get parts in and the fuels that they use – yes, I can see a

change probably in the fuels, they will get a little break on that. But that is

not what's saving the price to our end-users right now to the people in our

province.

When

people can't afford to get from one destination to another, we're just creating

stress on them. It's putting them in poor conditions. We have a society that

we're creating stress and it's not healthy. It's not healthy. Cost is a big

factor in our health conditions. Cost is a big factor. When you can't afford

something for your child, when you can't even afford to get to the doctor to get

your medicines, or probably right now you can't even afford to buy the

medicines. That is all a cost of the fuels, the taxes, the taxes, the taxes,

that we're putting on people.

I heard

another Member say that we can make political points. This is not political

points. These are people's points. These are the people that I'm talking to

every day. These are the people that I talked to over the weekend, the farmers,

who said about their fertilizer. The farmers who said about their equipment

costs, 40 per cent. These are the people that I was talking to this morning that

couldn't get to work.

If you

think it's political points, then you're dead wrong. You're dead wrong. I'm here

to bring issues of the people of Exploits to this House of Assembly and I will

do that. I will continue to do that. When they tell me that they don't agree

with something, then I don't agree with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

P. FORSEY:

So, right now, they do not

agree. They do not agree with your carbon tax. They do not.

I do not

agree with your carbon tax. It's something that has to be addressed. We needs

this addressed. People don't need this. We can't have this right now. They don't

want it and we can't have it. We can't drive people to poverty. It's not even

the lower incomes anymore; we're driving people at medium incomes down to

poverty. Let's take a stand here. We've got to take a stand and that stand is in

Ottawa.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR (Reid):

The hon. the Member for Burin

- Grand Bank.

P. PIKE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's

great to be able to speak today on the

Revenue Administration Act. I think our government has worked really hard in

the last number of years to advance the seriousness of climate change and to

curb greenhouse emissions as much as we can. But we also have to minimize the

effect it's having and the impact on consumers and industry growth.

I mean,

we only need to watch any channel on our TV and it's no problem to see the

effects that greenhouse gas is having globally, not only in this great province

of Newfoundland and Labrador. We were very lucky as well to put in a

made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador plan for climate change. This protects us

against a federal backstop, which would have resulted in residents paying higher

taxes.

Mr.

Chair, I just looked at the cost of home heating fuel across our country and I

took one example out just to show the impact that our homemade plan here in

Newfoundland and Labrador has had on our carbon tax. The cost of home heating

oil in Toronto yesterday was 255.7 cents. They have the federally imposed

backstop. The cost of home heating oil in St. John's, Newfoundland, yesterday,

was 233.9 cents. This is because of our made-in-Newfoundland plan. It helps

address the cost associated with home heating oil.

That's

very important for us, and the fact that this government over the last three

years has implemented that plan. Again, it's resulted in savings to our

residents. People talk about not implementing the carbon tax, or as I like to

call it, the pollution pricing act, or pollution pricing. Because the

Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act was challenged as being

unconstitutional by three provinces: Saskatchewan, Ontario and Alberta. And the

ruling was that Parliament does have the jurisdiction to enact this law as a

matter of national concern, under the Peace, Order, and good Government clause

91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 .

If we were to not initiate the

Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act , if we weren't going to comply

with that, then we'd be forced and face the federal backstop. Of course, that

would put taxes on various needed items, off-grid electricity generation and so

on. But one of the ones I want to talk about would be that it would also put

fuel tax for municipalities. Now, being involved in municipalities for 28 years,

I know the struggle that towns are going through, especially when it comes to

infrastructure needs and trying to promote their town as a place that people can

live, work and live with a sense of harmony and growing up in their own

communities.

It wouldn't be prudent for us to add an additional tax to

municipalities. Our homemade plan is very effective in that we don't have to do

that. It helps municipalities. We talk about taxation, we talk about property

tax and we talk about taxes for services in municipalities. A lot of

Newfoundland and Labradorians living in rural Newfoundland are paying very high

taxes, as well as in the urban areas. We can't afford any more. This province,

this government, has worked to make sure that there are no more taxes, or extra

taxes given in municipalities. We're trying to survive.

