PDF Version

June 16, 2021

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. L No. 18

The House met at 10 a.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett):

Government House Leader ready?

House Leader ready?

Admit strangers.

Order, please!

Orders of the Day

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 2, Bill 14.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs,

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

to consider a resolution and Bill 14.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The

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

Committee of the Whole.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Warr):

Order, please!

We are now debating the related resolution and Bill 14.

Resolution

Be it resolved by the House of Assembly in

Legislative Session convened, as follows:

“That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting

the imposition of taxes on personal income.”

CHAIR:

Shall the resolution carry?

The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury Board.

COADY:

Good morning everyone.

I think this is an important discussion and debate. It

falls out of the budget documentation and the budget information that was

presented a few weeks ago now. The budget did pass last night; we finished the

Estimates process, which I much appreciate. One of the things coming out of the

budget and built into the Estimates, of course, is change to the personal income

tax rate. It's a rate increase but only for those that fall into the category of

earning $135,973 and above. An individual who earns $135,973 or above will have

their personal income taxes changed.

As I said, Budget

2021 announced increases to personal income taxes for higher income earners

and new brackets for those with taxable income greater than $250,000 in personal

income. The tax rate on the current fourth bracket is increasing – this is the

fourth bracket – meaning above $135,973 will change from 17.3 per cent to 17.8

per cent. That's obviously 0.5, half a percentage point.

The fifth bracket rate is increasing from 18.3 per cent

to 19.8 per cent. Three new income tax brackets are being introduced, so the

$250,000 at the $500,000 and $1-million level. If you personally earn $500,000 a

year or a million dollars a year, your income tax rates are going up. At

$250,000, you'll have an income tax rate of 20.8 per cent; at $500,000, 21.3 per

cent; and at over a million, 21.8 per cent.

Now the combined total of the new revenue for the

province is $15.3 million. The income tax changes for those that earn above

$135,973 individually per year, when you take all the tax changes for anyone in

those categories or above, it will bring in about $15.3 million per year.

Again, no change in personal income tax rates on

anybody who earns less than $135,973. The tax brackets are indexed to the

provincial consumer price index. For 2022, the threshold will be adjusted for

the change in annual CPI for September. All the different brackets are indexed.

They go up with the consumer price index, but that won't be known until October

2021. That's based on the consumer price index.

I will say, Mr. Chair, this is now bringing us in line

with the rest of Atlantic Canada. For those that will have the budget documents,

the Budget Speech before them, there was what I thought was a good chart that

indicated what the personal income taxes were for the rest of Atlantic Canada

for the thresholds that we're talking about. You will see in that chart that

Newfoundland and Labrador is on par or, actually, in some categories, still

below the rest of Atlantic Canada.

It was important to us, I think, as government and to

people of the province, to remain very competitive with Atlantic Canada in

particular, but even in the country, we want to make sure that we remain

competitive in our taxes. We want to make sure that we continue to focus on what

I'm going to call fairness in our tax system. We want to continue to focus on

ensuring that we remain a very competitive place to live, work and raise a

family so that people make the right decisions to stay in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

We think that this will have some impact on the higher

income earners, but if you look, Mr. Chair, their tax rate was lower than the

rest of Atlantic Canada previously. We've now made some adjustments to ensure

that it is now a little bit more competitive in Atlantic Canada.

We have not changed and, again, I'll repeat that.

Anyone earning less than $135,973, personal income taxes are not changing. I've

indicated the tax brackets will move with the consumer price index. I've also

indicated that we're still very, very competitive in Atlantic Canada. Even at

21.8 we're more inline with Atlantic Canada, especially when you look at the

brackets.

I do know, again, I'll reiterate it, that if we changed

all of the entire brackets and the percentages and made them comparative to Nova

Scotia, for example, we changed all of the brackets and we changed the bracket

percentages, we would take in about $180 million more into this province from

personal income tax. We are not doing that, Mr. Chair. We believe that we're

very competitive in Atlantic Canada. We believe that we have from – what I'm

going to call – a wholesome view a good tax system as it relates to

competitiveness and as it relates to fairness. Therefore, we will be remaining

as we are with our overall tax brackets. But I will remind Members in this House

that if we did change completely, carte blanche, to take in the tax brackets and

the percentages that are in Nova Scotia, we would bring in approximately $180

million more. So I will say that just so you understand how competitive our tax

system is, Mr. Chair.

I'll conclude my remarks now because I want to listen

to debate. I'll take whatever questions there may be. Again, this is about being

competitive, it's about being fair and it's about ensuring that we have the

monies in this province to address, not just the services that are required

around the province and have the money to have the services that are required in

health care and education but also to remain competitive and to ensure that

families have a good quality of life here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

On that note, I'll adjourn my discussion and listen to

debate.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

WAKEHAM:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll start off by, I guess, an overall indication.

Again, this particular budget seems to focus heavily on revenue generation as

opposed to expenditure reduction. Increasing taxes, whether it's personal income

tax, gas tax or any other tax, does not help grow the economy. It takes more

money out of people's pockets. We find ourselves, again, faced as a province in

somewhat of a precarious situation. We are projecting, according to the economic

documents, a 0.3 per cent decline in population, which ultimately means that

we're going to have less people paying more tax. The fundamental principle

should be more people paying less tax. How do we get there?

There are lots of different initiatives that could be

untaken to achieve that. For example, maybe what we should have is a hiring tax

credit where businesses are given a credit for hiring additional employees. Once

they hire additional employees, we all know they will pay taxes on their income.

I think that there was an opportunity to look a

relocation tax credit. We've talked about Newfoundland and the success we've had

in the IT industries here and the fact that COVID has proven to us that there is

an opportunity for people, not only to work from home but to literally work from

any location anywhere in the world. If we're going to promote our province as a

place to work, to come to, to come back to, or to move here and set up your

business or work from here, then I think we have to be competitive in our tax

bracket. Not only competitive, I think we have to be better than.

While I understand the rationale and, yes, we're

competitive with Atlantic Canada, I would argue that we need to be better than.

In order to do that we need to look at ways of encouraging people to come to

Newfoundland and Labrador, maybe looking at a relocation tax credit. Again, if

you accept a new job here in certain targeted growth sectors then there's a tax

credit available to you.

I think those are some of the things that we need to

start looking at. It simply can't be about increases all the time. Because

increases simply turn around, add revenue, yes, but do we really, at the end of

the day, improve our fiscal situation because of it? If more people wind up

leaving, then the end result is less tax.

We've talked about the Terra Nova extensively for the

last couple of days and I think there are currently 461 people that are still

employed with that project. Depending on the outcome of that, there could be a

significant loss of income to this province and a significant loss of tax income

to this province. Again, there are lots of things like that that could happen.

We haven't heard any news, as I have said, and sometimes no news is good news. I

look forward to, hopefully, the companies will be able to come to a resolution

and that project will continue to be a part of our business here in Newfoundland

and Labrador.

I know there are monies factored into the budget for

that project, from both royalties and other tax revenues. Again, I look at it

and I look at the – this is a bracket, the higher income tax brackets and that's

fine; but, at the end of the day, it still comes down to the point of: How do we

encourage more people to come here? As I just said, we need to be not only

competitive; we need to be better than.

We seem to have a shortage of nurses these days. We

seem to have a shortage of physicians in certain parts of our province and

specialists, higher-income people that if we're going to recruit them to come to

Newfoundland and Labrador or work in the territories, as the Minister of Health

likes to refer to us outside of the Avalon Peninsula, then we need to make sure

our tax brackets are not only competitive but better than.

So I think it's important for us to not just simply

rest. We have to go out and be creative and find different ways of focusing on

what we charge people. Again, it is not just the personal income tax piece, it's

all of the other taxes. I think and I hope that the government this year is

undertaking that cost-benefit analysis of all the taxes and fees that they

collect and, at the end of the day, maybe there will be some that will be

eliminated simply because they're ineffective, because it costs us more to

collect them than we do in actual payments received.

Those are the things that we should be doing. Those are

the type of programs we should be looking at. The whole principle is: How do we

get more people paying less tax? I look at the first bracket (a), it says in the

bill: “if the taxable income does not exceed $38,081, 8.7% of the taxable

income” – so in other words they pay 8.7 per cent. Perhaps we should be looking

at lowering that, perhaps we should be looking at eliminating it for everyone.

So the first $30,000 and whatever it is, you pay no tax on. Maybe then people at

the lower income levels would have an opportunity to have more money in their

pockets. That money then translates into the economy and they spend it. They

will spend it on goods and services in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I think those are the cost-benefit analyses that we

need to be doing. We really need to be seriously looking at how we can make

ourselves, not just competitive but better than. How we go about that will

require sitting down and not simply taking what you always did and add a per

cent to it or add another cent on or another increase, those are easy things to

do.

The tougher things to do are to get into it and look

deeper and find out what creative solutions we can arrive at. Because changing

that population trend and getting more people here will make us a better

province. At the end of the day, we will certainly be in the position to afford

to do a lot more things and people will have more money in their pockets. At the

end of that, they will spend more money and we can grow our economy. Because

that's the way out of this. We can't tax our way out of this. We have to grow

our economy and we have to be as efficient as we can.

Again, I think that there's lots of opportunity left.

I'm a little concerned with some of the recommendations in the Premier's Greene

report and what the future holds for them in the next couple of years, because

there are some serious things in there that certainly recommended collecting

that $180 million in taxes – in personal income tax. I'm glad to see government

did not go with that. I hope they will not go with that. I hope they will look

at different ways of stimulating the economy, as opposed to simply increasing

taxes.

With that, Mr. Chair, I will end my remarks.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception

Bay South.

PETTEN:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's a pleasure to speak again, as we always say. It

might be a cliché, but it is a pleasure and we always appreciate it.

Mr. Chair, this bill we're debated here now, the

personal income tax increase for the over $135,000, I don't think anyone's going

to really complain too much. You're supposedly hitting the higher tax bracket.

The vast majority of middle-class people and lower-income people, it doesn't

affect them. We always say if it doesn't affect you, you don't really care.

But my colleague, the Finance critic, the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port, he makes a good point. He talks about attracting –

we want to attract people here.

I know in my district, family doctor shortage is

probably the greatest issue I'm dealing with, outside the norm. We always have

roads and infrastructure issues and what have you. The family doctor shortage is

by far the number one issue. It's an issue that I've taken on and I've committed

to my constituents to lobby for. I've petitioned and I'm active on the social

media accounts. I'm active on speaking of the issue. I'm not pointing fingers,

it's no one's real fault. It's like everything. It's a problem, maybe a societal

problem.

The Minister of Health always points out we have enough

family doctors. I get that. I've spoken to him many times about it. He's always

been open to having that conversation. We've been told 640 is the number that

could facilitate enough family doctors that we can operate, that we don't have

100,000 people without a doctor. That's based on a model that they're there five

or six days a week and they're probably doing a couple of evenings. They are

doing house calls and that, which was the norm in previous years.

