June 16, 2015
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVII No. 32
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Verge):
Order, please!
Admit strangers.
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Today we will hear members' statements from the members representing the
Districts of Humber East, Exploits, Port de Grave, St. John's North, Baie
Verte Springdale, and The Straits White Bay North.
The hon. the Member for the District of Humber East.
MR. FLYNN:
Mr. Speaker, ALS is a rapidly progressive fatal neuromuscular disease that
attacks a select group of nerve cells and pathways in the brain and spinal
cord which leads to progressive paralysis of the muscles.
In any one year, up to 3,000 Canadians live with ALS and two to three
die each day.
The ALS Society of Newfoundland and Labrador, whose
head office is situated in Corner Brook, was formally established in 2006.
Prior to that, the Corner Brook chapter was associated with the ALS
Society of Canada.
Each year in June, the ALS Society of Newfoundland and
Labrador sponsors a walk as its major fundraiser.
Every dollar raised goes to provide equipment, support services,
education for the ALS community, and fund research to find a cure.
Since 2010, the group in Corner Brook alone has raised nearly
$210,000 with the ALS Walk.
On the walk this past Sunday, more than $31,000 was
raised in Corner Brook. I want
to congratulate the staff person, Cheryl Power, the Board of Directors,
volunteers and participants for another successful ALS Walk.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all hon. members join me in
congratulating the ALS Society of Newfoundland and Labrador on their
continued efforts to support those with this terrible disease.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the District of Exploits.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. FORSEY:
Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, May 21, Brian Tremblett was inducted as the first
Lifetime Achievement recipient with the Bishop's Falls Minor Hockey.
Brian has served as President of the Bishop's Falls
Minor Hockey for ten years and has coached at many different levels, all the
way up through the minor hockey system and including the Grand Falls-Windsor
Cataracts.
Brian was selected as Volunteer of the Year, a Minor
Hockey Meritorious Award, the Joe Byrne Honour Award, and received Hockey
Canada's Junior Hockey recognition Award.
He ran Hockey Safety Clinics for trainers, facilitated Speak Out for
Hockey Canada for the prevention of abuse and harassment.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me
in congratulating Brian Tremblett on being the first recipient of the
Lifetime Achievement Award.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LITTLEJOHN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to recognize the municipality of
Spaniard's Bay on the occasion of their fiftieth anniversary of
incorporation. The town dates
back to the 1700s and today has some 2690 residents.
Incorporated in 1965, the original town ran east to west along the CB
Highway. Through the years, the
town expanded in various directions ending the expansion with the annexation
of Tilton in 1991.
Mr. Joe Peddle, ninety-eight, was an original member of
that first council led by Mayor Calvin Gosse.
Mr. Peddle sang the blessing for the nearly 200 in attendance and was
given a standing ovation.
Present Mayor, Tony Menchions, spoke of the many
changes which have taken place in the last fifty years.
He highlighted some of the differences in cost.
The town approved fifty street lights in 1965 at a cost of $212 a
month. Today, that cost exceeds
$100,000 annually. The first
motion of council to approve road work to be completed by Transportation and
Works was at a cost of $7.20 per hour for a loader operator and the work was
not to exceed $300. A far cry
from today's costs for repairs.
I ask all members to join me in congratulating the
municipality of Spaniard's Bay on fifty years of incorporation.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's North.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, I stand today to congratulate Mike and Annie Power who recently
celebrated their fiftieth wedding anniversary on May 29.
Like many couples in the City of St. John's, Mr. and
Mrs. Power first met while on a roller skating outing at Memorial Stadium.
In fact, the Powers continued to roller skate at the stadium for
years afterwards and actually took their children there to enjoy the
time-honoured tradition.
Mike grew up in Corner Brook on the West Coast and
spent his career working as an electrician.
Annie, whose maiden name is Hart, was born and raised in St. John's
and worked in the provincial public service.
In the years after the Powers were married at the
Basilica Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, they lived and raised a family
in Virginia Park. Their four
daughters all still live in the City of St. John's.
They have a very close family that includes their eight grandchildren
and three great-grandchildren.
These days Mr. and Mrs. Power enjoy their retirement
together, especially the time they have to spend with their grandkids.
I ask all hon. members to join me in wishing a very
happy fiftieth wedding anniversary to Mike and Annie Power.
Congratulations.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Baie Verte Springdale.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. POLLARD:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Born at 12:39 a.m. on January 1, 2015 at Grand
Falls-Windsor hospital, Richelle Sandra Marie Bonnie Shiner made her special
debut. Mr. Speaker, four pounds
and 8.5 ounces, Richelle was not just the first baby born in Newfoundland
and Labrador in 2015, but also the first in Canada.
Her parents, Rick and Sandra, live in Springdale and
were overwhelmed and extremely grateful to have their first girl join their
family of four boys: R.J., Boyd, Brent, and Byron.
Richelle was due to arrive on February 26, but was
delivered two months prematurely by emergency C-section.
Her proud parents are hopeful that the birth is a sign that their
daughter will do something big in life.
Also special is that baby Richelle was born on her mom's birthday,
giving her mom a double blessing.
In addition, at just five days old, Richelle had her
first photo shot, as the cover girl with
Maclean's magazine.
With such a unique entrance, her mother hopes that Richelle has big
plans to impact this world.
Honourable colleagues, please join me not only in
congratulating Sandra and Rick, her parents, but also in welcoming baby
Richelle as Canada's first 2015 baby who has already warmed all of our
hearts.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, on Saturday I attended the thirty-third Annual Ceremonial
Review for RCSCC 285 Leif Erickson Sea Cadets in St. Lunaire-Griquet.
It was an honour to serve as reviewing officer for the sixteen
members, inspecting uniforms, the commitment cadets took to honour their
troop, and watch their drills performed with precision.
On June 3, members of 774 St. Anthony and area Air
Cadet Squadron had their forty-seventh Annual Ceremonial Review; acting as
reviewing officer for their twenty-member squadron was RCMP Corporal Mike
Babstock. Beaumont Hamel is in
their plan for Honour 100.
Knowledge, confidence, and self-esteem are fostered as
a cadet. Each evening they learn
drills, band and technical skills, but equally important is the strong part
of the core trainings of leadership and citizenship.
They learn to be leaders, mentors, and team players.
Their dedication is immeasurable, as is the dedication of their
leaders.
I ask all members to recognize Sea Cadets Commanding
Officer Lieutenant (Navy) Debbie Humby, Lieutenant (Navy) Christopher Humby,
Sub-Lieutenant Sabrina Humby; Acting Sub-Lieutenants Diane Snow and Ida
Roberts, and Civilian Instructor Karen Bussey; Air Cadets Commanding Officer
Captain Beverly Scott, DCO and Training Officer Captain Godfrey Mitchelmore,
Assistant Training Officer Louise Reid, and Supply Officer Krista Diamond.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Acting Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY:
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to recognize and commend the
outstanding leadership of Marie Woodford, a humanitarian and Grade 9 teacher
at Crescent Collegiate. Under
her direction, students at Crescent Collegiate, the community of Blaketown,
as well as numerous schools throughout the Province helped to ensure that
105 orphans in Uganda have a new school.
In 2007, Ms Woodford travelled to Africa and spent a
semester teaching in Mombasa, Kenya.
This experience opened her eyes and left her wanting to do more for
children in Third World countries.
While teaching at Holy Trinity High School in the
2013-2014 school year, Ms Woodford's class participated in a global
initiative for children in an orphanage in Uganda.
It was here she learned more about the orphanage and the need for
them to have a school. Ms
Woodford then moved to Blaketown to teach at Crescent Collegiate, and along
with her class put out a call-to-action to schools across the Province.
Mr. Speaker, the call was answered.
Students from Crescent Collegiate, Holy Trinity High School, Roncalli
High, Amos Comenius Memorial High School, Holy Cross Elementary, Immaculate
Conception, Goulds Elementary, and pre-school students from the Little
People's Workshop made clothes, artwork, collected donations and school
supplies, all in an effort to make this school a reality.
In March of this year, Ms Woodford travelled to Uganda
to help build the school and hand-deliver the items made by students in our
Province. The children in this
small town in Uganda started a new semester in their new school just this
past May.
Mr. Speaker, the students of this Province, under the
leadership of Ms Woodford, have truly made a difference in the lives of
these children in Uganda and have also experienced the impact of this
outreach in their own lives. I
ask all hon. members to join me in thanking Ms Woodford for her leadership
and dedication. She represents
the true Newfoundland and Labrador spirit of giving and we are all very
proud.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's North.
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thanks to the minister for an advance copy of his
statement. I gladly join with
all the members of the House to commend the exceptional leadership and
humanitarian spirit shown by Ms Marie Woodford.
Her teaching approach certainly underscores that education does not
always come in the form of text, and the most important teacher oftentimes a
student can have is one that inspires them.
Inspires them to reach higher, to go that extra step, to get to know
oneself better, and to open themselves to doing good in the world.
Ms Woodford is a shining example of what a great
teacher in action can be, and I cannot help but be impressed with her work,
and I am very proud to say she is one of our own teachers here in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
I would also like to congratulate the students at
Crescent Collegiate, the community of Blaketown, as well as the numerous
schools throughout the Province who have stepped up to make a difference in
the world, Mr. Speaker. There
can be no better education than that.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his
statement. I am very pleased to
join him in honouring Marie Woodford for her achievements in making it
possible for students here to contribute to the building of a school in
Africa.
She is to be admired for following through on her
earlier desire to do more for children in Africa who need our help.
We are lucky to have teachers like Marie who can give children a
global experience outside of their own community, even outside of their own
country, and the opportunity to discover that every small contribution
combined with those of others helps to make things happen.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CRUMMELL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House to note that the
Town of Petty Harbour Maddox Cove recently became the seventieth
municipality to partner in BizPal.
Introduced to the Province in 2009, BizPal is a
federal-provincial-territorial online information service that helps local
entrepreneurs save time and money by simplifying the process of obtaining
permits and licences.
Mr. Speaker, the BizPal service begins by prompting
clients with a list of questions about their business venture.
Responses are then used to generate a customized list of all permits
and other regulatory approvals that must be obtained in order to operate a
specific type of business. The
process is completely confidential it is not necessary for users to
provide identifying information to access the system, and no information is
stored about the user. The goal
is to provide business owners with accurate, accessible, complete and
current information about the requirements they must satisfy at the
municipal, provincial, and federal levels of government.
The fact that municipal participation in BizPal has
grown so quickly speaks to the value of this initiative.
Statistical tracking shows that the Newfoundland and Labrador BizPal
website is accessed thousands of times each month by local businesses, as
well as potential business operators from foreign countries, which
demonstrates how this initiative supports business activity.
Service NL has been actively encouraging municipalities to join, and
to date, the department has added an average of ten municipalities a year.
I encourage municipal leaders to make contact with Service NL if they
would like more information about how they can use BizPal to support new
ventures in their community.
Mr. Speaker, Service NL has a mandate to make
government services more readily available to the people of the Province,
and our involvement with BizPal is one of many ways we are fulfilling that
mandate. Our government has
always been very supportive of the small and medium-sized firms that drive
our economy. We will continue
these efforts through BizPal, and through the comprehensive suite of
programs delivered by the Department of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural
Development.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage business owners, prospective
entrepreneurs, and my colleagues in this hon. House to experience this great
service first-hand by visiting
www.bizpal.gov.nl.ca,
and then spread the word about this initiative.
Fostering new business success is important, and BizPal is helping us
do that in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I once again would like to thank the minister for a
copy of his daily Ministerial Statement.
Mr. Speaker, we want to recognize the Town of Petty
Harbour Maddox Cove for getting involved with the BizPal program.
Certainly, BizPal is a good program.
It is actually one that was developed by the Northeast Avalon RED
Board. At the time I can
remember being on city council when they had actually brought this
initiative forward to government, and I am certainly glad that government
did adopt it. Anything we can do
to encourage business growth, to have opportunities as it is with BizPal for
businesses, or perspective businesses, or business wanting to expand and to
have that ability to be able to go in a very orderly way and find out the
types of permits and so on they would need to operate a business.
Anything we can do in that regard is a positive thing.
The only other comment I would make, Mr. Speaker, is
given the fact that BizPal does use information technology, I am kind of
surprised that the government did not have to hire a consultant to show them
how to use it.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to thank the minister for the advance copy
of his statement here today.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is one success I think that this side of the House
can certainly back. Surprising
though to learn that there are only seventy municipalities that have taken
advantage of this so far out of 276 municipalities here in the Province.
Being the spur to small and medium-sized business that this program
is, I am surprised other municipalities have not taken advantage of it.
So I would ask government, number one, to push this with
municipalities and encourage them to sign up because this is an employment
creator too, at the same time.
Mr. Speaker, the other thing we learned from this, of
course just playing with this we also learned a little bit about how far
the Red Tape Reduction Strategy has proceeded.
Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind the member his time has expired.
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday, when talking about the scathing report by
the Auditor General, the Premier said we have to rely on the expertise of
what is in the department, but in the next breath he said he was hiring
external consultants to draft guidelines for hiring external consultants.
I ask the Premier: This department has been around for
ten years, why are you now hiring an external consultant to now draft
guidelines on how you should hire external consultants?
Shouldn't that oversight already been available in this government?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, as I outlined yesterday, IT services
throughout government, and government being such a large entity, and IT
services are very complicated. I
talk to business people who even talk about small businesses and the
incredible investments they have to make to ensure their IT systems and
operations are up to speed so that they can continue to be competitive and
work at a vibrant pace and do their work effectively and efficiently.
Mr. Speaker, we want to make sure we are getting best
value from our IT services, which is the Office of the Chief Information
Officer, known as OCIO. I said
yesterday, I am not an expert.
The ministers here are not experts in IT and how they operate.
We want to make sure it is operating properly, and we are going to
get a consultant to do that for us.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier's RFP for guidelines for hiring consultants
that he released yesterday is very basic.
It calls for a review, number one, of what the department is already
doing; number two, a jurisdictional review; and three, the recommendations
on how they could improve. The
Auditor General has already made several recommendations.
It is obvious that one of them this government should start by not
paying consultants who do not submit bills.
I ask the Premier: Response to the AG's comments about
OCIO was that you were going to hire a consultant, but what about the other
departments, Transportation and Works as an example, that the AG flagged?
Is that again hiring of more consultants?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We value the work of the Auditor General.
We have said that many times.
It is very true that we do.
The Auditor General plays a significant role in the operation of
government. It brings an outside
view, a very high-level view, a fresh set of eyes, if I can use that phrase,
Mr. Speaker, on the operations in government and how we operate.
We have a lengthy history of responding to Auditor
General's reports, which are done annually, and taking his recommendations
and turning them into improved policies, guidelines, and delivery of
programs and services of the Province.
That is what we intend to do now, Mr. Speaker.
We are still going through; we are analyzing the
information provided by the Auditor General.
We want to fully understand all of his recommendations, Mr. Speaker.
Once we understand, then we look at concepts and ways to make
improvements as recommended by the Auditor General.
It is a process that is ongoing in government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We all know this is a Premier who likes to do his own
report cards. Yesterday and he
just made those comments again.
He said we demonstrate year over year that we respond to the Auditor
General's recommendations. The
truth is government repeatedly fails to fully implement the AG's
recommendations in the required time frame, often only reaching the target
for a full completion after six years.
I ask the Premier: People expect financial oversight,
they expect accountability, why are you not strongly and decisively making
the changes you need to make as recommended by the AG that you just said you
value?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, we have to look at some of the recommendations that the Auditor
General makes require ongoing changes and ongoing actions by government
not just one time or for one year, but year after year after year.
If you look at 2009, the Auditor General had recommended a 90 per
cent implementation yes, we reached that, but not only that, we are at 97
per cent if you include implementing recommendations that are underway in
our ongoing efforts by government 2010, 92 per cent; 2011, 95 per cent.
So, Mr. Speaker, we continue, as I said there is no
argument to be made where we take the recommendations of the Auditor General
very seriously, we continue to work on them and improve efficiencies within
government, and to provide programs and services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, the Premier likes to throw around some numbers,
so we will just throw around some of them ourselves.
Government uses the phrase, like 90 per cent, and they attach that to
90 per cent completed or in progress when they boast about their success, as
the Premier just did.
Progress does not mean done, I say, Mr. Speaker.
Things like unsafe food, wasteful spending, not following the rules,
I say. Seventy-one new
recommendations, plus 176 we do not know the completion status, yet another
131 still not done from previous AGs' reports.
So I ask the Premier: When should the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador expect these 380 recommendations that would
protect public money and public safety to be done?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, we are certainly down in the weeds in Question Period today,
but I do not mind doing that; I do not mind answering the questions.
If in recent years, if the member opposite wants to look at, prior to
this report, 588 recommendations have been reviewed, 549 have been fully or
partially implemented 549 out of 588.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
The Leader of the Opposition, if you listen to my answer I know he is
talking over there again now, Mr. Speaker it was 97 per cent I said that
was fully or partially implemented, not 90 per cent.
Look, very clearly, we take these reports seriously.
The Auditor General provides a valuable service to Newfoundland and
Labrador, to our government, and to the people of the Province.
He has a role to play, and he provides benefit to taxpayers of
Newfoundland and Labrador, and we take his recommendations.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This morning the Premier said that we can expect a term
sheet on Statoil's Bay du Nord oil development in the coming weeks.
He later backtracked saying that he could not say if it would be
announced before the November election.
Media are reporting that the industry was caught off guard by the
Premier's comment.
So I ask the Premier to clarify: Are you planning on
announcing a term sheet with Statoil in the coming weeks or not?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With due respect to the member opposite, I think he may
have some of his facts just a little bit confused over on this matter as
well, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, what I said this morning, and I can tell you, I speak for
members on this side of the House, we are very optimistic about the future
of oil and gas in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
While members opposite like to take a very pessimistic view, they like to
look at what has happened in the Province, they talk how bad the economy is,
they talk how bad the circumstances are in the Province, well the over 800
people this morning at Noia do not agree, Mr. Speaker.
They were at the Noia conference, the annual conference, because they
believe in the future of oil in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, as
do we.
I can tell you, Statoil is going to be a big part of
the future in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Statoil is currently on an eighteen-month drilling
program that will not finish until May of 2016, I say to the Premier.
Their vice-president said they need information from that program
before a decision can be made on the development.
However, the Premier is rushing this process and has mandated his
minister to get a deal in 2015.
That is months before the drilling program is finished.
We have seen this before.
We have seen it with CETA.
The Premier is again showing symptoms of deal fever, I say, Mr.
Speaker.
I say to the Premier: Why are you rushing this process
before the drilling program is finished, without even knowing how much oil
is there?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, let me be clear for the member opposite, and let me calm his
concerns over there, because I tell you, all of the people in the room at
Noia this morning agree there is a great future in the oil business for
Newfoundland and Labrador, much like we have enjoyed over the last decade
where oil revenues have transformed our Province.
They have transformed industry and business, Mr. Speaker, right here
in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Those royalties are being used to diversify our economy, grow an economy,
and solidify our future as a Province, Mr. Speaker.
The member opposite wants to raise CETA and I will be
clear on CETA with the member opposite as well, Mr. Speaker, because we are
clear on CETA. The federal
government came to us and asked us to give up our MPRs.
They are our jurisdictional authority.
As long as I am in this seat, we will not give up those MPRs until
the federal government lives up to their obligation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I remind the Premier, he does not have to negotiate.
All he has to do is ask for them, they will just exempt him anyway, I
say to the Premier.
Mr. Speaker, we all know how turbulent the oil industry
is right now and the many unknowns around Bay du Nord discovery.
Even the company says they will not know if there can be a
development before May 2016. The
Premier went ahead and mandated his minister to get a deal before 2015.
This severely weakens the Province's negotiating position.
I ask the Premier: What other reason could you have to
rush a deal other than wanting to announce it before a November election?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we hear the member opposite raising his
voice, and we have to wonder why he is becoming nervous.
I guess he just told us why he is becoming nervous because there is
nothing he would hate to see more than us to achieve a good deal for the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
I assured the people this morning, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER DAVIS:
I also told the media this morning when they asked a similar question, this
is too important for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
This is a valuable asset, Mr. Speaker, that is going to be produced
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER DAVIS:
It is going to produce revenues for our Province for the next fifty or sixty
years, Mr. Speaker. I tell you
the one thing I will not do, I will not sign a deal and we will not do a
deal with Statoil unless it benefits Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.
MR. LANE:
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance challenged me to review
Hansard because he claimed my question regarding the operation of the OCIO
had been answered. I reviewed
the record. In it the minister
talks about an RFP seeking out IT expertise.
He obviously did not understand the question.
The AG's criticism had nothing to do with IT; it had to do with
paying out $1.3 million in unsupported travel claims to consultants.
I ask the minister: Are you sure that the expertise
needed to do basic bookkeeping work is not readily available inside
government today?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN:
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted the member opposite decided to check Hansard
because he would have understood clearly the scope of the answers provided
by both the Premier and myself in response to questions from the Opposition
yesterday. He would have clearly
understood. In fact, if he had
taken the time to explore a little further if he had explored a little
further, in fact, about an hour or so after we had Question Period in the
House, Justice officials had finished the review of the RFP and it was on
the street I say, out for public view.
All he needs to do is look at the section of that RFP
that talks about the scope of work, and there are eight or nine, or seven or
eight bullets there that lays out the scope of the work to be done.
In fact, it is on the first three or four pages.
I think it is section 1.6 to be exact.
So I will give the member some clear direction which will clearly
point him to what it is we are looking for as we go to the street looking
for some advice.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.
MR. LANE:
Mr. Speaker, the minister is trying to deflect from the facts in the AG's
report, hiring consultants to review consultants, talking about IT
expertise, and trying to confuse the public with his non-answers.
It does nothing to lessen the reality.
The OCIO spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars without
proper oversight, all done on this government's watch.
I ask the minister: Why not do your job, implement the
AG's recommendations in-house and stop wasting taxpayers' money on more
consultants?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN:
Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, and let me repeat again.
We respect the advice of the Auditor General.
In fact, we have started the implementation of many of the
recommendations in this year's report.
What I also said yesterday when the member checked
Hansard he would have seen this as well the Auditor General reviewed a
period of time from 2009 to 2011.
Since that time, we have made significant changes in our internal
processes. What we want to do
now, Mr. Speaker, is to make sure that those changes not only reflect a
satisfactory response to the Auditor General's report, we want to supplement
what he did. We want to make
sure that what we have actually instituted represents current day best
practices.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier was Minister of Transportation and Works
for a full year during the AG review.
He was also Minister of Health, which was one of the departments
involved. He was also Premier for
part of the time during which the AG conducted the review.
Mr. Speaker, almost 70 per cent of the contracts looked at during the
AG review received payments without approval.
I ask the Premier: While you were minister you allowed
payments to be made to consultants without Treasury Board approval, why?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, as the Premier has outlined, we take the Auditor
General's report very seriously, and we complement the work he has done.
In this case, there were two recommendations relevant
to Transportation and Works. One
was around the guidelines covering hiring of external consultants, and he is
asking that we follow what we had outlined as our process.
I have since written back through my officials to the Auditor General
and said, yes, we will. We
understand the process, we are complying there.
The second was that we would continue to use the evaluation process
around consultants to ensure when we hire consultants that we have the full
gamut of their professional skills, and we are continuing to do that.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, the rules are in place.
They do not need somebody to tell them they should follow the rules.
They should know that if they were honourable as government.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. OSBORNE:
The Premier, Mr. Speaker, was minister
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. OSBORNE:
I asked the Premier, and I will ask him again: Did he allow payments to be
made to consultants without Treasury Board approval, and why?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, we had a number of contracts with proponents here, particularly
those that are on our consultant's registry, that outline exactly needs that
were outlined in specific areas in this community.
We went to the market. We
identified people who could provide those services.
We paid exactly what we contracted for, no additional monies.
All the money spent went exactly into a service that was provided by
those individuals, a professional service that they were qualified to do.
We continue to do that.
We are now reviewing the process that we use, and we
want to adhere to the recommendations of the Auditor General.
We are ensuring that the process and the policies we follow are in
the best interest of the people of this Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, the Premier did not answer the question, but I will.
He did make payments without Treasury Board approval.
Mr. Speaker, the AG has found that the request for
expressions of interest and direct appointment process does not provide a
competitive, open, fair, or transparent procurement process.
I will ask the Premier: Have you, during your time as
Transportation Minister, directly appointed consultants?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have been following a process, Mr. Speaker, around
identifying consultants in particular areas for a number of decades here.
The multitudes of different Administrations have done that.
We have a registry in place.
It is this Administration that put in a consultant's registry that
ensured those individuals or those companies were qualified to do particular
pieces of work that we would engage them in, and we do that consistently.
What happens here is my staff will come to me; they will make
recommendations based on their professional knowledge.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BRAZIL:
We will then assess exactly the scope of work and the company that is doing
it. We will award that contract,
Mr. Speaker, and the monies that are paid out are those relevant to that
contract and the services provided.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. HILLIER:
Mr. Speaker, in his review of select long-term facilities, the AG discovered
some residents were accidentally being underfed.
One resident was fed half portions for seven full weeks before the AG
discovered this resident should have been fed full portions all along.
Combined with the failure to weigh residents regularly, this neglect
was going unchecked.
I ask the minister: Were the families of these
residents notified of this neglect?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, I have reviewed the Auditor General's report fully.
We take all of the recommendations very seriously, and will follow up
and act upon all of them.
What I do question, though, is the suggestion that
residents in any of our long-term care facilities were neglected.
We have highly trained professionals who work in nationally
accredited facilities who deliver quality care to thousands of residents of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
When it comes to food quality, the menus in our
facilities are approved by a registered dietician.
They adhere to Canada's Food Guide.
There are high standards that are maintained.
Are there quality issues and consistency issues from time to time?
Absolutely, and we want to do everything we can to address those
issues, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. HILLIER:
Yesterday's speaking points, Mr. Speaker.
The AG employed a dietician in his review of long-term
care facilities. That dietician
identified choking hazards not being properly or consistently assessed or
supervised. The minister said in
this House yesterday that long-term care staff does provide supervision.
Similarly, Eastern Health said it believes it provides a supervised
dining experience.
I ask the minister: We are talking about a lack of
oversight endangering the lives of residents of long-term facilities, are
you saying you disagree with the AG's finding on inadequate assessment and
supervision of choking hazards?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, it does not surprise me at all that members opposite would
resort to attacking public servants who deliver high-quality care in our
homes
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KENT:
because that is who they are and that is what they do consistently, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KENT:
I find it offensive.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KENT:
That said, while the Auditor General raises some very real concerns that we
need to look at and fully address
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services,
to continue.
MR. KENT:
Thank you for your protection, Mr. Speaker.
The standards need to be followed.
Any issues at all are too many and they need to be fully investigated
and followed up on. In the
period that the Auditor General examined in our personal care homes
because I think the member is confused about which section of the Auditor
General's report he is referring to.
In that period that was evaluated, there were millions of meals
delivered during that time period.
The incident rate was quite low, but any incidents at all are quite
concerning, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. HILLIER:
I remind the minister, Mr. Speaker, we are not talking here about personnel;
we are talking about the lack of government oversight.
Mr. Speaker, again, we speak in terms of the number of
meals involved. There were six
six occurrences in the fifty-two assessed meal trays where food was not
provided at the proper texture.
This could cause choking and risk other injury.
In addition, licensed practical nurses and personal care attendants
who are responsible for feeding and supervising the residents were often not
trained to respond to choking incidents.
In the St. John's facility, 79 per cent of the staff were not trained
according to the Auditor General
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I ask the member to quickly ask his question.
MR. HILLIER:
I ask the minister: What process will be put in place for long-term care
residents to ensure that eating is not a safety risk?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, now the Opposition is attacking licensed practical nurses and
challenging their training and qualifications.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KENT:
It is rather unfortunate that they would resort to that.
I have no problem acknowledging thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. KENT:
They are a rowdy bunch today, Mr. Speaker.
We have no problem acknowledging how important safe
quality food is to all residents in our long-term care homes.
If there are concerns raised by residents, by families, by the
Auditor General, those concerns must be addressed.
We do have processes in place to ensure that employees receive food
safety training and they receive sanitation training when they enter the
system. We also need to
implement refresher training as well, and we intend to do that, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's North.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, since this government introduced its new math curriculum, we
have been told time and time again that professional development to help
teachers with the new curriculum is simply insufficient.
Now the Auditor General has identified serious deficiencies with
teacher professional development.
I ask the acting minister: You have ignored the pleas
from math teachers, you have dismissed the advice of math education experts,
are you finally willing to listen to the Auditor General?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Acting Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY:
Mr. Speaker, we have not ignored the need for professional development and
training for teachers, particularly with our new math curriculum.
In fact, there has been very extensive professional learning, but I
will say professional learning is a very important part of a professional
growth, a very important part of improving quality teaching, a very
important part of student achievement.
As we continue with the consolidation of the four
boards on an array of many, many issues within the education system, I can
tell you that the recommendations made by the Auditor General will be very
valuable moving forward as we implement more policies and more restrictions
around professional learning.
Rest assured, we will continue to do the professional learning in the best
interests of students of this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday, the Minister of Health and Community
Services said that professionally trained staff in long-term care facilities
use their clinical judgement to decide what levels of supervision is
required for each person at meal time.
I ask the Premier: When will his government admit that
these staff are under stress because there are not enough of them to
supervise and assist people who need help?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. member that the number of care
hours provided to residents in our long-term care facilities is among the
highest in the country. We have
well-trained, professional staff, we have LPNs, we have RNs, we have
personal care attendants, all of whom work together to provide exceptional
care to residents.
Any time there are issues, they need to be addressed.
Is the system perfect?
No, I have acknowledged many times the system is far from perfect.
We are constantly trying to improve, but all of our long-term care
homes are nationally accredited, they are held to a very high standard, our
staff is well-trained, they are hardworking and they are professional.
We will always try to improve, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL:
Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister: Is the system perfect?
No. Do we have enough
trained people to do the work?
No.
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General found that regular
assessments of long-term care residents' dietary needs are not always being
met.
Will the minister ensure that each facility has at
least one qualified dietitian on site to oversee procedures and make sure
that things are being done to help the patients?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, again, I remind the hon. member that our staffing levels, the
standards we hold our staff and our system accountable for, are among the
highest in the country. That
said, to her specific question on meal changes being approved by a
dietitian, we have nutrition services provided by a registered dietitian
based on a nutritional assessment and resident preferences as well.
The operational standards do not state that dietary
changes can only be approved by a dietitian.
There are other people like physicians and nurses who are also
involved in assessing residents' changing needs.
We take the views of all those professionals very seriously and we
want to ensure that our professionals are working together to provide the
highest quality of care possible.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
People desperate for housing cannot move into vacant
Newfoundland and Labrador Housing units because growing numbers of the units
need maintenance and repair.
I ask the minister: How many units are vacant and when
will the work be done?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CRUMMELL:
Mr. Speaker, we have over 5,000 units in inventory with Newfoundland and
Labrador Housing. We have a
regime that makes sure that maintenance is happening on a regular basis.
The numbers which the member opposite is referring to I certainly do
not have here in front of me, but we can make that available in the near
future.
Mr. Speaker, the great work that Newfoundland and
Labrador Housing is doing has been called out all over the country.
They have received national awards and international awards.
We are an example for the rest to follow.
I am proud of the work that we are doing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, seniors with leaking roofs and windows are waiting to proceed
with critical home repairs through the Provincial Home Repair Program, but
cannot without assessments by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing inspectors.
They are being told they have to wait at least eight weeks.
Now is the time to do these repairs.
This program is useless if people
cannot use it.
I ask the minister: What is the holdup and how long
will people have to wait?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and
Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CRUMMELL:
Mr. Speaker, when you have 5,000 units in your inventory, there is always
going to be rotation of units that are going to be out of service.
When people have left for whatever reasons, we have to go in and do
the work that needs to be done.
If there is a unit that is vacant and is ready to go, we will certainly find
whoever is next in the queue and move them into that unit.
Saying that, Mr. Speaker, we also have a policy where
we reserve units across the Island for emergencies.
If somebody's house burns down, we need to have a unit to move him
into, if possible. If somebody
is a victim of family violence or domestic violence, we need to have a unit
to move people into.
Mr. Speaker, there are policies in place for units to
be left out there that are vacant, but the ones that are vacant that you see
are the ones that we are renovating.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The time for Question Period has expired.
Presenting Reports
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Notices of Motion.
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a petition.
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents
humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS the Applied Behaviour Analysis ABA program
for children with autism is funded by the Department of Health and Community
Services; and
WHEREAS the program was introduced in 1999 and is in
serious need of revision; and
WHEREAS with the advances made in early diagnosis of
autism, the number of high-functioning children being diagnosed with autism
has drastically increased; and
WHEREAS the current ABA program does not take into
account that children on the autism spectrum are involved in many
educational, recreational, and social activities outside of the home; and
WHEREAS the current ABA program requires that the
therapist be accompanied at all times by another adult, which is not only
inconvenient, but can be quite costly when a parent is unable to be that
second adult due to work or other obligations; and
WHEREAS the current ABA program ends at Grade 3, but
autism is a life-long social disorder;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House to urge the government to implement a review of
the ABA program with considerations given to alternate programming options,
and to extend programming beyond Grade 3.
As in duty bound, you petitioners will ever pray.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I ask members for their co-operation.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I have entered this petition on a number of occasions, and
obviously it is a very serious one that affects constituents in every
district that is represented by members in this House.
The good news is that there has been a lot of attention
paid to this. The bad news is
that government, like many of the things that they do and it has been
outlined by the Auditor General they measure success in the amount of
dollars that they have invested, and not in the outcomes.
This is a prime example right here.
Any time you ask a question on autism you get back that yes, we have
invested X number of dollars but the problems are still there.
The problem that we seem to have now is there does not
seem to be a recognition that this goes beyond children, and we have adults
again, this program goes to Grade 3.
I would like to see that acknowledgement made by this government,
first, that we do have an issue.
ABA is a great program, but if you talk to parents out there, if you talk to
educators, we need a review of the program.
I think everybody here could agree to that.
Beyond that and going right to the top there we need a strategy and
that is something that this government has not put in place, is a strategy
to deal with this. It is a
government that scrambles and reacts, throws money at the problem, and then
wonders why the problem is not fixed, because they do not have a plan.
So let's get a plan in place.
We need a plan, and the first thing we can do is start talking to the
parents because they are out there desperately crying out for some
attention, and we need to give it to them.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We, the citizens serviced by Curtis Hospital, located
in St. Anthony, Newfoundland and Labrador, petition the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador and Labrador-Grenfell Health to retain the
midwives and allow them to continue to perform other duties at Curtis
Hospital.
Our midwives offer services that cannot be duplicated
and which cannot be replaced.
The level of care they offer and the knowledge and training they have in the
area of obstetrics is immense.
It will be a great disservice to the people of this area if our midwives are
no longer available to care for the people here.
Privatizing midwifery or waiting five to seven years for regulation,
as stated by government, is unacceptable.
We have an operational model of midwifery here in St. Anthony that
has been delivering outstanding care for over ninety years.
We urge the House of Assembly to implore the Government
of Newfoundland and Labrador and Labrador-Grenfell Health to preserve our
midwifery services at Curtis Hospital.
Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by residents
primarily in the Straits, Flower's Cove, Bear Cove, Shoal Cove, Sandy Cove,
as well as Port Saunders. I had
the opportunity to meet with Labrador-Grenfell Health executive and the
leadership team and raise this particular issue.
They have clearly stated that they want to see midwifery in a
publicly funded system.
Yet, the former Minister of Health has pointed out in a
news conference well over a year ago that this government is focused on
privatizing midwifery, privatizing the health care services, and taking it
from a publicly funded setting that was working extremely well.
We have a number of residents I have constituents who are actually
working in other provinces as midwives who would be able to come back and
work in St. Anthony at Curtis Hospital.
You talk about population growth.
You talk about looking at trying to retain youth and skilled
professionals. When we talk
about the important role of a health care team, one would think that the
government should be focused on looking at these options as other
jurisdictions have.
We see where British Columbia and Ontario have embraced
midwifery. It is providing some
outstanding results. If we look
at the historical context, it is something that has been working and working
well for over ninety years.
Midwives have helped a number of people out.
That Facebook group that we have when it comes to parents, families,
and members there are thousands of people who are asking for this request.
They see the government is completely focused on privatization of
those health care services.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the
undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS in 2011 the provincial government announced it
would lift the 8 per cent provincial portion of the HST off residential heat
and light by introducing the Residential Energy Rebate; and
WHEREAS heat is a necessity of life and a health
concern, particularly for seniors; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has projected oil
prices to increase in the next five years;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to stop taxing
home energy and to reverse its decision to abolish the Residential Energy
Rebate.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, on this occasion, I would like to thank
the people of Grand Falls- Windsor, Springdale, and Bishop's Falls for
signing this petition and sending it in and expressing their concerns as
regards to government's role in increasing the price of heating products
that people are using in the house.
Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, tomorrow, we will be going
through a private member's motion talking about the government's Poverty
Reduction Strategy. We know that
several years ago government talked about this in their Poverty Reduction
Strategy. They talked about
putting disposable income back in particularly back in seniors' pockets
and helping out those people who were in trouble when it came to paying
their heating and light costs.
This was one of the initiatives that government thought would be a great
initiative to put money back in their pockets so that people could actually
feed themselves and at the same time make heat a little bit more affordable.
This is a primary health concern, particularly among
seniors, that government needs to pay attention to.
It is also a primary concern when it comes to keeping money in the
economy and allowing people at the same time to pay for food rather than
having to pay for it all on fuel.
Mr. Speaker, the 8 per cent tax is not an easy burden for somebody on
a low income to maintain and to be paying out all the time.
Mr. Speaker, I will leave this for the government's
consideration again, to reconsider their position when it comes to the
Residential Energy Rebate.
Hopefully they will reinstate it.
If they are open thinkers, like they are thinking about when it comes
to the HST, having gone one way and thinking about putting on the HST and
taking it off again, hopefully this is one area where government can respond
and say that they will not they will pick up the charge again and not
decide to put provincial taxes back on heating and back on light again.
Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Before I recognize the next member to present a
petition, I would ask members if they would take their private conversations
outside. The Chamber is becoming
really disruptive. I ask all
members for their co-operation.
The hon. the Member for Carbonear Harbour Grace.
MR. SLADE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the
undersigned humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS there is no traffic signage or traffic control
devices present on the eastbound traffic from Whitbourne, or for oncoming
westbound traffic from the east end of Tilton, or exiting from either Route
73 off Veteran's Memorial Highway from Harbour Grace; and
WHEREAS due to increased residential dwellings,
residents with small children, and a resident living with hearing
impairment, inadequate signage and no visible sidewalks increase the risk of
residents being hit by oncoming traffic; and
WHEREAS the speed limit is fifty kilometres an hour;
and
WHEREAS dangerous driving motorists drive excessive
speeds beyond the speed limit; and
WHEREAS there is no traffic signage to advise motorists
they are entering a residential zone, non-confirmative drivers do not have
enough time to slow down;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to erect adequate traffic signage and traffic
control devices and revisit and reduce the speed limit from the current
fifty.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the issue is exactly the
reduction of the speed limit, I think adequate signage would probably
prevail a little bit better there.
The residents in this area, many of them have small children.
There is one lady there with a hearing impairment.
They are very concerned.
If you came across the New Harbour Barrens, the speed limit there is eighty
kilometres an hour and what is taking place, just outside as they are
entering Tilton, they are not slowing down because there is simply no
signage there or not enough signage there to allow people to drive the
proper speed there.
Mr. Speaker, it is a simple matter of the Minister of
Transportation taking the time to ask his employees to just check that area.
There are very serious concerns.
The minister also got a message from this lady there who is
presenting me with those petitions.
If there is anything that can be done there, the residents of this
area would certainly like to have it done.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Trinity Bay de Verde.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the
undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS the residents of Heart's Delight-Islington feel
that the condition of Main Road, Route 80, throughout the Town of Heart's
Delight-Islington is a major safety concern; and
WHEREAS shoulders of the road are washed out and unsafe
for pedestrians; and
WHEREAS government continues to delay the ditching and
maintenance required on Route 80 through the town;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to make the necessary repairs to Route 80 through
the community of Heart's Delight-Islington;
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to enter
this petition on behalf of the residents of Heart's Delight Islington this
afternoon, and I guess the residents of Trinity Bay de Verde as a whole.
Because one thing I hear day in and day out is the lack of summer
maintenance that has left our communities all along Route 80, 74 and 70 with
very, very poor ditching and shoulder washouts, Mr. Speaker.
I can speak from personal experience when it comes to
Heart's Delight Islington because it is where I do a fair bit of walking.
What you will find, Mr. Speaker, over time through heavy rainfalls,
the shoulders of the road have actually created ditches and small gorges
going off the road. A pedestrian
totally has to walk on the pavement itself to navigate around the towns on
Route 80.
Mr. Speaker, I understand the department has issues
with summer maintenance, but one thing I look at with summer maintenance
when it comes to highways and roads, it is a pay now or pay later.
Because, Mr. Speaker, if we do not ensure we have the proper culverts
and the proper ditching in our communities, when we have weather systems,
and we have seen an increasing severity of weather systems over the years,
we are going to have more and more problems.
A lot of these issues, I think, in the District of
Trinity Bay de Verde and Heart's Delight Islington as a community, stem
from the closure of the Heart's Content highways depot, which happened back
in the mid-2000s under the current Administration.
It was another one of those issues, Mr. Speaker, where it was cut off
your nose to spite your face.
Heart's Content is very strategically located in the district.
With the closure of that depot, crews now have a much more difficult
time getting out around the district to make the necessary repairs.
Mr. Speaker, I do call upon the department to ensure
that the proper summer maintenance and the shoulders of the road throughout
the community of Heart's Delight Islington, and throughout the entire
Trinity Bay de Verde is something that the department take a serious look
at in this coming summer maintenance season.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At this time I would like to call from the Order Paper,
Motion 1, and ask leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Teachers'
Pensions Act. (Bill 15)
So moved by me, and seconded by the Minister of Health
and Community Services, that the said bill be now read the first time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
It is moved and seconded that the hon. Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board shall have leave to introduce a bill
entitled, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act, Bill 15, and that the
said bill be now read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion
that Bill 15 be now read a first time?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The motion is carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President
of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Teachers'
Pensions Act, carried. (Bill
15)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act.
(Bill 15)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a first time.
When shall the bill be read a second time?
MR. KING:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 15 read a first time, ordered read a
second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At this time I would like to call Order 2, An Act To
Amend The Health And Community Services Act, Bill 11.
So moved by me, seconded by the Minister of Health and
Community Services, that the said bill be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that the said bill, Bill 11, be now read a third
time.
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The Health And Community Services Act.
(Bill 11)
MR. SPEAKER:
This 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 Health And
Community Services Act, read a third time, ordered passed and its title be
as on the Order Paper. (Bill 11)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At this time I would like to call from the Order Paper,
Bill 13, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act.
MR. SPEAKER:
Continuing debate in second reading on Bill 13.
I recognize the hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. J. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is ironic that 800 years ago yesterday we signed the
Magna Carta; 800 years ago yesterday we signed the Magna Carta to I see
that the peons on the other side who do not have the nerve enough to speak
to this bill are speaking up already.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. J. BENNETT:
In any event, Mr. Speaker, the Magna Carta was signed 800 years ago
yesterday. By this piece of
legislation, the Premier who swore to uphold the law less than a year ago is
going to use his force, his majority to undo the law to legitimize him,
something that the barons did to delegitimize King John 800 years ago.
The Premier has not even spoken to the bill.
Mr. Speaker, when does it ever happen that this government brings in
legislation and all of the ministers run and hide because they are ashamed
to speak to it? They are so
ashamed that they will not speak to the bill that they say is good for
everybody else. It is
unbelievable. It is absolutely
disgraceful. It is absolutely
pathetic that these members will not speak to this bill that they say is
good for all of us.
If you look at the speaking chart and go across the
front row, with the exception of the Minister of Child, Youth and Family
Services, who is about to lose his seat, and who got up and ranted in his
irrelevant and puerile way, typically, yesterday for a few minutes and used
up less than his time. It is
only the Minister of Justice in the front row who even spoke to this bill.
The Minister of Justice had to speak to it because he brought it in.
He had to speak to it.
Someone had to speak to it.
Then, virtually all the other ministers ran and hid.
The Premier has not spoken to it.
The Deputy Premier has not spoken to it.
The Minister of Natural Resources has not spoken to it.
The Attorney General has not spoken to it.
The Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador has not spoken to
it. The Minister of Finance had
not spoken to it.
We will give the Minister of AES a pass for a reason we
will not discuss here, because I will be shouted down if I do.
The Minister of Fisheries has not spoken to it.
So across the front row we have two ministers who have spoken to it.
One who was bound to speak to it, and one who did not make any sense
or advance the argument when he did speak to it, and who is losing his seat
anyway unbelievable.
Mr. Speaker, how did we find ourselves in this
predicament 800 years into democracy, when someone is sworn to uphold
democracy, needs to introduce a law to legitimize himself to hang onto power
for longer than the law currently allows him?
He is going to use his power to change the law to make him a
legitimate Premier of this Province after September.
It is absolutely outrageous.
You talk about democracy watch good grief.
You should watch democracy die in this Province under this person.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, where did all of this start?
Well, this started really in January 2014 when the only elected
female Premier of the Province threw in the towel, ran out of energy after
twenty-seven months. She did not
even serve a full term; elected, and did not even serve four years.
She did not serve three years.
She served twenty-seven months and then the lights went out.
The party that campaigned on new energy, lost all the energy they
had.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I say to the hon. member, you have to make your
comments relevant to the bill.
The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
MR. J. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I understand this bill is necessitated in part because
this Premier needs a mandate. I
was talking about the last Premier who quit
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I am not asking the Member for St. Barbe to explain why
his comments are relevant. I am
telling him his comments are irrelevant and he needs to speak to the bill.
The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
MR. J. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this particular bill has been necessitated
because of a leadership convention, and I think that we can all agree that a
leadership convention was relevant.
The leadership convention that resulted in this Premier becoming the
Premier of the Province has a provision that says if you become Premier by
virtue of a leadership convention, you must go to the people within twelve
months of being sworn in. So
hopefully, that will be relevant.
Mr. Speaker, contained in the bill section 3.1 of the
existing act is going to be set aside for this Premier in this bill by this
act. Section 3.1 is going to be
set side; 3.1 is the Roger Grimes bill.
The Roger Grimes law which says you cannot hang on forever; you
cannot hang on for more than twelve months.
Well, you can if you change the law.
This Premier is about to demonstrate that you can hang on longer
because Bill 13, which is the one that we are debating, says for this time
and this time only the Roger Grimes law is set aside, this Premier can cling
to power until November 30. That
is another clause, in another section, and I will try to remain relevant.
I will go clause by clause and try to explain to the
people who are watching why this Province which in 2007 said every four
years you will have an election starting on Tuesday, October 2007, October
2011, October 2015 and so on; however, this bill says notwithstanding
anything in this bill it means no matter what else we said, this is what
matters. All that matters is
that section 3.1, the Roger Grimes section, does not apply to this Premier.
That will apply to the next Premier because it is not taken out.
It is left in the legislation.
It is left in the House of Assembly Act, Mr. Speaker.
The House of Assembly Act remains unchanged in that respect right
after this Premier has his shot at clinging to power, which will be more
than twelve months after he became Premier.
Now, there are other sections in this bill that the
people of the Province may find interesting.
What they may find interesting is that there is a section which says
and it is useful section. This
is the type of a bill where when you study it and you study it in detail you
say well, how much harm does it do how much good does it do?
Does the good that it does outweigh the harm that it does?
I would say, barely. The
good that it does outweighs the harm that it does by barely enough.
You would be worse off if you did not pass it then if you did pass
it, but not by very much.
So, Mr. Speaker, the section that I am referring to, in
order to continue to be relevant in this case, is section 54.
Section 54 says that a by-election must be called within sixty days
after there is a vacancy. This
bill says that if you are within six months of an election, then you do not
have a by-election.
This is not a bad bill.
This section is not bad.
In fact, this section is in play in virtually every jurisdiction in Canada.
In fact, we are finally catching up with every jurisdiction in Canada
in respect of the by-election section.
However, why is it done?
Why is it being done on this occasion?
Mr. Speaker, when I read the comments on VOCM online
when people were talking about the bill, they kept referring to rats leaving
the sinking ship. This is the
rats leaving the sinking ship section.
When I look down through and I see the number of hon. members, I said
well these are not rats; they have put in their time.
They have put in their time and now they want to move on.
When I look down I see at least eight members who
clearly will not run again, who clearly will resign, who clearly Mr.
Speaker, with all due respect, including yourself, you have indicated an
indication to retire.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
It is totally unparliamentary for any member in debate
to make any reference to the Speaker in the Chair.
I ask the member to be careful.
The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
MR. J. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Member for Gander has indicated that
and Gander is a changed seat. It
is a larger seat now. He has
indicated he wants to run for another party, and that is fine.
Why wouldn't he? You
cannot really say that this is a rat leaving a sinking ship.
That is really unfair; he wants to run for another party.
He served his party well.
He is a long-term member of the party.
He is a long-term member of the government.
Quite frankly, in dealing with him, I thought that he was a pretty
good minister. No question, you
get an answer out of him, not always yes, but you are going to get an answer
pretty quick. It will be a fair
answer regardless of party stripe.
So you cannot really say it in his case.
Then, Mr. Speaker, when we look at the Attorney
General, I mean the Attorney General was literally dragged back in order to
be Attorney General because of the lack of depth on the bench on the other
side. So they did not really
have many people to go with. We
saw that they had to go outside of the government to find a Minister of
Justice and found a Minister of Justice, but the Attorney General needs to
be a lawyer.
He is a hon. gentleman.
I dealt with him personally.
He has done his time. If
he decides to resign between now and, I suppose ninety days less than
November so if he decides any time between now and the summer to resign,
we have to have a by-election, unless we have this bill.
Mr. Speaker, numerous other members have indicated that
they have really had enough.
They have really had enough.
They do not want to be here anymore.
The Premier himself has indicated yes, there may well be other
resignations long before the election comes.
This is a section of this bill that is completely self-serving, is
introduced into this legislation by this Premier, who by the current law
that we have and the current law is the House of Assembly Act is that he
will no longer be able to sit.
He will no longer be able to sit as Premier after September 26 if he has not
called an election.
The only cure is that he can use the force of his
majority to introduce legislation and ram it through this House, and then it
makes him legal, and I suppose in a strictly legal term, it makes him
legitimate, I guess. I do not
think in the eyes of the public, if you have to use your force, if you have
to use your will, if you have to use your numbers and your mob to rewrite
the law, and you rewrite the law so that it favours you, you can hang on
longer than what the law was when you put up your hand and you took the
oath, you took the oath to be Premium and to follow the law.
Well, it is not kind of convenient any more to follow the law.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is not convenient to follow the law
because the polls are not very good.
It has nothing to do with the price of oil.
The polls are not very good, so this Premier needs to hang on for as
long as he can. Things have
changed, he is not doing so well, and now he needs to extend his time.
Mr. Speaker, there was an opening.
There was an out. He did
not need to do this, even with this committee.
The committee was struck, and if you look at the
committee that proposed this change in the boundaries, what was the
composition of the committee?
Well, we would assume that a committee is going to have the legitimacy, it
is going to be able to impose the size of our districts in this Province,
would be something that people would say well, clearly, this is an
impartial, neutral committee, this would have some gender equity well, I
guess would have some women on the committee, would we not?
Well, we do not.
Mr. Speaker, this is a committee of political hacks,
four political hacks, and if there was an opportunity, if there is any
chance whatsoever to have some gender balance by having at least one female
member, then that could have been the Chair.
We have enough judges in this Province who are smart enough to be
able to chair a committee such as this, and then we could have a female
judge who could have chaired and all parties are guilty in this respect.
My own party, we appointed a man.
The Third Party, they appointed a man.
The government appointed two men.
Is it fair to the voters who do not follow any particular party that
the three parties in the House of Assembly should basically share up the
power? What about all of the
people who do not necessarily follow any party?
Why shouldn't this committee have been representative of gender?
Why shouldn't it have been representative of geography?
When five guys sit down in St. John's and decide how to
divide up the Province for electoral purposes, it almost puts you in the
mind of the Amulree Commission.
It takes you right back to the Amulree Commission and say, well, they are
not fit to govern themselves.
That is what they said about our people.
That is what they said about us.
For fifteen years we were under a committee.
This committee then decided, well, we are going to rush this thing
through. They had no choice but
to rush it through. They were
given a timeline, and they complied with the timeline, but it was a rush
job. I think everybody would
admit it was a pretty shoddy job.
It was a very poor job, and you can see the outcry.
When first you act and then you consult, you do not
tend to get a good result. In
any event, the committee put together a package, sent it out, and said what
do you think of this? Not many
people thought very much of it.
They did not consult first, and they ought to have.
The one ray of hope, the one good thing that could have
come from this committee responding so quickly is there was time for a
September election. One person
in this Province is bound by the law, which they call the Grimes law, and
that is the Premier. This
committee did a slapped up job, threw it all together, full of political
action, and a judge who has admitted to donating to the PC Party.
A financial donor to the PC Party and four political hacks decided,
well, we are going to divide up the boundaries now and this is going to be
fair to everybody and no women on the committee, nobody in Labrador,
nobody in Western Newfoundland, and nobody in Central.
Anyway, the one thing they did bring in by bringing
this in, it is that this Premier could have been legitimized by a September
election based on this committee's report.
But, did he do it?
Absolutely, he did not do it. We
could have all been here today pushing this through without the Roger Grimes
clause being put in abeyance for this election because the Premier figures
it is good business for anybody who becomes a Premier by virtue of a
leadership convention to be forced to have an election within a year.
Oh, but not him. He is
the only one; he never wants this to apply.
If somebody else takes over the government and that
person takes off in six years, then that person is bound by the Grimes law.
So if the Premier figures he should not be bound by the Grimes, why
wouldn't he strip it out entirely?
Why is he going to leave it there like a rake left out in the fall of
the year to come up and smack the next Premier in the face if he wins an
election by virtue of a leadership?
It is absolutely hypocrisy.
It is complete hypocrisy to set aside for one time only that this law
should not apply to me, but for everybody else it is going to apply to them.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wonder why the Premier has not
spoken to the bill. He must be
embarrassed to speak to it. How
can he justify to people that he is trying to ram this through?
Not trying to ram it through, he is going to ram it through.
When you look at the very limited number of members on the government
side who have even had nerve enough to get up and speak to the bill, Mr.
Speaker, it is really unfortunate.
I have no issue with the forty members.
Forty members should be able to govern this Province, if it is done
properly. As a matter of fact,
the idea came from the Leader of the Opposition.
The Leader of the Opposition had the idea of forty members.
At least he floated the idea in 2013.
This Premier came back and said, well, we need
something new, or we need something strong or something.
I am going to go with thirty-eight.
Well, the Opposition Party and the government worked together with an
amendment which made this palatable, if barely palatable, but that did not
include six-month by-elections.
That did not include relieving this Premier of the responsibility that he
took on himself when he took the job.
When he took the job, the reason that the date is late
September is because he was not sworn in as early as he ought to have been
sworn in. Mr. Speaker, the one
area that I think most people of the Province find really demeaning is the
one that says we cannot conflict with a federal election.
All over North America, states, provinces, countries
run elections where they elect whole slates of individuals.
They elect school boards, municipal councils, they elect judges, and
they elect commissioners all in one election.
What this government is saying to the people of this Province is,
well, you are not really smart enough to figure out the difference between
Justin Trudeau, Tom Mulcair, and Stephen Harper compared to Paul Davis and
Earle McCurdy and I am sorry, I withdraw the names, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind the member that referring to members in the
House of Assembly by name is unparliamentary, and I ask the member to
withdraw.
MR. J. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, withdrawn.
Mr. Speaker, what this government is saying with this
bill which says we cannot overlap with the federal election because the
people of the Province are not discerning enough to know the difference
between a federal election and a provincial election.
What does that say? What
does that mean that this government is saying about our people?
They are saying: You are not smart enough to be able to figure out
whether you voted for a federal candidate or a provincial candidate.
Mr. Speaker, this is completely unnecessary.
It is absolutely unnecessary, but it provides a mechanism to avoid
the four-year fixed election date.
It means the section of the bill that overrides 3.1, the Roger Grimes
bill, does not quite do enough.
It only carries us into October.
So that only buys the Premier another few weeks.
He needs the one which says the people of the Province are not smart
enough to figure out whether it is a federal election or a provincial
election. Then he puts it right
to the end of November.
I do not think the people will be fooled.
I do not think the outcome will be any different, but it is a real
travesty to democracy what this bill is doing.
In spite of that, I find myself compelled to support it.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can assure the Member for St. Barbe and others that
there are many, many members on this side of the House who are quite
passionate about this bill, quite passionate about the changes we are
proposing, and quite excited to stand and share their views on this
important piece of legislation that affects this very House that we find
ourselves in today.
I take some exception to the comments made by the
Member for St. Barbe, as I am sure many others do as well.
I will get to that, but I would like to share my own thoughts, just
for a few minutes, on this particular bill and why I am going to stand and
support it.
The Premier, when he commenced his term, made it very
clear that House of Assembly reform was a priority for him and for his
government. It is something that
lots have talked about for a long, long time.
As long as I have been in this House, there has been discussion
happening, informally, about whether we should reform the institution.
There seems to be lots of agreement around the fact that this is an
institution in need of reform.
Everybody seemed enthusiastic until the time came where
we were actually going to do something about it.
So rather than simply continue to talk about it, our Premier and this
government has done something about it.
That is why we are here debating this bill again this afternoon.
He has not stopped with simply reforming the House of
Assembly. He has made it clear
that we will also look at the structure of MHA pensions.
We will also look at how this House functions in terms of committees
and the opportunities that may exist to get parliamentarians more involved
in the democratic process. These
are commitments that our Premier has made and we will follow through on.
This bill is evidence of that, Mr. Speaker.
It is interesting that members opposite, at least one
of the parties opposite, seemed to be in favour of reforming the House until
it came time to actually follow through and do something about it.
We have been very consistent in our view.
We have been very consistent all along in saying that House reform is
needed and it should happen. We
do not need to wait another five years to do it.
Forty seats is an acceptable number, and this can also be achieved in
a reasonable time frame. The
amount of time we have until November 30 is quite reasonable in allowing the
Chief Electoral Officer to do his work with his team, but also allowing the
federal election to take place without having an overlapping writ period,
which I think makes a lot of good sense.
The Member for St. Barbe disagrees.
Some of the other members opposite seem to agree for one reason or
another, depending on the day, but we have been very consistent in our view.
The federal election is taking place in mid-October.
That is well known and it just makes good, practical, common sense to
avoid that election, to avoid that writ period.
As well, the Chief Electoral Officer has made it clear in writing
that he needs time to be ready if the boundaries are, in fact, changing.
For all those reasons, a slight shift in election date makes really
good sense.
Other members have taken an opportunity to talk a
little bit about their own district and I will not go on for longer than is
necessary, but I would like to talk about my great and historic district of
Mount Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
We heard about another Mount Pearl district last night, I believe, in the
wee hours, so now I would like to share a few thoughts on
AN HON. MEMBER:
That is because of the great work you did now it is a great town to live in.
Isn't it?
MR. KENT:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
I am getting some encouragement on one side, some heckles on the other and
that is just
MR. LANE:
A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
A point of order, the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.
MR. LANE:
I say to the Minister of Finance it is not a town; it is a city.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. KENT:
It reminds me of a great Meatloaf song: You Took the Words Right Out of My
Mouth. We still agree on a few
things, not as many as we used to.
Back to my district, formerly known as Waterford
Valley, I was pleased to see the resurrection of the Waterford Valley name
in the Commission's initial report, but my district will continue to be
Mount Pearl North. I have mixed
feelings about the boundary changes, to be honest, like most members I
suspect in this House. I am not
as impacted to the extent that some members are impacted, and I acknowledge
that. I am disappointed to be
losing the section of the Town of Paradise that I am proud to represent.
I currently represent the bulk of Elizabeth Park.
Interestingly enough, I spent the first couple of years
of my life living in Elizabeth Park, in that section of the district that I
now represent, and had built a really strong connection to that community
over the last eight years. It
has been a real honour to represent the Town of Paradise, and particularly
the constituents of Elizabeth Park.
We have built a couple of new schools in Paradise during that time.
The town hall has been renovated, we built a new community centre,
new arena. Great progress has
been made because people have been working together.
So I am disappointed to be relinquishing that portion of my district.
Interestingly enough, as the Member for Mount Pearl
South highlighted in his remarks last night, I am also losing a little
section of Mount Pearl, that happens to be the neighbourhood I grew up in.
There is an area around Sunrise Avenue, First Street, Second Street,
Roosevelt Avenue, St. David's Avenue, Edinburgh Drive, that will now St.
Andrew's Avenue, did I say that already?
AN HON. MEMBER:
No.
MR. KENT:
Thank you.
Those streets will now find themselves in Mount Pearl
South, where there were once upon a time.
Not a big change, of course, and I got to say, regardless of
political stripe, my experience has been both municipally and provincially
that politicians in Mount Pearl, regardless of political stripe, have worked
well together and have been able to, at times, put politics aside in the
best interests of the community.
I hope regardless of what happens this fall and beyond that, that kind of
spirit of co-operation in the best interests of the citizens we represent
will continue.
I am disappointed to be losing that section of a
neighbourhood that I have spent most of my life in, but I am gaining another
little section of Mount Pearl that I represented municipally for ten years.
A little section of Mount Pearl South will be coming over to Mount
Pearl North.
I recognize that the Commission must have had a really
difficult job in trying to balance all the numbers and to make an adjustment
here which will result in impacts over here.
It could not have been an easy task.
I take exception to the comments made by the Member for St. Barbe
that they did a shoddy job. I find
that offensive.
They were all very credible people who clearly worked
really hard, worked efficiently, and produced a very comprehensive report.
Not only did they do a good job producing an initial report in a
timely fashion, they then listened to what people had to say, and they
responded and came back with revisions that affected a lot of districts,
including my own. While I may
agree or disagree with certain pieces of what was decided in terms of how it
impacts my district and others around me, I definitely have great respect
for the work that was done. I am
excited about the opportunity to represent some new constituents as well, if
I am successful in the election this fall.
So I am gaining the neighbourhood that is closest to
O'Donel High School in Mount Pearl my old high school Lindbergh Crescent
and Scammell Crescent and the streets that are off both of those streets.
So I am looking forward to representing those neighbourhoods here in
the House of Assembly, if I am given the opportunity to do so.
I will also be becoming a St. John's MHA, if I am
successful this fall. There is a
neighbourhood that should be part of Mount Pearl and I fought hard to make
it part of Mount Pearl called Brookfield Plains.
I know the Member for I am forgetting his district name at the very
moment. The Member for Trinity
Bay de Verde likes to shout out about greenhouses now and then in his hon.
House.
Brookfield Plains, I can assure, you that is where
there were once greenhouses located.
In fact, having grown up in that old neighbourhood I referenced a few
minutes ago, I grew up in the orange glow, Mr. Speaker.
I do not know what impact that has had on me.
It certainly has not made me a New Democrat, thank God.
I did grow up for a number of years in that glow.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER (Littlejohn):
Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Brookfield Plains, in all seriousness, that land has
always had a connection to the City of Mount Pearl and the former Town of
Mount Pearl. I know that there
are a lot of residents in that neighbourhood who are currently well
represented in the House of Assembly by the hon. Member for Kilbride.
They have a connection to our community.
Many of them come from Mount Pearl.
Their children go to school in Mount Pearl.
They attend worship in Mount Pearl.
Many of them will buy their groceries in Mount Pearl.
To get out of their neighbourhood, they have to drive through Mount
Pearl. So it should be part of
Mount Pearl. I have always been
on record as saying so. I know
the member opposite would agree with me.
I look forward to representing that neighbourhood as part of the new
District of Mount Pearl North.
Anyway I know all these changes present challenges for
all of us. I do feel badly for
some of my colleagues on both sides of the House who have tough decisions to
make about what district they are going to run, if they are going to run at
all. I am fortunate personally
that much of my district remains intact.
I feel good that Mount Pearl will still have two strong districts, as
it always has.
We have had a third MHA for the last eight years and I
think we have been well served through that structure as well.
I do think that the proposal that the Commission has made is a
reasonable one. The Town of
Paradise will once again have two MHAs, as well, who will have considerable
focus on the town's interests and needs.
I think that is an acceptable approach.
The suggestions that the Member for St. Barbe makes
about this process being rushed and the job being shoddy I think really
shows disrespect and contempt for this hon. House, for the people who were
involved in the process including a judge, and for members who have
backgrounds in various parties who are not just St. John's people as the
member suggests. Bill Matthews,
for instance, was a rural MHA and a rural MP for a good part of his career,
who would certainly have a really good understanding of the issues in rural
Newfoundland and Labrador. I
think all members of the Commission have given it a good effort.
They have backgrounds that should be respected.
I believe that the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, more
importantly than all of that, will be well represented with these proposed
changes.
When you look at the number of members in the various
Legislatures around the country and you compare to Newfoundland and
Labrador, when you do that comparison, I would argue that we will continue
to be well represented in this House.
The people of Newfoundland and Labrador will be well represented in
this House.
The Member for St. Barbe talks about September 26.
Well, the Chief Electoral Officer in this Province, who the member
has also disrespected today, has outlined why that date is impractical.
I was pleased that the new Leader of the New Democratic Party
acknowledged as well that it does not make sense to have overlapping writ
periods. It is unnecessary, it
is confusing, it is just not sensible it is nonsensical.
For that reason, I think the Chief Electoral Officer
has weighed in and provided some commentary that I do not think members in
this House should ignore. By
shifting the election date by several weeks, we avoid that conflict.
Some will say well, you could have shifted it earlier.
Yes, we could have, but the Chief Electoral Officer made it clear
that that was not practical, that it would not give him time to do the
preparation necessary in light of the boundary changes that are being
brought forth through the Commission's report and through this legislation.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, by bringing in this legislation,
we are a government that has shown leadership.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
We are prepared to make the tough decisions and we are prepared to act on
something that all political parties have been talking about for a long,
long time. I will go as far as
saying that there are more changes needed in terms of how this House of
Assembly runs, and we are committed to looking at those issues as well.
I think that most people in Newfoundland and Labrador
actually agree that fewer MHAs make sense, that reforming this institution
makes sense, and I believe we are small enough and we are agile enough that
if we work together, we could have the best model of parliamentary democracy
anywhere in the country. We do
not have it today, but I believe it is possible if we are serious about
working together, and I hope that day will come.
For members to get up, like the Member for St. Barbe
did before I spoke, and show total disregard and disrespect for the
committee, for the Chief Electoral Officer, for fellow hon. members, it is
disappointing and it is disingenuous and it is disheartening
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. KENT:
Here we go again, Mr. Speaker
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. Barbe, on a point of order?
MR. J. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, I do not mind a personal attack (inaudible); however, I would
prefer if he do it in a money bill when he does not have to relevant to what
he speaking to.
MR. SPEAKER:
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services,
to continue.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The fresh prince of relevance.
I am surprised he did not use his twenty minutes to educate us about
the boundaries in Ontario.
In all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, his own leader
acknowledged the conflict with the September election date because of the
federal election happening in mid-October.
His own leader acknowledged that.
It is unfortunate that there has been a change in position time and
time again by the party opposite.
I feel we are doing the right thing.
I think this is a good piece of legislation.
I think thorough research has been done.
I commend the boundary commission for doing a really good job,
despite the fact that not everybody is going to be happy with the proposed
boundary changes. When you are
dealing with something like this that is so politically charged, that is
inevitable. I think we have
landed in a good place and I think we are doing what is in the best interest
of our own constituents that we represent and the taxpayers of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, and I hope I will have
other opportunities, I am pleased to rise here in second reading to lend my
support to this bill.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's North.
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is an honour for me to stand here and represent my
constituents in St. John's North and speak to second reading of Bill 13.
I just want to start out by saying thanks to the members of the
Commission for their work. I
know that it is not satisfactory to some Members of the House of Assembly.
I am not sure that we had enough time and I am not sure if we were
given a longer period of time if everything would have worked out to
everyone's satisfaction, but I really understand where people are coming
from.
I want to talk about some of the changes in here as
they relate to the district that I represent, and then some of the political
implications coming out of this.
I also want to rebut some of the nonsensical comments that were made here
last evening by Members of the House of Assembly with respect to this bill
and positions of the political parties here in the House of Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed representing the District
of St. John's North the past, almost four years.
People who know my work here in the House know that I do there is
probably not a week or a couple of weeks that go by that I am not out
knocking on doors, bugging my constituents, chatting with them about whether
it is this bill or legislation before the House of Assembly, or cold calling
people to ask them how everything is going and getting to know people at
bit. So it saddens me to be
losing I guess I should say my intention is to seek the Liberal nomination
in the District of Mount Scio.
By doing that, I will be losing a number of constituencies and
neighbourhoods, should I be successful in getting the nomination and then
being successful in getting a seat here in the House of Assembly after the
general election on November 30.
I have done a lot of door knocking.
I have probably knocked on almost all of the doors all over again
since the last election. It is
just something I enjoy doing. If
you understand St. John's North I always say the great and historic
District of St. John's North. I
am not really kidding because if you look at Mount Scio there on one side of
the Avalon Mall and you look at Mount Ken on the other side, because that is
where Kenmount Road gets its name, all that area up through the middle is
called Waterford Valley. Over
100 years ago, there were thirty-odd family farms.
Scottish and Irish settlers who came here and they farmed up that
lush valley there.
Over the years, most recently the Kelseys that is
where Kelsey Drive gets its name they had a milk farm up there, but there
were lots of farms up through that valley.
On O'Briens Hill there is still O'Brien's farm, which is a provincial
historic site, which is there to help us all remember our Irish and farming
cultural heritage in the Province.
That is a bit of the history there.
It is something I have learned just through wanting to represent that
district because I first ran in that district in 1999.
I have been studying the area since and getting to know the people
who have lived there for a long time.
One of the areas that is not going to be in the
District of Mount Scio is the area, which I would say west, that is St.
John's West, not proper west, but west of the Avalon Mall, so all of the
neighbourhoods that go up over the side of Mount Ken and over towards
Blackmarsh Road. I especially
have developed a good relationship with the people at the west heights
neighbourhood association there on New Pennywell Road and the surrounding
streets. So I will miss all of
those people: Lisa, Daphne, and Gail, and a lot of people who I have worked
with over the past four or so years.
The new District of Mount Scio is probably about 65 per
cent St. John's North. Another
area that is not in it that I currently represent is a portion of Portugal
Cove-St. Phillips. That will be
going into the new district that is Portugal Cove Bell Island, I believe
is the name. So I will not
represent those folks anymore should I be successful in what I am planning
to do.
The new District of Mount Scio adds that portion of the
District of St. John's East, bounded by Newtown Road, Empire Avenue,
Bonaventure Avenue, and Elizabeth Avenue, and also the area of Paradise
called Elizabeth Park that the Member for Mount Pearl North currently
represents. I think the
Boundaries Commission had some decent thinking when they added Elizabeth
Park to that area.
If you think about Kenmount Terrace, which is sort of
in the middle of the District of Mount Scio, a lot of those people shop at
the same places. Their kids will
inevitably be going to some of the same schools over time, participating in
a lot of the same community activities.
For me, it will be similar to my current work in that I will be
representing two urban municipalities or citizens of two urban
municipalities.
Those are the changes as I see it.
I did provide a written submission to the Commission.
I did not present in person.
I did not have a whole lot of issues with the work that they have
done. I had two emails from
people about the bill. I know
that is not the experience, Mr. Speaker, of other Members of the House of
Assembly, and some over here and some on the other side.
I got two emails, one demanding I vote for the bill and one demanding
I vote against the bill. So I
will have to keep you guessing.
I want to talk about some of the stuff, the frou-frou
that went on here last night.
One thing that surprised me last week, the Minister of Transportation and
Works got up and said something to the effect now he can stand up and
correct me if he wants. He said
something to the effect of we are all upset over here, the Liberals are
upset because you foiled our master plan.
We are taking over the world or something.
That is the job of Opposition is to try to get over on
the other side of the House.
That is the way all of this works.
That should not come as any surprise to anybody over there, because
some of the members were over there one time.
That should not come as any surprise.
I thought about it. I
said, my God I lived in residence back in the day and I thought it is like
Potsie and the Sweathogs are running the show here.
That mentality, I just cannot relate to whatsoever.
This bill, the Premier said, was about saving taxpayers
money. That is the reason why.
We can go back through the whole history.
I will not go back through the electoral history, Dunderdale
resigning, Frank Coleman resigning, the new Premier coming in, all of that.
Before the bill that enabled all of this came before the Legislature,
the PCs had two nominations done, and one of them was the Premier's.
They had no plan to do this going into the Christmas
holidays, or at least there was no obvious plan for this.
We came back after the Christmas holidays and they wanted to bring in
the pension bill, and then this came in alongside of it.
The explanation was that this was about saving money.
So that is in stark contradiction to what the Minister of
Transportation and Works was getting on with.
Another thing, the Member for Lab West got up and he
decried this whole idea that the Liberals are having a free vote.
It is like some sort of foreign object.
What is wrong with having a free vote every now and then?
I say to the Member for Labrador West, Mr. Speaker, that he might
forget the history, but I certainly do not forget it.
When the FPI Act came before this Legislature several
years ago, there was a free vote that Premier Danny Williams, who sat over
there, held in here, and basically your party voted for it and he voted
against it. He did not vote for
it, in any case. So the Premier
did not even vote for the legislation that the rest of his Cabinet and
members voted for. That was the
free vote. There were no
complaints then. It is not
unusual to have a free vote.
Political parties often run on that platform, that there will be more free
votes. That is a good thing.
We are often chastised for not having enough freedom to vote your
conscience in this Legislature.
So that is a bit ridiculous.
Now, another thing that has been said here in the House
is that the NDP has been saying this was all done under the cover of
darkness, and everybody was ignorant of what was going on.
It all just emerged in the middle of the night.
Well, as a number of members have already stated, the first thing
happened after this proposal came in is the Leader of the Liberal Party held
a press conference and talked about the three conditions that we were
willing to accept this reduction in seats under.
One of them was preserving the four seats for Labrador.
Then there was a whole process of negotiation whereby the Official
Opposition spoke to the government about how all of this could work, and
there was a process of negotiation that went over several days.
Now, the NDP never contacted anyone to find out what
was going on. It was obvious
that there were negotiations taking place, because that is the way it is
supposed to work in here. You
cannot just complain all the time and not look for solutions.
This is about negotiation.
They talk about collaboration and they never collaborate.
If you want collaboration then we have to have collaboration.
You cannot say you want collaboration and then not collaborate ever.
This whole suggestion from the NDP is that we are
disunited because we are having a free vote, we are not being whipped.
Well, I say, Mr. Speaker, if you govern your caucus with an iron
whip, then you are going to have fewer members over time, I tell you that.
That is what is going to happen.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
The other thing I wanted to say about all of that too, and I am glad the
Premier pointed this out because he reminded me that the Liberal Party and
the NDP supported a reduction in seats.
This story, I had to go dig it up because he said, this was March 1,
2013, and the title is: Liberals, NDP call for fewer seats in the House of
Assembly. The Leader of the NDP
at the time said, I look at places like Nova Scotia, Ontario or other
provinces, and the MLAs have many more people in their ridings than we have
in our districts. The current
Leader of the NDP is out talking about how somehow we are too incompetent to
do our jobs in representing more people and then just a couple of years ago,
that was no problem.
Now, I do not know, I was on this show
On Point, that unfortunately CBC
is not carrying anymore, and the good member, the hon. Member for St. John's
East was on representing the NDP.
I raised this point, and I said your leader sat right there in that
chair and said your party was in favour of seat reduction.
He said she did not put a number on it.
