January 20, 2015
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVII No. 59
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Verge):
Order,
please!
Admit strangers.
Today I would like to recognize and welcome the Deputy Chief of
Operations, Don Byrne, from the West End Fire Station.
Welcome to the House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Today we will
have members' statements from the Member for the District of Signal Hill
Quidi Vidi; the Member for the District for The Straits White Bay
North; the Member for the District of St. John's Centre; the Member for
the District of St. John's South; the Member for the District of Burgeo
La Poile; and the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis.
The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very
much, Mr. Speaker.
In my District of Signal Hill Quidi Vidi, we are blessed with a
wonderful neighbourhood school.
Bishop Feild Elementary's diverse population makes it a unique
school with a strong community spirit.
The students succeed in many different areas.
The most recent is probably the very successful season the Bishop Feild
Elementary cross-country running team enjoyed in fall 2014.
The Grade 5 girls won the team award in the Newfoundland and
Labrador Athletic Association 22nd Annual Running series for
schools.
Even more exciting news for everyone at the school, Bishop Feild took
third place in the Paul McCloy Award Competition.
The award is given out by the Newfoundland and Labrador Athletics
Association to the school with the highest combined boys and girls team
scores. Of note is the fact
that the first place award this year went to a high school, and the
second to a junior high, so the Bishop Feild Elementary children really
have something to be proud of.
I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the runners at
Bishop Feild Elementary and to wish them success in all their future
endeavours.
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, a Northern Pen story from 1985 about hockey, with a photo of my dad,
Clyde Mitchelmore, gave inspiration for this statement.
This article brought a smile on what would have been his
birthday. I fondly remember
him and his love for the game.
Exceptionally talented and committed athletes spend significant ice time
at Straits, Roddickton-Bide Arm arenas and the St. Anthony Polar Centre,
beginning with CanSkate, minor hockey, broomball, figure skating, and
recreational leagues.
Goaltender Aaron Mercer, with his St. Anthony roots, joined Goose Cove's
own, Adrian Ward, who advanced to the Western Kings AAA Bantoms as top
scorer. Both participated in
the 2015 Chronicle Herald East Coast Ice Jam hockey tournament on the
Major Bantam first all-star team.
This takes dedication and hard work.
Adrian's parents, Sharon and Roy, are also committed, driving him
to Corner Brook, 500 kilometres each way, most weekends to ensure
attendance to all team functions.
As well, Nathan Noel is identified as one of the top players draft
eligible in Canada this year and will have his St. Anthony fans cheering
at Thursday's CHL/NHL Top Prospects Game in Ontario.
I ask all hon. members to recognize the accomplishments of these
athletes, as they inspire others from small towns to pursue their
dreams.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
On Christmas Day I visited the folks at the new West End Fire Station on
Blackmarsh Road in the wonderful District of St. John's Centre.
I had a grand cup of tea and tour.
The visit brought to mind all the people who work Christmas, New
Year's, Hanukkah, on birthdays and anniversaries and keep us safe, tend
our sick, transport us, and keep our community and services going.
The new West End Fire Station itself is a thing of beauty.
They do not have a pole, but they do have a HAZMAT response
trailer, a unit uniquely dedicated to responding to emergencies
involving hazardous materials.
They also have the only hose drying tower for the whole city.
It is really quite amazing.
What makes the station unique is their RIC, Rapid Intervention Crew,
that offers city-wide safety for firefighters; but, more importantly,
there are twenty-eight dedicated, courageous officers and firefighters
who not only fight fires but respond to medical and other emergencies.
These are men and women who are expertly trained and committed to
keeping us safe.
Fire Chief Jerry Peach and team, on behalf of the people of St. John's
Centre, and this House of Assembly and beyond, thank you for your
incredible service. Bravo,
and again, thanks.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Member for St. John's South.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Today I recognize Saint Luke's Homes, a division of Anglican Homes
Incorporated. Saint Luke's
was opened and dedicated on June 17, 1965, by the Rt. Rev. John A
Meaden, of which Bishop Meaden Manor is named after.
This year, Saint Luke's is celebrating its fiftieth year of
providing long-term care to seniors.
There have been many changes over the years, but today the facility
itself is made up of a 117-bed nursing home, an adult day respite
program for over-55 seniors.
The home is manned by a tremendously dedicated staff who contributes
significantly to the quality of life and care of the residents of Saint
Luke's and their families.
I look forward to taking part in the various activities planned over the
coming weeks and months as the organization celebrates fifty years.
I would like to recognize today the valued contributions of this
organization and their staff that they have made to the community and to
the residents.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you,
Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to recognize and congratulate Grandy's River Collegiate
Senior Boys Volleyball Team on winning gold at the provincial School
Sports Newfoundland and Labrador volleyball tournament held at Gander on
the weekend of December 4-6.
It took three previous gold medal wins to get to this position.
On October 17 and 18, they captured gold at Corner Brook in the
annual VolleyWest Tournament.
The following weekend at Gander, they took gold again in the
annual VolleyCentral Tournament.
On November 25, Grandy's hosted the annual Western SSNL Regional,
once again winning cold and earning the right to represent their region
at the SSNL Provincials.
This is the first time since 1986 that Grandy's captured gold at the
provincials.
Grandy's is a K-12 school with a total student enrolment of 116
students. These boys, their
head coach, Michael Adey, and assistant coach, Cody Bond are to be
commended for the hours of practice and the hard work they put in to get
to this calibre.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in extending
congratulations to the Grandy's River Collegiate Senior Boys Volleyball
Team and their coaches on winning gold at the Provincial SSNL this past
December.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you,
Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today to recognize a community coming together
to help a young lady see her dreams come true.
Recently, Eastern Siding held a contest on VOCM; the winner was to be
rewarded with siding, windows, and doors to renovate their home.
The lucky winner was a lady from Flatrock who had been battling
cancer.
The family received the materials and planned to complete the work.
However, during a visit to her doctor shortly after winning the
contest, the young lady received some bad news.
Mr. Speaker, hearing this, the people of Flatrock did not want her to
wait. Within a couple of
days there were over twenty tradespeople volunteering from the
community. The work started
on Friday morning and by 2:00 o'clock the next day the job was
completed.
Mr. Speaker, it was unbelievable to see the people coming together in
the way they did. Not only
did they complete the work outside, they also completed the trim work
and the painting inside.
I ask all hon. members to join with me in thanking the people from
Flatrock for making a young lady's dream come true.
Mr. Speaker, on January 3, Theresa passed away at the age of
forty-four. Rest in peace my
friend.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Before proceeding
to statements by ministers, I would also like to recognize the Mayor of
Wabush in the gallery today, His Worship Colin Vardy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by
Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. KENT:
Thanks, I appreciate
that.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. KENT:
He is a good man.
It is my pleasure to rise in this hon. House to provide an update on the
provincial government's
Understanding Changes Everything social marketing campaign.
Last May, the campaign was launched with a specific focus to create
greater understanding about mental illness and addictions in an effort
to reduce the stigma often associated with these complex health issues.
As many people may know, living with a stigma that surrounds mental
illness or addiction can often be harder than the illness itself.
The campaign reinforces that despite living with a mental illness
or addiction, people are able to lead fulfilling and successful lives.
Mr. Speaker, the core of the message is that a person is not defined by
a mental illness or addiction as it is not who they are as a whole, and
with greater awareness we can all help eliminate or reduce stigma and
foster an environment that supports recovery and healing.
During the first year of the campaign, television commercials, online
and cinema advertising, and promotion through social media have taken
place. It was my privilege
last week during the Premier's Summit on Health Care to announce the
release of a new video which features individuals and family members
with lived experience. It
carries very powerful, direct messages which reinforce that mental
illness and addictions are not weaknesses and that we need to start
talking and continue the conversation.
As the video states, we need to be open to asking for help and
together we can make it better.
Mr. Speaker, I would encourage people to visit the campaign's Web site
www.understandnow.ca to view the awareness materials and learn more about mental illness and
addiction. People can also
follow the campaign at Understanding Changes Everything on Facebook or
on Twitter @UnderstandNowNL.
Living with a mental illness or addiction can be an isolating and lonely
experience. I encourage
everyone who is experiencing this in their lives to reach out to a loved
one, a colleague, or a health professional.
The more we are able to make this a part of our everyday
conversation, the better it will be for everyone.
If an individual finds themselves in crisis please call the
Mental Health Crisis Line, twenty-four hours a day, at 1-888-737-4668 to
speak with a mental health professional.
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 thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
Mental health is a very serious health issue and affects one in
five people in this Province.
This government committed to a new Waterford Hospital in 2007.
That is just still a promise on paper.
We have been waiting for a new eighteen-bed addictions facility
in Harbour Grace for over five years.
The current mental health and addictions services and programs
are just a patchwork of services.
This government has been in power for over ten years and they still have
not formulated a mental health and addictions strategy.
Eight years ago, this government committed to a provincial
substance use strategy to prevent and treat substance abuse.
It was a major undertaking by government.
It was written, it was completed, and then government walked
away. Now government is
saying they are working on another strategy.
It is about time that they finish it.
We hope that when it is released it has concrete initiatives,
unlike some of the many other strategies that they have completed.
Again, it is a serious health issue.
It needs significant attention.
Ten years should have been time to make it a priority.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
I thank the
minister for an advance copy of his statement.
Congratulations to everyone involved in creating the
Understanding Changes Everything campaign.
Thank you to folks with lived experience for sharing their lives
to address stigma, resilience, and hope.
Raising awareness and dialogue is not enough.
Our mental health system in its current state cannot serve the
needs of the people who are begging for help.
Wait-lists for services are growing.
Community groups have minimal and shrinking budgets and are
struggling trying to help people.
If government is truly committed, they must call an all-party
committee to address these critical issues.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. CORNECT:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this hon. House to recognize seven
leaders inducted into the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation
Commission's CEO Safety Charter for 2014.
This distinguished network of leaders from this Province is
committed to safety in the workplace and has taken the steps necessary
to make their workplaces safer.
Mr. Speaker, the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission's
CEO Safety Charter was established in 2007 with the intention to support
the continuous improvement of healthy and safe workplaces throughout
Newfoundland and Labrador.
As ambassadors for safer workplaces, CEO Safety Charter signatories have
demonstrated their commitment to preventing accidents and promoting
health and safety in the workplace.
It also sends a message to their employees that they take their
safety seriously.
The 2014 inductees join a network of sixty-two leaders from this
Province that all share the common goal of making Newfoundland and
Labrador the safest province in Canada in which to work.
These CEOs are not only leaders in their respective
organizations; they are also health and safety champions in the
community.
Mr. Speaker, all of these leaders have a passion for safety in the
workplace. They also
recognize that their employees are their most valuable asset and they
must be protected. When an
organization's leadership has the passion, it permeates through the
organization and helps to create a culture of safety throughout the
entire organization which results in a safer environment for all.
The 2014 new members of the CEO Safety Charter are: Mike Barron of the
Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information, Glen Skinner of
Pipers, Steve Oliver of PepsiCo Foods Canada, Glenda Janes of St. John
Ambulance Newfoundland and Labrador Council, Terry Croucher of
Newfoundland and Labrador Vegetation Control, Len LeRiche of Safety
Services Newfoundland and Labrador, and Jim Lynch of Commissionaires
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in
congratulating this outstanding group of leaders on this tremendous
recognition.
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 thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
Our caucus would also like to congratulate these seven leaders on
being inducted into the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation
Commission's CEO Safety Charter for 2014.
Actually, as a side note, my colleague, the Member for Virginia
Waters, was actually one of the inaugural members to that charter.
Mr. Speaker, before becoming a member of this House, I worked for many
years as a safety practitioner myself.
I certainly realized the commitment that it takes to ensure that
we have safe workplaces in our Province.
It is reflected upon the workers, upon the supervisors, and
certainly it would not happen if you did not have the leadership of
these organizations at the very top driving this agenda.
I want to congratulate them for what they have all done in terms
of leadership in health and safety.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the government here could certainly learn
from these leaders. We have
had many issues around health and safety in this Province.
Whether it be the lack of inspections on fishing vessels, whether
it be failure to establish the fish processors safety council which was
announced three years ago, whether it be failure to effectively advocate
for a separate safety regulator for the offshore, whether it be lack of
inspectors in Labrador, and the list goes on.
I encourage the minister to sit down with these leaders and learn what
safety is all about.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very
much, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.
I am really happy to join with him and the critic from the
Official Opposition in congratulating the new members of Workplace
Health, Safety and Compensation Commission's CEO Safety Charter for
their commitment to ensuring their workers are safe.
It is true that leadership plays a key role in promoting a workplace
safety culture. That is why
I hope government will finally live up to its own responsibilities by
addressing the problem of the lack of permanent occupational health and
safety inspectors in Labrador West.
The department has been promising for over one year to hire more,
with no success. I know
recruitment continues, but I have to ask the minister if he has done the
full analysis as to why their attempts to hire these officers have
consistently failed. The
letter we received from him today, Mr. Speaker, does not give me an
answer to that.
Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
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 fiscal situation of the Province, the
Premier said we need to start in our own house, get our own business in
order, and lead by example, but he refused to immediately cut the size
of Cabinet and his parliamentary secretaries.
I ask the Premier: If you are really committed to leading by example,
really open and accountable, why are you refusing to immediately cut the
size of your Cabinet and those parliamentary secretaries?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I quite clearly articulated to the member opposite, to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador, to Members of the House of Assembly as well,
that as we go through this challenging time, this very significant
fiscal challenge we face as a result of the falling world oil prices,
that us and other provinces in the country, and other countries around
the world have to face, Mr. Speaker, that as we go through that process,
everything is on the table.
I reiterate that today, that all potential avenues of consideration will
be considered by us as a government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
While the Premier says that everything is on the table, that all options
are available to be cut, the Deputy Premier, however, has said that
there is no time like the present.
I ask the Premier: If there is no time like the present, as your Deputy
Premier suggests, why won't you put those cost-saving measures in place
today?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, we are here in the House of Assembly this week because in
order for us to carry out the changes to the House of Assembly I have
talked about three levels of reform.
I have said that I would initiate a process to reform MHA pension
plans. That process is
underway. I have said that I
would initiate a process to modernize how the House of Assembly
operates, to ensure a more effective House and better engagement by all
members of the House. That
process is underway.
The Leader of the Opposition agrees the House is too big.
The Leader of the Third Party agrees the House is too big.
I agree the House is too big.
The Leader of the Opposition is on record last week that he
agrees that if I believe thirty-eight, as the Premier, is the right
number, he is fine with that and he wants to make sure there is a
process. He said yesterday
in his release, Mr. Speaker, we should not move too hastily, that we
should ensure that we do proper process.
That is what we are doing.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
If there is anyone in this House knows, when this government acts in
haste we know what we get.
There is a long example of all that, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the Premier: In all his responses today, what he has not given me
or given the people in Newfoundland and Labrador is one example just
one example, Mr. Premier, why you will not cut the size of your Cabinet.
Give us one reason you will not do that.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I did not say I was not going to do it.
Let's be clear, Mr. Speaker.
The member opposite is quite aware of that.
I never said I was not going to do A, B, or C.
I never said any such thing.
For the member opposite to try and suggest that I made any such comment
is most unfortunate, Mr. Speaker.
What I have said is that I am willing to make the tough
decisions. As the Premier of
this Province, I am willing to make those tough decisions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, we
will see in the coming days how long the members opposite want to drag
out the process of renewing the House of Assembly, providing for a
better House. For renewing
the House of Assembly and doing what they agree should be done, reduce
the number of seats. He says
he wants to reduce the number of seats, Mr. Speaker, but he is not
willing to go through the process.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
The person in this House who is dragging out things is this Premier, I
say, Mr. Speaker. He is
dragging out and refusing to cut the size of his Cabinet.
I ask the Premier: Give the people of Newfoundland and Labrador one
reason why you cannot and are not cutting the size of your Cabinet
today.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
I will give the
hon. member a reason, Mr. Speaker.
It is because we are doing our due diligence over here when we
are managing the affairs of the Province.
We are considering all avenues that are available to us.
We have a significant problem, I say to the Leader of the Opposition.
We have a significant, fiscal problem that we have to deal with,
Mr. Speaker. I can tell you
about the difference in the members opposite and the members on this
side. Over there they are
not willing to deal with it.
Well, we are willing to deal with it on this side of the House, Mr.
Speaker, and we are going to do it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Well, everyone on this side of the House, I will be very clear, is
willing to deal with it, and we will deal with it.
Mr. Speaker, on January 6, government wrote a letter to CETA saying they
have withdrawn from all trade agreements currently under negotiation,
but yesterday government said they had withdrawn from all trade
agreements, not just ones under negotiation.
Now today, government is backtracking saying they have only
withdrawn from agreements under negotiation.
I ask the Premier: With 78 per cent of our provincial economy dependent
on international trade, why have you caused such confusion around the
Province's position on trade?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I can assure you, there is no confusion.
There might be confusion, Mr. Speaker, created by the members
opposite, which they do on a regular basis, but over here we are very
clear. We have trade
partners throughout this country.
Other provinces and the federal government are partners when we
discuss and negotiate trade.
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has clearly demonstrated its
respect, or lack thereof, for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians when it
came to the CETA deal. How
can we sit in a room and how can we participate in trade with partners
like the federal government when they will not play fair?
They will not go in there with the best interests of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in mind.
We went in with an open mind.
We wanted to do it in a way that was above board.
We did it with all good respect to all, Mr. Speaker, and they
pulled the rug out from Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
How can we operate with a group like that, Mr. Speaker?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Well, one way you operate with a group like that is when you have an
agreement, you make sure you have remedies that are attached to that and
it is a firm agreement something this government did not have.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier one question: Was the minister
who is sitting next to him, on this January 6 letter, when he wrote the
letter to Minister Fast was that letter wrong or was it right?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I think the Premier has been very clear that the terminology used in the
January 6 letter stands, that we have withdrawn all of our support for
current ongoing trade negotiations.
It does not apply to any agreements that have been negotiated.
The only thing we are doing today is clarifying.
Obviously members opposite had some difficulty interpreting the
language in a press release, so we are clarifying today.
The letter I wrote to the federal minister is a letter that
stands. We made an agreement
in good faith. The federal
government is not prepared to honour that.
In response to that, until they are prepared to come back to us
and honour that agreement, we have withdrawn all of our provincial
support to ongoing current negotiations.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I remind the minister that it was his comments in the press release
yesterday that said the provincial government is suspending its
participation in all trade agreements, and all trade agreements
currently under negotiation.
It is not only the members over here who have problems with those
remarks, it is people in the public as well, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, with our economy being 78 per cent dependent on
international trade, withdrawing from these trade agreements is a very
dangerous move, especially in the light of our financial situation.
I ask the Premier: What is the cost to the provincial economy by
withdrawing from these trade agreements?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
This is a very important topic.
I am glad the member opposite stayed with the topic because what
we had here was a very serious negotiation when we talk about CETA.
The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador had faith in the
federal government to act on our behalf to a point where they were near
the completion of a deal, a comprehensive deal, a CETA deal that would
include all provinces and territories.
As the member would know, it has been said here on many occasions, they
approached Newfoundland and Labrador looking for a concession of a
provincial right enshrined in the Constitution, Mr. Speaker.
As part of the entire CETA package, not just the minimum
processing requirements but there were procurement and energy issues as
well as part of the package, we negotiated the $400 million fund.
I say to the member opposite, we understand the significance of trade
issues but we are not prepared to give things away because of some
public pressure like the member opposite may do if he were ever the
Premier of the Province.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
The minister says they are aware of the significance of this decision.
So I ask him, if you are aware of the significance you must know the
value, you must know the impact: What is the value by removing the
provincial Government of Newfoundland and Labrador from these trade
agreements?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. KING:
As I was saying, Mr.
Speaker, it is very unfortunate.
We spent three days in Ottawa and, unequivocally, we have the
support of every group and every organization that we met with.
There was clear interpretation of where Newfoundland and Labrador
stands with respect to CETA, what we negotiated, and what this Province
is entitled to.
Today, in The Globe and Mail,
there is another large article supporting Newfoundland and Labrador's
view. The unfortunate thing
is that it is only the Opposition who stands and says: Why don't you
give away the fisheries fund for CETA?
Whereas, the rest of the country says to Prime Minister Harper:
Why don't you settle the fisheries fund so we can move forward with
CETA? That is the
unfortunate thing we are seeing here today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Well, I can assure the minister there is no one on this side of the
House suggesting we give up on the fishery.
It is the actions of this government that has demonstrated they
have given up on the fishery, I say to the Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. BALL:
Mr. Speaker, I will
ask the minister one more time, since he claims to understand this value
and the serious impact this could be: What is the value of removing the
provincial government's position in these trade agreements?
What is the value of that?
If you know it, tell the people of the Province.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. KING:
I say to the member
opposite, Mr. Speaker, he is a businessman and he has been involved in
lots of these kinds of negotiation activities for many years.
We have withdrawn from ongoing negotiations.
So I ask the member: How do you put a value on something that is
not even finalized or negotiated yet?
I would like to hear the answer to that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Well, in your capacity as Minister of Business, we typically call that a
business plan, Sir, I remind you.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. BALL:
Yesterday, the
Premier said that other Atlantic Premiers support Newfoundland and
Labrador in its efforts on CETA; however, it appears this is not the
case. The headline from one
media outlet yesterday read: Atlantic Premiers say Newfoundland and
Labrador is on its own in the CETA battle with Ottawa.
I ask the Premier: Which is it?
Do the Premiers support your efforts, or are you disagreeing with
the media reports?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I say to the member opposite, we fully understand what a business plan
is. It is the business plan
of this government since 2003 that has done wonderful things in this
Province, I say to the member opposite.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. KING:
In spite of the
legacy that we were left by previous governments, Mr. Speaker.
We fully understand that.
We also fully understand that a deal is a deal, Mr. Speaker.
We ask the members of the Opposition once again, and the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador, stand with the government in fighting on
this deal, not standing with Ottawa to suggest, by some pressure tactic,
that this government should fold its cards and go home and do away with
the future of the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador for some
short-term gain for some business-minded people in this Province.
That is not where we are and that is not where we are going to
be.
We stand with the Province and we are standing to fight for the
fisheries deal and for CETA, and we are doing it with the support of the
Atlantic Canadian Premiers, I might add.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I agree with the minister here.
If he listened to what we said publicly about the position with
the federal government on CETA, I do believe it is wrong.
I do stand by the Premier on this.
I said that here in this House at Christmastime.
What you did do, however, was not firm up your agreement with
Ottawa, I say, Mr. Speaker.
The announcement was more important than the finalization of the
agreement.
Mr. Speaker, the Province is in a serious financial situation, but the
government has yet to even start their pre-Budget consultations.
In eight of the last ten years, pre-Budget consultations were
announced at this time of the year.
I ask the Premier: If you are so interested in listening to the people
of the Province, why have you not started the Budget consultation
process?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I appreciate the member opposite confirming his support for us as a
government in our dispute with the Government of Canada over CETA.
I appreciate the member opposite doing that.
Sometimes they change their viewpoint as we saw on the electoral
reform legislation that is before us.
He has changed his position on that.
Sometimes it is hard to follow the bouncing ball, I say to you,
Mr. Speaker. Sometimes it is
hard to do that.
Mr. Speaker, to his question about the Atlantic Premiers, I can tell you
quite clearly that the Premiers of Atlantic Canada, the Premier of Nova
Scotia, the Premier of New Brunswick, and certainly the Premier of PEI
and the Premier of PEI specifically said, and the others supported very
similar commentary, that they support the position that we have taken
and that if he was in my shoes, he would have taken very similar action.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
It is tough to follow the Premier from time to time too, I must say.
Just after he announced his new departments just a few months ago
it was the Department of Public Safety.
Just a few weeks after that it was oh no, it is now the
Department of Justice and Public Safety.
The minister sitting next to him just a couple of years ago announced
cuts to Budget. A few weeks
later, guess what happened?
He had changed his mind and they were all welcomed back.
I say, Mr. Speaker, the provincial radiation services report was
supposed to be completed last fall, but government is still keeping it a
secret. We asked for copies
of this report and an update on the process through access to
information, but we have been denied.
I ask the Premier: Since this report was supposed to be completed last
fall, why are you keeping this a secret?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I have no problem making commitments, I can tell you that.
I make decisions and stand by commitments every day.
I say stand by, to the members opposite over there.
Just last week, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition went before
the microphones. He told the
people of the Province that if the Premier wants it to be thirty-eight
seats in the House of Assembly, if he feels that is the number, well, of
course I have no problem with that.
I ask him today: Do you support thirty-eight seats in the House of
Assembly, Mr. Speaker?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
The Premier has already seen our amendments, I say, Mr. Speaker.
As a matter of fact, it was only yesterday that he said he would
reach out to us and that he was willing to talk to us about it.
I ask the Premier: Has he done that yet?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, I
guess what he is saying is that he does not support what he said last
Thursday. Last Thursday he
said he supported thirty-eight seats.
He said that if the election had to be moved for a few weeks, he
was okay with that. He sent
out a release last Thursday night and he said he changed his view then.
In his release yesterday, and based on what he has anticipated to
come before the House, he is changing his position again.
As the member opposite can see, sometimes it is very hard to follow what
the member opposite is doing over there; but I can tell you something
solidly, as I have said repeatedly in this House of Assembly, we have
difficult times ahead of us as a Province, we have fiscal challenges
ahead of us as a Province, and I can tell you that every Member of the
House of Assembly on this side of the House is committed to making
difficult and hard decisions in the best interests of Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
It is unfortunate that the Premier decided he did not want to answer the
question about the radiation services in Corner Brook.
I have no idea why he would not want to release this report.
I ask the Premier: This was a report that was done last year.
You have denied making this public.
Premier, will you stand on your feet and tell the people of this
Province why you are not releasing this report?
It is about cancer.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, I
reported to the House in the fall that there had been a delay with the
provincial radiation review.
I said it would be completed early this year.
I can report to the House today that the review is complete.
A report has been received by staff in the Department of Health
and Community Services in recent days.
We anticipate releasing the report over the next few weeks, once
we have had a chance to review the report and complete our analysis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I ask the minister: Will you please give us a date?
You have been keeping this report secret, you have been keeping
it from the people of Western Newfoundland, and the minister knows that
he has had this report for some time right now.
I ask the minister: Will you give us a definitive date when you will
release this very important report?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. KENT:
The Leader of the
Opposition is challenging whether I am telling the truth or not.
I can report to this hon. House, Mr. Speaker, that we have just
received the report in recent days.
The report is now in the possession of staff of our department.
I intend to get briefed on that report this week.
Analysis is being done, and we will release that provincial
radiation review report as soon as possible.
Members opposite often link this issue somehow to the new West Coast
hospital project. There was
a functional program for cancer care on the West Coast that was received
in late October. We have
confirmed that there will be two radiation bunkers, and we are fully
committed to cancer care on the West Coast.
There is no connection between these issues, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, when discussing the financial crisis of this
Province, the Premier said nine different times that all options are on
the table. Not twenty
minutes later, the Minister of Justice said to the media: As AG, I am
committed to the due administration of justice in this Province, and
that will not be compromised under our government's watch.
I ask the Premier: Is justice on the chopping block?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I do not know how many times I have to try and explain this to the
members opposite, that we have a very serious, financial circumstance as
a result of the downturn in world oil prices.
It is impacting Newfoundland and Labrador.
It is impacting other provinces in Canada.
It is impacting Canada as a country.
It is impacting other countries around the world, Mr. Speaker.
We have very serious considerations to make.
We have to look at all avenues that are available to us to deal
with the circumstances that we face.
Mr. Speaker, what is most important is, as I have said before,
that as a government, I, as Premier, us, as ministers, us, as a caucus,
on the government side of the House are committed to making the very
difficult decisions that we have to make.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, I do not know how many times we have to say to the Premier that
it is hard to get a straight answer on Justice when the minister is not
allowed to sit here and answer questions.
Clearly, we are hearing different messages from the Minister of
Justice and the Premier. We
know the minister cannot sit in the House, but I am wondering if she is
going to the Cabinet meetings.
I ask the Premier: Who is running the Department of Justice, because the
message in here is different than the message out in the media?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, we
are committed to making decisions and the operations of government.
We are committed to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We uphold that. We
take that commitment very, very seriously.
We take our work and our responsibilities very, very seriously.
We are going to do the things we have to do to run the
government, run the Province, provide services and supports to the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We are going to do that, Mr. Speaker.
So that is one part of the member's question.
The second part is we have a significant financial circumstance that we
have to deal with. We are
also committed to making those very difficult and hard decisions, Mr.
Speaker. We will do it after
we do a full consideration, after we do due diligence to the full
process. We will consider
every avenue available to us, but we are committed to make very
difficult and challenging decisions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, this is the issue here again that we face today, that the
Premier says one thing in this House and then the unelected minister
goes out and says the exact opposite to the media.
I say to the Premier: Can we take it now that what the Minister of
Justice says outside this House is not what is actually going on and we
should listen to you? We get
confused after what is going on in this Department of Justice.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker,
there is not much doubt that the member opposite sometimes gets
confused; but, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, look, we are committed to
public safety in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I tell the member opposite, we are committed to the safety of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
We are committed to providing services to the people of the
Province. We are committed
to upholding the responsibilities that we accept as a government, Mr.
Speaker, and we are going to do it to the best of our abilities having
consideration for all of the factors.
That is what we are going to do as a government.
We are going to make those tough decisions, we are going to
continue to govern, we are going to find our way forward, and we are
going to make Newfoundland and Labrador better than it ever has been
before, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Member for the District of Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS:
Mr. Speaker, the
Senior Crown Attorney for Labrador said the small size of court
facilities in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and the lack of security lends
itself to justice not being served.
At times, the victims of sexual assault may be sitting two seats
away from the accused. Along
the Labrador Coast, client attorney meetings are sometimes held in
bathrooms.
I ask the Minister of Justice: Is this what you call improving the
system over the last six months?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, I
have spent numerous hours in courtrooms throughout my lifetime.
I can tell you when you have circumstances that are very
personal, you have very personal and serious charges that are laid
before the court; I can tell you it is a constant challenge.
It is not unique to Labrador.
It occurs in courtrooms not only throughout Newfoundland and
Labrador but other provinces as well.
There is always a challenge in finding that balance, finding
balance between witnesses and victims who have reasons to attend court,
as well as the accused. We
have to follow the rules of justice in Canada, that are followed
throughout Canada, and we have to find our best way forward.
I agree with the member opposite.
They can be very challenging, difficult times for victims of
crime, for families and witnesses and those involved with crime.
Mr. Speaker, we hope the courts and I trust the courts do
everything they can to protect the interests of all persons who have to
find themselves in court.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Member for Torngat Mountains has time for a quick question.
MR. EDMUNDS:
Mr. Speaker,
prosecution staff is now down to one attorney and one article clerk.
I ask the minister: Why has the justice system in Labrador gone from bad
to worse in such a short period of time?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Government House Leader for a quick reply.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I do not think there is a quick reply to such a sensitive issue, but I
will certainly do my best.
As I said to the hon. member yesterday, it is a sensitive issue and it
is a very important issue.
We recognize the challenges we are facing with staffing the court system
and the Crown prosecutor's office in Labrador, in particular.
As I committed to him yesterday, we will work together with him
and with our human resources department to secure a full complement of
Crown prosecutors (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very
much, Mr. Speaker.
The amount of work and financial resources involved in redrawing
electoral boundaries is immense.
The electoral office already faces a critical lack of staff and
technical support.
I ask the Premier: How many new staff and resources will be needed to
carry out the extra work that will be caused by Bill 42, and how much is
it going to cost?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Realigning electoral boundaries in Newfoundland and Labrador is a huge
piece of work. We
acknowledge that. We also
acknowledge that with appropriate resources this is a task to be
undertaken by the commission and completed within 120 days.
What we understand as well, after this commission does this piece of
work in fact, while the commission is doing its work, Mr. Powers, the
Chief Electoral Officer for the Province, will be doing a piece of work
as well to make sure that we are ready for a general election in the
fall of 2015. We have
indicated very clearly, as with this commission and with past
commissions, that we will provide appropriate resources to ensure that
this piece of work gets completed on time so that we can have a fall
general election.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Mr. Speaker, I
ask the minister then: What piece of the $2.5 million they hope to save
is going to be spent in doing the work of the commission and the work
that Elections Newfoundland and Labrador are going to have to do?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN:
I think, Mr.
