January 22, 2015
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVII No. 61
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Admit strangers.
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Today we have members' statements from the Member for the District of Humber
Valley; the Member for the District of Virginia Waters; the Member for the
District St. Barbe; the Member for the District of Baie Verte Springdale;
the Member for the District of Trinity Bay de Verde; and the Member for
the District of Bonavista North.
The hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to
recognize Angie Parsons of Deer Lake on being named the 2014 Community
Impact Award winner by the Newfoundland and Labrador Organization of Women
Entrepreneurs NLOWE. The award
is given annually to an entrepreneur whose business has had a significant
social and economic impact on their local community.
Mr. Speaker, Angie Parsons is the owner and operator of
Royal K-9 Spa, Resort and Training Facility in Deer Lake; her business
offers grooming, training classes and boarding for dogs, as well as a retail
store.
Angie is a devout advocate for pets and pet owners
throughout the Province. Along
with her business, she is involved with the local SPCA, the Deer Lake
Chamber of Commerce, and Junior Achievement.
Mr. Speaker, NLOWE continues to support and encourage
women entrepreneurs to pursue growth opportunities, with programs and
services which are offered all across the Province.
Small businesses continue to be the backbone of many local economies
in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I ask all members of this House to join me in
congratulating Angie Parsons on her Community Impact Award and wish her
success in her future endeavours.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the District of Virginia Waters.
MS C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the recent
recipients of the Silver Level of the Duke of Edinburgh Awards in December
2014. In December, seven
students from the District of Virginia Waters were presented their award by
the Hon. Frank Fagan, Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador.
To achieve this, participants completed a balanced
program of leisure-time activities and met the prescribed standards in four
important areas of self-development, including community service,
adventurous journey, physical recreation, and skill development.
I extend congratulations to Bobbi-Glenn Butler,
Nicholas Henderson, Leslie Jamieson, Mark Oake, Logan Slade, Clare Snow, and
Zhang Zhipu on their achievement.
This program helps to shape the lives of young
Canadians as they take on new challenges, giving back to their communities
and achieving success while developing self-confidence, motivation, and
life-long friendships. The Duke
of Edinburgh Award began as a program to help young people develop a sense
of responsibility to themselves and their communities.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in
congratulating these individuals who are making a difference in the lives of
their communities, and to the many young Canadians who achieve milestones
through personal discovery, self-reliance, and perseverance in a
non-competitive format.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
MR. J. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to commend and thank all
members of Come Home Year committees for the committed effort they make to
organizing, fundraising, and carrying out Come Home Year celebrations in
their respective communities.
The degree of effort and the lengths to which these
often unrecognized people, who still live in our rural communities, go to
host family and friends who have moved away is remarkable.
The efforts they expend to keep alive our traditions, as well as our
friendships, deserve commendation.
Come Home Year celebrations do more than just bring our people
together, they also inject badly-needed private money into our rural
communities, many of which have limited economic bases.
Come Home Year celebrations for 2015 and 2016 are
planned in many of the three dozen communities in the District of St. Barbe,
as well as throughout our Province.
I thank all volunteers for their work, and I look forward to
attending several Come Home Year celebrations, just as other members will be
attending in theirs.
Mr.
Speaker, I also ask all members of this hon. House to join me in recognizing
Come Home Year committees on the commitment they make to their respective
communities.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Baie Verte Springdale.
MR. POLLARD:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As a
teen she wanted to be a missionary, but due to World War II, chose instead
to become a Salvation Army Officer.
Stationed in many small communities, she performed both clergy and
teaching duties in one-room schools.
Over the years she added town clerk, President of the local Women's
Institute, running a homeless shelter in Toronto, volunteer chaplain at the
Valley Vista in Springdale, and an author to her long list of leadership
roles and achievements.
Upon
her official retirement, Dr. Gladys Osmond turned to writing.
From a few letters to a young member of the Armed Forces, her efforts
grew to writing over 500,000 letters to soldiers wherever they were
stationed all around the world.
Her home was filled with letters and photos from the men and women serving
on land, sea, and air.
She
has received numerous awards for her efforts, including the Caring Award,
the Canadian Forces Medallion for Distinguished Service, Honorary Doctor of
Laws from Memorial University, and the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador.
On
Wednesday, January 14, 2015 Gladys passed away suddenly at the age of
ninety-one. Without the
advantages of power, position, or money, Gladys truly made a lasting impact.
Honourable members, please help me celebrate the life of Dr. Gladys Osmond.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Trinity Bay de Verde.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
rise in this hon. House today to recognize two members of the Pharmacists'
Association of Newfoundland and Labrador who are residents of the District
of Trinity Bay de Verde.
Mr.
Kevin Banton is a pharmacist who lives in the Town of Heart's Delight
Islington where he owns and operates Welsh's Pharmacy.
At
this year's PANL Annual Conference, Mr. Banton was presented with the 2014
Pharmacist of the Year Award.
The nominees for this award come from the public and are given to
pharmacists who go above and beyond their regular roles in providing
extraordinary services.
At
the same conference, an Honorary Lifetime Membership Award was presented to
Mr. Dave Dawe in recognition for his long service to the pharmacy
profession. Mr. Dawe is a
resident of Heart's Content where he owned and operated Dawe's Pharmacy
until retiring in October 2014.
While Mr. Dawe is now retired, Mr. Banton continues to exhibit the qualities
that earned him this award in providing admirable service to local
residents.
I
ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Mr. Banton and Mr. Dawe on
these well-deserved awards and wish them all the best in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista North.
MR. CROSS:
I am very proud to rise
today, Mr. Speaker, to recognize Blake Welcher, a remarkable young man of
thirteen years from Valleyfield, Bonavista North and commend him for his
very thoughtful and humanitarian action.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to use Blake's words in a letter
to a young girl, Abigail Winter, who is afflicted with Cerebral Palsy.
His short letter is self-explanatory and his words are more
appropriate than mine.
Merry Christmas Abigail, I have collected squares from all over the world to
make a blanket for you! I
mentioned you to some of my online friends and they wanted to help do
something special for you, and so it began.
We started a projected called Let's make Abigail a blanket.
They were so happy to make blanket squares and send them to me to
make your blanket. We hope you
enjoy the blanket and know that it was made with love.
He
identifies squares from Massachusetts, England, Texas, Missouri and Michigan
among other places.
Blake Welcher, you are proving that a spirit of compassion, love and respect
is alive in our next generation, and I am sure all members will join me in
saying you are and will be an inspiration for others.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I
would like to take a minute to welcome to the gallery, the former Deputy
Premier of the Government of New Brunswick, Ms Aldιa Landry.
Welcome to the House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. GRANTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise in this hon. House to recognize the important contributions
of people working on coastal management area committees throughout the
Province. Earlier this week,
these talented and dedicated individuals came together for a workshop in
Corner Brook to share ideas and generate new initiatives, and their efforts
are greatly appreciated.
Mr.
Speaker, these valued volunteers have played a key role in advancing our
government's Coastal and Ocean Management Strategy and Policy Framework from
the time it was established in 2011.
Our collaborative efforts fall under six main areas of activity:
maintaining healthy marine environments; promoting social, cultural and
economic sustainability; monitoring coastal land use; balancing competing
needs and interests; managing coastal and marine infrastructure; and
addressing climate change.
Our
government is very pleased to partner with members of the five coastal
management area committees located throughout the Province.
These individuals work with government representatives to increase
knowledge and public engagement on issues that affect their local coasts.
Examples of initiatives supported by these coastal management area
committees include community beach cleanups, youth education projects, and
World Oceans Day celebrations.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to extend special thanks to the
Humber Arm Environmental Association, known regionally as ACAP Humber Arm,
for hosting the coastal management area committee workshop I mentioned
earlier in my statement. Led by
Executive Director Sheldon Peddle, this group has spearheaded many important
projects. They have supported
our government's efforts to monitor and mitigate the impact of green crab.
They have also created unique youth engagement initiatives like
Trading Books for Boats, which gives junior high students an opportunity to
take to the open water to learn about coastal and ocean ecosystems.
This work is a fine example of how our coastal management area
committees are using creative approaches to increase public awareness about
the importance of ocean environments off our coasts.
Mr.
Speaker, our government has made coastal management a priority because we
appreciate the fact that the ocean environment is deeply linked to our
Province's culture, heritage, history, recreational enjoyment, and economic
prosperity. On behalf of the
provincial government, I thank everyone playing a role in advancing the
importance of marine stewardship, and look forward to continued
collaboration in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Carbonear Harbour Grace.
MR. SLADE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
More than ever, proper coastal and ocean management is needed to
ensure our waters and ecosystem is safeguarded.
I express gratitude to all of those in our Province who have shared
their ideas on how to achieve a balanced approach to responsibly sharing our
shores and our waters.
Mr.
Speaker, I have no confidence that this government is dealing with the more
serious issues which affect our coastal areas.
I think of the Manolis L,
the purpose of changes to the Placentia Bay pilotage requirements, and even
the aquaculture challenges faced on the Province's South Coast.
No leadership by this government.
Also, I remind the minister that a core part of managing our coastal areas
is to safeguard our wild fish, which has dropped of this government's agenda
long ago.
I
call upon this government to step up its game on the coastal ocean
management and, since it has been over five years, it is time government
produce a strategy report on the coastal and ocean strategy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
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 an advance copy of his statement.
Of course I agree that marine stewardship and coastal management are
vital to the interests of this Province, and I congratulate the commitment
of the many volunteers working on the coastal management area committees.
I
would like to point out to the minister, however, that towns on the South
Coast of the Island portion of the Province have waited for years to set up
a marine conservation area.
Three years ago, government refused to approve a feasibility study that the
federal government was willing to pay for.
Government made this decision without consulting with interested groups;
another example that although this government talks a lot about
consultation, they do not understand what real consultation entails.
I also question their commitment to the coastal preservation when
they would not do that study.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CRUMMELL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise today as the Minister Responsible for the Office of Climate
Change and Energy Efficiency to provide my hon. colleagues with an update on
the excellent progress made as part of the HotShots initiative.
Mr.
Speaker, our government launched the HotShots initiative in October 2014 to
raise awareness about the importance of energy conservation among students
in Newfoundland and Labrador. I
am delighted to confirm that this initiative has been rolled out to all 263
public schools in the Province.
As
part of the initiative, resource packs have been provided to all schools,
including French versions to schools within the French school district.
This resource includes facts about where energy comes from in
Newfoundland and Labrador, the benefits of saving energy, and how students
can reduce the amount of energy they use.
All of these resources are also available for download online.
We
have also launched a new curriculum-based Web site as part of the HotShots
initiative. Mr. Speaker, this
Web site provides teachers of Grade 6 and 9 science with links to online
resources about energy conservation.
These resources link directly to curriculum outcomes for these
courses, equipping teachers with exciting new tools to teach students about
the importance of saving energy.
Mr.
Speaker, through an innovative partnership with Newfoundland Power and
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, we are also delivering presentations to
primary and elementary schools.
These presentations provide students with tips to save energy and empower
them to take action within their homes.
Over 140 classes have received these presentations since October.
Our
partnership with Newfoundland Power and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro also
includes two contests for students to communicate the importance of energy
conservation, through which they can win prizes for their schools.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to encourage students through our Province
to enter these contests and help raise awareness about saving energy.
More
information on this initiative, including the resource packs, presentations
and contests, can be found at HotShotNL.ca.
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, I thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time.
Incorporating this into the grade school curriculum is crucial to
raising young people to become engaged and responsible citizens.
I
wonder, though, if they are telling these students about all the vacant
schools throughout the Province with the heat and lights left on.
This government has done a woefully inadequate job of securing buy-in
from the public at large in energy conservation.
Incentives are needed to encourage homeowners to make energy
efficient choices.
It
is ironic the minister is not standing in the House to read a statement of
how the ENERGY STAR window rebate program was cancelled as of just three
weeks ago. It is shameful I say,
Mr. Speaker. As per usual, this
government's failure to lead by example is evident in their piecemeal and
inconsistent approach to tackling climate change.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement here today.
It is good to see government promoting the conservation of energy.
The reality is, though, that this government cut financial
initiatives like the EnerGuide for Houses Program that would have allowed
people to conserve energy rather than just talk about it.
We
do not know the future, Mr. Speaker.
Energy efficiency was cut before.
Programs like REEP may be at risk of government cuts again,
considering the fiscal situation we find ourselves in as a Province here
today.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Before Question Period, I would just like to take a moment to also recognize
the Mayor of Grand le Pierre.
His Worship Paul Bolt is in the gallery today.
Welcome to the House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
federal government has said that the Budget is delayed until at least April,
2015.
I
ask the Premier: Does this mean that you will not bring down this year's
Budget until the end of April at the earliest?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
timing of a Budget on the calendar is not as important as ensuring that the
Budget is informed. There are a
number of things that impact our Budget in a big way.
One of them is obviously the price of oil.
There is a high degree of uncertainty of what that will look like for
the next twelve months.
The
second thing, Mr. Speaker, in as much as we no longer receive equalization
payments from the federal government, there are significant transfer
payments from the federal government that still comes into our revenues.
Obviously, whatever the federal government does in their Budget
forecasting will have a huge impact on us.
Some
of the commentary that they may have about the economy moving into next year
and other financial implications for the current spot we find ourselves in
as a nation, that all of that will have an impact on our Budget process.
So, being informed, Mr. Speaker, is much more important than the
calendar date.
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.
Well, I doubt any of the variables that you just mentioned to the minister,
not much of that is going to change.
Keep in mind in last year's Budget we forecasted over a $500 million
deficit, and at that point, right up until September, the price of oil was
fairly stable.
Mr.
Speaker, with the required time to debate a Budget in this House, it is
likely that this year's Budget will not be passed until June.
Meanwhile, the Premier refuses to immediately cut the size of his
Cabinet and his five parliamentary secretaries; a move that would save
almost $500,000 over the next five months, something that this Premier can
do right away.
I
ask the Premier: Why do you not have the courage to cut your Cabinet and cut
those parliamentary secretaries today?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
As
the minister has referenced, and I have referenced myself throughout the
last number of days in the House here, and publicly as well, and as they
have thrown back at me many times.
So I know they are getting it, because I have said that everything is
on the table, Mr. Speaker. I can
continue to say that.
There are positions that are held by members of my government and my caucus
that include that review. Mr.
Speaker, I would trust that the member opposite would be supportive of
looking at their own positions in their own party, in their own Opposition,
as the opposition group of Opposition House leaders and Whips and so on.
I would expect all of us to have a review of all those positions, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
know the Premier understands or should understand the role of the House
Management Commission in this House of Assembly, and of course the Green
Report that will review compensation, benefits for all MHAs, which comes
after the next provincial election.
I am sure the Premier understands all that.
Probably what he does not understand is he does not need any
permission from either of those groups to do the right thing.
Cut the size of Cabinet; reduce your parliamentary secretaries like
all other Maritime Provinces have done.
They have none at all, yet our Province continues to have five.
Mr.
Speaker, with everything on the table, I ask the Premier: With everything on
the table, is the Muskrat Falls Project on the table?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
To
his point on positions in the House, I think it is important that we
identify that there are number of roles within the House that both parties
have that give them opportunities.
They do extra functions and roles in the House, but they also receive
extra compensation. For example,
House Leaders receive extra compensation, caucus chairs
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER DAVIS:
party Whips, Deputy
House Leaders, all receive extra compensation, have to
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER DAVIS:
I have struck a chord
over there, Mr. Speaker.
So,
members of their own caucus
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER DAVIS:
all receive extra
compensation for some of their roles
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
hon. the Premier, to continue.
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Members opposite have roles and functions that they carry out while they are
in the House that they receive compensation for in their roles throughout
the year that they receive extra compensation for.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, my point
is that when we are going to do a full and complete review I have said I
am willing to review the roles and functions and additional duties that
members of my caucus have and have been assigned to them, and I would
certainly expect members opposite to do the same thing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Absolutely, Mr. Speaker,
the Management Commission is a great group of people, controlled right now
by government. The cutting of
Cabinet members is not controlled by people in the Opposition, so I would
expect the Premier to stop really dodging the issue here; that is all you
are doing. The issue at hand is
reduce the size of your Cabinet; do the right thing.
Have the courage that you say it takes to make those tough decisions.
Cut those parliamentary secretaries, I say Premier.
Why aren't you doing this?
Mr.
Speaker, the Province has also several equity investments in our Province
right now. These range from
offshore oil developments to aquaculture initiatives.
I
ask the Premier: Are the Province's equity investments on the table?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN:
Mr. Speaker, I hate
repeating myself and I do not always like quoting other people either
frequently, but let me try it again.
The Premier has said numerous times in this House and outside the
House, I myself have said outside this House and here in Question Period,
that as we go through the Budget process we are examining all aspects of
government's operation, all aspects of the boards and agencies that do work
on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We are examining all of the revenue streams.
We are examining all of the expenditure items.
We are looking at how we are going to manage our way through this
difficult time we find ourselves in as a result of world oil prices.
We
need to map out a way forward to get us through not just this year, but we
need to map out a plan to get us through the next five years, Mr. Speaker.
That is what the Budget process will be involving itself in this
year.
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 of Finance; no one likes to repeat themselves.
So, this is a question you will not have to repeat the Premier;
because the Premier did not answer this question when I asked is Muskrat
Falls on the table.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN:
Mr. Speaker, as we
examine all the aspects of government's operations together with its boards
and agencies, as I have just described, one of the things that we need to
make sure that we do is we make strategic decisions, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. WISEMAN:
We look at the kinds of
investments we have made into our future because we need to be careful, Mr.
Speaker. Whatever we do today,
recognize this is just not going to have an impact on the next twelve months
because that is the Budget cycle.
We make decisions in this House and as a government we make decisions
every day that affects the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, not
just today but well into the future.
So,
any decision we made during this Budget process will be of the view not
just look at this year's fiscal cycle, but for the long-term sustainability
of programs and services, all in the best interests of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians for the long term.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
asked that question to the Premier.
I asked that question to the Minister of Finance.
Now I am going to ask this question to the Minister of Natural
Resources because he likes hat tricks.
I know this guy likes hat tricks.
I
ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Is Muskrat Falls on the table?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, I never
like to interfere with a good hockey game, I can tell you that.
Mr.
Speaker, as the member opposite is asking this question, it comes to mind a
very important consideration that we are making that I think it is valuable
in discussing here today. It has
to do with infrastructure investments because we have made commitments on
projects.
We
have plans that are at various stages in projects.
There are projects that are very, very early in concept and thought
and idea. There are projects
which have had an amount of engineering and design work completed on them.
There are projects where tenders have been issued, inviting tenders.
There are projects where tenders have been awarded and waiting for
the work to get underway. There
are projects that are in some stage of completion.
Some, where the current contracts have been completed and where more
need to be done.
Mr.
Speaker, we have to be cognizant of all of those factors as we made our
decisions and move forward.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I guess I got the hat trick all right; the hat trick was there was no
answer by either one.
Mr.
Speaker, the Province is a 4.9 per cent equity shareholder in Hebron.
The project has seen its budget balloon to $14 billion.
I
ask the Premier: How much money will there be in next year's Budget for the
equity position in Hebron?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN:
The process has already
started, Mr. Speaker, for the Budget process.
Every year in the House, regardless of what government is here and
what time the House sits, every year the Opposition stands well in advance
of the Budget and starts asking questions: What will be in the Budget?
What will not be in the Budget?
It is standard. Go to
Hansard. It has been there for
decades. We are now starting the
process again. I suspect over
the next while as we sit in this House, members of the Opposition will raise
and lobby for things to be in the Budget and will ask questions about what
will be in the Budget.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. WISEMAN:
As always, Mr. Speaker,
the Budget is read into the House of Assembly by the Minister of Finance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. WISEMAN:
It then provides a
proposal as to what is going to happen over the next twelve months.
The only thing different this year is we are going to lay out what it
is going to be in this Province and what the fiscal position will be over
the next five years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
really find that question very difficult to take.
I asked about a Budget process.
Prior to that Budget process there is a construction schedule that
would outline well in advance of this project how much money would be
required. All I did was ask the
Finance Minister, does he know that answer.
Do
you know how much you have to put into Hebron this year as part of the
Budget process to meet the construction schedule for Hebron?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN:
Mr. Speaker, Nalcor, as a
corporate entity, has many interests.
They have interest in oil and gas.
They have revenue generation from its power generation.
It has an investment in Muskrat Falls.
It creates an opportunity to return dividends to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
What
we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, given what has happened with oil and gas
because they have a revenue stream, because they have an interest already in
an oil position in the Province.
They have a revenue stream from their equity.
What we are trying to do is to understand clearly over the next five
years what Nalcor's earnings will be from its revenue-generating operations,
what an equity requirement will be, whether it is Muskrat Falls or oil and
gas. That will factor into our
forecast.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Virginia Waters.
MS C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, the
Finance Minister has said that he will release his Budget after the feds
release theirs in April because of the uncertainty about transfers; however,
it is not necessary to wait.