In CBS, if I had to wait the second day to get an

appointment with my doctor, I found that really odd. Why couldn't I get an

appointment the same day? I was calling that morning and had an appointment that

afternoon.

I think right throughout the province I think we could

attest that was pretty well the common thing. There was no difficulty usually

getting in to see your family doctor on a weekday, you'd get in one day that

week. I know in CBS now, three to four weeks to get a phone call, maybe four to

five weeks to get an in-person visit.

Lifestyles have changed. They've changed. They have

families. The demands are different, it's just different and I respect them.

More power to them. Quality of life is everything. I mean, we go through this

life sometimes, it's not all about work. I fully support all the family doctors

out there and whatever lifestyle they choose, more power to them and kudos. But

we need to find a way of getting past that issue because I'm not saying they

need to work more hours. The minister's analogy is, basically, we should be

forcing them and give incentives to force them to work more hours, to be in the

clinics more. But that's probably not fair. That falls into family life and

personal life.

We talk about mental health. There are all kinds of

variations that we can't decide why. Maybe it's a mental health issue. Maybe

some doctors just mentally can only handle working half a week, and I support

that. But until we deal with the root cause of the problem, we'll always have

this problem. We'll talk in words and we're going to bring in some nurse

practitioners, we're going to do that. That's another complicated matter. Some

models are not working. That's a different dynamic between family doctors and

nurse practitioners.

If we're going to increase personal income taxes on the

higher income brackets, it's going to get you some revenue no doubt and it's

going to play well to people who say you need to tax the rich. No doubt about

it. You play into a group, publicly you'll get credit for it. But, at the end of

the day, if you're doing that, are you not deterring the family doctor from

coming here, that we're short on, and many other professionals? We can list down

the line who are going to be affected by this.

I've never been a believer – and I guess it's a

Conservative policy and we went through this in 2016 on taxation – you never tax

away the prosperity. Taxation is not the answer. It can give you short-term

benefits; there's no doubt about it. Again, I'll come back to analysis, I said

in this House, I don't know, last week or the week before when I spoke on the

budget, what we kept coming back to was they don't know. That was turned into a

bit of comedy and whatever. My point was – and our leader said it yesterday – we

really don't know what the full details are, what the full analysis is. This is

probably another case.

You're going to get monies and we're going to raise

money by raising the income tax, obviously revenues, but what analysis has been

done? What's the deterrent? You look at tuition and you're looking at raising

things. We froze tuition to increase enrolment and attract people to university.

We've done so for many years. Right now, it's coming to a cost of upwards of $70

million a year, I think. The minister can correct me. But enrolment increased;

national and provincially, the enrolment increased because we reduced tuition.

Obviously, money talks.

We love Newfoundland. We all love it. Native

Newfoundlanders, we love it. People who move here love it. If you're up in, I

don't know, Ontario and you have a nice climate and you have a pretty decent

lifestyle and what have you and you're a family doctor or you're any other

professional – I use family doctor because that's my number-one issue, but there

are all kinds of other professionals – what's attracting you to come here? Not

the weather. We like the scenery; we like the fishing; we like the hunting; we

like the country. I love all that stuff. I love the fresh air. That's not

attracting them here. Usually, the bottom line comes down to money, and somewhat

lifestyle.

Those things need to be put into some of the analysis

when you do a lot of these budgetary items. I've thought about this many times.

I've sat in this Assembly for a few years now listening to a lot of debates over

stuff like this – income tax change, a fee hike or what have you. It's no slight

against any staff or anyone, really; it's probably more of just thinking outside

the box.

I'll use probably one the Premier has used sometimes:

You're moving a lever. If you're doing that and you're increasing your taxes and

you're increasing your revenues, what's the downside? I guess, in life you look

out – and I always say the best decision-makers sometimes are the ones who can

see the fifth or sixth step down the road. There's a domino effect: you're

taking that decision there but it's going to have an impact down the road

somewhere. It will always have an impact no matter what decision you make, and

especially governments, because it's not affecting all of us, it's affecting

certain groups, and a tax increase affects that group. But there are lots of

other things that are impacted by those decisions.

In one avenue we're trying to increase our population

growth, that's a big issue, trying to attract people here; you have to create an

environment that people want to come here. We'll never be able to change the

weather. As much as we would like to get up and shift our global – this is who

we are. We love who we are. I love who we are. But we have to create other

environments. If we're going to increase personal income tax, we're going to

increase the cost and fees – back in 2016 – we're still living in a pretty

expensive – the cost of living in this province has gone very, very high.

I go to supermarkets sometimes, Mr. Chair, and I wonder

how people can survive, how people can actually survive. A family, a young,

working, average-income family, how they can survive in this province. They're

the people who are here. If you talk to them, they don't want to go anywhere

else. Newfoundland, this is where they want to be because it's where they're

from. That's in your blood. We're native Newfoundlanders and that's what we'll

always be.

Any cost of living increase, and this is a cost of

living increase, and it doesn't affect those families, they could care less

about that. But what they don't realize is it's affecting getting a family

doctor. I can bring out 10 different examples. We're looking for psychiatrists,

a big shortage on psychiatrists. Mental health: I have a constituent with a

three-year wait – a three-year wait. That's real; that's not made up. I was just

reading the email here, actually, just before the House started, and I'm not

even fished reading the email. A three-year wait. Most of them are making over

$135,000, so that's a good example. We have extra bonuses of psychiatrists

outside of the province, what's going to bring them here?

That's the sort of analysis that needs to be done on a

lot of these decisions. I'm zeroing in on my issue and my concern, but you can

take that and you can plant that everywhere you want to. These are the analyses

not done. A lot of this budget, we never supported it because we didn't know

those details. What is the impact? What will come? What's the endgame? If you

don't know the endgame, you can't support it without knowing the result. I think

this is another case of an analysis that you have to look at down the road and

see what the possible fallouts will be before you can support something like

this.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm glad to have the opportunity to speak to this bill.

Mr. Chair, I see two sides of the argument, and I do

appreciate what the Member for Conception Bay South is saying. I totally

understand his concern. I really, really do. But I'm kind of looking at it from

the perspective of, again, trying to be realistic about where we're to in terms

of our year-over-year deficits and our debt and so on, which is growing year

over year over year.

Something has to be done. There has to be something

done to reduce – I believe the biggest

part is we have to try to reduce costs

wherever we can. But there also has to be, perhaps, on the other side, a little

bit of raising of revenue as well to try to somehow create some kind of a

balance to get ourselves on track. To eventually get ourselves to a balanced

budget and hopefully then we'll have our balanced budget legislation and we can

stay on that road, God willing.

Nobody wants to see taxes go up. I don't want to see it

go up. Raise your hand who likes paying taxes. There won't be any – okay,

apparently my colleague here from Bellevue, he likes paying taxes.

HON. MEMBER:

Can't do nothing without it.

LANE:

agree we can't do nothing without it but that doesn't mean you like paying them.

I don't like paying them. None of us likes paying them is my point. But it's a

necessary evil. It's something that has to be done in order to provide essential

public services for people, including ourselves, at some points, depending on

what services you avail of.

It's about trying to create some sort of a balance in

terms of raising revenues and reducing expenditures. That's what we need to do.

I see this as sort of part of it. Again, I don't like the idea of raising

anyone's taxes, but I will say this, and this is what I like about this one the

most, I suppose, is that at least we are targeting the individuals who are most

able to pay.

I remember the budget of 2016, I don't know if we all

remember it, not many of us were here, some of us were here, a lot of us were

here I suppose; I remember that budget. I remember up with the gas tax, up with

the HST and the levy. That was the sore point for most people; that levy, that

was brutal. That was beyond brutal and everything else. That combination of

taxing everyone to death. And when we're taxing everyone to death, that was the

average working person. That wasn't the elite; that wasn't someone who was

making a six-figure salary – I mean, they were paying it as well, of course. But

it was just average families who are trying their best to survive; they got hit

with all these taxes. It was just totally unbearable and thank God most of it

got reversed, eventually.

I would not want to see us going back down that road

again. So if there is going to be any kind of a tax increase, I would prefer

that those who are most able would be the ones that are going to pay a little

extra in taxes, if that's what's required on the revenue side as opposed to the

average, everyday family who are trying to survive and keep their head above

water. I would support it in that regard.

I do agree with the Member for CBS, there are concerns,

you have to look at all sides of it. There is no doubt that when we look at –

and when we look at it and we can cherry-pick a profession, as he did being a

physician, and he's right; he is not wrong in what he's saying. But I am not

sure that we can't address – if we have recruiting issues with family doctors,

just as an example – I'll just pick that as an example because it was the one he

used – I think that could be addressed through the recruiting process. Because

even though we have raised the taxes, there is nothing to say the government

can't say: Well, in recognition of the fact that we raised the tax bracket,

we're going to offer family doctors an extra $10,000 or $20,000 more than we did

before. That way they're not out any money, they're still receiving the same

compensations as they would have, but then others who are in a position to pay

more can. In the recruiting process, we can still have the ability to deal with

doctors by raising the amount that we would offer them: if that's what we want

to do.

Now, I'm not necessarily certain that we even need to

be raising the amount of money that we're giving to doctors, per se, because the

Member is right: this is a reality as well and he sort of captured it

beautifully, I thought. If you are from Newfoundland and Labrador, if you are

born and raised here and your family is here and your parents are here, your

grandparents, your siblings, and so on are here: you're going to want to stay

here. Now, not everybody. Some people choose to leave, some are forced to leave

but there is a much greater chance that if you are born and bred here that you

will be more apt to stay here and so on, and the money may not necessarily be

the big motivator.

Now, obviously, if you're getting someone who is not

from here and all they're in it for is just the money and the best offer, I

don't know if we can ever compete with that. I don't think we can compete with

the bigger provinces or compete with the United States, who are paying

ridiculous amounts of money to some of these doctors. I don't know if we can

compete with it.

I do know and I can give this as an example: I had a

constituent of mine who contacted me about a year or two ago. His son applied

for medical school at MUN. I can't remember the exact, but something in the back

of my mind tells me it was like a 96.8 average, something like that. It was

somewhere in the neighbourhood of around a 96 per cent or a 96.8 per cent

average. He couldn't get into MUN medical school, couldn't be accepted because

there were only so many seats and a number of those seats were going to

international students.

This is nothing against anybody coming here for an

education; I don't want to turn it into that. The point is those international

students who are coming here, what is the likelihood of them staying here versus

someone who was born and raised and all their family are in Newfoundland staying

here? He couldn't get in with a 96 per cent average because there were others;

they had a quota of so many locals and so many international students. The

father said to me: I can't believe it. It's Memorial University. My son has

these high marks. He wants to stay here. He wants to be a family physician, open

a practice, live in Newfoundland, his life with his family and he can't get into

medical school.