Speaker, it is extremely important and the member asks a very good
question. It is obvious from
her question there is a lack of understanding of the process.
There is a piece of legislation on the books today called the Electoral
Boundaries Act that says this piece of work was going to be done in 2016
anyway. This is not a piece
of work that was never anticipated.
This was a project that would have to be undertaken twelve months
from now.
What we are saying is rather than wait twelve months from now, let's do
it today and have it ready for the 2015 election.
It is not money that would never have ever been spent.
What we are saying is let's spend it today to get better value
for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians so we can have it in for a fall
election in 2015.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Mr. Speaker, I
ask the Premier: If the commission finds that the thirty-eight districts
that he wants are not going to be enough to comply with the act, which
says that every elector should have equal access to this House, will the
Premier go along with the decision of the commission or ignore it?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN:
One of the things
that the member has raised here is whether or not and what is a
reasonable number to provide reasonable representation for
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Frequently, we find ourselves comparing ourselves to the rest of
the country. Members often
stand in this House all the time and say: How come you are not doing
what they are doing in Ontario, or how come you are not doing what they
are doing in Alberta?
Mr. Speaker, we had a look at what they are doing in the rest of the
country and very clearly if you just look at the number of people
elected in the assemblies across Canada and the number of voters they
represent, Newfoundland and Labrador is on the lowest end of that scale.
Across this country, one member can represent a constituency of 10,000
or 15,000 people quite easily, and provide adequate representation.
The question becomes: Why wouldn't we be able to do that here in
Newfoundland and Labrador as well?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, the
Premier said everything is on the table.
With this current economic uncertainty, people are rightfully
worried about their jobs and providing for their families.
Bill 42 will throw everything into chaos right before the
election, when what is needed right now is stability.
I ask the Premier: Why this desperate move right now before an election?
How exactly can this be in the best interest of the people?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, the
reason why we find ourselves in this circumstance is because of the
world oil prices, very simply.
Everyone is quite aware of what has happened in the turn in oil
prices through last summer, last fall, and since OPEC had their meetings
in November.
We had some of Canada's leading economists and best informed people in
the country tell us after OPEC met, they said give it a couple of
weeks, ten days, two weeks, and the markets should settle down.
Mr. Speaker, the markets still have not settled down and experts
around the world had predicted it would take a couple of weeks and
markets would settle down.
The markets are still not settled.
We know the federal government are not going to do their Budget
until April. They have some
very serious challenges to face, Mr. Speaker.
We have very serious challenges to face as a Province, and it is
all related to the price of oil.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The time for Question Period has expired.
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
AN HON. MEMBER:
Bay of
Islands.
MR. SPEAKER:
Bay of Islands.
Thank you.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, that
is one of the problems in this House; when you are quiet, people forget
you.
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned
residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS the electoral boundaries commission was legislated to be
appointed in 2016 to determine any changes to the electoral districts in
the Province; and
WHEREAS the undersigned agree with a reduction in the number of
electoral seats; and
WHEREAS the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016
would have allowed the time necessary to properly carry out the
necessary public consultations; and
WHEREAS the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016
would have allowed sufficient time necessary to properly evaluate the
population and demographics of each district and properly calculate the
necessary adjustments for a change in the number of electoral districts;
and
WHEREAS the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016
would have allowed sufficient time necessary to properly evaluate the
geographical implications of a change in the number of electoral
districts; and
WHEREAS the government is attempting to change legislation to appoint
the electoral boundaries commission early;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon
the House of Assembly to urge the government to ensure that, with or
without the completion of the work of the electoral boundaries
commission as a result of appointing the commission early, it will not
interfere with the legislated and mandated requirement to hold a
provincial general election in 2015.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I stand to present this petition today.
I am going to speak today on behalf of the District of Bay of
Islands. As we all know,
next year is supposed to be when the electoral boundaries review would
take place, in 2016. There
is an important point being missed here in this House, Mr. Speaker, by
the government, and they refuse to bring it up.
In 2016 there will be a new census.
I heard the Premier himself say we have to make a decision for the next
ten years. So we are going
to be making a decision in this House of Assembly on information from
2011, information on population and demographics from 2011, and not wait
for the information which would truly reflect where people live in this
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I think it is fundamentally wrong.
I truly feel this is to push the election back.
I truly feel that. I
said it publicly. This has
nothing to do with changing the boundaries because if it did, you would
follow the law and give the commission proper time.
Mr. Speaker, when we have a government that is going to push this
through without up-to-date information, I think it is fundamentally
wrong for the government to do that.
The government has a majority, it is going to be done, but I just
feel it is fundamentally wrong until we get new information.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS PERRY:
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 of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador has the second largest number of
members of its provincial Legislature per capita of all the provinces in
Canada, which means, on average, the second smallest number of
constituents per member of any provincial Legislature in the country;
and
WHEREAS reducing the size of the House of Assembly by ten seats from
forty-eight to thirty-eight will achieve savings to the provincial
taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador of an estimated $2.5 million per
year totalling at least some $10 million over the course of a four-year
term; and
WHEREAS even with such a reduction, Newfoundland and Labrador will
continue to enjoy its ranking as the Province with the second largest
number of members per capita; and
WHEREAS it has been common practice for the government of the day to set
the target for the number of seats in a redistributed Legislature; and
WHEREAS in moving ahead now without needless delay, there is ample time
in 2015 for this independent process to unfold, and, in fact, as much
time as was required when this process last happened in 1994; and
WHEREAS it would be irresponsible for any party to deny the taxpayers of
our Province the opportunity to realize these savings over the next four
years when, in tough fiscal times, it would spare Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians the equivalent of those savings in tax increases, increased
debt, or reduced services; and
WHEREAS all three parties in this House are on record as supporting a
reduction of the number of the Members of the House of Assembly and
ought to stand by their words by enabling this independent process to
proceed now, without needless delay;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon
the House of Assembly to move forward now, without needless delay, to
amend the Electoral Boundaries Act so that an independent commission
will be appointed to facilitate a reduction in the number of seats in
the House of Assembly from forty-eight to thirty-eight in advance of the
next general election.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS PERRY:
As in duty bound,
your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, it was very important that I stand up today and present
this petition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS PERRY:
As an elected Member
of the House of Assembly, I have been receiving a lot of commentary from
constituents and people I represent about the boundaries change.
I have heard for quite some time, Mr. Speaker, the views of
people at large who really feel the House of Assembly is too large.
You look at the workload, Mr. Speaker, of a Member of the House of
Assembly. There are a lot of
considerations that go into the boundaries and these
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind the member her speaking time has expired.
Further petitions?
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MS ROGERS:
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 mental health programs and services
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Thank you, gentlemen.
WHEREAS mental health programs and services are crucial to the health of
individuals, families, and communities; and
WHEREAS despite mental health services being delivered by government,
community-based organizations and informally by families and friends,
there are still large gaps in services and programs in the Province; and
WHEREAS despite these efforts, stigma remains a significant barrier for
people needing to access mental health services, and participate in
society; and
WHEREAS new directions and priorities are needed for mental health
programs and service delivery, especially for unique groups such as
youth, Aboriginal people, immigrants and refugees; and
WHEREAS deep fiscal cuts in the last budget have placed a great strain
on organizations delivering mental health services in the Province;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon
the House of Assembly to urge government to immediately strike an
all-party committee on mental health which, through extensive public
consultation, will review the current state of provincial mental health
services, receive expert testimony on best to better serve the needs of
all the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I have stood in the House a number of times presenting this
petition on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We have thousands of signatures.
In the past week, Mr. Speaker, with the government's introduction of
Bill 42, one of the rationales the government has used as well is that
they want to better use the Members of the House of Assembly by using
all-party committees, standing committees, select committees.
The Official Opposition has said the same.
In response to this petition, in response to consultation with people
all over the Province, both health care providers and users of our
mental health system and the general population, they have asked for an
all-party select committee on mental health.
The Minister of Health has said that he will work with this
committee.
Mr. Speaker, in response to that, tomorrow I will be presenting a
private member's motion asking government to strike a select committee
on mental health. If this
government is true to its word, if the Official Opposition is true to
its word, they will both support this call for an all-party select
committee on mental health.
To do so would be in contradiction to what they have both said in the
media and in this House in the past week.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am happy once again to present this petition on
behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador on a very pressing
need and what can be lifesaving measures.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I stand again to present another petition, Mr. Speaker.
The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador
humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS the electoral boundaries commission was legislated to be
appointed in 2016 to determine any changes to electoral districts in the
Province; and
WHEREAS the undersigned agree with a reduction in the number of
electoral seats; and
WHEREAS the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016
would have allowed the time necessary to properly carry out the
necessary public consultations; and
WHEREAS the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016
would have allowed sufficient time necessary to properly evaluate the
population and demographics of each district and properly calculate the
necessary adjustments for a change in the number of electoral districts;
and
WHEREAS the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016
would have allowed sufficient time necessary to properly evaluate the
geographical implications of a change in the number of electoral
districts; and
WHEREAS the government is attempting to change legislation to appoint
the electoral boundaries commission early;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon
the House of Assembly to urge the government to ensure that, with or
without the completion of the work of the electoral boundaries
commission as a result of appointing the commission early, it will not
interfere with the legislated and mandated requirement to hold a
provincial general election in 2015.
Mr. Speaker, I just heard the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune
stand up on a petition. This
is very important for the people of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
First of all, there is talk there about being independent.
Is it independent when you are mandated to do something?
How much independence do you have?
I just want to explain, Mr. Speaker.
Now, I heard the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
When you are mandated and you have a certain number, ten, there
is no consultation. The
District of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune and she is unaware of it; it is
obvious she is unaware of this there was a variance of 10 per cent,
and the commission can make a recommendation up to 25 per cent.
The district that it was done for was Fortune Bay Cape
La Hune.
SOME HON.
MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
To represent the people of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
So, when the member wants to stand in this House and present a
petition, she obviously does not even know the regulations.
She does not know the mandate that was done in 2004.
She does not know what it was.
When the regulation was put in to give the commission independence of
various ten up to twenty-five, it was the rural districts like Fortune
Bay Cape La Hune. The
member is standing here now saying forget the people in my district.
Go ahead and do what this government wants.
The residents of my district, it does not matter.
It does not matter about anything.
It does not matter.
You should be go back and consult with your people.
Go back with the people.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS PERRY:
A point of order.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune on a point of order.
MS PERRY:
I am sorry, Mr.
Speaker, I just said the member opposite is putting words in my mouth.
That is not what I said.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands to continue.
MR. JOYCE:
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
What I am saying is go back and consult with the people in your district
because at the time I was in this part of the government.
That was one of the districts that when that revision was made up
to 25 per cent, it was for that district.
Check with your residents who live there.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Member for Bonavista South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. LITTLE:
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 of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador has the second largest number of
members of its provincial Legislature per capita of all provinces in
Canada, which means, on average, the second smallest number of
constituents per member of any provincial Legislature in the country;
and
WHEREAS reducing the size of the House of Assembly by ten seats from
forty-eight to thirty-eight will achieve savings to the provincial
taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador an estimated $2.5 million per
year totalling some $10 million over the course of a four-year term; and
WHEREAS even with such a reduction
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I ask all members for their co-operation.
The hon. the Member for Bonavista South to continue.
MR. LITTLE:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
WHEREAS even with such a reduction, Newfoundland and Labrador will
continue to enjoy its ranking as the Province with the second largest
number of members per capita; and
WHEREAS it has been the common practice for the government of the day to
set the target number of seats in a redistributed Legislature; and
WHEREAS in moving ahead now without needless delay there is ample time
in 2015 for this independent process to unfold, and, in fact, as a
matter of time as was required when this process last happened in 1994;
and
WHEREAS it would be irresponsible for any party to deny the taxpayers of
our Province the opportunity to realize these savings over the next four
years when, in tough fiscal times, it would spare Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians the equivalent of those savings in tax increases, increased
debt, or reduced services; and
WHEREAS all three parties in this House are on record as supporting a
reduction of the number of Members of the House of Assembly and ought to
stand by their words by enabling the independent process to proceed now,
without needless delay;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon
the House of Assembly to move forward now, without needless delay, to
amend the Electoral Boundaries Act so that an independent commission
will be appointed to facilitate a reduction of the number of seats in
the House of Assembly from forty-eight to thirty-eight in advance of the
next general election.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind the member his time for speaking has expired.
The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
WHEREAS the electoral boundaries commission was legislated to be
appointed in 2016 to determine any changes to electoral districts in the
Province; and
WHEREAS the undersigned agree with a reduction in the number of
electoral seats; and
WHEREAS the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016
would have allowed the time necessary to properly carry out the
necessary public consultations; and
WHEREAS the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016
would have allowed sufficient time necessary to properly evaluate the
population and demographics of each district and properly calculate the
necessary adjustments for a change in the number of electoral districts;
and
WHEREAS the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016
would have allowed sufficient time necessary to properly evaluate the
geographical implications of a change in the number of electoral
districts; and
WHEREAS the government is attempting to change legislation to appoint
the electoral boundaries commission early;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon
the House of Assembly to urge the government to ensure that, with or
without the completion of the work of the electoral boundaries
commission as a result of appointing the commission early, it will not
interfere with the legislated and mandated requirement to hold a
provincial general election in 2015.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, this petition was signed by residents in the District of
Lake Melville. I would like
to refer to Labrador for a couple of minutes, if I can.
We have also heard the mayor who is in the gallery from
Wabush come out in support of four districts in Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, currently Labrador has four seats out of forty-eight which
makes up 8.3 per cent of the total complement of the Legislature.
Should Labrador's numbers drop to two of thirty-eight seats, as
proposed by this government, Labrador will constitute 5 per cent of the
total complement of our Legislature.
Should Labrador stay at four out of thirty-eight seats, Labrador
will constitute 11 per cent of the total Legislature.
Nowhere close to 50 per cent, not by any means.
I cannot see how any government can reduce the number of seats in
Labrador due to a broad range of reasons: diversity, geography, culture.
Mr. Speaker, the Member for Labrador West has travelled 1,800
kilometres to get home. Some
districts in this Province, it is 1.8 kilometres and you are through the
district into another one.
It takes me two days to travel home from St. John's two days.
It takes me six days to go through my district, and I have six
communities. It takes me six
days. If you look at the
size and the demographics, there is no way that anyone can see the
number of seats that are already low certainly being a Labradorian, I
would like to see 50 per cent of the seats in Labrador; but four seats
out of forty-eight, two out of thirty-eight, or four out of thirty-eight
is nowhere close to any (inaudible)
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind the member his speaking time has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. HILLIER:
To the hon. House
of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament
assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS the electoral boundaries commission was legislated to be
appointed in 2016 to determine any changes to electoral districts in the
Province; and
WHEREAS the undersigned agree with a reduction in the number of
electoral seats; and
WHEREAS the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016
will have allowed the time necessary to properly carry out the necessary
public consultations; and
WHEREAS the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016
would have allowed sufficient time necessary to properly evaluate the
population and demographics of each district and properly calculate the
necessary adjustments for a change in the number of electoral districts;
and
WHEREAS the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016
would have allowed sufficient time necessary to properly evaluate the
geographical implications of a change in the number of electoral
districts; and
WHEREAS the government is attempting to change legislation to appoint
the electoral boundaries commission early;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon
the House of Assembly to urge the government to ensure that, with or
without the completion of the work of the electoral boundaries
commission as a result of appointing the commission early, it will not
interfere with the legislated and mandated requirement to hold a
provincial general election in 2015.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, based on section 3.1 of the House of Assembly's act, as to
the resignation of a Premier, there are people in this Province who have
called for a general election in the past year; the Official Opposition
has not done so. Based on
the non-crisis of DarkNL and the fiasco of Humber Valley Paving, a large
portion of the population of this Province has called for a general
election; the Official Opposition has not done so.
Based on some of the Premier's appointments after taking office, a large
portion of the population of this Province have called for a general
election; the Official Opposition has not done so.
Mr. Speaker, based on the number of resignations from government,
four, five, six, seven and subsequent by-elections, a large section of
the population of this Province has called for a general election; the
Official Opposition has not done so.
Mr. Speaker, this petition, and those of my colleagues, are demanding
for the legislated election to take place this fall.
This time, so are the members of the Official Opposition.
We demand an election in the fall of 2015.
Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Member for Kilbride.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. DINN:
To the hon. House of
Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament
assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador has the second largest number of
members of its provincial Legislature per capita of all the provinces in
Canada, which means, on average, the second smallest number of
constituents per member of any provincial Legislature in the country;
and
WHEREAS reducing the size of the House of Assembly by ten seats from
forty-eight to thirty-eight will achieve savings to the provincial
taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador of an estimated $2.5 million per
year totalling some $10 million over the course of a four-year term; and
WHEREAS even with such a reduction, Newfoundland and Labrador will
continue to enjoy its ranking as the Province with the second largest
number of members per capita; and
WHEREAS it has been the common practice for the government of the day to
set the target number of seats in a redistributed Legislature; and
WHEREAS in moving ahead now, without needless delay, there is ample time
in 2015 for this independent process to unfold, and, in fact, as much
time as was required when this process last happened in 1994; and
WHEREAS it would be irresponsible for any party to deny the taxpayers of
our Province the opportunity to realize these savings over the next four
years when, in tough fiscal times, it would spare Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians the equivalent of those savings in tax increases, increased
debt, or reduced services; and
WHEREAS all three parties in this House are on record as supporting a
reduction of the number of Members of the House of Assembly and ought to
stand by their words by enabling this independent process to proceed now
without needless delay;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon
the House of Assembly to move forward now without needless delay to
amend the Electoral Boundaries Act so that an independent commission
will be appointed to facilitate a reduction of the number of seats in
the House of Assembly from forty-eight to thirty-eight in advance of the
next general election.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, this is the second time I have given a petition in the
House of Assembly. It is not
the first. When I was on
city council in St. John's, oftentimes I had petitions for an issue and
against. We are here today
presenting in favour of our move here as a government.
I feel myself that the people in this Province want this change to take
place. They want it to take
place as soon as possible, not 2019.
To delay doing the amendments in the Legislature now would mean
that nothing would happen to this issue until the election in 2019.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind the member his speaking time has expired.
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 petition.
The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador
humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS the electoral boundaries commission was legislated to be
appointed in 2016 to determine any changes to electoral districts in the
Province; and
WHEREAS the undersigned agree with a reduction in the number of
electoral seats; and
WHEREAS the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016
would have allowed the time necessary to properly carry out the
necessary public consultations; and
WHEREAS the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016
would have allowed sufficient time necessary to properly evaluate the
population and demographics of each district and properly calculate the
necessary adjustments for a change in the number of electoral districts;
and
WHEREAS the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016
have allowed sufficient time necessary to properly evaluate the
geographical implications of a change in the number of electoral
districts; and
WHEREAS the government is attempting to change legislation to appoint
the electoral boundaries commission early;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon
the House of Assembly to urge the government to ensure that, with or
without the completion of work of the electoral boundaries commission as
a result of appointing the commission early, it will not interfere with
the legislated and mandated requirement to hold a provincial general
election in 2015.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard from a number of people this weekend, from
some of the people who have signed petitions.
One of the petitions I am going to present today is signed by
people from Clarenville; the signatures on this are all from
Clarenville.
Mr. Speaker, let's make no mistake, the people I have heard from this
past weekend have told me they believe this is a very political move by
government; a very political move.
An effort to push the election out to 2016 is the belief, which
is the reason we have this petition.
Mr. Speaker, they know that if an election were called today
government would lose. Based
on the polling, government would lose.
So, there is politics behind this move today.
We all agree with reducing the number of electoral districts in this
Province, Mr. Speaker, but there is politics behind the legislation that
is put before the floor of the House of Assembly.
The proof of that is in the petitions presented by members of
government. They have every
right to present a petition, Mr. Speaker, every right to present a
petition, as does any Member of this House of Assembly, but it is the
first time, since I have been a member of this House, that I have seen a
government member present a petition.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell you something else.
I have looked at the signatures on two of the petitions.
While the signatures on the petition that I am presenting today
are all from Clarenville, they are members of the general public.
The two petitions that were presented today by government
members, Mr. Speaker, are party executive members and party staffers.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Shame,
shame!
MR. OSBORNE:
Now, Mr. Speaker,
tell me there is no politics behind what is happening in this House,
because there is. There is
absolute politics behind what is happening today in this House of
Assembly.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind the member his speaking time has expired.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Minister of
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental
Affairs, that we move to Orders of the Day.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is that we move to Orders of the Day.
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye,
MR. SPEAKER:
All those
against, 'nay'.
Carried.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I call from the Order Paper, Address in Reply.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Member for Trinity Bay de Verde.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I do not have a petition.
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to rise in this House today as the
Member for the District of Trinity Bay de Verde.
As a person who has been involved in politics for more than two
decades, it is most humbling to sit in this Legislature.
Mr. Speaker, my first thank you goes to my family; my wife, Nadine, and
my two sons, Benjamin and Alexander.
Their support to me has been unwavering.
Also, to my extended family and friends, who played a major role
in helping me get to where I am today.
Many thank yous also to my hardworking campaign team and my loyal
supporters for believing in me.
Without them, my successful outcome would not have been possible.
To the people of Trinity Bay de Verde, thank you for your
strong vote of confidence in me, and I look forward to representing you
in this hon. House.
Mr. Speaker, I grew up in the community of Heart's Delight Islington,
on the south side of Trinity Bay.
I have been privileged to spend my entire life there with my
family who operates a small business for over thirty years.
Both my parents, Steve and Marilyn Crocker, are also lifelong
residents of the district, where myself and my brother Brian were
raised.
Mr. Speaker, while I am new to the House of Assembly, as I alluded to
earlier, I am no stranger to politics.
I first became interested in current affairs in government and
democracy at a young age.
Most here will remember the stand that former Premier Wells took on the
Meech Lake Accord. It was at
this time, while still in high school, I chose to become involved in the
Liberal Party.
I became actively involved in many boards and committees in the years
that followed. I served as a
member of the Heart's Delight Islington Volunteer Fire Department for
more than ten years. I have
also served as community representative on school councils for my former
high school, Holy Trinity Regional High, Epiphany Elementary, and most
recently, Crescent Collegiate.
I also served as a board member on the Trinity-Conception
Business Development Corporation.
Mr. Speaker, Trinity Bay de Verde is a collection of more than thirty
communities from Hopeall on the Trinity shore to Salmon Cove on the
Conception Bay North side of the peninsula.
The district has a population of 8,600 residents.
I would be remiss, if I did not mention the district is expecting
unprecedented growth in the next 120 days.
Trinity Bay de Verde is home to the historical Heart's Content
Provincial Historic Site where in July, 1866, the first permanent
transatlantic cable connecting Europe to North America was hauled
ashore. In 2016, next year,
will mark 150 years since that historic day.
Interestingly enough, one of the major issues in the district
today is communications, or lack thereof.
The inability for residents of Trinity Bay de Verde, 150 years
later, to not be able to use cellphones is unacceptable.
Mr. Speaker, we have key industries and employers in the District of
Trinity Bay de Verde, but none more important than the fishery is the
reason our settlers came to those shores, and it is the reason we are
there today. The fishing
industry is the backbone of the Bay de Verde peninsula.
The peninsula has the Province's largest inshore shellfish
landings in ports such as Old Perlican and Bay de Verde.
There are also more than 1,000 people employed in the remaining fish
processing facilities in the district.
We must remain vigilant to ensure continued success of this
industry, not only for the people of Trinity Bay de Verde but for the
entire Province as a whole.
One missing piece in ensuring the preservation and growth of our fishery
is joint management, or lack thereof, with the federal government.
We have long talked about joint management with the Government of
Canada. The time has come to
bring this to fruition.
Mr. Speaker, outside the fishery there is an ever-expanding tourism
industry on the beautiful Bay de Verde peninsula, one which includes the
Heart's Content cable station, the Baccalieu Island Bird Sanctuary,
Cabot Rock in Grates Cove, Northern Bay Sands, Salmon Cove Sands, and
our only golf course, Pitcher's Pond Golf Course, which is a picturesque
nine-hole located in Whiteway.
Mr. Speaker, throughout my entire life, Trinity Bay de Verde has been
and always will be home. We
have many challenges, but we also have many opportunities.
Opportunities that we must continue to invest in, like our
fishery, tourism, and small business.
Mr. Speaker, I was raised in a family where my parents and grandparents
were small business owners.
I, too, would later continue in the entrepreneurial field.
I firmly believe that as we look forward, we must ensure we
diversify our economy. One
of the key elements of diversifying our economy is through small and
medium-sized business.
One of the biggest hurdles faced by small and medium-sized business in
our Province today is red tape.
Ironically, this happens to be Red Tape Reduction Week.
Repeatedly, we have heard small
business owners asking for support in this area.
I urge the government to work with small and medium-sized
business owners and groups like our Board of Trade, the Canadian
Federation of Independent Business, among others, to ensure that the
long overdue improvements are implemented.
Mr. Speaker, like all hon. members who enter this House of Assembly, we
do so at the will of the people, and our time here comes in many
different durations. I
firmly believe that all members of this hon. House are here for one
primary reason: to serve our towns, our districts, and ultimately, the
people of our Province, Newfoundland and Labrador.
During my tenure as Member for the District of Trinity Bay de
Verde, I commit to representing the people I serve to the best of my
ability.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, as a member who has had a lifelong love for
democracy and good government, it is with great pride and a humble
spirit that I take my place in the Newfoundland and Labrador
Legislature, along with my forty-seven colleagues.
It is a particular honour to serve my district as a member of the
Official Opposition under the leadership of the Member for Humber
Valley, who I had the privilege to work with prior to me taking my seat
here in the House of Assembly.
Having had the opportunity to work closely with our leader, I am
confident that under his leadership great things are in store for this
Province.
I now look forward to working with him again in a new capacity as a
member of his caucus, the Official Opposition a caucus made up of a
group of extraordinary individuals with diverse backgrounds from all
corners of our Province from the northern tip of Labrador to our
Province's capital city.
All of us have come together as a united team to offer a strong
alternative to the people of our Province.
I look forward to participating in lively debate and discussions
on important matters affecting the people of our Province and working
with the members of this hon. House to advance the agenda for the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
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 we adjourn debate on Address in Reply.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is
that debate be now adjourned on Address in Reply.
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those
against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On motion, debate adjourned.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I would like to call from the Order Paper, Motion 3, and to ask leave to
introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act,
Bill 42, and that the said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and
seconded that the hon. Government House Leader shall have leave to
introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act,
Bill 42, and that the said bill be now read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. Government House Leader
shall have leave to introduce Bill 42 and that the said bill be now read
a first time?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those
against, 'nay'.
Carried
Motion, the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a bill, An
Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act, carried.
(Bill 42)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To
Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act.
(Bill 42)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now
been read a first time.
When shall the bill be read a second time?
MR. KING:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On motion, Bill 42 read a first time, ordered read a second time
presently, by leave.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I would ask leave from Opposition members to proceed in calling the said
bill for the second reading.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is there leave to
proceed to second reading?
The Opposition House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
The
Official Opposition is prepared to give leave.
MR. SPEAKER:
Leave is granted.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank my colleagues opposite for providing leave.
At this time I would like to call from the Order Paper, Bill 42, An Act
To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act.
The said bill is moved by myself and seconded by the hon. the Premier
that the 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 Electoral
Boundaries Act. (Bill 42)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
It is a real pleasure today to be able to introduce Bill 42.
There has been a lot of discussion in the Province since last
week when the Premier made an announcement last Friday that the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador under his watch as the Premier
was going to introduce some legislation and some actions to reform the
function of the House of Assembly.
There were three components to that, Mr. Speaker.
One of them was in asking you as the Speaker to convene a meeting
of the Standing Orders Committee to look at all the Standing Orders that
govern the rules of operation of the House that sets out the procedures
for dealing with various aspects of the House operation, with a view of
ensuring that the House is effective and efficient and provides an
opportunity for mass participation by all members of this House in the
legislative process. The
second part of that was to ask you as the Speaker, through to the
Management Commission, to start a process to reform the pensions for
Members of the House of Assembly.
The third one, which is the subject of this discussion today and
the subject of Bill 42, is An Act to Amend the Electoral Boundaries Act.
Before I get into the substance of the bill itself, I just want to
remind people that Bill 42 is a bill that we are bringing into the House
to make amendments to an already existing piece of legislation.
To create some context for the discussion, Mr. Speaker, I want to
just provide some commentary, if I could, about the Electoral Boundaries
Act.
This act goes back a few years, back to 1973 in fact.
Prior to that, from 1949 when we joined Confederation with
Canada, the process for deciding the number of seats that we would have
was a process partially driven by the House of Assembly, but mostly
determined by the government of the day.
They would determine how many seats we would have and there would
be an election held based on that decree of the number of seats we would
have.
In 1973, this piece of legislation was introduced, the Electoral
Boundaries Act. Since that
time, this act has guided the process of determining the boundaries for
electoral districts in this Province.
What we are doing here today is bringing in some amendments to
this already existing piece of legislation.
This legislation makes a number of provisions.
It makes a provision for a commission to be appointed with a
chairperson. That
chairperson is decided by the chief justice of the Appeal Court of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
So, there is a certainty that this is an unbiased process.
It is not influenced by political pressures.
It does not favour one political party or the other.
You have an independent chairperson appointed by the chief
justice.
In fact, the chairperson should be picked and selected from among the
judges of the Court of Appeal and the Trial Division; however, if at
some point in time when this commission is put together a judge is not
available from either one of those courts, then it is permissible for
the chief justice, but it still must be done by the chief justice.
The chief justice then can look into the greater community and
determine someone who is capable, confident, and qualified to do this
piece of work; they can appoint that individual who is not a sitting
judge, or a retired judge.
The process, Mr. Speaker, is that chief justice, when asked by the
House, will then make sure that person gets appointed within a
thirty-day period.
In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, that chairperson does not work by
themselves. There are four
other people. It is a
commission of five. There are four other people who get appointed to
this commission, and these four people are people who are appointed by
the Speaker.
Generally, what will happen in the course of putting this commission
together, members of the Opposition parties and members of the governing
party will put forward names, make recommendations to the Speaker as to
who should be appointed to the commission, to join the chairperson of
the commission to fill out the slate of five.
That is exactly what will be happening here.
There is no change in process.
The exact same process will unfold in the proposed amendment to Bill 42.
There is absolutely no change in what takes place in how the
commission gets appointed, who is on the commission, and the role that
they play no change at all.
In addition to that, what will happen, Mr. Speaker, they will be
in a course of providing direction to the commission.
Since the very beginning, in 1973, and each time since then that this
commission has been convened because this commission has been convened
in 1973 for the first time, again in 1983, again in 1993, again in 1995,
again in 2003, and again in 2006.
We have already had this six times, so this will be the seventh
time. This will be the
seventh commission that has been put in place because this exercise has
occurred six previous times.
What we are following here is a well-established process.
The commission in the legislation that already exists, Mr.
Speaker we are not adding this.
The legislation already provides for.
The legislation will tell the commission how many seats there
will be. This is nothing
new.
In the past, for example, the commission has said how the legislation
has, on a couple of occasions, said there will be forty-eight.
Another time the commission was given direction to make it
fifty-two. So the commission
has always had direction based on the legislation.
The legislation has fixed a number and said you will divide the
Province by X number of seats.
That is the process to establish a quotient: how many people will
exist in each electoral district, how many voters will exist in each
electoral district.
The legislation has historically defined the number of seats that will
exist. The commission has
then suggested that you take the population of the Province and divide
it by that fixed number of seats.
That is how you determine how many people will be in a district.
Then you decide to carve up the district, create your boundaries
based on that kind of a configuration using the number of seats that the
legislation provided for you and then doing a simple calculation and
dividing that number into the population of the Province to establish a
quotient. That is the
process. This is laid out in
legislation. There is no
change this time than it was in the past.