Last year, New Brunswick released their Budget before the federal
government.
I
ask the minister: Why can't we do the same?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN:
Mr. Speaker, just think
for a moment. Just look at the
world global economic position today versus twelve months ago.
Look at where we were as a Province.
Look at where we were as a nation.
Look at the stability that existed last year and some degree of
predictability that existed last year, and look at where we are today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. WISEMAN:
Let me quote from the
Governor of the Bank of Canada a couple of days ago, Given the speed and
magnitude of the oil-price decline, there is substantial uncertainty around
the likely level for oil prices and their impact on the economic outlook for
Canada.
You
could not quote him last year for saying that because there was a lot of
stability. We have a very
different time today.
Circumstances in this Nation, circumstances in this country are very
different. So the degree of
predictability is different today than it was yesterday.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
hon. the Member for Virginia Waters.
MS C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I
realize that the minister has admitted to an issue with math, so let me help
him. Last year, for every dollar
the federal government gave Newfoundland, they gave New Brunswick $4.
New Brunswick got millions more than us, yet they do not have to wait
for the feds.
I
ask the minister: Why can't you release a Budget on what the Premier called
yesterday his government's financial crises?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN:
I think the member
finally gets it. I think she
finally gets it. What she is
finally recognizing and acknowledging, if you are a province that is
receiving a lot of equalization payments, then you have a stable income.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. WISEMAN:
We have, however,
graduated to a point where we are now generating most of our own source
revenues. As she would know, as
an entrepreneur who has had some degree of success, there are risks when you
rely on your own revenue generation and not relying on handouts from
somebody else.
Mr.
Speaker, we will reap the benefit of having high oil prices like we have and
we will get the value of that, but there is a risk associated with that.
When oil prices drop, we find ourselves in a spot we are now, but
when you are receiving continuous payments from the federal government,
there is no risk.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
hon. the Member for Virginia Waters.
MS C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, let me
make this really simple for the minister.
Muskrat Falls is the biggest capital investment this Province has
ever made. When people make the
biggest purchase of their lives, a house for example, they have to put away
money to make sure they can pay the bills.
This government did not, and now you want to do a five-year plan, now
you want to be accountable.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the minister: What are you trying to hide by not releasing
this Budget?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN:
As she is making it
abundantly clear to all of us, who obviously in her mind do not understand
anything, let me try to slow down a bit.
Let me try to be very deliberate in my explanation, because clearly,
Mr. Speaker, if you think about what has happened in this Province in the
last ten years, when she says about putting money away, we have put money
away. We have put $6 billion
into infrastructure.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN:
Six billion dollars into
infrastructure, critical investments for the future, and have not had to
borrow for it. We have returned,
on average, $700 million a year in tax returns back to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN:
contributing $3 billion
to the economy. That is what we
have done, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I ask the minister:
What is our deficit this year?
Mr.
Speaker, we asked yesterday for public Mahoney Commission documents that are
relevant to the Bill 42 debate.
The Government House Leader said he would look into it.
I
ask the Government House Leader: Where are they?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the Mahoney Commission in 1993 was a commission that looked at
electoral boundaries, and as I looked into this yesterday, I learned that
the government of the day, which happened to be a Liberal government, did
not disclose the documents that had been directed by Mr. Mahoney.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER DAVIS:
In fact, when we went
searching for the documents, we found that they had been transferred to a
long-term storage facility outside of Confederation Building.
I can tell you the minister worked very hard with officials to find
those as quickly as possible.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, all this
happened
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER DAVIS:
All this happened,
Mr. Speaker, the first request was made, as I understand, around 10:00 a.m.
yesterday. By 12:30 the
documents were located and they had to be transferred here to Confederation
Building. They arrived around
2:00 p.m. Just a few minutes
before, the members opposite went on the attack as if we were trying to do
something to protect those documents, Mr. Speaker.
It is a large number of files
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, the
first thing I would say is that the Premier is factually incorrect in much
of the answer that he just gave.
The
second question is: Where are the documents now?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
It
was yesterday morning, as I understand, the first request was made.
I do not know if I can say if I am factually incorrect that efforts
were made yesterday. I could
tell the member opposite efforts were made yesterday to locate them as
quickly as possible. The
documents were brought here to Confederation Building around 2:00 p.m.
yesterday. I can tell you that
the Government House Leader is in a position today to be able to table some
of those documents, and he will be doing so this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I am
glad to hear that they will be tabling some of the documents.
I wonder what will happen to the rest of the documents.
Mr.
Speaker, there are some serious rumours about significant cuts coming to
health care boards in this Province.
There are thousands of people working in our health care system and
they are worried about their future.
I
ask the minister: Will he confirm that each of the health care boards is
being notified that significant cuts are coming?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, it does not
come as any surprise that members of the Opposition will be trying to
instill fear in public servants and the public as well.
Of course we are having ongoing Budget discussions with the four
regional health authorities.
We
are into a Budget process that is clearly a tough Budget process, given the
financial situation that we face.
That is going to require tough decisions.
It means that we are going to have to make tough choices, and I am
working closely and my officials are working closely with our regional
health authorities as we work through that process.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance said that the Budget is going to be delayed; however,
people within the health care system know now that the cuts are coming.
I
ask the minister: Will you be keeping these health care workers in limbo
until after you introduce the Budget, or will you be making the cuts
earlier?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
can assure the member opposite and I can assure the public that no decisions
have been made about any potential changes or cuts to any of our services
within health care. Clearly, we
are going to have to do things differently.
Our level of spending around health care in this Province is not
sustainable; forty cents of every dollar is being spent on the delivery of
health care services and they are important services that impact everybody
in Newfoundland and Labrador, but we have to find new ways forward.
We have to find better ways to deliver services.
We are going to work closely with staff within the health care system
to find some of those solutions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, in this time
of fiscal restraint, the Premier says everything is on the table; yet we see
a former Premier who was in the office for only eight months, can pay his
secretary for three years at a cost of approximately $275,000 to review his
files as a minister, and that he will keep as his personal collection his
quote.
I
ask the Premier: How can you justify keeping Tom Marshall in a suite of
offices while the current Member for Humber East has to rent office space in
Corner Brook?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
There has been a long-standing policy in government
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER DAVIS:
whereby certain
benefits were afforded to Premiers once they left office, Mr. Speaker.
They have been around for a number of years, but I can assure you and
I can assure the member opposite that even that is under review, and that is
on the table as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
I hear the Premier saying
it has been around a long time, but you are the one saying this is a crisis,
so it is time to look at every possible avenue.
Mr.
Speaker, government members are paying rent in Corner Brook myself
included. The Member for Humber
East is renting office space in Corner Brook, who was not allowed to move
into the office of the Member from Humber East who just resigned.
A former Premier for eight months now has a three-year option for
suites in Corner Brook.
I
ask the Premier: Do you think the former Premier requires a suite of offices
for one secretary, costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN:
Mr. Speaker, the Premier,
I think, answered the first question, which was all aspects of government's
operations are under review.
Whether it is the benefits that are being paid out to former Premiers and
as the Premier said, this is a benefit.
It is nothing new. There
is nothing cynical about this.
Former Liberal Premiers have had this.
I suspect that all Premiers since the beginning of time have had
this. I remember going back to
comments in the media when Premier Moores left, Premier Peckford left, and
Premier Wells left. Every
Premier who has left has had this same benefit.
Premier Grimes was the last Liberal Premier to leave
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. WISEMAN:
and those benefits have
been extended to all former Premiers, but this is the first Premier who has
ever said that it is under review and we are going to give it a very sharp
scrutiny in this Budget process, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
I say to the minister,
this is the first Premier who has ever been in the office less than a year
to receive it, Mr. Speaker.
I
ask the Premier: If you want to save money, why don't you ask the minister
to get something less affordable and let the Member for Humber East move
into a suite of offices, which was renovated for the member himself in
Corner Brook, so that you save taxpayers' money in the interim?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN:
Mr. Speaker, I would not
stand in the House and say this was the first I assume that the member
opposite has checked to ensure that Premier Tulk did not get this benefit
when he left. I am sure he has
checked that. He would not get
in this House and say something unless he had verified it; I am certain.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. WISEMAN:
I say, Mr. Speaker, he is
obviously speaking with some confidence and that is all the more reason why
the Premier is adamant and has been clear that he is prepared to look at
everything and all things that we do including the size of Cabinet,
including the members who have extra pay in this House, whether it Committee
Chairs and other sorts of stipends they get paid in the House.
He has put everything on the table for review, including what
Premiers get when they leave office.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
In
the last few weeks we have seen in the media and heard from constituents
about problems with the care of residents at the new St. John's long-term
care facility. We are hearing
about residents being bedridden or not receiving adequate personal care due
to lack of staff and supplies.
I
ask the minister: Is his department doing a study of all the staffing needs
at this facility?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, we are
certainly proud of the investments we have made to improve long-term care in
Newfoundland and Labrador and we recognize there is still more work to do.
The facility in Pleasantville is a beautiful new facility and we
believe that residents are getting excellent care there.
However, the concerns that have been raised recently are of great concern to
us. I have spoken personally
with the CEO of Eastern Health who has taken it upon himself to arrange
meetings with people involved to investigate all of the concerns that have
been raised. He does also intend
to meet with the resident council, which contains family members and
residents, to ensure that any concerns about patient care are adequately
addressed.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I
ask the minister: Is he going to get a full report from the CEO about these
consultations?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, I am in
constant communication with our regional health authorities, as are
officials at the Department of Health and Community Services.
We will ensure that any concerns that have been raised here are
followed up.
In
terms of the staffing shortages, I have spoken to those issues in this House
on several occasions. We have
plans in place to ensure that we attract the staff we need.
We are pleased that new LPNs have arrived and are completing their
orientation and training. We
look forward to opening up even more beds at the facility.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
minister has just now given me the answer to my two questions one is, give
us an update on how many vacancies are still there in staffing, and tell us
how many beds are still empty?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A
number of the beds have already been opened.
There may be several more that still will open in the weeks ahead.
I will get the exact numbers and certainly provide them to the hon.
member.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We
are still hearing of patients lying in hallways because hospital beds are
not available. Much of the
backlog is due to patients waiting for long-term care.
I
would like the minister to tell me: What is the current wait-list for
long-term care under Eastern Health?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, the precise
numbers on the wait-list, I would certainly be happy to provide to the hon.
member. I know that the opening
of the new facility in Pleasantville has made a positive difference.
We
are exploring other solutions as well to address the waitlists, because the
reality is in every one of our hospitals in Newfoundland and Labrador we
have long-term care patients who are tying up acute care beds.
That is a concern for government; it is a concern for our regional
health authorities. We are
striving to find solutions, because it is not just a problem in Eastern
Region. In fact, one of the
longest waitlists we have in the Province is actually in the Central Region.
So we are working to explore solutions for each region of the
Province when it comes to long-term care.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, government has taken the position that a reduction in the number of
sitting MHAs can address part of the dire fiscal situation in the Province.
Is
the Premier telling the people of the Province that democracy is tied
directly to the price of a barrel of oil?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN:
That is a ludicrous
question when you stop and think of it for a moment.
There is no price on democracy, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. WISEMAN:
Men and women have given
their lives for democracy, and to try to trivialize that by talking about a
democracy and the cost of democracy and what we are trying to do as a
government to ensure that the size of this House of Assembly needs to be
appropriate given the population that we have.
We look at that in relation to other parts of the country and the
representatives that they have in their Legislatures.
Mr.
Speaker, we support the notion that every person in Newfoundland and
Labrador needs to be appropriately represented in this Legislature.
Leaders of all parties well, except the Leader of the Third Party
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East has time for a quick question.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This
House used to have fifty-two seats before a drop in oil revenue hit the
provincial piggy bank, and now we find ourselves in this situation all of a
sudden.
What
makes the Premier think that less representation is going to be better
representation in this case?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance has time for a quick reply.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN:
I will be quick, Mr.
Speaker.
The
fifty-two seats had more to do with the 560,000 people than it had to do
with the price of oil, and today we are talking about Newfoundland and
Labrador with about 515,000 people.
It is a very big difference, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
time for Question Period has expired.
MR. WISEMAN:
Mr. Speaker, a point of
order.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance on a point of order.
MR. WISEMAN:
Mr. Speaker, as a former
Speaker, I am somewhat sensitive to this.
During Question Period, the Leader of the Official Opposition, in standing
in preparing for a question, indicated to the Premier that the Management
Commission was controlled by government.
I just want, for the record, to clarify and ask the member to stand
and apologize to you. Because
clearly, the Management Commission is made up of equal representation from
the Opposition and from government, and you, as the Chair, are the other
person on that. So, to suggest
that government controls the Management Commission is to suggest that you
are not independent and you are controlled by the government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. WISEMAN:
I say, Mr. Speaker, your seat, your position in this House is as an
independent. You are elected by
this Assembly and you have that independence.
I ask the member to stand and withdraw.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services standing on a point of
order.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Very
quickly, just to the question the hon. Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi
raised in Question Period. The
number of beds currently not open is thirty and they will be open in April.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
There is no point of order.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
MR. SPEAKER:
Pursuant to section 8 and
section 10 of the Public Tender Act, I hereby table the report of Public
Tender Act exceptions for the month of October, 2014, as presented by the
Chief Operating Officer of the Government Purchasing Agency.
Further tabling of documents?
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Members would recall, yesterday I was asked in Question Period, by the
Leader of the Opposition, a number of questions around the request for
documentation relative to a previous review of electoral boundaries.
I am pleased today to be able to table a number of documents for
members to peruse at their leisure.
There are two boxes here which represent presentations and audio
tapes. Further documentation
should be available within a couple of hours, later this afternoon.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further tabling of
documents?
Notices of Motion.
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Virginia Waters.
MS C. BENNETT:
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 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 the change in the numbers 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 the 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 government to ensure that, with or without the
completion of work of the electoral boundaries commission as a result of
appointing a commission early, it will not interfere with the legislated and
mandated requirements to hold a provincial election in 2015.
Mr.
Speaker, earlier the Finance Minister said being informed is much more
important than a calendar date.
Mr. Speaker, in the Province of PEI it took 970 days from the completion of
the report to the general election.
In the Province of Nova Scotia it took 380 days.
In the Province of New Brunswick it took 517 days.
In the Province of Quebec it took 791 days.
That is just from the end of the report to the election.
In
Ontario it took 1,050 days from the completion of the report to the general
election. In Manitoba it took
1,418 days from the end of the report to the general election.
In Alberta it took 665 days until the end of the report to the
election; 551 days in British Columbia; 627 days in the Northwest
Territories, and 870 days in Nunavut.
Mr.
Speaker, today is January 22, and we have 246 days before this government
has to complete a report and get the work done to get an election called on
September 25. Mr. Speaker, the
people of the Province do not want this legislation to delay a general
election.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's North.
MR. KIRBY:
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 people with disabilities in Newfoundland and Labrador especially
those who have mobility issues or use wheelchairs face particular
difficulties during times of significant winter snowfall; and
WHEREAS persons with disabilities who have low incomes, who have no one to
help clear their snow and no opportunities for assistance face isolation and
frequently are prevented from going to work, attending school, keeping
medical appointments, shopping for groceries and carrying out other
necessary responsibilities because accumulated snow at their place of
residence impedes pedestrian and wheelchair access; and
WHEREAS the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador supports access, full
participation, and equal opportunity for all Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians, regardless of ability;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to urge government to work with the City of St. John's and
other municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador, as needed, to create a
volunteer matching service or other low-cost solution to snow-clearing
problems faced by persons with disabilities.
As
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, this petition is signed by constituents of mine in the District of
St. John's North. I had a call
from a constituent just after the Christmas holiday, as I have had every
year since I got elected in 2011, about her difficulty getting out of her
home as a result of the snowfall.
My constituent is an amputee who has other health issues, and she
basically has significant disability and significant mobility problems.
I
looked around, searched the Internet, looked at what other jurisdictions
were doing across Canada and a lot of municipalities in Canada have services
that are volunteer services.
Some of them are called Snow Angels.
There is a similar service that is co-ordinated by the Seniors
Resource Centre here in the Province, but there is really nothing in this
Province and in the City of St. John's in particular, at least, for persons
with disabilities, to help them pair up with somebody to help them clear
their snow.
In
this instance, my constituent's nine-year-old son was out trying to get the
snow cleared out so his mother could get out of the house.
I do not think that is sensible at all in this day and age.
I
urge the minister responsible to take a leadership role here, to be
proactive and not reactive to the problems faced by persons with
disabilities, to reach out to the City of St. John's and to see if something
cannot be done in co-ordination with the city, through the Province, to help
these people who clearly need help with snow clearing.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
We,
the citizens serviced by Curtis Hospital located in St. Anthony,
Newfoundland and Labrador, petition the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador and Labrador-Grenfell Health to retain the midwives and allow them
to continue to perform all of their duties at Curtis Hospital.
Our
midwives offer services that cannot be duplicated and which cannot be
replaced. The level of care they
offer and the knowledge and training they have in the area of obstetrics is
immense. It will be a great
disservice to the people of this area if our midwives are no longer
available to care for the people here.
Privatizing midwifery or waiting five to seven years for regulation,
as stated by government, is unacceptable.
We have an operational model of midwifery here in St. Anthony that
has been delivering outstanding care for over ninety years.
We,
the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador and Labrador-Grenfell Health to preserve our
midwifery services at Curtis Hospital.
Mr.
Speaker, this petition is signed by residents of Savage Cove, Green Island
Brook, Flower's Cove, Green Island Cove, Bird Cove, and Plum Point.
This is a matter that when we look at primary care and we look at a
number of issues of where we are moving forward with health care because I
know the minister had talked about spending forty cents for every dollar on
health care in the Province. If
we look at the health care professionals and allowing them to practice the
full scope, there are ways of which we can have smarter spending in health
care and providing better health care outcomes for the people of the
Province.
In
St. Anthony, this hospital is providing midwifery services for almost 100
years. For over ninety years
this service has existed. If we
look at where the service could be expanded when you look at the recruitment
and retention of obstetricians, general practitioners, there are ways in the
system of which, with the proper regulations, we could offer midwives not
only in St. Anthony but in other areas in a publicly-funded setting.
We could also have private midwifery in larger metro areas.
The
safe delivery of health care can be provided, but also all the other work
that midwives do in terms of the prenatal and postnatal services that they
offer families, not just the women who are pregnant but the whole family in
terms of helping and making sure that those who are pregnant get the proper
adequate care and that we are able to meet the health care needs of people.
This could be done in an efficient way and it should be done.
This is something that the Minister of Health should focus on in
making sure that those regulations are in play and that we do not lose
midwifery in St. Anthony on the Great Northern Peninsula.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to present this petition on
behalf of my constituents.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's Centre.
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 of
Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS the Family Violence Intervention Court provided a comprehensive
approach to domestic violence in a court setting that fully understood and
dealt with the complex issues of domestic violence; and
WHEREAS domestic violence continues to be one of the most serious issues
facing our Province today, and the cost of the impact of domestic violence
is both great economically and in human suffering; and
WHEREAS the Family Violence Intervention Court was welcomed and endorsed by
all aspects of the justice system including the police, the courts,
prosecutors, defence counsel, Child, Youth and Family Services, as well as
victims, offenders, community agencies, and women's groups; and
WHEREAS the recidivism rate for the offenders going through the court was 10
per cent compared to 40 per cent for those who did not; and
WHEREAS a budget for the court was only 0.2 per cent of the entire budget of
the Department of Justice;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to urge government to reinstate the Family Violence
Intervention Court.
As
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I am not exactly sure how long I have been presenting this
petition. It is pretty well
close to two years now. With our
new Premier, whose background is policing, if anybody in this House should
know the effects of domestic violence, if anybody in this House should know
how important the court system is, how important the police system is, how
important the support systems are in the area of domestic violence, it
should be our current Premier.
Mr.
Speaker, the police fully endorsed the Family Violence Intervention Court,
because often they are the first responders and they know, they see, the
devastating effects of family violence.
The Family Violence Intervention Court was a court that really fully
dealt with the root causes of domestic violence.
It
reduced recidivism which is exactly what we want to see happen.
We want to see the rate of recidivism reduced, and that means that
people will not reoffend. That
is exactly what we wanted to see happen, and that is exactly what this court
did. For $500,000, that is what
this court did, and it did it protecting the people, the women and children
of this Province.
Mr.
Speaker, the current House Leader, he will go down in history to be known as
the one who cut this court for no good reason, for $500,000, when it served
such a vital function in terms of addressing the root cause of domestic
violence in this Province.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
MS DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To
the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS most communities in the District of Cartwright L'Anse au Clair do
not have adequate broadband services; and
WHEREAS residents
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS DEMPSTER:
businesses, students,
nurses, and teachers rely heavily on the Internet to conduct their work and
cannot afford to wait until 2016 or longer to access a potential plan in
partnership with the Muskrat Falls development; and
WHEREAS there are a number of world-class tourism sites in the region,
including a UNESCO site at Red Bay, Battle Harbour Historic Site, and the
Mealy Mountains National Park;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to
work with the appropriate agencies to provide adequate broadband services in
communities along the Labrador Coast.