There's a problem with that. That's not a money issue,

but there is a big problem with that. That's something I would say to the

Minister of Education, who is responsible for post-secondary. I can see he is

listening intently and nodding his head in agreement. That is an issue. If we're

talking about recruiting doctors and retaining doctors, if we have people who

are born and raised here and their families are here, and they want to stay here

and live here, then we have to find room for them at that medical school.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

LANE:

Assuming they're qualified and able to do it and so on. To have a student with a

96.8 per cent average in all the science courses – biology, chemistry and all

this kind of stuff – and wanting to be a family doctor and couldn't get in to

MUN medical school, and now he's gone to the Mainland. He had to go away to get

into medical school and I don't even think he's coming back here. That's sad.

That would address that issue that taxes wouldn't. I'm sure he would be willing

to stay here even with this tax regime.

The other thing, which hasn't been discussed I don't

believe, and I'm hoping the Minister of Finance, when she speaks – I think she

will have to speak again. I'd like for her to address it, if she hasn't already.

I was a couple of minutes late coming in, so maybe she did. I'm wondering where

these taxes fall in line with other provinces and other Atlantic provinces,

because my understanding is that we're still competitive. It's not like this tax

bracket is going to make us totally out of whack and all of a sudden nobody is

coming to Newfoundland because the taxes are so high. My understanding is with

this increase we are still competitive with the other provinces and Atlantic

provinces. I think we have to – as long as that's the case I think it's

reasonable.

We can't simply be of the mindset that says nobody

wants to come to Newfoundland and everybody has to get a break. We have to have

the lowest of everything, the lowest taxes and the best offers of anywhere else

because nobody wants to come to Newfoundland. I really don't believe that. We

have a lot to offer. We have a great lifestyle to offer here. We have safety

here that you don't have in a lot of places around the country.

So there are a lot of reasons why doctors want to come

here. I don't think this is going to prevent it from happening and I will

support this bill.

Thank you.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Grand

Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

TIBBS:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's a great opportunity to talk about this bill today.

As I talk about it, I'll take a little bit of a different approach. If I could

tell the people of this House – I'm sure I could put a lot of smiles on people's

faces here – that we could bring in 25,000 people that make over $100,000 each

and we don't have to create one job here; they're just going to bring their

money to the province and spend it and live here, my God, can you imagine how

beneficial? That would be great for the province. Like I say, I'm sure it would

put a smile on everybody's face here.

What I'm talking about are rotational workers who are

estimated anywhere between 20,000 and 30,000 people. We'll cut that in half and

say 25,000 rotational workers. Now, these rotational workers don't go away for

$12.50 an hour. These rotational workers, I guarantee you 90 per cent of them

are making over $100,000-plus, and they are up there, which would equate to

about $2.5 billion being brought back to our province, and we don't have to

supply one job to these people. That's a huge revenue. That's a lot of money. I

don't know what it equates to in taxes, but it comes with a big price tag if we

lose these people. So we have to ensure that we do everything we can to keep

them here.

Now, it's not just the rotational workers. The

rotational workers, they're a lot of young families. They have spouses –

husbands and wives. They have kids that avail of certain things here in

Newfoundland and Labrador. So if they go away and we end up losing them, we end

up losing their spouses and their kids too. That's a big blow. Now you're not

talking about 25,000 people, you're talking a lot more. You look at the spinoffs

of that. You look at what it would incur if we start losing our rotational

workers who have had a very, very tough year and a half – almost two years now –

with COVID. I mean their lives are pretty tough as it is anyway, but they've

sacrificed a lot.

The airline industry, we talk about we want to have

more people flying in and out of Newfoundland and Labrador. We talk about the

tourism industry. We talk about people coming to visit. We talk about families

coming home from away, who after years come home for their Come Home Year or

just to visit family. But what people don't realize is the rotational workers

have to get back and forth across this country, across this globe. They put a

lot of money; they put a lot of butts into those seats of the airlines and the

planes. If you take those away as well, again, the airline industry is going to

hurt. We know about supply and demand. If the demand isn't there for seats,

well, guess what, the airlines are going to start pulling out again, they're

going to start cutting routes again. That's not something that we want.

If we start losing rotational workers – and we're

approaching this from a tax bracket as well. I know the tax bracket is a

Catch-22 sort of thing. We want to ensure that there are legitimate taxes for

people that can afford it to pay for goods and services throughout the province

and for those who may be the most vulnerable that can't. That's the way our

society works and so it should. But there's a tipping point there as well where

we want to ensure that people realize they can pay their fair share of taxes,

but they don't want to be overtaxed because there are options to go to other

places. We want to let them know that Newfoundland and Labrador is the place to

be. We want to make it as attractive as we possibly can to keep them here or to

get more people here, new people here.

The goods and services bought: I was a rotational

worker; I bought a house here. One hundred and twenty-seven more payments and

it's mine. It's great. Vehicles: Myself and my wife own two vehicles. Most

rotational workers, they and their spouse have to own two vehicles as well. When

you add that up it's great revenue for the province.

Toys: I know as a rotational worker you put in your 20

or 30 days and you come home. You want to enjoy yourself with your family. The

RVs, the camping sites, the quads, the snowmobiles: The rotational workers have

the money to buy these things and they enjoy buying them because that's what

they want to do. They want to enjoy their time at home after being away for so

long. One of the sayings on the rig – it's been everywhere of course – is work

hard play hard and that's one thing we did. I worked hard in Alberta,

Saskatchewan and BC, but I made sure I played hard in Newfoundland and Labrador

too. That's the way I wanted to live my life and that's the way I lived it.

Food: We heard some hon. Members talking about food a

little while ago. It's absolutely insane. Obviously, there's no finger pointing;

it's the way that we've gone. Just in the past year alone, the food prices are

absolutely crazy. We all make a great wage here, but I find myself, going to the

grocery store sometimes, I get absolutely defeated when I walk out after

spending $100 and I have one grocery bag. I'm not an extravagant eater, by no

means. I eat a lot, but I don't eat very extravagantly. I can only imagine what

somebody who doesn't make our income – somebody who's working very hard, by the

way, making their $35,000 a year – how hard they find it to buy food.

Tourism: When the winter, summer comes, a lot of

rotational workers – I know when I came home, every single hitch I got off,

myself and my wife, we would pick a different place each month here in

Newfoundland and Labrador, whether it be the Riverfront Chalets in Grand

Falls-Windsor or some place in Deer Lake or Corner Brook, some place on the

Island to go and spend a night or two because we wanted to get away.

Tax revenue: The money that's brought into the province

by rotational workers, it's a substantial amount and it can't be overlooked,

which ties me back to the whole bill itself. A lot of these workers, they are

making over $135,000, $140,000. I'm sure a lot of them are just happy enough to

help society and help those, again, that are vulnerable and the social programs

we have in Newfoundland and Labrador. I know I was. I was happy to pay my fair

share of taxes.

As things start to erode a little bit or degrade –

doctor shortages, roads, and we talk about it every single day – sometimes

people are going to think that the incentive to be here is going to get smaller

and smaller. We need to make them bigger and bigger. Again, without jobs and

employment, the immigration and the population growth, it's going nowhere. We

want to ensure that we have an environment where they can grow and they want to

be.

The doctor retention, we just come back to that. Like I

just said, that's one of the incentives that are going to keep people here,

within that tax bracket. At the end of the day, it's what we want to do: We want

to keep the people here inside that tax bracket, to make sure that they don't

want to go anywhere else.

Tuition fees for doctors that leave: I don't know how

to do it and I guess that's the big question. Somebody who wants to stay here,

they should get every incentive in the world. We have a great deal of homegrown

Newfoundland and Labrador doctors as well that I'm very proud to call friends;

as well as doctors come from different countries that want to stay. Dr. Cheriyan

out in Grand Falls-Windsor, he's been there now for 22, 23 years. God bless him,

he loves it here and we're only too happy to have him. There's that as well.

Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans, for instance, we have a

lot of incentives there to keep people. We're about to open a long-term health

care centre. There's an announcement coming with the Lionel Kelland Hospice this

coming Friday. I'll be there for that and I look forward to it. Marathon Gold is

another one. We have great mining projects now out in Central where people are

going to be making over $100,000 a year, probably up in that $135,000 tax

bracket.

The whole goal to keep people here and the incentive to

keep people here should offset whatever tax increase we have. It doesn't go hand

in hand. We can't say in one hand that we're going to raise the taxes, but the

incentives are going to get lower and lower. I'm not saying that's what's

happening but we have to ensure that we are very careful of that. Because if I'm

going to pick somewhere in this world to live and I'm going to pay a little bit

extra to live there, well by God they better have some good incentives for

myself and my family to be there. I'm sure that in Newfoundland and Labrador we

do have lots to offer.

The Member for CBS talked about the weather. Well, the

weather sometimes a lot of people don't like it, but one great thing about

Newfoundland and Labrador, and for anybody that's watching that might want to

live here one day, we actually have seasons. We do. We have a transition of

seasons and it's fantastic. It should be an incentive. I enjoy the seasons. I

enjoy the summer. I enjoy the winter, the fall and the spring. It's something

that we have. Sometimes the winter spills over into the summer, but we have

seasons –

HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

TIBBS:

Exactly, we do. We have it out our way and a lot less fog.

We're happy about that. Again, I just want to reiterate

– it's not just $135,000 when we talk about $500,000 or a million dollars,

you're getting up there. Well, we have to make this place as attractive as

possible. Let these people know that, you know what, we want you here in

Newfoundland and Labrador. There is something here for you as well. You're not

just here to pay for other people or pay for other things or programs, but there

should be something in it for them as well. Not just the humility or the

intention of helping out the province in any way they can. There has to be

something here for them as well.

In closing, Mr. Chair, I just want to talk one

15-second blurb here about what happened in Mount Pearl and the homophobic

incidents that have happened across the province here lately. I just have a

message for those people. Phobia is an irrational fear; it's absolutely

irrational. For those people who are doing stuff like this, be better human

beings, please.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for St. George's -

Humber.

REID:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's great to have an opportunity to participate in

this budget process this year. For the purposes of people watching, we've

completed the vote on the budget a few days ago – yesterday actually. That

process starts off with the minister bringing forward the budget and the

documents. We have the Estimates, the motions come before the House and usually

there are amendments, so there is a lot of speaking.

These are finance bills so there are usually

wide-ranging debates and a lot of discussion, and now we're at the stage where

we're looking at the related legislation. Last night we dealt with the Supply

bill, which allows government to spend the money that was allocated, and we also

dealt with the loans act, which allows the government to borrow money, and that

was discussed in the budget as well. Today, we're looking at the Income Tax Act,

so that's a broad debate as well.