The same process is followed each time.
We are not changing anything new here in the process, Mr. Speaker.
As I have said, the commission then reports back to the House of
Assembly, provides a report to the Minister of Justice, and it is tabled
in this House. The process
is mapped out in the current legislation.
When we read the amendments to the legislation in Bill 42, it is
important that members read Bill 42, which is amending an already
existing piece of legislation, to look at the legislation itself,
because not all sections are being amended.
Much of it is intact.
Not much changed, Mr. Speaker; a couple of significant points.
One is that the commission has been told there will be
thirty-eight seats. The
commission has also been told that they will do their work in 120 days
from the date on which the Chair gets appointed.
So that is a bit of a change, Mr. Speaker.
The 120 days is a change.
The other thing that has changed this time from the past is in the past,
as I have said, the number of seats were different.
Back in 2006, the direction in the legislation was to have
forty-eight seats. The
direction in 1995 was to have forty-eight seats.
The direction in 2003 was to have forty-eight seats.
The direction in 1983 was to have fifty-two.
The direction in 1973 was to have fifty-one.
So there has always been a direction provided by the legislation.
There was one exception to that.
Back in 1993 the legislation gave a it is an interesting one,
Mr. Speaker. I will spend a
bit of time talking about that one because in 1993 the legislation said
to the commission, we want you to go away and do your piece of work.
We want you to decide whether there should be forty-six, or there
should be forty, or forty-two, or forty-four.
So the commission was given an option in 1993.
At that time there was a Liberal Administration in place.
The commission spent a great deal of time, did its work, and did a
masterful piece of work, Mr. Speaker.
They took some time, talked to people, had some consultations,
and did a great analysis of the distribution of the population of the
Province. They came back and
said, based on your instructions, we are recommending that there be
forty-four seats in the Province forty-four seats.
That was the one and only time that a commission was given a choice of a
range; only one time of the six times this has happened.
Only one time was it given a range.
That was in 1993 with a Liberal Administration in place.
The commission, the justice involved chairing the commission,
together with the other members of the commission, produced a report and
said, we suggest that you have forty-four districts in this Province.
The Liberal Administration at that time said, we disagree with that.
We do not think there should be forty-four seats.
We are not going to accept your recommendation.
We do not think you did a good enough job.
We do not want anymore even though the legislation clearly said
pick forty-six, forty-two, forty, or forty-four, and they picked
forty-four. The Liberal
Administration at that time said, we do not want that; we disagree with
your total. Even though we
gave you the instructions to do that, we still disagree with you and we
are not going to accept your report.
We are going to throw it out, discard it, forget about it, ignore
it.
AN HON. MEMBER:
What year
was that?
MR. WISEMAN:
That was in 1993.
They needed to do it.
They still needed to have a boundaries commission do a piece of work.
Rather than have a piece of legislation like we are using here today to
guide a process, the government of that day, the Liberal Administration
of that day, the Premier and the Cabinet got together upstairs in the
Cabinet room. They went
upstairs on the eighth floor, got together around a Cabinet table, and
said chief justice I will not name the man so-and-so just did a
piece of work for us and we do not agree with it.
We are not going to accept it.
Do you know something? We
are not even going to go back into the Legislature and ask the
Legislature to amend the legislation to give a new direction.
We are going to arbitrarily take it upon ourselves, in a
strong-armed way, because we are the government, we are the Cabinet, and
I am the Premier. I am going
to decree I am going to issue an MC; I am going to issue a Minute of
Council.
I am going to ignore the House of Assembly.
I am going to ignore everybody down there who is elected whether
you are in government or whether you are in Opposition.
I do not really care what they think.
I am going to ignore what the Members of the House of Assembly
really think and what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador really
think because I am the Premier.
Me and my Cabinet are here, and we are going to decide what is
going to happen.
Do you know what they did? I
will tell you what they did now.
They issued a Minute of Council.
Do you know what they said?
They said: We are going to go out and pick another judge.
We are going to find a judge who might be more friendly to our
wishes, so we are going to pick a judge.
We are going to pick a judge and we are going to have that person
do what we tell him. Here is
what we are going to tell him: We want you Mr. New Judge to go out and
we want you to divide the Province up into forty-eight seats.
Ignore the forty-four, ignore the legislation, but I am giving
you a command. I am giving
you a command to run out today and carve this Province up into
forty-eight seats.
Ignore what anybody else tells you.
In fact, not only did they say ignore what everybody else tells
you, we do not want you to do any consultations.
What we want you to do is we want you to refer to what the last
group did. Whatever
consultations they did, that is enough; don't you bother to do any.
We want you to come back now Mr. Judge and do it quickly, too; do not
go wasting any time. Get
this done as fast as you can and get this back and only look at what we
are telling you. Carve the
Province up into forty-eight seats.
Ignore what the previous group did, and do not talk to anybody,
no consultation, and give us a report and then we will accept that.
This is our seventh time out doing this.
So, in our history we have only had one time back in 1993 under a
Liberal Administration where we had a very draconian, a very arbitrary
way of imposing on the people a process that was not founded in
legislation.
When I speak to the merits and the value of the legislation, Mr.
Speaker, I felt obligated to qualify that because the legislation has
not always been followed or adhered to
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER
(Littlejohn):
Order, please!
MR. WISEMAN:
because
somebody had arbitrarily decided that we were going to do it very
differently down the road.
Other than that, Mr. Speaker, this has been the process.
Since 1973 and I might add that was a Conservative government
who brought this legislation in, in 1973.
We have had a significant history of being guided in a process, a
legitimate process, using a piece of legislation that we are still
following today.
When members start talking about, in a cynical way, suggesting somehow
or other that this process is flawed or suggesting in some way that this
process has the chance of being manipulated by politicians, this is a
process that has been established since 1973.
Tried six times in the past.
One I acknowledged was flawed, but the other five were perfectly
in compliance with the piece of legislation.
A couple of things that we are doing slightly different this time is we
are looking at imposing a timeline on the commission to do their piece
of work. I say, Mr. Speaker,
let's think about the timeline that has been challenged and people are
suggesting maybe 120 days is too long a period of time to do the work.
Is it reasonable? Can
it be done in 120 days? If
you consider, Mr. Speaker, the task at hand, five bright, intelligent
people turning their head to a task supported by a capable, competent
staff, this is a piece of work that requires some great analytical
skills, some great statistical analysis, some mapping that needs to
occur.
Back in 1973 when this all started, and I suspect that probably up into
the mid-1990s, a lot of this was calculators and hand calculations and
trying to draw maps on drafting boards.
Today, Mr. Speaker, we have GISs.
We have all kinds of computing technologies and capabilities.
In fact, there are people in Crown Lands who do mapping all the
time. We have people in the
statistical branch of the Department of Finance who, on an ongoing
basis, are doing profiles of the Province in population forecast,
projections, and mapping the Province in many ways for many different
purposes. These are things
that we have a group of professional people doing this all of the time.
Engineering consulting firms around the Province have built tremendous
capacity in doing this type of work on an ongoing basis.
So there is tremendous capacity to support this kind of
initiative, but when you look at the 120 days what are we talking
about? Four months.
So there are four months to do this.
Let me just read for you a page from the 2006 report.
In 2006, the group of people who did the 2006 report, when they
finished the report, they had made a couple of comments.
They made a comment about the census information that they had
available to use, and they made a suggestion as to what should happen
when the next census information came out.
It is in that context that I want to cite from the report.
These are five people, chaired by the hon. John O'Neill, Chairperson,
just finished the piece of work that they had gone through.
They knew exactly what was involved.
They knew how long it took.
They knew what challenges they had.
They knew what technology they used.
They knew what supports they should have had or could have had
and would need to have, but with all of that, with that full knowledge
they say let me read, Mr. Speaker, and I quote as they suggest that
a new commission would look at this boundary issue when new census
information becomes available, and that they be charged with the
responsibility to provide its recommendations within six months
thereafter
.
The same five people who just spent months doing this piece of work
understands fully what is involved here, understands the scope of work,
the task, the challenges, the complexity.
They were confident in signing a paper, signing a report.
In fact, this sentence is right above their signatures; you could
not miss it right above their signatures.
They say that a future commission should be tasked with doing
this report and bringing forward its recommendations within not six
months, but within six months.
Now we have a group of people saying that this can be done within six
months. We are suggesting
here, appropriately resourced which it will be this is a piece of
work that this commission should be able to do within four months, or by
four months. We are going to
have a deadline of 120 days.
That is four months.
So you have one group saying within six so that is somewhere between
four and six.
It might be five; it might be five-and-a-half.
It might be four; it might be four-and-a-half.
We are saying we are going to resource it up.
We are going to make the technology available.
We are going to make the expertise available to do it within 120
days. It is doable, I say,
Mr. Speaker. This group of
people here said in fact, it is interesting, one of the people on this
was a former Liberal Premier.
Obviously he believed, at that time, that this work can be done
within six months or he would not have said it.
Mr. Speaker, that should be, to some degree, I suspect,
a comfort. It should be a
comfort to some people that this is a piece of work that obviously can
be done within six months.
We think it can be done in four.
The changes here are not huge in terms of the time frame.
Let's recap now before we move on too far.
We have the same independent process of a commissioner appointed
by the chief justice of the appeal court.
We have four other people appointed by the Speaker.
We all know how the Speaker gets the names, from nominations from
the three parties in this House the same process as in the past.
They will be adequately provided with resources.
They have to report to the Justice Minister.
The Justice Minister will table the report in the House of
Assembly. That is all mapped
out in the current legislation.
What else are we changing?
What else is unique this time in 2015 than would it normally be?
This came up in Question Period today because there was a
question from a member opposite that would seem to suggest that we are
wasting a lot of money. Why
are we doing this? We do not
need to be doing this. This
is something that we ordinarily would not do, so this is going to be new
money. In times of
restraint, why are we spending it?
I just want to repeat, I guess, the answer that I gave
in Question Period. This is
a piece of legislation. This
act exists and we are not going to break the law.
We are not going to break the rules.
It does not matter who sits in this House.
We are going to follow the law.
We are going to follow the rules.
This law says that in 2016 this is going to happen.
It will happen again in 2026.
It is going to happen anyway.
This is something that we would have had to build on for next
year. It was an event that
was going to occur.
All we said given the fact that all political parties
have said we think that the House can function with less people than
currently exists, on that premise then why don't we go ahead and do it
today? We have an election
coming up and I will speak to this in a moment.
There seems to be a pre-occupation with the notion that the
election will not happen in 2015.
No one has said that.
I am not sure where they got that idea, who dreamt that one up.
No one has said that the election was not going to be in 2015.
So again, they are fabricating information to try to give an
impression that there is some cynical reasons for us wanting to make
this change in the legislation.
We are still going to have an election in 2015.
So what we have said is: Boys, if everybody agrees that
we have too many of us here, then maybe we should, rather than wait
until 2016 after the 2015 election because that is what will happen.
If we did not do this today we would have an election the fall,
we would elect forty-eight people; in 2016, the commission would be put
in place and recommend a reduction of seats.
So let's say they picked six seats, or seven seats, or eight
seats it does not matter, seven or eight seats.
A new commission in 2016 says: Boys, forty-eight too many; you
should only have forty-two.
Now, they look around and said we just redrafted the
boundaries and six of you are gone.
So we will have six MHAs sitting in this House and the
commissioner just said: Oh, by the way, you are redundant; we do not
need you anymore. Go back
home and tell your constituents that you are done; you are finished.
You are going to sit around for the next two or three years,
collect a pay cheque, but you are really finished.
Because in the next election in 2019, you are not going to be
there; you are going home.
So you have MHAs sitting here in the House, lame ducks.
The commissioner just said: Guys, you have two or three
years here, but you are no longer wanted, you are not needed, so you
might as well go home. We
have been paying you on the debt, and you are accumulating a pension,
and all that stuff, costing taxpayers' money.
So what are you doing here?
What we are saying is why don't we do this in 2015
before the 2015 election?
The operative point here is before please listen before the 2015
election, because we are still planning a 2015 election.
That is not changing.
This bill does not say we are going to move the election date.
That is a whole different act.
There is another piece of legislation on the books that says when
the elections are going to be held.
That spells out the fixed term election.
That is not the bill we are dealing with here; that is a whole
different act altogether.
So, we are still talking about a 2015 election.
What we are saying is rather than do this in 2019, why don't we
do it in readiness for a 2015 election?
Why don't we do that?
We have said that we believe that thirty-eight people provide and I
will comment on the rationale for that in a moment.
We are saying that there would be thirty-eight people in the
House.
So, ten people, there should be ten fewer MHAs.
Over the course of the next four years, by doing this, it makes a
whole lot of sense for a lot of reasons; but, in so doing, we have ten
MHAs with their constituency offices and their constituency assistants
and all the expense of operating our offices all worthwhile
expenditures, but really over the course of the next four years, we will
spend about $10 million that will be paying for ten MHAs who will be
redundant. Does that make a
whole lot of sense? Probably
not.
Add that now to what I just said a moment ago which is,
half way through the term the next time out, a commission is going to
produce a report because now remember, we are saying thirty-eight, but
everybody else, all the other parties, have said there should be less.
So it does not matter who sits in this House in the next session.
Everybody is in agreement it is going to be something less.
So, we reasonably assume, given that everybody wants it, that the
commission in 2016, if it were to go ahead as planned, as previously
scheduled, would come up with a number less than forty-eight.
So there will be so many MHAs sitting in this House
after the 2016 report knowing that they are redundant.
You have no purpose.
You are getting paid. What
are you going to do? Your
district and your constituents have been told that you are redundant.
You are no longer needed.
You are extra. One of
those days you are going to have to go home.
It is like getting a three-year layoff notice.
That is what it is like, only you are going to get a pay cheque.
How productive are you?
How beneficial are you?
You are a lame duck.
There are lots of sound reasoning for the timing of
this. Those people who think
this is some sinister move to try to advance the election out in 2016
that is not happening. If
that was our plan, if it was our plan to move the election out to 2016,
do you know what we would have to do?
We would have to bring in another bill, a totally different bill
than this one. We would have
to bring in a totally different bill and we would be amending another
piece of legislation. We
cannot go out and have an election beyond the stipulated date in the
current legislation. If we
wanted to do that, we would be in here amending that.
We are not doing that.
We are here now debating a bill that allows us to
expedite a process that is going to happen anyway.
We are not dreaming up something brand new.
This is expediting a process to make it happen in 2015 rather
than 2016, and in the process, make this House equally as efficient as
it is now, rightsize the number of MHAs that need to be here.
Obviously, if I am saying rightsizing, I think I have concurrence
with everybody in the House because we are all in agreement that we
should be less than what we now have.
So this exercise can truly be described as a
rightsizing of the membership in the House of Assembly, rightsizing the
number of electoral districts in the Province.
There is no debate, no argument about that.
Members of the Opposition are nodding their heads up and down.
I assume it is in concurrence; they agree with me.
So, obviously, I am making some sense.
Let's look at some other aspects of the bill that are important for
people to understand. This
is not in Bill 42, but I want to go back to the legislation itself,
because one of the key things that have come up in this discussion is,
why thirty-eight? Why not
forty? Why not fifty?
Why not thirty-five?
Where did we get the number?
Why is thirty-eight such a magical number?
Do you know something? There
is nothing necessarily magical about thirty-eight.
The word magical is not necessarily the appropriate term to use.
It is appropriateness.
What is appropriate?
What is reasonable? How do
you measure appropriateness?
How do you measure reasonableness?
Some of it might be somewhat subjective, but at the same time you
have to use some degree of objectivity.
So you need to look at the profile of Newfoundland and Labrador,
and look at the profile of other jurisdictions in the country.
How does the rest of the world work?
We are living in a great nation, Canada.
We have provinces and territories.
They do the same thing we do.
They have Legislatures just like we do.
They have elections just like we do.
They elect members.
They have a fixed number of seats.
They have a process in their House to determine the number of
seats that exist. They do
the same thing we are doing.
How do they do it? How do
they pick a number? Where
does that come up from? So
we had a look at what is happening around the country.
When you look at Newfoundland and Labrador, for example, and say we have
forty-eight seats, how many voters are in each seat?
How many people live there?
What is the census?
There is a difference, the number of people who live there.
They are not all voters.
There are lots of children there under the age of voting, so
there is a difference. There
are two things: how many voters live there, and how many people live
there?
When we started looking at Newfoundland and Labrador and we started
looking at districts that have 7,000, 7,400, 6,500, 3,800, districts of
3,100, districts of 11,000, districts of 7,800.
We have a range; another one of 2,100.
We have a range.
These are voters. We have a
range of voters throughout our Province in our districts.
There is a huge discrepancy from the highest to the lowest.
Some districts are quite small geographically; some districts are
quite large geographically.
So we have diversity.
Is that inconsistent with what other provinces have?
Look at maybe the rest of Atlantic Canada, what do they have?
What number of people do they have?
Look at places like New Brunswick and say, well, if I lived in
New Brunswick today I would be looking at my Legislature has forty-nine
members. They have 750,000
people and they have 15,330 people per district.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible) is a smaller province.
MR. WISEMAN:
One member just
shouted from the other side and said a smaller province.
You are absolutely right.
Geographically, we are a huge Province.
Just think about a province, though, that is not totally
dissimilar. We are unique,
we are different. There is
no one else in Canada like us in many ways, geographically as well.
If you look at one province where there is some similarity if you look
at Saskatchewan, and if you look at the population density in
Saskatchewan versus the population density in Newfoundland and Labrador.
In Newfoundland and Labrador we have 1.4 people living per every
square kilometre. In
Saskatchewan they have 1.7 people.
It is not a huge difference, but a difference.
I will acknowledge there is a difference.
Let's look at Saskatchewan.
Remember, I just read out some of the sizes of the electoral districts
in Newfoundland and Labrador.
New Brunswick is probably not a good comparison.
The member opposite said that was not a good comparison, so I
will skip over New Brunswick, but the data is the same.
It is very similar in terms of comparison.
Let's look at Saskatchewan, if that is the one that he wants to jump to.
We will jump to Saskatchewan.
Over in Saskatchewan they have 1 million people, almost double
what we have. Yes, close to
double actually, 1,033,000.
They have fifty-eight seats.
Eight more seats than we have, and there are 17,000 people on average
per district out there.
Keep in mind, I just read out the number of voters in Newfoundland and
Labrador using numbers like 7,500, 7,400, 6,500, 8,400, 3,100, 2,100
voters per district. I am
going to Saskatchewan now and I am going to look at that same province.
I am looking at numbers like 9,500, 9,800, and 10,000.
In fact, the smallest one has 6,500 voters.
I can go through every province in the country; I can share them all
with you. You do not want to
hear that. You have probably
already done the research. I
suspect members opposite have already done the research.
I bet you they have the same document in their hands as I have
here. I bet they have.
With all the money they have for researchers, they must be doing
something.
They are up there now, Mr. Speaker, and they have the same information
we have. Members of the
Opposition know today that we have on average, whether you measure it in
population per district or whether you measure it in voters per
district; we have a number smaller than many jurisdictions in the entire
country.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. WISEMAN:
We have that
established. If you take
Newfoundland and Labrador and you use thirty-eight seats as the measure
and then you recalculate the numbers, where does that put us with the
rest of Canada? It does not
change our standing any or it does not make us number one or number two
or number three. We are
still relative to the rest of the country.
We are still in the same standing, but we have made a huge
difference in terms of that gap we have closed.
This is not an exercise of closing gaps.
This is not an exercise of mathematically equating to some other
province but it is a measure of reasonableness.
It is a measure of fairness.
It is a measure of providing reasonable and appropriate
representation for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, so every
Newfoundlander and Labradorian has their interest represented in this
House of Assembly by members who are elected here.
They have their representation, and there is some equality in
that representation, Mr. Speaker.
That speaks to one of the other pieces that have come up with some
criticism. I said earlier,
this is the seventh time we are doing this.
If you take each of the other times this has been done, the other
six times this has been done, it was guided by a piece of legislation
just like this time. We are
being guided by legislation, not manufacturing anything, not creating
something, not doing as the Liberals did in 1995, which is an issue at
MC. We are doing it by the
legislation. We are doing it
by the books.
Mr. Speaker, during that process each of those pieces of legislation,
each of those times, laid out very specific direction to the commission
on a couple of areas. One
was the number of seats; we have already had that discussion.
The second thing was around the seat in Torngat Mountains.
This legislation says there will be a seat.
The word Torngat Mountain is not in there.
It describes it geographically as being north of Lake Melville,
but we all would recognize it in this House.
The Member for Torngat Mountains is sitting in the House.
Everybody here would recognize the description in the legislation
as clearly describing the district now known as Torngat Mountains.
The communities in that district are all part of a now we have a new
Legislature in that area as well, representing the people in those
communities. This district
has been identified as a district that will retain a seat.
In fact, it was in the 1993 legislation.
It was in the 1995, it was in the 2003, it was in the 2006, and
it is there today in the proposed legislation.
There is one slight change, and this is an area where there has been
some debate and some discussion.
Members from Labrador have been particularly interested in
this particular area.
It is important for the people of the Province and the people of
the Legislature to have an appreciation and an understanding of the
nuances around having a fixed number of seats in Labrador.
If you look at the history of the Province, in 1993, in
1995, and in 2003, it was never stated in the legislation that there
would be four seats in Labrador.
It was stated in 2006, the number of seats were staying at
forty-eight. So the
direction in the legislation in 2006 was there will be forty-eight
seats, and you will keep the four seats in Labrador.
That was clearly spelled out in the legislation.
Now, here is a bit of challenge facing a Legislature.
All of us here, as a Legislature, we face many challenges lots of
times. We find ourselves in
the House making decisions, called upon to pass legislation, called upon
to make changes. Governments
are called upon to make challenging decisions sometimes, and it is
incumbent upon all of us to look at those decisions and our
responsibility in an objective fashion, to be guided by something.
Is there laws of the land that should guide us?
Are there precedents that we should be guided by?
Are there unique circumstances that we should be guided by?
These are all things that we, as legislators, have a
responsibility to give consideration to.
One of the things that we all have to be mindful of, as
Canadians as Canadians, we live in a great country, and there are
certain laws of the land that guide all of us.
There are certain laws that exist that supersede what our
Legislatures may do, and certain authorities we have as legislators to
pass certain legislation here.
That is an unfettered responsibility, an authority we have.
It is not totally unfettered; it is fettered to some degree by
the Constitution. We cannot
pass legislation in this House that will be contrary to the Constitution
of Canada, for example. We
just cannot do it.
Members opposite who are lawyers by profession will
acknowledge that they run into this frequently, where they go to court
and they challenge decisions on the basis of the Charter.
They challenge the constitutionality of provincial statute on the
basis of the Charter. It
happens all of the time.
There are all kinds of Charter challenges that members who are in the
law profession find themselves arguing in a court of law.
One of the things that we have to be guided by, and I
bring members' attention to a section I said earlier that Bill 42
amends a piece of legislation.
That piece of legislation I want to bring members' attention to
it it is under the section 15 of the current act, 15.1.
It deals with the rules to guide the commission.
There is a principle at play here and that principle is embedded
in the Charter, that one person's vote is no worse or no more valuable,
or no less valuable than the next person's vote.
Simply expressed and I will try to give that some
definition. If I live in a
district where there are 10,000 people, then my vote has value; but if I
live in a district where there are only 2,000 people, then my vote is
seen as having a greater value.
Remember I said earlier about the process that is laid
out in the legislation. We
tell the commission that there will be forty-eight or thirty-eight, or
whatever the number is this time we happen to say there will be
thirty-eight seats. Now,
what is the quotient? Take
the number of people who live in the Province, divide it by the
thirty-eight and that will tell you the quotient.
We then say to the commission in the legislative by
the way, this is not a precise science, so we know you are not going to
get 10,522 in every district.
Mathematically you cannot do that.
So what we will do is we will give you an ability to use a
tolerance of plus or minus 10 per cent.
Then we will say because there are some uniqueness,
we have geographic issues, we have a bunch of other considerations that
we want to make sure that you have flexibility to acknowledge, so we say
to you, you are automatically given the latitude of plus or minus 10 per
cent when you start carving up the Province.
Firstly, you do the math, determine your quotient; and then,
secondly, once you have that quotient, by virtue of definition, that is
the number you work with.
Now, try to get as close to that number in each district as you can.
You know it is not possible in an absolute way, so we will allow
you to go plus or minus 10 per cent on any given district.
There is going to be a scattered district where you are
going to have to have a real challenge.
You know there is a unique geography; you know that there is
something unique about that area that makes it different.
We will allow you in that instance to go plus or minus 25 per
cent. That is built into the
act. You are allowed to do
that. The commissioner has
the responsibility or the authority, rather, to do that and has the
flexibility to be able to do that.
That is the flexibility that you get.
There is another thing that we need to be careful of.
That is what this bill says already.
The commission has the flexibility to do that.
Could you give the commission more authority?
Could you say listen, put the boundaries where you want.
Whatever you think is right carve them up.
It does not make any difference about what the population numbers
are in each district.
Whatever looks right and whatever communities of interest, whatever
clusters of communities makes sense to jam in one district, go ahead and
do it.
Is that reasonable?
Some might say yes, that sounds sensible because there are people
who historically connect with each other.
There are regions of the Province where there is a connection and
historic connection. Kids go
to the same school, they shop in the same stores, and they use the same
service centre. There might
be some logic to that.
There is another consideration and that is the Charter.
I want to read you it because this is something that was not on
the radar screen back in 1973 when this legislation was developed.
It was not on the radar screen when it was done in the 1980s, but
it became a factor in the early 1990s.
It is interesting because there was a case in
Saskatchewan in 1991 that happened just before because in our
legislation here I said that in 1973 and in 1983 there was an explicit
reference to four seats in Labrador.
It was not a coincidence that it got taken out in 1993.
It was not a coincidence at all.
It grew from a decision in Saskatchewan that went to the Supreme
Court.
I want to read something to you because it is an
important consideration.
This is not about someone having a desire or no desire to have X number
of seats in Labrador, or X number of seats on the West Coast or the
South Coast. That is not the
issue here. We have certain
parameters that we need to give consideration to.
One of those parameters is rooted in the Charter and it
is a general principle here.
There have been some constitutional challenges to the distribution of
districts. The one in
Saskatchewan happened to go to the Supreme Court, but there have been
other court challenges. It
happened in the Northwest Territories.
It happened in Alberta.
It did not make it all way to the Supreme Court, but Saskatchewan
did.
The constitutional challenges to electoral distribution are addressed
under section 3 of the Charter.
Under that reference to the Supreme Court by that Saskatchewan
case I am citing from that ruling.
The purpose of the right to vote in section 3 of the Charter is
not equality of the voting power per se, but the right to effective
representation. The court
held that one condition of effective representation is the relative I
am quoting here now parity of voting power.
A system which dilutes one citizen's vote unduly, as compared to
another citizen's, runs the risk of providing inadequate representation
to the citizen whose vote is diluted.
The parity of voting power, although of prime importance, is not
the only factor.
It goes on to talk about how the courts are cautious about unduly
interfering with the process of legislations like ours trying to bring
in electoral form in defining boundaries.
Here is the challenge.
If we find ourselves passing legislation in this House today, and
whose very language in the legislation serves to dilute the power of one
vote versus the other, courts have said they are prepared remember I
said that we are going to give the commission the latitude to
automatically use plus or minus 10 per cent, and we have a special
provision in there that says we will give you plus or minus 25 per cent?
The courts have taken it upon themselves to use about 50 per cent
as a tolerance. When you
find that you are going to carve up your province in a way where one
district ends up with 50 per cent less than the average, then you have
diluted the vote of one of those districts.
When we say we are going to start placing parameters in the legislation
that says you must have four, five, six, whatever the number is, you
must have a fixed number of seats in one region of the Province.
When you do that we could pick the West Coast.
We could pick Central.
We could pick Labrador.
As soon as you do that, you put a parameter around the work that
the commission is forced to do.
That potentially sets it up to be running afoul with the Charter.
Once that happens, the very thing you are concerned about in the House
is making sure that we have an election in 2015, but if you create a
circumstance where through legislation you give a commission a power to
develop a set of boundaries in this Province that sets it up to run
afoul with the Charter, you run the risk of having a Charter challenge
on the constitutionality of your boundaries and how you have actually
assigned vote and the value of that vote for one individual.
That is what you have done.
Once you do that, we set the stage then to have someone challenge our
ability to carry out an election with those boundaries.
That is what you do, Mr. Speaker.
One of the delicate pieces of work for us to do in this House is
when we contemplate legislation, when we consider creating laws to
govern how we do things, we need to be cognizant of the parameters in
which we are legally bound to operate.
Provincial Legislatures can do many things.
There is great power in this House.
We pass legislation all the time that govern people, that affects
the lives of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian.
We do it on a regular basis, but we do not have an unfettered
right to do that. We have to
consider and be cognizant of the Charter, people's constitutional
rights. We cannot do
something in this House that tramples on the constitutional rights of
any Newfoundlander and Labradorian, because if we do, that is the
challenges that go to the Supreme Court.
We need to be careful that in developing a piece of legislation
here and giving a set of parameters for a commission to work within, we
cannot ignore that.
I say, Mr. Speaker, it was no coincidence that it was not that
Saskatchewan ruling goes back to 1991.
It is coincidental that in 1993 onward, that the reference to the
four seats in Labrador was not included, with the exception of 2006.
If you notice in the current legislation, and many might debate
whether or not it should or should not have been in there then, because
the same caution was there.
In the 2006 amendment that was made, it was very clear that the
reference to four seats in Labrador only applied to the 2006 election.
It came out immediately after.
As soon as the election was over, that provision came out of the
legislation. Because it says
clearly: For the purposes of the commission's report in 2006.
It does not embed it.
It has not been entrenched in the legislation that it will follow
through forever, and future commissions.
It is very specific.
It made a very specific reference to one report, the 2006 report.
After that report came in, the reference to four seats in Labrador, for
all intents and purposes, disappeared out of the act.
It had no purpose in the act.
It was like having a sunset clause.
An event had occurred, the 2006 report was tabled.
That event triggered the elimination of that provision.
To make a conscious decision to insert it again at a time I suspect
that in 2006 when it was embedded there, someone said: Well, we are not
reducing the number of seats, we are not going to trigger any
realignment. So it is kind
of a benign thing to do. We
will leave four seats in Labrador because it will have zero effect.
No one else is being any more disadvantaged or advantaged than
they were yesterday.
In an exercise where you are reducing the number of seats, you do
trigger an event, you do trigger a recalculation.
You do trigger a recalculation, and when you do that, obviously,
people start to think about, where am I relative to the other person?
I end up in a seat that has 10,000 voters; someone else ends up
in a seat with 4,000 or 5,000.
That sets you up then for a variance of more than 50 per cent.
I have said our legislation provides for, and courts have accepted it,
plus or minus 10 per cent.
They have acknowledged plus or minus 25 per cent as being reasonable.
In their own deliberations they have not fixed it, but have
tended to look at 50 per cent as being a reasonable calculation.
As soon as you have more than 50 per cent deviation from that
quotient, then you have set yourself up for a Charter challenge.
So we need to be cognizant of that.
We need to be very much aware of that as legislators in the
House.
There is a lot of debate around many of those aspects of this bill.
It is one where, we talked about the timing.
I want to reiterate a couple of things I said at the beginning.
This is a piece of legislation that ensures we have in place, and
we have set the wheels in motion, to ensure that we are still able to
have a 2015 election no change.
This bill does not do that.
It puts the wheels in motion to ensure that we do, in 2015,
something that is going to be done anyway in 2016.
This is not a new exercise.
We are not inventing something new to do because we want to create a job
for someone. This is
something that is going to happen in 2016.
We are just saying let's do it in 2015.
In the process, we will do what everybody wants to do, which is
to reduce the number of seats in this House, rightsize the number of
people who should be in the House of Assembly, rightsize the number of
districts, and rightsize the number of MHAs who need to exist in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
We are not deviating from a process that is already well entrenched and
embedded in legislation. It
was acceptable for the last six times it happened.
The commissioner is appointed.
The commission membership is appointed.
The work that they do is the same.
The independence of action, the independence of thinking, no
change from what currently exists, nothing new, nothing different.