Well, let me extrapolate from this statement, that
Ontario and the MLAs there have more people in their ridings than we have in
our districts. In Ontario, the
range of population that is represented by members of the provincial
Parliament because they call them MPPs in Ontario; MPPs in Ontario
represent anywhere from 71,000 to 170,000 in Brampton West people.
So basically under that model proposed by the NDP in
that interview, this Legislature would consist of seven to three seats,
three to seven seats. You could
have a comfortable minority government perhaps with just three seats.
Look, they have just three seats.
How ironic that it works out that way.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
I just want to put that to rest once and for all.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KIRBY:
With respect to some of the technical aspects of the bill, Mr. Speaker, this
bill proposes to reduce the number of seats in the House of Assembly to
forty. I believe that we can get
the work done with forty. I
believe all the good Members of this House of Assembly are competent enough
to do that. You have certainly
shown that over the past almost four years and some of you have been here,
well, since it opened in some cases.
Maybe it just seems to me that is the case.
I was not talking about the Member for Bay of Islands,
Mr. Speaker. I do not know why
he is looking at me.
I believe we can get the work done with that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KIRBY:
When the original bill came before the Legislature the Premier said
thirty-eight. Then there was a
process of negotiation whereby the Labrador seats were protected and they
arrived at this number of forty.
It also sets out the new boundaries which we have
discussed right down to the end.
There will be a little more said before we get to the end of second reading.
I am satisfied with the boundaries myself, to a large extent.
There are some problems with them.
I am not sure we can resolve the problems within the proper timeline
because we know that people in this Province want an election this year.
The Chief Electoral Officer there was correspondence
that went back and forth from the Liberal Party to the chief electoral
office. I am not sure if any of
the other parties engaged in this, but it was a process of negotiation and
finding information. We asked
the Chief Electoral Officer for some clarification on all the timelines.
There was a window whereby we could have had a
September election this year.
The government does not want to do that.
The government has a majority.
We recognize that. We
have had two lengthy filibusters in here on Bill 29 and Muskrat Falls.
We know the government can put through legislation because it has a
majority so we accept that.
The Leader of the Liberal Party said originally that he
would accept pushing the election into November.
That was the first day all this was proposed.
He did say that and he stuck by his words the entire time.
He did not back down from it at any point in time, and so I am
satisfied with that.
I do not understand one part of this and I apologize
to Legislative Counsel and I apologize to those who are responsible for
drafting this bill because I do not think it was the members who sit over
there. I have some serious
concerns about this one section here.
I do not have an amendment, but I just want to put this on the
record.
It is clause 1 which amends section 3 of the House of
Assembly Act. It is section 3(4)
in Clause 1 in this Bill. It
says let's see if I can get this out now Notwithstanding subsection
(2), if, on April 1 in the year that a general election is to be held under
that subsection, the Premier is of the opinion that the day that would be an
ordinary polling day under that subsection is not suitable for that purpose
because it overlaps with a federal election, the Premier shall choose an
alternative day in accordance with subsection (5) and shall provide advice
to the Lieutenant-Governor that a general election be held on that
alternative day.
There has to be a simpler way to write that.
Mr. Speaker, I am sort of ashamed to say that I spent thirteen years
in university God love my mother and father; they have a lot of patience
but I have some difficulty understanding what is intended by this.
I think what it means is that if by April 1 in a given year that the
Premier thinks there is going to be a conflict with a federal election of
some overlap, that they will change the date to the last Monday in November
in the fourth calendar year following the ordinary polling day for the most
recently held general election is the alternative day referred to in
subsection (4).
This is really cumbersome language and I think if we
want legislation to be accessible to the general public, whereby people can
go online, read this stuff and understand what the laws of the Province are
because people are interested in this Province about when the election
date is and so on and so forth.
People are engaged. We are lucky
here somebody said the other night it is sort of like this is the end of
democracy here in the Province and that we should be ashamed of ourselves.
I do not believe that at all.
Do you know what? This
process has been a good one for this Province.
People have been engaged, people have been enraged, people have been
upset by this, and people have shown passion about politics over this.
That is a good thing for us in this Province.
We should feel good about that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
People are paying attention to what is going on in here, and that is really
important because too often in too many provinces, in too many places, in
this country people do not care, they are disengaged, they are complacent.
By and large, this has created good conversation.
Whatever side of the issue you are on, this is good for our
democracy; but for the love of God, Mr. Speaker, people have to be able to
read it and understand it.
Anyway, I will leave it there.
I thank all members for their contribution to the debate and I
appreciate everyone putting up with my contribution.
I know that it always does not please everybody but you are who you
are and again I thank all hon. members for their hard work.
I think we are all here for a reason that we think is right in the
least.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. GRANTER:
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand here in the House, just to stand for
a few moments to address the House on Bill 13, An Act to Amend the House of
Assembly Act. It was
interesting, the Member for St. Barbe must have had some wisdom and wanted
to talk about which members over here he has inspired which members over
here would or not speak to Bill 13.
I was sat here while he was speaking and I was thinking to myself, I
was right ready to get on my feet to share with the Province and the people
of the good District of Humber West my experience over the last number of
years as their representative here in the House of Assembly, and it is all
about change.
When we look back on life, life is all about change and
every one of us have gone through change experiences.
What this is about with regard to Bill 13, Mr. Speaker, is all about
change. We are going from
forty-eight seats to forty seats.
We went through a process, an initial process of going out and
seeking collaboration. My
District of Humber West that I have represented going on five years has
changed. It is changing now to
what is a District of Corner Brook, which encompasses most of the City of
Corner Brook and takes in from the initial changes much of a section of
Townsite on up to parts of Humber Heights with regard to the split coming
down the known parkway.
It is always important that we represent the people.
When we come into this House, we dedicate ourselves to working for
the people of the Province and working for the people of the district.
When you get elected and put into Cabinet, you park your district at
the door, Mr. Speaker, and you work for the entire Province.
I have enjoyed nearly five years representing the good people of
Humber West and really representing the entire district of what currently
would be Corner Brook.
It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, historically when you
look at the District of Humber West since its inception back in 1949 since
the Province became a part of Canada, the members who represented the people
of Humber West in the House of Assembly have always sat on the government
side. The representative who was
elected to Humber West from the time of Confederation has always sat on the
government side, with the exception of the former Premier Danny Williams for
that short period of time when he sat in Opposition.
So that is a historical piece that is important to remember.
Mr. Speaker, life, as I said at the beginning, is all
about change. We need to embrace
change. This is what we are
doing here with Bill 13, reducing the number of seats in the Province from
forty-eight down to forty. If we
start to battle change change is always good.
Change is difficult, but change is always good.
I know there are colleagues of mine on this side of the
House who have to sit back and reflect on what district they are going to
run in. I know there are
colleagues on the other side of the House as well who will have to reflect
on what districts they are going to run in.
At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, when they step forward and put
their names forward, in no matter what district it is, in the forty seats
that we will have come election day on November 30, they will stand up and
they will put their name forward for the hard job, for the difficult job,
and the difficult task of representing the people of the district that they
represent.
I know the good Member for Carbonear Harbour Grace
says it so eloquently; he got elected to represent the people of the
district. That is what we all
do. We spend day in and day out,
365 days a year. Some people
sometimes in the public do not realize how hard the Members of the House of
Assembly work; meetings, meetings, and meetings, travelling all throughout
the district.
Some of us have districts that are small in geography.
Others have districts that are large in geography.
We are going to find out in this change that some of the districts
are going to grow. Most of the
districts will grow in size. The
district that I now represent, Humber West which is two seats in Corner
Brook, Humber West and Humber East will now be encompassed in one seat,
and that will be Corner Brook, Mr. Speaker.
Change is always inevitable, Mr. Speaker.
I look forward to the change.
I look forward to the challenges that are ahead.
People in this House will put their names forward in the district
they want to represent. They
will do a good job representing the people once they get elected in
November.
Mr. Speaker, I always like to use a few quotes.
I thought the opportunity today would be to just use two or three
quotes to put this in perspective about change in life and the idea of a
butterfly. The beautiful
butterfly would never exist without change.
We all know how that transpires.
The beautiful butterfly would never exist without change.
Mr. Speaker, The secret of change is to focus all of
your energy, not on fighting the old, but on building the new.
We have had experience.
We have all sat representing forty-eight districts in this House, and come
November there will be forty seats.
That will be a new phase in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I know others in this House in the last few days talked
about the number of seats that have changed from the time that Newfoundland
was a colony and from the time Newfoundland came down through Confederation
since 1949. Many members in this
House have talked about the change down through the years.
Again, we are going to experience change this year, Mr. Speaker.
Ten years from now, after going through this process, if change is
required again with the population and that population changes, then I am
sure the Legislature of the day will enact another process by which they
will travel the Province and look at change of the number of seats in the
House of Assembly.
Another one, Mr. Speaker, Progress is impossible
without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change
anything. That is absolutely
important, because each and every day we look at change.
We look at how we see our world and how we see our Province.
It is important that we accept the realities.
Change exists in our life, and change exists in the Province.
So, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to making my decision
on what district I will represent.
Currently, it is the District of Humber West.
Again, as I said earlier, that will encompass the entire, for the
most part, most of the City of Corner Brook.
Although a section of the City of Corner Brook will be represented by
another district.
There were presentations made.
I know the Member for Bay of Islands made a presentation.
The Member for Mount Pearl made a presentation to the Commission.
The Commission went back and reviewed the presentations that were
made, and they accepted aspects of the presentations that were made.
I know there were a number of letters that were written, even from
people in Corner Brook, even from people in the Bay of Islands, that had
other suggestions. At the end of
the day, the Commission looked at and tried to make a balance of what it is,
the geographical boundaries that they would represent, and at the end of the
day they issued a report.
I commend the work of the commissioners on that
particular committee for the hard work they did in the period of time they
had, Mr. Speaker. Now it is our
opportunity to stand in this House, all of us, each and every one of us, to
stand on our feet and either support Bill 13, An Act To Amend The House Of
Assembly Act, or stand on our feet and reject that.
We all have a choice in what we do, and likewise we all
have a choice. Either we put our
name forward in the Legislature that we will be elected on November 30 of
this year but I can guarantee the people of the Province, and I can
guarantee the people of my current District of Humber West, and the future
District of Corner Brook, and whatever that district might be, that when you
get a representative who stands in the House of Assembly
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. GRANTER:
When you get a representative who stands in the House of Assembly, Mr.
Speaker, they he or she will represent the people of the district to the
best of their ability. That is
all that the people of the Province ask, that when you come to St. John's
and you put your name forward and you get elected by the good people of the
district that you represent, is to come here and represent their needs on
the floor of this House to enact change, to enact new legislation.
So that the day you leave this House, the day that you
walk away from this, whether it is four years or five years, or those of us
who have careers in politics, the day you walk away is the day that you can
say: well done, you did well, you made some changes, you enacted good
legislation, and you represented the people of your district to the best
possible way that you can.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to support Bill 13 when we
get a chance to vote on this here in this House of Assembly, and everyone
else in the House will have their opportunity to either support Bill 13 or
not support Bill 13. I want to
take this opportunity to wish each and every one of us, those of us who put
our names forward in the upcoming election on November 30, and those of us
who might say, well, I am finished with politics, I want to wish all of them
the very best, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a few comments on this bill.
I want to first of all thank the members of the committee because I
know their job was not an easy one.
Trying to determine how to change boundaries and reduce the number of
electoral districts in this Province was not an easy task, knowing that some
areas of the Province, some districts were going to be disappointed,
communities disappointed.
They took on that task, Mr. Speaker, and I think that
despite the fact that some members are adversely affected, they did have a
difficult job to do. They
carried it out professionally, whether or not everybody is happy is to be
debated in this House, obviously, but I think they carried out their job
with a great deal of professionalism.
Mr. Speaker, you look at the number of districts and
I remember a former member of this House, something he said quite often, and
I will repeat that today, that we are amongst forty-eight in this House.
We have the privilege as a group of forty-eight individuals in this
House to represent the people who elected us to speak on their behalf.
Mr. Speaker, that is a huge privilege.
It is an honour to be amongst forty-eight individuals to speak on
behalf of the people of the Province.
I take that as an honour, Mr. Speaker, and I do say that I am truly
privileged to be a member of this Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, to reduce that number from forty-eight to
forty, obviously, it is having an impact on some of our colleague here.
I want to talk a little bit about the British Parliamentary system
and how that operates, because a lot of the viewers at home see us, we come
in, we vote, and why did you toe the party line.
Under the British Parliamentary system, as we all know,
you bring your debates and your issues to caucus.
They are debated around the caucus table and oftentimes there is
vigorous debate at a caucus table.
Once you reach a consensus, the majority of people in caucus speak a
certain way on any particular issue.
You bring that issue then to the Assembly or to the people of the
Province, and you support it as a party, but there is a great deal of debate
that generally takes place within caucus on issues.
There are people who are very happy with that and some people who are
not, but as part of the British Parliamentary system you go out as a united
party and you support that issue.
Not often in an Assembly, Mr. Speaker, do you have
truly an open and free vote.
That is what is happening with the Liberal Party in this particular case,
and we are doing that because of the fact that there are individuals in our
caucus that, because we are a group of forty-eight and we are elected to
represent our people, we looked at this particular issue and there are
individuals within our caucus that while they supported the reduction in the
number of electoral districts, from forty-eight to forty, as our leader
proposed well over a year ago, those individuals heard from their
constituents who spoke out loudly and said they are not happy with the way
the boundaries have been changed.
So we do have a couple of individuals in our caucus, Mr. Speaker,
that because of the feedback they have received in their own districts are
going to vote against this. Even
though they were in favour of voting, and voted for a reduction in the
number of electoral districts.
It reminds me of education reform.
A number of years ago when this Province went through the education
reform debate and there was a referendum, I lobbied very loudly and opening,
publicly lobbied, against education reform at the time.
Mr. Speaker, through the referendum I know my district
voted 52 per cent in favour of education reform and 48 per cent against
education reform. As a result,
when I came to this Assembly and that was a free vote as well I stood
and I spoke as I felt and said that I was personally against education
reform, but I am elected to represent the people who brought me to this
House of Assembly. As a result,
they spoke, through the referendum, 52 per cent in favour of education
reform. As a result, I voted in
favour of education reform, even though my personal belief was that I was
not favour, because I am elected to represent the people who brought me to
this Assembly to represent their views.
So in the case of a referendum it is easy.
It is easy to know how your district wants you to vote.
In a lot of cases, you have to consult with your constituents through
various methods and determine how your constituents want you to vote.
That is the debate you then bring to your caucus table on a
particular issue.
So to those individuals who have had to make the tough
decision in our caucus, you voted in favour of a reduction in the number of
electoral districts, but because your constituents have told you they are
not happy with the boundary alignment, to those individuals I applaud your
courage to stand and vote against the bill that you voted in favour of
initially.
Mr. Speaker, we are now going to have forty individuals
in this Assembly. So when we
come back, those of us who are lucky to come back here after the next
election, there will be forty of us.
That is an even greater privilege to be chosen by your peers, to be
chosen by the people you represent, to reflect their views and their ideas
and to fight on their behalf in this Assembly.
I have seen three boundary changes so far, Mr. Speaker.
I hope I am here long enough to see a fourth, but I have seen three
boundary changes so far in my time in this Assembly.
I can tell you that it is not always easy for individuals.
The previous two boundary changes that I have seen saw my district
get bigger, and I have taken on more area.
Well, again this time if
we are seeing a reduction from forty-eight to forty seats, obviously those
forty districts will be larger.
I am seeing a lot of new areas added to my district,
and I certainly look forward to working on behalf of those communities and
those residents as well. I
promise to give them the service that I have always promised, to act on
their behalf, and to do so in a very diligent and open and fair manner, Mr.
Speaker.
I wanted to talk a little bit about the six month
change where now we see six months prior to an election if a member decides
that he or she is going to retire, for whatever reason leaves the seat that
they represent, that there will not be a by-election.
Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of that, but I am very suspect of the
timing.
I think that is a good rule because six months prior to
an election, if you are three months or four months, five months prior to
the election to have a by-election is a cost to the Province and it is
seeing a number of individuals run for a district and then three or four
months later they are running again.
So I am in favour of that six month change in the legislation, but
like I said I am very suspect of the timing because we do know that there
are a number of members opposite who are looking to leave.
The Premier even indicated, when he announced the change, the Member
for Gander has indicated publicly and openly that he is looking to leave
provincial politics to make a run for federal politics, but he also
indicated that there are others.
He would not be surprised to see other individuals leave prior to the next
election. I am suspect of that
rule at this particular time.
While I agree with the rule, Mr. Speaker, I am suspect
of the change at this particular time because there have been a number of
by-elections and government has lost all of those by-elections.
So this is a way of protecting themselves and allowing individuals to
leave without triggering a by-election.
Mr. Speaker, we look at the November date and I am
also suspect of that date change.
We are now on three-and-a-half Premiers since the last provincial
general election.
MR. JOYCE:
How many?
MR. OSBORNE:
Three-and-a-half Premiers we have had since the last provincial general
election. The intent of the
legislation is that there would be a year, Mr. Speaker, from the time a
Premier leaves office, if it is during a term as opposed to at the end of a
term. If he or she were to leave
office, within a year that party is supposed to have their leadership
process organized, arranged, have a new leader in place, and then call and
election. That was supposed to
be the intent of the legislation.
I know. I
sat around the table while the legislation was debated at our caucus table,
and then sat in the House when the legislation was brought forward to the
House of Assembly and voted on here.
So I know the intent of the legislation, what was intended.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we see three-and-a-half Premiers since the last
provincial general election.
If the first leadership process had gone if the party
opposite were able to organize that and carry it out the way it was supposed
to be carried out, we would have been into an election in June of this year.
So that did not go as they planned.
The individual who was to be acclaimed leader of the party decided to
not accept that position, to leave, and they had to go through another
leadership process.
With that leadership process, Mr. Speaker, instead of
it being June, which is what it should have been, it was put out to
September. When this process was
laid out before the people of the Province just after Christmas, early
January I believe it was, and the current Premier indicated his plans to
reduce the number of electoral seats in the Province from forty-eight to
forty, he indicated at that particular time that we could potentially be
looking to push the election out to 2016.
That was his intent. That
is what he was thinking at the time.
As part of this legislation and part of the process
here, he initially announced thirty-eight seats would be the number that the
from forty-eight to thirty-eight seats.
Our party put forward a number of amendments that were accepted in
this House. One was to protect
the four seats in Labrador because Labrador is a big, big geographic area.
While the population of each of the districts in Labrador is less
than what it is on the Island, geographically it is a very large area about
two-and-a-half, three times the size of the Island of Newfoundland.
We set out to protect those four seats in Labrador which was not in
place under the current legislation or the current amendments that
government had intended. That
was one of the amendments.
The second amendment, Mr. Speaker, was based on the
fact that the current Premier said he was looking at pushing the election
out to sometime in 2016. We
perhaps should have been more specific, but we said that we wanted an
amendment to ensure that the election took place in 2015.
That it would not go beyond this calendar year.
So, we now see that it is November 30, which is absolutely the latest
possible time government could have pushed the election out until.
Otherwise, you would have been into Christmas.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that government had pushed
this out as long as they possibly could.
Their polling numbers are showing that government are not in great
shape in the polls and they continue to slide.
So they have pushed it out as long as they possibly could.
In that particular instance, I do not think anybody on this side was
delighted with the fact that it was November 30, because it pushed it out as
far they could possibly push it out.
Mr. Speaker, other than that I think everybody in this
Legislature voted unanimously to see the change in electoral boundaries and
the reduction to having forty of us return after the next provincial general
election. Overall, you cannot
pick bits and piece of legislation and say I do not like that so I am not
going to support overall, I support the legislation.
There are parts of it obviously that I am suspect of, there are parts
of it that I am not pleased with, but overall I support the legislation and
I will be voting in favour of the legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader, to close debate?
MR. KING:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader and Minister of Justice and Public
Safety.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am standing now to close debate in second reading on
Bill 13, An Act to Amend the House of Assembly Act.
For those watching and following this, we are actually in second
reading so when I stand today now to speak as the minister responsible for
the bill, this closes debate in second reading, allows us to move the bill
through the next stage in the process, which would be Committee.
We plan to go into Committee sometime later this evening.
Then, of course, the final step would be third reading.
I want to thank all members who have contributed to
this debate. It is always
interesting to hear the perspectives on the legislation and the points of
view expressed. I must say
upfront that while we may disagree philosophically, I have the greatest
respect for all members' positions in this House and how they see particular
pieces of legislation.
I do get a little bothered sometimes when debate gets a
little personal and away from the issue at hand.
I try not to do that myself, although I am probably guilty of it as
much as anybody sometimes. I
think it is important to try and keep the debate at a level that is about
what is in the bill and what the intentions of the bill would be.
So what we are talking about here obviously is the report of the
electoral boundaries commission and a number of recommendations; the most
significant certainly would be the reduction in seats in the House of
Assembly from forty-eight down to forty.
Of course, within those forty there was a preservation made with the
House of Assembly when we gave direction to the Commission that the four
Labrador seats would be maintained.
So, in essence, we maintained four seats in Labrador,
and then we reduced the eight seats from the forty-four remaining on the
Island. Of course, with that, as
a result of that reduction in the legislation itself we will require a
renaming of districts, which is provided here, the new names for the
districts, and there will be new descriptors that would describe in very
specific terms the latitude and longitude and all that sort of stuff on the
map of the Province as to the exact boundaries.
In some cases, Mr. Speaker, as people would certainly know, if you
look at the map at least, some our boundaries go in very odd directions, and
not necessarily along straightforward community names.
So all of that is provided, and of course, given the
time frame with the federal election call, we have had to include a
provision here to change the date of the next provincial election to
November 30. An additional
amendment to that will provide that for future instances where it appears
that now at least there will be future conflicts between the federal
election date and the provincial election date, that the Premier of the day,
on April 1 of the given year will make the determination that the election
date has to be moved, and if that is the determination, then this
legislation provides when that alternate election date will be.
So it really removes any element of surprise for future
dates, and it really squarely puts the decision on the shoulders of the
Premier of the day to do it on April 1 of that particular year.
If there is no intention to move the date signified at that time,
then it means the date stays November 30.
As well, of course, I mentioned this in my opening
statement that there are a number of consequential changes required through
the members' compensation and benefits rules and regulations that will be
handled by the House of Assembly Management Commission.
That work has already started; pending this House confirms this
particular piece of legislation and the description of the electoral
districts that are contained there within.
Knowing that I am on the Management Commission, I
suspect that work will be concluded in very short order, once this
legislation is passed, so that the new budget allocations for the various
districts can be implemented immediately upon the passing of the
legislation.
Many members have talked about their own personal
circumstance. I have not done
that, but I will take a few moments.
I have tried to stick to the higher level of the legislation as the
minister responsible. My
district, like everyone's, is affected.
In my particular case, the District of Grand Bank is actually
preserved. We did not lose
anything. We picked up
communities. We are picking up
communities in the Bay L'Argent area of the Burin Peninsula and of course a
portion of the old Burin Placentia West.
The area that I would call Salt Pond, Burin, Black Duck Cove area is
coming in to the new Burin Grand Bank district.
It is a good fit in many respects.
The traditional areas of employment, the fishery in particular, has
been dominant in all of those communities.
I see a lot of natural fit, a lot of synergies.
So I certainly, as the Member for the current Grand Bank district, I
welcome all of those new communities into the new Burin Grand Bank
district. I think it is going to
be a good fit.
I, too, would want to take a moment, like many of the
members, and simply acknowledge that some of my colleagues here are
obviously in a very bad situation.
Some districts have disappeared completely; others are kind of being
engulfed with a mishmash of boundaries moving.
In some cases, I think on both sides of the House, we have conflicts
where members in both parties have to make decisions to either run against
each other for nominations or chose to do something else.
That is unfortunate.
I certainly want to acknowledge that to all members in the House.
It is unfortunate when we face that situation, but the reality is we
all knew going into this that there would be outcomes that none of us could
anticipate or predict.
I suspect if you were to ask anybody in this House the
day the legislation was passed, we all had a scenario of how this would play
out. I suspect, I do not know
for certain, but I suspect everybody had their thoughts on what this would
look like. I suspect after the
first report came out, many people had thoughts on what would be changed and
what would not be changed. Some
of us were dead on in our guesses on some of it, and some of us were way off
in our guesses of other aspects of it.
My point being, Mr. Speaker, when we went into this we
all acknowledged that it could be me, it could be you, or it could be
someone else who would get affected here.
We accept that. For all
the members affected here, our job today is to deal with the legislation
that is before us and make the best decisions we can.
Hopefully, everyone will support this legislation so that we can move
forward and put it behind us. As
I said, to the members who are more impacted than me in a negative way, I
certainly wish them the best of luck as they make some decisions about
whether they are going to run against a colleague, or decide to do something
else.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I think most of my colleagues
are in the House now who are going to be here for the vote.
I am going to conclude my remarks and I think that will take us into
the vote for second reading. I
look forward to moving this bill a little later in the evening into
Committee stage and furthering our debate, and answering some questions.
I understand that perhaps some members opposite will have questions
for me on some of the more specific aspects of the bill.
I certainly look forward to taking those questions and doing what we
can.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read the second
time?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division.
MR. SPEAKER:
Division has been called.
Summon the members, please.
Division
MR. SPEAKER:
Are the Whips ready?
AN HON. MEMBER:
No.
MR. SPEAKER:
Are the Whips ready?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
Call for the vote.
All those in favour, please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Davis, Mr. King, Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Kent, Mr. Dalley, Mr. Crummell, Mr.
Sandy Collins, Mr. Felix Collins, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Granter, Mr. Cross, Ms
Perry, Mr. Brazil, Mr. Russell, Mr. Forsey, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Dinn, Mr.
Cornect, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Little, Mr. Pollard, Mr.
McGrath, Mr. Ball, Mr. Andrew Parsons, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Joyce, Ms Cathy
Bennett, Mr. Jim Bennett, Mr. Mitchelmore, Ms Dempster, Mr. Edmunds, Mr.
Kirby, Mr. Lane, Mr. Hillier.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
CLERK:
Mr. Slade, Mr. Reid, Mr. Flynn, Mr. Crocker, Ms Michael, Mr. Murphy, Ms
Rogers.
Mr. Speaker, the ayes: thirty five; the nays: seven.
MR. SPEAKER:
The ayes have it.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act.
(Bill 13).
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read the second time.
When shall the bill be referred to the Committee?
MR. KING:
Later today.
MR. SPEAKER:
Later.
On motion, a bill, An Act To Amend The House Of
Assembly Act, read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the
Whole House. (Bill 13)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Right now, I would like to go to the Order Paper and
call Bill 12, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2, so moved by
me, seconded by my colleague the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board that the said bill be now read the second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read the second
time?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The
Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2.
(Bill 12)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is my pleasure today to stand and introduce Bill 12.
As a part of the annual Budget process, there are generally pieces of
legislation that grow from the Budget.
The Budget was passed in this House a little while ago and we
obviously endorsed the expenditures as laid out in the Estimates.
We endorsed the general fiscal policies of government through that
process. Now that we have the
Budget passed, there are number of pieces of legislation in fact I think
there is about four pieces of legislation that we now need to debate in the
House and when passed in the House, they will give effect to some of the
initiatives announced in the Budget.
This bill is one of those.
Bill 12 is an amendment to the Income Tax Act, but it
is a very precise set of adjustments, a very precise set of amendments.
In the House, we tend to talk about bills at Budget time as being
either very specific to a very specific amendment, to a particular piece of
legislation, or we get commonly referred to as money bills.
Money bills are one of those areas where members will get up and they
are able to talk about a wide range of things, sometimes they talk about
their district, sometimes they talk about the Budget itself, but it is
pretty wide ranging. This is not
one of those circumstances, I say, Mr. Speaker.
This is one of those pieces of legislation where we are going into an
existing piece of legislation itself, we are going into an act this bill
amends an existing act, the Income Tax Act No 2.
What we are trying to do here is two-fold.
This bill has two purposes, two things to be dealt with.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. WISEMAN:
One is the Harmonized Sales Tax Credit, and the other deals with a credit
that we are providing in this year's Budget, an Interactive Digital Media
Tax Credit. That is the two
provisions that are covered off in this Budget.
I will provide some introductory comments to each of those issues and
other speakers will speak to this in second reading and then, when we get
into Committee, there may be some very specific questions around this bill
that I will be only too glad to answer.
Let me provide, by way of a general overview this is
not, as I said, a detailed piece of legislation so let me just provide some
basic comments. Number one, this
bill is intended to implement a series of tax measures, tax credits.
In particular though, Mr. Speaker, there will be an increase in the
Harmonized Sales Tax Credit that is the sales tax credit and providing
for a new tax credit with respect to the digital interactive media products.
The Harmonized Sales Tax Credit first; so what we are
doing here, Mr. Speaker, is bringing in a new process or a new amendment to
allow for a greater tax deduction, a greater credit to a larger number of
people for the HST that they paid on goods and services that they purchased.
The coming into effect of this I want to speak to in the front end.
One of the things that is happening, in January 2016 this Budget
proposes to implement a change in the HST that is being charged moving from
a 13 per cent to a 15 per cent.
This tax credit that we are talking about here will
apply to the 2016 tax year. When
individuals who live in the Province file their tax returns for the tax year
2016, this credit that has been introduced in this bill will apply and be
used in that tax filing. So that
is the first thing, Mr. Speaker.
Now, as a part of this process in terms of the credit
and looking at what we would do to and why we would want to increase this
tax credit, it takes us back a little bit to what we have done in the
Budget. We have made a change in
the HST going from 13 per cent to 15 per cent.
When it was at 13 per cent, we had a process in place, Mr. Speaker,
that provided for a tax credit.
To become eligible for that tax credit under the old
system at 13 per cent, individuals who made $15,000 a year were able to get
a full tax credit. That tax
credit would be based on their income.
The amounts at that time were $40 for each individual adult, another
$40 for their spouse, and for any child under the age of nineteen there was
a $60 credit. What is important
here, Mr. Speaker, is $15,000 was the income threshold.
What we are doing now is we are taking what this bill
does it takes that threshold and increases it.
That is the first part of the credit.
It takes the threshold from $15,000 and increases it to $30,000.
So what that means is that individuals who file a tax return in this
Province, starting in tax year 2016, will be eligible for a tax credit based
on HST that they have made.
There is no proof of those purchases required.
The assumption is if you live in this Province and you buy goods and
services, that you will in fact pay HST.
Now, not all products, not all things that you buy you
pay HST on. For example, basic
groceries you do not pay HST; prescription drugs you do not pay HST.
Any medical devices you may have to provide for yourself or your
family, you do not pay HST on.
There are certain things you do not pay HST on, but the assumption is if you
live in this Province you are buying goods and services that will be subject
to an HST.
The assumption is that if you live here you will pay
it. So you do not have to have
receipts when you file your tax return.
You do not have to have receipts to get this credit.
What it triggers the eligibility for is purely an income, and that
income is $30,000 up from the current $15,000.
The other aspects of this, Mr. Speaker, that improves
it is, as I said a moment ago, when it gets to be $15,000 the amount of
credit you were going to get was only going to be $40.
So what we have taken is, we have taken the income of $15,000 and
doubled it to $30,000, but we more than doubled the $40.
We have taken it from $40 to $300.
For an adult, there is a $300 credit.
Now for the spouse or partner it is a $60 credit, and
for each child under the age of nineteen it is $60 as well.
So what we have done, Mr. Speaker, is inasmuch as and there has
been lots of discussion around the HST increase.
That is not the subject of the bill.
I will not necessarily go into a lot of detail about the increase;
however, what we have done is we recognize that any time you increase a tax
like we have done here on consumption, then we want to make sure we minimize
the impact on low-income people, and that is what we have done here, Mr.
Speaker.
We have fundamentally taken a position that says
anybody making $30,000 or less will get the full credit, but then it gets
graduated. Someone making
$32,000 gets a credit, but it is something less.
So it diminishes as your income goes up, and it reaches a point where
it disappears all together.
Basically, what we are trying to do here, Mr. Speaker,
is we are trying to on one hand increase revenue to the Province.
In this year's Budget, we are spending a little over $8 billion on
providing programs and services, much needed programs and services to
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
As such, one of the areas of revenue we have looked at is HST.
One of the other bills I made a comment about, there were four
altogether one of the other ones we are going to talk about later on is
the increase in income tax, another source of revenue.
I say, Mr. Speaker, this becomes a part of our overall
tax structure in the Province.
What we are trying to do here is to create some change, but at the same
time, minimizing the impact on low-income individuals.
That is what this does.
This change going from the $15,000 to the $30,000, the
change going from the $40 to the $300, and the $40 to the $60 has been the
first time there has been a change since 1997.
So obviously this would be a welcome change for individuals who live
in Newfoundland and Labrador.
This, Mr. Speaker, is stacked.
This is on top of what the federal government will provide as a
credit as well. It will be paid
out by the federal government in the fall.
We have an arrangement with CRA where they administer our tax
structure. Rebates and your
income tax returns are filed with them.
They remit the Newfoundland portion to the Province.
We have an arrangement with the federal government
where they administer our tax program for us.
Individuals who live in the Province, when they file their return,
they will automatically get their cheque associated with this credit
directly from CRA as a part of their administering our tax structure for us.
Mr. Speaker, one of the other interesting things that
this has done is we have taken an old system of a $15,000 limit and taken
care of about 58,000 people.
There are about 58,000 people who are benefitting from this credit that is
58,000 tax filers I should say.
So it is 58,000 tax filers benefitting from this program.
With the increase in the threshold going from $15,000
to $30,000, this will represent a significant increase, more than double,
Mr. Speaker. We will have about
127,000 tax filers who will be eligible for this credit as a result of our
moving the threshold from the $15,000 to the $30,000.
That is a significant benefit for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
who find themselves at an income threshold of $30,000 or under for the full
rebate, and obviously $30,000-plus for the partial.
That is a significant change I say, Mr. Speaker.
The cheque they will receive associated with this, commonly referred
to as the HST cheque, that comes out in the fall of the year, generally
October I believe. Families will
get that cheque in the fall of the year as they have always done, only the
amounts will be greater and the credit will be greater.
So, one of the other things that this bill is intended
to do, this bill is intended to also provide another provision that I made a
comment on earlier, and that is about the Interactive Digital Media Tax
Credit.
Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased in the Province that
we would have a strong industry, one that has emerged in recent years and
quite successfully. We have, in
the last number of years, evolved in this Province a digital media industry.
There are about forty firms in the Province currently doing business
and doing quite well, Mr. Speaker.
They employ over sixty-odd people, and experiencing great growth.
We have had some obviously who have been new into the
business in recent years, some more established, but all of them enjoying a
level of success. This industry
is a very competitive industry extremely competitive.
If we look at what is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador compared
to what is happening in other jurisdictions, we found ourselves in a positon
where we have an industry that has evolved, well-paying jobs, and talented
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Our ability to attract and retain the kind of talent that we need to
expand that business is depending on that industry's ability to compete with
other jurisdictions, who are also companies in those jurisdictions competing
for the same talent.
These are well sought after individuals with a lot of
skill and a lot of talent.
Clearly, if they do not stay competitive, if they are not able to provide a
competitive salary, if they are not able to provide competitive benefits,
then they lose out. The talent
will be hired away and so they will not be able to continue to grow and
expand.
The second thing obviously, with forty firms, that is a
significant base, lots of opportunity for growth.
So then we look at how do we grow that industry?
How do we expand that forty to a bigger number?
How do we attract other companies to come here, and how do we
convince those individuals who are already here to grow and expand while at
the same time other jurisdictions around the country are putting in place
programs, incentive programs, tax structures, financial incentives to try to
attract them to their jurisdiction?
So we are in a circumstance, Mr. Speaker, with two
things. We have an industry
where many jurisdictions in the country are competing for those companies.
The companies that exist are competing in the same talent pool to
recruit the kind of skill and talent that we need to fill those positions
and to grow that industry and to make these companies successful.
How do we actually make ourselves more competitive in
the marketplace? We have done an
analysis, Mr. Speaker, of: What is current best practice?
What happens in other jurisdictions?
How does this industry expand in other parts of Canada?
How does that industry create success in those other jurisdictions?
Because keep in mind, these are young talented individuals, well
trained, very skilled, who contributed, in a big way, to the economies of
their respective jurisdictions.
So we have looked at Western Canada.
We looked at Eastern Canada.
We looked at Central Canada.
Now, not every single province in the entire country does this.
Not every single province in this country has had success in building
this industry, but there are a few and those that have one of the key
things that is consistent with those provinces that have been able to build
this industry, one thing has been consistent: They have put in place
incentives. So we will be
joining five other provinces that have had success in building this industry
and attracting and keeping the companies they have by doing the same thing
that we are proposing in this bill.
What we are talking about is putting in place a tax
credit that provides for a 40 per cent refundable provincial tax credit on
eligible wage expenditures starting in fiscal January 2015, I say, Mr.
Speaker. This credit is designed
to help companies with their competitive cost for labour.
What we are prepared to do is a maximum credit value of $40,000 per
person, to a maximum of $2 million per company per year.
Mr. Speaker, one of the things we are trying to do here
is we want to try to attract these companies to Newfoundland and Labrador
and we want to keep them here while we are doing it.
So what we are trying to do, as we put this in place, we anticipate
that, as any program, we would want to make sure that it is successful,
obviously. We would want to make
sure that it is time specific.
We want to make sure that we introduce it, measure its success, determine if
it is working for us, and what might be that time period.
So what we are talking about here is putting in place a
program that will have a five-year sunset clause so we are able understand
what this program looks like. So
any renewal of it at the end of a five-year period will be subject to an
evaluation.
We have heard some comments in the House, and some
questions in the House in recent days, around the comments made by the
Auditor General and the need for program evaluation.
This is a shining example where we have put in place a mechanism; (a)
we established when the sunset clause would be.
We then put in place a mechanism for a renewal conditional upon a
successful program evaluation, making sure that it still satisfies the
objectives which would set up, which is what we are talking about here
today.
Mr. Speaker, this is one of those things that we want
to make sure that we get value for.