If you look at the impact that Hurricane Larry had on my

district – I live in a district that has not all, but 95 per cent of the

communities in my district live right on the water. They're right on the coast.

The damage caused by Hurricane Larry and the continuous damage we've had over

the last number of years due to climate change has broken away

any of the infrastructure that was in place. I remember back in the '70s there

were projects that people worked on and they built breakwaters. All those are

now gone. The cost of putting back this infrastructure is through the roof

because now you need either cages or you need armour stone to do so – very

costly.

How do

you do it? You have to do it through the Municipal Capital Works projects that

are available, which do provide 90-10 funding, 80-20 funding, 50-50 funding and

so on. However, communities are having trouble, now, making that transition to

doing that kind of work because of the infrastructure they have in the ground

with water and sewer and so on.

Climate

change is certainly affecting all of us. We need to do something as quickly as

possible if we are going to survive in this province. We are an island, weather

impacts us; we need to find a way to protect ourselves.

totally agree with the Member for St. George's - Humber, as well as the MHA for

Bonavista, when they talked about working together and talking about the effects

of future generations. Most of us have children and grandchildren and we want

them to live in a world where they feel safe. A lot of the things we do today

will impact how their lives will be in the future. We need to work together,

both sides of this House, to make sure that we reduce greenhouse gases and that

we control climate change.

We need

to make sure that there is no political obstruction in this important time in

our history. We know that the price of pollution can have a very strong impact

on reducing our emissions.

Mr.

Chair, thank you for the opportunity to speak to this today. I'll leave with 25

seconds on the clock.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

P. TRIMPER:

Thank you very much, Chair.

I do

believe I'm going to need more than 10 minutes to speak to this particular bill,

so let's get started. I'm not sure where I'm going to begin, but perhaps I'm

going to start with just some comments on some of my colleagues here that I've

heard on the floor. I'm going to grab a little background on Mr. Bjorn Lomborg.

Just for

the record, I have great respect for this guy from Bonavista, but I have to just

read this into the record. First of all, he's not a climate scientist or an

economist. He has published little to none peer-reviewed research on

environmental climate policy. His extensive and extensively documented errors

and misrepresentations, which are aimed at a lay audience, follow a general

pattern of minimizing the need to cut carbon emissions. He's out there

constantly, like the former mayor from this city used to do.

He does

not deny the physics of the greenhouse effect, but he does like to cherry-pick

his information, backed up by his own hypothesis. If you do a quick search on

his name, it will show the many different examples in which his research is

severely flawed, as are his conclusions. He has a Ph.D. in political science,

not environmental science or economics. On that point – and thanks Anna for

digging that up for me – this really cannot be a political discussion. It cannot

be tied to a particular party or party policy.

I want

to go back seven years, when I sat on that side in that corner and was pleased

to serve the province as the minister responsible for Environment and Climate

Change. My critic at the time, the Member for Conception Bay South, used to ask

me all the time about carbon pricing and carbon taxes, why are we doing it, why

are going there. I said take a look. I kept sending him little messages, and I

would still refer him and his colleagues, and anyone else who's feeling this is

not the appropriate way to go, go have a look at anything to do with the United

Nations and the IPCC. The United Nations on climate change, about carbon

pricing. I said take a hint – and you need to tell your colleagues in Ottawa –

carbon pricing has been recognized by the United Nations as the most effective

way to deal with this issue, from a decision-makers capacity.

The

problem that we're having, of course, is we have this inflation, we've got these

escalating gas prices, but I can tell you, there are some 47 countries right now

with carbon taxes in place, another nine are looking at it. There are another 64

countries who have carbon pricing initiatives and these are primarily emissions

trading.

I was

very proud to represent our province down in Mexico some five or six years ago

explaining and looking at the different strategies. So guess what? The majority

of the world is pricing carbon and dealing with it.

As some

of the Members said, this is an issue that maybe we should just kick down the

road a little bit, but I can tell you that if you watch Greta Thunberg and the

millions of youth around the world, they are screaming at us, please do

something now.