It is very fundamentally the same kind of process.
There are a couple of things here that people have been a lot of
discussion around is the issue of the cynical view that this is an
attempt to extend a mandate.
It is nothing further from the truth.
The issue around the Labrador number, the four seats in Labrador,
I understand it. I do not
live in Labrador I acknowledge, but I clearly understand that a region
of the Province has historically had four seats.
When the number of seats were fifty-two and forty-eight, was this
quotient issue a problem?
With a reduction in the number of seats now, there is an issue here that
we need to be cognizant of.
It is an issue that we cannot lose sight of.
If we set the stage by passing legislation in this House that
puts us in a position where our own legislation that we vote on in this
House puts us in a spot where we are contrary to the Charter and could
subject the Province to a Charter challenge, what would effectively
happen?
Someone petitions the court and you people who are lawyers know this
better than I do and then we cannot conduct an election because we now
have a court injunction that prohibits us from conducting the election
until the issue is heard.
What does that do? That
creates a greater challenge, a greater difficulty for us to be able to
advance and hold a democratic election like we had committed to like the
current fixed term elections suggest that we must do in 2015.
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken for some time.
Hopefully I have covered off most of the issues that will be
dealt with in this bill. As
we move through into Committee, no doubt, there will be lots of
opportunity for me to respond to questions and issues that arise.
I look forward to it.
This is an important debate.
It is a very important issue facing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
I look forward to listening to members on both sides of this House
contribute to this discussion, make meaningful contribution to this
critical piece of legislation, important piece of legislation.
Members have suggested they have proposed amendments later on in
Committee. I look forward to
hearing that, seeing that, answering questions, and continuing to
contribute to the debate.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to introduce this
bill and to make some opening comments for the people of the
Legislature.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you,
Mr. Speaker.
I am happy to have the opportunity to stand as an MHA in this House and
speak to this piece of legislation.
It is obvious this a very important, fundamental piece of
legislation that right now, as we all know, it is important to not only
everybody in this room, but everybody across the Province, because we
are talking about people's ability to have functional representation.
Now, I believe, as the House Leader and as the Opposition MHA
responsible for Justice, which is the department that carries this bill,
that I have an hour. So I
look forward to exercising enough time to speak about this and taking my
time. I have a lot of
different points that I am going to make.
Now, I apologize in advance.
Sometimes you get excited, and sometimes you skip past where you
want to be, and you go backwards but I think the general crux of my
feelings on this will certainly get out there.
So, to those out there listening, again, this is probably strange for
people they are not used to seeing the House open in the month of
January. It is certainly
very strange, the first time I have been there and I do not know if
the House has been open in January at any point in the last number of
years. I believe it might
have been 1974, so I do not mind saying that was before my time.
Now, we are here today to debate Bill 42.
Bill 42 is An Act to Amend the Electoral Boundaries Act.
I think what I am going to try to do, first off, is to explain to
people why we are here, what it is we are debating the bill itself
and then the purpose of this new amendment which is coming forward.
So, I mean, people can look at it I have said this on many occasions.
We have sat here with some bills that are absolutely huge in
size, but in terms of the effect on people, sometimes it is not so much.
In terms of size, this amendment is absolutely tiny it is only
four pages but it is absolutely huge in how it will affect
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
That is why I think I am going to take my time.
I am going to take my time because I do not want to rush it.
I do not want to rush it because I would like to do it right.
That is the thing that people in this Province, I think, would
like to see.
Now, just so people know and again, I am going to put this out in
layman's terms every ten years there is a commission that is
appointed; it is independent.
You get the political influence out of it; it is independent.
An independent chairperson, usually a Supreme Court Justice, they
come in and look at the boundaries of our electorate.
Right now, we have forty-eight.
Years and years and years ago and I have a big chart here
showing how many seats we have had all through the years.
At one point, I believe, just not that long ago, I think it was
fifty-two, then it went to forty-eight.
At some point, it was lower than that.
It changes based on the distribution of the population.
It does not change, obviously, based on our geography, because
our geography has not changed, but population is moving about.
I am assuming that it changes
on the evolution of technology and the ability of Members of the House
of Assembly to do their job and for people to have access to their
representation.
I am sure there is going to be a lot of debate on both sides of this
House about what we as MHAs do.
Let me put it out there quite clearly that, again, I am not
fundamentally opposed to a reduction in MHAs.
I am not opposed. I
think that it can be reduced.
Make no mistake where I stand on this.
I think it can be reduced.
I think our leader is on the record as of March 2013 saying yes,
I think it could be down to forty, it could be less, but I would let the
commission have a look at it.
When he said have a look at it, he meant 2016 because that is
when the next one was scheduled.
Going back to people this commission happens every ten years.
Every ten years it happens.
You cannot be doing it all the time because it does cost money,
it does take time, and there is really no need to be doing it.
Again, I have no problem with that; ten years was the period of
time that was agreed to, that was what they said we are going to do.
The last one happened in 2006.
The next one was scheduled for 2016, so let me say first off that
I think the Minister of Finance said: Well, we are not changing
anything; we are following the law.
Well, I disagree. We
are fundamentally changing the law. You
are speeding it up a year.
That is a fundamental change when you do something.
Again, let me put my disagreement on the record there.
Maybe my opinion is wrong, but I think when you change something
and you speed it up from what it was originally planned to be and it
was this government that planned it, so they have changed where they
wanted to go and why they want to do it.
Okay, so everybody out there if they are watching, my constituents out
in the District of Burgeo La Poile if they are watching they are
saying: Okay, so they are in there because there is going to be a
reduction. They have to
debate this reduction.
The first thing is that it was supposed to be looked at next year, but
they are in there now debating it.
Okay, that seems odd.
Well, why would they be in there now debating it?
Why wouldn't you wait because the general progression and
again, this was established by another piece of legislation that this
government brought forward which was fixed election dates.
I believe it originated sometime after 2003 when the new
government came in and they were upset that the Premier, who was elected
by the party, was there and they said: No, he should only have a certain
period of time, we have to have an election, and it has to go to the
people.
So, they said: We are going to have fixed election date.
They brought in that legislation.
We had a fixed election date.
The first election I ran in the only election I have run in
was October 2011. That was a
fixed election date; everybody knew it.
They knew it was coming and knew what to expect.
I think the next election was supposed to be the second Tuesday
in October 2015, so that is coming soon.
That is only nine months away; that is not that far away.
The funny part is that we have gone sort of astray from a fixed
election. Again, we know
that there is supposed to be an election in October 2015, and there was
supposed to be a commission the following year that would look at the
boundaries. There are a
couple of things that have changed the course of why we are here.
The first thing that changed this course was the goings on, the
occurrences of 2014. Now,
one year ago, this month, we had the resignation I cannot say of the
previous Premier, but the previous, previous Premier.
I can say her name because I believe you are allowed to reference
ex-Premiers. I have heard it
done with Brian Tobin and I have heard it done with Danny Williams.
So, that was Kathy Dunderdale.
Ms Dunderdale resigned in January 2014.
That triggered us because we knew then that the governing party
would have to pick a new leader and, hence, a new Premier of the
Province. Again, going by
the law that they brought in, they said it is not fair for that person
to have any more than a year because that is not what the people want.
This is their law; everybody abides by it.
What we found out then, though, is it is not strictly a year just to
go through where we are now.
That was January; so one would assume, first looking at it, that it
would have been January 2015 that there would have been that is what
most people thought, but then when you look at the law it says no, it is
a year from the selection of the new Premier.
With the selection of the new Premier, we actually had Mr.
Marshall who came in as the interim Premier.
We all knew Mr. Marshall himself said: Look, I am taking this,
and I will be here until the next Premier comes in.
Now, we found out again and this is all relevant to where we are
today. In March 2014, we
found out that the party decided and they had to decide because there
was only one person that Mr. Coleman was going to be Premier.
Nobody on that side wanted it, or took the job, or made the
application. There were two
other people who were interested who were outside and they left for
reasons that we maybe speculate why.
One person thought it was fixed, and the other person was booted
out of it.
One person, Mr. Coleman, was the Premier designate.
We knew that, I believe, in March or April sometime.
Maybe my timeline is getting a little delayed here.
We knew that was coming.
We knew that Frank Coleman was going to be the Premier.
The question then became when he is going to be Premier, because
at that point the one year starts.
Believe me, everybody in this Province, no matter if they are
political or not political is wondering when it is going to happen,
because we would like to know when we are going to have a new Premier.
We would like to know when we are going to have stability.
That is what they wanted to know.
We know that things went a little topsy-turvy and then all of a sudden
the Premier designate who I would remind people and I think this is
relevant cast out the biggest part of the Premier's Office staff.
He was making decisions.
Decisions were made, but after that changed his mind and walked
away.
Then, we went back to Premier Marshall.
I always think and I hate to be facetious here, but it reminds me
of that movie The Godfather Part
III because Tom Marshall, every time that he tried to get out they
pulled him back in. He even
said he was trying to get out.
We are back to Premier Marshall and then we find out that the party is
going to have another leadership convention.
I think there was one scheduled for July which, if Mr. Coleman
had stayed there so we would be looking at a July 2015 general
election. That is how the
law would work. Mr. Coleman
walked away and Mr. Marshall came back, and a new convention was set up
for September.
That happened and now we all know how that went.
We know that our current Premier, the Member for Topsail won
that. He won that by one
vote. I think the term I
heard was no clear majority at first, but that is neither here nor
there. The fact is that the
current Premier took over in September of 2014, meaning we should have a
general election in September 2015.
The funny part is that is still not set in stone.
There was some talk that the election could occur before.
We might have a spring election.
We might have a summer election.
We might have a fall election.
Right now there is the possibility that with this piece of
legislation who knows when it is going to be, because the Premier
himself said today as he said before: I would like to see it in 2015,
but I am not closing the door on 2016.
The other thing that the Premier said today was that he would hate to
see us delay this piece of legislation.
He would hate to see us delay it because he wants a 2015
election. Do you know what?
So do I, so do my constituents, so do all of the constituents.
That is what they were promised, that was what the law said, that
is what they would like to see, and that is how this works.
Again, he is saying do not delay the legislation do not delay it.
Now, two things I would say on that.
Number one, there is a big difference between delaying
legislation and actually reading it, debating and making sure it is done
right. There is a big
difference. The word
filibuster has been tossed around.
I am not subscribing to that word, but I am a legislator, as is
everybody in this House, and our job is to read legislation, our job is
to understand it, our job is to consult, our job is to talk to people
and it is to come in here and debate this.
That occurs with notice, first reading, second reading,
Committee, and third reading.
It takes time.
Legislation takes time.
For the Premier to suggest that we are trying to delay it by debating,
it suggests that the Premier does not understand the purpose of the
House of Assembly and our roles.
That is what it suggests.
Now, I have that said. The
second part is, let's talk about why we might want to take our time.
There are a couple of reasons.
Let's look at the timeline.
This came out last Monday.
This was when the issue popped out on the public's radar; it came
out. I think it was Thursday
the Premier talked about it.
Friday, it was announced that the House was going to open.
Friday afternoon I believe it was is when we found out and
everybody in here made their arrangements to get back here to the House
of Assembly. Whether you
were from Labrador, Port aux Basques, Corner Brook or wherever, you have
to get in here. On Saturday
morning we got the bill. On
Monday morning we had a briefing.
I will note that the briefing is done with the Department of Justice;
yet it is the Minister of Finance that is leading the bill.
The minister responsible for money is handling the bill.
The minister of the Justice department is not here.
We had the briefing at 10:00 o'clock.
We had the briefing, both parties were here, both Opposition
Parties were there, staff was there, we looked it over, we talked, and I
asked questions. One
question I asked that I could not get the answer to, but maybe the
answer could be provided. I
said: When did you start drafting this legislation?
The response I received in that meeting was, ask the minister.
That is the first one.
Now the second one
AN HON. MEMBER:
Ask the
Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Actually,
they said no, ask the minister.
I said which one?
Now the second part of this, let's not forget this.
That was one bill, one copy of the bill.
Later that day this was yesterday, sorry.
A half hour before the House opened we received a new bill with
changes in it. We have since
been assured that they were typos, but there were changes in the
legislation. The question we
have then is, well, we better go over this with a fine-tooth comb
because what else has changed?
What else is changed in this fundamental piece of legislation?
What else is there?
We have to take our time to look this over and make sure it is right
because we do not want to rush this.
I am going to talk about what rushing gets us now in a second.
We are taking our time, we are looking this over.
We have since been assured that it was a typo.
We have reviewed it.
I hear one of the members over on the other side saying rush or rushing,
I am not sure. I am going to
talk about that now so we are ready to go today.
The reason we do not want to rush it is because rushing gets you
a new mill. Rushing gets you
a mill that carries humungous, hundreds of million-dollar environmental
liabilities. That is what it
gets us.
We are doing this to save $2.5 million this year.
We rush through a bill and I am not blaming government.
I am not blaming anyone, but it happened.
We have a mill and we are responsible for the environmental
liabilities, which I understand could be in the range of $250 million
because the survey was done wrong.
Why was the survey done wrong?
Because it was rushed, it was rushed.
What else does rushing get us?
Again, let's go to something that maybe is not as popular.
Let's go to the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act.
I was happy to debate it; I have drafted plenty of them.
We had An Act to Amend the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act.
We took our time, we looked through it.
We made a number of suggestions, but it was put through.
Do you know what we debated in the session after?
An Act to Amend An Act to Amend the Enduring Powers of Attorney
Act, because we did not take our time.
That one there, I think if I recall correctly, what I was told in
the briefing it did not actually affect any individuals.
No individual was hurt by that, as opposed to how many
individuals are doing without because we are on the hook for
environmental liabilities.
Let's go to something else that was rushed, and we took our time and did
it right. Something else
that was rushed was and I know the crowd on the other side does not
want to hear this Bill 29.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Relevance?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Believe me, Bill 29 is pretty relevant.
Bill 29 is pretty relevant, I can guarantee you that.
Bill 29 was dropped on a Monday.
In that case there was a filibuster.
The biggest part of it was because it was dropped on us, we had
to do the review and we had to look through it.
That had a number of substantial reviews.
That had sections, that had a substantial amount of information,
and we had to look through the recommendations.
We had to look through a lot of it.
I guess what I am talking about, to make it simple, is if government had
actually taken their time and thought it out, they would not have ended
up in here with that bill that they pounded through, and they would not
have ended up having to spend money on a Bill 29 review committee.
We had three esteemed individuals who came in and chaired that
committee which we are waiting on the report back now.
I can guarantee you, they were likely remunerated for their
efforts because their time is valuable, and that costs money.
That costs money because, why could we have not done this in
time.
I look at the Premier's Health Summit which went out and talked to
people. I have my views on
that, but that is different.
They went out and consulted with people.
They went out and talked to people all over the Province.
I had one in my own town.
They took their time, but Bill 29?
Nope. Bill 42?
Nope. It is not
there, no consultation.
My fear is that if we do not take our time to do this properly, people
are not going to get an opportunity to know what this truly means.
People are not going to have that opportunity.
So, it is not about filibustering.
It is doing our job as effective legislators to make sure we know
what it is we are actually doing.
If we want to talk about the Legislature and I have to bring this up
today because I saw something today I have not seen in my years.
I believe the Member for St. John's South has not seen in his
seventeen-odd years here.
Let's talk about the Legislature because and that is relevant.
That is relevant because we are here to reduce the size of the
Legislature.
I actually saw today, it is a tool that is quite useful.
We are talking about the concept of a petition.
A petition is something where you get your constituents and
interested individuals
MR. KING:
A point of order.
MR. SPEAKER (Cross):
The hon.
Government House Leader, to a point of order.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I hate to interrupt my hon. colleague, I gave him twenty-one minutes of
latitude, but we have yet to talk about the bill on the Order Paper,
Bill 42
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. KING:
Mr. Speaker, I am
getting a lot of heckling there.
I think a point of order entitles me for an opportunity to speak
to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
The bill on the Order Paper is Bill 42, An Act To Amend The Electoral
Boundaries Act. The member
has now gone off on a further tangent talking about petitions in the
House of Assembly. I would
argue that it is nothing relevant to this particular bill.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
There is no point of order, but I would remind the member that there has
been a fair amount of latitude given and bring it back.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Certainly,
I intend to hopefully talk about the role of the Legislature which we
are about to reduce. One of
the roles we have as legislators in this House, that we are about to
reduce, is a petition. I
think we are allowed to talk about petitions because it is one of the
things we do as MHAs, of which there are going to be some less.
I am not challenging the Speaker, but I think that is highly relevant.
You never said anything, Mr. Speaker, I believe, about me talking
about the role of MHAs. One
of the roles of an MHA is to present a petition on behalf of their
constituents.
It is funny, today talking about An Act to Amend the Electoral
Boundaries Act, which is going to reduce the number of MHAs, which
reduces the amount of representation that people have sometimes which is
expressed through the petitions which are brought here in this House.
That is how it is relevant.
I say to the Government House Leader, you are going to get your time,
take your time. Let me have
mine. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
I ask the member
to speak to the Chair.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Okay.
I want to talk about these petitions.
I saw something today.
We present petitions all the time.
Everyone on this side has presented a petition at some point.
We present them on all kinds of issues.
I saw today government members' present petitions to reduce the
size of the House.
It is funny, there was a petition on that but there was a petition here
on reduction in ferry services.
I do not know why the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune does
not read that one in because it is her constituents.
The Minister of Finance stood up and talked about this act.
There was a petition here today from people in Clarenville, which
falls under Trinity North.
Why is that one not read in? What
it is, it is an affront to the purpose of the House.
I understand that this is a group that sometimes does not want to be
here. We saw that when after
the last election we did not see the House open.
We saw that when we actually brought forward a private member's
resolution to try to make the House better, something the Premier has
talked about since he became the leader four months ago.
He is talking about fixing the House.
We tried to, it was shot down.
Every single person on the other side voted against it, Mr.
Speaker. I thought it was an
attempt to improve it, but I guess it was not good enough.
Coming back to this, coming back to the timelines, this is something
that was said here in this House today and said outside this House
today, this move is based on oil prices.
We are reducing the Legislature based on oil prices.
I am pretty sure that oil prices were not looking good in
September. In September it
is relevant to note that the Premier increased the size of Cabinet.
He increased expenditures increased them.
We had a Premier who has not been elected by the people bring in
an unelected minister, which increases the size of it.
That was not the concern in September, but I believe and I do not have
the numbers here. I would
say the Minister of Finance has them.
I think oil was not so great then.
I think oil was actually going down in October, but we did not
see this then. We did not
see this reform then. We did
not hear any talk of it.
I think oil was going down in November.
I think it went down further in November.
Do you know what else?
In November we came back here and we did not see this then.
We did not see the legislation then.
It was not an issue.
November also being the same time that we froze discretionary spending.
In November they were talking we have a crisis here, we have to stop
this, but at no time could legislation be drafted to conclude what it is
that they want to conclude.
It could not be done then.
It could not be done in December.
It is done now. It is
hard for the reasonable man - that is the concept they use in law, the
reasonable man, the reasonable women - to conclude that there is an
ulterior motive to this.
It is funny, I think the comment I heard earlier was this is fabricated.
We have a petition from people in
Clarenville saying; make sure the election happens in 2015.
Is that fabricated? I
do not think so.
We will continue on. I look
up now, I like this, I still have thirty-four minutes, Mr. Speaker.
I have lots of time to keep talking here.
I know that the crowd on the other side does not like to hear
that. I am going to take my
time here and continue on. I
have a bunch of notes here.
I just saw another one here.
This is a good one. I am not
trying to delay this; I am trying to make sure this is done right.
The Government House Leader, the Minister of Business, Tourism and trade
and Justice, CETA, the sometimes Attorney General, spokesperson for
Justice; if anything, there should be a law here today to make sure he
gets paid twice for the work he is doing.
The man has to do two sets of briefings.
He has to do his own department and he has to do the Department
of Justice.
MS PERRY:
Relevance.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I say to
the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune, this is all relevant.
If it is not, please stand up and correct me.
If you want to you can just sit down and listen.
I sat down and listened to the Minister of Finance and listened
to what he had to say. This
is important. I plan on
sitting down and listening because that is what this is about, debate.
I see this one, I have to put it out there because we come back to we
are not trying to delay this, we are trying to make sure it is done
right. We do not want to
rush it. One of the reasons
we do not want to rush is because there was something that was done back
in February, March, I cannot remember when, involving the Department of
Transportation. What we did
was cancel a $20 million contract in one day.
Why is that relevant you say?
Number one, we could get into why.
It was probably done a bit quick, but the other thing is that we
had to bring in the AG to investigate it.
That is not free, that costs money.
That takes money, that takes resources to do an investigation of
that nature. Why is that
relevant, Mr. Speaker? Here
we are, a fiscal crisis, likely to be a $1 billion deficit and we wasted
money because number one, we cut a Humber Valley Paving contract and
then we brought in the AG.
It cost money. What I am
saying is maybe if we do this right the first time and take our time,
maybe we will avoid this situation down the road.
The end goal here is I would like to see an election in 2015, just like
the Speaker would like to see an election in 2015, and just like the
Member for Humber West wants to see an election in 2015.
That is what our people were promised.
That is what they were promised and the law said that it should
happen, but the whole timing of this is suspect and that is all I put
out there.
We have to deal with it as it is.
We have to deal with it so we have the legislation here.
I want to continue on going through it.
I think we need to set up this.
This is just not changing any bill; this is changing a bill which
could have wide-reaching implications, repercussions, and changes.
One of those things is that there are going to less of us in here.
That is pretty substantial.
More importantly than that, we have to make sure the individuals
we represent still get full representation.
That is what we have to make sure.
It is incumbent on all of us.
I will continue on here because I still have plenty to talk about and it
is all relevant. I have to
bring up some different points that I have gleaned through this last
week of legislative reform.
This is just maybe me picking something out of the words that are used.
When we did the briefing at 10:00 o'clock on Monday morning in
the Department of Justice boardroom, it was said to us that the natural
evolution of this was 2016, but we are changing it.
If it is not natural, it is unnatural.
This is unnatural.
This is admitted by the government.
It is unnatural to do this.
They are going to come back and the point has been, well, oil
prices have gone down, we have to trim MHAs.
I have already given a number of examples of waste by this
government that we could have avoided by not rushing it, but there are
other things too. We had to
debate this because this is legislation.
One thing that we do not need legislation for is we can reduce
the size of Cabinet.
One thing we could do is reduce the number of Parliamentary Secretaries.
Or, here is a novel suggestion, let them be Parliamentary
Secretaries without the pay.
That is how it was under Clyde Wells.
Clyde Wells had Parliamentary Secretaries and that was their job,
they did the role. We are
making suggestions that look don't you rush into changing Cabinet.
We can rush into cutting MHAs, but don't you rush my Cabinet.
I find that interesting and I think people out there find it
interesting. We have to look
back. It has been four
months since the Premier increased the size of Cabinet.
I believe when Premier Williams came in he said we want to go
lean and mean, we need a smaller Cabinet.
He had thirteen. I
believe when Premier Dunderdale came in she said we have to have a lean
Cabinet, lean and mean thirteen.
When this Premier came in he said I want a bloated Cabinet.
I do not want them to be as effective.
We need to spend more money.
That is what we have going on here.
That could happen, Mr. Speaker, not without a debate.
That could happen with a stroke of a pen.
That could happen with a signature.
That could happen today and that would give us some substantial
savings. It is all going
towards this crisis, to use the government's words, we find ourselves
in. I find that interesting.
Now I am wondering why we have a Department of Finance because
there is no control there.
We just have to sit back and hope it does not hurt us.
Anyway I digress, we will continue on.
I think this has been out there and I am going to talk about it;
there has been some talk as to what are the fiscal advantages of making
this move? I am not saying
this to support doing it or not doing it, but it is a question that has
to be asked because we have to throw all this out there.
We have to consider this.
We have to reason this.
The immediate obvious savings is the reduction in salary.
The immediate savings will be a reduction in pension costs.
The immediate savings will be a reduction in associated salary,
constituency assistants, whatever.
That has been put out there and that is the figure that is being
used by the government.
My concern is: Has there been any study done on is there a possible
extra cost by doing this?
That is what I want to know.
It is not an argument against it, but we should put it out there and
see. We should consult.
We should investigate.
We should figure that out.
That is an idea. I
just put that out there.
I am wondering and this is what I would actually like to see, and if
government wants to table this I would be interested to see it.
I would like to see the analysis done.
I would love to see an analysis done on okay, this is what we
can do, this is the immediate savings, but what is the long-term cost,
even if it is a cost to constituents.
I just wonder. It is
not an argument for or against, but I want to see.
MR. S. COLLINS:
(Inaudible).
MR. A. PARSONS:
I hear the
Minister of CYFS over there talking, who was a former parliamentary
secretary. I would
understand that he would be talking about this.
He likes the bigger Cabinet.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if he is going to speak in this debate, but
if he does I will give him the courtesy of listening to him.
I will give him that courtesy.
I am trying to talk here and he will get the points out when he
can. Stay calm.
Look, I am sure they will not get rid of your position.
I am sure of it.
We are talking about cutting MHAs.
We are talking about that for savings.
The immediate thing that you think about is a cut in Cabinet,
which would correspond with a cut in MHAs.
That would be a logical correlation and result, but I guess that
is not going to be considered.
That is not on the table.
The Premier said nine times yesterday it is all on the table except
well, the things that he does not want to do right now.
It is just going to sit there on the table.
Who knows how long it is going to sit there on the table.
It is obviously not pressing enough to do this right now.
We already know that since we have gotten here today that the Budget has
already been delayed. We
already know that this government has delayed their Budget.
That is another interesting thing that I think people want to
hear and want to see. It is
funny; New Brunswick is actually having their Budget in February.
I am sure they are affected by federal government decisions too,
but there it is.
I am going to continue on here.
We have a lot of people here.
Actually, some people who have been in government, they have been
in Opposition, they have been in political science, and they have the
experience. Whether it is as
members or whether it is staff, they can talk about the electoral
boundary commissions and talk about how they went and how they were
done, so I am going to leave that to these individuals.
I know the Member for St. George's Stephenville East has an extensive
history with this. I am sure
he is going to take the opportunity to speak with his background and his
knowledge to talk about the effect of this.
I will let him do that.
I am not going to take this stuff.
Do you know what? He
is certainly able to express it much better than I.
It is funny because I have to come back to this again.
We talk about 2016 and why was this electoral boundaries done in
2016. Well, there is
something that is going to happen in 2016 that is very significant; it
is called a census. It is an
opportunity to discover what our population is and where they live;
something I think would be relevant to this discussion.
Again, democratic representation, we might not see that.
That is probably why this crowd made that decision back when they
made it and help make sure this was done in 2016.
There is something to be said I cannot help but see the correlation
between fixed elections and between the electoral boundaries commission
and the changes to that. I
cannot take credit for this quote.
There was a gentleman I heard say, he was talking about fixed
elections, talking about electoral boundaries: Decisions made in the
first year of a mandate are usually because they are vindictive;
decisions you make in the last year is because you are desperate.
That is what it is.
Fixed elections were done because we had a vindictive government.
This change now is happening because we have a desperate
government, and that is reason the timing is what it is.
If no one over there ever thought of this before, the current Premier
has been there and this is his idea, apparently.
He has had plenty of time to do this: September, October,
November again, in terms of legislation in this House, the last
session was one of the lightest sessions I have seen in terms of the
amount of legislation that was put out there to debate.
In fact, I think we agreed with most of it because a lot of it
made sense. It was changes
to regulations. It was
changes that were good.
A lot of it was not, as they call it, earth shattering.
We agreed to it; housekeeping in some cases again, that is the
word that is used by both sides.
I guess what I am saying is that there was plenty of time to get
this one done. It is not
that we did not need the savings then.
We need them right now.
You did not need them back then, even though we were freezing
spending, cutting spending and we knew a bad Budget was coming because
we knew that it was at least $916 million then.
It did not just pop up like that.
We knew it was coming, so why not be proactive?
No, there is a reason why: Let's do it now because we think it
might help us get the end goal, which is to push this along.
Now, we continue on here, and I have made clear plenty of opportunities
that the issue of seat reduction is not the issue; it is the issue of
debating this legislation, making sure it is done right, make sure that
we give it the careful consideration it needs so that we do not do it
wrong. What we have done, we
have had an opportunity to do and I think the Leader of the Opposition
made this public in a press conference yesterday, and I think he has
actually written to the Premier on this.
I do not know if there has been a response back; I will let them
talk about that. A chance
to, as the Premier said yesterday, work together work together.
Well, okay.
One of the things that we would like to see and we have these
amendments here that will be brought forward.
One is: If you do not want the election to be delayed, then if
the boundary commission does not get their work done in time and
again, you say it is enough time, if they do not get it done in time,
then call it off and have the election in 2015, September 2015, as the
law said, and as you have said you wanted.
You want this, so here is a chance to make sure okay, this is a
chance to legislate what you want.
We are giving you the opportunity; it is a great amendment.
Can the commission finish in 120 days?
I do not know. It has
been said that they can. I
know previous ones took longer, but I do not know; I am not going to be
on that commission. I know
that there will be five great people that are picked hopefully to do
this work, and I hope they get it done in time.
Because (a) we want to see the savings that they need and (b) we
want to see the election that they want.
We want to see that too.
I think if you went out to the people and you talked to them, it seems
that there are a lot of people out there.
I have no stats on this; I only have anecdotal evidence and what
people come to me with. A
lot of people generally support seat reduction.
Now there are people who do not, and that is good too, and they
are getting their viewpoints out there, as they should.
I tell you, I am listening to all of them.
I have listened to them, and I have listened to my constituents
and a lot along the lines of: Well, why are you doing it now?
Why are you rushing it now?
The second thing is: Well, I am fine with less.
I think you could still do it, but there is no need to rush and
there is certainly no need to delay an election to do it.
Why would you do that?
I agree.
The second part is that we think that thirty-eight is unreasonable.
We think that there should be a range.
Some could say this is quibbling, but we think thirty-eight to
forty-two. We think the
commission should have a range to work with.
I agree with that.
Flexibility is key here.
The third condition is and this is all out in the public domain
Labrador should have their four seats preserved.
I have had the good pleasure, since I have been elected, of being
to Labrador. I had never
been there until I was elected.
I have had the good pleasure of being there.
It is a beautiful, fantastic place with a unique geography,
different cultural circumstances.
We have an Innu community, an Inuit community, huge land mass,
and a population that is distributed throughout.
Now, I am not going to belabour this point because I am very lucky to
have a leader who spent a fair amount of time up there who can do it.
I have two caucus mates who are from there and were born there
and live there and are going to get an opportunity to talk about it.
They know the challenges. They want to talk about it and I am
going to let them do that because they will do it far better and more
eloquently than I ever can.
I will let them do it and I look forward to listening to them.
We have a government that says they want to listen.
I hope they listen, because we think there is a reason for that.
I will continue on and I see my time starting to run out.
I am only the second speaker on this.
I know there are likely forty-odd more.
I do not know if the Deputy Chair of Committees is able to speak.
Technically, I think the Speaker is the only one who is not going
to speak on this or cannot speak on this.
If that is the case, there are forty-five other MHAs who are
going to have a chance to stand here and say their piece.
I look forward to hearing that.
Do you know what? They
should have an opportunity to do that because that is the job.
So, before someone on the other side says you are delaying it, I
say, in response, you are only supposed to do your job; you are supposed
to do your job and have an opportunity to speak.
I will tell you this now; I have no interest in being here for weeks to
debate this. No interest
whatsoever, but I do have an interest in speaking on second reading
which is our chance to stand up and speak freely.
I do have an interest in asking questions in Committee.
I might even take the chance during third reading, I might do
that, but I think that is my right but more like my duty.
It is my duty to do that.
That is not delaying it.
It is doing it right.
If you do not do it right, you get back to the circumstances that I told
earlier which are rush jobs, mistakes, and millions and millions of
dollars wasted. That is why
we are doing it.
The other thing too, for people out there who are watching, normally we
stop at 5:30 p.m. and then we go on and we come back the next day.
I am fully prepared to stay here tonight to do it.
That is not a filibuster.