As
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I have presented numerous petitions in this House on the need for
an increase to the broadband service in the district and I will continue to
do that. We have twenty-two
communities in the area and we have at least half, or more than half of
these communities that have exceeded capacity.
They are closed to sales, several of them with major tourism sites.
Mr.
Speaker, as we look at this technological age that we are now living in,
everybody likes to be connected.
We certainly see indications of that here in the House every day.
I do not think there are too many who go without their devices for
very long periods of time, unless they are sleeping.
Mr.
Speaker, even for fisher people in the district, they are more and more
having to rely upon Internet to renew applications and licences.
Professionals who are there, schools, the streamlining is very, very
slow. Every single day I receive
e-mails, or posts to my social media, people are not able to access until
after midnight or before 5:00 a.m.
I would urge the government to continue to work with service
providers. There was $305
million in the federal budget. I
am not sure what portion of that was coming to Newfoundland and what it was
earmarked for.
Mr.
Speaker, we are talking about a fiscal crisis here a lot.
Sometimes with a tiny investment and when you are drawing tourists
to the area, 450,000, I believe it was in this Province who visited National
Historic Sites last year.
Sometimes we have to put a little bit of money in to expect a whole lot of
money back.
I
will continue to stand and petition and draw attention to the serious
broadband need in an area where, I might add, there already is a very, very
small cell service. These people
are left in a very difficult situation.
Businesses to do their work are hurting, individuals, and students.
I hope we will hear some news that some improvement is coming very
soon.
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
have a petition to the hon. House of Assembly.
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 to urge the government to ensure that, with or without the completion
of the work of the commission as a result of appointing a 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 am happy to stand here for the first time this week and enter a
petition on this matter, and happy to enter one that is signed by members of
my constituency who have some concerns about this whole thing that was
sprung on this Province roughly a week ago.
It was very quick, and a lot of people it is taking them back, and
we are back here in an emergency session to talk about it.
They
have no problem with a reduction in seats in general.
That is not their issue, but they are worried about the possibility
that this stretches out an election which this government made legislation
to ensure would happen this year in the fall.
It was the will of the people.
That is what they want to make sure happens.
They do not want this commission to be done as a means of delaying
that election.
Again, that is what is out there.
That is what people think, and that is their concern.
We have to ensure that does not happen because that is not what
people want. That is the purpose
of this House, to ensure that we do the people's will.
That is why we were elected here.
I am
happy to stand here and present this petition on behalf of my constituents.
We hope this matter which we are about to debate today is done
properly. I also look forward to
having the rest of the documents we requested to ensure that we have an
adequate, full and informed debate.
We have asked for documents that probably should be considered when
we get into this matter. We look
forward to hopefully getting them and that the minister did not redact them
too much along the way.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
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 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 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, too, am proud to stand here this afternoon and bring forward
this petition on behalf of people from the beautiful District of Conception
Bay South, all signed, the correct address and properly indicated.
Article 3.1 of the House of Assembly Act talks about, the resignation of a
Premier indicates that within a year we should have a general election.
Mr. Speaker, there are people in this Province now who feel that we
should be having a general election based on that article.
The Official Opposition has not taken that stand.
Mr.
Speaker, last winter and spring with the non-crisis of DarkNL and the Humber
Valley Paving fiasco, we had a large portion of the population of this
Province demanding that we hold an election.
Mr. Speaker, at that time the Official Opposition took the stand that
we would not be expecting a provincial election.
Mr.
Speaker, in the fall, when we ended up with a new Premier and the fiasco
that went with his appointments and so on, there was a significant portion
of the population of this Province calling for a provincial election.
The Official Opposition at that time did not take that stand.
Four, five, six, seven resignations and subsequent by-elections, Mr.
Speaker, a significant portion of the population of this Province was
calling for a general election.
The Official Opposition at that time chose not to.
Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition, my colleague has a petition.
My colleague earlier had a petition.
We are supporting the people of this Province who are now calling for
an election.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I
remind the member his time has expired.
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.
First of all, I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal and
Intergovernmental Affairs, Motion 3 of our Order Paper for today, under
Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 this afternoon,
Thursday, January 22, 2015.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is that this
House not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock today.
All
those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government
House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental
Affairs, pursuant to Standing Order 11, the House not adjourn at 10:00
o'clock this evening, Thursday, January 22, 2015.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is that this
House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m.
All
those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
give notice, under Standing Order 11, I shall move that the House not
adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, January 26, 2015.
I
further give notice, under Standing Order 11, I shall move that the House
now adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Monday, January 26, 2015.
Mr.
Speaker, as per Standing Orders, I would like to inform the House that the
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I
was about to say, as per our Standing Orders I would like to inform members
of the House that the Striking Committee has met and the following members
will be appointed to the Standing Orders Committee of the House: the Member
for Trinity North; the Member for Grand Bank; the Member for Signal Hill
Quidi Vidi; and the Member for St. John's South.
Mr.
Speaker, I am not sure of the procedure if I need to make a motion or just
inform the House of that.
Perhaps you could advise.
MR. SPEAKER:
Just give the Speaker a
minute. I am just going to check
that.
MR. KING:
Do you want a motion?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government
House Leader, yes, a motion will be in order to that effect.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It
is so moved by myself as Government House Leader, seconded by the Member for
Burgeo La Poile.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is that the
Standing Orders Committee is to be comprised of the members mentioned by the
Government House Leader.
All
those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At
this time I would like to go back to our Order Paper and call Order 3,
second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act, Bill
42.
MR. SPEAKER:
Bill 42.
The
hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much,
Mr. Speaker.
It
is indeed another privilege to get up here today.
First of all, I know on behalf of a lot of people on this side of the
House, and I am sure everyone in the House, it is nice to see the Member for
St. John's East back here. My
condolences to you and your family.
I know it is a hard time to be going through, but I am sure all of
our prayers and thoughts are with your family.
It is nice to see you back here.
Mr.
Speaker, I always get up and I always start off my speech by saying the
beautiful District of Cape St. Francis.
I do not know, if I get elected the next time, if I will be using the
beautiful District of Cape St. Francis.
It may be some other name.
I saw a couple of ones out the other day when people had it done up,
it was called Torbay and some other names that they had there also.
Whatever it is, it will be.
I do
believe in the amendments that we are bringing here today.
I am going to give you the reasons why I believe it is important for
us to do this. I look back and I
look at my district and the historic years of my district, I look back at
the people who represented it and I always get up and I always speak about
it because I am pretty fortunate.
I know there are some other members here in the House who had their
fathers represented in certain districts.
When
I look at the people who came before me, I get the privilege every now and
then to speak to Mr. Tom Hickey who represented the area.
Tommy is an interesting character.
He is a hard fellow. I
always see him; I meet him at a lot of funerals.
If he can get a hold to you and hold onto you, he will talk about
politics, the district, what it meant, how it was years ago, how things have
changed, what they were like in his times, and what they were like today.
When I do speak to him, Mr. Hickey is a wonderful man.
I am proud to be able to be the fellow who followed him.
Then
I go back and I look at when I first started in politics.
When I first started in politics the district that I represented was
called St. John's East Extern.
St. John's East Extern took in, I think, almost nearly all of Virginia
Waters. It went right up to
Airport Heights, it went right down to Wedgewood Park, and it went right
around the whole area. It went
down as far as Virginia Park and that area.
It was a huge, huge area.
I
can remember being a young fellow from Flatrock not knowing many townies at
the time and it was a new area for me.
It was a new area for my father actually too when he first got
involved. Back then I think a
lot of it, PCs, Liberals, NDP, everyone had their thing.
As the election came forward, people came out and we met wonderful
people.
I
remember one gentleman in particular he is deceased now was Mr. Paul
Reynolds who happened to be the Mayor of Wedgewood Park.
He was the mayor at the time and that was part of St. John's East
Extern. He became a very good
friend of mine, a very good friend of our families and everything else, but
that was all through politics.
When I look at being a politician, I look at the responsibilities of what it
takes to be a politician. I
really believe every person in this room here it is a privilege.
It is something that people gave us a privilege to be here.
I
listened to the Open Line host and one day I him talking.
He said those bums in there do not want to be in there.
If they do not want to do the work, then get rid of them.
Yes, you get rid of us.
If you do not want it, get rid of us.
If we are not doing what you elected us to do, that is what you are
supposed to do. Do you know
what? We should all take the
privilege that they gave us and make sure we do our work.
Mr.
Speaker, I look at an MHA like myself, I came into this fully aware of
everything was in front of me because I was fortunate enough to be in a
family who had a father who was an MHA and I saw what he did over the years.
We, as MHAs and I am sure that there is nobody in here who wants to
lose their district; nobody in here wants to say I am going to lose a
certain part of my district or whatever.
I know in my area I enjoy the events that I go to.
Since I was elected, I have been here now probably six-and-a-half
years, I would say I am after meeting more people in Bauline, for example,
the smallest community in my area, I would say in Bauline before I was
elected I might have known twenty people.
Bauline has a population of 400; I know over 200 of them and call them by
name now because of this job that I have.
That is a privilege to me to be able to know these people, know that
I am working for these people. I
do not want to lose Bauline. I
do not want to lose Pouch Cove.
I do not want to lose Flat Rock.
I do not want to lose any of them, but that is not my choice.
That is not my choice.
It
will be a commission that is going to be set up that is going to be
independent, that is going to look at everything, and it is not going to be
about Kevin Parsons. It is not
going to be what Kevin Parsons wants.
It is going to be what is best for the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
That is what this is
all about. This is not about
and I heard members get up here and they talk about their districts and they
talk about everything else and how they want to maintain what they have, and
I respect it. I do not want to
lose anything that I have now. I
figure I have a bond down there with the people who elected me.
Now,
they can get rid of me. That is
no problem at all. I have no
problem, but I can assure them that I am doing the best I can for them.
I think that at the end of the day when they come down and mark their
X or whatever they have to do that hopefully they will see the same thing,
and that is why we are all here.
If
someone says to me listen, we do not want to bother you; I say, do not be so
foolish. What are you bothering
me about? You are not bothering
me. You are my boss.
You are the person who put me where I am.
As long as we all keep that in the mind that we are here, that our
bosses are the people that elected us.
It
is not what we want. It is not
what I want. It has nothing to
do with everybody in this place.
This is for the betterment of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I listened to the Member for Cartwright L' Anse au Clair today when
she talked about technology and I look at her over there today and she is on
her device, and we all are do you know what?
When my father was the MHA for St. John's East Extern, he had one of
those bag phones. I do not know
you if remember them. They were
the big old phone; it was like you took it out of your that is what he
used.
Technology today, he never had that.
When he went down in the district and he had to go get a letter off
somebody or a picture that somebody had, he had to go get it right to their
houses. I received more messages
yesterday on Facebook than I did on anything else, than I did by e-mail, by
text or anything else. There
were messages given to me on Facebook.
Technology has changed, everything has changed, and the way we do our jobs
has changed. I answered all of
them on Facebook. A friend of
mine he calls it 'bookface'. He
does not call it Facebook. Are
you on that 'bookface', he says.
I say, I do not know. Do you
know what? He texted me about
three weeks ago, and I never ever thought he had a cellphone.
I did not know he had a cellphone.
So,
as times change, we have to change.
That is my whole point here today.
Technology is a fantastic thing.
Sometimes I think it is a little bit too much sometimes, because I
like to do the personal thing myself.
I like to be able to go to the person and talk to them.
A lot of times when people send me this big, old long e-mail, I will
just send it back to them and say give me your number.
I would just as soon talk to them as get into the and that is the
way I like doing things. Now,
some other people like doing it in different ways.
Today, technology has changed.
When you look at forty-eight members for 500,000 people and listen, I am
not going to get up here today and tell the commission, or the people who
are on this commission, how to cut things up.
That is not me; that is not the way I am.
I think if there is a judge who is appointed to this, I am sure he
will have the best technologies in the world to be able to do what he can
do, and he will have the people on the commission who will do it properly.
I am
not going to question them, and I am not going to question but the only
thing I do question. I heard
today, and a lot of times you get up and people are, oh, you cannot do it in
time. Well, do you know what?
Let's give them a chance to do it in time.
I am going to state here today in the House of Assembly that I want
to see an election in 2015. I do
not want to wait until 2016. I
want an election this year, and so does everybody here.
All
we heard today on the petitions, a couple of them: You cannot do it in time.
The rest of them: oh, they are going to try to drag it out to 2016.
I spoke to a lot of constituents this weekend, talked to a lot of
people in my area, and that is the one thing they do not want.
Honestly, they do not want to see an election in 2016.
They want an election in 2015, and so do I, and so does our Premier,
and so does this government; and I am sure, so does everybody on the other
side of the House. It is not
about us trying to drag anything out here.
This is all about one thing, doing the right thing, and this is the
right thing to do. There are a
couple of reasons why it is the right thing to do.
I
listened to the Minister of Finance the other day as he stood up and spoke.
He said, okay, we will wait until 2016 to do this.
So it gets done in 2016, and we are all in the House.
Everybody here is in agreement that it should be reduced.
It should be reduced, no doubt about it.
There is nobody in this House who does not believe that this Assembly
should be reduced to a certain number of seats.
We
have different values, but they are pretty close.
I heard the Leader of the Opposition say forty; I heard our leader
say thirty-eight. That is not
too far off, as far as I am concerned.
We all agree to that. We
all agree that it has but if we wait until 2016, Mr. Speaker, we are
waiting until 2019, at the end of 2019, almost to 2020.
We are waiting too long.
If this is done in 2016 and we cut this back to thirty-eight seats, what do
you do? What do you do with the
ten other seats that are left there?
Cape
St. Francis is gone. I am joined
with my friend from Conception Bay East Bell Island, say for example.
We have one district there, and he is representing that district.
That is the district he is going to represent.
We are wasting people's money, and we will be wasting people's money.
This job should be done before the election.
It should be done so we do not wait three or four years for it to get
done after an election. I
believe it should be done now.
All I am saying here today is give the commission that is going to be set up
time to do it. They will have
the time to do it. We all want
an election in 2015.
Today's technology is amazing. I
was looking at a Crown land issue with a guy.
He came into my office and we just went on Google map, went in and
googled. The piece of land stood
out, and we even went down as much to see where the boundary lines and
everything else was on the piece of land.
Technology has changed.
This
process can be done in the time frame that we are allowing.
It can be done, and it will be done.
We will have an election in 2015.
That is what the people want, and that is what we want in this House.
It is so important.
Another thing that people say to me all the time is, why are you doing it?
Well, the number one reason is because it is the right thing to do.
Number two is I look at the financial situation of the Province
today. Yesterday, the big
shocker was the interest rate dropped by a percentage in the Bank of Canada.
Nobody saw it coming.
This time last year nobody saw the price of oil at $47 a barrel.
We never saw it coming.
We
have economists all over the world looking at the situations.
They are in Alberta, Canada, Russia, you name it.
Any oil producing country in the world is really scrambling now
because of the revenue they are losing.
We are no different. We
have to have a look at what we are doing.
Mr.
Speaker, I explained to a guy on the weekend a reason why you do it.
Sometimes we all get in situations some of us now, not all of us
where your family, probably it could be a layoff, it could be a death, it
could be a divorce, it could be anything, and the household income changes.
When the household income changes, you cannot expect if I am in my
household and I am used to driving the biggest truck, burning all the gas
and everything else, and all of a sudden the money that I had in my
household has shrunk by a large margin, I cannot expect my children to take
all of the cuts and cut it down.
I have to lead by example, and that is what our Premier is doing.
People say, oh, everything is on the table.
Yes, it is all on the table.
Why are you doing it now?
It has to be done now. In order
for us to be able to do this before the next election, this is the time we
have to do it. This is not a
rush. This is just saying
listen, we had better get back in the House.
This is what we want done and this is the reason why we are doing it.
It is the same thing as your family.
It is the same thing as what you do in your family.
You have to make decisions that will affect your family because you
want the best for the Province.
That is what we are doing here.
I
laugh; it really, really gets to me when people say it is only $2.5 million.
Wow, $2.5 million. Okay,
if you do not do it how about if a person gets laid off, that is only
$50,000? Is that what you say to
the person who is getting laid off?
If there is something that we have to do as a government to all the
different organizations that we help, okay, last year we gave you $10,000,
this year we may only be able to give you $5,000.
Do we say it is only $5,000?
It is not $5,000 to those groups; $2.4 million, $10 million savings
is huge. It is huge.
Whatever the deficit is this year, if it is $1 billion, you are not going to
find $1 billion in one smack just like that.
There are going to have to be different things.
That is like the Premier stated in this House day after day since we
got here. Everything has to be
on the table. Everything has to
be looked at. That is the reason
why we have to start with this.
This is a start.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER (Cross):
Order, please!
MR. K. PARSONS:
This is what this is,
a start. It is pretty amazing
when you think about it. Here we
are, we are in here voting to eliminate ten jobs among ourselves.
I do not think there are many organizations where everybody would sit
down and think about eliminating ten jobs.
Do you know what, Mr. Speaker?
It is the right thing to do.
The
reason why it is the right thing to do is because we are responsible to the
people who elected us. They are
our bosses. Like I said earlier,
my boss is the people from the District of Cape St. Francis, the people who
elected me. My job every day is
to serve the people from Cape St. Francis, the people who elected me.
I believe this is the right decision to take.
I think we have to do it.
I think it is important that we do it.
Do I
want to lose a part of my district?
Like I said earlier, I love the community of Pouch Cove.
I always tell everyone and they all know this anyway down our way.
Everything you do in Pouch Cove is about a grub job, about a feed.
Every time I go down there they want to feed me.
You can tell by looking at me that I enjoy it a lot.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Do you know what?
I do not want to lose any of my communities, but I have no say in
that. That will be up to the
commission. That will be up to
them.
I am
sure everybody in this House has people who they have met through politics
that means a lot to them. I have
a lot of seniors. I love going
to seniors' functions. I think
they are the people who did so much for us; it is time for us to do it for
them.
There are so many different programs that you can help people out with.
That is what we are about as politicians.
We should be here for the right reason.
The right reason is to help the people who elected us.
That is why this is important.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to talk about the reasons why
we have to do this. It is
important. I know everyone, as
they got up today, were talking about time.
Let's give the commission I do not mean to take my full twenty
minutes here today, but I probably will.
Let's give them the time to do their work.
I am sure they can come back, with the technologies of the day, and
they will be able to do it.
The last time I heard it took about nine months to do
it. I am sure with what we have
today and the technology, we can cut that down because technology has
changed like you would not believe.
I have watched, a couple of people are after sending me
I have done it myself, looking down at different districts, looking at the
population of districts and everything else.
I know everyone has their own conclusion of how this is going to
work. I am not saying take seats
away from anyone. No one wants
to see their district lose, but my point today is it is something that needs
to be done; it is the right thing to do, and give the people who are going
to do it the opportunity to try to do it.
Do not just cut it down right off the bat.
Let's see if this can be done.
Everyone in this House, like I stated earlier, I have
heard it so many times and you hear it in the media, they are only trying to
drag themselves on. They are
trying to keep themselves in power more.
Not so, Mr. Speaker. I
can tell you right now, Kevin Parsons, the Member for Cape St. Francis,
wants an election in 2015. So
does everybody else on this side.
So does the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, by eliminating whatever number of seats,
ten seats or whatever we are going to do here, it not only takes members.
There are people we feel loyal to.
It is the loyalty you have to your staff who work for you.
It is not only ten members in here who will lose their jobs.
It is also the CAs from everyone.
I know the Member for Torngat Mountains stated the
other night, he said, it will affect you more than it will affect us.
Obviously, there are twenty-nine of us over here on this side of the
House and there is a less number over there.
This move is going to affect a lot of people.
I personally do not like to see anybody lose their job.
I hate to see anybody lose their job.
I would rather see taxes go up or whatever, but I do not want to see
job losses.
Do you know what?
Reality is not what you want sometimes.
Reality is do the right thing.
You have to make sure that whatever is happening, that you are the
person who is leading.
I have to give our Premier he is pretty strong on
this. For him to come into the
House and do this, it shows great leadership on his behalf.
I must say, as a new Premier, he is not here very long, but I have to
say I support him 100 per cent.
I think he is doing a great job.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yesterday was a great example in this House of Assembly.
I applaud the Member for St. John's Centre.
This was a great day in the House of Assembly yesterday.
I was very proud to be here, as to be part of what we did here
yesterday.
Mental health is a huge issue all over this Province
and we, as parliamentarians, came together yesterday and we made a decision
that will affect them for years to come.
It will affect all of us, because one in five but that is what we
are here for. We are here to
make the right decisions. Mr.
Speaker, the right decision is to have the number of MHAs reduced before the
next election, and the right decision will be to have the election in 2015.
Thank you very much.
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 today to speak to Bill 42.