It was interesting to listen to the two previous

Members who spoke. The Member for Mount Pearl asked a question: Who likes to pay

taxes? I guess, most people don't, and that goes back to – yeah, there was only

one Member who said he liked paying taxes. But I think that's an interesting

question: Who like to pay taxes? That goes back, really, to some of the early

that I sort of thought back to my first years in political science doing a

political philosophy course. One of the items that I found interesting or

thought about when I heard the Member say that was Thomas Hobbes; he made a

statement and said that taxation is a cruel, terrible punishment that government

exercises upon the people.

If you think about it, people go out, they work and

they earn money and then government takes some of their money – takes some of

that money they've earned away from them. How do you justify that? How do you

justify taking money that people have earned? The only justification, I guess,

that government can have for doing that – and I think this is what the Member

for Grand Falls-Windsor was getting at – is that the only justification you can

have for doing that is government takes the money and uses it for something

productive. They take it and use it for something that collectively makes us all

better, stronger and better off. I think that's the basis of taxation and why

people allow governments to tax them, so that's the genesis of this whole idea.

It was interesting to listen to the Member for Grand

Falls-Windsor - Buchans as well. I have a number of rotational workers live in

my district as well, so his points are well taken. I think when people choose to

live here in Newfoundland and work away, the fact that they choose to continue

to live here, we have to be competitive in the rates of taxation. We also have

to provide them with a lifestyle and in the way that we spend the money that we

take from them, make something that is good for them and their families. I think

that is what we have to do.

As the minister said in her opening comments on this

bill, I think it is important that we be competitive. The two things that I like

about the taxation – as I say, no one likes taxation, but the things I like

about this bill is it keeps us competitive and it focuses on taxing the people

who can most afford it so that we can do some good things for the people who can

less afford it, and that is good for our society as a whole.

Those are some things about the piece of legislation.

When I talked in Interim Supply, a little while ago, I said there were three

main questions that we're faced with as a province today. The first question is:

How did we get into this situation that we're in? The second one is: How do we

get out of this situation? What choices do we have to make? What changes do we

have to make? The third question is: How do we build a sustainable situation

again in this province? How do was build a prosperous future that doesn't allow

us to go back into the situation we're into today?

So those are the three main questions that we have to

talk about. Usually, I start off with these three questions and I only get to

talk to the first two before my time runs out, so I'm going to start off with

question number three this time and talk about that a bit: How do we build a

sustainable economy and a sustainable future in the province?

I must say, I have been encouraged by the type of

debate we've had here in this budget. Some of it has been non-political,

recognizing the fact that we have to make some changes. Changes to the way we've

done things; that we're facing a situation where we have to make some changes.

I've listened to some of the Members from the other side and I'm really pleased

that there seems to be a consensus that we have to do some things to get

ourselves on the right track.

In terms of building a sustainable economy, recently I

had opportunity with the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture to

visit the Marine Institute. While we were up there, it was interesting to have a

look at the type of work that is happening there at the Marine Institute. One of

the things, in the past, I think we haven't maximized the benefit of our

resources. We've allowed some of the benefits to go away out of our province.

But I was really encouraged by some of the research that's happening up at the

Marine Institute in terms of making us leaders in the field of fisheries. It was

interesting to learn some of the research that's being done up there. One of the

things that research was being done on was crab pots and how we could build a

better crab pot.

Fisheries, agriculture are not always sectors that we

think of as technology sectors or tech sectors that involve a lot of science.

But the people at the Marine Institute were doing research on developing a

better crab pot that allows the people to catch the individual quotas that they

have in a more efficient manner. It allows them to make less trips, burn less

fuel, to do it more economically, to be more competitive with other places in

the world.

One of the things they were doing was looking at how do

they attract crabs to the pot. One of the things they were doing research on is

lights. What they've found is that if they put a light in the crab pot, it

attracts more crab. From there, they said: Well, what else can we do to attract

more crab to this pot? The next thing they started to look at was sound. Can

they make a sound that attracts more crab to the pot?

They were able to do that as well, so they were able to

increase the efficiency of the crab pots and they decided they were going to

make florescent crab pots as well because they were cheaper. Basically, the

point of this story is: I think that is the sort of thing that gives me hope

that we have a bright future, because people are doing these sorts of things. It

is the area where educational institutions come together with our resource

industries, and that is one of the ways, I think, we can build a stronger future

for this province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The

Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Terra Nova.

PARROTT:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, the Minister of Finance made a comment this

morning that was so true and there are so many people in Newfoundland that would

argue about what we pay for income tax versus the rest of Atlantic Canada. She

is bang on in her statement that we're on par or less. A lot of people would

argue that point, but it is a true fact. We sit here and we question all the

time about our income tax.

What is misleading about that statement is that we

probably pay more taxes than anyone in Canada based on geography. All you have

to do is look back at the 2016 budget and look at the 350 additional fees or

taxes that were added. We can sit here, shake our heads and disagree, but the

reality of it is that if we look at the cost of getting goods to this province

and we look at what we pay – as an example, you look at a piece of chicken and

you think we pay $17 for a pack of chicken thighs and someone will say: Well,

that's not taxed. Well, back up the bus; it is taxed because it is processed in

a plant, where taxes are charged. It gets on a truck and it comes across the

country, where taxes are charged. People put gas in that truck; taxes are

charged. People pay way more for gas here in Newfoundland – way more, especially

in taxes that comes back to the province. It gets on a ferry, in some instances,

and we pay way too much for that.

If you take a comparison of a good from Nova Scotia,

New Brunswick, PEI and you compare it to what we pay for it here – especially

goods that are taxed. As an example, we'll use a taxable food product – I don't

know, like one of those little Schneiders meat packages. We pay $4.99 when it is

not on sale at Sobeys or No Frills or wherever you go. You pay 15 per cent tax

on that $4.99, so you pay 60 cents tax. It doesn't sound like a lot but you go

to Nova Scotia, you buy that same product; you pay $2; you pay 30 cents tax. We

pay double the taxes on goods – we pay double the taxes on goods. We can argue

all the time about what we pay in personal income tax. The minister is right: We

do pay on par or less in some instances. With regard to other things, we pay

quite a bit more. It's an unfortunate truth. I don't know that we can afford to

pay more.

Certainly, the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port

had some great points. I listened to this budget debate and one of the things

that we talk about is our ability to generate revenue through taxes. Very little

discussion about generating revenue through an economy. Very little discussion

about ways to create jobs and a path forward. We need to do that. If we want to

attract people, we have to find a way to get people to come here and work. We

have to find out how we do that.

One of the numbers that was floated was $15.3 million

in revenue created from this additional tax. Well, I'd be curious to know if

that $15.3 million is actually factual based on the fact that we're losing 1,100

jobs on the Terra Nova, possibly. Those 1,100 jobs could be a lot more than

1,100 when it spins over into the rest of the economy, if you look at the

indirects.

Then you look at rotational works. The Member for Grand

Falls-Windsor - Buchans made a very good comment about the 20,000 to 25,000

rotational workers and whether or not they decide to stay here. I'll give you a

stat that nobody considers: One rotational worker leaves; it's probably two

people who have very good jobs leaving. It's not just the person that goes away

and works. In most families today, both the husband and the wife or partner

work. If they're doing well, we lose that revenue as a province. Not just the

revenue from the direct income tax, but from the goods and services they buy.

We miss the boat on that all the time. One normally

equals two, and it also equals two or three children. It's families that are

leaving; it's not just individuals. It's families. One per cent doesn't sound

like a lot. The reality of it is that we have to find a way to generate revenue.

I guess if the best we can come up right now is through taxation, then it's

where we have to go.

There are a lot of other places. Actually, the Member

for Lake Melville brought up a very interesting – several times, actually, in

Estimates and he brought it up in one of his speeches this week about stumpage

fees. Why not?

Self-checkouts: Think of going to the store. Me

personally, I refuse to use them. I won't go to them. I won't go to them because

it's jobs. It's people not working and it's businesses making more money. We get

nothing for it, not a cent. Why not tax self-checkouts? Why not find a way to

make people pay for non-service?

Secondary processing: All you have to do is look to the

marijuana industry, aquaculture and different stuff that we have going on here.

Even our fishing industry, per se, and a portion of our forestry and mining.

Everything leaves to be processed. Those are things that we ought to be looking

at here. As a province if we want to become a self-sustainable province, based

on geography and population, we have to find a way to do more. More means

secondary processing and doing things ourselves.

We can. We've proven it. We've done a lot of stuff here

that is a marvel to the rest of the world. You look to the Hebron Project; you

look to Verafin. From a technology – every portion of the sector, everything we

touch we do well at. It's just that we have to get into it and get at it. For

some reason, we don't find ways to do that.

Like the hon. Member for CBS said, I agree. There is no

incentive to come to Newfoundland from a tax standpoint if you look at the big

picture. The big picture isn't necessarily personal income tax. It's everything.

It's the whole package. We have to look at the whole package.

We have to look at what it costs to live here. The cost

of living here is absurd and going to go up. If we don't do something about rate

mitigation, it goes up. We're at a breaking point with people. I get calls all

the time. I said it yesterday when I spoke. I get calls from people all the time

who don't eat steak anymore. Who don't buy certain groceries unless they're on

sale. Who don't have the ability to take their children out to see and do

things. Who have foregone sports because of – it's dire times. Our solution to

create revenue is to raise taxes.

In 2016, the plan was five years. Five years we're

going to have that fixed. This is what this is. The budget is so in five years

we're going to be on par. In 2017, yeah, we're on target; we're going to be

there. In 2018, we're here; we're going to have a balanced budget in 2021. And

2021 is here, guess what? Five-year plan; 2026-2027, we're going to get there.

We're going to raise taxes. It's not austerity this year, but buckle up, it's

probably coming.

DINN:

CHANGE starts here .

PARROTT:

Yeah, CHANGE starts here . Change

started five years ago, apparently, and nothing has changed. Part of the 350

additional fees and taxes that were entered, some of them have been rolled back.

The levy and a couple of other things. But most of it remains.

You look at certainly the price of fuel. We look at the

price of fuel and we added five cents – and for a reason. There was a reason.

But we ought to have been questioning that reason from the day it was put on

there. How long does it last? How long does it go for? Why didn't the other

companies apply for that same credit? It didn't happen.

When we tax people extra money, it sends a message

about what's to come. Oddly enough, I have had several high-income earners come

to me and say: I am more than willing to do my part. I don't disagree; I'm with

it. I've had several.

I've also had several come to me and say: I'm already

taxed to death. Their comment was never about their personal income tax. Their

comment was about fuel. It was about timber. It was about groceries. It was

about sports. It was about car renewals. It was about every fee that they pay

for everything in this province that's taxed. Insurance: Talk to the bar owners,

ask them about their insurance. Ask them the best way that you could help

tourism right now: business insurance, get rid of the tax. We hear it all the

time. These tourist operators, they yell it all the time.