That is making use of your time.
Let's keep going and talking about it.
If you do not want to delay it, I say keep going tonight.
Let's go through the night so everybody can get a chance and get
this done right, but done as quickly as possible so that we can get this
out in the commission's hands.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. A. PARSONS:
I hear
some people on the other side saying they want to do it, but they do not
know if they can. I say if
you can make the House reduced, you can make us debate through the
night. Maybe we can bring in
legislation and get that done too.
Maybe we can do that.
MR. KING:
A point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Government
House Leader, on a point of order.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
What I actually said to the member was we would love to stay and debate
all night, but we are not sure the rules would permit us to stay beyond
10:00 o'clock. We are
prepared to take up the challenge of the member opposite and stay as
long as we can.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I am glad
to hear that the Government House Leader feels that this debate is
important and that we should take the time to do it and that doing so is
not a rush. I am glad to
hear that the Government House Leader feels that way.
That is good.
We are going to take our time.
We are going to do this right.
I think I have made my points.
Sometimes I get a little worried because I know that the Minister
of Finance said: Hey, we want an election in 2015; trust us.
That was just said.
He said: Look, I do not know why people would think we do not want an
election in 2015. That is a
fabrication that is a fabrication.
I say two things to that, Mr. Speaker.
Number one, if you want it, we are giving you an opportunity to
do it, and if you vote against it well maybe you are showing your true
intentions; and number two, there is no reason that we cannot get this
done. You say you want it
done, but pardon me if sometimes I get confused because I was told I was
going to have a new hospital on the West Coast.
It has not happened.
I am waiting now for the calls of relevance from the other side.
What I would say
AN HON. MEMBER:
Relevance.
MR. A. PARSONS:
The
minister responsible for not giving us the radiation study is calling
relevance. What I would say
is this: Forgive me if I do not always believe the promises by the
members on the other side.
Sometimes they do not happen.
They are not getting done on time.
Sometimes there is a reason for that.
Like I say I still have a bit of time left and I am going to get another
opportunity, whether it is Committee or third reading, to have my say.
I think I have made the points clear and I know everybody who
wants a chance in this House is going to speak to it.
People can try to tangle that around but thank God we have Hansard to
record it. I think I have
been clear. I think I have
been concise. I think I have
stated our opinion, my belief, my opinion on why a reduction is not the
issue, I am worried about the process, and I am worried about why the
Premier wants to rush it.
That scares me. I think I
have made clear why.
People should also have a consultation.
We can avoid problems if we have that.
There are ways we can still do that too.
You can get both done.
You can change your law and you can consult.
You can do both.
On that note, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to stand up and
speak on this. I look
forward to hearing the debate by all members of this House as we move
forward on this very important issue.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MS SULLIVAN:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure none of us anticipated that we would be standing
this early in the New Year in this House of Assembly.
However, I am happy to say that it is still, and always will be,
a privilege to stand here in this House of Assembly and to represent the
people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We can be given no greater honour than to come to this House to
represent the people of the Province, to speak what they have asked us
to speak, to talk as they have asked us to express their opinion, and so
on. So, Mr. Speaker, this
truly is one of those moments for me when, over a period of time I had
opportunity, particularly this weekend, to chat with the people of my
district, as I go back every weekend.
The people of my district know that I do that.
I go back every weekend and make
every attempt to visit them either in their homes, in their communities,
certainly at any events that are happening and so on.
So it was truly a privilege this weekend to go back and be able
to ask the questions around what they thought about this particular
motion that we were bringing forward, this amendment to the Electoral
Boundaries Act, now known as Bill 42.
Mr. Speaker, much of what I will say here has come from the reaction of
the people with whom I spoke at home this weekend and throughout my
district, around their feelings about this particular issue.
One of the most important things that we look at when we are
looking at any piece of legislation is why are we bringing this to the
House of Assembly. That was
the question that was asked and that is a good question to be asked.
Why are we bringing this to the House of Assembly and why are we
doing it now?
Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of reasons for that, but one of them, in
particular, had to do with the fact that this has been something that we
heard for a while, that the people of the Province would be happy to
embrace. Reducing the number
of seats in the Legislature is something we have heard many times, many
places. So that seemed to
resonate with the people of the Province, and certainly was something
that I heard within my district.
Mr. Speaker, resoundingly I heard of the importance of looking at the
fiscal situation in which we find ourselves, and finding as many ways as
we could to alleviate that fiscal situation.
One of them was this particular suggestion around reducing the
number of seats in the House of Assembly.
It made imminent sense to people that I spoke with.
There were one or two dissenters.
I would be foolish if I were to tell you that everybody I spoke
to have the same opinion, because that never happens, and that really is
democracy when not everyone has the same opinion.
I can tell you that the vast majority of people with whom I spoke
thought that this was an excellent idea.
They liked the notion that we are willing to look at all measures
to ensure that the future for our children, the future for our
grandchildren in this Province is going to be secured.
Whilst we know the situation with oil prices is a temporary situation,
that at some point in time this too will be something of the past and we
will be able to move on, we do have to live within the times that we
are, Mr. Speaker. So this is
a very tangible way that we can address that issue and live within those
times. So, as a
representative for the people of the great District of Grand
Falls-Windsor Buchans, I am truly happy to be able to come here and
pass on those opinions to the rest of the people of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard sometimes that this particular piece of
legislation is being brought in because it would be a benefit to our
party, in particular, or to one of the other parties.
Mr. Speaker, that is not the case at all.
The beneficiaries of this piece of legislation are the people of
the Province. The people of
the Province will be listened to, we will be able to demonstrate that
here in the House of Assembly, and we will be able to save $10 million.
That is a tangible benefit to everyone in this Province, Mr.
Speaker.
Once the commission is struck, we have no idea what the boundaries will
look like after that point in time.
So to say it would benefit one party over another party, Mr.
Speaker, really does not make any sense at all.
We have no idea of what the commission is going to report.
It is an independent commission.
So, therefore, that particular myth really does need to be
dismissed, and dismissed immediately.
I want to make reference to something I heard, a criticism I heard when
the speaker just prior to me, the House Leader for the Official
Opposition was speaking. He
was very critical, Mr. Speaker, of the legislation itself, the draft
amendments that we gave to him.
I think it is important that the people of the Province understand how
this came about, Mr. Speaker.
What happened here was an attempt on our part to co-operate with
members of the Opposition who said they would like to see the amendments
as soon as they could see them.
Mr. Speaker, our very hardworking civil service actually sat down, they
worked as efficiently, as effectively, and as quickly as they could to
be able to provide a draft of the legislation.
What they were presented with on the other side was marked draft.
They knew it was draft.
There were some typos that had to be addressed, that was all.
There were no substantive changes to the amendments or to this
piece of legislation at all.
There were some typos that had to be addressed.
Mr. Speaker, it becomes very difficult sometimes for us when we hear
levelled at us that we rushed something and there is going to be some
huge fallout as a result of that.
What we did was in the spirit of co-operation we made every
effort to provide them with the legislation as quickly as we could
because that is what they asked for.
It was simply trying to be courteous, trying to offer up all of
the information that we could, and giving them what they knew was a
draft. There were no
substantive changes. That is
really important for the people of the Province to know no substantive
changes at all. It was
simply a few typos.
Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the act itself, the Electoral
Boundaries Act, and I want to talk about the amendments to it.
What is it? Let's
talk about, first of all for the people of the Province who might be
home now from work and trying to get ready for supper, perhaps have a
television or a radio on and they are listening to us, let's talk about
what the Electoral Boundaries Act is.
Essentially, it is a mechanism to review an amendment of the
Electoral Boundaries Act in Newfoundland and Labrador.
That is what this particular act is.
It provides for the Newfoundland and Labrador Electoral Boundaries
Commission to be appointed every ten years.
Under the current act, that commission is due to be appointed in
2016. Then it is tasked with
dividing up the Province into districts or boundaries.
We most commonly call them districts.
Some people refer to them as seats for the House of Assembly, Mr.
Speaker.
How is the commission itself struck?
We need to understand that as well, so that we can understand
that it truly is an independent commission.
The commission is comprised of a chairperson, and that
chairperson is appointed by the Chief Justice of Newfoundland and
Labrador from among the judges of the Supreme Court or the Court of
Appeals and the Trial Division if possible.
It can also be a resident of the Province, but most often it is a
judge. There are four other
members who are appointed by the Speaker of the House of Assembly from
among the residents of the Province.
It is my understanding that government has opportunity to nominate two
people. The Opposition, and
both parties, have an opportunity to nominate a person each.
That would be two more.
So it is two and two, plus the chairperson.
The Speaker then puts together that commission.
The Speaker certainly has the
power to employ resources as may be required to do that work, including
the employment of technical and professional staff as necessary.
Mr. Speaker, when we talk about dividing the Province into districts, I
think one of the things we would have to look at is how is that done?
What is the easiest way to do that?
Well, oftentimes cartographers are brought into this process.
We certainly would need the analysis and the ability of the
people who are appointed to the commission to look at geographical
concerns, cultural concerns, historical concerns, logistical concerns.
There are a number of things that would be looked at.
When we talk about the use of cartographers, Mr. Speaker, and people who
would be able to actually look at longitudes, latitudes and so on and
divide up the Province according to population, according to geography
and so on, one of the great advantages we have at this point in time, as
opposed to 1973 when this process was first started, are things like
Google Maps, GPSs and so on.
That can make that process so much more efficient now then it was when
people were doing this many years ago.
This is the seventh time that a commission would have been appointed to
do this kind of work, Mr. Speaker.
I would suggest it is probably a whole lot easier in some senses
to be able to do that work then it was in 1973 when the tools and the
resources that were available were so much different.
We live in an age of technology now and an age where we can rely
on the resources of the Internet and so on to help us in the performance
of those duties; therefore, I think that will help to make the process a
much more efficient process than it ever was before.
Now we want to look at the guiding principles of what this particular
amendment would do, Mr. Speaker.
Section 15 of the act requires that the commission be guided by
the principle that the vote of every elector in the province shall
have a weight equal to that of every other elector.
It is known as parity, Mr. Speaker. We call that parity.
That too is so important when we look at the House of Assembly.
The best way to do that, of course, is to establish the quotient.
I heard the Minister of Finance talk about this today.
He set it out earlier in the afternoon, but I will just review it
again for those people who may not have been able to watch at that point
in time.
The establishing of a quotient, Mr. Speaker, is very simply looking at
the average population by district, or attaining the average population
by district. You would do
that by dividing the population of the Province by the number of
electoral districts that you would be looking for.
Currently, the act states that the total population of the Province
shall be determined by the latest census figures.
You take those census figures and then you would divide that
number by the number of districts we were looking for.
In this case, that would be thirty-eight.
We would reserve one for Torngat Mountains, Mr. Speaker, which makes a
lot of sense. In that sense
what we are looking at again is an area of the Province that has a
unique circumstance, certainly in the sense of cultural Aboriginal
heritage, certainly in the sense of a very immense landform there, the
geography of it being exceptionally difficult and so on.
All of those reasons would validate the importance of ensuring
that Torngat Mountains is represented by a particular MHA, or a
particular district.
Mr. Speaker, the quotient then would be determined by taking that
population, dividing it now by thirty-seven, and that would come up with
the number. There is some
flexibility that is built into this of course because in certain cases,
common sense has to prevail.
If we are looking at one side of the street as opposed to the other side
of the street and we have seen that happen in times past.
It is true in my district.
There is one particular area of my community where on one side of
the street they are represented by me in the District of Grand
Falls-Windsor Buchans, and on the other side of the street they are
represented by my colleague, the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor Green
Bay South.
Mr. Speaker, where possible we would want to look at, and any commission
would want to look at those types of situations.
Not simply rely on the numbers to give an exact boundary
delineation, but rather use the common sense of saying maybe we can
include all and incorporate all areas of one particular neighbourhood
and so on. Those are some of
the things that can be looked at.
In order to do that, then a variance of about plus or minus 10
per cent can be applied, such that those common sense decisions can be
made. There are all kinds of
other reasons that might come into play, but they are also very
important reasons.
We have looked at what this is.
We have talked a little bit about why it is that it needs to be
done. We have looked at the
commission itself. We know
that it would be an independent commission.
We know that we would have some very skilled members of this
commission sitting in place, Mr. Speaker, and so on.
One of the questions that we have also been asked, talks about doing it
now. I heard again, my
colleague, the Minister of Finance speak to this earlier today, talking
about doing the review now as opposed to 2016.
Mr. Speaker, it just made so much sense that it bears repeating
in the House of Assembly.
If we were to do this work in 2016, as is the mandate right now, the
work would be done in 2016.
It would mean that the report would be tabled.
We would know what the electoral boundaries are going to look
like for the next election which is 2019.
Yet, we have people sitting in the House of Assembly knowing that
the districts they are representing would be null and void over the next
three years.
Mr. Speaker, they would be sitting in the House of Assembly knowing that
their districts were not going to be districts in the next assembly,
knowing they would not be able to represent, necessarily, those people
in the next assembly, taking a pay cheque for those three years,
undoubtedly working. I have
every confidence that anyone who would come to this House of Assembly
would come here to do the work and to represent, but knowing that all of
that was changing in 2019.
It makes eminent sense, Mr. Speaker, to be able to take that now, do the
work now, and have the commission report now.
Then going forward into this next election, which this Premier
has guaranteed will be in 2015, not 2016 as we have heard some people
postulate over there, but 2015.
They would be able to go forward and seek a mandate from those
districts that will be represented in this House of Assembly based on
the advice of an expert panel, an expert commission who would have
already looked at the information and designed those particular
boundaries.
Mr. Speaker, that makes eminent sense to me to do this at this point in
time, such that for the next four years the boundaries and the districts
are being represented as the commission next year would probably have
reported. Why not do that
now, before 2016 and go to the polls with all of that already in place?
To me that makes eminent sense, as I said.
It should be something that we do this year as opposed to next
year.
Let's talk about the current amendments.
The proposed amendments will require that the Newfoundland and
Labrador Electoral District Boundaries Commission divide the Province
into thirty-eight proposed one-member districts in 2015, in 2016, and in
every tenth calendar year thereafter.
Reminding those who are viewing at home, Mr. Speaker, that there
would be the carve out of the one for Torngat Mountains.
The bill makes certain amendments which are specific to the 2015
process. For example, to
ensure that the commission is able to commence its work as soon as
possible, the Speaker will be required to appoint those four remaining
members that I referenced earlier, within five days of the chairperson
being appointed by the chief justice.
That is very doable, Mr. Speaker.
We can be on this side of the House at this particular point in time
brainstorming and trying to decide what members we may wish to nominate.
I am sure the Opposition will be doing the same thing and I am
sure the Third Party will be doing that same thing.
It is very possible, Mr. Speaker, that we can appoint those four
remaining members within five days of the chairperson being appointed by
the chief justice.
In addition, the 2015 commission will be instructed to retain, as I
said, Torngat Mountains, and divide the remaining population by
thirty-seven districts to determine the appropriate quotient.
Then determine the remaining thirty-seven districts and their
boundaries based upon that quotient, as well as that 10 per cent
variance or 25 per cent that could possibly come into play given certain
situations.
Mr. Speaker, there is so much more I can talk about here with regard to
this, but as the speaker previous to me alluded to, we will have much
opportunity. We are here to
do this and to do it right.
We are here for the long term.
If that means sitting through this evening or any other evening,
then I can assure you that the people of the Province will be well
served by the people on this of the House because we are committed to
doing that.
We are committed to debating this for as long as this needs to be
debated. We are committed to
hearing from the people of the Province.
We are committed to listening, as opposed to just hearing, as I
sometimes note over there.
We are committed to listening and reacting to that, Mr. Speaker.
Whatever it takes, however long we need to be here to do this work, we
will certainly be here. I
look forward to speaking again to this particular amendment, Mr.
Speaker. There will be time
as we go into Committee and so on to have that opportunity to speak yet
again.
I see my time is done, Mr. Speaker, but I want to end where I started.
There is no greater privilege than to represent the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador. I
thank all who give us the opportunity to do that.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Verge):
The hon.
the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
MS DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I am always happy when I have the opportunity to stand on my feet and
speak on behalf of the beautiful District of Cartwright L'Anse au
Clair, and indeed today Labrador as a whole, all of Labrador, Mr.
Speaker. I am speaking to
Bill 42, An Act to Amend the Electoral Boundaries Act.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say upfront, for the record, there is no question
where the Official Opposition stands on this act.
This act which would see the number of seats in the House
reduced. It was just two
years ago that our leader was talking about this, so nobody should
question where the support where the Official Opposition stands on this.
I could go on and give many other examples of things that our
leader and this Opposition have talked about and eventually it catches
on the other side and they too say yes, a good idea, like MHA pension
reform.
My focus for the next twenty minutes is going to be on subsection 15(6).
The last time we saw the Electoral Boundaries Act brought in
under subsection 15(6) there was a provision brought in for Labrador.
In that, Mr. Speaker, it talked about four proposed districts.
There was provision made for them to move away from the 10 per
cent and the 25 per cent because there was a recognition that there were
unique challenges in Labrador, an area that you could put New Brunswick,
PEI, and Nova Scotia, all of the Atlantic Provinces into.
It is very challenging to travel within Labrador and to and from
Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, we have a Premier who I believe it probably takes him about
ten minutes to travel from one end of his district to the other.
Clearly, we have a serious lack of understanding when it comes to
the needs and the challenges of moving around Labrador.
Not a serious misunderstanding when it comes to going to Labrador
to take things out and I am going to talk about that.
I am going to use my time to look at the Mahoney Commission in 1993.
I am going to talk about the electoral boundary review of 2006.
I hope I get a number of other opportunities because, Mr.
Speaker, there are some very important things that need to be said here
about Labrador. People need
to understand. They are not
decisions and they are not things that can be talked about in a short
period of time.
Mr. Speaker, it has been prior to 1979 since Labrador has been without
four seats. To take away
from Labrador right now, that Big Land, it would be too regress Labrador
back, put Labrador back decades.
When I picked up this proposed bill and I read subsection 15(6)
of the act is repealed repealed, to take away, to revoke, cancel; it
is hard to accept that somebody so void of understanding and that knows
so little and I wonder how many on the government side have not even
been to Labrador. There are
lots of things I do not know, Mr. Speaker, but if there is one thing I
do know it is Labrador. It
is where I was born and raised; it is near and dear to my heart.
I am very well-travelled in the whole Province and I have been fortunate
to travel beyond, Mr. Speaker, and there are few places that I have been
where I have seen the challenges of the Labrador people.
I think there are some people who need to be educated on that.
When I hear that the Premier is out in a scrum talking about the
Opposition wants to delay that, it turns my stomach.
I do not need to reiterate examples here today of where we have
rushed decisions and the price that we have paid in the Province because
of that; but I can tell you one thing as the Member for Cartwright
L'Anse au Clair and one of only four people sitting in this House today
for Labrador, I will not be rushed in a debate when I want to bring up
important points about Labrador and why the decisions that were made
were made why they were made, Mr. Speaker.
Today we have four seats; there are two sitting across from me in the
seat of government. We work
for the people. I can tell
you right now the people of Labrador are outraged about this.
They are outraged.
This is just feeding the ammunition of separatism.
This is just more segregation.
This is more alienation, Mr. Speaker, and I challenged the
Minister for Labrador yesterday when I was up and I challenge him again,
the Member for Labrador West and the Member for Lake Melville, stand up
with your people. It is the
people that puts us here and we are all going to see in a few months
that it is the people that can put us out.
Mr. Speaker, I am a person that I stand on the courage of my
convictions. If that means
standing alone at my own table, make no mistake about it, I will do
that. I would rather walk
out of this place and know that I stood for something then to toe a line
with people, because that is just who I am.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MS DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker,
after decades of taking away natural resources with very little coming
back to the people, we are now going to strip away one of the members
and I want to talk about the role of a member.
When you look at the role of a member in rural communities, it is
very different than the role of a member in urban areas, Mr. Speaker.
I talk to other members and I know some of the workload.
We have lost so much in services in small communities and more
and more you see people relying on the constituency office, and now this
government wants to do an attack on democracy and take that away.
I will talk about travel to Cartwright L'Anse au Clair and maybe if
some people want to get up on the other side and talk about the time it
takes them to travel to their district, I would welcome that.
Mr. Speaker, when the House is sitting, when I leave here, I fly for
three hours on a plane to Goose Bay.
Then I get in a vehicle and I drive 420 kilometres.
During the two days I am home, I am probably getting in my
vehicle and I am driving 200 kilometres to Cartwright and I am attending
an event, and 200 kilometres back.
The next day I am getting in my vehicle and I am driving 420
kilometres back to Goose Bay and then I am getting on a plane for three
hours, I am coming back, I am getting ready to come in the House and be
a voice for the people.
There is a shortcut, Mr. Speaker.
I can take the shortcut.
I can get on a plane and I can fly for two hours to Quebec, to
another province, and after my two-hour flight I can get in my vehicle
and I can drive on forty-year old pavement for half of it and on a
gravel road for the other half.
Then I am only driving 275 kilometres, and maybe while I am home
I am going to drive 140 kilometres to St. Lewis for an event and 140
kilometres back. That is
what we are dealing with challenges, Mr. Speaker.
Now, if you want to talk about accessibility and the challenges that
whoever the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair is, Mr. Speaker, we
are getting on a skidoo and we are travelling over sea ice to people of
Williams Harbour, because the people of Williams Harbour matter in this
Province, just as anyone else.
Or, I am getting on a ferry and I am going to Black Tickle, or I
am getting on a helicopter, if there is one, and I am going to Norman
Bay.
Mr. Speaker, I talked about the vastness of Labrador, the almost 300,000
square kilometres you could fit the Island into Labrador twice and I
am just talking about one tiny section of Labrador, one tiny part of
Labrador. I could talk to
you all day, until 10:00 tonight about the challenges of getting around
the district.
Mr. Speaker, Tom Marshall, former Premier Marshall, a very
well-respected man in this House and in this Province.
As I was doing some of my research, my attention was drawn to
former Premier Marshall up in the House on March 22, 2007, and at that
time he was talking about the formula that was in place did not apply to
Labrador. We do not a
numbers game to hurt the people of Labrador, Mr. Speaker a wise man.
Every Premier since the early nineties have looked at Labrador as
different, but the arrogance of this government, I am not surprised.
I am not surprised at all to see a bill come in that says the act
is to be repealed and there is no difference for Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, I would love to see him if Labrador does go off and become
Canada's newest territory.
What will happen then? Can
you blame the people for being upset?
When you look at the biggest project in the history of this Province,
Muskrat Falls, where is it happening?
It is happening in Labrador.
Voisey's Bay is a huge contributor to the GDP of this Province.
Where is Voisey's Bay?
It is in Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, IOC has been contributing to this Province for decades.
Where is IOC? It is
in the district of the Member for Lab West.
The Member for Lab West, I have sat at many board tables with him
over the years. He knows the
challenges of Labrador. Do
we really want to regress?
Do we want to go back in time?
Had this government allowed an independent commission to take its
time and to start this process in 2016 and to move us into 2019, maybe
things might have been changed in some of the communities.
I have Williams Harbour, I would be remiss if I did not mention them
again, sixteen people on an island.
They wanted to go no, they did not want to go, but all the
services were stripped away and they have no other choice.
They have been stranded there for a couple of years waiting on
this government to make a decision on what they are going to do about
relocation.
Mr. Speaker, in 1993, when the Mahoney Commission looked at Labrador and
the electoral boundaries, special consideration was made for Labrador
when they were redrawing the electoral boundaries of the Province.
They understood one size does not fit all.
Mr. Speaker, in this Province we have many, many rural communities and
many unique areas. For the
Premier to come out in a dictatorial way with the number of thirty-eight
and with a specific number of 13,000 was wrong.
It goes against democracy.
That is why I am happy to be able to stand here today and debate
it because one size does not fit all.
Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, in an urban area to add three or four city
streets to a member's portfolio to broaden a district does not mean that
you are adding extra municipalities and the work that takes.
It does not mean you are adding fire halls and all of the work
that takes. In those urban
areas there are many community services that people can go to have
things done. It is
completely black and white.
The Mahoney Commission was tasked with deciding the number and
description of electoral districts throughout the Province.
The original mandate, Mr. Speaker, made mention to Labrador
directly to ensure that geographic considerations, including the
community of interest of residents of those communities north of Lake
Melville. It mentioned that.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard several members opposite today mention the
Aboriginal seat in Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague here, the Member for
Torngat. The majority of
people who live in his district are Aboriginal people, but what a
blatant disrespect for the people in Labrador of Aboriginal descent who
live outside Torngat.
I have more Innu and Inuit in some of my communities than the member has
in his. I have it here, and
if time permits me I will get when you look at the number of Inuit in
Natuashish, maybe thirty compared to ninety in Cartwright.
What blatant disrespect for those people.
Do they not matter?
Only north and that is why that seat is being protected.
Mr. Speaker, the first proposal that was made by the commission in 1993
the first proposal put forward was that Labrador would have three
seats plus one district that would take in some of Labrador.
It was felt that this was necessary in order for the commission
to follow its mandate, its quotient at that time.
The numbers game again.
This would have meant a reduction in representation from
Labrador.
At that time, Mr. Speaker, the proposed combined district was Eagle
River, the Strait of Belle Isle, and then it was the Labrador Coast from
Red Bay to L'Anse au Clair as far south and would go with the Great
Northern Peninsula to Plum Point.
That is what was looked at, Mr. Speaker, twenty-two years ago
when it was looked at that possibly some of Labrador's seat would be
taken, maybe half of a Labrador seat.
Guess what happened, Mr. Speaker?
When the public commission went out to do their work, the
independent commission, this is what they heard.
They heard that North and West Labrador is different from the
Coast. That is what they
heard. That the Coast of
Labrador needed its own representation.
They heard loud and clear, Mr. Speaker, that Labrador needed four
seats to properly govern that geographic area, in order for these people
to have a voice, in order for the vote of these people to matter,
because of the vast geography, because of the accessibility issues and
the transportation challenges, Mr. Speaker, because of the culture.
We have three Aboriginal groups and they do not all reside in Lake
Melville or in Torngat. We
have many Aboriginal people who reside in Cartwright L'Anse au Clair
and many Aboriginals who reside, I would suspect, in Lab West.
Actually, many from my district of an Aboriginal descent have
relocated to Lab West.
Mr. Speaker, what the commission also heard at that time, and what they
concluded, was districts should be cohesive units with similar history
and people. People living in
Labrador and in The Straits district would be the minority due to their
separate issues from Newfoundland and that their voice would not be
heard. That is what the
commission heard, Mr. Speaker, and they listened.
They listened, because it was important to the commission that people,
no matter where you reside in this Province, in this Legislature we are
here to represent all of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Because their voice would not be heard, that was one of the
reasons things stayed the status quo and the four seats stayed.
Mr. Speaker, what is the fairness now?
What is the equality in bringing this forward now?
Where is democracy now?
One of the things that the commission heard when they looked at this in
1993 is that geography shapes the way of life in Labrador.
It shapes the way of life.
They added a comment that said, from our own travels from their
own travels in Labrador trying to hold the hearings we can attest to
that. Mr. Speaker, I do not
know if the Minister of Finance, who was up speaking on the bill
earlier, I do not know if he has ever been to Labrador
Have you been to Labrador, I do not know?
MR. WISEMAN:
(Inaudible).
MS DEMPSTER:
Well, I would
invite him to come with me.
Pack an extra suitcase because if we are going up to take the ferry, we
could be there nine, ten days waiting for the ferry coming in to
Labrador take extra clothes, and it depends if somebody over there
thought about requesting icebreaker support and a lot of variables that
come into play.
After we are there, Mr. Speaker, nine or ten days, we might be told you
are not stranded, you can go around and enter into Labrador another way.
We might have to drive 3,000 kilometres and a number of ferries
around another way. I am not
making this up; this is Labrador.
This is the Big Land.
These are some of the things that make us different, but does that mean
that we deserve less representation?
Forty-eight members sitting in this Legislature and we only have four
seats as it is, and now somebody has the gall and the audacity to say
let's come out with a number, 13,000 people, let's put a big flux of
seats on the Northeast Avalon and let us abolish rural Newfoundland and
Labrador, and that means taking Labrador down the same time.
People see through it, Mr. Speaker.
They see through it.
I have been inundated with e-mails and phone calls over the last number
of days.
The commission in 1993 heard that a split seat would be a step
backwards. At the end, the
commission said finally: The commission can only report that in our
unanimous opinion changing the status quo and eliminating any one of the
present Labrador districts would not be a positive move.
Eliminating any one of the present Labrador districts would not
be a positive move, but all of a sudden today from a tired and weary and
an arrogant government who spent a decade of not listening, who have
squandered millions and millions and now they come out well, the area
that has been good to us, the part of the Province that has been good to
us, that have given us Voisey's Bay, that is giving us Muskrat Falls,
that is giving us IOC you know, everything is not perfect in Labrador.
There is a lot of infrastructure needs, sometimes they stand up
in the House and they complain about things and that is taking the shine
off, let's take them down a notch.
Let's take another member from them.
Mr. Speaker, this is far from over.
This is only the beginning.
What it has done, as I alluded to earlier, is it has revived the
sense of alienation and isolation and frustration and disempowerment.
I do not know how some of these people over there can sleep at
night. They are sitting
there and they are going to go down in the history books and in thirty
years' time people are going to look back and say: Who was there when
they talked about reducing the seats in Labrador and what did they have
to say?
That is why, Mr. Speaker, the weight of it is on me today.
When somebody looks back in thirty years, some student is doing
research and they want to say who were the elected people for Labrador
at that time and what did they have to say, make no mistake, I will be
on record for identifying all the reasons why Labrador do need the fair
seats. It is time for
somebody to start speaking up for Labrador and to start treating them
with some fairness and some respect for all of Labrador, what they have
given to this Province.
I have only gotten part way through the 1993 Mahoney Commission.
I have not even touched the best of the stuff from the 2006
electoral boundary review, and I look forward to taking my place again
on behalf of the people of Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
With agreement of all members of the House, the Legislature has decided
that we will sit into the evening.
Given that it is around suppertime, with leave of all members, we
will take a break and come back at 7:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER:
Do all members
agree that we should resume at 7:00 p.m.?
All in agreement?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER: This House now stands in recess until 7:00 p.m.
January
20, 2015
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVII No. 59A
The
House resumed sitting at 7:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Verge):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN:
Mr. Speaker, it is always a
pleasure and an honour to get up in this House and speak to whatever piece of
legislation is in front of this House at any given time.
Mr.
Speaker, I have listened carefully this afternoon, once we got into the
substance of the bill, to some of the comments made by people on this side of
the House, and also, as well as people on the opposite side of the House.
I would
like to start out by saying each and every one of us, including the members who
spoke towards me, will make valid points, absolutely valid points.
When a person here in this House of Assembly looks at their own district,
and has a look at it, and then think about that district's boundaries being
realigned and taking in constituents you did not have before, well then there
comes extra challenges, there comes extra work, and all that kind of good stuff.
So, each and every one of us are going to do that.
I heard
the hon. Member for Labrador making some solid, valid points in regard to her
district and the travel requirements and all that kind of good stuff.
There are a couple of members here on this side of the House included,
who are from Labrador, who have similar challenges.
I also have to say there are people who are not in Labrador who have
similar challenges, such as the South Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, which
is equally isolated. As a matter of
fact, in some ways more isolated than some other parts of the Province because
they do not have airstrips in their communities.
The only accessible way of getting to their district is by either
helicopter or by boat.
What I
will say here is that, and the missing piece out of this is and people are
putting their points forward, but the piece that I will say to all members in
this House is that it is an independent commission.
When it comes to Labrador, I am quite sure when the hon. Member for
Cartwright L'Anse au Clair was mentioning all the findings of the commission
back in 1995, that was reported on in 1996, are all valid, absolutely valid.
They were the findings of that commission.
Really,
what we are doing in regard to talking about those particular ones is thinking
it is going to be something different of the present commission that will be
struck in a little while, in a few weeks, or a few days, or whatever it may be
when we finish debating this particular amendment.
That commission will be independent.
That commission will listen.