I did have the opportunity to speak to the hoist amendment that was
introduced by our leader in a previous debate on Tuesday, and now this is my
first opportunity to speak to the entire bill.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that in some ways the direction
of the debate in this House has been skewed, and that in fact what we should
be talking about is not the number ten, not how many seats will be cut, not
about our economic situation due to the price of oil, but what we should be
talking about in this House is how do we achieve the best possible
governance for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
That is the main question.
That should be the directive to the electoral boundaries commission.
We do not know, Mr. Speaker I am very, very
disappointed in the Premier for (a) having just pulled what it seems to be
the number ten out of the air, because he still cannot explain to us, or
refuses to explain to us, or is unable to explain to us how he reached the
number of ten. He has admitted
that there was no consultation outside of his own, perhaps, Cabinet, or his
own caucus.
Mr. Speaker, the decision on how we govern ourselves as
a people is one of the most fundamental decisions that we can make as a
legislators. Our governance does
not belong to the forty-eight members here in this House of Assembly.
Who we are, as a people, and how we decide to govern ourselves, is a
decision that is made by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The results often of those decisions result in
elections and the choosing of the representatives who come and do the work
on behalf of the people in this House.
I am very concerned, extremely concerned that this Premier has, again
without any sense of transparency or accountability, decided that ten seats
must be cut. Maybe he is right;
I do not know. Maybe he is
wrong, I do not know but to have pulled that number somewhere and then he
will be giving instruction to the electoral boundaries commission to cut ten
seats from this Legislature.
Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to see what the
possible ramifications of this are.
Before I get into that, the Premier himself and his Minister of
Finance has stood up in this House in the past week and several times talked
about how vulnerable we are right now in our Budget, how precarious our
economic situation is, yet he has also said that Newfoundland and Labrador
has a strong economy. I am not
quite sure how we make sense of all that.
They seem to be conflicting messages.
Perhaps they are not, but they seem to be in some ways.
If, in fact, we are in such a precarious economic time
because of the price of oil, then one would think what we need most is
stability. What we need most is
to know that we have the people we need in order to do the governance that
we need, particularly in a time of precarious economic times.
The other issue is that we know that the government has
said repeatedly in the past three days, the Premier has said in this House,
he has said it in the media, he has said it in public meetings that
everything is on the table, and what he is signalling is that we are going
to see cuts. The Minister of
Finance said here today we must make strategic decisions, and the Minister
of Health said we must make tough decisions.
In this time again of economic vulnerability,
precarious economic times, where tough decisions supposedly will have to be
made, now more than ever do the people of Newfoundland and Labrador need to
have ample
representation in this House because if tough decisions are to be made, we
need to make sure that everybody is represented in this House.
I am
not so sure that is going to happen in an adequate fashion with the time
frame that government has laid out for an electoral boundaries commission
and in order for all of the work that has to be done to reduce this House by
ten seats.
The
issue is not about whether ten MHAs are going to lose their jobs.
The issue is not about whether or not ten constituency assistants who
work really hard, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents that is not
the issue about who is going to lose their jobs.
Again, I believe that what should be foremost in any direction from this
government to an electoral boundaries commission is how we can best achieve
governance in our Province in this particular time in our history.
Particularly, keeping in mind our precarious economic situation, the
tough decisions that have to be made.
Tough decisions which the Minister of Finance said he will make
strategic decisions that will affect people twelve months down the road
decisions that will not just affect people today, but decisions that have
long-term sustainability.
To
rush into something like this in this time when we need stability seems
foolhardy to me and to our caucus here.
I think many of the MHAs who have stood up, many of my colleagues who
have stood up today and in the past three days have shared similar concerns.
Not only do we hear those concerns here in this House, we also hear
concerns from experts in the area of constitutional law, experts in the area
of legislative laws, and in governance.
They also are raising red flags and saying this is not the way to do
it.
Mr.
Speaker, we have had a history with this government of rash decisions, tough
decisions that they have had to reverse.
Decisions, for instance, in 2012-2013, rash Budget decisions that
affected particularly the Department of Justice, where the Crown experienced
deep cuts, where the sheriff's office experienced deep cuts and many of
those cuts had to be reversed.
We
also saw the knee-jerk reaction, the decision to name the Department of
Justice the Department of Public Safety and that decision had to be
reversed. Decisions that seem to
come out of the blue. If we
actually used our legislated committee structure, this kind of legislation
would have gone to committee. It
would have been much more thought out.
There would have been discussion which would have affected the
quality of debate in this House as well.
This
is a major decision. This is
just not a tough Budget decision.
This decision should not be about a deficit.
Again, it should be about what is the best possible governance that
we have. I believe, in fact,
what is happening today is a decision about communications.
It is a decision that is pandering.
It is decision that is pandering in the same way by changing the name
of the Department of Justice to the Department of Public Safety.
It is that same kind of decision.
It is a decision that government hopes will pander to a notion that
government is overblown and that MHAs are overpaid.
I
believe that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will not be fooled by
this. The people of Newfoundland
and Labrador have been forewarned that we are in such tough economic times.
The people of Newfoundland and Labrador know how important,
particularly at this time, it is to be fully represented, to have their
voices in the House of Assembly.
When
I did speak to the hoist motion, Mr. Speaker, I talked about the possibility
of looking at a reality check.
What I was looking at was, really, how possible is it to do the work that
government is going to task the electoral boundaries commission with?
I have found my papers here and I would like to take a look at that
again.
Mr.
Speaker, before going there, I believe that some of the decisions that are
going to be made here, possibly tonight maybe we will have to go at this
again next week; I do not know.
If, in fact, the Premier directs the electoral boundaries commission to cut
ten seats that will violate our elections act in some cases.
We may see court cases.
We may see people of Newfoundland and Labrador bringing the government to
court because they are not adequately represented.
In
our current electoral act it says that there is a tolerance for a 10 per
cent variance in population rates in the city areas, in more municipal
areas, and a tolerance for up to 25 per cent variance rates in coastal
communities that are not connected by roads.
The possibility of fulfilling the directive by this government will
violate those variances, which may enable districts to go to court and to
challenge the decisions that this government is making about electoral
boundaries.
For
those reasons I think that this cannot be done as quickly as government
thinks that it can be done. The
process of governing this Province does not belong to elected officials.
The process of governance and how we live our lives together as a
people belongs to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
To do this process without extensive consultation would be a
violation of that principle.
Mr.
Speaker, I am not so sure that the directive this government is giving to
the potential electoral boundaries commission is in the best interests of
democracy. This directive has to
be in the best interest of democracy and it has to be in the best interest
of good governance. Those must
be the guiding principles, not about saving money by cutting ten seats.
Perhaps that is what the commission will come up with.
For the commission to truly be an independent commission whose sole
purpose is to ensure the best possible governance that we have, then they
must be unfettered and they must be allowed to do their work from their
seats of expertise. To do
anything else is tying the hands of the commission.
I
think it would be very interesting to see in fact, once the commission is
appointed, whether they accept that they will do this within the time frame
given, and whether they will accept the directive and the number ten.
They may not. They may
refuse to do that. One would
hope that what they would take as their guiding principle is to ensure that
we have the best possible governance available to the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
We
all know that our governance is about how we live our lives together, how we
make our laws, how we use our resources, how we plan our resources, how we
ensure that our economy is strong and vibrant, how we make sure that we have
proper health care, that we teach our children, that we care for our
seniors, and that everybody has a place to live.
That is what our governance is all about.
The
reality check, Mr. Speaker I would like to take a few minutes to go back
over that again. January 19-22
this week we in the House of Assembly will debate and possibly the changes
to the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act will be passed.
January 13, the Chief Justice has thirty days to appoint the Chair of
the commission. Government has
already said that the Chief Justice said he can do it faster.
So,
say, that appoints somebody by January 30.
There are then five days for the Speaker of the House of Assembly
no more than five days after the Chair is in place to appoint a Chair.
Then by May 31, the commission will submit the report to the
Department of Justice and Public Safety 120 days.
Four months after they are appointed, they will submit their report
to the Department of Justice and Public Safety.
The
month of June, the minister presents the report to Cabinet, tables it in the
House of Assembly, which will pass or not the amendments to the House of
Assembly Act specifying thirty-eight districts, if, in fact, the commission
follows the directive from the government.
That gives from June to September.
Elections Newfoundland and Labrador says it must have four months in
order to prepare the maps, the districts in order to prepare everything
for an election.
That
brings us to the end of September.
That is if there is no glitch in the system, that is if the
commission can, in fact and again I said a few days ago, Mr. Speaker, just
as sure as the sun rises every day, just as sure as the sun sets every day,
commissions take longer than their allotted time.
I
also spoke with an expert in this area of political science and he said
never, ever has this ever been done in under a year in the history of the
country. It has never, ever been
done in under a year, particularly because the public, the people of the
Province, have to be consulted and they have to be thoroughly consulted.
He said this was never, ever done under a year.
We are talking about a few months here, Mr. Speaker.
So,
the last legal date to drop the writ for our election is September 25,
because of the election of a new Premier.
So it is not possible; the days are simply not there.
We know, unless the process is even more truncated than what it is,
that it is not possible to meet the date of September 25, the last legal
date to drop the writ.
Mr.
Speaker, I find it astonishing that this government would do this at this
time. They have been in power
for how many years, ten years?
The current Premier has been the Premier for how long, six months?
Has it been that long? I
am not exactly sure. To do this
now, to put everything under the gun, to put everything up against the wall
on one of the most important decisions we can make as to how we govern
ourselves as a people, I believe this to be foolhardy.
I believe this to be a travesty in many ways.
Perhaps what will happen because of the directive to change the boundaries,
to reduce representation by ten seats again, which the commission may find
is an appropriate thing to do; I do not know.
Perhaps this government will become known by the people perhaps in
The Straits White Bay North and St. Barbe, will they become one district?
Perhaps this government will become known as the government who took
away representation from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I dare say that many, many people of Newfoundland and Labrador will
see that.
All
of us, every MHA in this House, was sent a paper from Professor Russell
Williams about his understanding and the possible scenarios of what will
happen if, in fact, ten seats were cut.
He looks at the legal acceptable variances and he is forewarning what
may happen and I encourage I am sure every one of my colleagues here in
this House has looked at his paper and looked at the graphs that he has
presented for us. I am sure
people will have questions about it.
Again, I feel that it is unfortunate what this government has done.
I do believe that it is the same kind of pandering as naming the
Department of Justice, the Department of Public Safety.
I do
not believe that this is in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
member's time has expired.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Seniors, Wellness and Social Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
always amazed when I listen to, I will not say all members of the NDP, but
some of the members of Third Party, Mr. Speaker.
There is always a tone that we are tearing the world apart, or we are
making decisions that are going to be totally detrimental to the world.
There is never enough of anything.
There never seems to be anything right.
I
have been here now for going on eleven years and I do not think I have heard
there might have been one or occasions, but, my gosh, it is demoralizing.
I find it just demoralizing.
Just listen to some of the words that the Member for St. John's
Centre just talked about: that we are making a decision that is foolhardy;
this is a travesty that we are taking away representation of the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, does she think that any of us on this side as members are going to
sit and support a decision that takes away the representation of people in
the Province? That we are going
to, somehow or another, take away democratic rights of the people of this
Province? I, for one, would not
ever sit as part of a decision that is going to take away the democratic
rights of my constituents.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN:
Never.
We will debate and there is no doubt about it, I have gotten some
e-mails from those who are in political science fields.
Some people are going to offer opinions.
Democracy, Mr. Speaker, that is what that is.
That is democracy, that we have the right to send something on these,
or to send something in writing.
We will make those decisions.
If
you look at other jurisdictions in the country that have decided, based on
the numbers, these are the numbers that an MHA or an MLA represents, and if
the geography comes into play and the numbers are a little higher than we
have in the Province, is she saying then that democracy may not be working
in Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick, or Ontario, or Quebec?
That is what she seems to be saying.
Another one that has bothered me, Mr. Speaker, she is saying that we retain
the number of seats. Somebody
mentioned here earlier today, I believe, there was a population of 560,000
people in the Province and there were fifty-two.
What she is professing is that no matter if the numbers drop or not,
Mr. Speaker, we maintain. That
is what she is saying, it does not matter.
If the numbers go down, no matter what the dollars are that we spend,
we maintain status quo. Mr.
Speaker, the logic of what she is saying in any case
MS ROGERS:
A point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's Centre on a point of order.
MS ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, I believe
that the hon. member across the floor is actually misrepresenting what I
said. I said that the commission
should decide the number. I did
not say what he said I said, Mr. Speaker, no way.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The
hon. the Minister of Seniors, Wellness and Social Development.
MR. JACKMAN:
There is no point of
order, Mr. Speaker.
I am
actually impressed she got up. I
am actually impressed. The
logic, Mr. Speaker, just escapes me.
Mr.
Speaker, we look at the numbers.
We look at the dollars, and the dollar savings that have been talked about
is $2 million or $2.5 million. I
do not want to misrepresent the NDP, but I thought the issue was raised the
other day, this is minimal savings.
Mr.
Speaker, I would ask them to go and speak to some group who is looking for
$3,000, some group who is looking for $100,000, or some senior or some
low-income person to say that a savings of $2 million is somehow trivial.
It is not in my books, Mr. Speaker, and not in a lot of the
constituents that I speak to and the groups who are seeking dollars.
Anything, Mr. Speaker, that we can do to save dollars we should be looking
at, and where should we start?
We should start with ourselves first.
We start with ourselves.
Mr. Speaker, we can come in this House and we can get up and say, well
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. JACKMAN:
We can get up in this
House and say, when is the right time? We
can go and set up consultations, go for the next while, talk about it, and
we are often accused of doing that, Mr. Speaker, time and time again.
Mr.
Speaker, we as a party, this Premier is making a decision that is in, yes,
dollars, but he is not an individual who is going to compromise democracy,
as the Member for St. John's Centre has been saying on several occasions
when she has gotten up to speak.
I am going to use a word now. I think
it is absolutely ludicrous what she is saying, that we as members of this
House will debate. We will
debate, Mr. Speaker, but there is no one on this side who is willing to sit
in their seats and come in here day after day and say that we are going to
compromise the democratic rights of the people in this Province, Mr.
Speaker, absolutely not.
Mr.
Speaker, I have been following some of the e-mails that have been coming,
and I have to tell you, I have not I have been in, like I said, for almost
eleven years. We have had many
issues that have come to this House, and I have had representation on many
occasions from my constituents about issues we have made decisions on,
numerous ones, and I can go back to the first or second year I came into the
House, some of the challenges we faced and the decisions we had to make
around public service and fishing and everything else, and I have gotten
e-mails and calls and requests for meetings.
Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you, I have not been swamped from my
constituents to say that this is not the right thing to do; I have not.
I
have gotten e-mails from some people, as was mentioned, from a professor who
sent us and another individual who said these are the recommendations I
would give to you on dividing the boundaries.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, they have taken my district and reconfigured
it in different ways. I do not
know, Mr. Speaker, I might have to run against the Member for Grand Bank.
I would not mind that myself, to tell you the truth.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN:
Mr. Speaker, I am only
joking, but if I look at how my district might be structured or restructured
and coming down the peninsula, if things are changed, I can assure you that
the representation of the people who will be in that new revamped district,
on my part, will not be any less.
If
they increase my numbers by, I do not know, a couple of thousand or
whatever, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you, and I can assure any of those, that
the representation they would get is the same that I have always provided in
this House and on behalf of my constituents.
I can assure you, and I think I speak for the people across the way,
you are going to give them the same representation, Mr. Speaker.
The
numbers in other jurisdictions across the country, someone said in the House
here yesterday, we are on the lower end of the scale.
Should we take a look at it?
Certainly we should. Is a
decision being made? Yes, it is.
It is a decision that is being made by this government, this Premier,
and it is one I think that people think it is the things that we should be
looking at. The time is right to
do it now, Mr. Speaker.
I
can get into speaking about the composition of the committee, the chief
justice from among the judges in Supreme Court, the four other members who
are going to be in there, and the resources that these members are going to
need. We have set a timeline on
it. Why shouldn't we, Mr.
Speaker?
We
are often accused of lingering things out.
Maybe the time is right that we put in place and we set the time that
this decision be made, and that we go into the election this coming fall, in
2015, with fewer seats, and that the people of the Province know that coming
out of the next election, yes, there will be fewer members.
We will assure them that the representation will still be good, but
there will be savings.
As I
have said before, go and speak to some of the seniors groups that I have
submitting applications to me on a regular basis.
To the groups, the 50 Plus Clubs, the people on low income, the sport
and rec groups, the people from the disabilities community, Mr. Speaker, all
looking for money. We may not
sometimes look at it that yes, we are dealing with millions and millions of
dollars, but when it comes to divvying up $2 million between groups within
the Province, that is a substantial amount of money.
Accumulate that over the number of years, it turns out to
representation we can give to various groups and community organizations
across the Province that benefits them.
That is democracy at work, and those are decisions being made.
I
know I have eight minutes, Mr. Speaker.
I am not one who intends to get up here and ramble on, but I have to
point out I am going to take my seat a bit early.
I would ask the people not to take the doom and gloom world that I
often hear from the Third Party.
I have never been a part of it, Mr. Speaker.
I cannot operate that way.
There is always the positive side to look at.
Mr.
Speaker, I will end by saying this.
We on this side are never going to make decisions that will
compromise the democratic right of the people of the Province.
No matter how much the NDP profess that, it will never happen.
We
are elected here. As the Member
for Cape St. Francis said, do not forget who put us here and they will
decide whether we get back here again or not.
Mr. Speaker, our decisions are always made in the best interests of
democracy in this Province.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. HILLIER:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, thank
you for the opportunity to speak on this bill.
Before I get started, I sat here this afternoon and we have listened to
three people speak. I will not
get into all three at this point in time, but they impressed me or they
impressed upon me in different ways.
I go back to the first speaker this afternoon, the Member for Cape
St. Francis. It is almost like
he is throwing in the towel and he is ready to give it all up.
He
said three times, Mr. Speaker, I know I have no say in all of this.
Things are going to come out as they are and I have no say in it.
Well, I am going to have my say this afternoon.
I had a class of geography in 1983.
The same thing worked for them as worked for these people this
afternoon.
Mr.
Speaker, I find it surreal just to be here this afternoon.
You can only say you are new for so long, but I still call myself
relatively new. When we broke in
December, I said to somebody who had been around a little bit longer, now
what can I expect as the winter goes on?
You have your Christmas holidays, then you take January and February
to do some work in your constituency, get your feet under you, and get your
office set up and so on. In
March we are back in the House again.
I
will tell you a story, Mr. Speaker.
As you are aware I have been wearing a sling for the last couple of
days. Knowing my schedule for
the winter I elected to have elective surgery on Friday.
I went under at the Health Sciences knowing that I had two months to
recuperate. When I came out of
recovery, my wife was with me and if anybody has every come out of
anesthesia you will know that you are a little bit confused.
I
went in knowing that I had two months and when I came out the first thing
she said to me was you are back in the House on Monday morning.
I said no, don't you be so stunned.
I am not reading this correctly because it is not possible for us to
be back in the House on Monday morning.
It is like the Premier woke up last week at one point in time and
somebody said the sky is falling, the sky is falling so he put a piece of
paper over his head to protect himself and said I have to cut ten seats.
It
has been like that as we move forward all week.
We had, we are going to cut the seats, we are going to cut to
thirty-eight seats, and we are going to move this forward as quickly as we
can. Mr. Speaker, why did we
need to be called back in two days?
Is it a political piece to catch us off guard, or it is just another
example of this government not being able to plan more than two days in
advance?
I
was just one person who was put out.
We had people out of Province; we had people out of country.
We had people getting on planes to be called back in here to do this
on a two-day notice.
Mr.
Speaker, this is Bill 42, An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act.
Our take on this, as we have said in recent days we are looking at
three amendments: one in the range of seats, one dealing with the 120 days
and that if it is not done it will trigger an election, and of course then
the other issue are the seats in Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, it is almost like a rush-in government, alright, it is almost like
a rush-in government. They rush
here, they rush there, and they rush everywhere.
I want to take a minute and go back over some of the issues that this
government has rushed through. I
will start with the expropriation of the Abitibi mill in Grand Falls.
They rushed in to the House, the sky is falling, the sky is falling.
We have to expropriate the mill in Corner Brook.
Everybody has to vote for it before the sky falls in.
What do we know is that we own a mill.
We
lost two court cases to NAFTA.
Currently the Department of Finance has recognized potential environmental
contingent liability of $265 million.
MR. KING:
Point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Government House
Leader on a point of order.
MR. KING:
Mr. Speaker, we have
called from the Order Paper Bill 42 to talk about electoral reform.
There is absolutely no connection to previous decisions around the
Abitibi mill in Grand Falls-Windsor, or any environmental issues.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Opposition House
Leader to the point of order.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I
certainly see the relevance when we talk about previous rushed legislation
in this House. This is what the
member is referencing. I
certainly think that is relevant, even though the other side might not want
to hear it.
MR. SPEAKER:
To the point of order,
there is no point of order. I
would declare that in a debate in this House, what is relevant may be a
personal issue. The Speaker at
some point extends that level of discretion, but at some point the members
do need to speak to the general intent of the bill.