House insurance: taxed. Everything is taxed. While I

understand the 1 per cent and I agree with the Finance Minister that the 1 per

cent tax increase puts us not on par – I think we're still a little less than a

lot of the jurisdictions in Atlantic Canada. If you look at the full tax scheme

and what we pay for goods, services and the fees that we have, it's not

acceptable and we need to find ways to be better.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Tourism,

Culture, Arts and Recreation.

CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'll take a few minutes now and talk about a few things

from Budget 2021 . First and foremost,

it's always a privilege to sit here and represent the people of Carbonear -

Trinity - Bay de Verde. Something I've had the pleasure to do now for four

elections and seven or eight years.

Anyway, I want to start off, Mr. Chair, by

congratulating the Class of 2021 who are going through, again, what was not, I'm

sure, the graduation ceremonies and conclusion of high school that they would

have wished, similar to what would have happened to the graduating Class of 2020

as well. We all know that this is a milestone in their lives and, unfortunately,

COVID has altered that.

I wish them all great success: the graduates of

Baccalieu Collegiate in Old Perlican, the graduates of Carbonear Collegiate in

Carbonear and the graduates of Crescent Collegiate in Blaketown. That's where my

constituents actually attend high school, in those three schools. Some of them

spill over into neighbouring districts. It's important that we recognize them in

this important time in their journey.

Mr. Chair, I've heard a lot in the last two weeks about

a vision for the province. I think, in fairness, we all share the same vision. I

have been lucky enough to have two children in post-secondary and I can assure

any Member in this House that every day I sit here and think about their

futures. I can assure you that I will do everything that I can, not only for

them but for any child in this province to have the opportunity to stay here.

But that comes with choices, and hard choices at that, and choices that we've

made in this budget and choices we will have to make going forward.

Again, I've been sitting through budgets since the

budget of 2014, I guess, in some ways, and this is one of the best, balanced

budgets – unfortunately, it's not balanced in fiscal terms – that I've seen in

my time and it lays out a plan. I can assure you our government is committed to

that plan, to get us to where we need to be through these difficult times.

Nobody would have ever predicted four years ago or five years ago we would go

into a pandemic that would last, for all intents and purposes, two years.

I'm going to use two years to segue into the next part

of my comments because I'm going to talk a little about the tourism industry and

the devastation that that felt from COVID-19, and that is one industry that will

not recover until 2022. An excellent plan of

Together.Again , and I thank Public Health officials, Minister

Haggie, the Premier and everybody involved in that for the work they did around

Together.Again . We went into a phase

of it yesterday on June 15, which expanded some of our restrictions, loosened,

and next week we open up to the Atlantic bubble, which is great to see, and I

guess one week later we open up to Canada. I can tell you from talking to

tourism operators the enthusiasm and the amount of activity they're actually

seeing is, I would say, better than expected.

It's still going to be a challenging year. That's why

in this budget, Mr. Chair, we put aside $30 million for the Tourism and

Hospitality Support Program. It's very important to us that we bridge that. I

express it every opportunity that I can to my federal colleagues. We typically

meet every second Thursday with the provincial ministers and federal minister.

One of the things that we all request of Ottawa is that when they look at the

tourism and hospitality industry going into 2022, the wage subsidy and the rent

subsidy programs are something that we feel should be extended for that

industry. This industry is without doubt the hardest hit and it's one that

programs like this ending in September will cause challenges, maybe more than on

some other industries. We will continue to advocate for that.

The Premier's Advisory Council on Tourism brought in

any number of recommendations. We've been fortunate. We've been able to actually

meet most of those recommendations and we will continue to work towards meeting

the ones that are outlined that we haven't been able to achieve just yet. There

are so many. It was great to see, yesterday, when Air Canada released their

summer schedule, the level of activity that they've committed to already to come

back to this province.

We know air access is a tremendous challenge to this

province. Access to this province is always a challenge; I'll focus on air right

now. Air access has always been a challenge, but never so as it is right now,

because the first thing we have to do with regard to air access – and the Member

for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans mentioned it earlier. Air access is not only

about tourism. Tourism helps, but air access is multi-faceted. That's why there

has been a lot of work done interdepartmentally when it comes to air access by

government, realizing that in order to fill up those seats, there are so many

different components.

One of those is business; one of those is people

travelling for work; then it's tourism and all of those. That's how we fill the

seats. We're going to advocate to the airlines to get our capacity back, and

then some. It's going to be a very competitive market in doing that. We're

working with the Department of Finance; with IET, who is the lead, actually, on

air access. We're working with them. We're working with our airport authorities,

Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador and others because it's important we get

that back. That will be one of the challenges going forward.

One of the things next year that we're really looking

forward to – and there will be a lot more, I guess, said about this and a lot

more announced around Come Home Year 2022 early in the fall. We want to make

sure, first and foremost, we get everything we can out of this tourism season.

It's going to be very important next year that we actually all rally around

bringing as many people to this province as possible – our expats, our families

– and showing them.

The Department of Immigration and Population Growth has

been out now advertising the ideas and people's ability to come and work from

home, work remotely, come back and work somewhere else in the world, but

actually do it from here.

Again, one of the things from this year's budget, for

someone from a rural district that has challenges with cellphone coverage, it

was really great to see the $25-million commitment. That is unprecedented, Mr.

Chair. We've gone from a program that we instituted back in 2017, maybe 2018;

we're in to phase three of the now, on cellphone coverage. That leveraged, I

think, practically 4-1 on $1 million, so just imagine what we're going to be

able to do with the commitment of $25 million to connectivity when it comes to

cellular and broadband. That is so important for people who want to work

remotely.

It is also amazingly important for the tourism industry

that we will have that connectivity and people will be able to enjoy those

things on a level. This is not really a Newfoundland and Labrador problem that

is unique to us. I have a brother that lives 45 minutes outside of Calgary and

he doesn't have cellphone coverage. It is a Canadian challenge when you look at

our geography and the way we are built as a country. It is important and the

commitment that we've put forward in this budget is, I think, to be commended,

the amount of activity that this will provide and expansion.

One other thing in my remaining one minute, would be,

again, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and how we have always rolled up our

sleeves to do what is needed to be done. I think, quite literally, right now we

are rolling up our sleeves to get vaccinated. That is so very important when we

talk about the tourism industry and we talk about industry in general. As

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we continue to do that; we get our first shot

and then we get our second shot. Then as Canada moves there as well, we can lift

even more restrictions and we can get back to doing business as normal.

Mr. Chair, I will conclude. I would suspect that in the

next day or so I'll get another opportunity.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The

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

DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will certainly echo the minister's comments about the

need to get people back into this province and to show off what we have to

offer.

I want to take a few minutes to talk about something

that I have brought up already: transition and the need for a transition plan. I

know we are committed to it and I want to talk about the importance of it, to

have one that's nimble. I think it is important, especially when I look at the

people in my district, the families, the businesses there; a transition plan is

something that is going to benefit them. It is also going to benefit – I look at

my daughter. The Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans talked about

attracting doctors, attracting people back here. She just passed here OSCE,

which, as I understand it, is the Objective Structural Clinical Exam. She is now

officially a pediatrician, she can practice anywhere in the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

DINN:

That's Sarah. I'll let her know that I mentioned here in the House. She is going

away for two years to do her fellowship in Calgary. We're hoping that,

obviously, there will be a job for her when she gets back. She does want to come

back to Newfoundland and Labrador. This is her home. I'll talk a little bit more

about that later.

Which is why I think that I come back to why here,

within the House, our leader and our party we've been pushing for a just

transition plan to move from fossil fuel to cash in on the green economy that's

going to benefit workers, that's going to benefit the communities and going to

benefit the people of this province.

I'll ask you this: I'm looking to rent a VHS, can

anyone direct me to a store? No one, not really. I have a bunch of VHS tapes at

home.

HON. MEMBER:

have two in my basement you can have.

DINN:

said store to rent.

I've got plenty of VHS tapes, but here's my thing: 1976

was the advent of the VHS tape, that's when I graduated. Let's talk about

transition. In that time, we had the advent of the camcorder, Blockbuster Video

in 1985 and Jumbo Video in 1987, both of which are now defunct. LCD, the

cathode-ray television went to the LED and plasma you name it. The first digital

video camera in 1993; DVDs and Netflix in 1997. Keep in mind the rapidity at

which change occurred. Because I can remember the debate should I get a Betamax

player or a VHS player? VHS won out. It evolved that quickly, and you couldn't

afford a VHS machine at first, now they're not even a standalone item. They're a

niche market.

DVDs and Blu-ray, again vanished. You couldn't get a

computer at one time. Can you get a laptop now with a DVD? Not likely. It's now

the stick.

Basically, 2003 was the end of the VHS. In 2002, we had

the GoPro. We had YouTube in 2005. Blu-ray, 2006. Blockbuster died in 2010.

Facebook, Snapchat, you name it. You can PVR on your machine, you can delay it,

playback and record multiple – that's the rapidity with technology. So if I were

going to say we need to invest more in VHS, we'd be out of our minds.

I say this because, if anything else, there's a clear

message. It's not the only example, but many examples. In 1903, the first flight

of Wright Brothers. Now, we're looking at sending commercial flights for people

into space – Elon Musk.

I'll ask this question: Does anyone here believe that

oil companies, energy companies don't already have a plan to transition to

alternate energies? My colleague for Lake Melville said check out Suncor and

what they're planning for Alberta. They're already planning massive green

hydrogen for Alberta. Alberta – they're already planning it. They are already

three or four steps ahead.

Why the urgency from us is that we need to make sure

that we are just as many steps ahead. It's encouraging to hear that the province

is already looking at having one drafted for this year, but we need to make sure

that we do not leave our workers behind; that we do not leave our province

behind; that we do not leave our economy behind. We need to look at

diversification and transition.

I listened to the Member opposite talk about the

advancements in crab pots. Our university is part of that, they are going to be

key. Keep in mind also that the move towards a non-fossil fuel world is going to

be driven by a lot of people in this province, across the country who are

pushing for it. Let's not forget Fridays for Future and the protest that took

place on the steps of the Confederation Building. It's coming. Let's be ready

for it. Let's capitalize on it. Let's make sure that we are the leaders in green

energy.

If we're going to go with electrification, then if

indeed the FPSO is at an end, how do we make sure that the workers there are

looked after? Well, let's talk about electrifying this province so that anyone

with an electric vehicle, whether they drive here or rent one here, they can go

anywhere in this province. Let's build the infrastructure. Let's start

capitalizing on it.

So the key thing here is what the Third Party, what the

NDP has been pushing for is about recognizing the reality and making sure that

we're ahead of the game, much like any energy company – they're not even calling

themselves an oil company anymore, it is energy because we will need energy.