Everyone

keeps saying this is the wrong time. Well, I can tell you, it's already too

late. And I'm sorry to keep picking on my colleague from Bonavista, but he was

talking about timelines. You know, the thing about those timelines, they are

warnings, they are targets for

schedule for action. But I can tell you, because

of the fact that we missed them, we are already, unfortunately, dealing with

irreversible change.

I want

to remind my colleagues – and this is a sensitivity with yours truly and I would

suggest my colleagues from Labrador – we are not an island. We are an island and

a massive chunk of land called Labrador. And I can tell you, if you want to come

up and have a visit – this morning I did an interview on caribou and the

pre-leading story was the fact that the sudden runoff, that is just unheard of,

has wiped out a culvert and interfered with operations on the Trans-Labrador

Highway.

Like,

what is going on? No rainstorm, just sudden heat; it was 24 degrees there

yesterday. I was snowmobiling on Sunday. I went from snowmobiling to 24 degrees

in four days, and a massive runoff. I can tell you, listen to the canaries that

are Labrador. Because I can tell you, the coal mine is in trouble.

I wanted

to go back; I missed the point about the eco-anxiety. Yeah, there is a lot of

eco-anxiety. I can tell you, we need to start thinking seven generations out. We

need to start thinking about what our kids are going to be facing.

You guys

have heard me this week; I've spoken about some of the predictions. Our own

government officials – these are government documents that sit with the Minister

of Environment and Climate Change, you go online, you look at the provincial

document, 28 years from now it will be 6 degrees warmer – this is on average, by

the way – during winter then pre-industrial levels. We are cooking already.

I heard

the Member for Terra Nova say in his childhood he remembers you couldn't get

into the lake until late June. Well, you can get in there now in May. It is

happening and moving so quickly. Glaciers have disappeared. My friend from

Labrador West just reminded me of Dr. Way's research. It is a serious problem

and we've got to get at it.

I also

want to go back with a little history, just to throw on to the floor. In 2016, I

served as the provincial Climate Change Minister. I found myself in Montreal

with the federal government and all of the counterparts across the country and

we were doing the final crafting of the

Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change.

I can tell you, we were down to the short strokes and

this was after – this isn't a political swipe at anything, but I can tell you,

the federal Liberals came in in 2015 and that was after many years of no

leadership at the federal level. I have heard a couple of you mention that so

much of the challenge in 2015 was that because there was nobody going on in

Ottawa with a leadership role, each province and, frankly, many of the

territories, all took their own strategy, whatever suited them that worked.

So when we were coming to the table, all through 2015

and 2016, working on this Pan-Canadian growth document, everybody had a

different perspective. Saskatchewan was into sequestration. BC, by the way, had

already had a carbon tax in place since 2008. Some were making progress, some

weren't, but we all were dragged in through the realization that we had to do

something. The Paris COP22 was happening and the world was really starting to

wake up.

So here we were in our typical form, and those who have

ever had the opportunity and great honour to sit at a FPT table, it is a great

honour to represent our province at the national level. So I sat there and I was

there with – I have to mention their names because they are key people in this

whole discussion and, in particular, Jackie Janes was – for those of you who

have ever met her, she is probably one of the most brilliant minds we have ever

had in this province to deal with this issue. She was with me, along with Emily

Timmins and Colleen Janes was back as the deputy back in St. John's. That was

the team that went representing Newfoundland and Labrador, but I can tell you

when we got to that table, other jurisdictions were coming up to us and seeking

our advice. And Jackie, I have got to tell you, we were a small but mighty team

and we could hold our own at that table.

So we are here and, I can tell you, we are just like –

I'm thinking we had two to three hours left before we pinned it, and

Saskatchewan was the holdout. Were we going to get them to sign onto this

document? Nova Scotia had some concerns because they had already invested. Some

other provinces had made some big moves. Could we find the wording? And I have

got to tell you, we were almost there.

At 11 o'clock, I looked over at the federal minister,

Catherine McKenna, she was looking at her watch, and we were kind of noticing

this, it was quite obvious. At the same time, Emily Timmins was behind me and

she taps my shoulder and she says: Minister, the prime minister is on his feet.

He's speaking about carbon pricing. And 30 seconds later Minister McKenna, she

gets on her feet and starts speaking and they delivered the same speech.