MR. HILLIER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
did not realize we would get things stirred up this early and I still have
thirteen minutes left.
Mr.
Speaker, the other issue
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. HILLIER:
Obviously, Bill 29, which
will lead to relevance again
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. HILLIER:
We rushed in.
We have to get this straightened out before we close in June.
Now, two years later, we are waiting for an inquiry to come in to say
exactly what went on with Bill 29.
How
many do you want me to give? Mr.
Speaker? We can go into cuts in
the Justice Department, sheriffs.
We had nobody to lead people into the courthouse, brought them back
in.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Order, please!
I
would remind the member that we are speaking to this bill.
The general intent of this bill is what we should be at.
I would ask to speak with relevance.
MR. HILLIER:
Mr. Speaker, getting back
to Bill 42, we have been given 120 days for a commission to do a piece of
work where nowhere in Canada has it been done in less than 185, and most
have gone over one year. My
colleague from Virginia Waters in her petition this afternoon talked about
how long it took for all of these other commissions on boundary issues in
other provinces and in other jurisdictions in this country to come back with
their decisions.
That
is why, Mr. Speaker, I really have a concern with this government giving the
commission 120 days when we have so many of these examples where they have
done it wrong in the last two years.
Mr.
Speaker, let us move on to a little more benign maybe, topic, and that is
Labrador. Since I retired as an
educator I have had the opportunity to do some tour work with a local tour
company. Labrador is a big
place. Each of the last three
years I have taken a group of people from out of Province into Southern
Labrador. I just wanted to take
you through a little bit of our experience, first of all, on the one-day
tour of the section of Cartwright L'Anse au Clair that we did.
We
get up at 5:30 in the morning in Plum Point.
Mr. Speaker, right away you realize there is something wrong with the
ferry service when you get up at 5:30 in the morning and you drag
thirty-five people, average age seventy-five to ninety, out of bed and put
them on a bus to catch a ferry to Labrador.
You
pick up your tickets at 7:00 o'clock and you realize there is an issue with
the ferry in Labrador. When I
walk in, I have my reservations because my company has been working on this
since last February. I have my
reservations. I walk in and I
get the evil eye from fifty local people sitting there with their numbers on
a wait-list trying to get on the ferry.
It is a typical day in Labrador.
It
is not all doom and gloom as the Minister of Seniors, Wellness and Social
Development seems to think. We
cross on the ferry and there is no doubt that Southern Labrador is a unique
part of this Province. We stop
at the Northern Lights hotel, we have breakfast, and then we are on down
towards Red Bay.
Mr.
Speaker, it is unique, one of the biggest tourist areas in our Province is
at L'Anse Amour. Has anybody
been to L'Anse Amour? There are
a few people who have been to L'Anse Amour.
L'Anse Amour has a population of eight people.
In L'Anse Amour you have the oldest lighthouse in Canada on that
coast, you have the wreck of a British frigate right there in the harbour,
and you have a National Historic Site of an indigenous teenager going back
7,500 years, maybe the oldest native burial ground in the country.
As
you move on down the coast, Mr. Speaker, it continues that way.
It is a fabulous part of this Province.
We get down to the Pinware River and everybody has to stop for
pictures obviously of the gorge.
Then it is up over the hill into Red Bay which is a World Heritage Site.
My tour group, I guess the most impressive part of that is the
interpretation which is done by the local people of Red Bay.
Then it is back on the bus, beat it back to L'Anse au Clair.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible) get to
Battle Harbour.
MR. HILLIER:
No, we are not even going
to Battle Harbour. We get back
to L'Anse au Clair. The next
morning we are up at 5:30 again.
That is two mornings in a row that I have dragged a group of eighty-year-old
people out of bed to get them back across on this ferry.
I go through the gauntlet again of the evil eye of the local people
looking at this guy from St. John's, dragging a crowd of Mainlanders going
ahead of him on the bus, because they are sitting there with their waiting
list. Mr. Speaker, that is
Southern Labrador.
I
spent time in Western Labrador.
I have been there a couple of times as an athlete and as a coach.
The people of Western Labrador are fabulous people, but what
impressed me there obviously are the mines and the impact that these mines
have on the rest of this Province.
The people who I met there I met one lady and she sent me a
Christmas card in 1971, and we are still exchanging Christmas cards.
I
have never been to Lake Melville.
I have landed at Goose Bay.
I have landed at Churchill Falls, but I am aware of what goes on
there and the impact that these areas make on the rest of the Province.
I have never been to my colleague in Torngat Mountains I have never
been to that district. I know of
Voisey's Bay. I listen to him
talk about the size of his district and having to campaign in boat and on
ski-doo and being probably the only politician in the country who campaigns
with a .22 on his back.
The
reason I am going there, Mr. Speaker, is people talk about going to Labrador
or people talk about sitting here and understanding Labrador.
I had a gentleman from Alberta visit me here.
We came to St. John's. He
looked down at St. John's Harbour and he said: I am okay now I have seen the
Atlantic Ocean. As if to say
that looking at St. John's Harbour is the same as seeing the Atlantic Ocean.
I
had a friend of mine who drove to Holyrood on the four-lane highway and
said: Boy, your roads are some good in Newfoundland.
I had a gentleman come to my house in Conception Bay South and said:
Boy, it is sunny here every day.
Newfoundland's weather must be fabulous.
Mr. Speaker, that is the same as me going to any place in Labrador or
you going to any place in Labrador or either one of these people going to
either place in Labrador and understanding Labrador, because we do not.
Now
that we move on from something that I do not understand, let me talk a
little bit about something I do understand and that is beautiful Town of
Conception Bay South. The Member
for Cape St. Francis, the Member for Gander yesterday and several others
have talked about technology and the difference now than it was in 2006, and
the fact that we can do things quicker now because we have the technology to
do things and there is no doubt.
We have talked about Facebook and we kid each other and so on; but,
Mr. Speaker, when we talk about computers and we talk about technology,
there is always one pure fact: that garbage in, means garbage out.
Mr.
Speaker, we are going to use the census data from 2011.
We are going to use the census data from 2011 in 2015, and that data
is going to establish our electoral boundaries until 2026.
That is a fifteen-year fallback on data.
That is garbage. Let me
show you some garbage. Mr.
Speaker, I have here from the Conception Bay South Town Plan, which was
approved maybe by the Member for Gander in his day I am not sure if you
were there at the time
MR. O'BRIEN:
(Inaudible).
MR. HILLIER:
You were never there,
okay.
Anyway, it was approved in June 2012.
The piece of information I have here now goes back to April 2011,
which was after the last census.
This is what has happened in the Town of Conception Bay South,
demographically, since. In
April, 2011, in the Town of Conception Bay South there were 517 active
building lots. There were
eighty-four developments. Not
eighty-four building lots, not eighty-four houses being built, but
eighty-four developments for 517 active lots.
Proposed lots, there were 412.
That is a total of over 900 lots almost 1,000 lots.
Let us put three people in each of those houses since 2011, since the
census was done, that is 3,000 people.
That is the garbage that is going to go into the system to create
these boundaries. It is not only
Conception Bay South, it is Paradise, it is Torbay, it is Mount Pearl, and
it is St. John's, and I cannot speak for those outside of the metro area
because I am not as familiar with that.
I am familiar with this because of my time on council in Conception
Bay South.
I
will give you an example of the impact of that.
I ran a by-election in November.
We had a new voter's list.
Invariably, I knocked on the door with my voter's list and I said:
Mr. Granter, my name is Rex Hillier, I wonder if I could count on your
support?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. HILLIER:
We have Mr. Granter's in
Conception Bay South.
Mr.
Granter said, I am not Mr. Granter, I am Mr. Kent.
I finally found Mr. Granter somewhere up the street.
That went on over and over and over again.
Mr.
Speaker, on Middle Bight Road and a lot of the people here helped me in my
campaign. They know where Middle
Bight Road is, where you had a bunch of large lots, traditionally.
So you go to number eight Middle Bight Road and your next spot is
number ten Middle Bight Road, but there is a house in between.
That is the garbage you are going to have if you select the census
data from 2011 instead of the census data from 2015.
We
went on streets that did not exist at that point in time, full streets,
Tangier Place, Peacock Place.
They all exist, but they do not exist on the voter's list and they will not
exist in this census data. That
is the garbage in and the garbage out that you are going to expect.
Mr.
Speaker, people of this Province are tired of this fiasco.
You fed the fuel earlier this week when you had three members from
government petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to get this
done. It is ludicrous to see
this done. Two hours after those
petitions were presented, I had five pages of petitions.
AN HON. MEMBER:
From where?
MR. HILLIER:
From Hermitage, from the
fish plant in Hermitage, from the District of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
They are not happy down there, and the people are not happy across
this Province.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I
remind the member his time has expired.
MR. HILLIER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government
House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
move that we adjourn debate on Bill 42.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved that we
adjourn debate on Bill 42.
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.
Earlier today I gave notice to the House of the formation of a striking
committee, seconded by my colleague, the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
With his consent, I would like to update.
We
left a member off that committee, and that would be the Member for
Lewisporte, the Speaker of the House of Assembly.
So with your concurrence.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. KING:
So moved by me, seconded
by the Member for Burgeo La Poile, that member
MR. SPEAKER:
Moved by the Government
House Leader, seconded by the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
All
those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
MR. KING:
Thank you.
I
say to the Member for Conception Bay, there was no rush, no intent to deal
there, hon. member. The Clerk
outlined to us that it was procedurally something they would prefer for the
record. There is no rush, and I
do not appreciate the comment, to be fair.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I committed earlier today that I would table
documents for my colleague, the hon. Opposition House Leader, who is going
give up his salary, I understand, as a gesture of good faith.
I would like to table documents today now for the House from the
previous boundary commission. I
will do so right here.
Consider the documents tabled, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government
House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
would like to now call from the Order Paper, Bill 42.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. GRANTER:
Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to stand in the House today to speak to the amendments to the
Electoral Boundaries Act, Bill 42.
Before I get into that, I have been listening attentively this afternoon,
and first I want to speak to a couple of points that were brought to the
floor of the House by the Member for St. John's Centre.
I was very pleased in this House yesterday to support her private
member's motion. I think it was
a very valuable motion, Mr. Speaker, that all members of this House thought
that we should support and we did, but I heard from her today talking about
the election of 2015, or the election of 2016, and wanting to do things
right.
Just
a couple of days ago in this House, there was a hoist motion that was tabled
in this House and it was defeated by the members of the Opposition; it was
also defeated by us. She stood
in the House today, Mr. Speaker, talking about doing things right, but as
the Opposition said a few days ago, and as our members said a couple of days
ago as well, by approving that hoist motion in the House it would have
potentially guaranteed that the election of 2015 would have been moved into
2016. That is why it was
defeated here in the House.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to stand on my feet, just as my colleague did today, as my
colleagues here on this side of the House, and I want to say categorically
that as the Member for the District of Humber West, I, too, look forward to
the election of 2015. We want
the election of 2015 on this side of the House.
We will have an election in 2015 on this side of the House as well.
Before I get into some of the crux of the debate here this afternoon, Mr.
Speaker, in the twenty minutes or eighteen minutes I have left, I do have to
address one of the points by my colleague from Conception Bay South.
I know he is only new in the House, and we all talk about things in
the House. We all make mistakes
from time to time.
I
want to remind the Member for Conception Bay South that when you knock on
the doors of residents in your district, when you take on the role and the
responsibilities to represent the people in the district that you proudly
represent, when you knock on those doors and you campaign in an election,
you take on the responsibility twenty-four hours a day to represent the
people of the district who so proudly elected you to the House of Assembly.
MR. HILLIER:
A point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (Littlejohn):
On a point of
order, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. HILLIER:
Mr. Speaker, I understand
everything the hon. member is saying, he just still has not gotten to the
point of my mistake.
MR. SPEAKER:
There is no point of
order.
The
hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. GRANTER:
I would say to the Member
for Conception Bay South, just give me a couple of seconds and I will get
there.
Mr.
Speaker, I said to him when I met him on the elevator the other day, I
wished him well with the surgery that he had on his arm.
I know coming out of surgery you are a little bit under anaesthesia,
that you are a little bit in and out and you do not understand.
He also said that talking about times that you have to get back to
the House, whether it is one day, or one hour, or two days, or three days.
The point is, when we sign on as MHAs to represent the people in the
districts who elect us, we are with them twenty-four hours a day.
It is important that many of us I heard my colleague from Southern
Labrador, L'Anse au Clair, talking about the distance and time.
MR. HILLIER:
A point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
On a point of order, the
hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. HILLIER:
In the preamble here, the
hon. member stood up and said that I had made a mistake.
I am still not sure where that mistake is.
MR. SPEAKER:
There is no point of
order.
The
hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. GRANTER:
Mr. Speaker, as I was
about to say, the hon. Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair talked about
the time that it is to get about her district.
It is so real, and it is so true.
AN HON. MEMBER:
The Northern
Peninsula.
MR. GRANTER:
And the Northern
Peninsula, I say to my colleague.
We
have colleagues on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, who have driving
distance as well. I look at
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune, I look at my colleague from the other side of
the House as well from the Port aux Basques area, the vast distances that
they have to travel.
We
commit ourselves in this House when we get elected by the people.
We knock on their doors, and we commit ourselves twenty-four hours a
day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, to represent them the best that we
can do on the floor of this House for all of the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. GRANTER:
Mr. Speaker, that is the
crux of this debate in the amendments to Bill 42.
I am going to take a few minutes this afternoon to try to put it as
best I can in the perspective that I have.
I want to talk a little bit in the beginning about motivation.
So that people do not stand up and talk about whether it is a valid
point or not a valid point, I am going to talk a little bit about
motivation, what motivates us as members in this House of Assembly, and what
motivates us as representatives for the people of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, I know every member in this House of Assembly.
I have known some of them on my side of the House for many years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. GRANTER:
I have known some of them
for a few years, and I have only known some here in the House, Mr. Speaker,
just for a few months. Our paths
have crossed down through the years, as with my colleague from Conception
Bay South, who I have known for years.
We have crossed our paths as professionals in similar circumstances,
or through engagements in social and community networking across this
beautiful Province.
I
can say to the people of this Province, like all of them who sit on that
side of the House, and us who sit on this side of the House, I believe we
are motivated with the proper directions to do for the people of this
Province what is the right, and as former premier used to say, the
responsible thing to do to do what is right and the responsible thing to
do, Mr. Speaker.
Let's not fall short, I say to the people of this Province.
Let's not fall short of that valuable instinct that we all must need
to step up to, Mr. Speaker. That
is the goal from all of us on this side of the House, as I know it is from
those on the other side of the House as well.
That is what we do when we knock on the doors, and that is what we do
when we get elected and asked to come and sit in the seats in this House.
Mr.
Speaker, every one of us sitting in this House comes from all over the
Province. They come from
beautiful towns, beautiful valleys, bays, coves, inlets, and the Big Land of
Labrador, too. Prior to coming
here we all held different positions in the workplace.
Some held positions with unions, some are educators, some here were
in the field of health care, some here worked in industry, some held
positions in private business, some were involved in forestry, some were
involved in the fishery, and others were entrepreneurs.
One
thing I can say for sure is that many of us in this House were mothers and
fathers. Make no mistake about
it, Mr. Speaker, no matter what our background, no matter what our cultural
upbringing, no matter what part of the Province we are from, no matter the
years of experience we had in professional lives or in our workforce, we all
come to this place with a capacity to embark upon change.
The
ability to use our talents that we fostered down through the years, no
matter what kind of life we led before we came here, the ability to take
those talents that we have fostered, we have learned and we have grown down
through the years to invoke our beliefs, our understandings, debate across
the floor of this House, and to accept things they say and try to convince
people what we say is the right thing and the most appropriate thing to do,
Mr. Speaker, that is democracy in action.
That is what we are doing today and this week as we debate the
amendments to the Electoral Boundaries Act, Bill 42.
Mr.
Speaker, the ability to listen to others and learn from them as well, that
is what this place can do. That
is the important thing about this place, the ability to listen to others, to
change opinions, and to try and have other people to come on side with your
beliefs. We saw a good example of that yesterday when all of us here in the
House came together to support the private member's motion from the member
opposite.
Mr.
Speaker, it will be four years since the good people of Humber West elected
me to come to this House. Since
it is early in the new year still, it is still in the month of January, I
want to take this ten-second spot of my twenty minutes to wish everyone in
my District of Humber West the very best that 2015 can offer.
I wish them very well in 2015, as I know all of the colleagues will
do to the representatives in their districts as well.
For
the benefit of those listening at home, in this House when we are not on our
feet, Mr. Speaker, speaking to a particular bill, we get a chance to do a
whole lot of observing how the system of democracy works.
We get a chance to look across the way, as they are doing right now
and as members from my side of the House are doing, looking at me speaking.
Or at least some of them are looking at me speaking and listening to
what I have to say. We get a
chance to look across the way at the Opposition.
The opposite parties, Mr. Speaker, they do the same to us.
It is a chance to see really what motivates us, really what motivates
parliamentarians when we are in this particular place.
Mr.
Speaker, there has been much said and written about motivation.
Journals of scholarly research have been written on that topic.
Articles down through the years have been bound in magazines on that
particular topic on motivation.
I do
not plan on getting into a debate here on all of the theories, or the
motivational theories that exist out there in research, but just to say that
every decision we make in life is preceded or proceeded by a motivation or a
motivational thought. In
simplest terms, Mr. Speaker, let's put it out there the way it is,
motivation is characterized by a need.
There is a need there for something.
It is followed by a behaviour and equates or is followed by some form
of satisfaction. That is the
basic principle of what motivation is all about.
In
other words, Mr. Speaker, a person or an organization has certain needs or
wants. It causes a person or an
organization to do certain things.
That is the behaviour that satisfies those needs which is a
satisfaction.
Mr.
Speaker, whether we are talking about someone in a personal life, whether we
are talking about a business or a corporation, governments are no different,
provinces are no different, and governing a nation or governing in a
province is no different at that.
We are all motivated by doing something to satisfy that particular
need.
Mr.
Speaker, I believe all of us who put our names forward to serve in one of
the current forty-eight districts throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, who
get elected to this Chamber, who come in here to represent the people, all
of us, all forty-eight of us sitting on this side of the House and that side
of the House representing three parties in this Province, do so to the best
of their ability. Do so to the
best of their ability and make sure that they do things well for the
residents in which they represent.
Mr.
Speaker, this is the highest and most fundamental principle that should
motivate all of us and one that I and the members of this House take very
seriously. I do not think we
would get any argument with that.
Motivation is the force that initiates.
It guides and maintains goal-orientated behaviours.
It is what causes us to take action.
Mr.
Speaker, as I said a few minutes ago there are many theories of motivation,
but I believe the forces of motivation in Legislatures like this make it
better for the people we represent. It is not about the worth of one's self
but about the value of those who place their trust in you.
It is a responsibility that I take very seriously.
It is the responsibility placed on the legislators of this country
and the people who represent the people of the Province in this Legislature
in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, over the past four years we have been called upon as a government
to make many decisions. Some of
them have been pretty easy to make, some of them have been very tough to
make, and some of them have been very perplexing.
We tackle it as a government.
The pension liability issue and the pundits out there, when we
tackled or leading up to tackling the pension liability issue, said it was a
ball that kept being kicked down the road, that no government would ever
tackle the issue of pensions in the Province.
This
government stood strong with the unions and worked with the unions,
collaboratively, Mr. Speaker. We
delivered and we moved the pension issue and dealt with the pension issue.
This is the same thing today.
We are charged today to look at the Electoral Boundaries Act, and
that is what we are doing in a debate in January month in 2015 in this House
of Assembly in Newfoundland and Labrador.
It
is not about an individual who represents a district, Mr. Speaker.
It is not about you and you and you
and you or me. It is about the
collective population of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
This is what electoral boundary amendments are all about.
As my colleague from Cape St. Francis so eloquently said today
earlier, and I guess it was referenced by others, it is about representing
the people of the Province. It
is not about me from Humber West or my colleague from Cape St. Francis.
It is not about that. It
is not about you and you and you and you or me.
It is about representing the people of the Province in every region
of the Province. That is what
these boundary changes are all about.
Each
day we walk down this corridor coming to the House of Assembly and I say
to the people at home who have never been in the Confederation Building,
outside the wall right here behind me there is an old list of frames right
back prior to Confederation.
There are all kinds of names on the lists.
The names on the lists as you go from frame to frame to frame are
different. On some lists there
might be ten or twelve or fourteen, some might be twenty-five or thirty,
leading right up to today, Mr. Speaker.
They all represent the number of members who sat in this House,
elected members who sat in this House down through the years because they
were the ones who represented the people in the districts of Newfoundland
and Labrador in a time that was different then.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we are moving into a time that is very, very
different. Our population has
decreased.
We
are here today to make amendments to the Electoral Boundaries Act.
I listened to my colleagues.
I sat attentively today to listen to the colleagues opposite.