There is no two ways about it. But is oil now like the VHS or the DVD or the

next technology? Let's make sure we're on the cutting edge and that the

transition plan in place is not going to disadvantage our workers, our province

and our economy.

I have three minutes, roughly, and I want to talk a

little bit about taxes. Taxes are like anything else, whether I enjoy them or

not – I enjoy a good meal; I don't know if I enjoy painting my house, it's

something that I have to do but I love it when it's done.

Why do we stay here? Why do I live in St. John's, make

this my home when I could easily move to the West Coast where I could pay about

half in insurance premiums? That is what it costs. Car insurance is half the

price of what it costs here. It is a different zone of the province.

I had the opportunity to visit some very beautiful

communities in this province but I will not live there. They're not my home. I

am paying more for living in St. John's in property tax, water tax and so on and

so forth, but this is my home. Because I am paying for the services, I want

roads in front of me, I want a hospital nearby. I want to be able to go out to a

restaurant when I want so I'm going to pay for that. That's the price of living

in this democracy.

Scandinavian countries pay a lot more than we do. To

the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans, he hit the nail right on the head,

you cannot charge taxes and then expect to lower the benefits. That's what we

expect, we will pay it.

A friend of mine, years ago, when we were looking at

the big decision: Do we raise insurance premiums or do we cut benefits? I asked

him: What do you think Leo? He said: For God's sake don't cut benefits, you'll

never miss a benefit until you need it. Raise the premiums and pay for it. So,

yes, my health insurance premiums, I'm paying a premium for it, but like another

friend of mine said: It's like betting on a horse you hope won't win because if

you have to use it, it means you're sick or dead. Hopefully, not both.

I'll talk a little more later about this. The fact is

that we demand certain services. We want certain benefits in this society and we

want a quality of life. So, yes, we pay for the services we need.

At this point, maybe we can't tax our way to prosperity

but I know this much: We cannot cut our way to prosperity either. To me, Mr.

Chair, taxes are about an investment and I'll talk a little bit more about that

the next time.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of

Environment and Climate Change.

DAVIS:

Mr.

Chair, I thank you for the opportunity to speak here today and to follow my

esteemed colleague from St. John's Centre. He sort of gave me a little

opportunity to segue because I started with – his brother from Topsail -

Paradise was what I was going to talk about. I'll get to Topsail - Paradise next

because he's my second favourite Dinn, anyway, so I'm going to get to him next.

First, I would like to say thank you to the people of

Virginia Waters - Pleasantville for placing their confidence in me again in this

election; it's a humbling experience. I know all of my colleagues in this House

feel the same way as I do about how humbling it is to be selected by your peers

and to represent them in this beautiful House of Assembly.

I'd also like to say what a privilege it is to be asked

to join a Cabinet by the Premier, especially in a new portfolio for me:

Environment and Climate Change. I do know the portfolio that the hon. Minister

of Tourism, Culture and Arts and Recreation has because I had held that and I

know how important it is for the industry that we all work towards supporting

them. I know that some hon. colleagues have already mentioned that.

The MHA for St. John's Centre: I have a VHS player and

if you want it, I can give it to you. I'm in a very good mood today to give you

my VHS player. I am really glad, though, that I had the opportunity to follow

the MHA for St. John's Centre –

HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

DAVIS:

That's for the Hallmark movies, yes.

I am really glad, though, I have the opportunity to

follow the MHA for St. John's Centre because he did talk about a great point of

how we do have to transition. I do want to let him know that talking about

electrifying locations across this province for fast-charging stations for

vehicles is a priority of this government and has been for the last number of

years.

This past year we've put in – or are in the process of

putting in – 14 charging stations right across our Island, and I'll go through

some of the locations: St. John's, Holyrood, Whitbourne, Goobies, Port

Blandford, Glovertown, Gander, Bishop's Falls, South Brook, Stephenville, Port

aux Basques, Deer Lake, Rocky Harbour and Corner Brook. That's the 14 that are

in place now and, obviously, we need more than that because we want people to

make the choice to move to an electric vehicle. It's an important piece and it's

a part of our budget movement this year. We're providing $500,000 to encourage

individuals to make that choice, because electric vehicles are a little bit more

costly than internal combustion vehicles right now, although the price is coming

down; they're becoming more affordable.

The federal government has a program in place to the

tune of $5,000; we have a $2,500 program in place, but you need the charging

networks across this province. The hon. Member is correct. That's why there's an

additional 19 that are being put across the province by Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro, which is important, but we're going to need significantly more

than that. That's a commitment that we're making as a government, as the federal

government as well has committed. I know the business community is going to be

putting some in place as well.

I had a conversation with an individual – I think it

was just last week or it could have been late the week before – about taking his

electric vehicle across the Island. I said how much did it cost? He said $6 from

St. John's to the other end of the province for charging stations across the

province. I mean it's impressive. Is there more technology that's going to be

done? Every day technology is improving, as the hon. Member for St. John's

Centre highlighted the transition from Blockbuster to Jumbo to where we are on

Netflix today. I won't rehash that but I think there are a lot of technology

changes that are happening almost minute by minute in that industry. We're

trying to be on the front end of this industry. That's why we put a program in

place to help make individuals want to consider adopting an electric vehicle,

which is an important piece.

In the department that I happen to be the minister of

now, I'm very excited about some of the opportunities that we have coming up for

creating awareness about and education about environmental protections. That's

changing every day. It's getting stronger; more people understand how important

it is to make those choices. It's dramatic, in the last couple of years in

particular, with the youth movement that's happening to try to make people want

to consider what's left for them in the future.

I always go back to a former employer of mine who

always used to say to me that change usually starts with the young people. Seat

belts: Many people in this House of Assembly that are older than I am remember a

time when seat belts weren't the norm. For me, it's always been the norm and for

some of my colleagues on my side of the House it has been, as well as over here

it's been the norm. But the Minister of Health and Community Services remembers

a time when there were no seat belts in the car at all.

From my standpoint, what was always told to me by this

individual was that the reason why he moved to wearing a seat belt was that

every time he got in the car his daughter would tell him: Daddy, put on your

seat belt. So it's always the reminder that comes along with it. I think climate

change and the environment is exactly the same way. The more we openly talk

about it, the more we transition to that, the more young people are bringing

those ideas forward. I encourage them every day to want to speak out with what

they believe is important to them, because it's going to be important to all of

us. We may not see it ourselves today, but it is going to be important to all of

us as we transition, if that's the word of the day.

We've seen some great success from current initiatives

that we have in the Heat Pump Rebate Program, Energy Efficiency in Oil Heated

Homes Program and energy savings programs that we have through takeCHARGE take

action. All of these programs have been successful in their own right. So this

year in Budget 2021 we've decided to

try to help move that reduction in GHG emissions by investing a million dollars

in allocation towards transitioning oil homes to electric homes. Some of those

homes would be more costly than others. That million-dollar investment is going

to help transition some of those homes to make that decision to become more

energy efficient, for one, and hopefully save some money for them, but more

importantly for us, help reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that we all want to

try to do in this province.

I want to take some time to highlight – because I only

have a couple of minutes left – some of the other things that I want people to

consider when you're looking at some things to do in preparation for your

application process for those individual programs. Now that we have the budget

process coming to a close here now, I wanted to make sure when you consider –

and we encourage people, when considering electric vehicles, to meet your family

need. Start to think about that idea.

Seek purchase opportunities at your preferred electric

vehicle dealer. I know one of my colleagues in the House of Assembly was in that

industry before getting to the House of Assembly. He knows significantly more

than I would ever dream to know about that industry. Consider what charging

infrastructure you'd need in your home. Those are some of the things to

consider.

When you're looking at the heating system in your home,

consider if you can put more insulation in. There are programs for that, both

federally and provincially, both in your attic and in your basement. Consider

those options. Bring in the professionals to evaluate those opportunities for

you. Make sure you take the opportunity to ask those questions to our department

or in other areas, through the federal government or through energy auditors

that may be in your community. I encourage you to do that.

Mr. Chair, in my last minute or so, I'd just like to

talk about my second favourite Dinn and his comments that he made previously. He

talked about the menu. I couldn't agree more; that's a great example of how he

talked about the budget being a menu. He didn't know what he was sampling.

Well, on Monday, we voted for what they call

Concurrence. That is essentially all the items on the menu. That's the Estimates

process. We went through line by line, item by item what we could have in each

department. I thought it was an interesting use of the word “menu.” Being a guy

that likes food, like we both do, I think it was a perfect opportunity for us.

He also highlighted some things that I thought was

really interesting. It sort of pivoted me to a particular way of thinking. He

talked about the budget titles over the years. I wanted to go back and highlight

a couple of my favourites. In 2004: Protecting our Future – I loved that title. In 2008:

Securing a Sustainable Future – that

was an interesting one. In 2010, and probably one of the most interesting ones

there: The Right Investments – For Our

Children and Our Future . In 2012:

People and Prosperity – Responsible Investments for a Secure Future . I think

we can all look at budgets and titles and it's all relative to where you are in

the time that you sit.

With the last couple of minutes, I'd just like to say

thank you to the both brothers Dinn for helping me write my speech today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR (Trimper)

Thank you very much.

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

JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm just going to spend a few minutes to talk on the

amendment here today from the minister. Mr. Chair, when you hear that we are on

par with Atlantic Canada, it's true. There is always a balance between what you

would do with the taxes and the revenues that come in. I just want to put it in

perspective about Newfoundland and Labrador. Of course, it's human nature; I

heard one Member talking about you work hard and you play hard. That's so true.

I'll just give an example. We always talk about the expenses that are here and,

at times, it is high in taxes. I'll just give you an example.

I know a person very well in the US; they live in a

compound area. They had to go to the hospital: $1,200 for an ambulance.

Colonoscopy: almost $4,000. When you put things into perspective about

Newfoundland and Labrador – and people know that I'm involved in a few projects

in Africa. Most of the kids can't even afford to go to school. To go to school

for a term in Africa, most of the kids can't afford it. Food, lodging and school

clothes, $241, and they can't afford it. So, Mr. Chair, when you look at the

taxes that's one part, but the life of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I remember when I was with Clyde Wells back in the

early '90s and we brought up the Hibernia and the big cod collapse, and it was

devastating. Everybody in this House of Assembly knew people that had to move

out or had to realign their jobs. But we found a way. We actually found a way in

the province. If you really want something done and resilient, ask

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians because we are resilient.

When you look around this whole province and look at

the beauty we have and the safety we have. There's absolutely no doubt that

people say that their taxes are too high, here's what we should do, and you go

to the next person and they say, no, here's what you should – and that's human

nature. That is human nature, Mr. Chair. The balance for all of this is when you

collect the taxes and get the services. Like I said, I'm voting for the budget

because I will keep the government accountable on the commitment that they made

to follow through, and if they do, that's good.