I am giving you this story because I want you to know

there was a battle, because that speech, that position that the federal

government put out at that time, did not recognize any of the exemptions that we

now enjoy in this deal that the minister read to us this morning

AN HON. MEMBER: That's when you walked out.

P. TRIMPER:

That is when I walked out. He's remembering.

This was not an easy thing to do. There is nothing more

proud then to, at the end of a two- or three-day session, stand in front of your

flag and properly and proudly say: Yes, we are here to represent.

I called

the Premier. I said: Wow, what they are proposing – and I put a little piece in

front of it, but, oh shoot. I asked Jackie to go over and I said: Can you

confirm with the minister's office that all those communities on diesel, our

offshore oil and gas industry, our marine systems, how we get all this goods and

freight to our province, surely to goodness these must be exempted? I remember

her coming back and saying: No, Minister, not at all. We had to walk out of the

room, Nova Scotia joined us and Saskatchewan and we had to start this whole

thing all over.

Those

were rough, tough months over that next year, but I can tell you we finally got

to a deal. So while this is frustrating, there has been a big fight that's gone

on behind the scenes. This is part one of my talk. I look forward to speaking

again.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

Mr.

Chair, I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that we do now

recess.

CHAIR:

It has been moved and

seconded that we now rise the Committee.

S. CROCKER:

Apologies, Mr. Chair, I got

one step ahead of myself.

Mr.

Chair, I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that the

Committee rise and report progress.

CHAIR:

It's been moved and seconded

that the House does now rise and ask leave to sit again.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

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

Speaker returned to the Chair.

SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

recognize the Member for St. George's -– Humber and Chair of the Committee of

the Whole.

S. REID:

The Committee has considered

the matters to them referred and directed me to report that progress has been

made and ask leave to sit again.

SPEAKER:

The Chair of the Committee of

the Whole has reported that they have made progress and ask leave to sit again.

When

shall the report be received?

S. CROCKER:

Now.

SPEAKER:

Now.

When

shall the Committee have leave to sit again?

S. CROCKER:

Presently.

SPEAKER:

Presently.

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

by leave.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'll

make another attempt. I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader,

that this House do now recess.

SPEAKER:

This House now stands in

recess until 2 o'clock.

Recess

The

House resumed at 2 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

In the

Speaker's gallery today, I would like to welcome Clement O'Keefe, who is the

subject of a Member's statement this afternoon. Mr. O'Keefe is joined by his

daughter in-law, Margaret Hatfield.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

In the public gallery, I like

to welcome friends and neighbours of the late Freddie Walsh, who is also being

recognized in a Member's statement this afternoon.

Good

afternoon and welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

SPEAKER:

Today we will hear statements

by the hon. Members for the Districts of Conception Bay South, Harbour Main,

Exploits, St. John's Centre and Placentia - St. Mary's.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN:

Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker,

the 34th Annual East Coast Music Awards were held last weekend in Fredericton,

New Brunswick from May 4 to May 8.

I would

like to give special congratulations to four amazing talented artists from

Conception Bay South. Our very own Justin Fancy received the Fans' Choice

Entertainer of the Year. Folk duo Kirsten Rodden-Clarke and Jordan Coaker,

better known as Quote the Raven, received Contemporary Roots Recording of the

Year for “Can't Hold the Light.” Mallory Johnson received Artist Innovator of

the Year and Fans' Choice Video of the Year with Twin Kennedy for “Wise Woman.”

Mallory

Johnson has been turning heads in the country music scene and song-writing

community for years. She is currently in Nashville working on a new studio

album. Both Mallory and Justin Fancy have attracted national and international

attention through their music. Justin launched his career in early 2020 and has

quickly become one to watch on the music scene.

Quote

the Raven are a Folk Pop/Americana duo who recently released “Can't Hold the

Light” record. This is a summation of journeys that the pair has experienced

over the past three years.

Speaker,

Conception Bay South is extremely proud of these talented individuals and their

accomplishments. Congratulations to all the nominees and award winners to the

East Coast Music Awards.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Speaker.

The Girl

Guides of Canada is an organization that teaches young girls and women to

challenge and empower themselves, meet new people, have fun and become key

influencers in the world.