That commission has all the powers to investigate and research all of the items
that each and every one of us will bring forward in regard to our districts, our
concerns, all of the reasons why and all the reasons why not.
What I
speak of here tonight is in regard to why we should.
One of the reasons why I say we should is because I do not think we have
the luxury of waiting until 2019. As
well, before I forget it, people say, well then we should wait for the census.
The census that was used in 2006 was accumulated in 2005, so it is a year
later. Any census that is done
which, I think, one is scheduled for 2016.
The data will not be available until 2017.
So that pushes it out again.
We cannot be doing that kind of thing.
I will
tell you as well, in regard to a census, I value the census done by Stats Canada
and all those people who do that, but we have a fair idea of where people live
in Newfoundland and Labrador. We get
that from municipalities. We get
that from our cities, the City of Mount Pearl, the City of Corner Brook, and the
City of St. John's, the Town of Gander, the Town of Clarenville, an honest
report. We are pretty good in regard
to that.
I will
go to the smaller communities, because I was the Minister of Municipal Affairs
for three years. I think I met with
every single council in Newfoundland and Labrador.
One of the very questions I used to ask them was their population base.
Each and every one of them, as good councillors and good mayors could
always do, they could give me the exact figure of the number of citizens within
their community right off the top, no more to it than that.
To be
quite honest with you as well, I came here in 2003.
I look around this House of Assembly now and there are people here who
have served longer than I have, but not very many.
I say to the House of Assembly, the members here, that I have seen a lot
of change. I have seen a lot of
change over those particular years with regard to our transportation systems.
I have seen a lot of change not that I use it a lot, but in the IT
sector in social media and all that kind of good stuff.
As a
matter of fact
MR. A. PARSONS:
A point of clarification, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Burgeo La Poile on a point of order.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I will put this out there to
ask the minister who is speaking.
Are we saying that we do not use the census and that to measure populations we
talk to mayors in communities?
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
There is
no point of order.
The hon.
the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.
MR. O'BRIEN:
Yes, no problem at all.
I will clarify it.
Yes, we
would use the census data, but I was pointing out that the census data is
actually dated when you get it, to be quite honest with you, because it is at
least a year if not older by the time the data is collected, the data is
accumulated, and is reported by the federal government in regard to the stats.
That is the way it is. By the
time it is ready it will be 2017, I say to the hon. member.
I will
go back to my train of thought, Mr. Speaker, in regard to how things have
changed. I was going to say that I
spent a fair bit of time in Labrador, taking them as an example.
One of the things I found quite interesting on the coast of Labrador is
they have a unique network of communication up there, and it is called Facebook
that I do not use. You can find
out just about anything and everything that is happening in Labrador pretty
quickly by just visiting Facebook.
That is the way it is. I am just
giving that as an example of the way communication has changed, and I respect
that.
I would
like to throw it out there as well that I have heard about people making
representation here in the House of Assembly in regard to proper representation
of the constituents of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Yes, absolutely, each and every one of us are elected to represent the
people in our districts and ultimately all the people in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
When I
reflect then on our country, Canada, the federal ridings are much, much bigger
right across Canada. We are no
different in Newfoundland and Labrador as the remote parts of Saskatchewan, the
Northern parts of Manitoba, Labrador as a federal seat, the Central seat as
well, a large geographic area that a person has to service.
They have to do all of those things that the hon. Member for Cartwright
L'Anse au Clair mentioned in her speech here this evening, in that she has to
get to events and she has to attend meetings and all that kind of good stuff.
They do it, and they do it quite well.
As well,
in regard to this piece of work that we want to get done, that we need to get
done and I think the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want us to get it
done. As I said, I have been here
since 2003 and I have heard this talked about on numerous occasions by numerous
people, not only in this House of Assembly in regard to colleagues and whatnot,
by people, academia people from the university, people in the media, general
people across Newfoundland and Labrador asking people, me included, the
question: Do you need all of the representation you have and the number of seats
that you have in the House of Assembly?
To be
quite honest with you, and I will say this as well, regardless and even though
it is absolutely a cost-saving measure, to be quite honest with you, if we were
flush with cash in Newfoundland and Labrador, the price of a barrel of oil was
$139 a barrel or whatever it may be, I think we actually should be discussing this.
I really do, in my heart and my soul, even if it did affect my District
of Gander or whatever it may be, because I think it is the right thing to do.
I really do.
We are elected as Members of this House of Assembly to do the best job
that we possibly can for the people who have elected us and, ultimately, to the
Province.
I firmly believe that we should have this discussion.
I am quite sure that we are going to have
a healthy debate over the next number of days or whatever it takes to get to
where we need to go. I would like to
remind people again midway, in regard to the words that I want to say to this
particular amendment to the Electoral Boundaries Act, is that it is an
independent commission and I think it is wrong for us to prejudge what they are
going to find.
I say to the hon. member, he says it is the time
well, times have changed, and that is a fact.
I had a conversation earlier in the evening on this in regard to being
able to get that work and the availability of the resources more so now than
ever in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador to get this work done, in
regard to the mapping. As a matter
of fact, I am sure I will bring your memory here now.
It was only a couple of days ago I do not know who the gentleman was,
but there was a person who sent an e-mail to each and every one of us in the
House of Assembly. I think his first
name was Allan or something, and he had the thirty-eight districts worked out.
As a matter of fact when I looked at them, they made sense.
So, that is one scenario.
I know that each and every one of them and I am looking at the member
there for the Bay of Islands and I see him and I am sure he is going to have an
impact and whatnot, but we know in our hearts and souls that this is something
that we absolutely should do and have a discussion about it.
Things have changed; times have changed. The
mapping is much easier.
Myself and each and every member over on the side of
the House and either member here on this side of the House, we could get
together tonight and have a sociable or whatever it may be over a period of time
and each and every one of us can come up with scenarios in reducing it down to
thirty-eight seats and every one of them be viable.
Every single one of them would make sense for whatever reason, some
reason or whatever it may be.
I think really and what I have heard and I am fairly
well out there in regard to speaking to people.
I do not mind speaking to people, I can tell you that, absolutely; but I
think the people of the Province want us to do it.
I think they know and understand that the time frames that are being
suggested are time frames that can be met, to be quite honest with you.
I think the resources are there to get it done and the resources are
there to get it done right. Because
once this debate is over in the House of Assembly, we do not play any role, none
whatsoever.
The commission goes to work.
The commission does their work. The
commission does their findings and all that kind of stuff.
The only influence that we may have is that Hansard is available to the
commission. They can access Hansard
and see what each and every one of us have said over the last couple of days,
taking out valid points that they might not have thought about or whatever it
may be.
To be quite honest with you, I urge people in this
House of Assembly to really respect the work of the commission.
The Chair is going to be independent, the commission is independent, and
they will do their work and they will come back with their findings.
They may very well come back with the same findings, I say to the hon.
member from Labrador, as they found before.
God only knows, they may very well come back and find out that you need
an extra seat in Labrador and they are going to cut us down by eleven on the
Island. We do not know.
Let the commission do its work and let them figure it
out. Because when I reflect, I
listened
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
O'BRIEN:
Even though she is my critic in the House of Assembly and I pride myself, I
listen to each and every word in this House of Assembly and sometimes I may be
roaming around or whatever it may be, but the old ears are open and I will be
listening to every word. I will come
back to it at some point in time.
I tell you, let's think about this rationally and let's
think about it in the right light, the right thing to do for the Province.
I am speaking really, right now, from my heart to be quite honest with
you, because I have heard about this a long time ago.
It happened in 1996. There
were certain recommendations that were there in 1996 and they were not accepted
by the present government. That is a
fact. They were done in 2006 and I
thought there was going to be changes, and that is not right either.
I think the commission should be independent.
I think the commission should go out and do their work, and I think the
people of the Province want the commission to do just that.
I respect what happened in the past.
There could be lots of reasons.
I was not in this House of Assembly at that particular time back in 1996
and things were different in 1996.
We did not have the Trans-Labrador Highway.
We did not have the pavement that we have today in regard to provincial
roads and all that kind of stuff.
When I got elected in 2003, there was no such thing as a BlackBerry.
There was absolutely no such thing as a BlackBerry in this Province.
As a matter of fact, I remember the management committee
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
O'BRIEN:
We
had to go and present to the management committee in regard to the BlackBerry
and allowing MHAs to have BlackBerrys and that is a fact.
That happened in this House since I was elected in 2003.
So, things could have been different in 1996, but things are absolutely
different now today in Newfoundland and Labrador in 2014 absolutely different
in regard to accessibility.
When I look at the federal ridings and I look at the
comparisons right across Canada in regard to the other provinces I think, to
be quite honest with you, over the last number of years we have led the country
in a lot of areas in regard to development and all that kind of good stuff, the
Poverty Reduction Strategy, and that is fine.
Here we are. We are not
leading the country; we are following the country we are behind them, I mean.
We are behind the whole country in regard to that whole aspect, because
we have way less people and all
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I will ask members for their co-operation.
The Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, to
continue.
MR.
O'BRIEN:
Mr.
Speaker, I think they were listening to every word; it is just that it was like
they are repeating it it is sinking in to them in regard to what I have to
say. I think it was not that they
were not listening, Mr. Speaker; they are just listening to absolutely every
single word that I am saying. I see
hon. members with their earpieces in and everything.
I do not think in this particular debate that there are
really two sides of the House of Assembly.
I really do not. I absolutely
do not. Does is affect it both sides
of this House of Assembly?
Absolutely it does, and it will. No
doubt about that, absolutely.
As a matter of fact, I would probably venture a guess
that it is actually going to impact this side more so than the other side,
because of the simple reason of the number of seats.
In regard to that math there, it is going to have more of an impact in
regard to how rural Newfoundland and where your seats sit and all that kind of
stuff. So, to be quite honest with
you, when it comes down to that, on the political side I did not even give it a
second thought, because I really feel in my heart and my soul for all the right
reasons that it is the right thing to do, and it should have been done a long
time ago. As a matter of fact, it
should have been done in 2006, but it did not happen in 2006.
The commission came back with a report that did not suggest a reduction
in seats. The report was suggested,
and it did not happen.
The report is what it is and speaks for
itself, Mr. Speaker.
I go
back because I know people have expressed certain opinions in regard to some of
the talk shows or whatever it may be.
One of the areas that the person went to was the census and that it is
not going to be valid because the census was not there.
Each and every commission in the past that has reviewed the boundaries of
the seats of the House of Assembly, worked with a census that was at least a
year old, if not four to five years old.
I
believe the census that was used in 2006 was the 2001 census.
There is the challenge. Not
doing this at this particular time right now I think is a crime, to be quite
honest with you, for the simple reason that the census will not happen until
2016. It will not be validated until
the earliest 2017. Now we are into
2018, 2019 before we can actually get it done.
The
commission would be struck in 2018 and then the report would come down possibly
in early 2019. Now we are not even
having it. The earliest possible
that we could have it, if we do not do it now, is actually 2019.
I think that is wrong, I will be quite honest with you, regardless of
what falls out of the trees.
MR. A. PARSONS:
(Inaudible).
MR. O'BRIEN:
No.
He is saying I am going to be gone.
The hon. Member for Burgeo La Poile is going to be gone.
I tell you I have learned to love this place, to be quite honest with
you, over the last twelve years. I
think maybe I might die here, to tell you the truth.
I might not go home tonight so I will die tonight, I do not know.
I really
am speaking from my heart. I think
this is the right thing to do regardless of what side of the House we sit on.
We can get up and we can certainly put our points forward.
They are all valid points.
They are all taken in account and they will be by the commission.
I thank
you for the time to speak on this important amendment tonight.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I am
glad to have my turn come to address this bill that is before us, An Act to
Amend the Electoral Boundaries Act.
For people out there who do not get to see these bills as we see them, there is
always in the beginning of a bill that we are going to discuss in the House of
Assembly Explanatory Notes.
The
Explanatory Notes for this bill gives three explanations as to what the bill is
about. The first one says to,
require the electoral boundaries commission to report upon the delimitation of
the province into districts in 2015 basically that means to change the
boundaries and to report on that change reduce the number of one-member
districts in the province to 38; and make consequential amendments for the
purpose of a commission report in 2015.
Basically, the Explanatory Notes, if you read through them, are saying one thing
clearly: the bill is about cutting the number of districts in the Province and
then making the changes that have to happen if the number of districts is cut.
This government, in its wisdom, is recommending that the districts in
this Province be cut by ten. I am
focusing on the districts because that is what is being cut.
Yes, it has implications for how many people sit in this House, but the
issue is the electoral districts of the Province and cutting those electoral
districts.
The
Premier has been bold enough to point out that everybody in the House is in
agreement on these cuts. I think my
colleague for Gander just made the same pronouncement in a different way.
What I want to say is I do not know if we need to cut.
I am open to discussing whether or not we need to cut, but I am not open
to having a bill put in front of me that has a distinct number of cuts
determined by this government without any consultation.
The
Premier, as far as I can tell, I have been following closely, is on public
record saying, no, that there really was not consultation outside of who they
are as a party. I do not know if
that means consultation outside of their Cabinet.
I do not know if it included their caucus.
I do not know if it included the provincial executive of their party, but
it did not include anybody outside of that circle.
I asked
that question of the Premier in the House of Assembly and got nowhere when it
came to getting an answer. Because I
listened to some of the public media, I heard in the public media the Premier
say, well, we made the decision ourselves.
Yes, they made the decision themselves and that is for sure.
This is not a decision that was made in consultation with the people of
the Province, not a decision that was made in consultation with people who study
these issues, and not a decision that was made for the good, as far as I can
tell, of this Province.
We have
an Electoral Boundaries Act and that Electoral Boundaries Act is very clear.
There is a principle in that Electoral Boundaries Act that I want to
read. It is the rules to guide the
commission. This is the act that
exists without any changes, the act we now have: In proposing a division of the
province into districts and in preparing their report, the commission shall
ensure that the division of the province into districts and the description of
the boundaries give primacy to the principle that the vote of every elector in
the province shall have a weight equal to that of every other elector.
We have
put this question and gotten no answer so far.
My concern is that by cutting our seats by ten, by going from forty-eight
to thirty-eight, after all the work that was done by the commission in 2006 this
government is ignoring that great attention was paid to trying to make sure that
the vote of every elector in the province shall have a weight equal to that of
every other elector. Without any
public analysis that we are aware of, because they certainly have not published
it, without any analysis to show that cutting ten will allow that to happen,
they have the gall as a government to say they are going to put people in place
and tell them this is what you have to do.
If we
follow the process that has been followed before and it was indicated in
briefings that, yes indeed, the process of before will be followed we will
have a chairperson appointed by the chief justice.
We will have four members of the commission and this will be under the
Speaker of the House taking care of that piece of the appointments.
If we follow the way it was done before, we will have two people
nominated by the government's side of the House and two people nominated, one
each nominated, by the Opposition parties.
We were
told that will still go ahead. Well,
here we are as people, we are going to have to look at somebody and say this
government is giving you an impossible task.
Can I nominate you to sit on a commission that is going to be impossible
for them to do the work they have to do, impossible number one, to do that work
within 120 days from the time of the appointment of the chairperson?
Already we are losing time because the committee will not be in place.
The clock is running.
You have
to do in 120 days what the commission in 2006 did in eight months.
You have to do it in 120 days.
You also have to cut ten districts. You
have to do that. We are telling you
that you have to do it and you have to do it in 120 days.
How are they going to do it?
The
whole process of the electoral boundaries commission in the past has been a
process that has required expertise from Natural Resources with regard to the
mapping of electoral districts. It
has required expertise from Elections Newfoundland and Labrador to then put into
operation what gets figured out by those who do the boundaries and by the
commission.
The work
that has to be done is immense. It
is work that takes months, and months, and months.
No matter what the government says and I have heard the Minister of
Finance give his explanation of how Elections Newfoundland and Labrador will be
doing a lot of their work parallel to the commission he does not talk about
the months of work that they are going to have to do once the commission does
its report and the government says what has to happen.
Yet, we are going to be asked to look at somebody and say: Will you
represent us on this commission knowing that you have an impossible task to
perform?
Let's
move on a bit. We are being told by
my colleague from Gander that this is the time it has to happen.
His language was this just has to happen.
It is imperative that it happen now.
We do not have the luxury to not do it now.
What is he talking about?
In 2006,
as he indicated himself, the commission of 2006 reported.
Most of the issues or most of the recommendations from that commission
were accepted and are reflected in the act that we now have.
That crowd over there, Mr. Speaker they were not all sitting there at
that time were the government.
They have been the government since 2006.
They have only had almost nine years to do something.
The Member for Gander is saying now we do not have the luxury not to do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS MICHAEL:
What were they doing for the
last nine years, I ask you, Mr. Speaker?
If they were so concerned in 2006 that perhaps things should have
happened, why wasn't it done then?
Why are they now, all of a sudden, from out of nowhere last week declaring they
are going to make cuts happen to our districts without consultation, without an
analysis, and putting the cart before the horse?
They should be putting a commission in place in 2016.
That is the role.
I heard
the Member for Gander do the report from 2016; by the time they get appointed we
will not have anything until 2019.
That is not what happened in 2006.
In 2006, the commission was formed in January and by the fall they had their
report ready, within the same year.
The legislation said they had to have it done within the year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS MICHAEL:
There is a big difference
between a year and four months, Mr. Speaker, a tremendous difference between a
year and four months.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When I
hear the Member for Gander and others because he is not the only one say
that we have to do this, we do not have the luxury not to do it, it forces me to
ask the question that I have asked in the House: Why now?
We have
a process that has worked in the past.
Every ten years we have our electoral boundaries commission.
It worked before, why would it not work now?
Why is it that they have decided that a cut has to happen now in the
number of districts? The weak answer
from the Premier with regard to deficit, nobody in the Province is buying that.
This decision, in one year, will only save less than one-third of 1 per
cent of the deficit, so nobody is buying that.
He has
said there is no consultation. They
did not talk with anybody outside.
They have made this decision on their own.
In saying that, he has not given us a reason for why they are doing it
now. What was the wisdom that went
on between their walls, inside of those walls?
What was the great wisdom that happened that said eight, ten seats can be
cut and people will be equally represented in this House of Assembly?
Mr.
Speaker, a couple of years ago, I think it was on an On Point show on CBC when
this question was raised and we gave some answers in the media.
One of the things that I pointed out, I am open to discussion and the
discussion would involve a lot of homework.
It would involve a lot of looking at what our reality is, how others deal
with it elsewhere, and to see are there similarities or are there differences.
I say there are many differences between us, Newfoundland and Labrador,
and other provinces.
There is
hardly a province that has what we have to deal with; first of all, so much of
our population on a coastline. We
all know that. We all know the
coastline that we have to deal with, so much of our geography being vast and
with a poor transportation system.
We do not have a public transportation system.
We put a lot of money into roads on the Island, and in recent years we
are finally seeing some money going into roads in Labrador, but that is limited
with regard to public transportation.
We have
a geography that really makes it extremely difficult, especially for MHAs in the
rural districts. Their
responsibility is to everybody in their district, not just to some.
They have to spend their time making sure they are out there listening
to, being aware of, and being knowledgeable on everything that is going on in
their districts. This is something
this government apparently has not even thought about.
We have no idea what they thought about with regard to what they have
come up with. I mean, I have said
publicly already in the media how horrified I was when I learned what they were
suggesting.
We are
here in this House of Assembly to represent people in the Province, to bring
their concerns into this House, and to make sure that everybody is treated
equally in this Province. Even with
the representation that we have, Mr. Speaker, I have to say everybody in this
Province is not represented equally.
We know that. All you have to do is
go around this Province and you know that health care may be not too bad in one
place, it may be really good in another, and it may be terrible in another.
We do not have consistency of services.
We do not have plans in place that look at making sure every part of the
Province is getting equal treatment and that their needs are being met.
This is
something we are all concerned about because that is why we are here.
We should be here to make sure everybody is being taken care of.
If we cut back to the bone because I am telling you cutting to
thirty-eight districts is back to the bone then we are going to be ensuring
that people's voices are going to be lost in this House of Assembly.
We are
not here for ourselves. We are here,
as I have said, to represent the voices.
That is why I want us to be talking about the districts because that is
what is being cut. What is being cut
is people's access, the access by people in the Province to this House of
Assembly. This government is doing
it blithely.
I cannot
in conscience vote for this bill. We
in my caucus cannot in conscience vote for this bill because this bill is
ignoring the democratic principles of our Province.
By the time this commission even starts to deal with what it is they have
to deal with, when are they going to get the time to have a consultative
process, as they did in 2006, as they did by the commission before that?
How are they going to get time to go out and meet with people and to
really find out what the concerns are?
We are
already hearing some of the concerns.
We heard concerns from the Mayor of Wabush.
I cannot believe that after all of the thought in the years past and all
the consultation that went on to create four districts in Labrador, that we can
have this government refusing to take responsibility to say they want four seats
in Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS MICHAEL:
They are putting it onto the
shoulders of the electoral boundaries commission again, a commission that is
being given an impossible task and saying oh, it is all right; they made the
decision. They will have washed
their hands of it, Mr. Speaker. That
is what they will have done. They
will have washed their hands of it and sit back and say it was not us; it was
the commission. It was the
commission doing their dirty work, Mr. Speaker.
That is what they are expecting, the commission to do their dirty work.
Well, do
you know what? It is not good
enough. We need time for this to be
really thought out. We need time for
people to really be able to make their voices heard.
We need time for people to say why they are concerned, because they are.
So, Mr.
Speaker, because of that need of time, I stand here tonight and I move, seconded
by the Member for St. John's Centre, that Bill 42, An Act to Amend the Electoral
Boundaries Act, be not now read a second time, but that it be read a second time
six months hence.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I submit
this motion to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I ask
the member to pass her amendment forward to the Table, and the House will take a
recess to consider whether or not the amendment proposed by the Leader of the
Third Party is indeed in order.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
We have
considered the amendment put forward by the Leader of the Third Party and the
amendment is in order.
The hon.
the Leader of the Third Party to speak to the amendment.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I am
very pleased the amendment has been found in order and that I can take time to
speak to it because time is the operative word.
Taking time to think things through; taking time to make sure the
decisions that are made by government, the decisions that are made by us here in
the House of Assembly, and the decisions that we have considered get the time to
be considered.
When I
was speaking to the bill itself earlier I made reference to some things being
said by my colleague from Gander because he was the one who spoke directly
before me. One of the things I heard
him say was that he has been in this House, I think he said, since 2003 and he
has heard the issues that are raised in the bill we have been considering.
He has heard these issues talked about since 2006.
He has heard since 2006, apparently, issues around cutting districts.
He has heard since 2006 issues, apparently, around the seats in Labrador.
He has heard since 2006 the issues that the opposite side of the House
has been speaking to with regard to Bill 42.
I have
been in this House since the fall of 2006.
It is not as long as my colleague, but I have been here that length of
time and I have not heard these things talked about.
They certainly were never brought up here in the House of Assembly.
I never heard this government in various bills it brought forward, or in
any public announcements under any of the leaders that they have had since 2006
until now, say that we have a problem and we have to take action right away.
We have to, without consulting with people in the Province, without
consulting the other parties in the House of Assembly we are saying ten seats
have to be cut; ten districts have to be cut in our Province.
I have
put forward the resolution we are now speaking to so that we will slow down what
this government is doing so that people can get involved.
Not at the end of a process that has been forced on them and forced on
the commission that will have a very short period of time to do its work, but a
process that starts in the beginning.
I used the phrase earlier on this evening about putting the cart before
horse. Let's turn it around and say
we need to have a consultation first with regard to cuts.
Are cuts required? Are cuts
needed?
I have
heard in this House of Assembly, and I heard in some of the briefings that we
have had, references made to other provinces.
I have looked at some of those other provinces and I have had to say you
know it is not quite the same in PEI as it is here.
Think about little PEI and think about our Province.
I am not sure we can look at PEI.
Where
else do we need the time to look? I
have heard Saskatchewan talked about.
Saskatchewan does not have the realities that we have.
They do not have the coastline that we have.
We need time to look at a place like Saskatchewan and say does what they
have there, with regard to the districts and with regard to their electoral
boundaries commission, match what we have here in Newfoundland and Labrador?
I want us to take the time, and I want the government to take the time to
give very considered attention to what does exist elsewhere in Canada, and to
answer the question: Is it the same for us here in Newfoundland and Labrador?
That is
why I brought forward this resolution begging my colleagues on the other side of
the House and begging my colleagues in the Official Opposition to not be doing a
knee-jerk reaction here, but saying we have to take the time to make sure that
what we are asking the electoral boundaries commission to do is doable.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS MICHAEL:
We have to take the time to
make sure that people can get their heads around what is going on.
Mr. Speaker, we heard about this last week for the first time when we got
a phone call. The leaders of the
Opposition parties got a phone call to meet with the Premier and I was delighted
to go meet with the Premier. All of
this came from out of the blue. They
may have been talking about it since 2006 on the other side of the House, but we
certainly have not been. There we
were being asked to support this bill, a bill that has implications way beyond
what I think the Premier, his Cabinet, and his caucus have talked about and
thought about.
We need
to have a discussion here in this House just about nothing, but the whole issue
of why we have the number of seats we have, the whole issue of why.
If seats are going to be cut, we have to make sure that everybody in the
Province is going to be equally represented in this House of Assembly.
It is our responsibility to do that, not the responsibility of the
electoral boundaries commission. It
is their responsibility, yes, to make the mechanisms happen, but we should be
having an informed discussion in this House about the number of seats, not
plucking numbers out of the air. I
have heard the government pluck numbers out of the air; I have heard the Leader
of the Official Opposition. He has
his number. He said his a while ago,
his was forty. The government's is
thirty-eight. Now we are
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I do not
like to interrupt the member, but we are getting some feedback.
I do not know if your BlackBerry is there near your mic or something?
MS MICHAEL:
Oh, it is right here.
There it is. Okay.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party to continue.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much.
We have
had these numbers thrown at us, but nobody has done an analysis of these
numbers. Why aren't we having that
discussion first in the House of Assembly?
Why didn't the government first say we want to look at the issue of cuts
and bring that discussion in here?
Not bring in a bill that is changing our electoral boundaries bill.
We need
the time. We need the time to look
at this seriously. I do not think
because we already have an act and we have an act that is a bona fide act and
an act that is proven because we already have an act we do not need to have
this happen before the general election.
We need
to look at the issue prior to the boundaries commission of 2016, if this
government were going to stand by our legislation, because according to the
timeline for that, Mr. Speaker, we probably would be debating in December of
this year what the boundaries commission should be doing.
That was the process with the 2006 commission.
The debate around how they were going to be directed happened in December
of 2005. Then the government in
January of 2006 appointed or put in place the process for the appointment of the
electoral boundaries commission who began its work and brought its report in the
fall.
If there
is anything we should be doing at this time and that is why the six months is
so important it is looking at and discussing with the public and holding, as
Opposition parties, holding as government, holding as MHAs, meetings where we
discuss: Does making a cut make sense?
How do you feel about cuts in the districts?
How do you feel in your district if your district became twice the size?
That is the kind of discussion that could be happening over the next six
months so that government could then be ready by the fall, late fall of this
year, after we have had our general election under our legislation that exists.
After that, then have the debate here in the House around what we want to
pass on to the boundaries commission that would get set up in January 2016.
So, Mr.
Speaker, time is needed. Time is
needed to get at the questions we have been raising here in this House.
Time is needed to make sure that what we pass on to the commission is
doable. Time is needed so that we
really know that the commission is going to be able to do its work.
Time is needed so that we can be assured that mistakes are not going to
be made.
Even
with regard to the legislation that we are dealing, time is needed to make sure
that everything is absolutely correct in that legislation.
We have had mistakes made in this House when bills were rushed.
This government should know about it because they are the ones who made a
good few. We cannot be rushing the
processes in this Province. We
cannot be rushing the processes in this House.
We have been doing this over and over and over again since I have been in
this House in 2006. I am shocked by
the cavalier approach that government takes to these serious decisions that we
have to make in this House of Assembly.
So,
taking the time to make sure, number one, that the legislation is absolute, that
there is no wrinkle in the legislation; taking time to make sure that what we
are asking of a commission, a commission can do; taking time to make sure that
people out there have had a voice about what we are going to put in the hands of
the commission; and taking time to make sure that we can stand in front of
somebody and say I would really like you to be on the electoral boundaries
commission. Instead of now being
embarrassed to go to somebody and say would you represent our party on the
electoral boundaries commission, knowing the difficulties that that commission
is going to have to do what right now the bill that is front of us that we have
been discussing, what that bill is demanding of them.
So, Mr.
Speaker, to me, it is extremely important that the government and the Official
Opposition join with us in saying let's put the brakes on.
Let's recognize that we have really made a mistake.
That is what I am asking of government, to recognize that people are out
there, real people not people in our offices.
They are real people, but they are the people who work for us, not people
in this building, but people out there living in the districts who are going to
be affected by the recommendations that are being put forward by this government
that they really know what is going on and they are really being listened to.
If there are petitions coming to the House, they are the ones who are
putting those petitions in the House.
This is what we need to happen.
This is the time that we need, Mr. Speaker.
So I am
really urging the government side of the House to see its error, to take time
itself I would like to know what time they took in coming up with what they
came up. When we met with them, Mr.
Speaker, last week they did not even have the legislation written.
The legislation was finalized over last weekend.
This is unbelievable. We have
had this happen before, talking to that government about changes they want to
make and then being told, well, the legislation is not ready yet.
The least that could have happened was that they could have taken the
time to finish the legislation before they sat down and talked to us.
That tells us how little they think of consultation.
That tells us how they rush and do not take the time to make serious
decisions well, and that is what I am asking them to do: to take the time to do
that.
There
has to be somebody on that side of the House over there who realizes errors have
been made. There have to be some
people on that side of the House over there who have been hearing from their
constituents, and I would like to think that the six months that we would take
this bill off the table would be time for them to go out and to talk to their
constituents, talk to them everywhere and ask how they would feel.
How would they feel if all the Northern Peninsula is one district?
How would they feel if Labrador has two districts?
How would they feel if all of the Burin Peninsula and Connaigre was all
just one district? How would they
feel about it? Ask your districts,
ask your people, take the time to really consult.
Because
that is what the bill is about. The
bill is about cutting. That is the
bill. So do not worry about anything
else, any of the consequential stuff, the bill is about cutting; yet they have
done no consultation on the cutting.
They are just passing that on to the boundaries commission and saying you do it.
Mr.
Speaker, this is not a game. Being
in here is not a game. The
democratic process is not a game.
This government has proven over and over again they do not know what the
democratic process is; they do not know what real consultation is.
I am begging them to stop and think, to think about the resolution, the
motion I put on the floor of this House, Mr. Speaker, to do the right thing and
to say let's put on the brakes.
Let's really consult. Let's really
make sure that the democratic process is happening in this Province, because it
is not happening.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Exploits.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. FORSEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I always appreciate the opportunity to speak on legislation here in the
House of Assembly. I would just like
to basically explain the Electoral Boundaries Act which establishes a mechanism
for the review and amendment of electoral boundaries in Newfoundland and
Labrador. The act provides for the
Newfoundland and Labrador Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission to be
appointed every ten years.
Under
the current act, the next commission is due to be appointed in 2016 and is
directed to divide the Province into forty-eight, one-member districts.
That is what we are here discussing and debating tonight, Mr. Speaker.
I
listened to the Leader of the NDP, and we talked about technology
MS MICHAEL:
A point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (Littlejohn):
A point of order,
the hon. the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL:
Are speakers at this time
speaking to the resolution on the floor or to the act?
If it is the motion on the floor, then
the speaker opposite is not speaking to that motion.
MR. SPEAKER:
I ask the member to speak to
the resolution.
The hon.
the Member for Exploits.
MR. FORSEY:
I will speak to the
resolution. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was
listening to the Leader of the Third Party exactly what we were talking about
actually, today's technology and what is happening.
I listened to the Member for Gander and the Minister of AES when he was
talking about technology. Then all
of a sudden when the Leader of the Third Party gets up she has some interference
with her mike over there because of her BlackBerry.
While she is sitting in the House of Assembly, and whether she represents
Signal Hill Quidi Vidi or whether she represents the District of Exploits, she
can get an e-mail while she is sitting down there, from her constituent.