I go back to '89 when Clyde Wells – and there's always

adjustments made throughout the time, throughout the period. But there's

something we can't forget in this province, Mr. Chair, what a beautiful province

we live in, Newfoundland and Labrador. When you can go and climb the mountains

with safety, when you can walk the streets and not worry about who's carrying a

gun and when you look at your medical – if one of us took a heart attack here

today, it would be just gone and taken care of. That's the kinds of things we

have to look at. We have to find the balance between the taxation and the

services that we have for the people to live.

To me, this amendment that came in, is a balance. I say

to the minister now that I will be voting for it. It is a balance. Of course, no

one wants to have an increase in taxes. No one wants it. I know the Member for

St. John's Centre said it, and it's so true: You don't mind a service until it's

taken away from you. You don't mind a service until it's taken away. But when

you look at – if it's Liberal, PC or NDP in government, there are a certain

number of roads we have to keep clear, a certain number of roads that we have to

maintain and a certain amount of services – water, sewer, health care and

education – that we have to maintain. The balance for us in this House of

Assembly is how do we do it and do it in an efficient and in the best manner to

satisfy the people in the province.

I was in Opposition when the PCs were there. They made

decisions also that they, at the time, thought it was the best decision for the

people of Newfoundland. They probably were. I'm not disputing that a lot of

decisions that were made and I know the Leader of the Opposition has said a

couple of times, when they were in government, and the thing that he said was:

Which school wouldn't you have built? Which road wouldn't you have maintained

for safety? When you sit down and look at that question, it's true. That is

true. Which school wouldn't we have built? We put them in, schools that aren't

safe and that aren't conducive to study. It is a serious question.

I look in Humber - Bay of Islands, for example. Again,

there's the balance for any government, not just the Liberal government now.

It's the balance for any government. You take Lark Harbour. They don't even have

water and sewer completed yet. There was a bit of an issue back years ago when

they wouldn't accept the money. The town at the time had a plebiscite. They

wouldn't accept it, but they still don't have water and sewer in the town, Lark

Harbour. York Harbour doesn't, but they don't want it because the way they built

was more of an acre or a half acre per district. There are services that I'll be

standing up and I'll be going to the Minister of Transportation and

Infrastructure and looking for. Rightly so. But this is where the balance.

Myself and Heather walk a lot and we do a lot of

hiking. If she never said it once, she never said it a hundred times: There's no

better place to live than Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

JOYCE:

When you're up snowshoeing on First, Second Pond and you have the dogs with you

and she looks at you and says: This is my beach; we're safe. We're in an area.

We're out in the wilderness.

Mr. Chair, I'm just trying to put a perspective that

Newfoundland and Labrador is a great place. It's a great place. Labrador, been

up there many, many times as a young fella with Mom and Dad and (inaudible)

many, many times. People are beautiful.

I just want to put this in perspective because we hear

so much. When was the last time any of us walked in St. John's and worried about

someone else with a gun? We haven't. We actually haven't.

I know there's a lot of bantering back and forth and

I'm probably one to banter back and forth.

HON. MEMBER:

No.

JOYCE:

know, Mr. Chair, people don't believe that, but sometimes I do speak my mind.

There's something I'm going to bring up, a bit of

tongue and cheek that I hear. The Member for Torbay –

WALL:

Beautiful Cape St. Francis.

JOYCE:

Beautiful Cape St. Francis. What he said the other day is we have to start

respecting seniors: When am I going to start getting respect?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

JOYCE:

I'm

the only one in this place – and I agree with the Member for Cape St. Francis,

that seniors are a big part of it.

Mr. Chair, we have to look at all the great initiatives

that are in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I understand the

Opposition's role and I understand the independent's role; I understand that,

I've been there. I have been on both sides, I've been lucky. A couple times I've

been on both sides. I've been lucky, Mr. Chair, because you see the perspective.

When the Opposition stands up and asks questions about the budget, that is their

role. When government is up standing and saying that they have all the

information in front of them and they say here's the best decision that we can

make: we have to trust that is the best decision.

I can assure you one thing – and I speak very positive

here today about it all – except for one or two major incidents – and we don't

need to get into none of them, Mr. Chair – the majority of people that have ever

made a decision in this Legislature believes it's the best for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. I'm a firm believer in that. That is what we have to

trust in the government, have to hold the government accountable, but government

will make the best decision.

Mr. Chair, when you look at Newfoundland and Labrador,

we will find a way to get through all this. We will find a way. All of us will

give advice, the government will take some of it. The people, who are very

genius themselves of finding ways to get through things, but Newfoundland and

Labrador, Mr. Chair, is a great place to live. We just have to make it a bit

more affordable.

Mr. Chair, if there is anything I can urge the

government is the most vulnerable – the seniors and the most vulnerable. We in

this House of Assembly, Mr. Chair, we're privileged. We are privileged to be in

this House of Assembly – it is a privilege for us to be here, Mr. Chair, but I

always encourage the government, whichever government it is, make sure your

programs take care of the seniors and the most vulnerable.

It's like mom used to always say: Except for the grace

of God, there goes I. If there is anything I could say to the government, we

have a great place living in Newfoundland and Labrador, we will find a way to

get through all the trials and tribulations that we have, but don't forget the

most vulnerable because they are the ones that will lose out more than anybody

else.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

Any

further speakers?

No? Okay.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of

Treasury Board.

COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank you all for your engagement this morning and

debate and for your consideration of the points that have been made.

I will say that I know a couple of Members had

questions. One was the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands and he asked about

comparators to Atlantic Canada. I will say that our bracket and rates are very

competitive in Atlantic Canada. In fact, in the Budget Speech there is a very

significant graph that really does indicate how much lower we are in some

categories in Atlantic Canada. I will say that if we did adopt the brackets and

rates of Nova Scotia we would collect $187 million more in personal income

taxes. So it is significant.

I'll just give you a couple of examples. If you earn

$150,000, for example, in Newfoundland and Labrador, you pay $19,625 in tax. In

Nova Scotia, you pay $21,561. Just to give you an example. In Quebec, they're

even higher than that.

I will say to the Member for Terra Nova who did

question whether or not we're taking into account all of the taxation levels,

not just the personal income tax. I will say that there was an independent study

done in 2018 – and I'm going to quote from the independent committee's

recommendations. The report goes on to say – and I'm quoting from it: “Overall,

taxation in our province is reasonably comparable to many other parts of Canada.

When provincial, regional, and municipal taxation (including local fees for

essential services such as water, waste water, storm sewer, and garbage

disposal) are combined and compared, Newfoundland and Labrador's taxes are not

unreasonable.”

So just to make sure that people understand that we are

competitive, we should remain competitive, because that does encourage people to

locate and continue to remain in the province. It does help to fund health,

education, transportation and supporting the most vulnerable. I know we all know

how important it is to keep our taxation rates low. We'll continue to ensure

that we do everything that we can to make sure that we remain competitive.

On that note, I'll say thank you, Mr. Chair, and look

forward to moving on to other pieces of legislation, and to the vote on this

one.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

Thank you, Minister.

Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

A bill, “An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000.”

(Bill 14)

CLERK (Barnes):

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK:

Clause 2.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK:

it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative

Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR:

Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All

those against, 'nay.'

It is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000.

CHAIR:

Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All

those against, 'nay.'

It is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report Bill 14 carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the

resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move that the Committee rise and report the

resolution and Bill 14.

CHAIR:

The

motion is that the Committee rise and report the resolution and Bill 14.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the

motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and

ask leave to sit again, the Speaker returned to the Chair.

SPEAKER (Bennett):

Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Lake Melville and Deputy Chair

of Committees.

TRIMPER:

Mr.

Speaker, the Committee of Ways and Means have considered the matters to them

referred and have directed me to report that they have adopted a certain

resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

SPEAKER:

The

Deputy Chair of Committees has reported that the Committee have considered the

matters to them referred and have directed him to report that the Committee have

adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give

effect to the same.

When shall the report be received?

CROCKER:

Now.

SPEAKER:

Now.

On motion, report received and adopted.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that the

resolution be now read a first time.

SPEAKER:

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

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK:

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

“That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting

the imposition of taxes on personal income.”

On motion, resolution read a first time.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that the

resolution be now read a second time.

SPEAKER:

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

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK:

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

“That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting

the imposition of taxes on personal income.”

On motion, resolution read a second time.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, for leave

to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, Bill 14.

SPEAKER:

is moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave

to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, Bill 14,

and that the said be now read a first time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion, that the hon. the Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The Income Tax

Act, 2000,” carried. (Bill 14)

CLERK:

bill,

An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 14)

On motion, Bill 14 read a first time.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that Bill

14 be now read a second time.

SPEAKER:

is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a second time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK:

bill,

An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 14)

On motion, Bill 14 read a second time.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that Bill

14 be now read a third time.

SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that Bill 14 now be read a third time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK:

bill,

An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 14)

SPEAKER:

The

bill has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and

that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill “An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act,

2000,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

(Bill 14)

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Order 6, Bill 15.

SPEAKER:

The

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

COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Government House Leader, that

the Bill 15 be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The

Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2.” (Bill 15)

SPEAKER:

The

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

COADY:

Thank you very much.

I am pleased today to introduce Bill 15. This deals

with tax credits. There is a Dividend Tax Credit contained therein, as well as

the new Physical Activity Tax Credit, which is

section 17.5 of the

Income Tax Act, 2000 . I am going to

deal with the Physical Activity Tax Credit first and then I'll move to the

Dividend Tax Credit.

This is a new tax credit that we've just put in place,

Mr. Speaker; the introduction was part of

Budget 2021 . The Physical Activity Tax Credit is estimated at approximately

$7 million. It will be a helpful incentive for families and individuals as they

look to access sport and recreational activities. It's part of the narrative of

this government to encourage people to have physical activity and health.

Households are able to receive a tax credit up to

$2,000 for physical activity expenses, including memberships, online or in

person, and registration fees. Funding will help improve access to activities,

helping to create a culture where Newfoundlanders and Labradorians place a

greater emphasis on healthier living. It also holds the added benefit of

supporting the local health and wellness industry.

Households can claim the Physical Activity Tax Credit

on their personal income tax return, beginning with the 2021 taxation year.

Please do keep your receipts in order to claim your credit.

An eligible fitness expense must be the cost of

registration in an eligible program of physical activity or membership in an

eligible organization. Generally, such a program must require significant

physical activity contributing to cardiorespiratory endurance plus one of either

muscular strength, muscular endurance, flexibility and/or balance. Activities

such as hockey or soccer or golf, even horseback riding, wheelchair sports,

sailing, bowling, as well as others that require similar level of physical

activity will be consider eligible for the credit.

I encourage everyone to get active, whether online or

in person, participate in physical activity they enjoy and take advantage of

this tax credit. I look forward to seeing the benefits of increased

participation in physical activities in the years ahead.