I have had numerous conversations, both formal and informal, with my
colleagues from Labrador West and Lake Melville, Mr. Speaker, over the last
number of days. I sat listening
to what they have to say. I have
listened this afternoon to my colleagues on the opposite side of the House
and I intend this evening, and as we move into debate tonight and continue
to move into debate, to listen to the valuable information that my
colleagues on both sides of the House have to say.
I do
not think there is one person in this House who believes we cannot have
boundary changes and a reduction in the overall number of representatives in
this House of Assembly. I do not
think there is one person in this House who would stand on their feet on the
floor of this House and would say such a thing.
I believe we are fundamentally there together.
I also believe that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians also believe
that the overall numbers should be changed, that the overall numbers should
be reduced.
Mr.
Speaker, I was in my district last weekend and I chatted as I was out and
about in the community at the grocery stores last Saturday listening to what
some of the people had to say in my district.
They also said it is time to make changes and let's do it in 2015,
let's move on with it. That is
what I heard in my district as I went about my district last week.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Were you talking at
Coleman's?
MR. GRANTER:
Yes, indeed.
My colleague opposite just referenced the fact that would I have been
at Coleman's? In actual fact, I
was at Coleman's. I was also at
Dominion, Mr. Speaker. I might
be campaigning in a larger geographical region come later in 2015.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. GRANTER:
Mr. Speaker, for the
benefit in the last two or three minutes for the people listening at home, I
just want to talk for a few minutes about what is actually in the act.
The act establishes a mechanism, in other words, a means for the
review and amendment of electoral boundaries of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The
act, as we all know, sets out the particulars for the establishment of a
commission to be comprised of a chairperson who is appointed by the chief
justice of Newfoundland and Labrador, an office I would put out there that
for the sake of a better word I would say it is sacred.
It is an office that is sacred for sake of a better word, the chief
justice of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The
act also goes on to state that the chief justice shall select a chairperson
from among the judges of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, and the
Trial Division. The act also
states as well that four other members shall be appointed by the Speaker of
the House of Assembly from among the residents of the Province.
Four other members will be chosen by the Speaker of the House from
all of the residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
It
is customary that the Speaker gets co-operation from the Opposition parties.
They put names forward.
The governing party puts names forward as well.
The Speaker of the House chooses from the entire population of
Newfoundland and Labrador to choose those four.
From the very beginning, it is a very independent look at the
boundaries. It is an independent
commission from the chief justice to the four representatives who are
appointed by the Speaker of the House.
Mr.
Speaker, in order for the independent commission to do its work
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. GRANTER:
I know there are people over there heckling.
I hear them over there heckling.
Remember a few minutes ago I was talking about people paying
attention, listening to what is happening.
We get a chance to see what motivates one person and what motivates
another person. Oh, Mr. Speaker,
a lot of different motivations in this House.
I see some very active over there this afternoon.
Mr.
Speaker, in order for the independent commission to do its work the act
gives the commission the power to employ such resources as may be required,
including the employment of technical and professional staff as considered
necessary.
I
can go on in length about this particular act, and I am down to about
forty-five seconds, but I may get an opportunity again in the debate tonight
or tomorrow morning, or whenever next week, to come to my feet again, but I
will say this: As the Minister of Finance said when he brought in the bill a
few days ago, resources, if needed, will be made available, Mr. Speaker.
I
know in the private industry in the Province we have the technology today in
the Province, we have the skillset, we have industrious people in the
Province who can provide the resources to this commission as they go about
to do their work over the next 120 or so days to deliver that particular
report to you, Mr. Speaker, in the House of Assembly so that we can move on
with the amendments and have an election in 2015 with new boundaries for the
people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Just
before I recognize the next speaker, I want to remind all members on both
sides of the House the Speaker has heard much over the last number of days
in regard to relevance. I want
to remind all members that we are speaking to amendments to the Electoral
Boundaries Act and I would ask all members, the Speaker is more than
prepared to give some leeway but at some point, you need to tie in where you
are going back to the Explanatory Notes.
I ask that members try to stick to that.
It is an important debate and in no way, shape, or form is the
Speaker trying to stifle debate because this is a very important discussion.
Thank you very much, and I ask all hon. members for their co-operation.
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I
would be remiss today if I did not recognize the role of members.
This is a little bit upsetting.
I want to recognize you all first of all for the kind words that you
had to say for my father and on his passing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. MURPHY:
The cards and the
comments were literally in the hundreds and they will be long remembered by
my family. I do know that it was
a very emotional time this past week, but I guess as dad would probably have
told me: Boy, it is time to get on with it.
He was a man who was very direct sometimes.
I guess the TV movie of the week has yet to be screened, but he led a
very interesting life.
I
just wanted to pass along to all members here it is very important to me,
because I treat you as family too, that your comments and your cards and
your handshakes did not go unnoticed.
They meant a lot to me and family, my brothers, and my sister, as
everybody else who was there, and I want to thank you for all that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. MURPHY:
Anyway, be that as it
may, Mr. Speaker, in that spirit I rise today to speak to Bill 42.
This is my first time speaking since dad was sick, so excuse me if I
am off a little bit on my timing, but I did have to come out and say those
comments. In spite of what has
been happening over the last week, like I said, it meant so much.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise today again, like I said, to speak to Bill 42, and this is a
bit of surprise to be back in the House in January.
I want to welcome all members back, I wish them all a happy new year,
and at the same time as wishing my constituents a happy new year as well.
It is going to be a good year, an election year, and hopefully we
will get on with in 2015.
Mr.
Speaker, when I first got a look at the bill, I thought to myself that the
situation that is unfolding in the Province fiscally had a lot to do with
government pushing this piece of legislation this way; and I thought that,
number one, the first word that popped into my head when I was looking at
the piece of legislation was panic.
There has been an awful lot of talk since the price of oil has
slipped the way it has that we are into a panic mode, and we are looking at
making cuts everywhere.
The
least, I think, that we have a right to actually be talking about is the
number of seats that this House of Assembly should have.
I get to thinking sometimes that I do not have the right to talk
about that at the same time as regards to fixing a number.
Do I agree that something has to be done?
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do, because there is a process that is already in
place. The pertinence of having
that particular commission in place, it has a role already.
It already has a fixed timeline, and there is a reason why it has a
fixed timeline.
If I
can go into that a little bit, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to that, because
this piece of legislation talks about changing that timeline government is
talking about changing that timeline and moving it ahead of the scheduled
2016 time frame. Just to quote
the federal act, Mr. Speaker, if I can touch on that for a minute, because
the federal act also deals with changes to electoral districts.
Of course, they just finished their process.
Now that they are finished their process, we find that the federal
government is getting ready to call a federal election.
We
also have something else that is ingrained in our minds, everybody here in
this House, and ingrained in federal legislation.
It is called the Terms of Union between Newfoundland and Labrador and
the Government of Canada. It
guarantees us something. It
guarantees us a minimum number of seats in the federal Parliament of Canada.
It guarantees us seven.
Mr.
Speaker, the whole point about that is let's just imagine for a second that
the federal government wanted to change that piece of legislation because
the population dropped a little bit, because there was something happening
within the country of Canada because the price of oil was slipping, and all
of a sudden the bottom was falling out of the population, for example, of
Alberta. Let's go to the
Province of Alberta now that they have lost about 150,000 people because all
of a sudden everybody is gone, the price of oil has collapsed and what do we
see? We do not have to have the
need for those two particular seats now in Alberta so we are going to redraw
the lines. We are going to
reduce the number of seats that are actually in the House of Commons.
Let's imagine, Mr. Speaker, that because the price of oil is gone and all of
a sudden the population is on decline here in the Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador, that for every 75,000 people here in the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador because we have lost 75,000 people since the
mid-1990s that the representation that we have in the House of Commons is
all of a sudden going to be reduced by one member.
What does that mean for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and
representation when it comes into the House of Commons?
It means a heck of a lot less.
That is something we can do without when we are asking for better and
more representation in our own House of Commons; we look at getting more
seats in there so that we can have a stronger voice within our own House of
Commons. That deserves thinking.
What
does the federal act say? Let me
read it to you. It is much the
same as the Newfoundland and Labrador act as it is now: For each decennial
census, the Governor in Council shall establish by proclamation, published
in the Canada Gazette, an
electoral boundaries commission for each province before the earlier of (a)
the expiry period of 60 days after the day on which the Minister receives a
return certified by the Chief Statistician under subsection 13(1), and (b)
the expiry of a period of six months after the first day of the month that
is fixed by the Governor in Council under subsection 19(1) of the Statistics
Act as the month in which the census is to be taken.
That
is very important. They do not
do this without having a solid statistic around them for changing the law.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, my interpretation of that is if they go
past the most recent census and they do it within sixty- to ninety-day time
frame, they start their work after the census and then their work carries on
between elections, but it happens very quickly.
We
have known now for I guess probably about a year-and-a-half or over the last
year certainly that redistribution in this country was happening.
We knew that there was going to be an addition to thirty-eight extra
seats in the House of Commons I think it was thirty-eight.
One of the members across the way could probably correct me on that.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. MURPHY:
Well, somewhere in the
thirties anyway. We knew it was
happening, particularly in BC and in Ontario.
Either way, Mr. Speaker, this Province here is guaranteed a minimum amount
of representation under the federal House of Commons, under federal
Parliament. Here in Newfoundland
and Labrador we are talking about changing that number.
The arbitrary number that government has picked out is ten.
They are proposing to reduce it from forty-eight seats down to
thirty-eight seats. It is not my
call as regards to the number of seats that the commission should be
reducing things by.
The
commission may very well come back under the right auspices when it has the
proper statistics in hand in 2016 and say listen, we are looking at
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Thank you.
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
simple fact is that the committee could go and end up doing its work and say
listen, in spite of the drop in population we find out at the same time that
there are more people scattered in further regions of the Province.
Let's look at Labrador.
Labrador is the stark, staring example of the possibility of what could
happen because we have all seen and I do not agree with any cuts to
Labrador, by the way, by the number of the members who are there; let me get
that one perfectly straight and it is out there now.
Under the plan that was put out by one particular political activist
out there, it shows one area, one district, that would go pretty much from
Cape Chidley down as far as the ferry in Blanc Sablon.
You
are talking about an absolutely huge district that is going to have very
poor representation, because it is simple; based on geography and the
possibility of bad weather or anything, you are going to have problems
getting around that district, and it is going to cost the taxpayer as a
result of that. It is going to
cost dearly.
I
wanted to bring that out. The
simple fact is that this has to be given careful thought under what
government is asking here right now.
Government is footing a number here that the federal government will
not even dream of lowering for the simple fact that, number one, we have an
agreement; and number two, I think the federal government believes in
effective representation.
If
we are going to affect representation from the people who are out there and
put more of a workload on some of the members it is great, for example,
when they look at it and they say that the City of St. John's or the City of
Mount Pearl might have less numbers because of less distance travelled.
That is not the only consideration that you have to make.
Let's go to Mount Pearl. Does
Mount Pearl need two members?
For example, if the commission suddenly decided to come back and say that
Mount Pearl only needs one. Mr.
Speaker, the simple fact is everybody has a right to equal access to an MHA.
We cannot say that modern times and the use of the Internet are going
to speed things up. We have
areas of this Province that are not even close to getting Internet
capability yet. They do not even
have access.
Mr.
Speaker, the federal government already set an example here where there are
additions made. We have a fixed
number that is guaranteed under the Terms of Union here in the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador. We do
not want to see that lowered, do we?
Do we really want to see that lowered?
The answer is no.
I do
not think that when the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador,
Mr. Speaker, think about the number of seats that could be potentially lost
and effective representation affected I think they will probably think
twice and say I do not think thirty-eight is a good number, maybe two, maybe
three. It is going to be up to
the commission to decide.
Right now we are affecting the commission's work in itself by basically
taking the most modern tool away.
One of the most modern fixations that they would have, one of the
most modern tools that they would have in making a decision is the
Statistics Branch and the statistical numbers of what is going to be coming
out in 2016 that would form the basis of their work.
That is what we are doing.
We
do not know how many people. We
have rough estimates right now over the last couple of years from 2011 to
right now 2014-2015. Sure, we
have rough estimates on how many people have actually left the Province or
how many people have come in.
That is a basis to work by but it is not a solid statistic.
It gives you better demographic numbers, for example, from Statistics
Canada than what we have in just bare rough estimates from the Newfoundland
and Labrador government's Statistical Branch, for example.
I
think we have to wait. We have
to wait and let this commission do its work on its proper set timelines.
There is a reason why they have proper set timelines.
One of it right now is in the federal act when it comes to that.
I do not see why we have to deviate from that.
We
know that if the next election happens this fall of 2015, right off the bat
the first thing that could be done by the commission that is going to be put
in place the commission that will be agreed to of course by, not only the
Speaker, but I guess from all parties concerned.
One of the first things they are going to have to do is population.
They are going to have to do that by accurate numbers and they are
not going to have those until 2016.
That is one of the reasons why we should wait.
I think the census will be done in the spring of 2016.
We will have the first accurate numbers from Statistics Canada that
are released usually in the fall of 2016.
Mr.
Speaker, do we have that right here to determine what democracy is going to
be? Do we have that right?
Does government have the right to determine that thirty-eight seats
is the proper number to have in the House of Assembly?
To me it is picking a number out of a hat.
It was an arbitrary number.
There has been no evidence placed on the part of this House of
Assembly or in the media of why thirty-eight is the right number.
We do not have that evidence yet.
It has not been presented to the public in this Province.
It has not been presented to the voter yet.
Is
less more? Are we going to have
a better democracy because we have less representation in the House of
Assembly? Now that is an
interesting question. We still
have not heard that from government as regards to what our roles are going
to be in the House of Assembly.
If
you would simply look at the electoral process, if we are going to have
thirty-eight seats in the House of Assembly, you have less varied thinking,
for example, when it comes to speaking on a piece of legislation.
You do not get all points of view.
You have thirty-eight legislators who are in here, fine and dandy.
One would be the Speaker.
He would be impartial. You have
thirty-seven others. That is
great. How about the mixture and
the dichotomy of views that are out there?
How about the views of the fisherman versus the views of the lawyer,
or the views of the teacher versus the views of the doctor?
We
are going to be missing something here by not having that difference of
opinion that is out there. I
would ask that government would consider that in their thinking and in their
further deliberations on this.
Of course, that will come out later on.
Like
I said, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to what we are talking about here, I
believe this is coming out of a notion of panic out there because everything
is on the table. We have been
told that a thousand times now.
Everything is on the table.
Democracy should never be put on anybody's table.
Not at a price that it might cost us in representation.
Let's let somebody outside determine what that democracy is going to
look like in the House of Assembly when they do the report in 2016 and have
it out for 2017. There will be
plenty of time to repair.
Government has already fallen down.
Even on things like basic addressing for voters, Mr. Speaker, or
basic addressing, for example, when it comes to 911.
Look at 911. We are so far
behind now on 911 it is not going to be ready to be set for the next phase,
for example, because we do not have proper addressing.
How is Elections Newfoundland and Labrador going to look at that
particular challenge if we have not addressed the challenge yet when it
comes to simple addressing? I
will say that to government.
We
are not ready for even something as simple as an address change and getting
a notification out from Elections Newfoundland and Labrador, out to the
voter who is out there. It
simply cannot be done. The
challenges are too great so they need to reconsider that.
Besides the simple aspect, of course, of special ballots and that
sort of thing, we need to look at it all.
You
look at recognizing the role of the MHA in rural Newfoundland and Labrador,
for example, Mr. Speaker. It has
changed greatly. It has changed
greatly on their part simply as a reason that in some ways government has
cut other things too on the outside.
Let
us look at the example of a rural MHA.
Does he have a role, for example, in economic development?
Hey, he sure does. He
absolutely does. Do you know
why? His role has been laid on.
His work has been laid on a little bit more heavily because
government decided to cut RED boards a number of years ago, and somebody has
to pursue economic development opportunities in rural Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Part
of that work is usually done by an MHA when he identifies an opportunity and
lobbies, maybe, for government money for the set-up of a business in rural
Newfoundland, for example. That
is there. He or she is the one
who is recognizing the opportunities here in Newfoundland and Labrador, in
rural Newfoundland. Our
responsibility as legislators is to try to grow the Province, not put it in
decline. It is an important
point to remember.
Everybody in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has the right to
vote. They have the right to go
and support a business or call an MHA and have them on the line.
Not to have to travel a huge, long distance to be able to do it, to
have access. I will leave that
with the government to think about.
That is something else; they are going to have to.
Simply put, like I said, they cut RED boards.
The role of an MHA in rural Newfoundland and Labrador has expanded an
awful lot. They are also
economic development officers, like I said.
They have severe challenges.
When districts become bigger, access becomes not so easy.
I
look again at the case of Labrador.
I know, for example in Torngat Mountains there might be about 3,500
people up there in the district.
You cannot tell me that the Member for Torngat Mountains does not hop into a
speedboat to go from community to community.
If he has to manage a district such as is being presented in one of
the proposals that I have seen as regards to electoral and district changes,
he is not going to be hopping into a boat.
He is going to be hopping into a helicopter, and his work is going to
be times three for the population that they have in Newfoundland and
Labrador. It is necessary that
we keep the number of seats in Labrador as to what we have right now.
There are also economic development opportunities coming up in the future
for Newfoundland and Labrador.
Everybody believes that in Labrador, Labrador is one of the most promised
pieces in our economic pie that we have.
We are depending on growth in Labrador in the future.
With the drop in the Canadian dollar, those opportunities, all of a
sudden it makes it a little bit more attractive for some of the resources
that we have up there because the Canadian dollar is after sinking a bit
more.
It
is a very volatile marketplace that is out there, I know.
Things can change overnight.
Already the economic conditions are changing as such to the Province
that if we are going to see people stay in Labrador at the same time, we
also have to have effective representation.
Mr.
Speaker, I hope to stand on my feet again later on to talk more about this
bill. I presented some of my views.
I am not finished with this one yet.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia St. Mary's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. F. COLLINS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
It
is a pleasure today to be able to offer some comments on Bill 42.
During our tenures as MHAs, and sitting in this Legislature, we get the
opportunity to participate in the making of laws for the Province.
We have had an opportunity to participate in numerous debates
regarding issues that affect this Province.
A lot of them, the issues or bills are routine.
A lot are really only housekeeping items, but there are several very
significant bills and some very significant debates that occur in this
House.
They
are not all significant debates.
Some of them are political. Some
of them drag on. Some of them
will get through rather quickly.
Some really are not even very contentious.
All parties agree on a lot of them, and it does not take very long to
get them through.
There are others where, while the Opposition members might agree with the
basic tenet of the bill, they will attempt to amend in some way, or change
or modify. Sometimes these
amendments are legitimate, and sometimes they are accepted, sometimes they
are not. Not all of the time are
they controversial. Sometimes
they can be very controversial, and we have been involved in these debates
and opportunities for discussions over the years.
That is the responsibility we take on
as MHAs. Some of them can drag
out, we have had filibusters in this House.
Regardless of the significance of the bill or the issues, this is the place
where the laws of the land are made.
For that reason, when we are elected, we are elected as lawmakers.
If you think about that, that is a significant responsibility.
We are in this House as lawmakers.
It is not only an honour and a privilege, but a tremendous
responsibility as well.
As I
said several times, not all debates are significant, but some stand out more
than others. Some are more
important than others. Some are
more significant in terms of the issue and the future of the Province.
This is a debate we are in today.
This bill is one of the most significant debates we will have in this
House for some time. That is why
it is such an honour and a privilege to be part of it.
That is why we are elected as MHAs, to take part and participate in
that discussion. We are
lawmakers and we make these decisions.
That is why this House is such an hon. House for us all to be into.
This
is an important bill and an important debate.
I do not intend to take up a full twenty minutes, unless I get
carried away. I do have a few
points I want to make with respect to this particular bill.
We are not reinventing the wheel here.
We are not doing anything drastically different.
This is going to happen anyway.
In 2016, this is going to happen.
In
2019, the boundaries are going to be changed and the election is going to be
determined accordingly. All we
are doing is moving it up a year so that it can take place in this election.
That is all we are doing.
The only difference is in this case we are dictating the number of seats or
a range of seats, whatever the amendments show that is going to happen in
the boundary changes, and we are giving the commission 120 days to do the
job. Nobody objects and nobody
has any difficulty with the numbers.
Opposition has no difficulty with the numbers, so that is not an
issue. The 120 days has been
raised as an issue.
The
Member for Virginia Waters mentioned in Question Period today a whole list
of statistics with regard to provinces where this was done before and the
length of time it took. For
example, she mentioned New Brunswick, Quebec, and Ontario.
PEI, she mentioned it took over 900 days I believe for the commission
to do its work. My God, what was
the commission doing in PEI, 900 days?
If you give a commission open-ended time, take all the time you want.
Sure, take 900 days. Take
nine years if they wanted to.
MR. CRUMMELL:
Send the bills.
MR. F. COLLINS:
Yes, send the invoices back to us.