We believe that with the success of the industry thus far, the forty
companies that are here, and with the number of employees that they
currently have, the opportunity that exists for growth and expansion we
believe that this tax credit will have a cost to it of about $1 million on
an annual basis.
However, Mr. Speaker, if you think about that for a
moment and that is why this is important for us to understand that tax
credit obviously will only materialize if the companies are successful and
they attract the talent. There
is a criterion for them getting this money.
Obviously it is a result of having paid money out.
So think about it for a moment.
These companies will have talent that they will attract and they will
pay them. There is tax revenue
that comes from the personal income tax paid by those individuals.
There is revenue that comes to the Province as a result of their
spending their disposable income in Newfoundland and Labrador.
It comes about as the company itself growing its operation, becoming
profitable, paying taxes to the people as corporate citizens, paying taxes
to the people of the Province to the coffers of the Province rather, but
also what they are doing in their spending.
They are stimulating economic activity in their
respective communities. They are
buying goods and services. They
are potentially leasing space, buying buildings, owning real estate, or
renting real estate. They are
pumping additional money into the provincial coffers, I say, Mr. Speaker.
This $1 million that we anticipate would be the outside that we would
spend as a tax credit will be more than recovered as a part of our
stimulating economic activity in the Province.
Mr. Speaker, I know there is lots of time left that I
could take advantage of and speak to the bill, but clearly, the bill is very
specific, as I said. It centres
around two very specific things.
It is not a lengthy bill that will stimulate a lot of discussion as would a
money bill might, but it is very precise and very focused.
It takes a particular piece of legislation called the Income Tax Act,
one section of it, and makes two amendments, or amendments to reflect two
changes, providing two credits.
One is the Harmonized Sales Tax Credit for individuals who make $30,000 or
less. It is a significant
enhancement to the current program.
The second thing it does is provide a tax credit, the Interactive
Digital Media Tax Credit, another classic example, Mr. Speaker, of where as
a government, we have made strategic investments in trying to grow
additional economic activity in the Province, grow it in a non-traditional
sector.
This industry is not an industry that has been around
for thirty years. This is a
relatively new industry. Members
frequently talk about and ask questions around what do we do as a government
to stimulate economic activity?
What do we do as a government to diversify our economy?
What are we doing in the knowledge-based industries?
This, Mr. Speaker, just speaks to answering those three
questions as just one example.
That is not the subject of this bill, so I will not get into to it.
I could go on for hours talking about many other examples of where we
have done similar kinds of things to diversify an economy, stimulate
economic activity, and make strategic investments.
So I say, Mr. Speaker, the bill is precise, and I
invite members' other comments to the bill and look forward to the debate.
When we get into Committee, no doubt, there will be very some very
specific questions, and I will only be too glad to answer them.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Cross):
The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to follow the Minister of
Finance on Bill 12, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act.
This particular piece of legislation amending the
Income Tax Act, as the minister stated, is putting forward two specific
amendments; one around the HST Credit and about changing it to $300 for an
adult, a maximum amount, and $60 for a spouse.
The income eligibility will be phased from $15,000 to $30,000.
If I look at the budgetary documents in this year's Budget this is
the reason why this bill is before the floor and we look at the personal
income tax and benefits under Appendix I, HST Credit, we see that in
2014-2015, which would have been last year's Budget, that the amount in
millions of dollars for the credit would have been $3.7 million.
In this year's Budget which takes us right up to
2015-2016, that HST Credit has not changed, it is $3.7 million.
I want to point that out, because even though the threshold is
changing and this value has been increasing, the commencement date for this
particular change to the act will not happen until January 1, 2016 and a
credit will not be paid until October 2016.
So there is quite a bit of time between now and then
before the 127,000 filers, as the Minister of Finance noted, will collect an
enhanced HST cheque. During that
time, because of the passage of Budget this year the Premier's Budget
which increases HST they will be paying an increased HST on virtually
every item. You look at housing;
you look at the big ticket items.
You look at those who are of low to moderate income of $15,000 to
$30,000, you have to work really hard to save, to come up with that ability
to be able to make a big purchase like a car, like a washing machine, or a
new sofa, and things like that.
The delay in being able to collect such an enhanced
credit does have an impact on the overall economy, and how in signs of a
weakening economy increasing HST, coupled with adding back the HST on home
heating, which is in the Budget as well you have to look at what $300
means. If you had to pay $3,000
annually or $250 a month to heat your home that is the equivalent, then, of
that 10 per cent HST hike added on the power bills, not mentioning
everything else. So having an
enhanced credit is certainly necessary based on the decisions of the Budget.
This in my view is not really giving anything back.
It is a way to try and stabilize the cost of the increases and fees,
and the increase to tax that is in Budget 2015-2016.
I just wanted to point that out very clearly.
I will have some questions on this particular matter for the Minister
of Finance to clarify in the Committee stage.
I like the aspect of Committee because you can ask very direct
questions and seek information rather than myself standing and speaking,
coming to assumptions and making guesses.
I would not want to do that.
I do want to talk a little bit more about the amendment
for the new Interactive Digital Media Tax Credit and the regulations that
are surrounding it. It was
announced in Budget 2015 and I see in the appendix as well.
When you look at the corporate income tax and what credits are
available, the Interactive Digital Media Tax Credit is $1 million.
There is nothing in 2014 as it is a new credit.
The minister stated that it would come into effect in January of this
year.
When we look at what was announced in Budget 2015, it
will be applied to positions. It
is attached basically to salaries that are directly related to the
development of interactive digital media products, such as game designers,
programmers, artists, and composers.
We have to look forward in seeing what the particular
criteria is around this when the regulations come out, and how the industry
and those who are in the knowledge-based economy can benefit from such a tax
credit. The minister mentioned
that companies would be eligible for up to $2 million per year, yet the
budgeted amount in rebate is $1 million.
Looking at other jurisdictions in other places,
certainly there is mix between where things are in British Columbia in terms
of salaries, wages, and how they are put forward.
Sometimes it is only 17.5 per cent there.
In Ontario, you have 40 per cent, but there are restrictions put in
between 35 per cent, depending on if it's a specific project.
So really we need to make sure that when you are looking at giving a
credit and trying to grow an economy, an incentive in that way, that
programs are administered very effectively and thoroughly.
We see in the Auditor General's report that was put
forward that the Department of Finance is basically one of the ones that
were highlighted out as not managing the effectiveness of the deliveries of
their programs and how they administer money.
So a credit like the Interactive Digital Media Tax Credit would fall
under that and fall under that effectiveness.
We need to make sure when offering a credit that the
taxpayers of the Province are getting that benefit, that the jobs are being
created, and that there is stimulated activity around that so that there is
an opportunity to grow the knowledge-based economy, which does represent a
$1.6 billion industry and 3,900 jobs already in Newfoundland and Labrador.
This is not something new.
This is not a new industry.
It is a new tax credit indeed, but it is not a new industry to
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Newfoundland and Labrador has produced some
high-quality products when it comes to gaming and when it comes to being
interactive. I think having a
tax credit there that allows us to be more competitive, or as competitive,
or can keep a company, or attract a company is important given that Nova
Scotia, Ontario, British Columbia, and other areas have such tax credits.
There is no reason why I would not support having this
particular tax credit, but I will be looking forward to the regulations and
the administration of programming.
We have had hearings, committees, the Auditor General's report, and
Public Accounts where when it comes to looking at how government programs
are being delivered, we are just not getting best value.
It is not giving the deliverables that it should be.
When I go back and just bringing this all back into
perspective. When you look at
someone's income for the HST Credit, once they start earning above $30,000
family income, then their income is being diminished, so the tax credit will
be less. In Budget 2015-2016
there is an HST tax hike that will take $176 million to bring to the
Provincial Treasury. That is
what is estimated.
When you look at what is there now in an HST Credit of
$3.7 million, there is really going to be a greater impact on those who are
low to moderate income.
Certainly this credit is absolutely necessary to at least mitigate some of
the negative consequences that will happen in the economy because of Budget
2015-2016 with the HST tax hike.
Then whenever you are issuing a credit, you are looking at additional
layers, additional oversight.
There are costs to implementing such a program and
making sure that delivery and being in receipt so all those things need to
be factored in when you look at it, as well as the delay and the timing of
those people who are in that income and eligibility level, those 127,000
Newfoundlander and Labradorian tax filers who will be not collecting an HST
credit until October 2016, despite an HST increase happening in January
2016. That is ten months of
paying additional tax without having that ability.
There are a lot of people who are living day by day when it comes to
cheque to cheque, and any increase has an impact.
As well, the HST increase on power bills is happening in July of this
year. So that is more than a
year where some people will be paying additional tax beyond the other 261
fees that are in Budget 2015-2016.
I think I have made my points.
I could say a lot more, Mr. Speaker, about this, about the HST, about
the tax credits, and about the impacts and how Budget 2015-2016 has led to
Bill 12. I think I will leave it
at that and ask my specific questions to Committee.
That will allow me and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to get
specific answers to this particular bill.
I will support seeing an increase to an HST Credit and
an Interactive Digital Media Credit which can look at, if administered
effectively, seeing some additional economic activity stimulated in a $1.6
billion industry.
With that, I will take my seat.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad to be able to stand and speak to Bill 12, An
Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2.
As we know and as the minister said and the MHA for I was going to
say Cartwright L'Anse au Clair The Straits White Bay North excuse me
has pointed out this is a bill that is necessitated by changes to tax
credits, changes that happened in the Budget here, in the 2015-2016 Budget.
There are two parts to it, related in one way but not
in another, and they are both credits.
One is the Harmonized Sales Tax Credit which, as the Finance Minister
pointed out, is available for people with incomes under $30,000; and the
second is a tax credit, but it is a corporate tax credit.
So it is two different aspects of a tax credit.
Tax credits are important; they are incentives in many
ways. On the personal level when
we look at the HST, the provincial tax, and we look at the fact that people
who earn under $30,000 can get a credit for taxes that they have paid, that
is a good thing. It is something
that benefits the individuals and it is something that benefits the overall
economy as well. With this one,
this year, in this year's Budget, it is a bit strange what the government
has done; it is almost like giving with one hand and taking back with the
other. I have to question how
they rolled things out.
While this bill does not specifically deal with the
HST, the rate of the HST, I think it is important to point out a couple of
things that have happened. We
have not been paying HST on home heating, which has been something that is
very beneficial for people earning under $30,000; but, in July of this year,
in a short month's time, that break is going to be ended and we are going to
go back into paying the provincial HST on home heating.
So the rebate that we were all getting is going to end
and beginning in July everybody, including low-income people, those under
$30,000, are going to be paying the provincial sales tax, provincial HST on
home heating. So all of a sudden
in July the people are going to be paying more money, more money going out,
and I am sure that they are all praying for a very warm summer so that they
do not have to worry about paying too much for heat beginning in July.
Maybe that is the government's thinking, but we have had summers
where it can be extremely cold in July.
We have even had temperatures down to fifteen and twelve degrees in
July. We have had them; we all
remember them. A few years ago,
we had a terrible summer like that.
Beginning in July, people are going to lose the rebate
that we were all getting on our bills.
It would show up what the provincial tax was, the rebate would be
there, and we did not pay the provincial part.
We are all going to start paying that in July.
Now, what we have here with regard to the Harmonized Sales Tax
Credit, we already have a credit, the credit is going to be improved which
is good, but this credit is not going to happen until October of 2016.
We are talking sixteen months away; sixteen months after people start
now paying their HST, the provincial portion of HST on home heating, the
credit that they will get that will be beneficial to them does not happen
until October. The enhanced
credit will not happen until October 2016.
What else happens in between there, Mr. Speaker?
This is the thing that the government just seems to be ignoring, but
in January of 2016 the whole of the provincial sales tax is going to be
increased by 25 per cent.
Low-income people are going to have extra tax being paid on their home
heating beginning in July and then next January a complete increase in the
provincial tax, the provincial HST, by 25 per cent.
This is going to be such a hit on people earning under $30,000, a
tremendous hit, yet this slightly enhanced tax credit that is in the Budget
is not going to come in until October 2016.
It is fine that we have the tax credit, and I am glad
that it is an enhanced tax credit.
We are very happy about that, but certainly it is nowhere going to
make up for the increase of 25 per cent in the tax and the fact that people
are going to have to pay tax on their home heating now.
This hit is just not acceptable.
It really cries out for the government to explain, how do they see
that as fair?
Then we go over to the corporate side of this bill.
I think it is good that we have what is here, a digital media tax.
It is a relatively new industry.
By that I do not mean it has only been here a year or two, but it is
still relatively new in the light of media.
It is good. We need to
help industry, there is no doubt about that.
I am very, very happy we are doing that, especially with an industry
that is relatively new, so that it can grow.
With the changes in technology, the rate at which
technology changes these days, I think governments do have to stay on top of
that change in technology. If
there are ways in which we can help industry to grow here in this Province,
industry that will employ more people, and industry that will create more
production here in our Province and higher productivity in our Province,
then that is really good.
Now, I know the film industry and other creative
industries in the Province have worked with the government on this, and I am
delighted. Because we do know
that the film industry and other creative industries in the Province are
growing. We still have films
being made here, and digital media is an essential part of that industry.
So this is good, and we want this to happen.
I have not, obviously, been able to do an analysis.
We really have to get somebody who is very experienced in it, but it
would be really great to do an analysis of what is the overall benefit to
people with incomes under $30,000 of the tax credit they are going to get,
as compared to the benefit to the digital media industry of the corporate
tax break that they are going to get?
I call it tax credit that they are going to get.
I have a guess.
Maybe it is bias on my part, but I bet the industry.
Overall, the analysis would show the industry is probably going to
benefit more as an industry than the individuals are going to benefit.
That would be my guess.
Now this would take an expert to do the analysis and figure that out.
That might be a project we might want to take on because it would be
interesting to see who really has benefitted here the most.
With this government, the way in which they have
behaved over the past years, we know that in other tax issues they have
dealt with for example, starting in 2010 when we started seeing changes to
the income tax, it was the higher earning people who benefitted from the
changes to the income tax, not the lower end of people paying income tax.
Then, when the government decided to give a break to people with
regard to income tax, as they did this year, we find that again it was the
corporate sector that benefited more, and higher-end income individuals who
benefited more.
So, based on that, is why I say I am being brave enough
to guess that it is quite possible that the digital media industry is
getting a better break with what is being done for them than the individual
earner under $30,000 is getting with what is being done for them.
I am basing that to use a term that was used in the House today, I
am extrapolating from the experience that we have of this government and the
way in which they have been cutting income tax and raising income tax, both
for individuals and corporations.
It is the individuals on the lower end who are the ones
who are not benefiting. They get
a little benefit, but it is literally very, very little, especially with the
HST Credit that we have here in this bill.
Government really is giving and taking at the same time.
Time is going to tell what the negative effects of that are going to
be. How many more people are
going to be going to food banks, for example?
Just at a point when things seem to be maybe not too bad, I think we
are going to see a rise in food bank use again.
Yes, we definitely want the HST Credit.
Low-income people will not know until after the fall of 2016 how much
they are going to benefit from it, and yes, we want corporations, especially
burgeoning corporations, new corporations to be supported by government.
Definitely, we want that as well.
So, we will be voting for the bill, Mr. Speaker.
I point out to the government that what they have done in their
Budget with regard to the HST has actually been quite despicable.
They talk about poverty reduction, and that is all.
They know how to say the words.
They do not know what it means in practical terms.
They do not know what the impact of this is going to be on seniors.
Seniors who already and this has been going on for years
going to malls in the winter to stay
warm so they do not have to put their heat on.
This is going to really affect those seniors.
Low-income
families, families on Income Support, families on minimum wage something the
government will not increase, will not even allow the minimum wage to
increase with the cost of living.
So I challenge the government, it is fine to do what they have done
on one level, but with regard to the HST Credit, it will be of no benefit to
people until well into 2016. It
is going to questionable then whether or not it actually is a benefit for
them.
Having said that as I said, I am challenging the
government on this one maybe the 2016 Budget will be something different
but right now we could have a major problem on our hands with regard to what
people are going to go through.
If the government were as smart as to put in this tax credit and to enhance
the tax credit, then why didn't they bring it in in the fall of 2015, not
the fall of 2016?
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is certainly a pleasure to take the opportunity to
speak for a couple of minutes on Bill 12, An Act to Amend the Income Tax
Act.
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take a lot of time here,
but I do want to make a couple of comments.
First of all, I want to talk about the increase in the threshold from
$15,000 to $30,000 for the HST Tax Credit, and the increase up from $40 to
$300 credit.
Mr. Speaker, it is not often although sometimes,
maybe more than we give credit for I agree with the House Leader for the
Third Party, but I do have to say that she does raise some valid points.
I do not think anybody is going to argue we all have people who
live in our respective districts that would make incomes of $15,000 to
$30,000, or even some less than $15,000.
If we are going to increase the threshold to give those
people a break in terms of the HST Tax Credit, perhaps put a few more
dollars into their pockets although, let's face it, we are not talking a
big lot of money on an individual basis, but if we can do something to put a
few more dollars into their pockets, I think that is a positive thing.
Whether that be the senior who is on a fixed income, whether that be
perhaps the single parent or whatever the case might be.
Perhaps it is somebody in our community who are unable to work.
Perhaps someone with a disability or whatever the case might be.
There are all kinds of reasons why people we have people on
workers' compensation and so on as well.
We know the struggles that some of those people are going through.
There are many reasons why people are at the lower end
of the income scale, people in all walks of life.
If we can do something here through the HST to help them out a little
bit, I do not think anybody has a big issue with that.
I think we would all support that in principle.
That being said though, and as the House Leader for the
NDP just said, when we look at this: How did we get here?
Where is this money coming from, first of all, the extra money?
We all know that a lot of the extra money coming in to the government
coffers is related to the increase in this year's Budget, that 2 per cent on
the HST.
Everybody in the Province, whether that be people of
lower incomes or people of middle incomes or people of higher incomes, we
are all going to be hit I think it is July.
No, January sorry. The
power bill is in July, I will get to that.
In January, we are all going to be hit with a 2 per cent increase in
the HST.
We have said, and many people have said, that really
what that is going to do is it is going to put a financial burden on
certainly a bigger financial burden, depending on your income level but a
financial burden on all people.
We know that it is a job killer and all that kind of stuff as well.
We have heard that said and we know that to be true, but government
is going to do that anyway, against the advice of, I think most people in
this Province. I do not think
anybody truly supports it. Not
many people do for sure. The
majority of the people do not.
What we are going to do is we are going to increase
taxes by 2 per cent, but then what we are saying is we are trying to make
this a little bit of feel-good legislation, if you will.
We are doing something for low income people.
We are doing something for low income seniors and so on.
This is almost like a little bit of a feel good thing, that we are
doing something positive, but the bottom line is whatever we are giving to
those people, that targeted group, on the one hand we are taking that away
from them in terms of having to pay extra money every time they make a
purchase in terms of the HST, certainly on the larger purchases at least.
As, I think, my colleague from The Straits White Bay
North said someone had saved up to buy an automobile, or they needed a
washer or dryer or a couch or whatever the case might be, they are going to
have to pay 2 per cent more HST.
So whatever they save in this credit is going to be taken away on the other
hand. Certainly, for the rest of
us who are above that range, above that threshold which is many people in
Newfoundland and Labrador they are not getting any rebate at all.
They are getting zero rebate.
They are just going to pay an extra 2 per cent.
Of course, we also know that the HST now is going to be
applied to the power bill. That
is going to be 8 per cent in July, and then the additional 2 per cent in
January. So come January, we are
going to be paying 10 per cent more on your power bill.
That is going to more than wipe out any kind of benefit that a person
on a low income receives, big time, and certainly for the rest of us who do
not receive any kind of a credit at all, we are just simply going to be hit
by a 10 per cent bill on your light bill.
In an average home, perhaps, if your light bill was
say, $400 a month, now it is going to be $440 a month.
That is an additional $40 a month.
That is about $500 a year that everyone is going to be hit with as a
result of the tax increases.
So, while I applaud the initiatives, and I do, and
support the initiative here to give a rebate, to increase that tax credit
for the people here, to increase that range, I would suggest that it does
very little. Although, it does
something, I suppose, for some people, but it is really kind of smoke and
mirrors. It is really smoke and
mirrors. It is trying to turn a
very negative thing about a 2 per cent increase, a 2 per cent job killer,
and 10 per cent on everyone's light bill, and trying to somehow downplay all
that negativity with throwing a bone to a few people here with a few crumbs
here with this amendment. That
is how I see it, Mr. Speaker.
Now, the other piece here talks about the digital media
companies and so on and giving them a tax credit.
I would say I totally understand where the minister is coming from.
We have to try to diversify our economy.
There could be certainly some opportunity in this particular area
when it comes to digital media and so on.
I understand we have to be competitive and so on.
I do understand that piece as well.
I suppose you could argue there is a little bit of a slippery slope.
When you start with this type of company now, next year do you get
into some other type of industry and so on that are looking for the same
thing, and before you know it, nobody wants to pay taxes.
That being said, from the perspective of attracting
business, retaining business, and attracting professional people who will
purchase goods and services and all that stuff, I do understand that point.
I am very pleased to see that there is a sunset clause,
and that it will be reviewed and evaluated after five years.
That is a welcomed change.
Because, as the minister said himself, the AG was certainly critical
of the fact that we have a number of programs and so on where there is no
evaluation. We do not look at
outcomes. If we are going to
have a process here to at least measure the value of what we are doing, to
measure those outcomes to ensure that we are getting good bang for our buck,
then I would view that as a positive thing.
Mr. Speaker, from an overall perspective, I will be
supporting Bill 12, but I want to point out that really it is a piece of
feel-good legislation and smoke and mirrors in the face of the 2 per cent
HST that everyone is going to have to pay and the 10 per cent on everybody's
light bill.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Verge):
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just wanted to get up for a couple of minutes and
express my views on this. When I
first saw this bill, I was thinking to myself I can appreciate the Finance
Minister stepping up on this one, and I can appreciate whoever writes the
legislation putting both pieces into the act.
Both seem so radically different that I would have expected these
two pieces, to tell you the truth, Mr. Speaker, to be put in under two
separate bills, even though both of them are making changes to the Income
Tax Act, 2000 No. 2.
Like I said, as regards to the Film and Video Industry
Tax Credit, I certainly understand, we are in a very competitive industry
now. We have a burgeoning
industry in this Province. One
can only think of God only knows how many companies out there that are
doing work out there in the film industry, for example, and in digital media
as well.
Best Boy Productions is one that immediately runs into
mind. It is an award-winning
company. I cannot remember
exactly how many employees who are out there, but I can remember when they
were only a little small operation in there on Park Avenue.
They are after growing into a huge operation.
We know the recording artists that we have here.
We know how much this tax credit can go to promoting Newfoundland and
Labrador. We know the effect of
the entertainment industry, for example, on Newfoundland and Labrador,
particularly on tourism. We have
seen that effect, for example, with Doyle when it was out there.
Now we are seeing government invest in another production.
So that part of it there I can understand.
Mr. Speaker, it is the other part that I would have
questions about. Some of the
other members here in the House today have already commented on the simple
fact of the HST. From day to day
I stand up in this House and I talk about government reinstating the
Residential Energy Rebate. One
of the big questions that people have in the Province here as regards to
their own energy costs and the money that they have to pay out is the 8 per
cent HST. We already know that
amount is going to be going up another 2 per cent on top of it.
We already know that it is going to be going up in July, and again we
are going to see that increase happening in January.
The whole idea of taking people's money from a form of
taxation and then giving it back to somebody on $30,000 income or less I
have this image. It is simple
that somebody is taking money out of their pocket only to be receiving it in
the other hand. We know that
government is going to be coming out with a form of credit and we totally
approve of a credit. We know
that there are a lot of people out there, and the Finance Minister has
already said it as regards to the number of people out there on a $30,000
income right now. Mr. Speaker,
127,000 people in Newfoundland and Labrador are on $30,000 or less.
We have to ask ourselves questions about the wage
levels. The population of the
Province is about 520,000. The
workforce is probably a little bit less than that.
We know that there are a lot of stay-at-home people too.
Mr. Speaker, 127,000 people in this Province keeping this Province
going on $30,000 or less; we are going to give them back some of their money
when we are taking a lot out of it when it comes to heat and light.
Mr. Speaker, just to sum up, I believe there are some
things that we could be doing with the HST altogether.
Government should reconsider the Residential Energy Rebate and leave
the money where it is at. We are
talking about the Poverty Reduction Strategy as well.
This is going to affect them.
We know that obviously it is a good thing to be giving them money,
but I think they need to reconsider some of the things that they are also
considering.
Again, like I said, it is a good thing.
We do approve of this piece of legislation, but we still have some
questions for government, probably, when it gets to the Committee stage.
Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
If the hon. the Minister of Finance and President Board speaks now he will
close the debate.
The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just want to make a couple of closing comments.
My closing comments will tie to comments made by members opposite
rather than introduce some new information at this time.
There are just a couple of things; the issue about
whether this is a feel-good piece of legislation, as described by one of the
members opposite. Fundamentally,
Mr. Speaker, just think about what is happening here.
There has always been an offset.
Ever since we have had HST we have always had a provision to provide
protection to low-income families.
The federal government does it.
Other jurisdictions across the country do it.
We have been doing it for years; the difference is we have only had a
$15,000 threshold. It is has
been in place since 1997. So
since 1997 we have never increased.
As a Province, we have never increased that threshold from the
$15,000.
What we are doing here now, Mr. Speaker, is not just
making feel good; we are staying to the principle of having an offset
provision. That is what this is.
This is not a new concept.
It is a concept that is well entrenched across the country, at
federal levels, provincial levels.
There is an offset to protect low-income individuals.
That is what this does.
It just takes the threshold from $15,000 up to $30,000.
That is an entrenched principle.
It is not just smoke and mirrors, as has been described.
It is very real, it is very practical, it is very reasonable, it is
measured, it is fair, and it is equitable.
The second part one of the members raised is this whole
issue put it into context of other values and other benefits that are
available to low-income people in the Province, and the fact that we did not
have anything in this Province other than this potential credit here.
I wanted to just remind members of two things; one is we have this
Low Income Tax Reduction where fundamentally in 2015, with the enhancements
we have made in our tax structure, today, any individual starting in the
2015 taxation year, any individual in this Province who makes $18,955 or
less pays zero provincial income tax.
That is an enhancement.
It is indexed, Mr. Speaker.
The second thing, a family tied to that, a family whose
income is $32,052 or less pays zero provincial income tax in this Province.
If you happen to be a senior on top of that, the Low Income Seniors'
Benefit, Mr. Speaker, is now up to $1,059 annually and that is indexed.
If you are a senior today and your income is $28,654 or less, you are
going to get the full $1,059 paid.
If you think about it for a moment, if you stack those
values, the HST credit, now the $30,000 if you are a senior you are in
that same bracket. You are going
to get $1,059 in the fall.
Because your income is now within that threshold, you now pay zero
provincial income tax. If you
think about it for a moment that same person pays zero provincial income tax
and they get the $300 credit for HST.
In addition to that, if you are a senior in that category, you get an
additional $1,059 as a part of a rebate.
So I just wanted to respond to those two critical
points that were made as a part of the debate.
Mr. Speaker, that concludes my comments at second reading, and I now
adjourn debate at this stage of the debate.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that the said bill shall now be read a second time.
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2.
(Bill 12)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a second time.
When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the
Whole House?
MR. KING:
Later.
MR. SPEAKER:
Later.
On motion, a bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act,
2000 No. 2, read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the
Whole House presently, by leave.
(Bill 12)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At this time I would like to call from the Order Paper,
Bill 14. I ask leave to
introduce the bill, An Act To Amend The Regional Service Boards Act, 2012.
So moved by me, seconded by the Minister of Municipal
and Intergovernmental Affairs, that the said bill be now read the second
time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The
Regional Service Boards Act, 2012.
(Bill 14)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased to rise today in
the hon. House to propose amendments to the Regional Service Boards Act,
2012, Bill 14.
Regional service boards oversee the implementation of
the waste management strategy and are authorized under the Regional Service
Boards Act, 2012 to design, finance, and operate regional waste management
systems. The Northern Peninsula
Regional Service Board also provides fire protection services to residents
of Anchor Point and to Eddies Cove East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
To date, six boards have been established, and it is expected that other
boards will be created so as to expand coverage to the entire Province.
The regional service boards are corporations operated
by boards of directors who represent municipalities, local service
districts, and unincorporated communities within their waste management
regions.
Mr. Speaker, in 2002 the government of the day
introduced a Provincial Solid Waste Management Strategy designed to result
in long-term solutions for modern waste management in the Province.
In 2007, this government provided an implementation plan, and
certainly with the funds to go with it to move the strategy forward.
This strategy demonstrates we are ensuring waste disposal is disposed
of in an environmentally sustainable way, and we are protecting the
environment for future generations.
There are two important amendments to the bill.
First, through these proposed amendments, regional service boards
will have an independent election process similar to the Province's local
governments that is more reflective of their independence and increased
operational maturity. These
amendments eliminate the need for government involvement in the appointment
process, thereby streamlining the process of replacing members and
chairpersons.
The regional service board accountability requirements
are maintained. While the
appointment process may change, a number of other provisions that currently
exist will continue to ensure appropriate accountabilities are in place for
regional service board operations.
For example, section 26(3) of the act requires that a
copy of the board's budget is sent to the Minister of Municipal and
Intergovernmental Affairs.
Section 30 of the act states that the board shall not, without the prior
approval of the minister, incur an expenditure of debt exceeding the total
of the estimated expenditure of indebtedness approved in the budget.
Section 40(5) requires the board to seek prior approval of the
minister to borrow money for current account purposes that is greater than
20 per cent of its estimated revenue.
The requirements are similar to those contained in the
Municipalities Act 1999 to ensure accountability for municipalities.
Boards will still be required to produce an annual report and audited
financial statements to be available to the public.
These amendments will come into effect August 1 to
align with the proclamation of the public bodies' component of the recently
amended ATIPP legislation. This
will ensure there is no gap in the coverage of the regional service boards
under ATIPPA and that the accountability of the boards in this regard is
maintained.
A second important area of the bill is with respect to
amending the Regional Service Boards Act 2012 to allow members of the
federal Indian reserves to be elected nominated to regional service boards.
While there are currently six regional service boards, the Department
of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs has been working with the Coast
of Bays Waste Management Committee to establish regional boundaries and a
regional board for the Coast of Bays region.
The Coast of Bays region is located in the southern
area of the Province, as we know, and includes the Miawpukek First Nation of
Conne River which is a federal Indian Act reserve.
While the Miawpukek First Nation have been active members of the
waste management committee, the department wants to amend the Regional
Service Boards Act 2012 to allow members of the federal Indian Act reserve
the option to formally participate on the regional services board when
established.
The proposed amendments support the provincial Solid
Waste Management Strategy, Blue Book 2011, and the vision of the Department
of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs by strengthening regional sharing
of services. Regional sharing of
services avoids duplication of effort and allows for economies of scale as
we know. The regional service
boards are an important part of this service delivery model.
These proposed amendments are steps to help ensure the continued
successful implementation of the Provincial Waste Management Strategy.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly look forward to comments,
inquiries, and questions on this legislation as we move through debate with
the hon. members of the House.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It certainly is a pleasure to rise once again, this
time to speak on Bill 14, An Act To Amend The Regional Service Boards Act.
Mr. Speaker, this bill primarily deals with regional
service boards which have been set up for the purposes of waste management.
That is primarily what it is, at least right now.
My understanding is that we have six boards right now that are
operational. There are actually
eight, six are operational.
There are two established, one in Green Bay and one in the Coast of Bays
region, which are not active at this time, but the other six are.
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with the
board here in the St. John's area, the Avalon, as I can recall when it was
established. I was a member of
the Mount Pearl city council.
They were trying to set up a regional waste site.
We can recall at the time it was supposed to Dog Hill.
I do not know if members from the St. John's area and so on can
recall they were going to actually put the landfill site in Dog Hill.
Then there was a bit of a fuss with then Mayor Wells of St. John's.
It ended up being moved or maintaining I suppose in Robin Hood Bay.
Of course, then we had a situation following that over
the whole idea of governance, who will govern it, how much representation
there would be, who would be on the board, and how it would be divvied out
by region, by population. We
know that the landfill in St. John's and the board that governs it, I
believe it goes out as far as Clarenville for waste management.
It comes into St. John's.
At one point they were going to include the Bonavista
Peninsula, as well as the Burin Peninsula.
Now I am not sure if that actually is happening right now or not,
those two peninsulas. If they
are not, they are supposed to be, I believe, as part of the plan that they
would utilize that facility as well at the Robin Hood Bay landfill site.
The garbage would be trucked in from all those communities, and of
course then there are issues around transfer stations and so on.
It is a big deal.
It certainly has come with it a lot of hard work by a lot of people,
a lot of councils, Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs, and
Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador to have these established for the
purposes, as I said, primarily of waste management.
We know that municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador certainly
are strong proponents of this regional approach.
I actually served as Avalon director on the Board of Directors with
Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador for a period of time and attended
the MNL conventions. I still do.
As an MHA, I still go to them, to be informed of what the municipal
issues are because they impact us all.
I know that MNL and its members are strong proponents
of regional governance, regional services, and so on.
Not everybody is necessarily on board but I think it is fair to say
that MNL, as an organization, and its members are in favour of this
approach. While this approach is
currently being used for waste management, certainly this approach could be
expanded to these boards for other things as well.
We know that when you look at things like economic
development and there are all kinds of things that can apply.
Certainly when you look at the larger municipalities like the City of
St. John's, the City of Mount Pearl, Corner Brook, Gander, Grand Falls, and
so on, a lot of these larger municipalities do have their own professional
staff. They have town engineers,
planners, financial directors and so on; but a lot of the small towns, by
virtue of their size, do not necessarily have that in-house expertise and
they do not necessarily have all of the services that they would like to
have because they simply do not have the critical mass to make it happen in
terms of population and tax base.
We know that there has been a move and continues to be
a move from Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador and its membership to
continue the move down this road and having these regional models that will
not just be in place to deal with things such as waste management, but also
to be able to deal with things like economic development as an example.
A small town perhaps does not have the wherewithal to have an
individual, an economic developmental director, but perhaps a regional
authority that represented a whole region, representing all of those towns
in the area that if they pool their resources together and pool the tax base
together, there could be a person on a regional basis to look at things like
planning.
The same thing could happen when it comes to things
like municipal enforcement.
Again, a number of the large towns have their own municipal enforcement
divisions, or their own municipal enforcement officer that deals with a
whole host of things, whether that be things around municipal bylaws and
they could be very wide ranging.
A lot of the larger towns have that, but again, the smaller towns do not
have the resources and the ability to do that.
So there is the concept that would make sense on a
regional basis to expand services like that to that board as well, where
they could have a municipal enforcement officer, division, or whatever,
reporting to this board that could do municipal enforcement for the entire
region, as opposed to a particular town.
We can see where that could apply to a number of other things as
well, whether that be having an engineer, for example that is another
thing. Having an engineer who
would be employed by the regional authority to deal with a lot of the
engineering issues and submission of plans and looking at things like clean
drinking water and water and sewer, and all those things, to work on behalf
of the region, as opposed to on behalf of a town because the town does not
have the financial ability to do it.
When we talk about these regional boards in this piece
of legislation, the point is right now we are primarily talking about it
from the perspective of waste management, but we certainly know that it can
be expanded to other municipal services and it does make a lot of sense
particularly in areas where the smaller towns do not have the resources to
do it on their own. As I said,
this is something that Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador have been
pushing for. So we are very
supportive of that, and it is important that they be consulted on these
things.
Now, specifically one of the main points that are being
addressed here is the fact that currently, as it stands, with these boards
that the government, and I guess the minister, as representing the
government, would appoint the Chairperson and the members of these regional
boards, as it currently stands.
So, the proposal here in Bill 14 and this is really the main thrust of it,
and there are some other details as well, but the main thrust of this
legislation is to now have the ability to take that ability away from the
government to simply appoint people, and to put a democratic process in
place whereby municipalities themselves would elect a regional board.
So, if you have a number of municipalities within a
region, then I guess they would put forward names and so on of councillors
or mayors or deputy mayors from their towns who are interested in serving on
the regional board. Then there
would be an election, if you will, and from that, you would have that
regional board that would be representative of the whole area.
Now, obviously, there is going to have to be a lot of details around
I would suspect that if you have a large region, you would not want
everybody elected from the one town.
I guess there will be some mechanism whereby different parts of the
region there would be a regional director, if you will, for the board, for
different parts of the region and so on.
Then my understanding is that then the board itself,
once the board is elected, then amongst themselves they would elect a Chair
of the board and this Chair of the board could be one of themselves or they
could actually elect another Chair from outside that particular board.
That outside person I do not even think has to be a councillor.
I think it says here someone from the community, if they all agreed.
I am assuming that there are a lot of reasons whether
it be the time factor or whether it be the expertise there may be someone
in that region who has expertise that everyone would agree would be a good
choice to have to Chair the board.
Mr. Speaker, given the time, I would like to adjourn
the debate temporarily and then I continue on when we come back after the
break, if that is okay.
MR. SPEAKER:
Make the motion
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South, you can move
the motion to adjourn debate.
MR. LANE:
Oh, I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I
will make the motion, seconded by the Member for St. George's
Stephenville, is it?
Stephenville St. George's
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. LANE:
Okay, I will tell you what: St. John's North, how is that?
I cannot remember the names.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
It has been moved and seconded by, whom we are not
sure, that the debate be now adjourned.
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The motion is carried.
Government House Leader, we are going to take supper
break?
MR. KING:
Yes we will take a break, with leave of the House, until 7:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER:
The House will resume at 7:00 p.m.
June 16,
2015
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVII No. 32A
The
House resumed sitting at 7:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Littlejohn):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At this
time I would like to call from the Order Paper Bill 14, An Act To Amend The
Regional Services Board Act, 2012.
MR. SPEAKER:
To resume debate, the hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl South.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a
pleasure to continue on Bill 14, An Act to Amend the Regional Services Board
Act. For the benefit of those who
are just tuning in, really what we are talking at the risk of sounding
repetitive, I am not quite sure where I left off.