So that is how far we have advanced, Mr. Speaker.
She went
on to say that they want to move it ahead six months.
Another six months will lead it into 2016.
It is actually a known fact that if the changes were made in 2016 then
the census would not be ready, I am told, until March 2017.
So really, we would still be going on the old census, which is what we
are doing anyway. Basically, what we
are saying here is that we want to move ahead with the new changes and the new
boundary changes, which a lot of people have been asking for over the years.
I do not
want to be just repeating some of the things the Leader of the Third Party said,
but we have discussed this with constituents.
She is in Signal Hill Quidi Vidi; we are out in rural Newfoundland.
We are up here debating this and we are defending this because we have
already discussed it with a lot of our constituents.
We have not discussed it with everyone; of course we have not.
I do not say she has, either, Mr. Speaker, but that is what we are doing.
Now she
has a better opportunity because of her little district that she has, whereas
out in rural Newfoundland, which we are talking about, there is a big
difference. We have no trouble
getting around. Maybe if I were the
commissioner I could see where some beautiful changes could be made probably in
St. John's. We probably should only
have four districts. Maybe we should
only have north, south, east, and west.
Maybe it would work out better.
If that is your problem, maybe that is what should happen.
I
listened to the Minister of Finance when he presented the act today, Mr.
Speaker. He referred to the
Electoral Boundaries Act of 1973.
Actually, it brought back memories of back then, because in 1975 the boundaries
were changed. Before 1975, us people
in the Exploits Valley and in the beautiful Bay of Exploits, which is now the
Exploits District, were in with Lewisporte.
We were in with Lewisporte before 1975.
I might have to ask the Speaker to move over; I could be coming back to
Lewisporte. We are not sure.
The boundaries could go anywhere.
I wanted
to mention the Lewisporte District.
Most of the Bay of Exploits, Leading Tickles, Point Leamington, Botwood, and so
on came under the Lewisporte District before 1975.
I grew up in Leading Tickles.
I moved to the big town of Bishop's Falls in 1969, which I thought was big at
the time. Guess what?
In the early 1970s when I travelled back to Leading Tickles and this
was in the 1970s, not that long ago the only phone was at the post office.
Too longs and a short, we wanted to get through to Bishop's Falls over.
You had to say over to finish your conversation.
That is
what we had for communications. No
roads, no communications, no Facebook, no voicemail.
AN HON. MEMBER:
No BlackBerry.
MR. FORSEY:
No BlackBerry and no e-mail.
MR. O'BRIEN:
We used to have (inaudible)
to patch your own roads.
MR. FORSEY:
That is true, I say to the
Member for Gander. I did have my own
wheelbarrow when I got elected in 1987 because we did have a lot of
infrastructure deficiencies. We did
need some road patching and some good roadwork, which I must say we have done
very well in the past few years.
I came
out here on Sunday. I checked my
voicemail. I have gotten e-mails
from constituents. I have e-mailed
them back. As a matter of fact, I am
after getting inbox messages on my Facebook from constituents.
I did not have to get in my car today and drive to Botwood to talk to
that constituent.
They
want to see us on the ground because we have to represent all the people, which
include municipalities, which include the fire stations, and the different
volunteer groups. We have to support
them and I will use Lewisporte because we were under Lewisporte at the time, Mr.
Speaker. If Lewisporte receives so
much funding for municipal infrastructure and for fire services, well then so
does the District of Exploits, so does the District of Grand Falls-Windsor
Buchans, and so does the District of Grand Falls-Windsor Green Bay South.
Whether
or not a portion of that comes under the one district now, it is the same amount
of money that is going to be spread out so these people are still going to get,
hopefully, the applications that they put in approved and get their work done.
That part is not going to change.
The representation will change, yes, and the demographics are going to be
different. We know our geography.
I
respect the problems and the challenges they have in Labrador, Mr. Speaker.
No question about it. I
travelled down there many, many years in my former career, all through Southern
Labrador and Lake Melville. I worked
in Lab West. I am quite familiar
with the challenges in the Big Land, no question about it, but they are not
unique.
We have
the member there for Placentia Bay St. Mary's, is that correct?
MR. F. COLLINS:
Close enough.
MR. FORSEY:
He has 540 kilometres of
roads, Mr. Speaker 540 kilometres of roads.
Does he have his challenges?
I would say. I do not know how many
communities. How many communities?
MR. F. COLLINS:
Forty.
MR. FORSEY:
Forty communities.
MR. JOYCE:
How many communities
(inaudible)?
MR. FORSEY:
Forty.
I
listened to the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair in Southern Labrador who
has I think, I am not sure, fourteen or fifteen communities, and 600 kilometres
of travel. Six hundred kilometres
and fifteen communities, 540 kilometres and forty communities; I am not talking
about Baie Verte, I am not talking about the Northern Peninsula, I am not
talking about St. Barbe and all that area.
It is huge. The travel is
huge.
Down in
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune it is the same thing, Mr. Speaker.
It has the same challenges.
You cannot drive to all their communities in their district.
I can. At least I think I
can.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. FORSEY:
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that
when the time comes all the members on the other side will get an opportunity to
speak. They will be able to talk
about their districts and the challenges they have.
What we
are doing here is making changes in the boundaries that people have been asking
for some time. People out in the
districts, people in the media, and even the Leader of the Opposition said he
called for it a couple of years ago.
As a matter of fact, they support it.
They support this move.
If I am
reading it right, I do not believe they want to go into 2016.
They are hoping that this can be done before 2016 so we can have our
election for this year. I think that
is roughly what they are looking to get done and that is what we are trying to
get done.
Mr.
Speaker, if we wait until 2016, then we are going to be using the old census,
which is what we are going to be using now, and it will not get changed until
2019, which is huge. That is another
four years down the road. Another
four years that we can save $10 million.
It is a twofold savings, Mr. Speaker, because there are also the pensions
that would be derived by these ten members as well.
That, in itself, is huge.
This is what we are trying to do because of our fiscal restraints.
There
are many reasons why you do things as a government, Mr. Speaker.
You do it because of fiscal restraints.
You have to make some tough moves sometimes, but you also need to make
changes with the times. You need to
change with the times. That is why
technology today will allow us to do the job that we need to do.
We can do it so quick today, it is just amazing.
If my
father and many more fathers and mothers were alive today and saw the changes
that are after coming around in the past thirty years, they probably would not
believe it. For us to get from
Leading Tickles to Point Leamington, Mr. Speaker, we would have had to use a
boat to get to that community.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. FORSEY:
The problem, I think,
especially with some of the Opposition members, is that some of the candidates
they have out there are probably giving them a lot of trouble.
They are not happy with their party because they were expecting that
nominations would be called and they could have their candidates in place.
They have had possibilities for the past five or six months, but the
information I am getting is that they apparently do not want some of those
candidates so they did not call the nomination.
Well,
that is not my problem. Not at all,
but in the meantime they will have their opportunity.
When these boundary changes are made, they will have these chances.
Mr.
Speaker, I still have a few minutes left.
I would like to go back to explain a few things on the current Bill 42
amendments. The proposed amendments
will require the Newfoundland and Labrador Electoral Districts Boundaries
Commission to divide the Province into thirty-eight proposed, one-member
districts in 2015, and in 2026, and every tenth calendar year thereafter.
So it is very clear, but we have no influence on the decisions that the
commission is going to make regarding the boundaries.
It is left up to them and whatever the recommendations are
MS MICHAEL:
A point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
A point of order, the hon.
the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL:
Mr. Speaker, the speaker is
supposed to be speaking to the resolution.
When we go back to the bill, he can get twenty minutes to speak on the
bill a point of order.
MR. SPEAKER:
There is no point of order,
but I remind the hon. member that we are speaking to the resolution and the
resolution discusses the time, the six months hence.
So I ask the speaker, the hon. the Member for Exploits, to come back to
the resolution, please.
MR. FORSEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just for
the information of the people out there who are watching, every time that
someone interrupts for a point of order we lose our time.
Some time, it is valuable time maybe that is what she is thinking
because what we are trying to explain that the thing that she brought forward
cannot work, it is not what we are looking for, it is not what the people want,
so maybe that is what her problem is.
As I was
about to say, we have no influence on the commission report when they come in
with the boundary changes. Whether
that was six months down the road in what she was saying, or within 120 days, or
in 2016, or 2026, it is not going to make any difference.
The
Chair of the commission is appointed by the Chief Justice.
MR. OSBORNE:
The other four are appointed
by the Speaker.
MR. FORSEY:
I thank the Member for St.
John's North South, I am sorry; my apologies.
He left South and went North.
I think that is North, but he came from South, so the Member for St. John's
South. Thank you very much.
The other members are appointed by the Speaker, that is correct, but we
have no influence on the decision that they make.
Like I said earlier, we have talked to a lot of our constituents out
there and we have many ways of making contact today with constituents.
I do not
think I want to go back to the time and I believe the gentleman was Speaker of
the House as well, from Lewisporte, I might add.
Jim Russell was our Member for Lewisporte at the time and it was before
1975 because in 1975 the district became Exploits, the beautiful District of
Exploits Mr. Jim Russell, yes. He
was our member, also Speaker of the House, and the Speaker of the House today is
from Lewisporte as well. So that
part has not changed, they are still from the same community, but they serviced
a different district. They
represented a different district, and that is the point I am trying to make.
Why are
we so afraid of changing? I have
always said, whenever I spoke to a group, especially students, you should never
mind change because if you make choices and there are all kinds of choices; it
is your choice to do certain things.
If you make a choice that does not work out that well for you, you can make
another choice. You can make a
change. That is what we are doing,
Mr. Speaker. We are making a change,
hopefully for the betterment of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We are
going to recommend that the districts be put down to thirty-eight.
We are doing it for several reasons.
Number one, it needs to be done.
A lot of people have told us they wanted it done.
We have a Premier who is willing to make some of those tough decisions
and as a caucus we support it. It is
not something that we have not discussed before because we have.
Unlike the Leader of the Third Party, I do not know if she discussed it,
but we have. We have discussed it,
Mr. Speaker.
Now what
we want to do is move forward with this very important piece of legislation.
I know the Opposition are supporting it.
In what manner we are not exactly sure, but I know they are.
They will have their chance to speak.
Mr.
Speaker, I certainly cannot support the amendment put forward by the Leader of
the Third Party.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
standing now to speak to the hoist amendment which was just introduced into the
House. Just for purposes of those
who may be watching or listening, if it was not already explained, I am pretty
sure it was, but the hoist amendment essentially delays this process by six
months to allow for study and/or consultation.
It is my
opinion that all this does is guarantee that this process will be slower and
that there will definitely not be an election in 2015 as the law calls for.
Now, I
think we have made our points so far in this House.
I had an opportunity to speak at length earlier today.
We generally support seat reduction.
We, as opposed to what the Premier stated earlier today, are not going to
obstruct this, nor are we going to rush this.
We are going to give this the time it needs and the due diligence it
deserves, as any piece of legislation should have in this House.
We are going to do this right.
We wish
that this was done as per the normal procedure, as was done through law, a fixed
election in 2015 and an electoral boundaries commission appointed in 2016.
We think that would have been the proper route; however, we are faced
here today with a government that has brought this forward.
It is a government that has a majority and will get their will, as they
have done on numerous other bills including Bill 29.
A government with a majority will get what they want.
If you
really want to do this process right or delay this process, we think you should
take that off the table and do it as it was supposed to do.
As I stated here earlier today, the natural evolution and these are the
words of government officials was 2016; this is unnatural.
This
government will use their majority.
The people of the Province would like to see an election as per the law, as per
the fixed election date, as it is supposed to happen.
They would like to see a Premier and a government with a mandate.
This hoist amendment will guarantee that does not happen.
Therefore, we are not prepared to support the hoist amendment, but we are
prepared to continue debating this bill, as is our job.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I am
happy to stand and speak to this hoist amendment to Bill 42, An Act To Amend The
Electoral Boundaries Act. I fully
support this hoist amendment. I
believe that it is in the best interest of the people of the Province.
Mr. Speaker, that is what we should be doing here this evening, looking
at and exploring really, ultimately, what is in the best interest of the people
of the Province.
Mr.
Speaker, we all know that our electoral process, our governance process does not
belong to the government, it does not belong to the Opposition, and it does not
belong to the Third Party. It
belongs to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I think that is a foundational principle of our electoral process.
It is a foundational principle of our governance that it belongs to the
principal of the Province.
Every
one of us here in this House has been given the responsibility, the right, and
the honour to represent the people of our districts to ensure that what happens
in this House is in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Nothing
short of that, anything that we decide in this House is not about what is best
for government or for the majority party.
It is not about what is best for the Liberals.
It is not about what is best for the NDP.
It is about what is best for the people of this Province and what is in
the best interest of the people of this Province.
That is what we should be about here tonight, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to stand and give a bit of a reality check.
Mr. Speaker, I think that is what we need right now.
We have heard the Premier earlier today say that he is willing to make
the tough
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible)?
MS ROGERS:
Yes, I am speaking to the
timing of this. The Premier has said
that he is willing to make the tough decisions.
My colleague from the District of Exploits said, Mr. Speaker, as a caucus
we have made these tough decisions.
Mr.
Speaker, it is not up to the caucus to decide how our governance is done.
It is not up to this caucus across the floor to decide how our electoral
process will be done. It is not
their right to do that. It is up to
the people of the Province through an appointed electoral boundaries commission.
That is who gives us guidance.
Mr.
Speaker, the reality check that I would like us to consider is from January 19
to 22, probably, more than likely, we will be in this House of Assembly and we
will debate. Probably, more than
likely, government, because they are a majority, will pass changes to the
Electoral Boundaries Act. That is
probably what is going to happen.
They have a majority.
They
said they have consulted. Who knows
who they have consulted with because they have not revealed to us who they have
consulted with. No one knows where
this magic number of ten has come from.
Maybe this caucus does, but they have not revealed that to us.
Mr.
Speaker, then that brings us to January 30.
At January 30 the chief justice has thirty days to appoint the chair of
the commission. Government says that
it will possibly be before January 30, but that is what the chief justice has.
That brings us up to about January 30.
Other members of the commission are appointed by the Speaker of the House
of Assembly no more than five days after the Chair is put in place.
That brings us to February 6.
Then if
the commission, in fact, Mr. Speaker, submits a report to the Department of
Justice and Public Safety, 120 days later, four months later, after the Chair is
in place
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
hesitate to rise, but given that the Leader of the Third Party also rose on a
point of order, I feel compelled to do so.
The
member is giving us a history lesson in the process of electoral reform.
As you so rightly reminded members of this side of the House a few
moments ago, we are to speak to the resolution which is only about hoisting the
bill that is being discussed for a period of six months.
It has nothing to do with the bill itself.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
I remind
the hon. member we are speaking to the resolution.
The resolution says that we move this off six months hence.
Please confine yourself to those, please.
Thank
you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
My
intention, Mr. Speaker, is about the timeline.
I am speaking specifically about the timing.
Not a history lesson. That is
not my intension. My intention and I
believe that what I am speaking about at this point is the timing and why we
need a hoist motion.
Mr.
Speaker, if, in fact, the amendment is passed, we are looking at how possible is
it, why it is important at this point to do a hoist amendment?
We are looking at, is it even possible for what government has proposed?
Is it even possible to accomplish within a timeline, within our
legislation, within a legislative, predetermined time for an election?
Mr.
Speaker, the commission submits their report to the Department of Justice and
Public Safety four months after the Chair is in place.
That brings us up to June.
The minister then presents the report to Cabinet and tables it in the House of
Assembly, which then passes amendments to the House of Assembly Act specifying
thirty-eight districts.
That
gives Elections Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, from June to September
to create new maps, voter's lists, et cetera.
Elections Newfoundland and Labrador says it needs four months, at least
four months, before an election to do this work and prepare the new districts
for an election. That would take us
to the end of September. September
25, in fact, is the last legal date to drop the writ.
One of the things that we do know
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MS
ROGERS:
That is right, to drop the writ, yes, for our fixed election date.
Mr. Speaker, as sure as the sun rises, as sure as the
sun sets, we know that all committees, all commissions, all inquiries take
longer than their target date. We
know that. As a matter of fact, we
have been waiting two years for the report on the Residential Tenancies Act; we
have been waiting two years on the housing and homelessness act.
MR.
SPEAKER:
I
remind the hon. member to speak to the resolution, please.
MS
ROGERS:
We
know how long things take, sometimes simply because they do, because
consultation is a very intricate process; sometimes because of political
interference; sometimes because governments do not want to release information.
So, as sure as the sun sets, as sure as the sun rises, we know it will
take more time. We know how
elections work.
I am saying that I fully support the resolution, the
hoist amendment, because it is not possible to do the work that must be done
even if the work is compressed, and if it is compressed in the way that the
Premier has presented, it is not possible; the time simply is not there.
That is the reality check I would like us all to consider, Mr. Speaker.
It is not whether or not it is going to be an extensive
consultation process. That is not
possible because the time is not there.
The Premier and his caucus have proposed a truncated approach to
electoral reform, and we know that our electoral system is the very foundation
of how we live together as a society.
It is how we manage our resources.
It is how we manage our economy.
It is how we look at our future.
It is foundational to our whole electoral system.
Mr. Speaker, I posit that it is simply not possible to
do even this truncated version of consultation, even this sham of a consultation
that this government is putting before the House right now.
It is not possible; therefore, we need a hoist amendment.
We cannot proceed in this way.
We know that the decisions that are made in this House
are decisions, again, that are so foundational to our society and how we live
together. Not only is it about how
we manage our economy, it is about our social programs.
It is about health, about education, about roads, about transportation,
about justice, and population growth.
So, Mr. Speaker, all that business happens in this House by the people
who are elected by the people for the people to make decisions in the best
interest of the people. So, I argue,
in fact, that the bill that the government has put before the House, Bill 42, to
amend the Electoral Boundaries Act, to do it in this manner is not in the best
interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Perhaps it is in the best interests of the caucus that
who is putting it forth, who says that they have consulted.
Perhaps it is in their best interests, but it is not in the best
interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Therefore, I believe that the motion to hoist this bill is in the best
interests of the people. The
government may not see that it is in their best interests of course not, they
would not see that. Perhaps the
Official Opposition may not see that it is in their best interests, but I truly
believe, because that is our role, to make decisions, to make legislation that
is in the best interests of the people.
Not in the best interests of government, not in the best interests of
someone's party, not in the best interests of someone's own political career,
not in the best interests of whether or not someone is going to win a seat or
not, not in the best interests of whether or not if there is movement that
somebody's seat will be more winnable.
Our moral obligation is to make decisions that are in
the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Therefore, I believe at this point until government can propose a time
frame that is respectful and realistic in terms of the work that has to be done
for electoral boundary changes that the hoist amendment is in the best interests
of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
To do anything less is not acceptable.
The people of the Province know; they feel blindsided by this most
people in this House feel blindsided by this.
Most people are wondering where that number ten came from.
I wonder. I am sure everybody
on this side of the House wonders.
There has been no explanation.
So, in fact, Mr. Speaker, the hoist amendment is about
putting on the brakes; it is about offering some stability.
We know in the current economic climate that we are in, we are in a
precarious situation, rather than throwing our electoral system into chaos
because if this bill is passed, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will not
know what their boundaries are and Elections Newfoundland and Labrador will not
be able to be ready for September 25.
We know that getting ready for an election is not just
about putting a candidate's name forward.
In order for people to fully participate in the electoral process,
communities need time. They need
time to organize; they need time to figure out what it is they want in a
representative in their community.
To ram this piece of legislation through the House violates the ability and the
right of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to fully participate in the
electoral process. That is what is
being done. By ramming this through
the House it is absolutely violating the democratic rights of the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, again
MR.
KING:
A
point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
A
point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am not going to repeat the message I left a few
moments and the relativity to the hoist amendment, but I will say that it is an
absolute insult to every single member of this House for the member to stand
there and accuse anybody of trying to ram this through in an undemocratic
fashion.
We are here today following the process outlined in the
House of Assembly rules and regulations.
All members of this House are free to speak to all amendments, but it is
highly insulting and out of order for any member to suggest that anybody else in
this House is undemocratic because they do not agree with the tenure of the
debate.
MR.
SPEAKER:
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS
ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, again, to sum up our role this evening
in this House, as each
and every one of us stands in the House to either speak to the hoist amendment
or to speak to the bill, is about looking at what is in the best interest of the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador .
It is not what is in the best interest of a particular party.
It is not what is in the best interest of a particular political career.
It is what is in the best interest of the people of the Province.
I am
sure every member in this House knows that is their role.
I am sure that every member in this House is working for that goal.
I do believe that a reality check is necessary in order for us to stop
and look at what are the ramifications of a bill that does not give ample time
for thorough consultation, but also does not give the people of the Province
ample time to fully participate in the electoral process, to have the time to
organize, and to have the time to become involved.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would state that I fully support this hoist amendment.
I would hope that other members in the House would also support this
hoist amendment in order to put the brakes on this so that this can be done
properly. Our governance system, our
electoral system is the foundation of how we live together as a community, how
we plan our futures, how we take care of one another, and how we ensure that our
resources are well used in the best interests of the people.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
There being no further
speakers, I call for the vote.
All
those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
MR. SPEAKER:
The amendment is defeated.
On
motion, amendment defeated.
MR. SPEAKER:
We are now back to debating
the original amendment.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible) speak to the
bill.
MR. SPEAKER:
No, the hon. member does not
have any time left on the clock.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Just to explain to the House,
once the hon. member made the amendment, she lost what time she had remaining on
her original twenty minutes.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl South speaking to the amendment.
AN HON. MEMBER:
The original motion.
MR. SPEAKER:
The original motion.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It
certainly is a pleasure to stand in this hon. House and speak to Bill 42, An Act
to Amend the Electoral Boundaries Act.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to start off just to say that for this last term
of office, the last three or three-and-a-half-years, we have debated a lot of
legislation. Some of it has been
quite controversial. Some of it has
been pretty routine, but this probably is one of the most important pieces of
legislation that we have had to debate.
While
quite often, I would suggest, I have had my disagreements with the Third Party
on their positions on a number of issues, I have to say when it comes to this
issue I do share a lot of the same concerns.
Not all, perhaps, maybe not to the same extremes, but I do share some of
the concerns.
Mr.
Speaker, there are a number of issues here that I would like to talk about, but
I just want to start off with the whole concept of democracy.
Really this is what this ties into; it ties into democracy.
We have a long history here in this Province.
I know over the last number of years as members we have had the
opportunity to attend Remembrance Day ceremonies, and we realize the ultimate
price that has been paid for democracy.
We all value that democracy.
We know
there are places around the world where there are people fighting every day to
have what we have.
Living
in a democratic society is more than just simply having the right to vote.
That is one portion of democracy, but there is a lot more to democracy
than simply casting your vote every three or four years or whatever the case
might be. It is also about rule of
law. It is also about freedom of
speech. It is also about freedom of
assembly. It is about basic human
rights, Mr. Speaker. It is also
about having a functional Legislature.
Ultimately, the rules, the laws, and the regulations that govern our free
society, that legislation that leads to those rules of law, come from the
Legislature.
We are
tasked with the job basically of reviewing legislation.
We are tasked with the job of passing new legislation.
We are tasked with the job of amending existing legislation in order for
us to better the society in which we all live.
That is a responsibility I certainly take very seriously and I know it is
a responsibility that every Member of this House of Assembly takes very
seriously. If they did not take it
seriously, I am sure they would not have raised their hand to say that I want to
run for office and represent people.
It is
not an easy job by any stretch.
Sometimes people have this perception about people in public life.
Sometimes we bring it on ourselves there is no doubt about it, with some
of the antics that occur from time to time and things that happened.
The reality of it is that everybody in this House understands the role of
an elected member, of an MHA.
We all
understand the responsibility that we are charged with.
We all understand the time that it takes to perform our role, whether it
be time in the House of Assembly, whether it be time in preparing for debate in
the House, whether it be out and about in our districts speaking with our
constituents, attending meetings, trying to solve issues on behalf of our
constituents, attending public events, and community events in our district, Mr.
Speaker. Not to mention the toll it
takes on family life and the fact that you are always under scrutiny and in the
public eye. We all understand that.
We all take that on willingly.
We accept that. Nobody
twisted our arms and made us run. We
all understand that. It is important
to understand that we do have a very important and vital role to play in our
democratic process.
Mr.
Speaker, what is being suggested here there are a number of items, but I
wanted to speak first of all to the representation piece.
What is being proposed here is that we would take what currently we have,
forty-eight seats in this Legislature, and should this piece of legislation pass
as proposed by the government, we will see those forty-eight seats reduced to
thirty-eight seats.
Mr.
Speaker, I think there are a lot of people in this Province, I think the
majority of the people in this Province would like to see a reduction.
I really believe that to be the overall public opinion.
I think that there are a lot of people who see merit in it.
As I try to look at what we do, the districts we represent, I believe
that we can see a reduction. I do.
I agree with people. I
believe we can see it. I am not sure
what that number is. That is one of
my concerns: I am not sure what that number is.
The
government says the number is thirty-eight.
The Premier has been asked.
It has been raised over here in the Opposition and it has been raised by the
Third Party as to where did you come up with the number thirty-eight.
I have yet to hear a response unless I missed it.
I know it has been asked a number of times.
I have yet to hear a response, or at least a satisfactory response, as to
where the number thirty-eight came from.
Before
we start looking at numbers, if we were to do this right and it is important
that we do this right because it will be another ten years before we get a
chance to do it again. So the
decision we make now is going to impact us
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. LANE:
Actually not ten years,
eleven years; that is right. We are
going to be eleven years before we can reverse this.
So, it is important that we do it right.
I do
wonder to myself, while my gut feeling is that we can see a reduction, based on
that fact that other provinces are operating with similar populations or even
higher populations, have higher ratios than we have in a lot of districts, there
are other provinces that have less MHAs or MLAs they may be called in other
parts of the country. So based on
that, based on their numbers, even looking at Atlantic Canada, I believe that we
can possibly see a reduction.
However,
if we are looking at democratic reform, and this is all supposed to be falling
under the guises of democratic reform, and if that is truly what we are trying
to achieve and I have had some conversations and listening to some of the talk
that is out there I do wonder to myself aloud: Are we not putting the cart
before the horse? That is a question
I would ask. Because it is one thing
to go through a process that talks about do we have enough MHAs to cover
districts in terms of geography, in terms of the number of people you represent.
That is one piece of the equation.
The
other piece of the equation that is not being considered here, unfortunately
and if we were really truly committed to doing it right, we could have started
two years ago, for argument's sake, and we should have first been looking at how
do we better operate the House of Assembly.
Let's look at the Standing Orders.
Let's look at legislative committees.
Let's look at the role of MHAs and so on.
Let's look at Cabinet and the size of Cabinet.
Let's look at how we operate the House of Assembly, how we operate the
Legislature. Let's put those
measures in place first to reform.
Once we
have done that and we have reformed our Legislature and our House of Assembly
and made improvements as we would want to see, and adopted best practice, then
when it came time to determine the number of MHAs required not only would we
simply be playing a numbers game with a ratio of MHA to the number of
constituents and geography, but we would also be factoring into that equation do
we have the appropriate numbers of MHAs and so on to accommodate our reformed
Legislature, our committee process, and so on.
If you
were truly going to do it the right way, I think we are putting the cart before
the horse, and we would have done that first.
That being said, that is just my opinion as to how I believe it could
have been done and should have been done.
If the government is serious, I believe it could have been done two or
three years ago. This was obviously
I am not sure what the reason is of why it is being done now.
The only reason I have heard is about cost savings.
That is the only reason that I have heard.
Maybe
there are other reasons, but it is obviously not something that has been
considered by the government any length of time, given the fact that the Premier
has called and had his own nomination for his party in his own district only
before Christmas, given the fact the Deputy Premier, same thing, and I believe
the candidate for Humber Valley.
On the
government side, they have already held three nominations themselves, four
districts which are likely going to change in some way.
If this is something that you had been planning and we were planning to
do this and do it right, it does not make sense to me that you would have done
that, that you would have called those nominations in districts knowing that it
was all going to change, which leads me to believe that this is just basically
some new idea, some epiphany, whatever the case might be, that just occurred
over the last month or so.
I am not
sure why. We are being told it is
about the Budget. I think we all
understand the situation we are in.
We all understand it is going to require tough decisions, as the Premier has
said himself; but when you look at the fact we are talking one-third of 1 per
cent of the deficit, I am not sure that this is something that we would want to
do now and we would want to rush through.
Sometimes there is a price to pay for democracy.
Again, I
want to reiterate, these comments are not to suggest that I do not favour seat
reduction. Because again, I believe
we can do with less, based on other provinces.
My concern, which I think is a concern of all my colleagues I believe
the Third Party as well is that we just want to make sure that it is done
properly so that not only are we going to make sure that we save money where we
can, but also that we have a properly functioning democracy, a properly
functioning Legislature, and that people receive fair representation.
I know I
look at my district, I am in an urban district.
A lot of members are. I know
the number of issues that I have to deal with, functions I have to attend, and
so on. As I said, it is very busy;
but I cannot even imagine what it would be like for a lot of the rural MHAs, for
the Labrador MHAs, because not only do they have to deal with the phone calls
from constituents on different issues and so on, attending functions and
whatever, then they also have to have the time to get there.
I am
also very fortunate; I have one municipality.
We have MHAs who probably have I do not know the numbers, but maybe
ten, twenty, thirty communities. So,
if I went to one firemen's ball, for argument's sake, there might be some who
might have to go to twenty, and so on.
Or if I am dealing with one council, there are some MHAs who have to deal
with thirty councils and their issues and their concerns.
I know
how busy they must be, or I can imagine how busy they must be.
I could easily say yes, no problem, if you want to tack on an extra 2,000
or 3,000 people onto my district, it would not be an issue for me; but I think
there would be issues in some other rural areas and some of the more challenged
districts.
So, it
is not black and white. It is not
just as simple as just taking a bunch of numbers and drawing the line on a map.
We heard, I believe, the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills
talking about this gentleman. I
think he said his name was Allan who sent us all an e-mail.
In a very short period of time, or I am assuming a relatively short
period of time, he was able to take a map, divide it up into thirty-eight
pieces, and say here you go.
It is
not that simple, though. It is not
that simple. It is easy to just
simply divide up a map geographically into a bunch of pieces.
It is quite another thing to understand the issues associated to the
districts, transportation to get to and from, the numbers of people living in a
particular town, the number of towns, and those types of issues.
Those people depend on their MHAs to represent them.
It is very important that they get fair representation.
To
arbitrarily choose a number of thirty-eight, a number in which we do not know
where that number came from and what the rationale was, I have a problem with
that. That is why we have proposed
at least a range. We are saying
thirty-eight to forty-two.
There
will be people who might argue it should be wide open, let the commission choose
the number, period. We realize the
people of the Province favour a reduction.
We realize that we believe we can do with less, so at least by proposing
a range we are not tying the hands of the commission.
It is giving them that flexibility.
They are
being told it must be thirty-eight.
Maybe when they do their review they will say based on a number of factors we
can cut a map up into thirty-eight pieces, but in terms of fair representation
we believe the number should be forty, for argument's sake, or forty-one, or
forty-two, whatever it may be.
They do
not have that flexibility. Under
this legislation, even if they know that thirty-eight is a bad number, they are
forced to make the best of that bad number.
I do not think they should be forced to make the best of that bad number.
If thirty-nine is the number, or forty, whatever it is, if that is the
best number, then that should be the number.
That is my view, it is taking independent people.
I do not
have any concerns. Someone talked
about that some people are saying the government is going to do it so they can
pick and choose who is on the committee and they can arrange the boundaries to
their favour. I do not buy any of
that. I agree with the government.
I do not buy that. There is
going to be a judge who is going to be appointed as the Chair.
There are going to be four people on the committee, two appointed.
They are all appointed by the Speaker, but my understanding is the
practice of two by the government and two by the Opposition; one from the Third
Party and one from the Official Opposition.
I am sure that will be done.
It will be done fair and make sense.
I have no issue with that.
I have
no reason to believe that there will be anything untoward, I really do not.