Girl

Guides has recently recognized a constituent in the District of Harbour Main for

her dedication and contribution to the organization by volunteering with them

for the past 50 years.

This

past September, Ms. Lillian Fowler of South River was honoured by the Girl

Guides for this amazing achievement. She has volunteered in the capacity of

leader, district commissioner, area commissioner and trainer. Lillian has made a

significant difference to thousands of young girls and women throughout our

province in places like Forteau, Mary's Harbour and towns like North River,

South River and Clarke's Beach, just to name a few.

The

United Church in Clarke's Beach has allowed the Girl Guides to operate out of

their hall for the past 32 years. They meet every Monday night, and Lillian says

they have not missed a night in 32 years. Even during COVID, they still met

virtually.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in acknowledging and thanking Ms. Lillian Fowler for

her leadership and dedication to girls and women throughout our province.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Exploits.

P. FORSEY:

Thank you, Speaker.

Today I

rise and recognize the volunteer work of Mr. Shawn Dalley of Botwood. Shawn

joined the Botwood volunteer fire department in 1994. During this time, Shawn

served as regional chair with the province, deputy chief and chief for 13 years.

Shawn

was remarkably committed to his position as fire chief and served with

dedication and pride for the betterment of his community. As of March 1, 2022,

after 28 years of volunteer service, Shawn has retired from the Botwood

volunteer fire department.

Speaker,

I would like for all Members of this House of Assembly to congratulate Mr. Shawn

Dalley on his retirement and wish him a happy 50th birthday today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

J. DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

“Never

worry about numbers. Help one person at a time, and always start with the person

nearest you.” Mother Teresa's words describe Freddie Walsh, who was the Mother

Teresa of St. John's and the last monarch of Walsh's Store.

Small in

stature but large in generosity and kindness, Freddie was more than a shop

owner: she was mother and grandmother to the community and changed the lives of

many.

Freddie

died on April 18. Those who knew her best, speak best to their loss.

“If it

wasn't for this lady, I'm not sure how my father and I would've got by.”

“She

taught me what it was like to truly be kind and how to help someone without

getting anything in return.”

“I could

go on forever about how amazing Freddie is and never give justice to how much

she helped others and how much she is loved.”

“There

are people, I'm sure, that ate just because of Freddie.”

“I love

this woman to the moon and back.”

“I had

no idea how important a corner store could be before I moved to this area.”

I ask

Members to join me in honouring the life of Freddie Walsh.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia - St. Mary's.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Speaker, on May 7, Mr.

Clement O'Keefe celebrated h is 100th birthday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

S. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. O'Keefe, one of eight

children, was born at Southeast, Placentia to David and Mary O'Keefe. His sister

Evelyn King still resides in Southeast. Mr. O'Keefe spent his early years in

Southeast and today resides in Freshwater, Placentia Bay, where he has lived for

70 years.

January 19, 1943, Mr. O'Keefe married Sarah Cunningham from Argentia. Together,

they had 15 children: three girls and 12 boys. Mr. O'Keefe worked as a

stationary engineer at the Argentia naval base for 56 years. His hobbies include

dancing, darts, card games, watching hockey – especially the Montréal Canadiens

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

S. GAMBIN-WALSH:

– and a daily drive.

Clem, as

he is known, has a zest for life, family and friends. He enjoys helping others

and attending community events. He is often heard telling stories from back in

the day and loves singalongs. Without a doubt, he is considered one of the best

dancers in the Placentia area.

Mr. Clem

O'Keefe has 34 grandchildren, 38 great-grandchildren and 3

great-great-grandchildren.

Please

join me as I wish Mr. Clement O'Keefe a happy 100th birthday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Happy birthday, Mr. O'Keefe.

Sixteen

children, that kind of reminds me of my family; I'm the youngest of 15.

Congratulations, Sir, I wish you many more years of happiness.

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Infrastructure.

E. LOVELESS:

Thank you.

Large

families seem to be the theme here because I'm the youngest of nine children.

Speaker,

I'm pleased to inform my hon. colleagues today of a significant accomplishment

of the workforce at the new adult mental health and addictions hospital, which

is currently under construction.