We were discussing this, of course, before the supper break and we had to
end off. I am not quite sure where I
ended off so I may have to start
AN HON. MEMBER:
Start all over again.
MR. LANE:
They are saying I may have to
start over again, to some degree, and if I am a little bit repetitive I
certainly apologize for that. I know
the member, the Attorney General; I can tell that he is very anxious to hear
what I have to say. I look forward
to enlightening him some more.
Anyway,
Mr. Speaker, as we said, Bill 14, we are talking about the Regional Services
Board Act. This is really relating
to the boards that we have within the Province.
Currently, there are eight boards.
Six of the eight are actually functioning and there are two which are
established and not functioning; one in Green Bay and one in the Coast of Bays
region. Primarily, these are
regional boards that have been put in place to deal with waste management within
the Province.
As I
said before we went to break, while they are primarily in place to deal with
waste management this could certainly be expanded over time to cover a whole
host of regional, municipal services.
Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador have been pressing for that
model over the years and they are certainly in agreement with this piece of
legislation. They are in agreement
with what is being proposed here, as I understand it.
I am
glad to see that because we have seen legislation in the past come before the
House where the appropriate stakeholders were not consulted and that was
certainly a problem. I know we had a
piece of legislation that came in the House I am not sure if it was this
sitting, or maybe the sitting before last that was a municipal bill around
youth being involved in municipal councils and so on.
MNL were never really consulted and they did not agree with it.
In this particular case, they do agree with it, so that in itself is a
positive thing.
Mr.
Speaker, this piece of legislation there are a number of changes here, but
certainly the biggest change and the main thrust of this is the fact that we
would be actually electing members of the regional service board as opposed to
the current practice in place where the government and the minister would
actually appoint these individuals to the regional service board.
What is being proposed here now is that you would have a number of
municipalities within a particular region covered by the regional service board
and those municipalities would have the ability to put names forward from their
council to serve on the regional service board.
As I
indicated earlier, or at least as I would understand or suspect it would be,
there would be some sort of proportional representation I would assume from the
various parts of the region so that you did not have one town council or one
city council with all the members on the board or with the majority of the
members on the board, that it would be sort of shared up around the region to
make sure there was some sort of equal representation.
Of
course this bill does not get into all of those details, and I guess there will
be a set of regulations or perhaps policies and procedures or whatever the case
might be to cover off all those details; but certainly, the municipalities have
the ability now to put names forward and to have these people elected, if there
is more than one person with their name put forward for a particular part of the
region or so on, that there would be an election process to determine who the
people are who would serve on the board.
That is
fitting right within the whole democratic process.
I think that is a good thing.
I think the whole concept that the government, whoever that government would be,
will just simply be picking and choosing who serves on these boards is wrong.
The municipalities themselves are the ones that have to use these
regional service boards and the facilities that are governed under them.
They are the ones that use them.
They are the ones that have to pay for it through taxes that their
citizens are paying, municipal tax, to help fund these facilities, or to use
these facilities that are being governed.
So it
only makes sense that if the key stakeholders here are the municipalities, and
they are the ones that are paying for it, then obviously they are the ones who
should have the say in how these facilities are run, how they are governed, and
the decisions that are being made.
Obviously, there are significant decisions that these regional service boards
would make.
I know
if we look at just the waste management piece which as we said, is primarily
what we have now. If you look at the
waste management piece because obviously decisions are going to be made in
terms of, for example, what the tipping fees will be, so how much towns will
have to pay at the gate per ton when they drop off their garbage.
There are going to be decisions made as to whether there will be
recycling within those facilities.
Of
course there are all different types of recycling.
Will we be separating metals?
Will we be separating plastics? Will
we be doing composting and all those types of issues?
There are decisions that would be made around that.
There would be costs associated around that depending on the type of
recycling that is taking place, who the contractors might be who would be doing
the recycling and so on, where they would be selling the product.
All
those decisions are going to tie into the cost of operating the facility and it
is going to tie into the tipping fees at the gate.
Obviously the municipalities are going to have to pay for all that.
Therefore, it is important that they be the ones, through their elected
representatives and elected amongst themselves, that it be those people in that
ward representing of that group who are making those decisions, impacting those
user groups, impacting those municipalities, Mr. Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER:
It is democratic.
MR. LANE:
Yes, my colleague is saying
it is democratic. Absolutely it is,
and that is certainly the way it should be.
There
are other issues that come to mind as well when we talk waste management, not
just the whole aspect of the tipping fees.
We have had issues, we know, around transfer stations, for example.
Would there be transfer stations?
Where would those transfer stations be located?
Who pays for the transfer stations?
Does everybody who uses that facility pay for it or just the towns that
would feed into those transfer stations that would pay for it?
How far would the municipality be expected to transport the garbage from
their town to the regional landfill site?
Who pays for that cost? Do
they pay for all the cost? Is some
subsidized? Is there a certain
distance that would be covered off by the authority and then the town picks up
the rest?
There
are all kinds of practical issues that deal with just waste management.
We have certainly experienced that in those questions here on the
Northeast Avalon, and I am sure that those same types of issues are being
brought forward and concerns raised in other parts of the Province.
There are a lot of municipalities that have concerns.
Then
there is the whole issue around local service districts and unincorporated areas
and what happens to their waste and who pays for that and what is the model
around that. So there are a whole
host of issues that I can think of that comes to mind just around waste
management alone.
Once
this is established and these people are elected to these boards, we start
applying a whole bunch of other municipal services to that whether that be to
include things like municipal enforcement, whether it be to include things like
animal control, whether it be to include things like planning and engineering
and all those things being done on a regional basis through these regional
boards at some point in time, then there is going to be significant costs around
those things, significant decisions to be made.
It is important once again that the municipalities that are going to pay
the bill for all this are the ones that are making those decisions themselves
and they are the ones that are selecting the people amongst their own municipal
councillors and so on to serve on these regional authorities to make these
decisions on their behalf.
It is
important then as well that if somebody is not functioning the way they should
or this entity is not functioning in the way that it should, there is the
opportunity to be able to remove people from the boards and to re-elect other
people to replace them. Again, it
just comes down to democracy and respecting the users, the stakeholders, which
is really the municipal council. In
that regard, we totally support this aspect of the bill.
We are aware that Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador also supports
this. In that regard, we are
definitely on board.
One of
the things I will raise, one of the things that are not addressed, or do not
seem to be addressed here and I would say to the minister, because I know he
is listening intently, one of the issues here is around the terms of office.
I do not think it is really there.
If there
is a municipal election because I understand that these elections will sort of
occur in conjunction with municipal elections.
For example, we have a municipal election, so then shortly thereafter
there would be an election to elect people to these regional service boards.
They would serve, I believe, for the four-year term until the next
municipal election. There are no
time frames. Now maybe that will be
in the policies and procedures or in the
AN HON. MEMBER:
Four years.
MR. LANE:
Yes, I hear the minister
saying four years. I understand four
years. It runs in conjunction with
municipal elections. Once there is
an election, could you drag it out for six months, eight months, or nine months
before you get around to appointing people?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Or twelve months like the
Premier, right?
MR. LANE:
Yes.
My colleague is saying like the provincial election here where we are
waiting twenty-two months or whatever it is, later, to have an election.
We want to make sure that once there is a municipal election that the
mechanism to elect people to the regional service board is done in a timely
fashion.
Obviously if the people who are serving on these boards are elected officials,
well, the next municipal election that comes around, some of those people may
not run again, or some of those people may not be elected.
They could run and be defeated.
They need to be replaced.
We did
not see anything in here that sort of outlines a timeline to ensure that we do
not have a long period of time after an election where there is nobody running
the shop. Maybe nobody decides to
run again, or maybe they all get defeated, or a combination of both or only half
of them is there. So what happens,
we cannot wait like a full year to re-elect the people to this.
We need some assurance that when there is a municipal election, people
are re-elected in a timely fashion.
That was really the only point we had here that we were really concerned about.
We are suggesting maybe there should be something to say within 120 days
people will be re-elected or whatever to the board.
Other
than that, Mr. Speaker, we really do not have any issue with this piece of
legislation. I think it is a
positive thing, once again, that we would be introducing a democratic process as
opposed to the current process of the minister and the government just
appointing who they feel like and taking it out of the hands of the
municipalities. I think it is
important to put it in the hands of municipalities.
Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, as we said, are in favour of
this, so therefore we support it also.
With
that, I will take my seat.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Exploits.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. FORSEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just to
make a point of the Explanatory Notes for Bill 14, An Act to Amend the Regional
Service Boards Act, 2012 and I think the Member for Mount Pearl South explained
some of it in very good detail, as well as the minister, and made some very good
points to it as well. What we are
doing here, we will remove the requirement that the minister appoint members to
a regional service board and allow members of a regional service board to be
elected or appointed by the municipal authorities in each ward.
The
other note: remove the requirement that a chairperson of a regional service
board be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council and allow the members
of a regional service board to elect a chairperson from among the members of the
board or from outside the board.
As it
was explained earlier, the chairperson could come from outside of the
municipality. Of course, now they
will be given an independent election process that is more reflective of their
independence. Certainly the minister
can answer any question that arises, but I would think that once the board is
formed the board will make some rules and regulations on how and when they will
do their election for board members and their Chair, especially regarding the
municipal elections. I would imagine
they would want to get that done immediately after the municipal elections are
completed and the new councils in place.
Mr.
Speaker, even though they are going to be independent onto themselves, they
still have to report and come under Municipal Affairs and they will have to
prepare a report of their annual activities including an audited financial
statement, and that is according to the Regional Service Boards Act.
They would have to follow the regulations and prepare those reports
annually anyway.
Basically what we are doing is giving them the privilege or the right to go out
and elect their own board from their own councils.
I know the Member for Mount Pearl South mentioned about the different
regions and I will just touch on them for a second.
Anybody who is listening and wants to know about the Waste Management
Strategy and where the waste management boards are set up or the regions, there
is an Eastern Region, a Central Region, Western, Western Labrador, and Coast of
Bays.
This has
been ongoing now since 2002 and there has been quite a bit of money invested by
our government in the different regions.
Just for a point of interest, the kind of money that is being invested to
ensure that we have a good waste management strategy and I would like to speak
about how it operates in Central, if I can get a few minutes.
However, in the Eastern Region, the total funding has been $63.5 million;
in the Central Region, total funding has been $72.9 million; Western, so far
$10.8 million that has been provided to the Western Region.
That is the detailed implementation plan for the Western Region that has
been completed.
The
plans provide for six transfer stations strategically located at Channel-Port
aux Basques, Burgeo, St. George's, Wild Cove, Rocky Harbour, and Hampton
Junction. Western Labrador, total
funding of $6.5 million; and Coast of Bays, a total funding of $80,000 and
this is provided for the waste management study for the region.
There is a study ongoing down there, Mr. Speaker.
In
Central, I guess we were a little bit more fortunate because we were using
shared services anyway, some of the communities in the Central Region,
especially in the Exploits Valley. I
had spoken about the Exploits Valley before.
Basically we have now in Central Newfoundland
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. FORSEY:
In Central Newfoundland, Mr.
Speaker, the site is set up in Norris Arm North.
We have a lot of the communities already carrying and trucking to that
site. We do have transfer stations
in Central set up in different places.
Actually we have transfer stations in Terra Nova, Fogo Island, New World
Island, Buchans Junction, Gander Bay, Indian Bay, and Point Leamington.
That is where the transfer stations are set up for the Central Region.
Mr.
Speaker, when we started this in Central, like I said, we were rather fortunate
because we had already been part of some shared services, especially when it
comes to the waste management, which included Grand Falls-Windsor, Bishop's
Falls, and a couple of more communities.
In the meantime, the board currently provides curbside collection
services to 70 per cent of communities in the region at a cost of $74 per
household for collection.
Mr.
Speaker, in the Central Region, we have already started the recycling program as
well. Even though it only started in
March, it is working very well. I
know we look at, say, Bishop's Falls, Botwood, these communities in that area,
they would normally pick or designate one member for the board before.
That is the way it was set up.
Now what they will do is they will elect all their own members and they
will also elect a Chair. As was
stated before, the Chair can come from the municipalities or come from outside.
Basically that is it in a nutshell really.
We are giving them that authority to do so.
Of course they know what they need and they will know what services they
want and provide it. They will get
their budgets and they will be able to operate from those budgets.
This is
a very good piece of legislation moving forward, Mr. Speaker.
I will certainly be supporting this.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will
not be long I think everybody has been covering off most of the points.
This is an interesting piece of legislation at the same time.
If you are into municipal affairs, it would be.
If you are watching, maybe not but either way, it brings about an
interesting dynamic here.
Mr.
Speaker, just looking at this piece of legislation a lot of things came to mind.
We know that government, for example, is looking at making some of these
boards autonomous which is a good thing, so that some of these boards can end
up self-regulating, and probably administer some of their own programs in the
future. I would imagine that is probably
where government is going.
We do
know it is a hard road sometimes when it comes to regional governance.
We also know that a lot of people have been advocating for changes.
We know particularly that Municipalities NL has had a voice on this
issue, and we know that it is based partially on a 2013 resolution that
Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador came up with.
We have
to go back in history that it was this government back in 2003 that came out
with the Regional Service Boards Act back 2003.
The simple part of that act, the simple reason why they existed back then
was to regulate waste management, but the roles have been changing.
They have been evolving.
Sometimes it is not readily apparent, but this is 2015, twelve years later, and
the roles, the people who have been serving on these boards are getting a little
bit used to small pieces that they have been given over the years to try out at
the same time.
Mr.
Speaker, we do know that, for example, three regional boards have been allowed
to participate in a pilot project on water management.
Even though it is kind of outside their realm, but it kind of gives them
a little bit of governance, and that is a good thing.
You pass it on so that somebody else can handle things.
As well, we also have one example where the Northern Peninsula regional
service district is administering some fire services as well.
We also have forms of regional co-operation that are starting to happen
at the same time. So we look at it
as being a good thing.
There is
no doubt, like I said, when you look at the population of Newfoundland and
Labrador and the decline in some areas of population, there is a need to have a
regional service board in there so that we can probably start to share a little
bit more in services at the same time.
We look at this as being a positive thing.
In 2012,
there were major amendments to the act.
They needed to provide consistency with the administrative provisions in
the Municipalities Act of 1999 one of the reasons why they made the changes
and with some variation, given the geographic distribution of members of a
board. So they did extend the term,
for example, of some members. It
enabled the minister to establish wards.
It provided prescribed powers of a board to include the operation of
waste management systems, so that is where they evolved from, and also to
clarify the fees that may be charged by a regional service board for services
that they would be offering.
There is
no doubt that while somebody may be living outside of a municipality and end up
being in a regional service board area, you cannot get a service for nothing.
I think that is recognition on the part of government.
On April 29 of this year when government announced a new fiscal
arrangement with the Province's municipalities, they also announced an advisory
committee that would be established to explore a regional governance structure
at the same time.
This is
going to allow the regional service boards again to extend their wings, if you
will, to see if they can actually take over part of governance and part of the
administration of this Province. We
recognize that it is a hard job on the part of Municipal Affairs to do that just
on their own, but it is nice to have the watchdog agency there too.
The one
thing that we are wondering about in all this it looks like this is the start
of the evolution of regional governance in this Province.
While we did not get a straightforward answer as regards to that, nobody
gave us a straight answer on it, it certainly appears to be.
So, Mr. Speaker, just looking at the process of what has been happening
in this Province over the years, we recognize that there has to be changes made.
We are obviously going to be supporting this.
The
other thing that we have to note too was about the election process, which we
did notice in the bill. We did note
that of course it was going to be following the Municipalities Act the
Municipal Elections Act I believe the proper name on it is.
It looks like certainly that is going to be happening every four years.
Certainly under section 8(1) on down to that there was going to be
changes as regards to board appointments and everything.
Mr.
Speaker, just to sum up, we are quite pleased to see this happen.
We have to recognize that, again, the geography of the Province simply is
that we have to share services in some regard.
We have to have a regulatory agency that is going to be able to present
some of these services at the same time.
Again, as it started off in waste management and even before in the
evolution to it up from 2003 basically onwards, we have to recognize the simple
fact that if you want water perhaps it is going to be done by one of these
regional service boards.
If you
want waste management to happen, certainly it is going to have to happen through
a regional service board if you not living directly in a municipality.
We have to look after our own backyards in some cases.
Again, Mr. Speaker, we look at this as being a pretty good piece of
legislation. It is not bad.
There is certainly lots of room for improvement but it shows how the
Province is changing and evolving, and we will be there to support these
regional service boards as we do municipalities on this side of the House.
We want to wish them all the best in their tenure.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Bay
of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will
just stand for a few minutes to speak about the Regional Service Boards Act that
the minister I just wanted to say that MNL has been pushing for this for a
while, Mr. Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER:
How long will it take?
MR. JOYCE:
How long will it take?
I think 2017 is when the appointments will start because of the election
now and every four years after, from my understanding of the bill.
There will be a few questions that I will be asking.
Mr.
Speaker, when you look at the waste management, you have to look at Western
Newfoundland. You have to look at
Don Downer, the chairperson, and the appointees.
When I see the government holding this up now and saying okay, we are
going to start appointing people and now, all of a sudden, we are going to have
an election, there is a question. If
there is a CEO, do the regional service board appoint that person or hire that
person, or is it the minister's discretion?
Because Mr. Downer was picked out of mid-air, put in the position, and
waste management now is what, four years, five years behind a lot more than
that, Mr. Speaker, because it was supposed to be done in 2012.
Western Newfoundland was supposed to be completed in 2012.
So we are looking at eight, ten years, but it is supposed to be completed
in 2016 and now we are four years behind, up to twenty-five for the recycles.
I say to
the minister, and I challenge the minister, and I said it before, part of the
discontent out on the West Coast is the decision was made to bring the garbage
from Western Newfoundland out to Norris Arm.
I think it was sixteen members, fifteen members on the board.
It was done in July, eight members (inaudible) nine voted there was not
even a full quorum. It was a quorum
but it was not a full board brought together.
One for sure, maybe two, was on teleconference when this decision was
made.
I
honestly feel, Mr. Speaker, that there was not enough discussion.
I honestly feel that it was done.
I brought this up before and I know the Member for Humber West knows
Don Downer quite well. He ran
against him for the PC nomination actually.
In actual fact, Mr. Speaker, he was on the Land Use Advisory Committee, I
think. He resigned for four months,
he lost the nomination, and he got hired back on again.
MR. SPEAKER:
I remind the hon. member to
speak to the bill, please.
MR. JOYCE:
That is part of the bill, Mr.
Speaker. He is running the Land Use
Advisory Committee. It is part of
the bill. I am not sure if you know
what I am do you understand this bill here?
It is part of the bill.
Mr.
Speaker, when someone in that state all of a sudden can take it and move okay,
I am going to run for the PCs now.
Here is the funny part about it.
After the Land Use Advisory Committee
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. JOYCE:
If the Member for Fortune Bay
Cape La Hune has something to say stand up stand up.
Just stand up, if not
AN HON. MEMBER:
She is stood up.
MR. JOYCE:
One of the members said she
is stood up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
I say to the member, I do not
know if she is standing or sitting. but she always has her gums flapping, I can
tell you that.
Mr.
Speaker, this is a serious issue out on the West Coast.
This is a very serious issue out on the West Coast.
My question I know the minister can answer it later will the person
who is going to oversee it, the CEO or the manager, will they be hired by this
regional service board or will this be of the minister's discretion?
That is the question that the minister could answer.
Mr.
Speaker, I just want to just give you a little brief on this.
There was a person out around the West Coast no need to say his name;
you can look on the minutes who was the manager or the CEO of the Western
waste management. He resigned his
position. Do you know why?
Lack of inaction by government, he resigned his position.
Lack of action, no action whatsoever he got frustrated, Mr. Speaker,
and he resigned.
At that
time, there was a Land Use Advisory Committee set up which all of a sudden
became dormant for three years, no meeting, waiting and waiting, Mr. Speaker.
All of a sudden, as the Member for Humber West would know, they said:
Okay, Mr. Downer, this Land Use Advisory Committee is not sitting.
We are going to take you now and we are going to appoint you to the
regional waste management. That is
how it was done, Mr. Speaker.
You hear
all the discontent out on the West Coast about this, Mr. Speaker.
Do I think that there has to be issues done with garbage, waste disposal?
Absolutely, but we need consultation.
Here is what happened, Mr. Speaker and I said it before.
When waste management, the initial plan was brought about in 2003, when
it was being implemented, out in Central they created such a large site they
said: Uh-oh, we created a large site here.
What we are going to have to do now to bring it up to capacity I think
the site out there is 33 per cent capacity, 30 per cent or 33 per cent,
somewhere in that range.
What
came up: Well, we cannot set one up on the West Coast now because we need to
make sure that we bring up the amount of garbage that is going to be brought in
out in Norris Arm. What they did,
they scrapped the idea. With
government's consent and approval, they scrapped the idea of building a waste
management site on the West Coast and they put it out in Norris Arm.
The garbage now is going to be shipped out and according to the minister,
the transfer stations, the tenders are supposed to be let sometime this month,
we were told. I have not seen them
yet. I am sure they will be because
if the minister says it, I am sure it will be done in the near future.
I have not seen them yet.
AN HON. MEMBER:
How much does that cost?
MR. JOYCE:
I do not know.
I do not know what consultants were hired to do it.
I have not seen any work on that.
Mr.
Speaker, the other question out in Western Newfoundland and I know it was
brought up a fair number of times, even the Mayor of Corner Brook is the Wild
Cove dump site. Because of the
delays, can the Wild Cove dump site be active that long?
It is getting to capacity.
That is a big question, Mr. Speaker that is a big question.
There
are a lot of issues about waste management out on the West Coast.
These regional service boards, if they are implemented and if the voting
is within the regions themselves, I support that.
It is a good move by the minister to have people who are within their own
elections going to make decisions for their own area.
I agree with that.
With the
four-year terms, I also agree with that, I say to the minister.
That is a proper way, unlike the Land Use Advisory Committee when they
had people elected, off the board, there was no one reappointed for up to three
years.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Sounds like the school board.
MR. JOYCE:
Sounds like the school board.
No, that was two years they were appointed, and there are still no
elections. At least they were trying
out there every four years.
Mr.
Speaker, I agree with this bill, these amendments.
I will keep on explaining, I will keep on bringing up the shortfalls of
the Waste Management Strategy for Western Newfoundland.
I honestly believe that this was a ploy to keep Norris Arm more active
and bring up their capacity more and the people who are going to pay more are
the people on the Northern Peninsula, people on the West Coast.
The people on the Northern Peninsula are going to pay more because
government uh-oh, we built this big monstrosity of a site that we need now to
start bringing more garbage to it. I
really truly feel that, Mr. Speaker.
When you
get people like the Mayor of Corner Brook and other municipalities who cannot
find out what is going on, cannot get the information and I said from day one
that the cost per ton was going to go over $200, $225, $250, and I was laughed
at I was laughed at. I know the
Member for Humber West now Mr. Don Downer finally said: Yes, it is going to
get up that high. What do people
expect? It has to be taken care of.
I said
it from day one and I say it again, what we have to do is we have to sit down
and we have to consult, Mr. Speaker.
I am hoping the minister will take this advice.
It is not very often when you go out and you have all these
municipalities and there is so much discontent about it, you have to consult.
If there is some other way that we can make this easier and better and
cheaper for the residents and there is no one on this side of the House, Mr.
Speaker, who is going to stand up and say we should not take care of the
environment, absolutely nobody.
Everybody agrees we should take care of the environment.
I do not think there is a member in this House who would disagree with
that.
Mr.
Speaker, I can tell you right now and you can ask any municipality in Western
Newfoundland that I deal with, since the waste management was taken over in Wild
Cove, you can see more areas on the West Coast for illegal dumping.
I do not condone it, but you can see it.
That is a concern that we all have to face somehow.
I am
sure out in Central there are sites that are now becoming illegal dump sites
that people go. In Western
Newfoundland I walk in the woods a fair bit, I walk around, and you can see it
more and more and more. I am not
sure if we need to do the education more.
I am not sure if it is enforcement, or if we have to find some way to
make it easier.
I will
use just a good example. The people
in Corner Brook, rightly or wrongly, Mr. Speaker I am just explaining the way
it is. I live in Corner Brook.
If I have a truckload of garbage, I can
drive over, because I am a resident I can dump off the garbage.
They will tell you where to go.
Now, since this waste management you have to go and get a key card.
You have to go in to get a key card.
You have to go in now and you have to pay for it.
The hassle of people who are saying well, it is better now to just go and
dump it. I do not agree with that,
but that is what happening around.
That is another bigger issue.
Another
issue with a lot of waste management is the cleaning up of those sites, Mr.
Speaker. That is another issue that
we have to deal with not only as a government.
No matter any municipality that is part of it, but government has to step
in because there has been no solution to the sites that are going to be the
Corner Brook, Wild Cove site for example, is that going to be a transfer
station? Maybe it is.
Those are the kinds of issues that are not being dealt with.
I will
support this bill. I think it is a
move in the right direction to put the power back into the hands of the people
who have the most to gain or the most to lose and who have been dealing with
other councils within the area. I
say the minister did a good job on this here, but until 2017 we have to do
something more to try to get more information out to the councils, get more
information out to the people in Western Newfoundland about the waste management
because it is becoming an issue. It
is becoming a major issue for our environment with the dumping that is
occurring.
I will
sit down and take my seat, Mr. Speaker.
Once again, I applaud the minister for bringing this forward.
I applaud MNL for passing this.
I think it was in 2012 they put that in one of their resolutions, pushing
this forward. It is a positive step,
and I am sure a lot of towns would like to have control back in their hands, not
have people being appointed but have people who are appointed by the towns, who
have to answer to the board and answer to their own municipalities on the
decision. So I will be supporting
this bill.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
MS DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
going to speak for a few minutes to Bill 14.
I am happy to stand and on behalf of the residents of Cartwright L'Anse
au Clair, talk for a little bit about Bill 14, An Act to Amend the Regional
Service Boards Act. There are
several things that this act is going to do, primarily co-ordinate and execute
the Province's Waste Management Strategy.
Mr.
Speaker, before I was elected, I got a bit involved and sat on the committee,
the waste management in Cartwright L'Anse au Clair a big issue, and I am
going to speak to it for a few minutes, in that area.
Also, as I have said here in the House before, I sat on the provincial
municipalities board. So I am very
familiar with the resolution back in 2011 that MNL put forward and familiar with
a lot of the Provincial Waste Management Strategy.
I think
this is a very positive bill. When
we see a bill that is giving some power and some control back into the hands of
the municipalities, the people who are on the ground, the people who have an
invested interest in that area, and taking some of that away from the ministers,
no matter who was in government, no matter who is in power, I believe that is a
very, very positive thing.
Mr.
Speaker, this amendment to the Regional Service Boards Act is something that
comes directly from a push by municipalities, and it is refreshing to see that
the government listened and that we are here tonight and that we are debating
Bill 14. This organization has been
lobbying for significant change in the Regional Service Boards Act for some
time. It is nice to see the
resolution that was put forward about four years ago; they are now getting what
they had asked for at that time.
Mr.
Speaker, I believe when you take the politics out of something like this, there
is far more work that will be accomplished in the end because the focus will be
on the work that needs to be done instead of partisan favours, you do something
for me and I will appoint you to this board.
There are all kinds of examples across the departments and connections
where we can see that political appointments were made and not always a
positive thing, and oftentimes lots of fallout from it.
In the end, the regions where specific work was to be done, those are the
regions, and the work ends up not being done and the regions suffer from that.
So, the
resolution that was put forward by MNL back in 2011, it called for eliminating
all appointment powers of the minister.
Mr. Speaker, a board like the MNL, a very credible board in this
Province, they obviously had reason to be concerned, fed up with probably years
and decades of abuse, appointments made by ministers.
So they put forward this resolution to eliminate the appointment powers
of the minister and require that all members of a regional service board,
including the chairperson of the said board, be elected from among municipal
councillors and local service district representatives from the municipalities
and communities within the jurisdiction of a regional service board.
Mr.
Speaker, Bill 14, the bill we are discussing here tonight, which amends the
Regional Service Boards Act, recognizes the request that was put forward by MNL
in 2011 and is a welcome change for local government a welcome change.
I was
also very happy to hear the minister stand and speak to say that the act being
amended would recognize the Indian reserves and provide them a place at the
board table as full members of a regional service board.
It is very rewarding to see Indian reserves being recognized, the
valuable role they have to play, and the contribution that they can make to the
table and their close connection to the environment and the land.
It is nice to see this now being an inclusive process and to see them at
the table as full members of that regional service board.
Mr.
Speaker, there is all kinds of detail in this that my colleague for Mount Pearl
South had talked about, and I do not want to reiterate too much of what he said
about the act is being amended so that the minister no longer appoints the
chairperson or the members. We feel
this is a very, very positive thing, as I said earlier, to take the politics out
of this and to focus on the work of the regional service board.
I do not need to talk tonight about how that is rolling out.
There was some concern that there is no timeline provided for the
reappointment, and that is something that we need to look at changing.
I want
to talk a little bit about the Waste Management Strategy in the Province.
There is no doubt about it that a lot of work has already been done, Mr.
Speaker. I believe a press release
came out on May 25 and $161 million has been invested to date, significant
accomplishments, no doubt, have been achieved; but in Labrador we are nearing a
crisis stage.
In the
District of Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, as I said I was involved with the
Waste Management Strategy. I got
heavily involved in fall of 2012 and we pulled all of the community leaders in
the district together to see if we could move a file.
Hatch Mott MacDonald was commissioned to do a study; I think it was back
in the early 2000s. They did a
study, nothing happened for years and years and years, then we came together in
December 2012 and we held a forum initiated by local people.
I
facilitated that forum, Mr. Speaker, and we brought in a rep from Hatch Mott
MacDonald and we discussed why we had not moved beyond where we were.
We got Crow Head in the Labrador Straits.
It is a very hot potato, Mr. Speaker no pun intended.
It is about to explode. The
dump is overfilled. It is at a
crisis state. Several other
communities in my district, Mary's Harbour and Charlottetown in Charlottetown
we have the only shrimp processing facility so we have tons of things from the
shrimp plant, the bags the effluent goes in and things like that that go into
the dump.
Mr.
Speaker, I have travelled around the Province a little bit since the Waste
Management Strategy has been implemented.
It is amazing what has happened with some of the dump sites and what used
to be a terrible, terrible dump site is now beautiful, pristine land, green
grass; but in the District of Cartwright L'Anse au Clair we still have a string
of town dumps. They are an eyesore.
We are at a crisis state.
When we
saw the recent press release out extending the timeline for the waste
management, Mr. Speaker, there was a lot of discontent, I can tell you, on the
local level in Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
The press release specifically mentioned the development of the new
landfill site for Southern Labrador.
It talked about the research and the analysis that has been ongoing for over a
decade.
Mr.
Speaker, at the forum that we had in 2012 we did secure another $44,000.
We wanted to get answers. The
municipal leaders wanted answers to some more questions they had because there
has been some concern around what would be the most least cost effective, a
one-site model, a two site, or a three.
As I
have said many times, the district is very, very, very spread out, Mr. Speaker.
It is six hours, seven hours, maybe, drive from one end to the other.
It is still a bad road. It is
not going to be a paved road for a number of years.
Then it comes into question even the equipment.
How is it going to hold up?
If you
have a one-site model and you have those dump trucks that are travelling for
hours every day on the road, Mr. Speaker, we know on the Northern Peninsula they
are well underway with this Waste Management Strategy, but they have certainly
had lots and lots of issues with vehicles breaking down, having to go to, I
believe it is, Grand Falls each time and be repaired.
The
initial study showed that a single-site model was the most expensive to operate:
$203 per household per year. The
two-site model was cheaper: $131 per household per year.
The three-site model would be the cheapest.
Once we had the additional study done, whatever happened, Hatch Mott
McDonald came back and showed that in fact the one-site model was the cheapest.
Mr.
Speaker, I do not know why government has not moved forward to date on this,
knowing that the crisis is in that area.
The people on the ground in the district, the leaders and those involved
on the waste management committee, most recently received a letter from the
Environment Minister's office saying that an environmental preview report was
now required.
Mr.
Speaker, I am not sure if an environmental preview report was needed for any
other site. I know it is important
that we get this right. I understand
that these models that we are putting in place is expected to last for
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible) going all night.
MS DEMPSTER:
You might be going all night
because it is a chance for me to talk about the waste management issues in
Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, I say to the hon. member across the way.
Mr.
Speaker, the Waste Management Strategy timelines in which it was to be
implemented has just been stretched out a little further.
What that means is that communities like I represent that have town dump
sites are going to be waiting longer,
years and years more, and there is no doubt about it that we are going to be in
a crisis if those communities are expected to wait into the future very long.
The people involved in the Waste Management Strategy in
Cartwright L'Anse au Clair feel that they made significant progress over the
past couple of years, but right now everything seems to be at a standstill.
So I encourage government to work with the Waste Management Strategy
people in the district and try to move this along before we are all dealing with
something that we would prefer not to be.
Any further unnecessary delays is definitely going to exasperate the
already intolerable existing conditions for the residents who live there, for
tourists who travel through the region, many of these dump sites are in very
prominent, focal areas.
I do not have a lot more to say about it.
It gave me an opportunity to mention the serious issue that is in
Cartwright L'Anse au Clair with the waste management sites that needed to be
addressed maybe ten years ago. We
are far past when we need to do that.
Mr. Speaker, under Bill 14, An Act to Amend the
Regional Service Boards Act, it is always a very positive thing when we can see
that we are making a step in the right direction.
I hope we will see it in more departments where a minister kind of
removes himself away from political appointments and we see that we give some
onus back to those people in our communities, community leaders, municipalities,
local service districts that do very valuable work every day for the people that
they represent.
As I said at Combined Councils last week, those people
who live in these small communities who give so much, at the end of the day they
want to see the places that they live and call home a little better place.
I am very happy to have a couple of minutes to speak to Bill 14, An Act
to Amend the Regional Service Boards Act.
One of the positives that I did not mention that is here in this act is
that there is also an amendment being put in directing the regional service
board to publish on an annual basis their audited financial statements and their
annual reports so that the general public has full access.
It is very important, Mr. Speaker.
Every single day in all different departments we hear about openness,
transparency, and accountability.
Any time you are dealing with the public's money, residents paying money into
user fees and things like that, I am really happy to see that amendment put in
so that audited financial statements will be published on an annual basis.
With that, I will take my place and I am happy to have
spoken for a minute to Bill 14. I do
hope that things will move before they get to a crisis stage in the waste
management situation in the District of Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER (Verge):
The
hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to Bill 14, An Act to Amend
the Regional Service Boards Act. I
wanted to speak to this particular bill after listening to the minister in his
commentary of what he stated around the NorPen Regional Service Board.
That particular board comprises basically, if we look at Bill 13 and what
the electoral boundaries commission proposes for St. Barbe L'Anse aux Meadows,
that particular geographical space.
Last night, after midnight, when I was on my feet
debating that, I pointed out how that electoral district is basically the same
as the NorPen Regional Service Board, which represents the sixteen
municipalities, all of the local service districts and all of the other
communities that are there. There
are fifty-three communities. The
NorPen Regional Service Board is a model that is reflective of how these can
work effectively well if they are properly resourced.
NorPen has their headquarters in St. Anthony and what
they do is they are collecting fees from all of the communities.
If it is a municipality, they can collect
their fees on a more upfront basis.
Then on other regions, they go through a different process to collect fees, but
all householders pay an annual fee for waste collection services.
Also, NorPen is a unique model in a sense that it also
manages fire services for the thirteen communities as the minister stated.
In a region of the district where I live, between Eddies Cove and Anchor
Point, there are thirteen communities, two municipalities, and there are eight
unincorporated communities and three other local service districts in that
region.
For the population, prior to this coming together for
regional fire services, each little community, thirteen of them, a number of
them had their own fire departments.
Can you imagine 150, 130 or 180 people trying to support fire services, fire
trucks, equipment, training and management in that way?
Instead, what NorPen does, NorPen has managed to set up one regional fire
centre and a second station so that it adequately covers that radius of almost
fifty linear kilometres. They are
properly resources in terms of having fire trucks, seeing growth and proper
training, and this is a way where government can save money and provide more
efficient services to people.
I applaud this model of looking at regional service
boards, how they can be implemented, and how it is fair for all because every
individual pays a fee. The
householder pays a fee, whether they live in a municipality, whether they live
in a local service district, or an unincorporated community.
So it is not like when you talk about certain people in towns pay
property taxes and those who do not live in a particular town are not paying
their fair share. When you look at a
regional service board, you pay the fee for the services that are being
provided. This could be a way to
look at providing more regional fire departments.
I think that works.
I do not know, I think the Member for Fortune Bay
Cape La Hune may think it is funny, but I represent some very small areas that
have a lot of challenges. When you
look at pooling together, working together collaboratively and finding
solutions, then that is a way to make sure that you are effective.
I look at that having members elected is more
democratic than being appointed. You
can see where people who are locally able to make the decisions and make them
public which this amendment is doing in terms of an annual report.
There are challenges.
There are challenges to regional service boards achieving that level of
co-operation. There will be
challenges moving forward when it comes to resourcing, when it comes to how
waste management and how implementing additional services, whether it be
recreation, or whether it be looking at regional water operators being added to
these service boards. That is
something that needs to be looked at.
I will be supporting this particular piece of
legislation. I believe in what the
regional service boards do. They
certainly need adequate training.
They need to be supported. They need
that community appeal where they do have that elected voice so that they can
come to government on behalf of these larger bodies and speak to the needs of
what must happen in terms of the services that can be provided to a particular
region.
I think it is a really positive thing.
I will support this particular piece of legislation.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
If
the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs speaks now, he
will close debate.
The hon. the Minister of Municipal and
Intergovernmental Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank the hon. Members for Mount Pearl South, Exploits, St.
John's East, Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, Bay of Islands, and The Straits
White Bay North for their participation in Bill 14.
It is good discussion in terms of the bill and the contents in terms of
the appointments to the regional service boards,
what happens now, the current method, and what we are going to do as we move
forward. It is very important, in
terms of the maturity of the regional service boards, that we move forward, and
that autonomy for those volunteers who are so important.