If
the parameters are set, and we are setting the parameters at 120 days, you
do not have eight months, you do not have six months, and you do not have a
year. You have 120 days to do
this work. The parameters are
set. It can be done, and it will
be done. Commissions can drag
things out. This happens all the
time for any number of reasons, but the parameter is set.
We have four months to do it.
It can be done.
The
Member for Virginia Waters also mentioned in Question Period today that the
New Brunswick government is bringing down its budget at a certain date, and
why can't we do the same thing.
We are not bound by New Brunswick.
We are not bound by PEI or Quebec, or any other province.
We are not leading from behind.
We are not chasing these provinces.
We are setting a precedent here that we think can be done.
It is reachable and attainable.
It is a gutsy move by the Premier to do it, and I think everybody in
the Province wants it.
The
Member for CBS, by the way, also suggested that time was an issue here.
I should mention here with regard to the Member for CBS.
He mentioned he had some surgery prior to the opening of the House.
You will see he had his arm in a sling for a few days.
He was called in the House in a hurry, I believe.
It must have done him a world of good, Mr. Speaker, because the sling
is gone, all the movement is back in his arm.
He is waving his arms over there and hitting his desk.
The best thing that ever happened to him was to come in the House in
a hurry.
We
are not bound by what happens in other provinces.
We do our own thing here.
The
big argument that the Opposition is putting up here, Mr. Speaker, and the
only argument they are putting up, they think we have an ulterior motive in
doing this. We want to delay an
election until 2016. That is
what they are talking about.
That is the only argument, because there is no argument for anything else.
This is what they are saying, we want to push out an election.
Well, here is one fellow who does not want an election in 2016.
I want an election in 2015.
So does the Member for Cape St. Francis, so does the Member for
Humber East, and so does every member on this side of the House, so does
every member on that side of the House, so do the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador, and so does the Premier.
They do not want an election in 2016.
So that is a silly argument.
This
can be done, Mr. Speaker. It
should be done, and it will be done so we can have this election in 2015 in
accordance with the new determination by the boundaries commission.
I want it, everybody here wants it.
The Opposition wants it.
MR. EDMUNDS:
A point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
On a point of order, the
hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS:
I have been listening to
the hon. member talk about one move, but we have two moves, Mr. Speaker.
We have three moves. We
have four seats in Labrador involved.
I just point that out to the hon. member.
MR. SPEAKER:
There is no point of
order.
The
hon. the Member for Placentia St. Mary's.
MR. F. COLLINS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Let
me tell you, Mr. Speaker, I have every appreciation for the needs and
concerns of the people of Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. F. COLLINS:
Not to do this now,
Mr. Speaker, drags us into 2019.
Not next year, not 2016, but 2019.
You have to wait five years to get this done.
It makes sense to do it now.
In the interest of good fiscal management, in the interest of
fairness and courage on the part of the Premier let's do it now.
There is no reason why we should not.
Mr.
Speaker, when I was elected to this House in February 2006 as the Member for
Placentia St. Mary's, it was a winter campaign.
When I was elected I took my seat right there, the last seat in the
House, because I was the last one to be elected, right next to the Member
for Exploits who had been elected only months before me.
We cut our eyeteeth together back there.
My district at that time went from St. Shotts on the Southern Shore
to Ship Harbour in Placentia Bay, taking all of St. Mary's Bay, all the Cape
Shore down to Placentia, Ship Harbour and Long Harbour Ship Harbour to Fox
Harbour.
I
thought that was a gargantuan district.
How in the name of God do you ever represent a district this size?
I remember my first trip to St. Shotts.
I thought at the time I would never get there.
I said if this is what my tenure is going to be, I have my work cut
out for me.
I
had my hands full obviously, but that is what I was elected for.
I took it on and I said there are only two years left in the
by-election, and if I like this well then I will run again in the next
election. Anyhow, before the
next election came up in 2006-2007 the new electoral boundaries came out.
The commission at that time was chaired by Mr. Roger Grimes.
AN HON. MEMBER:
A good fellow.
MR. F. COLLINS:
A good fellow, a
friend of mine from way back.
The changes that were made in my area dropped off St. Shotts, which I most
graciously gave to the Member for Ferryland who has represented it very well
I might say ever sense, although I miss the good people out there.
Then
it was extended to take in Long Harbour, Mount Arlington Heights,
Whitbourne, and all the cottage communities along the Trans Canada from Long
Harbour to the Salmonier Line. I
asked myself, my God how am I going to do this?
I already have my hands full as it is.
How am I going to represent this area?
It is just not possible.
I
was not a happy camper let me tell you.
I did everything to influence people not to do this. I did everything
to put my two cents worth in there that this cannot be done, it is too big.
It is just not manageable, cannot handle it.
Do
you know something, Mr. Speaker?
I am delighted now that it happened.
I picked up a couple of great areas, great people, and made some
great relationships, great contacts.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. F. COLLINS:
They are the best
parts of my district. I would
not want to lose them for the world.
Long
Harbour has grown as an industrial hub as a result of the Vale project.
It is a very prosperous place.
I knew nothing about Whitbourne.
I knew Long Harbour. I
knew something about Long Harbour because, as someone living in Placentia
and being a school board official, I visited Long Harbour on a regular
basis. I had not been there for
twenty-five years.
I
recall driving down there because I had moved out of the area for the
first time to get used to the new part of my district before the election
came up. The roads were so bad
going into Long Harbour, I said holy mackerel, what do I have myself into?
I had my priorities set for my roadwork in my district, and now that
I am taking on Long Harbour they all changed in a hurry.
They had the potholes circled with luminous paint so you would not
run into them in the night.
Incidentally, their previous representative was the Minister of
Transportation in the Liberal government.
That was the Long Harbour that I took over.
The Long Harbour today is a different Long Harbour than it was then.
Whitbourne on the other hand, I knew nothing about.
Most people, I learned after, know very little about Whitbourne.
You pass by Whitbourne on the Trans Canada and you stop for gas or a
snack, but Whitbourne is inside.
You have to go in Whitbourne to see it.
I had not been in there in my life.
I did not know what was in there.
Mr.
Speaker, Whitbourne today is one of the most rapidly growing municipalities
in Newfoundland. It is a great
town, great governance, and great amenities and services that the town
gives. It is growing like a
weed. Subdivisions are all over
the place and strategically located to grow even more.
It is a half an hour from Argentia.
It is a half an hour from Long Harbour.
It is three-quarters of an hour from Bull Arm and three-quarters of
an hour from St. John's. It is
an half an hour from everywhere, I like to say.
It is strategically located to grow even more.
It is a great community with all kinds of potential.
Mr.
Speaker, looking back now I am absolutely delighted that the boundaries
commission change was made and I took them.
I would not want to give up Whitbourne now, today.
Although, I am sure with the new boundary changes that will come this
year, my district will change again.
It might even disappear.
It might be split between other districts.
It certainly will change.
If we are going to find ten seats or eight seats or nine seats, it is going
to change. The point I am making
is we should not be afraid of change.
Change does not mean we cannot represent the people any more.
Change did not mean that in the last electoral boundaries, and change
will not mean it this time. With
today's technology, with today's advancements, we can represent districts in
different ways. We do not have
to be on the scene all the time, although as the Member for Cape St. Francis
said and I agree with him completely he likes to be there, personally,
face to face with people because that is what politics is all about.
Mr.
Speaker, today in hindsight, having gone through boundary changes, I have no
problem facing boundary changes again, no problem whatsoever.
I miss the good people from St. John's, but as I mentioned, they are
well-represented by the Member for Ferryland.
I am delighted with the relationships that I have made and I will
always remember and always cherish any new sections of the district.
Mr.
Speaker, I have experienced change in electoral boundaries.
I had no choice but accept it in the beginning, but I am absolutely
delighted now that we did. It is
a great district, Placentia St. Mary's, but undoubtedly the face of it
will change again sometime this year.
As
the Member for Humber East said
AN HON. MEMBER:
West.
MR. F. COLLINS:
Was it Humber East or
West?
AN HON. MEMBER:
West.
MR. F. COLLINS:
Humber West.
The Member for Bay of Islands gets confused about it so I can too.
The Member for Humber West has said this is not about us; this is not
about me or any member of this House.
It is not about that at all.
It is not about us. It is
not about you. It is about
dividing up this Province and districts so that it adequately represents the
people of this Province, as I mentioned, instead of waiting for 2019.
In
the interest of good fiscal management the Premier has made a gutsy move
here in suggesting this. There
is absolutely no reason why it cannot be done.
The government wants it.
The Opposition wants it. The
people want it. Let's do it.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It
is good to be back in my place again and to have an opportunity to speak on
legislation. I wanted to comment
first on the speech given by the Minister of Education and Early Childhood
Development when she was up speaking.
I guess that was the day before yesterday.
She
talked about what a privilege it is for us to have seats, to get elected to
seats in this House of Assembly, and to be able to be here and represent
constituents. I completely
agree. It is also a great
responsibility to sit here, to stand here, to work in this House of
Assembly, and take on the role that we have all chosen freely to do.
I
think I might have mentioned one time before, but I think it is particularly
important with this debate, several years ago I had the good fortune to go
to Belgium and France to visit World War I battlefields at Ypres and
Beaumont Hamel. The one thing,
every Remembrance Day and every Memorial Day in the Province, it always
comes back to me when I look at all the images on TV, those hundreds and
hundreds and thousands of white headstones in Flanders Fields, but also the
headstones in Beaumont Hamel as well.
It is an image that will stick with me for the rest of my life.
We
all realize that more or less the battlefields of Europe, and battlefields
around the world where Canadian men and women, servicemen and women,
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who wore the uniform, those battlefields
are stained with the blood of our youth, of our young people and I guess,
in some cases, our not so young.
It
really brings it back to the importance of the positions we hold, because
people died. It is not rhetoric,
and it is not overly dramatic to say that people died so that we would have
the opportunity to sit here and make the sorts of decisions that we are
going to make before the next few days are up.
I know we all agree on that.
With
this privilege comes great responsibility, that we have the power in this
House of Assembly to shape our democracy.
To form it and determine what it looks like for the next decade and
that is very, very significant.
So, I wanted to say that off the top.
So,
it is funny, I was joking with my colleague, the Member for Torngat
Mountains, about what word jumped into your mind first when we all heard
that this was coming, because I guess it was really Monday last that the
trial balloon was sent up by the Premier's office about this particular
legislation, Bill 42, to redraw the boundaries now instead of waiting until
the legislated time frame, which is next year.
It
is interesting, because I know that the Premier had already been nominated
in Topsail, the Deputy Premier had already been nominated in Mount Pearl
North, and the gentleman who has the misfortune of running against the
Leader of the Official Opposition, the Leader of the Liberal Party in
Newfoundland and Labrador, the Member for Humber Valley, that he is already
nominated. So it seemed, up
until the Christmas holiday, at least, that everything was moving along on
the established time frame that is already in the statutes as the government
is to abide by as the government of the Province.
The
thing that came to me it was not one word; it was two words.
It was: Why now? Why is
this coming forward now? There
has really been only one rationale I say to the people who are watching
only one rationale that has been provided to date.
I have not heard any other argument yet.
We have a long time left to go before we are finished with this.
One argument, and that is about money.
That this is somehow going to save money.
There have been sort of general arguments made but no real specifics I
think, nothing that is really solid.
As the Leader of the Official Opposition has said if everything is on
the table, if everything is on the chopping block, one way to save money
would be for the Premier to reduce the size of his Cabinet, to follow the
lead of other Premiers of the shade of the government across the way, like
Danny Williams, and reduce the size of the Cabinet back down to what it was
before, and to eliminate these five parliamentary secretary positions.
Those are two ways to save money and to, if you will, stop wasting
money, if that is what you believe you are doing, by having additional
members in legislative roles and other roles in government.
It
is interesting because the Premier has talked about going from forty-eight
to thirty-eight, but it was only a few months ago after he assumed his
duties as Premier of the Province when he was elected by 381 people at the
PC Convention here in St. John's that he increased it from forty-eight to
forty-nine because he added an additional member: the unelected Minister of
Justice. He went from
forty-eight to forty-nine, so he has shown no inclination previously.
I
think, really, we could reduce the size of this Cabinet very easily.
When the Premier came in, he created this new Department of Seniors,
Wellness and so on. It sounded great,
but do seniors in Newfoundland and Labrador really feel any better off today
than they did six months ago after adding this position?
MR. SPEAKER (Verge):
Order, please!
MR. KIRBY:
There is no statement on
the hon. minister who has this position.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I
would ask the member to make his comments relevant to Bill 42.
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I
was saying, the members across the way, all of them when they have gotten up
and spoken, and they have all talked about how this is going to save the
Province money. That is the only
argument that has been put forward so far, that this is somehow going to
save the Province money. If the
Premier saw fit to eliminate the five parliamentary secretary positions, we
do not have any of those in the other Atlantic
MR. SPEAKER (Verge):
Order, please!
I
would remind the member that his digression on ways in which he figures the
Province might save money is not part of Bill 42.
You will make your comments relevant to the bill.
The
hon. the Member for St. John's North.
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
will take that under advisement.
I will certainly be paying attention to the government members when they are
speaking to see if
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KIRBY:
Just because maybe I
misunderstood the direction that they were going in.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, you would
say that this is not really that much of a significant change at all.
Really, it is tinkering at the margins, if you will.
If we are in such financial trouble, last year when oil was at $100 a
barrel or so, or whatever the exact figure was, we are in a whole lot more
trouble now when it is down to $60 and going lower.
One
of the other things, as I was saying about this interest in saving money, I
have said in the House of Assembly time and again that there are vacant
schools. I do not know how many
there are across the Province that are vacant.
The lights are on. It
reminds me of this government in terms of the lights are on, but nobody is
home. We are spending over $1
million a year to keep schools going and there is another way that we could
save a significant amount of money.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I
will remind the member for the final time to make his comments relevant to
the bill.
The
hon. the Member for St. John's North.
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Basically, the Leader of the Opposition has been on record now I think a
number of times. Everybody
across the way has had an opportunity to hear what he has had to say.
There are basically three problems with this legislation that is
supposedly intended to save money, and that is the only reason we have heard
from members opposite so far.
One
of them is the whole question of timing and whether or not this can be done
within the time frame that the legislation suggests.
What we have said is that we really do not believe it is possible
that you are going to be able to forge ahead with this and ram this through
in the time frame that you have suggested.
If you think you can, we will give you the opportunity to prove that
that is possible; though, no jurisdiction in the country and I would hazard
a guess no jurisdiction south of the border has ever been able to achieve
this sort of work in that time frame.
There are a number of very good reasons for saying that, Mr. Speaker.
Because seat redistribution, the redrawing of the boundaries, is a
considerable undertaking. It is
a considerable undertaking; it takes a lot of time.
I
know one of the members for Placentia St. Mary's just said that they took
900 days and maybe that was excessive in Prince Edward Island, but it takes
significant time. It is
difficult to do and also to then call an election.
Elections Newfoundland and Labrador has very clearly said that they
need about a four-month window to get things done.
The
boundaries need to be drawn, all the polling areas need to be cut out, all
the logistics of that need to be worked out.
The public needs to be informed of what the boundaries are.
Somebody said to me the other day, my parents do not even know what
district they are in half the time, because half the time they are getting
junk mail, at least in the Northeast Avalon, from MHAs who are adjacent to
their district, so you have to make sure that the whole public education
angle is done.
Then
there is a whole question of the timing of the federal election and all of
the confusion that goes along with that.
This is not something that is incredibly easy to do.
If you think it can be done in 120 days, that is fine.
We will go along with that, but the cherished fixed election date
that this government brought in shortly after the 2003 election I believe,
that fixed election date they have harped on and harped on and harped on,
that should be adhered to. How
many laws do we really need to change to suit this government to get a
timing of a general election that is good for you?
So,
I think that is one thing. Now,
another thing that we have talked about is the whole question of Labrador.
It has been interesting sitting here hearing a Cabinet minister who
is responsible for major financial decisions, or at least advising on that
in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, to stand there and say: I do
not know Labrador. What a thing
to say: I do not know Labrador.
To
have another member stand up and say: Well, there is nothing unique about
Labrador. What is unique about
Labrador? I thought it was very
interesting when the Member for Torngat Mountains got up and spoke in his
native tongue and demonstrated just one way that Labrador is uniquely
different and separate in a lot of ways from the rest of the Province.
Labrador has been protected in this legislation in previous years, but now
they want to open it up for some reason.
Now they want to open it up, and I would certainly be interested to
know how the two members for Labrador, the Member for Lake Melville, and the
Member for Labrador West, how they feel about that, and what they are
hearing from their constituents in Labrador about that.
It is an incredibly important aspect of what we are doing here.
It is a significant departure from what we have seen in the past.
The
other thing that is of significant consequence here is that we have been
given a number, we have been provided a number, the number is ten.
That is the number of seats that the Premier, and his Cabinet, and
his caucus, his government, his party wants to cut.
Cut ten seats. On no
occasion since the trial balloon went up last Monday has there been any
explanation given as to why.
It
is not sufficient enough to punt it back over here and ask questions about
well, where are you look, you are the government, you make those
decisions, you make those recommendations, you draft this legislation, it is
our responsibility to ask questions about it.
That is our role. We ask
the questions, and every now and then we get something approximating an
answer from the other side. Not
very often occasionally we do.
So
we do not know where the number came from ten, but that is the number we
have. We believe that that
unnecessarily hamstrings, boxes in, the independent boundary commission when
they are going to be making determinations about what we really need here.
We have all said we agree that we can get this work done with a
smaller House of Assembly. I
agree with that, our caucus has said that, and our leader has said that.
Our leader said that almost two years ago.
It certainly adds fuel to the fire, Mr. Speaker, that there are no
new ideas, because there is nothing new about this idea.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KIRBY:
Two years ago the Leader
of the Official Opposition said we could have a smaller House of Assembly.
Now, the Deputy Premier and the Premier, when they were busily trying
to get themselves elected to the positions they hold today, there was nary a
word, not a word about this ten.
We never heard a word about it, not a thing.
They travelled the Province, Mount Pearl and what have you, we never
heard a word about this ten. We
never heard a whole lot about parliamentary reform, democratic reform, not a
whole lot about anything. We
certainly never heard about this ten.
The
one thing we are suggesting we do, instead of this ten, the number that was
pulled out of the air somewhere over the Christmas holidays, that we give
the commission a bit of leeway.
Give them some flexibility in determining what number of members we should
have in the House of Assembly, whether it is ten fewer, nine fewer, a
different number. They are an
independent commission. They are
going to have terms of reference to deal with.
Give them a bit of flexibility to make the determinations that they
need to make.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. KIRBY:
More or less.
Give them some flexibility.
They may come back with a decision that is not entirely consistent
with the ten the Premier wants to cut out of here, but give them an
opportunity to make that decision independently.
Because if you do not do that, in the end it is really not an
independent commission at all.
It is something that has been set up from the beginning.
It is a sham, and we do not need a sham.
We want something that is credible.
The
other point in all of this that I see, when I saw the trial balloon going up
over the Confederation Building Monday last was, why now?
This government does not want an election this year.
I heard members get up and say I want an election this year.
We
had one member get up and say he has no problem changing the boundaries at
all. He has already been on the
record saying he is not going to run.
So, of course he has no problem with it.
He has no problem with it at all.
He is not even going to run in the election.
It is inconsequential to him.
AN HON. MEMBER:
What about the other
member?
MR. KIRBY:
The other member, we do
not know what she thinks because she does not speak in here.
I
have not heard anybody say anything to the effect of, well, I will
definitely run in the next election with these redrawn boundaries.
We never heard anybody say anything like that at this point.
We never heard anybody really say anything about what they think it
should be. Here is some advice.
Here is the research we have done.
We have thought about this for some time and here are the reasons why
we are doing it, not a word. It
is like this number was pulled out of thin air, something that is purposely
restrictive, and for what reason?
On
the surface, the immediate thing that people are thinking and it is not
me. Certainly, that is what I
was thinking, but I have been talking to people about this.
I have been talking to my
constituents. People are saying,
sure, they are only doing that because they do not want an election.
They do not want an election.
They will do anything they can to prolong the period in which they
have to govern between now and the next election.
We
know well, some of us know they know, constitutionally, they can
continue to sit there and actually deliver a budget in 2016 if they like.
That is entirely possible.
That appears to be the plan, to delay everything as long as possible
so they can continue to be there until, please God, the polls come around
and they have some opportunity, because the writing is on the wall.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KIRBY:
The writing is on the
wall. They just have not gotten
it yet, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With
agreement from the Opposition House Leader and the Leader of the Third
Party, we will break for supper now and resume at 7:00 o'clock.
MR. SPEAKER:
This House stands in
recess until 7:00 p.m.
January
22, 2015
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVII No. 61A
The
House resumed at 7:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Verge):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Government House Leader, I assume we are resuming debate on Bill 42.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Exploits.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. FORSEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for
the opportunity to speak again on this piece of legislation.