When we

announced in 2020 that Avalon Healthcare Partnership had been selected to

design, build, finance and maintain the much-needed facility, we were confident

in the jobs and economic benefits that would be created for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

Speaker,

since the start of construction, the percentage of hours worked by

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on that site has been 98 per cent.

January, February and March of this year – wait for it – 100 per cent of the

hours worked on the site were by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

E. LOVELESS:

Speaker, we can all take

great pride in the considerable skills and knowledge of the women and men of the

local construction workforce who are so key to these critical infrastructure

projects.

Recently, I had the pleasure of seeing what the inside of the new hospital will

look like when I joined the Premier and Minister of Health and Community

Services on a visit to mock-ups of the patient room, therapeutic quiet room and

nursing station.

Construction of the new adult mental health and addictions hospital is on

schedule and I look forward to it being completed in late 2024.

Speaker,

our construction projects are leading to employment and improved services for

residents of this province. This year, through

Budget 2022 , we are investing $567 million in infrastructure and we

look forward to this investment paying similar dividends for all Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN:

Thank you, Speaker.

I'd like

to thank the hon. minister for the advance copy of his statement. Speaker, I

take little comfort in hearing the minister proudly boast about the employment

on a government project, when we saw plane loads of workers from Quebec and

other provinces arrive and work on the new science building, the new acute care

hospital in Corner Brook and the new long-term care facility in Central

Newfoundland. We know the absolute mess we have in the Gander and Grand

Falls-Windsor with those facilities delayed over a year and marred by 4,000

deficiencies, and the minister's own department were project managers over it.

I do

applaud the minister for committing to review the fiasco with the new long-term

care facilities. I sincerely hope the mistakes and incompetence will not be

repeated on the adult mental health and addictions facility and the new

sole-source blank-cheque penitentiary.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

J. BROWN:

Thank you, Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. The Third Party

looks forward to every construction project that employs locally and benefits

communities in this province as much as possible, especially this type of

infrastructure. That's why we encourage the government to avoid using P3s to

build public infrastructure in the future. Such projects are costlier in the

long run, lack transparency, undermines risks and results in less community

input and control over them. The people of this province deserves better from

their government.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.

S. CROCKER:

Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker,

I rise in this hon. House today to celebrate Newfoundland and Labrador's music

industry.

Newfoundland and Labrador's musicians received 44 nominations this year and

brought home 11 awards from the 2022 East Coast Music Awards held in

Fredericton, New Brunswick.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

S. CROCKER:

Congratulations to the

nominees and the winners: Quote the Raven, Justin Fancy, Mallory Johnson and

Twin Kennedy, Kelly McMichael, Rube & Rake, First Light Fridays, Greg Smith,

Cecil Johnson, Yvette Lorraine and Gordon Quinton. You are making waves around

the country and around the world. We are so proud to call you our own.

The East

Coast Music Awards are the premiere music event for the East Coast music

industry and the conference of choice for artists and industry professionals. It

is a non-stop music celebration, recognizing the very best the East Coast music

community has to offer – and this year was certainly no exception.

The

enthusiasm surrounding these awards has been felt here at home. We want to

harness this enthusiasm in order to continue to foster the relationship that we

have with our vibrant music industry and encourage the many economic and social

opportunities that exist for the music industry throughout the province and the

country.

It is

Come Home Year in Newfoundland and Labrador and we know that our music tells a

story and draws visitors here. Under the Cultural Economic Development Program

over $1.9 million will go directly to local artists. We have provided $100,000

to MusicNL to fund the Community Presenters Program, which will help

not-for-profit organizations cover the costs associated with hiring musicians.

Thank

you again to our musicians and our industry for the great ambassadors they are

for our province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista.

C. PARDY:

Thank you, Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Speaker, our province

certainly has a rich culture, as we discussed in Estimates. We have artists in

each and every corner of the province who delight residents and visitors alike

with their time and talents. In my District of Bonavista, tourists often get to

hear local musicians and delight in hearing them perform.

On the

occasion of the 2022 East Coast Music Awards, I would like to offer sincere

congratulations on behalf of the Official Opposition to those from this province

who have been nominated and who w