I think
someone mentioned on the other side these are obviously volunteers.
They do a lot of work in our communities.
They serve on very small local service districts, municipalities, and
larger towns and cities in our Province.
They certainly do a great job in that, and again would put their hand up
to serve on these regional service boards.
This is a broad based overview of our region, and as was mentioned as
well in terms of providing not only waste management, but looking at what other
services that can be provided and provided very effectively for our regions.
With
that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat.
I will certainly look forward to any questions when we move to Committee.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 14 be now read a second
time?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Regional Service Boards Act, 2012.
(Bill 14)
MR. SPEAKER:
Bill 14 has now been read a
second time.
When
shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR. KING:
Later.
MR. SPEAKER:
Later.
On
motion, a bill, An Act To Amend The Regional Service Boards Act, 2012, read a
second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow.
(Bill 14).
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
like to now call from the Order Paper, Bill 9, An Act To Amend The Legal Aid
Act. So moved by me, seconded by the
Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs that the said bill be now
read the second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 9, An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act.
(Bill 9)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is
indeed a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak to Bill 9 this evening, An Act
To Amend The Legal Aid Act.
For the
benefit of those who are paying attention to the debate, there are two purposes
for what we are about to debate here this evening with this bill, Mr. Speaker.
One is to implement legislative requirements as a result of an external
review of the Legal Aid Commission that was carried out in 2013.
There were a number of statutory
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KING:
There were a number of
statutory requirements, legislative requirements that we need to implement as a
result of the review. Also, Mr.
Speaker, we took the opportunity, as part of that review, to consult with the
Legal Aid Commission. We have found
a number of areas in consultation with them where there is an opportunity to
modernize this particular act. It is
about modernizing the act and also implementing the recommendations from the
external review.
By way
of a little bit of background to introduce the Legal Aid Act, Mr. Speaker, the
Legal Aid Act is the act in the Province that guides the operations of the
Newfoundland and Labrador Legal Aid Commission.
The Commission has a number of significant responsibilities.
One, of course, primarily is the provision of legal counsel to those who
qualify, which would be eligible residents either charged with offences under
the Criminal Code of Canada, charged with other federal or provincial statutes,
and those who may be involved in family legal disputes or other civil matters.
The
Commission, Mr. Speaker, is located across the Province.
They have eleven provincial offices with 125 employees.
There is a combination there of fifty-nine solicitors that is
fifty-nine lawyers and sixty-six management and staff.
So it is quite a large organization that provides a very significant
function in the justice system to support many individuals and families across
our Province.
The core
mandate of the Legal Aid Commission is to ensure that all residents who are
eligible within our Province receive competent legal advice and representation.
They are set up, Mr. Speaker, as a Crown agency or a Crown corporation
under the act. It is an organization
that we fund, but they operate certainly at arm's length from the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
By way
of a little bit of background, the first purpose, I said a few minutes ago with
respect to the revisions here, was to implement the recommendations of the legal
aid review. Back in 2013, I happened
to be the Minister of Justice at that time as well.
It was decided that a review would be completed of the Legal Aid Act in
the Province, part of looking at how we were using the resources we had, whether
there were opportunities to better use the resources, and whether in fact there
were more resources required. It was
significant also, Mr. Speaker, because it was really the only substantial review
that had been completed of the Legal Aid Act since 1975.
As a
result of that in June 2013, I, as the minister at the time, commissioned a
review of the Legal Aid Act. That
was completed by John Roil who is QC, Queen's Counsel.
The purpose, as I said before, there were a couple of things; one is to
look at the cost efficiencies, and whether or not there were things that we
could do better or things that we could improve.
The
review at the time included to look at the assessment of staff workloads, Mr.
Speaker. It looked, as well, at the
geographical, cultural, and economic challenges that the Legal Aid Commission
was facing. A significant issue we
were asked to address as well was the use of private counsel and the use of
choice of counsel, which I will get into in a couple of moments, and of course
an examination of our service delivery model and how we were doing things
throughout the Province.
The Roil
review was certainly very extensive and very engaging.
A lot of individuals, groups, and community organizations had some input
in that and gave him and his group some very clear advice.
They came back and there are a number of summary statements that I would
like to share with the House for the record, and a number of recommendations
that I am going to talk about.
First of
all, one of the things they did that we are absolutely proud of is they affirmed
that the current model of legal aid being provided in the Province is very
effective and the most appropriate for us, and certainly urged us to continue
with the current model. The second
one, Mr. Speaker, that I also want to draw attention to for the record is that
the Roil review highlighted the quality of work that we are receiving from
solicitors and others who work within the Legal Aid Commission.
I want
to just draw attention to that because oftentimes there is a perception out
there by some in society that the Legal Aid solicitors and the Legal Aid lawyers
are not of the same quality or competence as other lawyers.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KING:
This review certainly refuted
that completely and reminded all of us, for the record, that we have good people
who are providing good services through the Legal Aid Commission, and that the
Commission has a very important, very integral role to play as part of the
implementation and the administration of justice in the Province.
There
were a number of recommendations that came from the review.
I can talk about a couple of them as part of this legislative review: In
Budget 2014-2015 we funded the Family Court Duty Counsel on a permanent basis,
we also extended that service to other locations outside of St. John's, Mr.
Speaker, to other areas of the Province; sustaining funding for core Legal Aid
services and to ensure we had adequate staff provided, the Legal Aid Commission
was also funded; a number of important projects related to
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KING:
the Mental Health Office, the Family
and Child Services Offices; and, we also created the position of a Deputy
Director Legal. Certainly, they
are some very important initiatives, Mr. Speaker.
There
were also a number of other recommendations that have been implemented
independently by the Legal Aid Commission as a result of taking the opportunity,
not only for the Roil review to take place, but for the Legal Aid Commission
itself to do an internal review of its own policies, procedures, and practices.
They have made changes, for example, around their intake and appeals
processes.
The
Commission has reviewed and revised its use of technology in its operations.
That is something, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to speak to this
morning at the Canadian Bar Association gathering on access to justice in the
Province and in Canada generally. We
are using more technology in the court system overall.
I think it is a very good thing.
It is certainly promoting greater access to justice for many people,
particularly in Newfoundland and Labrador where we are very much a rural
Province and many communities are somewhat isolated from one another.
So the use of technology is certainly very important.
Several
of the recommendations, Mr. Speaker, to get to the heart of this bill, require
legislative changes. One is the size
and composition of the Legal Aid board.
The second one is clarifying improving upon conflict issues on files
within the Legal Aid Commission itself.
The issue of maintaining choice of counsel which I will touch on in a
couple of moments and the fourth significant one is not actually a legislative
change but it is going to be a policy change that will come about as a part of
the legislative change, is increasing the tariff that we pay.
I will
take just a couple of moments on each of these.
With respect to the size of the Legal Aid board, Mr. Speaker, the
amendments we are proposing here this evening will expand the board to a total
complement of seven members. Three
of these members will be appointed from a list that is provided to myself, as
the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, by the Law Society of Newfoundland,
and that is currently the case.
One of
the things that is recommended and we support, and the Legal Aid Commission
supports, is that by expanding the number of board members and the process we
are going to follow, it will provide an opportunity for a more diverse
management-oriented set of skills on the board.
It will also permit the board, because of the larger numbers, to work
more with subcommittees.
One of
the challenges the Legal Aid Commission board has right now is that almost every
activity it engages in the full board is required to meet.
That becomes not only an onerous task for board members, but it also
becomes a challenge to get a quorum for meetings when you have so many frequent
meetings. So, because of the
increase in the size of the board it will allow for the use of subcommittees and
a greater opportunity to get more work done.
I
mentioned before that we are hoping with the change in legislation it will
reduce conflicts on certain files.
That has to do with solicitors in the case where you have a number of solicitors
from the Legal Aid Commission who may engage with the same client on certain
files. Now, the legislation here is
intended to clarify that particular position.
The
choice of counsel, as I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, is a very important one.
Currently, our act provides where an application for Legal Aid is in
respect of murder, manslaughter, or infanticide, the application may select a
solicitor employed by the commission or a solicitor in private practice.
The choice is currently provided in the legislation.
The
Royal Report recommended removal of the choice of counsel.
It recommended removal so that an individual who presented themselves for
the services of Legal Aid would be required to simply accept the services of one
of the Legal Aid solicitors. That
was a strong debate amongst the department, amongst the Legal Aid Commission,
but in the end it was felt that was not the right approach to take.
In fact, leaving the choice of counsel was the approach to take.
What we
are doing in this particular legislation is we are remaining with the choice of
counsel for those who fit the criteria, but in the choice of counsel we are
clarifying in the legislation that solicitors must be first of all on a Legal
Aid panel; secondly, they must be paid at the Legal Aid tariffs.
There has always been some confusion.
Certainly, at least in my tenure having been the minister on three
occasions, there has always been some confusion about the rate of tariffs.
We have had to involve the Attorney General to try and intervene on
tariffs and all that sort of stuff.
So,
clearly, what we are going to do here is we are going to have two parameters
that if you choose outside counsel it must be an individual who is on the Legal
Aid panel and they must be paid at Legal Aid tariff rates.
The tariffs rates, Mr. Speaker, while not being included in this
legislation, they will be included in the regulations that follow this.
A tariff will go from $60 an hour up to $135 an hour the tariff will go
from $65 per hour to $135 per hour.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
There are, Mr. Speaker, a
number of other administrative changes contained in this bill and those are
changes that have been recommended to us by the Legal Aid Commission, considered
very much from their perspective at least, administrative in nature.
Mr.
Speaker, I am certainly very pleased to have a few moments to speak to this bill
and to provide a high level summary of the bill, Bill 9, An Act To Amend The
Legal Aid Act. With that, I am going
to close my remarks and invite my colleague from Burgeo La Poile to have his
chance to speak, and anyone else who wishes to speak and move this bill forward.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
very happy to speak to Bill 9, An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act.
This is
a very necessary piece of legislation, as I believe the minister said.
This act has not seen anything very major over the last number of
decades. The changes we have here,
again, some may seem minor but in reality they will have a significant effect on
the administration of justice in this Province, and that is always a good thing
when it is done positively.
Before I
begin, I would like to say that I appreciate the department giving me and our
staff a briefing, sitting down with us and going over it.
It was very much appreciated.
We have had a lot of time to go through this, and I will try my best to just go
through it and discuss a few of the changes here.
Some of them are substantive.
Some are housekeeping, but like I said, that is what happens when you have a
bill of this nature.
We all
understand the concept of legal aid in this Province.
We have a Commission, people have an opportunity.
Everybody is entitled to a solicitor to
help them when they are involved in a legal case, primarily when it comes to
family and/or criminal law. You do
see civil in some cases, although obviously that should be fairly minor.
It is a much different standard than the individual who is defending
himself against a criminal charge, or an individual who is involved in a family
law proceeding where we are talking a division of property, or if we are talking
children or spousal support, things like that.
One of
the first things you will notice when you go through this bill is under
paragraph 2 of section 2. We are
dealing with people now, immigrants who are illegally in Canada, but they are
awaiting adjudication of their case.
They are now eligible for legal aid.
They can be deemed a resident for the purposes of legal aid.
I think that is an absolutely wonderful thing for us to do.
At the
end of the day, an adjudicator will rule whether this individual should be or
should not be in the country, but they are entitled to having representation.
People like anybody, but especially those who work in the field,
myself, the Member for St. Barbe, and the Member for Placentia St. Mary's, at
the end of the day the value of representation is so important when it comes to
the administration of justice. You
need to have that. When we have
somebody here in this Province who is fighting deportation or the fact that they
should be here, they need a person to represent them.
I am
going to move forward here. Some of
the changes are fairly minor. We are
moving from five members to seven members of the Commission.
The fact is that Legal Aid is, as the minister said, somewhat arm's
length from the Department of Justice.
You need that, because at the end of the day the Department of Justice
administers the public prosecutions.
It would
be kind of hard, in a conflicting type of way.
If the department administers prosecutions and the department administers
legal aid, which primarily is defence, you are going to have a conflict at some
point. So Legal Aid really is an
arm's length group. Obviously, they
get their funding the lion's share of their funding comes from government.
I think the number here, whether it is federal or provincial, there is
almost $17 million that goes into Legal Aid; $3 million of that is federal, the
rest comes from the provincial government.
We have
this board that administers it. One
of the things that came to us during this briefing is that Legal Aid is trying
to revamp their operations. They are
trying to revamp their management.
That is why they are adding more people.
From what we have been told, they are trying to add a more technical
level of expertise to the management side.
I do not
have the statistic here, but I believe at one point the administrator of Legal
Aid had somewhere in the range of twenty-five to thirty different people
reporting to them on the different functions.
That is no way for any structure to operate.
So they are trying to change the operations to allow it to run properly.
We have
heard many times over the last number of years and a lot of this stems out of
the Roil report which government received and did accept all of the
recommendations in full. That
stemmed out of the 2013
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you for that, Mr.
Speaker.
I know
it is a topic that causes a lot of strife here in the House, but I appreciate
the members listening to me. It is
an enthralling bill, but the Roil report stemmed out of the 2013 Budget.
The 2013 Budget saw a huge cut to Justice.
We saw the outrage that came out of that.
Forty-eight hours later there was a committee that came in and had to
change a lot of the decisions that were made.
One of
the things that came out was a review of legal aid.
There was also a review of the sheriff's office.
There was a justice who was brought in to do the legal aid report and Mr.
John Roil came in and took it over after.
I think there were some health issues there.
John Royal, for anybody who knows him, is very well thought of in this
Province in the legal field. He has
had a number of roles and he came in this report.
Government accepted all of the recommendations in principle.
One of
the things we know is that Legal Aid has had its share of criticism over the
years. The one thing I would like to
say and this is as somebody who has practiced against Legal Aid lawyers and
who has referred people to Legal Aid lawyers.
I have never practiced with Legal Aid, although I did spend some time
with them doing some training.
I can
say that any Legal Aid lawyer I know are great, great lawyers.
They are fantastic lawyers.
They have a lot of experience. The
amount of experience they get on a day-to-day basis if anything, the only
complaint I have ever said is that the problem is their caseload can be so high
that it is very hard for them to have enough time to handle the files.
You
think about it. I look at the
circuit courts, where they have to travel to a court from Stephenville out to
Port aux Basques, then they have to go down to Burgeo, and then they have to go
to Corner Brook. You are doing your
travelling. You are acting as duty
counsel, so when anybody shows up to the court you have to see them to make sure
that they get advice, you have your own files, you are dealing with a multitude
of different lawyers, and you have people coming up.
The lawyers themselves are not responsible for discussing whether
somebody is applicable for legal aid or not, their job is to represent people.
They are
great lawyers. Sometimes there is a
perception out there that Legal Aid lawyers are not the same as a private bar
lawyer and that is simply not true.
That is an unfortunate perception.
It is one that has been addressed by Mr. Roil.
The department is trying to address it.
I think that is necessary because Legal Aid is good.
Don't
get me wrong, at the end of the day the private bar has a role to play here too.
There has always been that sort of line between letting everybody have
state-paid attorneys versus the private bar.
There has always been that line there between making sure that there is a
balance there. There are individuals
who get legal representation at public taxpayer expense, and there are
individuals who have to go out and pay for their legal needs, we will say, and
they have to pay out of pocket. That
is addressed in here later on.
When you
move forward here we talk about the fact that there are now seven members.
There used to be five. The
Law Society recommends some. They
are hopefully going to make this a higher-functioning organization which nobody
has any issue with.
I like
the fact here that they say if they fail to attend three consecutive meetings of
the board they are kicked off the board.
That is good, as they should be.
If you cannot show up to it and you might have valid reasons, but if
you cannot do the job, if you cannot be there, then you should not be there.
That is no different than anybody.
It is no different than a member here.
If you are not attending where you should be, then you should not be
there. We treat every organization
the same.
A lot of
these may establish offices that they consider expedient.
The other thing too is that they are trying to take some of the authority
of work off the Minister of Justice.
The Minister of Justice should not decide where this is happening in some cases.
At the end of the day, the Minister of Justice and Treasury Board helps
decide how much money you get. Legal
Aid has to figure out what to do with that money.
That is the reason they have had troubles in the past.
It is because the government cut the guts out of the money that they were
getting. That is why we saw things
like courtrooms in Burgeo and Springdale close for savings of things like $600
and $900. Obviously I do not agree and still do not agree with that, but that is
how they operate. They operate with
the funds they are allocated.
One
change here and this is so small to many people that it probably does not
generate a lot of attention. One of
the big issues we have had with Legal Aid is that they have not had the backroom
support to do things like auditing of their files.
They have been very late filing reports with the feds.
That is why now we are getting extra money coming from the feds.
It is not extra money; it is money that we are getting that the feds have
owed us for years. The feds have
said you have to give us an audit of the files to show what you have done and we
never did it.
The
reason we never did it is because Legal Aid has been so short staffed that they
did not have time to do that. Now we
are catching up and that means more money coming in.
At a time like this where we have seen the government put this Province
in a difficult financial state, any money coming in is great, especially money
from the feds.
What is
going on here is that in some cases you have to pass on information to the
Auditor General to get these things done, but then there was a case of
solicitor-client confidentiality, and then you did not want to pass that on.
In this case they are saying that is not going to be an issue here for
auditing purposes. We are not
disclosing your name for untoward reasons.
At the end of the day we need to make sure that the files are done right
so that the funding is handled right.
I am
going to continue on here to probably the next relevant section and that is
subsection 31(3.1). This is the part
about choice of counsel. Anybody who
watches the news on a regular basis will see individuals who are charged with
crimes. They show up and they want
the Province or Legal Aid, or they want the Department of Justice to pay for
their lawyer. They want them to pay
for their lawyer. They say I want my
choice of counsel. In fact, we
recently had a Court of Appeal decision that is probably the impetus for where
we are with this. I think it may
have stemmed some of this.
In this
case, sometimes this is where the perception is created where we are saying I do
not want a Legal Aid lawyer. I want
my own private lawyer, but I want them to pay for it.
One of the issues always has been there that, okay, we will go out and
hire outside counsel, but we are going to get paid Legal Aid rates.
Legal Aid rates have been so small that the private counsel will not take
them. Now what we have seen is an
increase in the Legal Aid rates.
That is something that has been well overdue.
Anybody
in the system, anybody whatsoever will say this was long overdue and we are
happy to see this change made. It
was a proper change. Anything that I
do not touch on, I am sure my colleague from St. Barbe, who also has a
significant amount of experience here he is going to make sure to touch on
these as well because he has a background in this.
What we
want to see here there is an increase in the rates.
I have no problem with that.
We have defined the crimes or the criminal sections for which you can go out and
get counsel. I believe it is murder,
I think it is manslaughter, and I think is where you can get it.
I have seen some cases, there is one recently, where an individual was
charged with aiding and abetting somebody, which was probably less significant
than these. He is out looking for
private counsel.
I
continue on here; another part on dealing with conflicts within the office.
What you had are lawyers who were saying I cannot do this case because I
represented so-and-so and I cannot question them now.
There was no means set up in the office to reduce conflicts or to allow
certain things to happen. We have
seen them in just about any law office, especially ones across the country.
They set up something called a Chinese wall.
It is a way to help partition and reduce conflict.
In this
case we only have so many lawyers. I
think the number that I was given is sixty-odd lawyers in this.
Yes, fifty-nine solicitors in this Province.
When you have fifty-nine solicitors to handle a fairly small population,
just over 500,000, the fact is you are going to have conflict at some point.
We have to reduce the amount of conflict so that we are not having
lawyers conflicted out of every single file.
There are steps being taken here.
Certainly, I do not have any issue with it from my reading of it, but I
will leave it to others to see if there is any issue there.
We
continue on this is an interesting section and I am all for it.
Subsection 36(3) says, In determining whether a person is qualified for
legal aid, an area director or the provincial director shall consider the matter
from the standpoint of a usual solicitor and client relationship, taking into
account (a) whether a reasonable person of moderate means would be prepared to
pay a solicitor to pursue the matter.
Now,
what is going to happen is we had to look at I have legal aid, if I am in a
criminal matter, instead of that lawyer going out and filing umpteen
applications in the court, what they are going to do is they have to look at the
possibility of success, the cost of proceedings in relation to the anticipated
loss or recovery, and the likelihood of enforcing judgement.
The
criminal side is one thing because, at the end of the day, you have the
underlying factor of the person is entitled to a full and fair defence and you
have to do what you have to do as a defence counsel.
That is fine, but I am especially thinking about the family cases where
one side of the matter has private counsel, is paying out of pocket and it is
costing them significantly. The
other person has state-paid lawyers.
What is
going to happen here, you see in many cases especially when it comes to,
unfortunately, children, you will see there is a racket between both sides and
one side says I do not like this; I am going to go out and get my Legal Aid
lawyer and file an application now to deal with custody and access.
The person who has private counsel has to go out and defend that
obviously, like you would, because it is involving your children, but it is
coming out of their pocket. In many
cases, you see people who cannot afford to continue on with private counsel and
then you have unrepresented litigants in the court, which nobody wants to see.
Judges
do not want to see it. Other lawyers
do not want to see it. In fact, the
people who have to represent themselves, in many cases, they do not want to be
doing it, but they have no choice.
They cannot qualify for legal aid, they are above that threshold, but they
cannot afford to pay for a lawyer because of all the other bills.
You have some people who can use the system I have seen it and I have
dealt with it use the state-paid lawyer to make all of these applications.
In many cases, to use one of government's buzz words, they are
frivolous, and it is unfortunate.
In this
case, there are considerations that are being put there now.
What they are saying is: Would the person of reasonable means be doing
that? So I have private counsel,
would I go out and pay my lawyer to do this? Do
I have any chance of success, or am I just tying up the court and tying up the
resources? Again, on its face and
I may have some points to bring up in Committee, depending on what everybody
else has to say I think this is a positive move.
I like to see everybody have a fair shot.
I like to see everybody get fair opportunity in the court and I like to
see everybody get fair representation.
Nobody whether you have money or you do not have money, whether you
have private counsel or Legal Aid, we should all be treated the same in the
court. That is the administration of
justice right there.
Overall
when we look at this we talk about the legal aid system.
In many ways, this is an attempt to revamp the system.
Not fundamentally. We used to
have a certificate system, which has not been around for some time.
Then we moved into having staff solicitors.
Other provinces use other methods.
In this case, Mr. Roil said: No, we are using the one that we need to
use. This is the best system, but we
can change the way that we operate.
I do
like this here. What they are saying
here is in many cases some people and people do not realize this go to Legal
Aid and they do not get free counsel.
They may have to pay some money.
It is based on their means.
In some cases, you can look at if I were to go to court for a family proceeding,
at the end of the day I may be entitled to child support, I may be entitled to
spousal support. Now I am not going
to say I. Obviously when you are
entitled to child support, the child is entitled to support, but I am the one
getting it because it is my child.
We will
not consider child support when it comes to payment back to the court because
that money is entitled to the child.
That is their money. That is for
their means. In some cases, it is
hard to believe, people have legal aid because they cannot they are entitled
to it, but they get huge amounts of spousal support in the court decisions.
It is not really fair for them to continue to get state-paid lawyers and
they are getting huge amounts of money.
Our job
is to make sure that they have a fair defence so that they are not getting
bullied by someone who has means, but in this case we are saying that can be
considered. We can consider the
money that they get in spousal support settlements when we go to the regulations
on payment.
It looks
like there have been some changes here for what legal aid shall not be granted
for. Legal aid shall not be granted
for civil law in terms of torts, so personal injury law.
That is perfect. Our legal
aid should not be paying for that.
We all know now, you only have to turn on the TV or look in the newspaper.
As it stands now we have a system where you go to the lawyer and if you
have a good civil claim, you are not going to pay until you get some money
anyway. Why should we be having
legal aid do that on the taxpayer dime?
That is perfect. I am glad to
see that is clarified here again.
Also,
you cannot get legal aid when we talk about private prosecutions such as
defamation. Thank God that is the
case. Can you imagine if we had to
get Legal Aid lawyers out defending people sorry, out prosecuting people for
defamation. We have seen a number of
defamation cases in this Province in the last number of years, some of them even
related to the political field. So
again in this case, legal aid is not going to cover that nor should they.
I think
I have covered it off here there are a lot of good changes here.
Many of them that are not going to hit the average Joe out there who is
watching this, but to those who are in the system and those who have worked
within the system or dealt with the system these are positive changes.
I, for
one, will be supporting this piece of legislation.
I think it is a good move forward
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
The members are happy to hear
that, but again it is a good piece of legislation.
Not all the legislation they put out there is good, but in this case it
is a good piece of legislation, good changes, overdue, and I am glad to see it.
Thank
you for the opportunity.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
Barbe.
MR. J. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is
a useful piece of legislation, a good piece of legislation, and I do not have
any problem supporting it. It has
some shortcomings. I would like to
go through the bill and the act and point out some of what I feel are some of
the shortcomings that the minister may well want to consider with his deputy.
In the
definition section first of all, section 2, under 1(1), it identifies the
department and says 'department' means the department presided over by the
minister. It does not say the
Minister of Justice. That is not
necessarily a bad thing, but it seems to imply that it does not need to be the
Department of Justice presiding over legal aid in the future.
The
second definition to me is a little more problematic.
My colleague may be enthusiastic about taking on federal battles with
immigration; I am not. Under section
2(s) it says: 'resident' means a person lawfully entitled to be or remain in
Canada who makes his or her home and is ordinarily present in the province, but
does not include a tourist, transient or visitor to the province.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, this changes the definition of resident to be, first of all, a person
lawfully entitled to be or remain in Canada, and it says or somebody who is
illegally in Canada but awaiting adjudication of his or her immigration or
citizenship status.
Mr.
Speaker, if immigration is federal and if 250 refugees show up on our shore
tomorrow morning and it is a federal claim and they go before the Immigration
and Refugee Board, why should the taxpayers of this Province pay the legal costs
on a federal case? Why should the
$13 million or $15 million or $17 million that the taxpayers of this Province,
through government, set aside to represent people legally, be used to handle
what is clearly a federal issue? Why
should we pay, without some sort of an agreement with the federal government, to
defend on refugee or immigration claims?
What
about if the two guys who escaped from the prison in New York a week or so ago
show up here? Are we supposed to
provide them with legal aid here?
Because this change in the act says that we are now exposing ourselves to
provide a defence for people who I am not sure it is in the interests of the
people of this Province to be taking on this federal burden.
Our
Province is not a nation. We are not
someone who has any authority over deporting these people.
They are dealt with in a federal board, the Immigration and Refugee
Board. They are dealt with in
federal court, not in any of the courts of this Province.
They will go to through the federal court of appeal, and they could go
through the Supreme Court of Canada.
Why should the funds set aside for legal aid of this Province be drained by
people on what clearly looks like a federal issue?
Anyway, the minister may want to discuss that with his deputy.
Mr.
Speaker, under section 3(2) it says, Where a member of the board, other than
the deputy minister of the department and the provincial director, without
giving a reasonable explanation to the chairperson, fails to attend 3
consecutive meetings of the board, he or she stops being a member of the board.
What about if that person is the Chair?
Could it not be strengthened by saying if that person is the Chair and
fails to give notice to the Vice-Chair?
Because looking at this particular amendment, it looks like the
chairperson need never show up and there is no way to get the chairperson off
the board for not showing up. It is
just a weakness in drafting, in my view.
Section
4, which modifies the old section 9, says, The commission may establish other
offices and agencies in the province
and that is an amendment from what
previously said it was necessary to have ministerial approval.
Mr. Speaker, I think that is a good amendment because it provides more
autonomy to the board. They do not
always have to come to the minister in order to setup offices.
Why should they? They should
be able to manage the affairs of the commission themselves.
Under
section 6, which amends 27, it says, The commission may divide the provinces
into areas for the provision of legal services.
That appears to give more autonomy also to the board than the board
currently has.
The next
section to me is rather curious because it says under 7, which modifies section
28, The commission may appoint, on a full-time or part-time basis, a solicitor
to act as an area director.
Mr.
Speaker, if the Minister of Justice does not have to be a solicitor, why should
the area director of Legal Aid have to be a solicitor?
Why are there not competent people other than solicitors in the Province
who could possibly be the area director for Legal Aid?
If, for
example, the Minister of Justice retires at some point and would not mind doing
additional work, fully familiar with the legal aid system and with the justice
system, why couldn't a former Minister of Justice or any other capable person
serve as the area director? It seems
to me that is a serious shortcoming.
I do not think the lawyers would mind because it actually reserves the job for a
solicitor. I do not think it is our
job here to preserve positions for lawyers.
Mr.
Speaker, as we go through there is section 11 of this bill which amends section
43 of the old act. This says, Where
an area director issues a legal aid certificate authorizing legal aid to be
provided by a solicitor in private practice, he or she shall advise the holder
of the legal aid certificate of the names of all solicitors on the panel that
practice where the court in which the holder of the certificate is required to
appear
. where that court is located.
Mr.
Speaker what that means is that if some people from St. John's, for example, go
down the Burin Peninsula and get on a big tear and get charged, they get out on
bail and they come back to town, they will be given a list of lawyers on the
Burin Peninsula so that the taxpayers through Legal Aid will not be paying for a
lawyer to go from St. John's maybe to Marystown to represent them, if their
lawyer is in Marystown. This is
clearly designed to prevent abuse and cut down on overhead in the legal aid
system.
If there
is no counsel available in that area, then the holder of that legal aid
certificate can apply back to the Legal Aid Commission for approval to hire a
lawyer not where the court is located.
That would mean travel. It
would mean extra time, and potentially accommodations.
If at
all possible, why should the taxpayers of the Province pay more expenses than
would be necessary because somebody on a whim decides they do not want to deal
with a lawyer who is very familiar with the area?
When, in fact, they might be better off dealing with a local lawyer who
knows the prosecutor, is familiar with the judge, the judge's preferences and
idiosyncrasies for that matter, and knows how to put on a case before that
judge. That is a very useful
amendment.
Now,
section 14 which amends Paragraphs 47(a) and (b) is quite problematic to me.
I think there is a real serious shortcoming in that particular section.
That section, as it exists up until this amendment goes through, says,
Except as otherwise provided in this Act or the regulations, legal aid may be
granted to a person
for proceedings in the Supreme Court, Family Court, or
Provincial Court. Now, that would
seem to make sense because that actually covers pretty much all of the courts
that would handle matters of this nature in our Province.
The
amendment takes out Provincial Court.
The amendment says this section is repealed.
It does not refer to Supreme Court, it does not refer to Family Court,
and it does not refer to Provincial Court.
It refers to Trial Division - General Division, and it says Family
Division, but it leaves out Provincial Court.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, the effect of this is that if a person is somewhere in St. Anthony
area, for example, the Supreme Court never goes to the Northern Peninsula, but
the Provincial Court goes to the Northern Peninsula.
This means that if this new Legal Aid Act, if this bill denies coverage
in Provincial Court matters for people in the St. Anthony area, for example, on
a family law case, then that person will be stuck with travelling from St.
Anthony to Corner Brook, nearly 500 kilometres, to be able to attend Supreme
Court; because that region of the Province has only provincial court.
If they
have only Provincial Court, and if this bill has denied them the right to legal
aid for Provincial Court and proceedings in St. Anthony, for example, or
Forteau, then effectively they have been shut out of the legal aid system.
I think it probably was an oversight; probably by drafters who are not
fully familiar with some areas of the Province that are remote and do not have
Supreme Court of any kind. Yes,
there are three Supreme Court justices sitting in Corner Brook, but Corner Brook
is 500 kilometres from St. Anthony.
Provincial Court goes to St. Anthony, Provincial Court goes to Southern
Labrador, but this bill says that legal aid may be granted to only people who
are seeking coverage for (a) or (b), and (a) and (b) become the Trial Division,
Family Division, and General, but it knocks out Provincial Court.
I do not understand why the drafters would deny the opportunity for
somebody let's say, for example, somebody in Cook's Harbour or St. Anthony
area is left behind. Maybe it is a
woman with a couple of small children and the guy is gone off to Alberta or
wherever, and she is trying to enforce a support order or trying to get a
support order.
If she
is going to go to Legal Aid, the legal aid certificate this says that it does
not cover Provincial Court. Why
wouldn't it cover Provincial Court?
Who knows why it would not cover Provincial Court.
Why should she have to go practically a day's drive to Corner Brook for
Supreme Court when there is a perfectly capable Provincial Court judge who comes
to St. Anthony for a week of a month, eight times a year?
Even though the Northern Peninsula seems to be withdrawing services when this
government took office the Provincial Court used to come fifty days a year.
Now it comes forty days a year.
So there has been a withdrawal of services, but to deny them the right to
apply for legal aid by the stroke of a pen seems to be a bit harsh.
Mr.
Speaker, generally the bill is good, but like I say, it has some shortcomings
that appear to have suffered from maybe hasty drafting, maybe in a rush to get
it through. One particularly good
area is that the tariff has been increased.
For
people who are watching, legal aid is provided generally in two ways; one is
through staff lawyers. We have some
very capable staff lawyers with Legal Aid in our Province.
I have dealt with quite a number of them.
They are quite diligent and hard working.
Because they see the same area of law day in and day out handling maybe
twenty-five, thirty, forty files every day, sometimes in bail court doing jury
trials for weeks on end they get considerable experience.
The person who needs legal aid is quite lucky, in many cases, to be
represented by them.
In some
cases, because maybe the Legal Aid lawyer there has a conflict of interest and a
conflict often would come about they may be representing a co-accused.
Maybe there are two or three people involved in the same alleged crime
and Legal Aid is representing this person and this person, and there is nobody
from that office available to represent the third accused.
Maybe the person going into Corner Brook will send somebody in from Grand
Falls, or maybe they just do not have anybody, but the certificate system
permits a legal aid certificate to be issued.
Really,
I suppose, it is almost like a coupon for a lawyer.
The new tariff would be $60 to $135 an hour.
That may sound like a considerable amount to some people, but I would
doubt that anybody would open a law office today, first year out of law school,
on less than $125 or $150 an hour.
It is a very basic rate.
There
are many lawyers who are quite capable who will accept legal aid certificates
because they consider it part of their responsibility to provide strong
representation to people throughout the Province.
So, you can have a legal aid certificate, you can have a Legal Aid
lawyer, and there is a considerable element of choice.
The legal aid system will be significantly strengthened by this.
I would not want to see it not be passed because of the observations or
glitches that I pointed out.
Mr.
Speaker, there is another apparent inconsistency in the drafting.
The current act says seven.
Now I do not want to be correcting the Minister of Justice.
He referred to five. In fact
there are five. Plus the five, there
are two members who shall be the Deputy Minister of Justice but that is struck
out now. It does not have to be the
Deputy Minister of Justice, it has to be the deputy minister of the department,
whatever that happens to be, and the provincial director.
Five
plus two is seven. Now there will be
seven plus two, which would be nine.
An amendment that seems to be missed is that under section 3 of the existing act
it says, Three members of the board shall be appointed from a list of 5 persons
to be submitted by the law society at the request of the minister.
Maybe if we are increasing the number of board members from seven to
nine, this figure of three should be increased from three to five just for
consistency sake.
Then,
Mr. Speaker, there would seem to be other amendments that are necessary in the
act that have been overlooked in the bill.
This bill seems to change to say that it does not have to be the
Department of Justice, so it does not have to be the Deputy Minister of Justice.
It does that in its definitions where it says, 'department' means the
department presided over by the minister.
It does not say the Minister of Justice, it says the minister.
Then, the current bill still retains references to the Deputy Minister of
Justice when it should probably be simply the deputy minister.
That
looks like a certain number of amendments have not been done.
Someone will have to go by guesswork and try to figure out what was
really intended here. If some parts
of it are changed and it does not have proper concordance, if it has not been
changed everywhere, then it just makes it have shortcomings because it leaves
people guessing as to what the drafters of the legislation intended.
But for
the shortcomings that I think I have highlighted, I think that it is basically a
well-intended and good bill, even if it seems to suffer from some drafting
flaws. It appears to have been
drafted in haste with some things missed and not properly considered, but it
certainly is worth voting for.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I am very happy to stand and speak to this Bill 9, An Act To Amend The Legal Aid
Act.
First of
all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the department for the excellent,
thorough, comprehensive, and accessible briefing that was provided to us by the
assistant deputy minister. He did an
excellent job. He was there to
answer all our questions. The
information that was provided to us was so clear and so accessible.
I would like to thank the whole department and whoever had a hand in
preparing the briefing notes for us.
I would
also like to thank all the good people at Legal Aid who provide services to the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador, oftentimes under very, very difficult
situations. We know their workload
is very heavy. We know that we went
through a real hard time, particularly because of Budget 2013-2014 where there
were deep cuts. Some of those cuts
had to be reinstated, had to be reversed.
These are people who do their jobs because of their passion for justice.
They do their jobs with professionalism, with passion, with commitment,
and with generosity. I would like to
thank the good people who work at Legal Aid.
The
Legal Aid Act that we were dealing with was originally passed in 1975 and there
has been no significant review since.
That is about forty years, Mr. Speaker.
That is a significant amount of time.
Sometimes if we do not update our legislation, or if we do not update the
way we do things, we end up doing things that become state of the ark instead of
state of the art.
I know,
Mr. Speaker, that all the good people at Legal Aid and all the people in the
Department of Justice wish to modernize our system wish to modernize our whole
judicial system, our court system, not just Legal Aid to make it state of the
art rather than state of the ark.
It is
great to see some of the recommendations here for amendments to the Legal Aid
Act. Most of them as a matter of
fact, Mr. Speaker, come out of the Roil report, the Roil review of legal aid
that was undertaken last year. I
would like to thank John Roil, Q.C., for his excellent work and for the
recommendations that came out of his work.
The
Legal Aid Commission was mandated to provide legal services to those who
financially qualify in criminal, family, and civil matters.
Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure whether or not that is something else that
needs to be looked at. That is not
really being approached in the amendments that are put before us now, but it is
quite possible that some of the thresholds for eligibility because of the high
cost of living that people are experiencing, the high cost of housing, the high
cost of food, that in fact some of those thresholds may be too low right now.