So that's the

section of the bill that deals with the

physical tax credit. Now I'm going to talk about the Dividend Tax Credit. This

is all part of Bill 15, so it's two different tax credits. The Dividend Tax

Credit includes technical changes that are related to the Dividend Tax Credit

rates. This is related to changes that we just did in personal income tax.

There are currently two provincial Dividend Tax Credit

rates for dividends received by an individual: non-eligible dividends and those

dividends received from small business corporations at 3.5 per cent, and

eligible dividends and those dividends received from large corporations at 5.4

per cent.

The Dividend Tax Credit was designed for the purpose of

tax integration for individuals. Tax integration occurs when the owner of a

corporation has a choice to take income from that corporation through a dividend

or a salary, and it's not influenced by tax treatment. This means that the total

income taxes payed by the corporation, plus those paid by the owner, should be

the same, whether the owner is paid by salary, dividends or a combination of

both.

For example, at the current Dividend Tax Credit rates,

the owner of a small business corporation who receives remuneration, say, of a

$100,000 from a company, would pay $292 more provincial income tax than if they

were paid in salary rather than dividends. So we're fixing all this. This bill

will restore integration for non-eligible dividends and change the rate for

eligible dividends to ensure the effective tax rates remain the same as the rate

for non-eligible dividends.

So just for clarity and for certainty, this is only to

work in conjunction with our personal income tax. So if you own a business, you

can either take your remuneration in dividend or by salary, but you'll be

treated the same under the tax act. The non-eligible Dividend Tax Credit rate,

i.e. dividends received from small business, would decrease to 3.2 per cent from

3.5 per cent, and the eligible Dividend Tax Credit rate – dividends received

from large businesses – would increase to 6.3 from 5.4 per cent. Again, this is

to integrate so that there is no disparity and ensure that we have equality

between both the personal income tax and the Dividend Tax Credit.

So this bill does speak to two tax credits. The

Physical Activity Tax Credit, which I think everyone here would celebrate, to

encourage people to be involved in physical activity. Anything that's

receiptable, Mr. Speaker, pretty much, is qualified. We'll get into some of

those nuances, I'm sure, during –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The level of conversation is getting too high.

Thank you.

COADY:

I'm

sure we'll get to those during debate if there are any, as we go clause by

clause. Then, of course, the Dividend Tax Credit, which I just explained, is to

ensure that we have what I'm going to call tax integration for individuals.

I hope that was clear, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward

to the discussion and debate this afternoon.

Thank you.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I move that we adjourn debate and recess until 2 p.m.

SPEAKER:

This House does stand recessed until 2 p.m.

Recess

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett):

Are

the House Leaders ready?

Admit strangers.

Order, please!

Statements by Members

SPEAKER:

Today we will hear statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Lake

Melville, Bonavista, Cape St. Francis, Baie Verte - Green Bay, Conception Bay

East - Bell Island and St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, with leave.

The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

TRIMPER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I'm pleased to recognize the staff and

volunteers who operate Apenam's House in North West River, Labrador. For the

last five years, this facility has supported those who struggle with addictions

and other mental health illness.

Thanks to the dedication of those involved, the

treatment centre has continued to operate during the pandemic and other crises

for the people of Sheshatshiu and surrounding communities. Hard work has ensured

that their clients do not have to leave Labrador to receive their needed care.

The facility is named in honour of Apenam Pone Sr., the

first Innu man to attend treatment at the Brentwood Recovery Home in Ontario.

When he returned home, he was determined to use the knowledge gained to help his

own people with their addictions. He recognized the challenge of having to leave

Labrador to access mental health care and then return home without the necessary

support. Apenam's House overcomes this problem. It is directly modelled after

the lessons taught by this respected Innu elder.

I would like to ask the House of Assembly to join me in

thanking all of the team at Apenam's House and for the support of those most

vulnerable in our society.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Bonavista.

PARDY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to acknowledge the community

outreach from Rex Parsons of Bloomfield. Rex, 88 years young, served in the

Royal Canadian Air Force for a short period of time and is a descendant of a

marine family.

His father, Skipper Jim, and grandfather, owned and

operated the schooner the Millie Ford

that fished off the Coast of Labrador and transported freight to and from

Labrador and the Northern Peninsula. In 1945, without ship-to-shore nor radar,

they travelled to Hudson Bay.

Since 2007, Rex and his wife, Rexine, began calling

people in the Bloomfield and Musgravetown area to wish them a happy birthday or

anniversary. Often, they would sing their greeting. Upon Rexine's passing in

2009, Rex continued the tradition. He will often contact others within the

communities to track down phone numbers for those celebrating their special day.

Many eagerly await Rex's annual call. One recent recipient commented, I was

waiting for your call, when they answered his phone call.

I ask the Members of the 50th House of Assembly to join

me in issuing a sincere thank you to Mr. Rex Parsons for his thoughtful,

considerate and commendable community service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

WALL:

Mr.

Speaker, the Pouch Cove Volunteer Fire Department was formed in June 1975, and

over the past 46 years has provided outstanding fire and emergency services to

Pouch Cove and Bauline. Currently, the department has 32 members, of which 29

are trained in Level I and Level II offensive and defensive response.

On June 1, 2017, the department expanded their response

criteria to include Code 4 medical calls, greatly improving response times to

medical emergencies in both communities. Ongoing weekly training, including

American Sign Language and autism first response, accompanied by modern

firefighting equipment, including a 2020 Freightliner Pumper added to the fleet

in August of last year, makes the department very capable to handle emergency

needs from both towns.

Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to recognize Chief Derek

Sullivan on his 30 years of service to the department, the last eight years as

chief. His dedication and daily attention to his department's needs is

unparalleled, which is shown by the level of respect his members and the

residents of the communities have for him.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in

thanking the Pouch Cove Volunteer Fire Department for their outstanding service

and dedication to the residents of Pouch Cove and Bauline.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay.

WARR:

Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to congratulate all 2021 high school graduates of the

District of Baie Verte - Green Bay.

Cape John Collegiate, located in La Scie, MSB Regional

Academy in Middle Arm, St. Peter's Academy in Westport, Dorset Collegiate on

Pilley's Island, Valmont Academy in King's Point and Indian River High School in

Springdale have each held their graduation ceremonies. Graduates of Copper Ridge

Academy in Baie Verte are planning their celebration this upcoming weekend.

Due to COVID-19 restrictions, high school graduates

were unable to celebrate in the traditional manner, including gatherings with

parents, families and friends; however, students and teachers alike were

creative in ways to celebrate this momentous occasion. Students have proven a

pure will to succeed, studying virtually and adapting to protocols and

electronic tools to complete high school requirements.

I ask all my hon. colleagues to join me in

congratulating the 2021 high school graduates of Baie Verte - Green Bay District

and the very best in their post-secondary education and future endeavours.

Baie Verte - Green Bay, Mr. Speaker, is in the greatest

of hands.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my honour today to recognize and congratulate the

12 national medallists from Team Newfoundland and Labrador that competed in the

first ever Skills Canada Virtual National Competition.

I speak of Julia Keefe, bronze in Workplace Safety;

John Bugden, bronze in IT Network Systems Administration; Emily Reynolds, bronze

in Electronics; Olivia Taylor, bronze in Public Speaking; Emma Lucas, bronze in

Photography; Lee Peters, silver in Job Skill Demonstration; Greg Abbott, silver

in Plumbing; Stacey Frost, silver in Architectural Technology & Design; Kelly

Whelan, gold in 3D Digital Game Art; Brianna Russell, gold in Job Search; Nick

Clarke, gold in Industrial Control; and Brendan Smith, gold in Refrigeration &

Air Conditioning.

This couldn't have happened without dedication from

parents, coaches, committee members and the board and staff of Skills Canada

Newfoundland and Labrador. I would be remiss not to mention Mr. John Oates who

recently passed on May 12. John dedicated much of his life to Skills Canada in

our province, country and at the world level. Combined, these efforts helped

Team Newfoundland and Labrador take their place on the national stage yesterday.

I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating

these difference makers in this province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, with leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Leave.

SPEAKER:

Leave granted.

ABBOTT:

Mr.

Speaker, today I wish to congratulate the St. John's Amateur Baseball

Association as it celebrates 75 years of baseball in the City of St. John's.

Many of the city's finest athletes have had the

pleasure of participating in the league since its inception in 1947, and that

would include our own MHA for Virginia Waters - Pleasantville.

St. Pat's Ballpark – which was built by the American

servicemen stationed in the city during and after the Second World War – has

been home for the league for most of its 75-year history, which includes Holy

Cross Crusaders capturing the first-ever championship in 1947.

Thanks to the dedication of the many volunteers who

have given unselfishly of their time, baseball has been elevated to one of the

premier summer sports for youth and adults alike here in the province.

I would like to congratulate Mark Healey for offering

himself as president of the board for the past 12 years.

Last Saturday, I was joined by MP Jack Harris, Mayor

Danny Breen, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, and other guests,

including 94-year old Jack Janes who played with the 1947 Holy Cross Crusader

champions, to celebrate the opening of the 75th season.

I ask Members to join me in extending best wishes to

the St. John's Amateur Baseball Association, its players and fans for this year

and subsequent years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Pride Month is a time to recognize and

celebrate the diversity and inclusion of the 2SLGBTQQIA+ people.

That's why it was deeply disturbing to hear recent

reports of pride flags being stolen from schools, with at least one reportedly

trampled and burned.

There is no place for such intolerance in our province,

Mr. Speaker.

Several years ago we saw the presence of the rainbow

crosswalks causing disturbances in some areas of the province. It is important

that we move past this as a province to ensure members of the 2SLGBTQQIA+

community feel welcomed wherever they are.

Today, displaying the rainbow is seen as a symbol of

support, safety, strength, inclusion and pride. We see rainbow crosswalks and

flags throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, including here at Confederation

Building.

We must all promote safety and inclusion in our

communities, including our schools, so people are free to be authentic versions

of themselves.

We are richer as a province because of the diversity of

our people who live here. There is room for us all.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me today in

calling out hate and intolerance when we see it, and celebrating 2SLGBTQQIA+

people all they add to our communities, our province and our great country.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

I thank the minister for an advance copy of her

statement.

Mr. Speaker, the acts of hatred and intolerance which

we have witnessed have no place in this province. We cannot and we will not

tolerate hatred toward any group in society.

As this is Pride Month, I want to take this opportunity

to recognize and celebrate the inclusion and diversity of people who identify as

two-spirit, LGBTQQIA+. As the risk of repetition, I want to be clear, members of

the 2SLGBTQQIA+ community are welcomed in this province.

Mr. Speaker, our province is a better place because we

have so many people with different life experiences and differing backgrounds. I

support the minister when she says there is room here for all of us.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of her

statement and join her in condemning the stealing and the desecration of the