I believe that if you put good people there and there is a judge
overseeing it, that it is going to be done properly.
It is going to be done fair and square.
I have no concern there.
Anyone who puts that myth out there, I do not support that myth.
I will agree with the government on that point.
My big
concern and I have others I will have other opportunities to speak.
My main concern right now that I want to speak about is the arbitrary
selection of the number thirty-eight.
If at the end of the day you go with an amendment which we have put out
there and I guess we are going to put in thirty-eight to forty-two if the
commission does the review, they have the flexibility.
I would
say to the government if they come back, this independent group, thirty-eight to
forty-two, and they say thank you for the flexibility, we went out there, we did
what we had to do, we believe the number is thirty-eight.
If they agree with that number, I do not have a problem with it, if that
is what it is, but they may come back and say the number should be forty.
I do not
know why anybody on either side of the House, given the fact that we all believe
that this is an independent group, they will be professional people I do not
understand why anybody would be against
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
not be able to understand why anybody would be against that concept.
Mr.
Speaker, that is what we are going to be suggesting.
We have some other issues as well, but no doubt I am going to have
another opportunity or two or three to speak.
I know my colleagues will as well.
I will save some of the other points for the next time.
I just
say to the government, this is a very, very important piece of legislation.
At the end of the day all anybody wants on any side here, I believe, is
to do it properly, to do it fairly, and to do it right for the people we
represent.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and
Family Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. S. COLLINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a
pleasure to stand on my feet. I was not expecting to be here tonight, but to
tell you the truth, if I am in St. John's, there is no place I would rather be.
If I am away from my family out in the district, if I am in St. John's,
this is where I want to be. It is
great we are able to stand here tonight and debate.
My
colleague across the way talked about democracy.
You are looking at it right here.
This is the exercise of democracy, the fact that we can be here and
debate in a sensible forum. If we do
not agree with one's opinions we can cross the floor and join another party.
That is all democracy, Mr. Speaker.
That is what people have fought for and that is certainly what we are so
proud to represent here in this House of Assembly.
Mr.
Speaker, my colleague also talked about how important this piece of legislation
is. It certainly is.
Literally, it is going to change the electoral map of Newfoundland and
Labrador. It is not the first time
it has been done, and it certainly will not be the last time it will be done, I
am sure.
We have
talked about the catalyst in this, what has caused us to be here today and those
types of things, and we talk about the price of oil.
Obviously it has already affected us greatly.
You look into the short term and certainly it is going to have a huge
impact on us as well. That is not
exclusive to Newfoundland and Labrador.
It is affecting other provinces right throughout the country,
particularly Alberta, Saskatchewan, and other commodity-based economies.
It is affecting the country as a whole.
I was
only reading the newspaper earlier today,
The Globe and Mail, and they were talking about how it is going to have a
profound impact, revenue-wise, on the country.
I think something upwards of just over $4 billion.
With regard to provincial revenues, I think the number that was put out
there was over $7 billion. If you
look at that, it is a good chunk of change.
That is just in revenue this year.
We obviously face challenges, Mr. Speaker, and that is something that is
very important. It is important to
recognize that and certainly that is the place where you need to start.
The
Premier has said everything is on the table.
I think we are going to be entering into a lengthy process.
Us as a government, us as Cabinet are going to enter into a lengthy
process of looking at exactly what is on the table.
To reiterate what the Premier said, everything is on the table, because
it has to be at this point.
Of
course, there are things we can do before the Budget process starts.
That is why we are here today.
We are able to do this before the Budget process.
I cannot say it enough, there are other things to follow, and other
suggestions have been made on both sides of the floor and in the public, I have
heard. We are going to look at all
of that.
This is
a starting point. I think it is an
important one. I have heard some
members of the Opposition, I have also heard some people in the media as well
talk about, this looks to be $10 million over the next four years thereabouts
approximately $10 million, and saying, no, it is not really.
It is just a shot in the bucket I think one person had said.
It is a very small amount, $10 million.
That kind of bothers me, Mr. Speaker.
If you are looking at facing a huge looming deficit and it could be as
great as $1 billion, we do not know, because our fortunes are so closely tied to
the price of oil.
There is
not one line item that we can go after and cut one line item that is going to
give us $1 billion. It is going to
be done through savings and it is going to be done through initiatives such as
this one. It is going to add up.
It is all smaller pieces. As
I said, there is not one golden bullet.
There is not one thing we can do to solve a problem when you are looking
at looming deficits, as we are with the price of oil where it is.
I think
this is a significant move. It is
$10 million over four years, but also you have to look at the pension
implications. It is hard to give you
a number on that right at this moment, but that could be a large number as well.
If you are looking at not only the $10 million but plus the pension
implications, you are getting up to quite large numbers.
It is something that if we can do it today, why would we not look at it
today? We are facing issues today.
It is not the first time this has ever been brought up, but let us deal
with it today. I think it shows
fortitude and it shows leadership on behalf of the Premier to want to do this
today and not to put it off.
If we
put it off for four years, again, it is four years for what?
Why do we wait four years?
That is the question I would like the Opposition why wait the four years?
Give me a real reason. Let's
take the politics out of it and let's talk common sense.
Why would you wait the four years?
If it is something that can be done today following a process that has
been laid out and been used in the past, why not do it today?
We have
heard a number of people on both sides of the House talk about this.
My colleague for Gander said even back when oil was $139 a barrel this
was a conversation being had. I know
I have heard I studied political science in university and many topics
actually. You might be familiar with
one of my professors, Steve Tomblin.
We often talked about representation in the House of Assembly and whether it
should be bigger or larger, or whether it should be smaller and looking at other
jurisdictions. This is not a new
conversation; however, we do have a new Premier.
He has taken it upon himself in a very short amount of time to face this
head-on.
We have
heard from the Leader of the Opposition.
He has mentioned numbers throughout.
I think he had said when he was speaking yesterday he has been speaking
about this for the last number of years.
He threw out a number of thirty-eight.
It is kind of ironic that my colleague for Mount Pearl South is asking us
where we came up with the number thirty-eight, but he has not asked his leader
where he came up with the number forty.
The Leader of the Opposition came up with the magic number of eight.
We are not sure where he came up with it, but he was quite comfortable in
it.
Also,
what I find really strange and it was interesting, I was following along on
social media when the announcement came out at 3:30 p.m., the Premier went
before the mikes, the Leader of the Opposition was on his coattails right behind
him saying we agree with what the Premier is doing and I can support it.
That was the Liberal leader at 3:30 p.m.
The
Liberal leader of 7:00 p.m. was very different the same person, but a very
different opinion. Obviously
something happened between 3:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.
What that is I have no idea, and I am not going to try to speculate what
happened. Something happened that
the opinions changed. I do not know
why that is. I was reassured when I
heard at 3:30 p.m. the Liberal
MR. BALL:
A point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (Cross):
The Leader of the
Opposition, on a point of order.
MR. BALL:
The Member for Terra Nova is
actually misrepresenting what was said last Thursday in that media interview.
What I said was the number could be forty; it could be higher or it could
be lower, Mr. Speaker. It is a
deliberate attempt here of misleading this House.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
There is
no point of order.
The hon.
the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.
MR. S. COLLINS:
Mr. Speaker, maybe I did get
it wrong, but then I looked to the VOCM little cartoon of the day and it was
something with regard to a bouncing ball.
Then I took from it that maybe I interpreted it right, that the opinions
did change from 3:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Then I
look at others in the media saying what is the Leader of the Opposition doing.
He is at one place at 3:30 in the day and just a short time later, hours
we are not talking days; we are not talking that he went into deliberations
over weeks and months, hours the opinions changed.
I do not know because I do not know who is running the show but his
opinion has changed and that is fair enough.
MR. A. PARSONS:
A point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, my question is
if the Minister of CYFS gets all of his information from cartoons.
The people out in the public are wondering.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
There is
no point of order.
The hon.
the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.
MR. S. COLLINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have
obviously struck a chord. I hope the
people are out there watching. I
have been interrupted twice now and I have been speaking less than eight
minutes.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. S. COLLINS:
I have been interrupted by
the Leader of the Opposition. I have
been interrupted by the Opposition House Leader, both trying to prove their
point. Mr. Speaker, you do not have
to try to prove it to me. Prove it
to the people. It has been out there
in the media. Everyone has been
taking about it, how they flip-flop.
I was thinking it is awful cold for flip-flops in January, but the Liberals do
not think it is. That is fine.
What has
not changed is the consistency and the messaging on this side of the House, Mr.
Speaker, the reasons why we are doing it, the reasons why we will do it.
It has not changed. So, while
it is a developing story on the other side, it has been nothing but consistency
here.
Mr.
Speaker, if I could quote the Leader of the Opposition, if they would so indulge
me, in the scrum following the Premier's announcement, I believe.
The Leader of the Opposition says: Yes, and that is kind of you know,
we have had that in the past where, you know, they kind of give the number in
order to actually set the boundaries and, you know, establish where boundaries
would be. So that is not really an
unusual process. If the Premier
wants this to be at thirty-eight and, you know, he feels that it is the number,
well yes, of course, I have no problem with that.
Now, I
challenge him to stand to his feet and challenge that because I quoted him.
Did I misread it? I would ask
if he wants ten minutes to stand up and tell me how I misread that, he has the
floor, but I did not misread it. He
did change his opinion and why he did it, I do not know, but I did like the
leader at 3:30 p.m. more so than 7:00 p.m.
Anyway,
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand with a government, I am proud to stand with a
Premier, who has been consistent, who not only talks the talk because do you
know what? We all say this and it
was mentioned across the way: politicians sometimes get a bad rap because of
course we do a lot of talking.
Everyone says we do a lot of talking but not a lot of action.
Not only does our Premier talk the talk, he is walking the walk and that
is what the people of the Province see.
I spent
the weekend in my district. I, like
many people, go out and about. You
talk to people whether it is over a coffee at the Irving or you are gone down to
a Lions Club or a Legion. I have
talked to people. People generally
and I say generally because it is never 100 per cent of everyone.
People generally really like this.
They said it is about time.
We talk
about former governments, former Premiers, both Liberal and PC.
This has nothing to do with partisan stripe.
When you look at looming deficits and crisis and things you have to do
and things you have to deal with, who did they look at?
Who have they looked at in the past?
I will not mention Administrations.
Whether it be the Tobin Administration or the Wells Administration, it
does not matter. Who do they look
at? They look at public servants
first? Who are the first they cut?
Public servants. You have
your nurses, you have your doctors, you have your teachers, you have your police
officers, you have your maintenance persons, and those are the people who feel
it first.
What did
our Premier say? We are heading into
very difficult times but where are we going to look first?
Right here, Mr. Speaker right here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. S. COLLINS:
Mr. Speaker, I hear the
Opposition; they are riled up, and I understand that because I do not know how
they can get to their feet and argue this point with the people of the Province
looking at them. I do not know why
they are scared to death, but they are scared to death.
Change is not bad. Change
will happen, change will continue to happen, but as long as you make changes
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. S. COLLINS:
If I could, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. S. COLLINS:
As long as you make changes
with the right intention and I think that is what this is about.
Mr. Speaker, like I said, obviously we talk about the deficit, the
looming deficit the Minister of Finance actually pointed it out earlier with
regard to the numbers and how we looked at other jurisdictions and
representation.
As
Member for Terra Nova, I have just over 10,000 constituents in my district.
I am incredibly busy, and I would argue every member here could be as
busy as they want in their district because there is always something to do,
there is always someone to help, and there is always something to attend.
I am the type of person I am district-focused, as many people are here.
It is something I am very proud of and I try to get out to everything I
can. I try to help whoever I can,
but do you know what? If I am
fortunate enough to be re-elected in the next election, if I am fortunate enough
to be given another 2,000 or 3,000 people, whatever the case may be, I will
serve them just as good.
I do not
have to look any further than other jurisdictions.
I have a good friend who is actually the MLA in Ottawa, I think is her
riding. She has the largest riding
in Ontario, Lisa MacLeod she is actually running for the PC leadership now in
Ontario. She has the largest
district in Ontario, over 100,000 people.
Do you know what? The
grassroots connection that she has with her district and the connection that she
has with her constituents are amazing; it is second to none.
She has 100,000 people. Not
to argue we should have that, and obviously it is a much different game in
Ontario, but I am saying she can do her job effectively, so how can we argue
that we cannot do our job effectively if we are looking at numbers in the range
of 15,000 or 16,000. It is
ridiculous, Mr. Speaker.
I tell
you, like I said, I work hard each and every day and if the demands grow, which
they will undoubtedly, I will work even harder.
I think when we sign up, when we put our names forward for an election
that is what we are signing up for; that is what it is.
So if you have a problem with that, I would suggest you take your name
off the ballot next time around; and if you are willing to work at, you are
willing to work for the people of the Province and the taxpayers of the
Province, sign up, and I would hope to see you here next time.
Mr.
Speaker, I will not belabour much more.
I just want to get a few points out.
I have had strong opinions of this from the very first time I have heard
it. It is a bold move.
It is something I certainly appreciate.
Like I said, I have heard it talked about, whether it be in my political
science classes at Memorial University or whether I was an executive assistant
way back in the day in the Williams Administration.
I heard rumblings of it then, even when oil was at $139 a barrel.
It takes
someone to pull the trigger, it takes someone to want to do it, and that is what
we have here. We have someone with
the courage, who said it is a tough decision, but I am willing to make it.
I appreciate that not only as an MHA who stands in this House of
Assembly, not only as a Progressive Conservative in Newfoundland and Labrador,
but I appreciate it as a resident. I
appreciate it as a parent. I
appreciate it, because we have not seen it in the past.
You know
what people say: Why have you not done this before?
The Leader of the Opposition was up yesterday.
Where was the minister three years ago?
He was not in the Premier's chair, I would say.
How long has he been in the Premier's chair?
Mere months. How long did it
take him to do this? Mere months.
That is what I call action.
Enough talk. Let's get it over with.
Let's do the action.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. S. COLLINS:
That is why I stand proudly
behind this Premier. I support his
actions. I can tell you I have a
good relationship with my district.
I can tell you overwhelmingly, the folks that I have talked to appreciate him as
well. They appreciate the courage
and the bravery it takes to make a decision like this.
I know
we are not going to have everyone.
Perhaps the NDP would like to have a filibuster.
That is fine. I would love to
spend the evening with you folks. If
we want to do that, it is completely fine.
As I said, when I am in St. John's, I would as soon be in the House of
Assembly earning my money than I would be at home sleeping.
If that is what it is going to take, let's do it.
In
closing, Mr. Speaker, I just want to touch on a couple of more things.
Before I got up here I said I do not know really what I am going to talk
about, I have a few things I want to get off my chest.
There are a few things that have come up just recently.
A couple of things have been brought to my attention, so I want to talk
about it.
I spent
two-and-a-half years as a Parliamentary Secretary under I am glad the
opposition members are laughing. I
spent two-and-a-half years, and I could talk about the role I played and the
great work that was done in the Department of Health.
It is
interesting that the Opposition House Leader was up tonight saying lead by
example, cut your Parliamentary Secretaries, cut this, cut that.
The Opposition House Leader makes the equivalent to a Parliamentary
Secretary, $27,000 on top of his base MHA pay, and he is up criticizing us.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. S. COLLINS:
Mr. Speaker, when I talk
about how proud I am of our Premier and of our government of looking in before
looking out, I would say to the Opposition House Leader, why do you not start
looking in before you start preaching out?
MR. JOYCE:
A point of order.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Bay
of Islands on a point of order.
MR. JOYCE:
I want to remind the minister
this man here is elected, unlike the Minister of Justice, who is not elected.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
There is
not point of order.
The hon.
the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.
MR. S. COLLINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Member for Bay of Islands is obviously still bitter from the time he had to step
out of government and become an office official with the former Premier.
That is fine. I do not know
what he got paid, but I have heard different stories on what it took to get him
out of that position. Anyway we will
leave that where it is.
MR. JOYCE:
A point of order.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Member for Bay of Islands on a point of order.
MR. JOYCE:
The minister is making a
statement which is factually incorrect.
When I stepped aside for Clyde Wells I offered my seat, Mr. Speaker,
pension and pay with it. You are
factually incorrect.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
There is
no point of order.
The hon.
the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.
MR. S. COLLINS:
Mr. Speaker, I am factually
correct. That is why it hurts so
much to hear, but that is fine. I am
going to leave that where it is.
I have
three minutes left and I do not want to put all the attention to the Liberals.
I also want to talk about the NDP because of course they get on their
high horse a lot and talk about you have to do this, you have to do that.
Do you
know, Mr. Speaker and this is very interesting, it was just something pointed
out today. I should have known, but
now I do, and now I want to share it with the rest of the House.
In a party of three, there is a caucus Whip getting paid $13,000 on top
of their base MHA pay.
Mr.
Speaker, I do not know, I am not a Whip, and I have never been.
Maybe I can consult with my Whip, I do not know.
MR. A. PARSONS:
A point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Opposition House Leader
on a point of order.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I would suggest that if the
minister is going to plagiarize James McLeod, he should at least give him credit
for the information.
MR. SPEAKER:
There is no point of order.
The hon.
the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. S. COLLINS:
Again, Mr. Speaker, it was
James McLeod and myself who had the original conversation about the Opposition
House Leader getting the extra $27,000, but that is fine.
We are talking about a party of three that has a Whip.
MS MICHAEL:
A point of order.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi on a point of order.
MS MICHAEL:
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest
that the speaker is not speaking to the bill, number one; and number two, if he
has a criticism of the legislation that rules this House, then make the
criticism of the legislation, not of the parties in the House.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
There is
no point of order, but I would remind the minister to conclude his topics.
MR. S. COLLINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My
point, Mr. Speaker, is we are talking about efficiencies in the House of
Assembly, efficiencies in the people's House, and efficiencies with taxpayer's
dollars. Before you preach, look
within. That is why I stood on my
feet tonight and that is why I am so proud of this Premier because he has done
that. Before he has looked outward
he has looked inward. I can
appreciate it and I respect it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. S. COLLINS:
With that, Mr. Speaker, I
will take my seat. It has been an
absolute pleasure to stand on my feet in the people's House and speak for
nineteen minutes. Hopefully I may
get an opportunity to get up again.
It is a
learning experience for me as well, because I have learned already so much
tonight, whether it be from James McLeod or whether it be from the papers that I
read, whatever the case. I hope to
be able to share that with the House of Assembly, and as well the people
watching at home because it is very important.
The
Member for Bay of Islands has not stopped the whole time I have been here.
I will say that I got a chainsaw for my birthday so I am used to that
noise in my ear all the time. That
is sort of what it is, all the time, which is disrespectful.
That is fine. That is
absolutely fine.
Mr.
Speaker, I will take my seat now, and I really appreciate
MR. JOYCE:
A point of order.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Bay
of Islands on a point of order.
MR. JOYCE:
He might have pins in his
ears, but he did not have it from the people of the West Coast who asked him to
come out for a public meeting on the hospital when he did not have the
intestinal fortitude to go out there, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
There is
no point of order.
MR. S. COLLINS:
I wish to use up my last
twenty seconds, Mr. Speaker. It is
ironic that they talk about well, let us talk more specific to the bill, when
the member is up talking about the West Coast hospital.
In any
case, Mr. Speaker, it has been an absolute pleasure to speak to this.
It is an important piece of legislation.
I think we are standing on the right side of the decision and I hope the
others would do the same.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
I remind the minister his
time has concluded.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I recognize the hon. the
Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
From
time to time over the last three years I have listened to the hon. Minister of
Education, and the Member for Port au Port, Mr. Speaker, so I would like to say
a few words.
Illitanganituinaaluinikkua.
Tan Atin ego.
The
reason I said that, Mr. Speaker, is that the Member for Exploits said there is
nothing unique about Labrador. I
call upon him on a point of order to stand up and translate what I just said.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. EDMUNDS:
I do not know about the
Member for Lake Melville and the Member for Labrador West, to listen to the
Member for Exploits say there is nothing unique about Labrador, Mr. Speaker.
I also
listened to the Minister of CYFS. He
said let us remove the politics from the legislation.
Maybe we should, and if we did, do you know what?
I dare say we would be into an election right now.
If you remove the politics from the legislation, we would be into an
election. What is the real reason
for this legislation?
I would
like to talk a few minutes about the four seats in Labrador, Mr. Speaker.
I listened to my hon. colleague.
The Member for Gander talked about the advancements in technology.
Maybe I will suggest to the Member for Exploits the next time we add
FaceTime legislation. Maybe we ought
to go on some other forum.
Advances
since 2003 well, let's talk about transportation.
Guess what? In some areas of
this Province transportation has gone back to the 1970s.
It has gone backwards since 2003 when some government took over.
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to talk about the comments from the Minister of Finance
earlier today. What were the words?
I do not know about Labrador.
Those were his words. You can check
Hansard I am sure. I do not know
about Labrador. This is a government
we are trusting for four seats in Labrador.
We have a bigger problem in Labrador.
We trust this person with our finances and he does not know about
Labrador? I think we have a big
problem.
Mr.
Speaker, we talked about logistics.
My colleague, the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, talked about the
challenges travelling in her district about driving.
The Member for Lab West, like I said today, has to fly 1,800 kilometres
to get home. If he had to drive it
would take him thirty-one hours straight.
The Member for Lake Melville would have to drive for eighteen hours, and
that is if he is lucky.
For me
to drive from St. John's to Nain, I would have to drive just under forty hours,
by car or truck, by boat, and by snowmobile.
Mr. Speaker, I can do it, but I do not know how many more people in this
hon. House can actually do it. It
would take me forty hours. I can
leave here and go to Cuba in four-and-a-half hours.
It takes me two days to get home.
Let me
talk about some expansion. Two years
ago I left Makkovik on a caribou hunting trip, when it was still legal.
I drove up to Hopedale; I went up the Adlatok River.
The Member for Gander is well aware of it.
I stopped for the night and I drove west the next day.
I drove west, Mr. Speaker.
When I turned around I was closer to the Smallwood Reservoir than I was to my
own home. I was not even close to
the Minister for Lab West's district.
That is how big Labrador is.
If you
want to talk about the size of Labrador, as my colleague mentioned, you can fit
the Island portion in it twice.
Currently, we have 8.3 per cent of the total complement of seats, as I said
earlier today 8.3 per cent. If we
reduce the number of seats and I have no problem with that, we do not have a
problem with seat reduction. What we
are saying is that there is uniqueness in Labrador; let it stay at four.
Four of
thirty-eight is 11 per cent. We
would have a whopping 11 per cent of the seats in the Province.
With all of the challenges we have, we are increasing our representation
in this House by 2.7 per cent.
Amazing, maybe we ought to set the boundaries by size.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. EDMUNDS:
Thirty-eight?
You would have twenty-five from Labrador, the rest from the Island.
That would be unfair. I would
even agree with that being unfair, Mr. Speaker.
Is it too much to ask that the decisions that have been made since 1979
say that Labrador have four electoral districts?
If you
want to talk about reducing, some of the terminology I would use would be the
sense of alienation, isolation, frustration, and disempowerment.
These are things we are hearing in our district.
I know for a fact, and I know the Member for Lake Melville, as well as
the Member for Lab West actually, the representation from Lab West came out
publicly and said they do not agree with it.
I cannot
fathom the backlash if there is a reduction of seats in Labrador.
Believe me, I live there, and unlike the Minister of Finance, I know
about Labrador. Unlike the Member
for Exploits, the people in Labrador know there is uniqueness.
They know there is a cultural difference.
There are cultural differences in the Conne River area.
There are cultural differences on the West Coast.
I acknowledge that. There is
uniqueness. There is also uniqueness
in Labrador. In one district in
Labrador we have three of the four Aboriginal groups represented three of
them.
We talk
about the South Coast of Labrador.
We talk about NunatuKavut. That is
their homeland. We talk about the
Innu from Sheshatshiu. One time
there was an organization called NMIA, referred to both the Innu groups in
Labrador as the Naskapi Montagnais Innu Association.
They have since changed.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, I am going to stop my commentary right there.
I am hoping to get a chance to speak on it later on because I think it is
a very important issue. It is not
like we are asking for sixteen of thirty-eight seats.
We are asking that the four in Labrador remain the same.
Overall,
we do support that. Yes, maybe there
is a need for a reduction but the commission should decide not to be dictated
by the Premier. That does not smell
of democracy. To me, that is more
leaning towards being told what to do, and that is not democracy, Mr. Speaker.
Right
now, I would like to stop my commentary and introduce a raised amendment on the
protection for the four Labrador seats.
That all words after the word That be deleted and the following
substituted therefore:
This
House declines to give second reading to Bill 42, An Act To Amend The Electoral
Boundaries Act because it does not offer protection for the special status for
the four seats for the regions of Labrador.
Seconded
by the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
MR. CROSS:
(Inaudible) Mr. Speaker,
seconded by the Member for St. John's North.
MR. SPEAKER:
The House will stand in
recess to look over this amendment and see if it is in order.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
We have
reviewed the proposed amendment and the amendment is not in order.
I
recognize the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
disappointed nevertheless, but I do have a few minutes to carry on.
I would
like to talk of some of the challenges.
If you look at proposed legislation based on population, I guess if you
are on the Avalon Peninsula it is good to see the majority of the seats in one
place. It certainly speaks volumes
for rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
I would say the proposal to reduce the number of seats has a lot more damaging
effect over there, Mr. Speaker, than over here.
I just wanted you to know that.
Speaking
on Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and I know my colleagues will speak on the other
issues that our leader has put forward in terms of amendments.
I would like to talk about the resources
and the difference in resources in some more rural areas and some of the more
centralized areas. Government
Service Centres, I would say in most major centres across this Province, Mr.
Speaker, even as far as, say Happy Valley-Goose Bay is one of them, Lab West
is probably another one, service centres.
Someone who has an issue that requires the services of either the federal
government or the provincial government can walk right into a service centre and
say I need help.
Mr.
Speaker, in Natuashish and in Hopedale, they do not have that benefit.
Guess who they call? Over the
last few years my hon. colleagues and throughout the rural parts of this
Province you may reference my colleague from Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
How many calls did we get regarding birth certificates, regarding
marriage certificates, regarding unemployment insurance benefit inquiries, job
searches? How many lists do we have
of people in our districts who are looking for work but cannot get work at
projects like Muskrat Falls, which I will get into now in a few minutes.
I certainly have some issues around Labrador's contribution to the
finance of this great Province.
Staying
on services, people have called for licensing, vital statistics, CYFS issues,
community issues, regional issues, and provincial issues.
Mr. Speaker, more often than not an individual who comes to me I have
to get authorization from them, send it out, wait for the agency to contact me
to find out what can be done. This
happens on a daily basis.
We talk
about assistants for our offices.
Mr. Speaker, I could use another assistant.
I am sure the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair could use another
assistant. The Member for Carbonear
Harbour Grace can use another assistant.
I am sure there are members across the way who live in rural Newfoundland
and Labrador, who could use more assistants.
It is
not an easy job we do. We live by,
more often than not, public opinion.
We are criticized, we are praised, and we are stretched from one end of our
district to the other. I tell you in
my district that is a lot of stretching.
I may have the smallest populated district in the Province, Mr. Speaker,
but you can fit three-quarters of the Island portion of the Province into my
district.
If I
were to travel doing constituent business in my district, it would take me six
days. I could drive from here to
Clarenville, to Carbonear, how many districts would I pass through in an hour
and a half? More than one; 1.8
kilometres you can drive through a district.
I will reiterate, the Member for Labrador West has to drive 1,800
kilometres of travel to get home. He
can do it by airplane, and it takes a while.
The
request for protection of four seats in Labrador is not coming from my district,
because according to legislation the District of Torngat Mountains is okay.
There are not going to be any changes.
For valid reasons, government accepts that.
It does not talk about the uniqueness of the three other remaining
districts and what damage is going to be done to the people who live there if
they are going to take a seat away to go from four to three.
Today
the Speaker recognized the Mayor of Wabush as being in the gallery.
This is a person from Labrador.
He lives in the District of Labrador West.
He does not want the seat taken away.
Mr. Speaker, he would like to see four seats.
We have
had petitions from Lake Melville.
There are petitions from Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
They are saying we want to see changes, but we would like to see
protection.
I think
there are three petitions that have been tabled so far, all from Lake Melville.
They are saying we do not want to see the number of seats in Labrador,
which has a great big total of four out of forty-eight, being reduced.
What impact is that going to have other than impact on services that
members can provide? It will be
adding to an already over increased workload.
I will
reference the Member for Lake Melville, who is a minister.
He has a lot of staff, he has a lot of issues.
I will say it again, he has a lot of staff.
Some of us do not have a lot of staff, Mr. Speaker, but we do have a lot
of issues. I have talked to the
minister and I am sure he understands and he can appreciate, and I certainly
hope he agrees that the number of seats in Labrador remain at four.
I dearly hope he thinks so, Mr. Speaker,
and I look forward to his commentary when it is his turn to speak.
Mr.
Speaker, let's talk about what Labrador gives back to this Province.
What does Labrador give back to this Province?
The former Premier said that we own Labrador we own it.
People talk about Labrador as a warehouse, it is just our shed.
When you want something, you go out in the shed and get it.
Let's
talk about the Iron Ore Company in Labrador West: a major contributor, a major
employer. It has its ups and downs,
but where is it located, Mr. Speaker?
The last time I checked it was in Labrador, Labrador West.
There is another big project, Mr. Speaker, Churchill Falls, the Upper
Churchill Falls, supplying the Eastern seaboard of the United States.
Where is that? The last time
I checked it was in the Lake Melville district, Labrador.
About
fifteen years ago there was a discovery in a place called Voisey's Bay.
I actually worked there, Mr. Speaker, at one point.
I was a monitor. I was there
through two protests because the people who lived there said this is not
happening, not this time. We are
going to benefit from this. It
caused a lot of commotion, but the Inuit people up there and the Innu people
said no, you are not taking this from us unless we get a piece of it.
Where was that? That was in
the Torngat Mountains district in Labrador.
We have
a new link coming in through Labrador.
You have to take a ferry from St. Barbe to Blanc Sablon then you can
drive. Albeit, not all the time you
can do that, given the situation and the state of that highway, but that link is
there. It is not finished.
There is lots of work to be done on it, but where is that?
The last time I checked, Mr. Speaker, it was in Labrador.
This
government by all indications wants to reduce the representation from up there.
That is another case of opening the shed door and taking what we want and
the hell with the people who live up there.
This is the attitude that we again and you wonder why there are issues
up there with isolation, with alienation, with frustration, with disempowerment.
You wonder why people up there feel like that from time to time.
Well, that is why. This is
the exact reason why the people up there feel the way they do.
They are
not asking for a majority of the number of seats in this Province.
They are not asking for 50 per cent plus one.
They are asking to stay at 8.3 per cent.
If the number goes to thirty-eight like the Premier is pushing for, have
that 2.7 per cent increase, have that increase of 11 per cent in the provincial
Legislature let's have it. Let
them have it. Let us have it.
Are we going to overrule anything that is contentious at 11 per cent?
When I was in school, they did not work that way; but it still leaves
that representation from the Labrador portion of this great Province in the
hands of four MHAs who will bring their voices to the provincial Legislature,
Mr. Speaker.
We
support that, we support reductions, of course, but out of thirty-eight seats is
there a great problem with this government protecting four seats?
Are we asking for a lot? I
think not. We are asking for between
8.3 per cent and 11 per cent representation at this provincial Legislature.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Verge):
Order, please!
MR. S. COLLINS:
A point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Child, Youth
and Family Services, on a point of order.
MR. S. COLLINS:
Earlier when I was speaking,
Mr. Speaker, I made some comments regarding the Member for Bay of Islands, and
while I did not mean to insinuate any untoward action that he had in his past
dealings with any jobs or past Premiers, if I did insinuate, I apologize.
So, while I made a lot of good points while I was up, I certainly take
back any comments I made about the Bay of Islands member.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Bay of Islands, speaking to the point of order.
MR. JOYCE:
I thank the minister.
It takes a lot of courage to do that.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
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:
The motion is that this House
do now adjourn.
All
those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
This
House now stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. tomorrow, Private Members' Day.
On
motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00
p.m.