Justice
Derek Green has spoken on a number of occasions about how important it is for
access to justice, that people should not be prohibited from having access to
justice because of financial reasons.
That is not what we are dealing with right now, though; but those
thresholds, those ceilings of eligibility, whether or not they are generous
enough, taking into account the high cost of living that people experience these
days.
The
Commission is arm's-length from the government, and that is ideal.
That is exactly what we would want for our Commission.
It is very important that those who work within the justice system have
that arm's-length from government.
It is governed by a board of commissioners of five appointees, and I will talk a
little bit about that because that is one of the amendments that we are going to
look at.
Legal
Aid currently employs 125 people in eleven provincial offices and project
locations across Newfoundland and Labrador.
This was a surprise to me that there are fifty-nine solicitors and
sixty-six management and staff personnel.
That seemed like a lot of people to me in terms of the ratio of
management and staff to solicitors; but then when you look at they do all of
their own assessments, they do all of their own billing, they do all of their
own file management, then that made sense.
We certainly do not want cases held up because of administrative
procedures, because of lack of support staff for administrative procedures.
It is pretty evident that they need those sixty-six people, that in fact
it is not an odd balance.
The
funding for 2015-2016 will be $16.9 million.
Mr. Speaker, $2 million of that comes from the federal government.
The mandate of the review that John Roil did and he delivered it in
March 2014. He said, The review
will examine the cost-effectiveness of the delivery of legal aid services in
ensuring that the residents of the province have access to justice.
That is what is so important.
What we are talking about is that people have access to justice.
That means having comprehensive, expert representation when people have
to go to the court systems.
The
terms of reference were broad. It
included review of the effectiveness of the current service model; solicitor,
administrator, and executive structures.
That is those solicitors who are staff at Legal Aid, and also the
backroom staff who are doing those kinds of administrative services that are so
important. They take care of
business so that business can get moving.
It also looked at the recommendations on legal aid services that should
be enhanced, maintained, or reduced.
Some of
the recommendations which required legislative amendments were to increase the
size and composition of the board of commissioners.
We are dealing with that, Mr. Speaker, in this particular piece of
legislation. Previously, there were
five representations. John Roil
recommended anywhere from seven to nine members on the board.
Government has chosen the department has chosen to recommend that seven
be appointed. That is where they are
going to be going with this.
They
want to clarify and improve conflict issues on files within the Commission.
That means whether or not we will talk a little bit about that.
Consider removing the choice of counsel provision of the act, and change
the Law Foundation funding obligation to allow it to retain $300,000 of its net
annual resources. Government
accepted all the recommendations in principle of the Roil report.
The bill
that we have before the House this evening, we are going to deal with the
following recommendations. The
Commission expands the Commission to seven appointed members from the current
five. That makes sense, Mr. Speaker,
so that they are able to handle more with subcommittees the business of the
Legal Aid Commission. The Law
Society will give five names to government to choose three members.
So there are three members that are recommended by the Law Society.
They recommend five, but government chooses three.
So there are three members really that are appointments from the list
from the Law Society.
The
conflict issue that expands the conflict rule clarifications to reduce
conflicts on certain files. Mr.
Speaker, what that refers to is that if a lawyer has a current file that he is
not in conflict in a current file if he cross-examines a witness that he has
formerly represented or another solicitor associated with him.
So that will not be considered a conflict unless there is genuine concern
of serious risk.
That
makes sense, Mr. Speaker, we are a small province, we are small pool of lawyers
so that makes sense, but there is a safeguard.
If there is a genuine concern of serious risk, then that would be
reconsidered.
Section
23(1) is about the audit. Files are
audited by the Office of the Auditor General.
The Auditor General is sworn to secrecy; there is absolute
confidentiality. What has happened
before is that when the Commission had to provide material to the Auditor
General, files, they had to redact the names of the clients.
We were told it could take weeks of work.
Because the Auditor General is under provisions of confidentiality and
secrecy, it is now clarifying that not requiring the redaction of somebody's
name is not interfering with client-solicitor privilege.
We know how important solicitor-client privilege is, so this is not taken
lightly. This has been given a lot
of thought, and there is a belief that this will not violate solicitor-client
privilege.
The
choice of counsel Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very important one.
Roil recommended that government consider deleting the section out of
concerns that it sends the wrong message about the quality of legal aid
representation. People with very
serious charges whether they be murder, manslaughter, or infanticide could
choose an outside solicitor and not go with a Legal Aid solicitor.
The
concern Roil had was that there is this misconception out there that Legal Aid
lawyers are not good lawyers. That
the only reason Legal Aid lawyers are working for Legal Aid is because they
cannot make it out in the real world.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, that is quite the opposite.
These are well trained, fully qualified lawyers who are passionate about
the law and who have decided to serve justice by becoming Legal Aid lawyers.
The
interesting thing, Mr. Speaker, that among our lawyers in the Province they are
often the ones with the most court experience and with the most criminal
experience. In fact, they are not
second-class lawyers. There is that
misconception out there, that myth.
So what we have is that people who need representation feel they want a lawyer
who is not a Legal Aid lawyer.
Mr.
Speaker, this is about reacting to that.
Government agrees that this misrepresentation is a concern.
We were also told that government is looking at doing a PR campaign to
highlight the profiles of Legal Aid lawyers, to show that, in fact, our Legal
Aid lawyers are well trained, are up for the job, and are very experienced in
their court procedures.
The
amendment retains the choice of counsel provision but clarifies that private
solicitors have to be on a panel, that they have to be approved.
That means they have to agree to accept legal aid tariff rates.
The wonderful thing now, Mr. Speaker, is we are seeing that the legal aid
tariff rates have been increased to $135 an hour from the previous $60 an hour,
which was way too low. That was
certainly too low. The Budget now
increases it again from $135 an hour, up from the $60 an hour.
We look forward to seeing that increase implemented shortly, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MS ROGERS:
Thank you very much.
Mr.
Speaker, I am getting backhanded compliments from members across the floor.
Mr.
Speaker, the other issues we are looking at the amendments also are looking at
that they are identifying as being required to update the act and deal with
various other issues. One is when
legal aid is provided. One of the
issues that was highlighted during our briefing was looking at what happens if
people are using legal aid just for feuds.
A measure that is being applied to this is to add what Legal Aid is
looking at
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER (Cross):
Order, please!
MS ROGERS:
how to determine whether a case is valid and is qualified for the criteria for
legal aid. The issue that is being
addressed in this particular item is whether a reasonable person of moderate
means would be prepared to pay a solicitor to pursue a matter.
We do
not want people abusing our legal aid system, whether people are coming to legal
aid for something that is like a feud.
In fact, Legal Aid has to make determinations not simply on financial
eligibility, but whether or not these are cases that Legal Aid should be
undertaking. This is a test that the
Commission uses informally and now it is going to be used formally.
It will be an amendment to the law.
Another
amendment that I find kind of interesting, Mr. Speaker, is in clause 45, the
payment of costs. It adds the
exclusion of child and spousal support order from the calculation of costs
recovered by the Commission from judgments subject to a limit to be set out in
the regulations. I think that this
is really important.
Payments
for child support, payments for spousal support cannot be used in the
calculations of recovering costs from judgments.
So that means that payments for child support are not to be used for
anything other than payments of child support.
That protects those monies to help families.
That protects, Mr. Speaker, child supports for the welfare of children.
Also,
what is amended is the definition of resident.
That expands individuals who can qualify for legal aid to include
non-residents in the country illegally where they are engaged in immigration or
residency processes. Mr. Speaker,
this is very important, particularly for people who need representation, who are
not yet Canadian citizens, who may be here illegally, that they have the right
to apply for legal aid so that they have access to justice and representation.
The
clause 5(2) amendment is about meetings of a board.
This is simply a housekeeping issue, Mr. Speaker.
It says the board can meet electronically, that they do not have to meet
in person. Again, that helps with
people who are travelling or people who are representatives on the board, if
they do not live in the capital city.
The head office; again, these are a number of housekeeping amendments to
the act.
Section
44, is the contribution agreement.
This provides the Commission the power to amend or cancel contribution
agreements. This will be carried
into the regulations to provide the power to write off amounts if a contract is
cancelled. This says that, in fact,
the minister does not have to be involved.
The Department of Justice does not have to be involved, that the
Commission itself can amend or cancel contribution agreements.
This makes sense, Mr. Speaker.
Again, because they are at arm's length from the government and they are
able to do this kind of work without making it unnecessarily bureaucratically
cumbersome.
Section
58(2), the secrecy; I found this kind of interesting, and I think the people of
the Province might find this interesting.
It clarifies that secrecy commitments and solicitor-client privilege do
not apply where the Commission is responding in court to allegations of
wrongdoings by the Commission. That
means if a client or if someone is accusing a Legal Aid lawyer of wrongdoing,
that that Legal Aid lawyer is not bound by secrecy commitments and
solicitor-client privilege, that they can defend themselves without breaking
that solicitor-client privilege and we know how important solicitor-client
privilege is.
Also,
suspension; this is all about modernizing Legal Aid and making sure that it is
as responsive as it can be to the needs of the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Attorney
General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. F. COLLINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I am not going to take my full time on this bill.
The Minister of Justice has gone through the focus of the bill fairly
well and explained what the bill is all about.
Members from the other side have also gone through the provisions of the
bill and explained them very well.
I just
want to add a few comments to the debate, and that is that a strong justice
system requires a strong legal aid system.
This Province has been committed, Mr. Speaker, to the legal aid system
over the last number of years. As a
matter of fact, since 2003 it has invested heavily in the legal aid system
because the federal funding for the legal aid system has been drastically
reduced. I think the Member for
Burgeo La Poile pointed out that we now have a budget in Legal Aid of
somewhere around $17 million and the federal government is only providing $2
million. We have invested heavily in
the legal aid system over the last few years.
Mr.
Speaker, as a matter of fact, following the Roil report, when we accepted the
thirteen recommendations, we committed $7.1 million in additional funding for
Legal Aid over the next three years.
Last year, we spent $2.1 million in Legal Aid.
That firmed up funding for seventeen positions established permanent
funding for these seventeen positions that previous to that were not funded
permanently.
We also
hired four new paralegals, secretaries, and an area director.
That was what Legal Aid requested at that time.
This year, Mr. Speaker, we are hiring in this Budget three extra
solicitors for Legal Aid. In
addition, we are providing some office space for Aboriginal community workers
and doing some funding for technology improvements.
We have
over $7 million, Mr. Speaker, allocated for Legal Aid over three years.
The ratio of spending in Legal Aid from what the Province spends and what
the federal government spends has widened significantly over a number of years.
Mr.
Speaker, I have attended, over the years when I was Minister of Justice, at
least three federal-provincial-territorial meetings of Justice Ministers.
The present Minister of Justice has attended a couple as well.
Always on the agenda of those meetings is the topic of federal funding
for Legal Aid. Every year the FPT
conference pushes for more funding from the federal government, but it never
materializes. The current agreement,
as a matter of fact, will continue for one more year, 2016-2017.
After that, a new agreement will have to be put in place with respect to
the federal funding.
One of
the things that we have accomplished as a result of the Roil report and the
Roil report made thirteen recommendations.
I think seven or eight of them have already been completed.
The rest will be done with these amendments.
One of
the things we have been able to do by putting the management structure in
place and solidifying the management structure of Legal Aid, we have now been
able to get our audits up to date, and consequently, we were able to access the
federal monies. Previously, we were
behind two or three, four years sometimes, in accessing federal money because we
did not have the resources in place to get our audits done and get our requests
into the federal government for our money.
Now we
are up to date, Mr. Speaker, and consequently the federal monies are up to date.
I think the Member for Burgeo La Poile mentioned that as well.
So that is a good thing. It
comes as a result of putting the good management now in place.
One of
the things Legal Aid does of course is provide legal services for those who
qualify who cannot afford to pay for private legal services.
Private legal services today, Mr. Speaker, are pretty expensive and
beyond the reach of a lot of people.
One of
the real significant problems we have in the justice system today is the
unrepresented litigant. There are
more and more of them because they cannot afford private law practice, afford
private law services, and are representing themselves.
They cause us all kinds of headaches in the court.
The courts have modified their systems and provided services to help the
unrepresented litigant. They have
done a lot of work in that regard.
As a
matter of fact, there is a judiciary committee, a federal committee that
constantly meets to look at ways and means of improving the system so that the
unrepresented litigant can be accommodated.
We have our own representatives sit on that committee as well.
If we did not have legal aid services in place, we would have a whole lot
more unrepresented litigants who would have to try to wind their way and
navigate their way through the court system.
That is not an easy task, Mr. Speaker.
Just
very briefly, the three main things, the main focus of the recommendations, as I
mentioned earlier, of the bill; eight of the thirteen recommendations have
already been completed. The ones I
mentioned earlier, some of the investments took care of some of these.
The rest of them needed legislative amendments.
That is why we are here tonight to deal with the other legislative
amendments out of the Roil report.
Basically there are three main ones.
Choice of counsel was one that had received a lot of discussion.
Mr. Roil wanted to take that out altogether because, as was already
mentioned, it sort of sets an unfavourable reaction or an interpretation of
Legal Aid lawyers which was not founded.
We wanted to eradicate that.
Rather than take it out, we changed it and any choice of counsel, Mr. Speaker,
has to conform with tariff rates.
The tariffs are not addressed in this legislation, but they will be addressed in
the regulations.
The
courts interpreted that particular piece of the old act, Mr. Speaker, as that
when you get private counsel you had to pay the market rates, and that was
pretty costly. That is what the
Pardy decision said you had to do.
This new amendment now sets the rates at the established tariff rates, whatever
these rates are going to be. They
are $135, I think, is what the regulations will establish now.
One of
the big costs and one of the big headaches in Legal Aid is the whole area of
conflicts. It is costing Legal Aid a
lot of money. While you can have
lawyers from Legal Aid represent both sides that provision is there where
there is risk, then you cannot do that.
In St. John's it is all right because you have an intake office and
another office. So someone in the
intake office represents one client and someone from the other office can
represent the opponent.
In St.
John's you can handle it for the most part, but in a lot of cases you cannot,
and you have to bring in solicitors from another jurisdiction altogether so
there is no perceived conflict. As a
matter of fact, they have gone so far, Mr. Speaker, of having the other lawyer
coming in through the back door and entering the building in the offices so
there would be no perceived connection whatsoever with people on the other side.
The
Member for Burgeo La Poile referenced the China wall.
The China wall is a legal term for if you have two lawyers in the one
firm acting you are trying to avoid a conflict, but it is a very difficult
thing to do. Conflicts have cost a
lot of money. The act puts a little
bit more restriction and tries to tighten up the section on conflicts so as to
make it a little bit more effective.
The size
of the board was already mentioned.
Mr. Speaker, I want to just briefly respond to a couple of the comments made by
the Member for St. Barbe, and some of the questions he had, some of the concerns
he raised. The first one he raised
had to do with the definition of resident.
He had some concerns over the fact that Legal Aid would be dealing with
people who were illegally in Canada.
He made the point of refugees coming in, and spending a lot of taxpayers'
dollars to provide legal services to these people.
The fact
of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, Legal Aid always has done immigration work.
As a matter of fact, in the funding that Canada provides, part of that
money is for immigration work. The
definition as it was, Mr. Speaker, in the old act sort of deemed that we could
not do that. The previous definition
was faulty.
It was
deemed that you could interpret it to mean really Legal Aid could not provide
these services, but they can and they should, but only to people who are
illegally in Canada who are already going through the residency process.
They are already going through immigration and residency process.
These are the only people. If
they are involved in criminal activity or family matters activity while they are
going through this process, Legal Aid will cover them as well.
One of
the other things that the hon. member referenced, and I think it needs to be
responded to, section 14 modifies or amends paragraph 47(a) and (b) of the act.
It says section 47(a) and (b) of the act is repealed and the following
substituted: in the Trial Division General Division; Trial Division Family
Division.
It gave
the impression that the only place Legal Aid can practice now are in the two
Trial Divisions and cannot practice in the Provincial Court, but that is not the
case, Mr. Speaker. It did not repeal
all of section 47. It only repealed
section 47(a) and 47(b). Section
47(c) of the old provision is still there.
Section
47(c) says that the practice can be done in a provincial court or in a tribunal.
As a matter of fact a couple of years ago we amended a provision to allow
Legal Aid lawyers now to practice in front of tribunals.
So that is still there, Mr. Speaker, under section 47(c).
So it is only section 47(a) and (b) that was repealed, not section 47(c).
Mr.
Speaker, these are just a couple of things that I wanted to respond to.
This is a good piece of legislation.
It comes from the Roil review.
It completes, really, the Roil review.
It is a major piece of work with respect to Legal Aid.
It solidifies and sustains Legal Aid for some time to come.
It makes it more efficient.
The
people in Legal Aid are very happy with what has happened here.
The investment of the government over this year, last year, and the next
year indicates the government's willingness to accept all the Roil report.
With
that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat.
MR. SPEAKER:
If the minister speaks now,
he will close debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
pleased certainly to have a few moments to close debate on this bill.
I want to thank my colleagues who participated in the debate: the hon.
colleague for St. Barbe, the Member for St. John's Centre, and the Attorney
General. I am not going to prolong
too much of my commentary here.
I want
to thank the Attorney General for addressing a couple of concerns raised.
I am not sure that we caught all of the issues that the Member for St.
Barbe raised and if we did not, then certainly raise them in Committee.
There is one that I will add to.
He mentioned a concern around section 28 by my numbers in the amended
act; it is page 5 around the Commission appointing the director or the manager
having to be a solicitor.
To be
clear, Mr. Speaker, the intent there is that the primary function of the staff,
individuals are to be solicitors and then from those employed as solicitors, the
part-time duty of being the manager is assigned to one of them so it is still a
practising solicitor. If we felt
which we do not there was a need to be a full-time manager that would, in
effect, mean hiring another person or cutting by one solicitor.
So at this point in time, for the benefit of the member, what they have
indicated to us is that the part-time management function will be assumed by a
practising solicitor who will continue to practice.
With
that, Mr. Speaker, I thank members for their contribution.
Pardon me, I forgot my colleague for Burgeo La Poile I did not see
you there for a second who also contributed to the debate.
Thank
you very much. With that, I will
close debate on second reading.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House that the said bill be now read a second time?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Legal Aid Act. (Bill 9).
MR. SPEAKER:
The bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR. KING:
In a little while.
MR. SPEAKER:
In a little while.
On
motion, a bill, An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act, read a second time, ordered
referred to a Committee of the Whole House.
(Bill 9).
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At this
time I would like to call from the Order Paper, An Act To Amend The Services
Charges Act, Bill 8. It is so moved
by me, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that
the said bill be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act. (Bill 8).
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just
want to provide a brief introduction to Bill 8.
It is an amendment let me just read from the bill itself.
Bill 8 is An Act to Amend the Services Charges Act.
Inside the bill cover, members will see the Explanatory Notes.
Let me just read it; it is two short bullets: This bill would amend the
Services Charges Act to implement increases to charges payable to the Crown.
Number one, the bill would increase the charges payable to the Crown on
estate value; and number two, the second purpose of the bill, to impose a charge
payable to the Crown for applications for and amendments to plans and licences
under the Mining Act.
Mr.
Speaker, that is simply what the bill will do.
The Services Charges Act itself governs the fees and charges that are
levied by government by various departments and agencies to offset some of the
costs of providing those services.
Throughout government we have not, as some other jurisdictions have done as a
matter of policy, said that all fees on all services that are provided to the
public, whether it is individuals or corporations, that all fees charged for
services that are provided are in a 100 per cent cost recovery.
That is not what has happened here, I say, Mr. Speaker.
What we
are doing here, we have not done that.
We have had some fees that represent a very small portion of what it
costs to provide the service. In
fact, we have some areas where services are provided where there are no fees
attached at all. One of the changes
we are making here is to create a fee for a service that has been provided for
quite some time with no cost, no charge at all.
What we are doing is affixing a fee for that now.
Mr.
Speaker, fees are one of those things that governments charge to provide for
some recovery of the cost of providing the service.
There is a belief that governments provide certain programs and services
that are embedded and the cost of them are taken out of general revenue and they
are financed basically through tax revenues and it is provided as no cost to the
user. There are many other services where there is a fairly significant cost of
administering the system that we put in place to provide those services and we
attach fees for those.
The
current legislation that we are amending here now came into effect back in 1998.
I will not get into the detail around it, but there was a Supreme Court
decision at that time that spoke to the issue of taxation versus fees, and what
constituted a fee versus what constituted a levy of taxes for general revenue.
That is when this bill came into effect.
The reason I am making this comment is just to provide some context for
discussion around fees, and discussion around the rationale for the actual act
itself that we are making some amendments to tonight.
As I
said a moment ago, there are two amendments to this act.
The first one deals with the Crown on estate values, charges payable to
the Crown and settling estates. Just
very specifically, it is pursuant to section 4(1) of the act itself, A charge
is payable to the Crown by the estate of a deceased person for a grant of
letters of probate or administration
on the estate.
Right
now, today, there is a charge that is payable only if the value of the estate is
greater than $1,000. That is not
changing, Mr. Speaker. What is
changing, though, this particular bill repeals section 4(3) of the act and
substitutes it with the following and just let me read into the record what we
are actually adding to the bill, Where the value of an estate exceeds $1,000,
the amount payable
upon a grant of letters of probate or administration or the
repealing of a foreign grant is $60 a flat amount plus
$0.60 for each additional $100 in the value of the estate.
Simply, what we are doing here is making an adjustment in the fees, the
additional costs per $100 based on the value of the estate.
The
second amendment deals with the Mining Act.
This is something we are adding.
This was not something that was in place before.
I made a comment a moment ago, sometimes we have been providing, in this
case here, forever and a day, a service that has been utilized by a select
number of individuals or companies as they make application, and we have never
charged for that, but at the same time there is a significant cost of doing it.
We need
to deploy people to evaluate these applications.
We need assessments done.
Many of them are fairly detailed.
Many of them are very technical in nature and you require a great deal of time
and expertise to process these applications.
These applications are being made to undertake an operation to generate
revenue, an operation to turn profit.
It is an area where our resources are being pursued in the act of mining
and mineral development.
So what
we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is now creating a fee structure to provide for
compensation for the effort and time and human resources that goes into
processing these applications. What
we are doing, in accordance with the Mining Act an operator must submit
according to that act a development plan for the approval of the Minister of
Natural Resources, approval of a plan for rehabilitation and the closure, or the
establishment of a mine. That needs
to be approved by the minister prior to that project getting sanctioned.
There is a licence required and they need to have an application for that
development.
As I
said a moment ago, there is no charge currently for that service.
What we are doing, we are providing a fee structure now and a greater fee
will be charged in circumstances where it is a metal mine versus a non-metal
mine; unique differences, different income generated from both.
Different capacity for different income levels from both necessary to the
operation.
The
metal mines will have a greater fee structure than the non-metal ones.
When we get into committee, no doubt there will be some questions with
respect to how these mining applications are processed and issues tying to the
involvement of the officials in Natural Resources.
I am certain the Minister of Natural Resources will be only too glad to
answer those specific questions around the application of the Mining Act welded
to these fees.
I want
to provide an overview of the fee structure itself.
At the time these applications are made and this is where the dollar
amounts are attached that I am going to share with you now.
The amounts payable for each initial application and each application for
an amendment will look like this.
For the initial application for a metal mine the filing of a development plan,
the charge will be $4,000. If an
operator, though, intends to make an amendment to that plan an additional $2,000
shall be applied.
Now for
the initial application for a non-metal mine, filing of that development plan,
the charge shall be one half of that, which is $2,000.
For the metal mine it will be $4,000 and for the non-metal mine it is
$2,000. Now if the operator intends
to make any amendments to that plan, again, it is one half of the previous
value. So an amendment will attach
to it a fee of $1,000.
Mr.
Speaker, for an initial application for a metal mine development rehabilitation
and closure plan because many times there are two steps here.
At the front end we have an application for the development of a mine, so
a development plan gets filed. At
some point in time, as the life expectancy of all operations, there will be an
end.
There
will be a need to provide a plan for the closure, a plan for the rehabilitation
of the site. That requires another
application. For the metal mine
there is a $4,000 fee for the application for the development of the
rehabilitation and the closure plan.
If there are amendments to that there will be a $2,000 fee attached to that
amendment application.
Following that same kind of logic with respect to non-metal and metal mines, the
initial application for the non-metal mine development and rehabilitation and
closure plan, the charge will be $2,000.
If there are any amendments to that original plan the developer will need
to file an amendment to the original application.
To have that re-evaluated there will be $1,000 charge I say, Mr. Speaker.
For an
initial application of a mill licence, a $1,000 charge will apply and a $750
charge will apply to the licence, any kind of an amendment application.
So what we are doing here, Mr. Speaker again very briefly to provide an
overview we are making amendments here to two provisions.
Under the authority of the Services Charges Act we are making an
amendment to that act to provide for changes in fee structures for two different
services: one is the settlement of estates and probated estates; and, the second
deals with a and that is a fee structure that is already in place and we are
making an amendment to that fee structure.
The second part of the bill deals with the creation of a new set of
application fees associated with mining developments.
Just to
speak in general terms with respect to the concept of having fees associated
with services, we have had an opportunity through this past budgetary process to
look at a number of areas where we have had to evaluate what it cost to provide
certain services. What kind of human
resources do we deploy? What kind of
other supports are necessary to put in place for us as a government to receive
applications from a variety of people for certain things that they avail of?
Motor Registration is probably the one that comes to mind for a lot of
people because there are such a large number of individuals with vehicles that
they register and there are driver's licence systems.
There are fees that you have to pay for the maintenance of those systems
and the processing of your application.
Throughout government departments and agencies there are a variety of programs
and services that we charge fees for.
The criteria that we have used have not always been a total cost
recovery. Some jurisdictions have
looked at a total cost recovery. We
have not done that. We recognize
sometimes that the fee structures if it is a total cost recovery, there may be
extreme financial difficulties for many people to access the services.
In these
cases here, these two fees that we are talking about, one is where we have a
mining application. An entrepreneur,
an individual, or a corporation sees an opportunity to prosecute the resources
that we have as a Province, and so we want to make sure the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador get value from that resource.
That is why we have such things as corporate tax systems.
That is why we have such things as mining royalties to give us a return
on that resource. It is the people's
resource and we need a return on that.
The
other part of that is the cost of working with that, accompanying that entity to
process their applications to ensure they are able to comply with the regulatory
regime of the Province, to ensure that we understand how they are going to go
about doing the development, what implications might it have for other things,
how they are going to rehabilitate the site when it is done, and what their
closure plan will look like. Whether
it is economic issues or environmental issues, we want to make sure these
applications reflect an appropriate response to that kind of regulatory regime
we have in place.
The only
way to do that is to have someone who works with Natural Resources.
A lot of our officials get involved in reviewing the detail of those
applications, frequently going back to the proponent looking for additional
information. A lot of analysis goes
into that. That requires a lot of
technical expertise, talented individuals who spend a lot of time and energy in
evaluating those applications. We
believe it is appropriate that those companies who are going to get the value of
those operations should pay to have that as a part of their development.
When
they look at developing a mine they look at their total cost of developing.
It is built into their business plan the cost of financing, the cost of
labour, the cost of materials, and the cost of shipment.
All of those things become a part of their factor that they give
consideration to. Obviously the fees
associated with the development and the application process would be a standard
part of they will get building permits from municipalities potentially.
They will get permits from other agencies to carry out their work.
This is a natural part of their developing these operations and that is
what these fees are intended to do.
With
those few brief comments, Mr. Speaker, and introduction to the bill because,
like I said, the bill is very straightforward.
It is not one that requires, like many money bills, lengthy debate on a
variety of issues. This is not a
money bill. It is very specific
around a set of fees; therefore, it is not one of these things that require a
great deal of elaboration on my part.
However,
if members opposite have some questions when we get in Committee I will be only
too glad to answer them. The
Minister of Justice might have answers to some of the questions with respect to
the estates. The Minister of Natural
Resources may have some answers with respect to the development of some of the
mining operations under the Mining Act. Clearly,
the substance of the bill is pretty straightforward and very precisely around
two amendments we are making to an existing act.
Thank
you for the opportunity to make the introduction.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Virginia Waters.
MS C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
happy to stand and speak to Bill 8, An Act to Amend the Services Charges Act.
The minister has provided a detailed overview of the bill.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the members of his department.
The staff of his department met with us a couple of days ago to brief us
on the bill, and certainly had ample time to explain and answer any questions
that we had on what the language was in the bill.
As I
listened to the minister's comments there were a number of things that I would
like to reference as part of my comments tonight.
In particular, some of the questions and things that have arisen from his
comments, as I listened to him introduce this bill as part of the debate this
evening.
Mr.
Speaker, he spoke in great detail to the first change which is the subsection
4(3) of the Services Charges Act to repeal the following and substitute.
This is the item that the minister referred to with regard to estates and
those estates that exceed values of $1,000.
The amounts that are payable under subsection (1), under the
grant of
letters of probate or administration or the resealing of a foreign grant of $60
plus $0.60 for each additional $100 in the value of the estate.
Mr.
Speaker, one of the questions that I have asked the minister my understanding
is that this is about a 20 per cent increase in the estate value, or the fee
associated with the estates. I would
like to ask the minister to clarify that.
I think that is right, but I may have my information incorrect.
I am sure he will provide that more accurately.
When we
were briefed on this bill, one of the things that certainly reminded me, as we
spoke about estate planning and people whose estates are being filed on behalf
of the family members, et cetera who have passed, is that we have legislation
or lack of, some people would say around seniors who have to pass on their
assets to family members so that it is protected from taxes.
This legislation may impact those individuals and their choices.
Other provinces have brought in exclusive of this piece of legislation
they have brought in legislation that allows individuals, particularly seniors,
to maintain that wealth without having to transfer it to family members.
The
second part of the act is the part which references the increases in mining, or
the implementation of a new fee that is around the Mining Act.
It is for the amounts that are associated with application fees, so
initial application fees, and then a fee related to amendments.
One of
the things that the minister spoke about in both situations was the cost of
administration and that government really looks, in some cases, to not
necessarily implement a full cost recovery program under the fees, but in these
two cases, part of what is trying to be accomplished is cost recovery.
I think it is interesting that when you talk about cost recovery, one of
the things the corporation that may be paying the fee or the individual who is
paying the probate fees would have to pay for is if there are any inefficiencies
in the costs that are going to be recovered.
If, for
example, the minister referenced the cost of administration and the cost of
processing as we have seen in this House earlier today and we have had debates
around some of the Auditor General's recommendations.
There are certainly questions around some of the systems and processes
that are in place, and whether or not those systems and processes are cost
effective. If you have a cost
recovery model, those inefficiencies then are captured in the costs that are
trying to be recovered from the people or the corporations that are paying these
fees.
The
minister mentioned that there is not currently a policy in government.
My understanding is that he said there was not a total cost recovery
model. He mentioned that a total
cost recovery model would actually put undue hardship and undue pressure on
individuals and corporations that are paying fees, such as the two that are
described in this bill.
I would
go back to the comments I made earlier that if government was looking at a cost
recovery model, if we had an individual who had to pay, for example, a fee
associated with, as the minister talked, a driver's licence.
Understanding that processing that driver's licence, if there are any
inefficiencies in that and then you pass all that cost onto the person who is
getting the driver's licence, then there are increased costs that the end-user
has to pay.
The
mining licence fees, one of the things that surprised me when we went into the
briefing with staff and I guess for somebody who has been in the House for
just over a year representing the great people of Virginia Waters, one of the
things that I was surprised at is that there was no application fee before.
These applications, I wonder if the Minister of Natural Resources could
maybe provide for this House the volume of new applications, the number of
amendments, as well as the number of changes that may happen that would result
in these fees.
I am
curious to know if the Minister of Finance could provide some detail on what the
actual estimate is for revenue from these two fees.
I understand from the Finance staff who were at the briefing that they do
very comprehensive forecasting on some of these figures, so I am sure that the
Minister of Natural Resources would have the number related to these fees of the
applications that they are processing.
The minister, I am sure, has extrapolated that out with staff to come up
with a revenue target that I am sure they can share here with the House tonight
as we debate this.
One of
the things that we certainly thought about as we were being briefed on this
particular piece of legislation was situations like we currently are seeing in
Wabush. When you talk about fees
associated with mining applications, including the application for a metal mine
rehabilitation or closure plan, it is hard to stand in this House and not think
about the situation that is unfolding in Wabush and the difficulty that the
families and the community there are faced with.
We have asked questions. The
Leader of the Official Opposition has asked questions with regard to the closure
plan in Wabush. If the minister
would like to take the opportunity to share some information on that tonight, I
am sure that everybody in the House would be very interested in hearing that.
Interestingly as well I think it was earlier this week, maybe late last week
we were able to see some of the I will not use the word celebrations but maybe
the reflective community coming together in Central Newfoundland with the
anticipated closing of the Teck duck mine, and certainly thinking about the
community there as well who are faced with the reality of that particular
facility closing as well.
Certainly, when you see the bill and you see the language about fees associated
with closure plans, I do not think anybody in this House of Assembly wants to
even think about the reality that those fees had to be changed, and I think as
we debate this tonight it would be certainly appropriate for us to take a moment
and think about the communities that are affected by those two particular mine
changes that we see in our Province as we speak.
Mr.
Speaker, the Services Charges Act that the minister is amending with reference
to probate and administration, particularly around the value of estates and the
fees associated with the value of estates, there is no doubt that those
individuals who are maybe a couple, seniors who have maybe lived a long life
together and sadly one of them has passed on, that those costs now and the
increase in the probate fees will have an impact on some of those individuals,
and certainly for those people who are on fixed incomes.
Even though they may still have a nest egg tucked away, the reality is
that nest egg is going to get a little bit smaller here as a result of that.
I think that is something that those people who are watching at home
tonight would need to understand about this particular piece of legislation.
The
reality is that the minister is absolutely right.
There is a need for government to capture and collect fees as part of the
work that it does and if citizens or corporations require services from
government that are outside what is considered core services, then certainly one
way to recoup the cost associated with providing those services is to have fees
in place that allows those fees to be recovered.
One of
the dangers, I guess, in having this conversation, in light of some of the
things we have been talking about here through Question Period and through the
debates, is around the efficiencies and whether or not those costs that are
going to be passed on to the end-user are going to be, as the minister's words,
the right value.
With
that, Mr. Speaker, I will ask a couple of questions from the ministers, and I
look forward to hearing them provide the answers as part of the debate or as
part of Committee as we move into Committee.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
After a
late night last night and now 10:00 tonight my voice is starting to give out a
bit. I will make it strong and no
matter how long we are here tonight, it will be there; I promise.
This is a pretty practical bill that we are dealing with here, rather
technical, but also practical. I am
not going to spend a lot of time on it because I think the minister has
certainly explained it. There are a
couple of points I would want to make.
I think
the difference between a fee and a tax is important.
It is a totally different mindset.
It is interesting that it took a Supreme Court ruling to see the
difference between a fee and a tax when it came to the probating of wills.
That is what the first part of this bill is all about, An Act to Amend
the Services Charges Act. The
probating of a will is more than a service; it is something legal that is needed
to be done to make sure that the people who benefit from a will, from a loved
one, or maybe in some cases not a loved one who has left them an inheritance, it
is very important that legally everything is covered so that the wishes of the
will are carried out. In actual
fact, that is what the probating is all about and making sure that everything is
done as it should be done.
It is
more than a service. The Supreme
Court ruling, by saying that it was a tax, certainly changed the thinking around
what is going on when a will is being probated.
The provincial bills for the imposition of any tax must originate in the
Legislature to be valid. So that is
why we are here tonight. Because
where this is a tax and we have not done this before in the Province, we now are
making sure that the probate fee is recognized as a tax and therefore, from here
on in, will be in legislation, which is extremely important.
As the
minister pointed out, it goes right back to 1998 when the Supreme Court of
Canada ruled on the constitutional validity of Ontario's probate fees in the
case of an estate called the Eurig estate.
I will not go into the details of that; however, the probate represents
the court's recognition of the validity of a will and the appointment of the
personal representative or the executor.
This is
a really important legal thing that happens, and I am sure some people in the
room have been executors.
Unfortunately, I am sure a lot of us have had somebody in our family die and we
have had to be the executor of the will.
It is extremely important that a will is seen as being valid and that the
person who is then the representative of the deceased is recognized legally.
Applying
for letters of probate requires the filling of various forms.
There is a lot of work that goes on because of all the forms that have to
be filled out and there are fees that go to lawyers and fees that go to
government, so it is important that this is all done correctly and having this
in legislation is extremely important.
I do not
think there is any need to go any further with that, but I would like to make
comments about the second part of this bill which is the one that has to deal
with the Mining Act and a charge being payable to the Crown for applications for
and amendments to plans and licences under the Mining Act.
The
minister, again, has explained well the content that is in the bill, the amount
of money that is being charged, et cetera, but there is one thing that I would
like clarification on. The minister
can either do it tonight well, do it in second reading or do it when we are in
Committee. If I do not hear the
answer in second reading, then I can ask it in Committee again.
I fully
understand an application for a metal mine development plan.
You are applying, you want to develop, you are making an application to
develop and there is a fee for that: $4,000 and $2,000 if you do an amendment to
that plan. That I fully understand.
Now, it is the language in section 5.1(2)(b) that I am not clearly
understanding. It is just the
language: $4,000 for an initial application for a metal mine rehabilitation and
closure plan.
My
understanding is and maybe I am wrong that the applicant is the one who has
to put a rehabilitation and closure plan together.
If that is the case, why is it called an application for the plan?
I am not quite sure on the language.
If the applicant is presenting a rehabilitation and closure plan, I do
not see that as an application for it.
I just wanted clarification of that language.
The minister is nodding, so I know I will get the clarification of that.
I do
know that, for example, under our environmental assessment act, both
provincially and federally, one of the things that gets demanded, having been on
a panel myself and I remember this clearly, an applicant, a company, a
corporation putting a development plan together for a mine and the one I was
on was the Voisey's Bay mine for example.
They have to prove in that plan that they actually have the ability to
pay for the rehabilitation and the closure.
There has to actually be a legal financial agreement put in place that
indicates that the money is there, and they are able to do that rehabilitation
and closure.
I am
wondering is that something that is part of this application.
That, I do not know. That is
what I am trying to get a handle on what this rehabilitation and closure plan
is. As I have said, if the minister
cannot get it for excuse me, I said my voice was going.
I need some water. Thank you.
If the
minister cannot get it for second reading I would like to have that explained in
Committee, the whole connection between this application and then actually
having in place the whole financial system to show I forget the language for
that that the money is there when the time comes for rehabilitation and
closure. So that is something I
would like the minister to speak about.
I know that is not part of this act per se, but I think there is a
connection so I would like to hear what that connection is.
Having
said that, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that this charge is now being put in
place with regard to the applications under the Mining Act.
I think it is important as part of the spirit of wanting to make sure
that companies, whether they are companies from our Province or other companies,
that are going to benefit from our resources should actually be paying for
services and paying their way, and I think starting right up front when they
first make an application is part of that.
What I
do not know either, and I do not have the information maybe the minister can
get it. He did make reference he
did not put it this way; it is my language to not being too tough on the
companies. I would like to know how
the $4,000 compares to the fees in other provinces in Canada to see are we
giving a really easy way out, or are the fees in other places a lot higher than
what we are charging here.
Those
are the two issues that I have questions about.
I hope I have been clear in those questions for the minister, and I look
forward to hearing the answers.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (Verge):
If the hon. the Minister
of Finance and President of Treasury Board speaks now, he will close debate.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
Barbe.
MR. J. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have
no concern with the second part of this bill, and that is the part that sets to
charge a fee for amounts payable to the Crown related to mining applications.
It appears, based on the submissions of the minister, that there is a
substantial amount of work involved in going through mining applications.
There is a real benefit, but there is also a substantial amount of work.
The
first part of the bill, I do have a problem with.
This type of a fee was ruled by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1998 to be
a tax, and an unlawful tax, in a case called the Eurig estate.
The Government of Ontario sought to charge an estate probate fee similar
to this one, only less than this.
The estate trustee in that particular estate, the Eurig estate, challenged the
amount that was being paid, the amount that was being sought to be recovered
from that estate.
The
argument they made is that a fee is for a service.
A service must be in relation to what you have actually done, and it
costs no more, proportionally speaking, for the court to issue probate in a
small estate, medium estate, or large estate.
Therefore, if you insist on increasing the amount you charge in relation
to the size of the estate you are not providing any value.
Therefore, you, in this case the Province of Ontario, was found to be
charging a tax. The majority of the
Supreme Court of Canada said in the Eurig Estate and there were interveners.
The
Attorney General of Quebec intervened and the Attorney General of British
Columbia intervened. Those were the
only two other provinces to intervene.
So as we increase this fee, which really is a tax.
It is a tax because it is not related proportionately to the value being
provided to have a real concern that we are inviting litigation from estates,
from somebody in this Province who will make the exact same argument that was
made before the Supreme Court of Canada in 1998 and made successfully.
I would
ask the Minister of Finance if he has obtained a judgement or a legal opinion
from the department or from anybody who deals with tax and estates as to whether
this bill as proposed will run afoul of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Eurig
Estate.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board to close debate.
MR. WISEMAN:
I am trying to address some
of the issues raised in second reading here that have been raised by other
members. So if I do not give a
satisfactory answer, I am certain we will get a question in Committee.
The
Member for St. Barbe just provided a legal commentary.
Obviously he is a lawyer. He
is trained in the law so obviously he is in a position to express a legal
opinion. I respect that.
I do want to point out though, to the member, that the act we are
amending was brought into force in 1998 which was after the case that he has
cited.
The act,
when it was introduced in 1998, created a legislative framework to introduce the
fees that are already in place. Keep
in mind there is already a fee in place and that fee still remains at $60 for
the first $1,000 value and fifty cents per $100 of any value over the $1,000.
The legislation, the act itself introduced in 1998, made or created a
legislative authority to allow the fees to be imposed in the first place.
What this amendment this evening does is amend that fee from fifty cents
per $100 to sixty.
In as
much as I appreciate the member's legal opinion and his suggestion that it will
run afoul to the Supreme Court decision that has already been made, as a part of
our process of developing a piece of legislation such as this this happens to
be a bill that was crafted by Legislative Counsel.
It is a bill that I am introducing as the Minister of Finance, but it is
an issue that has been advanced by the Department of Justice and obviously has
been vetted by legal counsel.
Obviously, as in many cases before courts and as in many legal opinions, there
are always many. We have relied on
the legal advice of the Department of Justice to provide the structure of this
bill we are introducing tonight, which is an amendment to an act.
The act itself was created with the advice and in consultation with
lawyers in the Department of Justice.
I thank him for his opinion.
It may be one of those that we will agree to disagree.
With
respect to the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi, the question around the
application process and the rehabilitation; I will get absolute clarity for you
by the time we get to Committee.
What I understand and I will verify this as the evening progresses, (a) and (b)
are two separate pieces. As you
pointed out, when a company makes an application, they want to go into a
territory and develop a mine. They
will put together a development plan and they will attach a cheque for $4,000.
If they make an amendment to it they will advance another $2,000.
That is in the initial application.
I think
one of the things you referenced was that they are demonstrating an ability to
be financially viable in order to allow them to do the real rehabilitation at
the end of the life of the mine.
They need to put together certain financial sureties to make sure the reserves
are there for that to happen. That
is the financial test to determine whether or not you will be able to do the
rehabilitation at the time it is required.
Have you set aside some kind of financial security for the Province to
make sure you do it?
The
second thing though, which is separate and apart, is the actual day that you go
to close down your mine. So let's
say today you make the application in 2015.
You put together your development plan.
You attach your cheque for the $4,000.
You then, at that time, demonstrate that you will at the end of say the
life of the mine is twenty years, that you will be in a position at the end of
twenty years to pay for the rehabilitation, yet you have not filed a
rehabilitation plan.
Advance
yourself now twenty years. The mine
is coming to an end. You now develop
and send in an application for the rehabilitation and closure.
That is another application that will follow near the end of the life of
the mine. You at the front end said
here is my application for development and here is my financial surety that I
will be able to finance and pay for the rehabilitation at the end.
Here you are now at the end of the life of the mine saying, by the way,
we are about to close it down, here is my application for the rehabilitation of
the site and my closure plan, and here is my $4,000 for that plan.
That is the connection. I
will make certain that is an accurate description of what takes place, but that
is what I understand. When we get
into Committee, by that time I will have that verification for you, but I think
that is what it is.
Hopefully that satisfies the questions that have been raised.
I just want to go back to the point around the estates.
I thank the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi for her commentary with
respect to what that process actually involves, how significant it is, and how
important it is to get it right. It
is a legal process. It requires a
tremendous amount of work and effort by a number of people.
This is a piece of work that has a huge impact on people's assets.
It is protecting the assets that they have amassed.
The
Member for Virginia Waters expressed some concern that people amass this kind of
value and they have their estate, and then someone else at the end of the day
takes some of that value away from some of the beneficiaries.
Keep in mind they are doing work on behalf of those very same
beneficiaries to make sure that the proceeding was legal and that they have not
opened themselves up for some legal challenge because the estate was not handled
correctly, and something got dealt with in a fashion that now somebody else who
may have laid claim to the estate will come back and want to make a claim
against the person who now assumes that they have the full value of that.
It is important to understand in both these cases here and I think it is a
valid point with respect to both of these amendments.
These are areas where the application for these mining applications, the
issue around administration of estates these are areas where there is a lot of
technical expertise at hand, highly skilled, well-paid individuals who put a
tremendous amount of effort and work in doing the work at hand with respect to
those two significant issues.
Because
it is such a highly skilled, highly technical area of work, it requires a
tremendous amount of due diligence.
It is not taxation for the sake of generating revenue, it is an ability to be
able to get a recovery for the effort that has gone into dealing with those two
very significant issues: one on behalf of the estates of individuals and their
beneficiaries; and second, in the development of our resource-based economy that
we have, mining has been a huge part of our history.
Given the tremendous reserves that we have, it will no doubt become and
continue to be a tremendous part of our economic future as well, Mr. Speaker.
Hopefully that responds to a couple of the issues raised in second reading.
As I said, when we get into Committee if there are some questions very
specific to these, then we will be only too glad to address them at that time.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion that Bill 8 be now read a second time?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Services Charges Act. (Bill 8)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR. KING:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act, read a second time,
ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.
(Bill 8)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At this
time I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental
Affairs, that the House do resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to
consider Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act; to consider Bill 12,
An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2; to consider Bill 9, An Act To
Amend The Legal Aid Act; and as well, to consider Bill 14, An Act To Amend The
Regional Service Boards Act, 2012.
MR. SPEAKER:
For clarity, Government House
Leader, you did not refer Bill 13 to the Committee, did you?
MR. KING:
Not right now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
The
motion is that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole for the
Committee to consider Bills 8, 12, 9, and 14.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Littlejohn):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act.
A bill,
An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act.
(Bill 8)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Virginia Waters.
MS C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In the
earlier debate around Bill 8, I asked a question around the revenue target or
revenue forecast for both of these changes.
I am wondering if the minister might be able to provide some information
on that.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
Barbe.
MR. J. BENNETT:
Mr. Chair, I ask the
minister: How much is generated to the Province by the probate fees annually
today?
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:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill
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 bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
We are now considering Bill
12, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2.
A bill,
An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2.
(Bill 12)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Virginia Waters.
MS C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am
eager to ask my questions tonight as you can see by my jumping up out of the
chair. I understand there are some
other people on this side of the House who are very eager to ask questions in
Committee.
Mr.
Chair, with regard to Bill 12, one of the questions that I would like to ask the
minister with reference to this particular piece of legislation is around the
timing of the HST credit. The
legislation that we are voting on will require that the changes take place as of
January 1, 2016. In recent days, the
Premier has actually spoken about the fact that he may rethink his entire plan
to increase the HST.
Now I
understand that the two actions are separate, the charging of the HST and a
rebate of an HST credit. I am
wondering if the minister could clarify if government has any intentions of
changing this particular piece of legislation depending on what they do with the
HST that they are going to collect under the piece that they introduced in the
Budget, and if so, when in fact they would do that.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The
issue of the tax credit what we are talking about is the HST increase is going
to take effect January 1, 2016. This
credit we are talking about here will apply to your 2016 tax year.
There is
a tie between the two, and I made this comment when we talked about it in second
reading earlier. We made some
changes in the proposed HST rates from 13 per cent to 15 per cent.
What we are doing here now is providing a relief to people with $30,000
and less in fact, it is more than that because it is graduated out from
$30,000 onward. From $30,000 under,
it is 100 per cent of the $300.
The
reason we are bringing in this credit is because we are trying to minimize the
impact on those individuals at that income threshold as a result of the changes
we made in HST. If we were to
contemplate a change in the announced HST rates, then we would have to
contemplate making a change to the effective date of this or the rebate
structure here is predicated on a change in the HST rate.
I just
want to go back to the important question that the member has raised.
I think one of the things that the Premier has indicated is that we as a
government have been extremely optimistic about the performance and the rates
associated with oil revenue. At the
first quarter of the year when we did our projection based on the Budget, we
took the annual forecast and said we believe it will average out to be
sixty-two. We broke it down quarter
by quarter.
The
first quarter performance of Brent on the market has been much better than we
had anticipated in the first quarter.
We forecasted fifty-five and it has been somewhere in the mid-sixties.
If that trend continues into the second, third and fourth quarter and
the Premier's comment was based on an optimism and pleasure with the performance
in the first quarter. So to talk
about what at the end in the fall, and if we are making the same kind of
progress that we made in the first quarter, it was in that context that the
Premier made his comments.
To the
member's question. The changes we
have made to the credit was in response to the increase in the HST in the first
place. This was intended to shield
lower-income families from the impact of that increase in the HST from 13 per
cent to 15 per cent.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Virginia Waters.
MS C. BENNETT:
Mr. Chair, I thank the
minister for his answer.
I would
just ask him, the intention of the credit is to soften the financial blow of a
HST increase that would take place on January 1, 2016.
The reality is that for many low-income and fixed-income individuals,
their weekly cash management issues are more real than tax credits that come
nine months later.
I would
ask the minister how government would assume or feel that a credit in October is
going to help somebody who has to pay 2 per cent more on a light bill in
February when, in fact, they may not have the cash for that particular purchase.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. WISEMAN:
Mr. Chair, the question the
member I will answer the question but it not relevant to the bill.
What the
bill does, it makes an amendment to an already existing provision.
The HST rebate, whether it is on a provincial jurisdiction or a federal
jurisdiction, takes place in the fall of the year.
It is a rebate. It is a
credit that occurs after the taxes have been paid.
The
current legislation that you see before the House, Bill 12, amends an already
existing act that provides for a mechanism and a timing to pay HST.
The subject of the amendment is around changing the dollar amount.
The principle of paying it once a year and the principle of paying it in
the fall is embedded in an act that is not subject, and that provision is not
subject to the amendment. Inasmuch
as I have answered your question, it is not relevant to the bill at hand.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Virginia Waters.
MS C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I
appreciate the minister clarifying that the legislation that would actually
address the cash flow implications of the 2 per cent HST increase on low-income
and fixed-income individuals is not being addressed as part of this legislation.
It is in fact only the value of the rebate that is received.
So ten months after the HST is increased.
I would
ask the question with regard to I believe it is the section that refers to,
establishing the criteria for determining who or what is (i) an eligible
corporation, (ii) an eligible product, (iii) an eligible project, and (iv) a
qualifying expenditure. I would ask
the minister if he could provide some specifics on exactly what those items are.
I am
confused, is that list of items determined based on federal guidelines that the
Province has to follow, or does the Province have any flexibility with regard to
those items? I am assuming from this
legislation that those lists are created for the Province, but I do not really
know. Hence, that is the reason I am
asking the question.
I
appreciate the minister's willingness to answer the questions as we go through
this important piece of legislation here tonight.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. WISEMAN:
Yes, Mr. Chair.
Those
items that our tax lawyers established are harmonized with the federal
legislation.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Virginia Waters.
MS C. BENNETT:
So, Mr. Chair, I just want to
clarify that any changes then that the federal government would make in products
that would be applicable to HST charges or HST credits, would be under federal
jurisdiction and not under provincial jurisdiction?
Is that correct?
CHAIR:
Yes.
The hon.
the Member for The Straits White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the
opportunity again to speak to in Committee, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act
when it comes to looking at the HST credit.
The
GST/HST credit, when we look at the concept, is paid in quarterly installments
when you look at the federal GST in January, April, July, and October.
The question I believe the Member for Virginia Waters had pointed out is
that the government, in its current Budget, is increasing the HST.
It is going to be effective on power bills in July and there is also
going to be a 10 per cent increase in January, 2016.
In
January, 2016, HST is going from 13 per cent to 15 per cent, yet there will be
no HST credit paid out by the Province in the concept of a quarterly
installment, which is a possibility to look at that type of option to mitigate
the burden as what the Finance Minister is stating is that the reason it is
done, it is done annually. I would
like some clarification on that particular matter.
As well,
when you look at the threshold and the analysis of the increase, it is up to
$300 from a smaller amount that was there and $60 for a spouse, that would be
attached. I want to ask, what type
of analysis was done to come up with the $300 amount?
When
looking at the budgetary documents, it is very clear for the 127,000 filers that
the Minister of Finance stated would be eligible for an HST credit what is put
there is $3.7 million. For 127,000
tax filers this is a very small amount of money that we are talking about when
you look at the overall amount that this government has allocated in the past,
in 2014-2015 Budget, and in 2015-2016 Budget.
I do
want that clarification around the analysis piece, looking at their purchasing
power and consumption. Did the
Department of Finance do any type of thorough analysis on this particular piece?
Also, pointing out the threshold that it gets reduced by 5 per cent as it
goes past the $30,000, but at what point?
Is it like the federal government, once it gets over $50,000-something of
an individual or net income, that there is absolutely no HST rebate paid?
What is that threshold that is put forward where people will get
absolutely no benefit, yet will be dinged by an HST increase?
I put
forward those questions to the Minister of Finance, and hopefully he will be
able to answer those. I have many
others, but I will give you the opportunity to answer those that I have put
forward.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To
answer his question, as a concept the 5 per cent rate does fall off the end.
I will get the exact number for you, but it does fall off.
The
issue around the analysis that was done there was a sensitivity analysis done.
Because of the increase in 2 per cent, going from 13 per cent to 15 per
cent, those individuals who were going to be impacted by that with an income
level of less than $30,000; we wanted to make sure that we are going to take
away the impact that was going to have on that low-income level by having that
$300 rebate. That is where the fear
came from.
We
wanted to neutralize the impact that we would have to have by having that
increase. Keep in mind the previous
income level was $15,000. So we took
a 2 per cent increase and added what we would need to do to increase the income
threshold, together with the dollar of the credit, to ensure we negated the
impact of that 2 per cent increase on low income.
That is where the two numbers came from, both the $300 and the $30,000
level.
That is
the analysis that was done. There is
data that profiles a percentage of income that people will pay for HST relative
to their income. We have data with
respect to tax filer information on income levels.
With that kind of sensitivity analysis, those two figures were arrived
at.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Virginia Waters.
MS C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was
pleased to hear earlier in the discussion today about this particular bill that
the minister clarified the 127,000 filers.
As most people in this House of Assembly would know, the Budget documents
that were released as part of the Budget many weeks ago actually referenced, I
am assuming in error, a phrase that said 127,000 families.
Certainly that created a lot of questions when we were in the lock-up
with reference to the information. I
am very grateful that the minister has clarified that in fact was an error of
127,000 families and that in fact it was 127,000 filers.
One of
the questions that we did ask, as part of the Budget lock-up in the subsequent
days, was around the breakdown that the minister just referenced in a
sensitivity analysis, particularly around the number of individuals who are in
each of the categories between the $15,000 and the $30,000 range.
We wanted to get an appreciation for how many individuals would actually
be qualifying and at what particular annual income.
As many
of us in this House have seen regularly, in talking with our constituents
throughout the Province and talking to seniors groups, the annual income of
between $26,000 and $28,000 certainly falls there are many, many people in the
Province who are in their retirement years, certainly seniors who are in that
age bracket. We would certainly like
to get a little bit more detail from the minister if he is able to provide it
tonight on the data points that he mentioned, specifically between the $15,000
and the $30,000. How many of those
127,000 filers, as opposed to families, are in that particular area?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for The
Straits White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I go
back to the first time when I had spoken.
The Minister of Finance, I guess in part, answered some of the questions
that I had. I am looking for the
details of the 5 per cent, when it gets actually cut off, the figure where the
income threshold is where you would get no particular credit, as well as the
sensitivity analysis.
If the
Minister of Finance could either table that sensitivity analysis or make it
publicly available through the Open Government Initiative and provide that
information out there showing that government had done due diligence on this
particular matter, or if there was a consulting report, or if somebody like Dr.
Wade Locke was consulted on the particular report as he has been doing taxation
mechanisms for the provincial government.
I had the opportunity to say hello to Dr. Wade Locke yesterday actually
in the building.
When I
look at the question that I had pointed out previously around the quarterly
reporting, HST or GST gets paid quarterly when it comes to aspects.
Why isn't that an option, when you look at this credit, to mitigate the
cost, the impacts of raising the HST?
I go back to point out for the viewers who are watching at home that the
government in this year's Budget is putting the 8 per cent back immediately in
July on home heating. So in January,
that power bill will be 10 per cent more expensive.
If in
the course of that year from January to December a consumer spent $3,000 on
electricity, it would be $250 a month.
So that basically equates to your $300 full credit of HST rebate.
That is above and beyond anything that exists now because right now there
already is a credit. It has been
enhanced to mitigate these consequences.
If you
are a consumer who is making under $30,000, or a family that is earning under
$30,000, well then if you spend $3,000 a year on home heat under this year's
Budget, that is going to take everything and more of your HST credit.
Then if you are purchasing things like gasoline or consumer goods and
services, paying your phone bill or your cable bill, all these things are going
to have an extra 2 per cent charge.
If you
do your overall cost analysis, or you look at that impact, that is going to add
up to money as well. That is extra
cost, extra taxes, and extra fees.
When you look at the credit that is being put forward of $300 I am just
pointing out very clearly that there are so many things in the Budget of 2015
that was passed by this government across the way the $300 is not going to be
sufficient to mitigate against the overall cost.
Mr.
Chair, $300 is going to be something that they are not getting until October
2016, yet they are going to be taxed on power from July right on up to October
before they ever get any type of cheque in terms of a rebate credit.
So that is money that is going to be out the door, out of the pocket.
We are
talking about the 127,000 tax filers.
Not all of those tax filers would be under the $30,000, I am assuming.
The Minister of Finance, maybe he can clarify that.
My take on this is the 127,000 tax filers would be up to and including
the full and in part as to who would be receiving $300 or $60 if they are
married or attached. Then there
would be some people who would be receiving in part.
Could
the Minister of Finance put before the House and really be open and transparent,
and clarify how many people fit each range, under $30,000; and the spousal
amount of $60? How many households
are getting a $360 credit as a total? That
will be $30,000 or under. Then how
many households would be, as you go 5 per cent above that and keep going and
break that down, because that is really valuable information.
That is worthwhile to find out the reason why.
It would actually allow us to make sense of the income levels that are
there. That information the Minister
of Finance says he has, that they have that valuable information.
In doing
so, I think the Minister of Finance should put before the House, before we can
pass this particular bill because I have questions on this.
I am asking about it because I have a lot of people in my constituency
who would be making $30,000 or less, or making $40,000 or less, who would
qualify for such a credit. When I go
and connect with them in the community and they talk about this year's Budget
and how the power is going up and how this government every member on the
other side voted for that, in favour of adding 10 per cent to power bills.
Then
also voting to raise the HST and put more on every bill and every goods and
service they buy that has tax on it.
Well, then a $300 credit, if you can get it in full which is only small
potatoes compared to what you would have had before.
You are taking way more of their disposable income out of their pockets.
That is exactly what is happening.
I do not feel the sensitivity analysis will show that there was enough
mitigation for those who are the most vulnerable in society to offset that cost.
I have
clearly highlighted that just based on the cost of electricity, on home heating.
That if somebody spends $3,000, with a 10 per cent increase that is $300.
It takes away the full credit.
It is quite concerning, and all of these members across the way are going
to have to clearly explain this to their constituents when they go back to the
community. When they say we voted to
put 10 per cent back on the power bills, and we say 2 per cent up on HST, and we
are going to give you $300. Well,
they were getting something previously.
My
colleague, the Member for Mount Pearl South, clearly stated that this is some
feel good legislation. Unless the
Minister of Finance can table and put forward a sensitivity analysis to back up
that case, I have to side with the Member for Mount Pearl South.
I think he is right.
I completely think that he is right.
I would like to see that breakdown.
I will
give the Minister of Finance an opportunity to answer those questions.
If not, I will have the opportunity to get up and raise a number of other
questions. There are many clauses
and pieces here, sections and sections that I have questions about.
Maybe he will have that opportunity to get on his feet, or else I am sure
another member of my caucus will stand and ask a question.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Virginia Waters.
MS C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We will
give the minister a moment to get the information to answer the question for my
hon. colleague. I will move on to
maybe the other part of the bill which is around the new Interactive Digital
Media Tax Credit.
One of
the things that was certainly evident when we had the briefing and I want to
take again the opportunity to thank the staff who provided the briefing.
Those of us in the House who have read the legislation, we see language
such as, 'eligible corporation' means a corporation which satisfies the
conditions prescribed in the regulations.
The
legislation goes on then to say in another section, 'eligible project' means a
project of an eligible corporation to develop an eligible product which
satisfies the conditions prescribed in the regulations.
The legislation continues to read, 'qualifying expenditure' means the
eligible proportion of salaries and remuneration paid by an eligible corporation
for or during an eligible project as prescribed in the regulations.
Mr.
Chair, one of the things that I think I asked in the briefing and let me be
clear, certainly the investment in the technology sector and encouraging
entrepreneurship in that sector is very important.
We have huge opportunities in this Province to do that.
One of the things that surprised me is when I asked the staff around what
exactly were the regulations governing this particular tax credit, I was not
able to get the answers.
I cannot
imagine, with the competent public sector we have, that there has not been some
work done on the regulations governing the Digital Media Tax Credit.
I am wondering if he could enlighten this House on just maybe the flavour
of some of those regulations, when those regulations will be ready, and when
they will be communicated to the business community so the business community
understands what those regulations are.
The
benefit of the tax credit is only truly a benefit when an entrepreneur can
actually take advantage of the credit.
In the absence of the regulations, it is very challenging for business
operators and innovators to be able to take advantage if they do not know the
rules that they have to play by.
While I
understand from the staff that this tax credit was an announcement made as part
of this Budget, actually executing the tax credit in a business environment
would require that the regulations also be ready.
I am assuming the minister may have some information to provide some
clarity on that. I look forward to
hearing that.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for The
Straits White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Before I
go back to asking more questions around the HST, because I have more around
that, I want to pick up where my colleague, the Member for Virginia Waters, had
just taken off. Absolutely,
businesses and entrepreneurs want confidence and they want predictability.
Whenever a tax credit or an incentive is provided there should be
particular regulations that are outlined; that are stated.
Actually, what is very interesting about this one is that this credit has been
made available back to January 1, 2015, well before the Budget was passed or put
forward. Even those companies that
are established, if they qualify
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
under what this act is
stating, it is giving the framework and it is allowing a company, even prior to
this legislation, to qualify.
The
Official Opposition, we have not seen the regulations that are being put
forward. There are some definitions
and some clauses here that set up the parameters and the framework for
establishing such a tax credit but we would like to know who was engaged, who
was consulted in the process. Was
NATI, for example, consulted? Others
in the tech sector, those that are in the gaming and digital media, as well as
composers and artists, were they engaged and consulted upon?
What type of jurisdictional scan was taken to arrive at the current tax
credit?
The
dialogue, based on the budgeting process, I am sure the Minister of Finance
could share some of that information because in this year's Budget $1 million
has been allocated for this particular rebate.
In doing so, there would have had to have been some type of consultation.
If the Minister of Finance would like to clarify for this House what
activity was taken to arrive at the $1 million and how that analysis came about,
because he has not yet shared with me the sensitivity analysis to arriving at
the HST.
If we go
back looking at the HST piece, as I was pointing out previously, is $300.
Well, if somebody who collects HST or is eligible but they pass away,
based on the federal regulations then they are no longer eligible to collect
that credit. How does that impact a
spouse who would have only gotten $60?
Will they qualify then for $300?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
We would not want to see
somebody who would be lost in bureaucratic red tape that would exist, who is of
a low income, who would have been taxed and taxed and taxed from July onward
until the following October when it comes to home heating of 10 per cent.
Then also being taxed on every consumer good that would have HST, from
phone bills to cable bills, to all of these things.
Would they then qualify for the $300 should their spouse pass away in
that time frame? Because it clearly
states that if somebody passes away, then they are not eligible for HST.
This is
a tied amendment that states $300; $60 for a person who is a qualified relation.
We all have to look at when the filings were made and what would happen.
The product obtained, when $60 is multiplied by the number of qualified
dependants of the individual for that year.
Also,
when we look at this particular piece, we would like to know when it comes to
the $360 per couple with dependants, is there any type of cap, I would say to
the Minister of Finance, on the number of qualified dependants that anyone can
have? Is there a particular cap?
That would be something that would be of interest to me.
I will
leave it at that to give the Minister of Finance because I have asked a number
of questions in my last time that I stood up and I have not received a response.
So I will keep asking them as long as there is an intervening speaker.
I will go back and repeat should I have to until I get an answer.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr.
Chair, I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental
Affairs, that the Committee rise and report Bill 8, and also report Bills 9, 12
and 14 and ask leave to sit again for those three bills.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 8 and ask leave to sit again for Bills 9, 12 and
14.
Is it
the pleasure of the House?
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, Mr.
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Cross):
The hon. the Member for
Port de Grave, Chair of the Committee of the Whole.
MR. LITTLEJOHN:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report Bill 8 without amendment and ask leave to sit again for Bills 9, 12 and
14.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed him to report Bill 8 without amendment and ask leave
to sit again for Bills 9, 12 and 14.
When
shall the report be received?
MR. KING:
(Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
When shall the said bill be
read a third time?
MR. KING:
Later.
MR. SPEAKER:
Later.
On
motion, report received and adopted.
Bills ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs, that the
House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 9, An Act To
Amend The Legal Aid Act.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the
Whole to consider said bills.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Littlejohn):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 9, An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act.
A bill,
An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act.
(Bill 9)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Clause 1.
The hon.
the Member for St. Barbe.
MR. J. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr.
Chair, there is an amendment in the amendment in Bill 1, and I am looking at it.
It says resident, and defines resident.
I was
pleased at the response of the Attorney General who explained some of the issues
that dealt with representing people who really are a federal responsibility.
I was also very concerned, because at the same time as it seems that this
Province is actually we are not getting along with the feds that well.
The feds seem to be downloading all sorts of things on us and in the case
of this Province providing legal aid for people who are illegally in Canada, but
awaiting adjudication of his or her immigration or citizenship status.
I do not
think anybody questions that people should have fair and reasonable legal
representation if they are facing immigration or citizenship status.
Mr. Chair, these people are not Canadian citizens.
Clearly, there has been an issue that has come up with them with the
Government of Canada.
The
Government of Canada looks after immigration nationwide, yet it seems that this
Province has agreed to shoulder the burden to pay for legal aid for people who
are illegally in Canada. That is not
someone legally in Canada. That is
not someone who is lawful. That is
someone who is illegally here and they are awaiting adjudication of his or her
immigration or citizenship status.
Mr.
Chair, first of all you are looking at the Immigration and Refugee Board, the
IRB. The IRB is a federal tribunal.
So people go before the review board.
On occasion, having appeared before the immigration review board let me
explain the type of person who appears before the IRB who we are looking at
supplying Legal Aid representation for.
It was
in the case of an individual who was from Iraq, a business person from Iraq.
He had left Iraq when Saddam Hussein was in power.
He escaped through Turkey and came to Canada with his immigration papers
forged immigration papers. So this
person came on a flight into Canada, into Toronto.
We have seen him in years gone by walk off flights in Gander quite
routinely. When the Soviet Union was
the Soviet Union and our relationship with them was not as good as it is
apparently today, people were flying through all of that.
They will walk off in Gander and now they will claim refugee status.
For
example, in the case of people I have represented, most of these people have
some means to get here. So they are
here in Canada. They destroy their
identification papers. Mr. Chair,
you have absolutely no way of knowing who they are.
You cannot possibly know who they are.
They
claim that they come from a certain country.
They claim that they are being persecuted.
The definition by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees says
that this person must have a well-founded fear of persecution in their home
nation if they are sent back. It
does not mean they are being persecuted.
It does not mean that they can prove they are being persecuted.
All that it means is that they have a well-founded fear that they will be
persecuted if they are sent back to wherever they came from.
The
taxpayers of this Province are supposed to take money from the legal aid fund
that is built up for the taxpayers of this Province.
That same legal aid money that would represent people, maybe single
mothers who are trying to get custody and access, or support payments for
children, people who are involved in all sorts of matrimonial disputes, people
who are escaping abusive relationships here in Newfoundland and Labrador; these
are the people we fund. With no harm
intended to people who are refugee claimants illegally in Canada, this is a
federal responsibility. Mr. Chair,
how can it be that this Province continues to take on more and more federal
responsibilities?
This is
clearly taking on a federal responsibility and paying with the hard-earned
taxpayer's dollars from this Province.
We are actually subsidizing the current Stephen Harper government.
They have made it more and more difficult for immigrants and refugees in
any event. As they make it tougher
and tougher we have to keep paying and paying provincial money so they can stay
in Canada, and they are not even legally here.
How can that be fair to the taxpayers of this Province?
I heard
the Solicitor General say that of the $17 million or so that we fund Legal Aid
with, the feds have cut back their payments from much, much more, to only around
$2 million. Why should this legal
aid bill now extend this type of legal aid coverage to people who are not
legally in Canada?
Mr.
Chair, I ask if the Minister of Justice can answer that question.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
Oh, I am
sorry.
The hon.
the Member for Virginia Waters.
MS C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have
to say it is the first time I have actually stood up to speak, in Committee, to
a piece of legislation that falls under the area of Justice and Public Safety.
Rarely do I get the opportunity to ask the Minister of Justice and Public
Safety a question, so this is a real treat tonight.
I am very, very honoured to be standing here asking him this question.
When I
had a chance to read the bill several days ago, I guess in contrast to my hon.
colleague, one of the questions I certainly was intrigued by was that the bill
that is being amended here under the Legal Aid Act particularly around the
amendment of the definition of a resident, which is to include a person who is
illegally in Canada, but awaiting adjudication of immigration or citizenship.
One of the real practical examples of that as we have seen in this
House and we have actually spoke about was last year I was able to present a
private member's resolution around the legal rights of those individuals who
come into our country and come into our Province to work from other countries.
Through no fault of their own they may be in a situation where their work
permit may have expired.
Technically, without an extension of the work permit, they may in fact fall into
the category as is described here, as an individual who technically is illegally
in the country of Canada.
For me,
when we have situations where individuals have come to our Province to work,
come to our country to work, and they have an issue with an employer who is not
treating them fairly, or is not treating them within the confines of the
Canadian law as it comes to labour standards, there is an expectation for us as
a community and an expectation for us as a Province to make sure that we respect
those individuals.
I would
ask the minister if he could just clarify that if an individual is here, for
example, on an expired work permit, a work permit that for no fault of the
individual has expired, would
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MS C. BENNETT:
they qualify as part of the
definition here, defining a resident to include a person who is illegally in
Canada, but awaiting adjudication of immigration or citizenship?
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. KING:
Yes, I thank the member for
the question.
The
answer is yes, the revised definition simply reflects what we already do in
practice. We provide work for those
who are in transition.
The
review by the Legal Aid Commission suggested that maybe we need to tighten up
the definition to reflect what we do.
That is all we are doing here.
So the quick answer to your question is yes.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
Barbe.
MR. J. BENNETT:
Mr. Chair, this bill in the
definition section and drafters of legislation do not put things in
legislation without some sort of a reason.
They have added in the definition section that department means the
department presided over by the minister.
Obviously, departments are presided over by ministers.
However, throughout the original act, the one that we are changing
which is the Legal Aid Act, Chapter L-11, Revised Statutes of Newfoundland and
Labrador refers consistently to the Minister of Justice and the Deputy
Minister of Justice.
The act
has not been changed. When you look
at the underlying act under section 3(4) it says, A member of the board, other
than the Deputy Minister of Justice and the provincial director, shall hold
office during pleasure for the term of 2 years from the date of his or her
appointment and is eligible for reappointment.
Is this
simply a drafting oversight? When we
say department, we say the department is presided over by the minister, which
would imply that it could be the minister of a department other than the
Department of Justice. I am not sure
why. It may have been going back to
when we got rid of the Department of Justice back last year.
The only Province in Canada, as far as I know, to ever get rid of their
Department of Justice and call it the department of public safety.
CHAIR:
I remind the hon. member to
speak to the amendment. It is an
amendment bill.
Thank
you.
MR. J. BENNETT:
Thank you.
The bill
does not provide an amendment other than in the definition that the department
is supposed to be presided over by the minister.
Is this the Minister of Justice?
If so, why was that necessary? Why is it to say the department means the
department presided over by the minister as opposed to the Minister of Justice
when the underlying act says the Minister of Justice?
Why is that definition necessary at all?
If it is necessary, why hasn't it been changed throughout the entire act?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for The
Straits White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is
my first opportunity as well to speak to Bill 9, An Act to Amend the Legal Aid
Act. I do not often speak to justice
bills. I do have a question, though,
around a particular clause, and that is around the audit.
We
talked a lot about the Auditor General, his role, and the effectiveness of
reporting. We have also talked about
looking at the new privacy legislation and access to information law.
On page 4, clause 5, section 23(1) under Audit, The auditor general
shall audit the accounts of the commission and may request the books, vouchers,
records and documents that he or she considers necessary for the audit and the
commission shall comply with that request.
Then if
we go to section 23(1.1) it states, The commission's compliance with subsection
(1) shall not constitute a breach or waiver of solicitor-client privilege even
where the books, vouchers, records and documents contain names and information
of clients or applicants. It seems
like this is something that is allowing or superseding some privacy information
of what would be under the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act
when it comes to the solicitor-client privilege.
It seems
like this particular clause is allowing for information around names, clients,
and their applicants to be revealed upon the request of the Auditor General.
I am just wondering how this falls with other acts and information.
Is there any type of conflict of providing, or is it necessary to provide
such names and whatnot when doing a particular review or an audit by the Auditor
General when it comes to Legal Aid?
Certainly information can be provided, but could it be I know that it is
stating here that it will not constitute a breach or waiver of solicitor-client
privilege if this information is revealed.
For the protection of privacy is this something that will be reviewed or
the Auditor General will have an open book when it comes to individual names,
cases, and information around Legal Aid?
We know
the Auditor General has not had an open book when it comes to the transportation
strategy that did not exist around $5 billion.
Former Auditor General Wayne Loveys
CHAIR:
I remind the hon. member to
speak to the bill and the amendment, please.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Chair, I am speaking to
section 23 around audits and around solicitor-client privilege.
I would like clarification by either the Minister of Justice or the
Deputy Premier who is Responsible for the Office of Public Engagement around
that particular act because this is what that clause is stating around privacy
and around information and around an audit.
That is
why I put forward that concern. The
Auditor General in the past has been denied or not available to certain pieces
of information; but, in this case, when it comes to clients of Legal Aid, upon
request, all that information seems like it can be provided.
So I am just wondering if there can be some clarification, just for the
record on that particular clause.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs, that the
Committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
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, Mr.
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Cross):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Port de Grave and Chair of Committee of the Whole.
MR. LITTLEJOHN:
The Chair of Committee of the
Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report progress and ask leave to sit again.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of Committee of the
Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred
and have directed him to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
When
shall this report be received?
Tomorrow?
On
motion, report received and adopted.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Finance, that the House do now adjourn.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the House do now adjourn.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
This
House stands adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.
On
motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00
p.m.