I feel privileged any time to be able to get up in this House and speak
on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and especially the
constituents of the District of Exploits.
I had the opportunity to speak on Tuesday, but it was to the amendment
that the Third Party put in, so this evening I am speaking on Bill 42.
When you
are up and you are trying to explain what the boundary changes are, what you are
trying to do here and bring in such an important and progressive piece of
legislation and you listen to some of the comments made by the people across the
way there, but I would like to start by saying that I think every one of us who
are elected feel privileged to be here and we all have a passion for our
Province. I think we are all very
proud Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and we certainly take pride in our own
districts. The Member for Cape St.
Francis, when he gets up, he prides himself in his district, as do I.
When I
spoke on the amendment that the Third Party put in on Tuesday, it was An Act To
Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act be not now read a second time, but that it be
read the second time six months hence.
There was nothing there to say anything about the boundary changes and
even though it seems like everyone is in favour of it, if you listen to the
Member for St. John's East when he gets up and he is talking about, well, we
should not be doing it now; we should wait until 2016.
Unfortunately, when you get up the second time to speak on a piece of
legislation you are probably going to be a little bit repetitive, and that is
not my intention. However, it was
said back on Tuesday, and a couple different speakers here in the past couple of
days, that even if we did wait until 2016, the census probably will not be ready
until 2017, which is going to delay it until 2019.
So we
are basically not getting anywhere with the piece of legislation; it is not
going to happen. It seems like the
majority of the members in this House are in favour of reducing the number of
districts. We have all thought about
it. I have thought about it; I have
considered it. I have talked to some
of my constituents, I have talked to some of my colleagues, and we feel that now
is the time. We want an election
before 2016 because it will be four years, and that was what the legislation was
calling for previously.
When you
talk about boundaries and you talk about districts I made a comment here on
Tuesday regarding the boundaries and the districts and the challenges.
I stated that the Big Land has challenges.
Everyone has challenges, but I did not say anything about the Torngat
Mountains not being unique, because I think they are.
I have a lot of respect for the Member for Torngat, and I have a lot of
respect for the challenges that he faces.
Most of us can drive to our communities most of us.
Some of us still have to go by boat, some of us have to go by helicopter,
some of us probably just do it by phone, whatever; but the Member for Torngat
cannot do that.
If you
went back and checked what I said on Tuesday, I was talking about Cartwright
L'Anse au Clair, I was talking about Placentia St. Mary's, I was talking about
Baie Verte Springdale, and I was talking about their challenges.
Are they unique? Maybe they
are unique, but they are just not unique unto themselves.
A lot of districts have the same challenges as Southern Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, in my previous career, I travelled right across the Province many
times: the Northern Peninsula, Southern Labrador; yes, I land in Blanc Sablon
when I go across the boat and I travel right on up through to Red Bay and Lodge
Bay, and I would go through the rock cuts there in Lodge Bay, St. Mary's.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Tell us about the rock cuts.
MR. FORSEY:
Well, we will not go there.
I have
travelled up to Charlottetown and I have been in Cartwright many times.
They do very well. I believe
there is a new school being built now in Charlottetown.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I would
ask the member to speak to the bill.
MR. FORSEY:
I apologize, Mr. Speaker, I
thought I was, but sometimes I guess I get just carried away a little bit my
apologies. I guess what I am trying
to do is explain how we can represent the districts now today compared to ten,
twenty, forty years ago and how we have advanced.
I said
it before, today's communications and transportation systems enable us to
represent the districts that much better.
With these changes, I think it is time; the changes need to be made.
I think for the Premier and his Cabinet and his caucus to be able to take
this on we support the Premier in this move.
Sometimes you have to bring in progressive legislation and it is what we
are doing now.
We are
changing the boundaries and we want to change the boundaries.
Who knows what the districts are going to look like?
I do not know. That is up to
the commission. We have no influence
on what the commission is going to decide in regard to boundaries.
I have
said it before, not wanting to be repetitious, but in 1975 the District of
Exploits, that is when the district became Exploits.
Before that, it came under Lewisporte, Mr. Speaker, which you are very
familiar with.
Who
knows where the boundaries are going to go this time?
Who knows where they are going to go, but when it comes to representing
your district, especially out in the rural areas and that is probably where
you would find some real concerns is in the rural districts, wanting to be able
to be on the ground representing your communities in your district like the
Member for Cape St. Francis.
My
colleague from Cape St. Francis stated people want to see him out there to an
anniversary. People want to see you
out there representing them at the firefighter's banquet.
You have to represent them in their applications to the government for
roadwork and for municipal infrastructure.
You need to do that as well.
In the rural areas we all have challenges, Mr. Speaker.
We know that.
Out here
in the city, in St. John's, it is different.
We have to represent communities because they have aging infrastructure.
I recall when I was elected back in 2005 there were a lot of requests for
municipal infrastructure that needed to be done, roadwork, but because this
government was able to do it, that enables us to do our job a little better as a
member. We can expand our boundaries
because it is getting that much easier to do it.
Mr.
Speaker, I wanted to just touch on a couple of things.
Back on Tuesday I think I explained why we need to do this, how we can do
this, and the opportunities we have.
When you listen to some of the speakers across the way, they want to compare
when it is convenient. I think it
was made today that the budget process in one province is different than ours.
MR. KIRBY:
A point of order.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Member for St. John's North on a point of order.
MR. KIRBY:
I am wondering what the
budgetary process in another province has to do with Bill 42, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Again I
would ask the member to confine his comments to the principle of the bill.
MR. FORSEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, I
appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I will
try to stick to it. I was trying to
make a comparison that now that we are talking about the electoral boundaries,
we should not be compared to other provinces.
When the legislation was brought in and introduced, we were talking about
other provinces. It has been
mentioned many times today on this legislation by different members.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. FORSEY:
The size of the boundaries,
the population of the districts; there were some
MR. PEACH:
References.
MR. FORSEY:
references.
Thank you, I say to the Member for Bellevue.
AN HON. MEMBER:
He is standing behind you.
MR. FORSEY:
Yes, he has my back.
Thank you.
In order
to do it, sometimes it is nice to check what other provinces are doing.
It is like forming an opinion.
It is like voting on this.
When you listen to other people's opinions, sometimes you pick up something that
you did not think of maybe.
There is
nothing wrong with that. That is why
we debate legislation. That is why
we had a unanimous decision yesterday in this House, Mr. Speaker.
That is what makes the difference.
When you can do that in this House of Assembly with all parties, I think
it is a wonderful thing. What is
wrong with it? Nothing.
In this
particular piece of legislation we are talking about today, Mr. Speaker, we all
agree over here and some of them agree over there.
Until I listen to an argument that I can think about and say, well maybe,
I never thought of that, but I have not heard it, not in the past couple of
days. I have not heard it.
Mr.
Speaker, it seems like the other side when you are trying to speak and talk
about a very important piece of legislation, there seems to be some type of
squawking going on. I do not know
why, but I will try to continue on with what I was trying to explain about the
boundaries.
I
listened to all the members. They
are all very important issues that they talk about.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Honourable.
MR. FORSEY:
Yes, and they are honourable,
absolutely. To be in this House you
are. We are all here for the same
reason.
I am
speaking from experience of the districts and the challenges.
I listened to the Member for CBS.
He did a very good job. I am
sure he is very passionate about his district.
He spoke yesterday. He did a
very, very good job, as a matter of fact; however, like he said, he touched down
in Lake Melville and Goose Bay, and he touched down in Churchill Falls.
Mr.
Speaker, I just did not touch down in these areas.
I travelled these areas so I know the challenges and I know the
geography. Some of it is not easy,
but when we take on a district, to be a representative of that district as a
Member of the House of Assembly, then you know what you are getting into, or I
would like to think you know what you are getting into.
I think
this piece of legislation is progressive.
It needs to come. It needs to
be done. I applaud the Premier for
taking the lead on it. We are, right
now, getting ready for an election for 2015, but we want to get this done.
It says that it will take 120 days to get it done once the commission is
formed and the chair is put in place.
They will bring back their requests, Mr. Speaker.
Whatever
the recommendation is, when it comes back we have to live with it.
Even though it says 2016 that the next review is supposed to be done, we
are getting it done a few months earlier.
Then it will be reviewed again in 2026, and ten years from there on,
every ten years.
Mr.
Speaker, the last time the boundaries were done I believe the Chair was the
former Premier. I am not sure if he was
the Chair, but he was certainly on the committee and I thought he was the Chair.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. FORSEY:
He was not the Chair?
He was a committee member.
He was
certainly used to rural areas because my district is a rural area.
Then again, the former Premier, who was a part of that committee, was
also the MHA for the District of Exploits, which I represent today.
MR. S. COLLINS:
(Inaudible).
MR. FORSEY:
Thank you very much, I say to
the Member for Terra Nova.
Anyway,
Mr. Speaker, I will finish by saying we do support this piece of legislation.
It is time to move forward and make the changes that need to be done.
The commission will make their report.
We have no influence on what they are going to come back with.
We will move forward progressively and do what is right for the Province.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for St. George's Stephenville East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. REID:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is
indeed an honour to rise in this debate and to speak on this important debate.
It is interesting to listen to other people speak and give their
perspective on this issue as well, because if there is anything good that is
going to come of this rushed debate I think it is the fact that we will all
think a little bit more about this important issue of how we organize ourselves
in the House, how we determine the boundaries and the rules for how we elect
MHAs. It is a good process to go
through a debate like this and give everyone an opportunity, a chance to have a
good constructive debate and to listen to what everyone has to say and get their
perspective.
Of
course, just for the people who may be watching, we are in the second reading
phase of this bill now. This is the
stage of the bill where we talk about the principle of the bill, do we agree
with the principle that is espoused in the bill?
This is what we determine here.
We have a bit of a wider ranging discussion in the second reading stage
of the bill than we would in the committee stage of the bill where we have to be
more specific and where we have to focus directly on the clauses in the bill.
Mr.
Speaker, the types of amendments that come forward in this stage I guess are
usually related to the hoist or to send it to a committee, but there are also
some reasoned amendments. I may move
a reasoned amendment to this bill as I progress.
As I was
saying, this is an important bill.
It is about how we govern ourselves, how we set the rules for how this
Legislature operates. It is going to
be in place for a number of years, so I think it is important that we get it
right because it is very difficult to go back over it again to change things if
we get it wrong. It is important
that we get it right when we do it this time, Mr. Speaker.
What we
decide here today will have an impact on other things in the House as well.
For example, the Premier, I think, has announced that he is going to
the committee was struck today, the Standing Orders Committee.
The number of legislators we have in this House sort of influences the
nature of the committee structure we could have in this House.
It is all sort of related as to how this House operates and what we can
do. It is a very important act that
we are dealing with here today.
We
should not look at it from, how does it impact us individually in our seats?
A number of people have said we should be looking at it as, what is best
for the Province? What is the best
way we can set it up to govern ourselves?
So, those are some of things we should be taking into account.
Also,
Mr. Speaker, when you look at elections acts or electoral boundaries acts, or
acts to appoint the Chief Electoral Officer, there is a lot of sensitivity
around this type of legislation because it relates to fairness and the
legitimacy of the government. In
that regard, usually governments when they bring in legislation to change these
things, they do not use a heavy-handed method.
Usually they allow for a fair and open debate where people can have lots
of opportunity and lots of time to have their say.
For example, it is very rare for a government to bring in closure on this
type of legislation related to an elections act because it sort of recognizes
that to do so would be heavy handed.
That is sort of an aspect of this type of legislation.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to talk a little bit more about a concept in the study of
politics or political science that people use.
It is the concept of a level playing field, or fair play some people call
it. It is a very simple concept and
it is a concept that is used in sports.
I know a number of people around here in the House have participated in
sports, and it is sort of the same thing.
The idea
is that the field is level and one team is not playing uphill and the other one
coming down. It is that everyone has
a fair chance to participate in an election and they have a fair chance of
winning. That is an important
concept, because at the end of the day whoever becomes government has to have
legitimacy in the eyes of the electorate.
They have to say things were done fairly here; whoever won is legitimate.
When a government brings forward amendments to make changes they have to
be sensitive to that fact, Mr. Speaker.
We need
to be very careful about the way we chip away at our democratic government.
We have to be very careful and very protective about the democratic
system we have. We all are aware of
countries around the world where the governments use the power of the government
to perpetuate themselves in power.
Many people in these countries look to Canada, look to places like Newfoundland
as an ideal, as a way that they should be doing business and running their
governments. We should be very
careful if we chip away at the type of democracy we have here that is the envy
of the world.
Mr.
Speaker, this piece of legislation has come forward very quickly.
Just last week this started to be floated around.
Just on Thursday or Friday we saw the legislation, the initial piece of
legislation, and knew what we would be dealing with.
Here we are in the House, Thursday, a few days later making decisions
about it. Some people have raised
the questions about fair play. Do we
have the time to examine this piece of legislation in a responsible manner?
Do we? I am not sure.
I am not convinced that we have.
Mr.
Speaker, in that limited time frame, one of the things I have tried to do is
talk to as many people as I can about this piece of legislation, to get their
views on it, to find out what they are thinking.
Many people have sent e-mails to me.
I have talked to a number of people in person.
Facebook messages, all kinds of things like that I have had discussions
with people that way. I have read
commentary in the newspaper that people have brought forward as well, so we have
had a lot of discussion.
Some of
the things I have been hearing, Mr. Speaker the first thing I want to mention
because I guess this is an interesting piece.
It seems to be the agreement of all parties, maybe all members I am not
sure in this House that we agree on reducing the number of seats.
Where we disagree is the process for doing that.
We have
all seen the polls that have been sponsored by various media outlets that seem
to indicate that as well, Mr. Speaker.
I think parties in the House support some form of reduction in the number
of seats. Others, while they support
the reduction, they want to ensure that it is done in the proper way and that
the proper process is followed and that it is done in a timely fashion.
People have been telling me that.
Mr.
Speaker, others are very skeptical about what is happening here.
They think it is sort of a very heavy-handed way by a government to sort
of try to perpetuate themselves in power by manipulating the system.
Some people have told me that is their view on it.
Others have made the case that we do not need to cut any members at all.
Some have gone so far as to say that we need to add members.
For
example, Kelly Blidook, a political science professor at MUN by the way Kelly
Blidook is an expert; he spent his life studying Legislatures.
He has written several books, presented at international and national
conferences, speaking about Legislatures.
So what he thinks is important; I think it is worth listening to what he
has to say. We may not agree with
it, but it is worth listening to what he and others have to say on this topic.
His
comments are that if we reduce the number of legislators, it makes it more
difficult to put in place a workable committee system.
The other thing with committee systems is the ratio of so-called private
members or backbenchers to Cabinet ministers in a Legislature.
Those are other things that impact on the ability of a Legislature to put
together good working committees of the Legislature.
That is
one of the concerns that I have and that Kelly Blidook has as well about the way
we are going about cutting these seats, Mr. Speaker.
The Leader of the Opposition has proposed that we look at cutting the
number of Cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries.
I think that is directly related to lowering the number of seats because,
unless we do that, the possibility of putting in place workable committee
systems in this House is very difficult to achieve.
Another
professor at Memorial, Chris Dunn, has studied Legislatures as well.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Relevance.
MR. REID:
Relevance?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. REID:
Okay.
Mr.
Speaker, another professor at the university, Christopher Dunn, he is another
person who has studied Canadian Legislatures.
He talked about this difficulty as well.
He spoke out on Open Line shows and talked about the problems that it may
make in having a workable committee system.
Another
professor at the university, Russell Williams, has sort of indicated the
possibility of court challenges to what we are doing here today.
That is another possibility that we should consider as we are looking at
this legislation.
Mr.
Speaker, I have had a number of people contact me as well; former students have
contacted me. For example, one
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. REID:
Yes, you should tell us what
he said. I do not know if you read
any cartoons recently.
One
former student likened this case to what happened in the 1930s and 1940s.
We were in a financial crisis then.
What happened then was a little more dramatic than what we are doing here
today, but the person who contacted me to express his opinion said that what we
are doing here today is very similar to what we did in the 1930s and 1940s when
they voted to do away with politicians in this Province all together.
Some people are likening this situation to what happened then.
I am not sure if it is similar, but it is an idea that the democracy is
being traded off for some sort of financial savings.
Those
are some comments I have heard, and there is a divergence of views on this
issue, of course, Mr. Speaker. I
also get the sense that public opinion on this issue is still fairly volatile.
People are beginning to focus on this.
They are beginning to become more informed and to get a better idea of
exactly what is happening. So, this
is a very important topic.
Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance, when he introduced this legislation, talked
about the process. He talked about
the history of the legislation. It
was an interesting read, but he left out a number of important points I believe.
As I listened to him, I was sort of compelled to sort of say, so how long did
he was telling about the 1996 process.
I asked him, how long did that process take?
Does anyone know how long that took?
It was not within the 120 days.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. REID:
Pardon?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Clyde Wells.
MR. REID:
Yes.
It was
not within the 120 days. It was not
even within twice that, Mr. Speaker.
It was close to three years that it took to bring about the report three
years.
How many
hearings did they have? They had
about thirty hearings in the first round.
They presented a report, went back and did further hearings, another
forty hearings. The process is very
important, and it links back to the fairness.
It links back to the idea and the concept of a level playing field, Mr.
Speaker.
So, I
guess the question is not whether or not we can do the consultations within 120
days. The important question is can
we do it properly within the 120 days?
That is the important question.
On an important issue like this with the sensitivity around it, the
question is can we do it properly within 120 days?
Mr.
Speaker, as I said earlier, this is the stage where we introduce amendments that
sort of allow us to have a little more debate on this topic.
So I want to move an amendment to the legislation, move an amendment to
this bill at this stage, seconded by the Member for Humber East.
The
amendment reads: That all words after the word That be deleted and the
following be substituted thereafter:
This House declines to give second reading to Bill 42, An Act To Amend The
Electoral Boundaries Act because the commission has not been provided with a
potential range for the number of districts, a matter best left to the
commission's discretion after research, examination and meaningful public
consultation, to provide for fair distribution of electoral representation.
Seconded
by the Member for Humber East.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
House will take a brief recess to consider the amendment.
Recess
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
We have considered the amendment put forward by the
Member for St. George's Stephenville East.
It is a reasoned amendment and, as we know from past experience in this
House of Assembly, many reasoned amendments are found not to be in order, as is
the case with this one.
I would refer the member to O'Brien and Bosc, page 750.
In one of the sections it states a reasoned amendment must not relate to
particulars of the bill if what is sought may be accomplished by amendments in
committee. It is on that rationale
that we have declared the amendment not to be in order; however, the member has
speaking time left.
The hon. the Member for St. George's Stephenville
East.
MR.
REID:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you for the rationale for the decision on the
amendment as well.
I just wanted to say that I think the Opposition has
been reasonable in their approach to this debate.
We have presented a number of reasonable amendments.
We have not been obstructionist in terms of allowing this debate to
happen in a timely manner. We have
been reasonable in the approach we have taken.
We have put forward a number of amendments and ways
that we are going to approach this bill, but we have concerns about issues
related to protecting the seats in Labrador.
The members on this side of the House from Labrador have spoken on these
issues and made their case. We think
there should be a range of seats, rather than an arbitrary thirty-eight.
We also think there should be implications if the 120-day time limit is
not met.
We have been reasonable on our approach.
I thank the House for their attention and consideration of the amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
CRUMMELL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a privilege to stand in
the House this evening to debate Bill 42, An Act to Amend the Electoral
Boundaries Act. Before I get into
the meat of my discussion here, I would just like to comment on what the Member
for St. John's North talked about earlier this evening, before supper.
He was talking about how looking at the history books and images in his
mind of those who came before us and sacrificed their lives for democracy, to
put us in this position here tonight to be able to debate about democracy in a
meaningful way.
I just want to let him know that those haunting images,
we have those images as well over on this side of the House.
I have them on my wall, Mr. Speaker.
Both my grandfathers fought in the First World War.
One of them was one of the ones who answered roll call the morning after
Beaumont Hamel.
We are all here in this place to carry on from those
who came before us, to stand on their shoulders to make sure that we do protect
democracy, not only for ourselves but for our child and our children's children.
The blood of these people runs through the veins of everybody in this
House, I would suggest. We all have
those images and all of those pictures on our walls.
We are all here for the right reasons.
Mr. Speaker, there is no monopoly on that.
We all feel that way, and I just wanted to make reference to that.
Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the Electoral Boundaries
Act, for the people at home, I just want to get into it.
I will stick to the text that is important to what this debate is all
about. It is important to understand
what we are doing and why we are doing this and why government has brought this
forward at this place and time.
The Premier has been on record supporting reform in the
House of Assembly. Last year, during
the leadership race that we had within our party, he talked about that many
times openly, and so did the other party leaders as well.
They talked about reform within the House of Assembly.
The reform that was talked about over the last twelve
months is something that many of us again, it resonated with many people, not
only here in the House but people in the Province.
The three areas of reform in particular our Premier talked about were
modernizing procedures in the House of Assembly again, not unique, no monopoly
around that. There were thoughts
around committees in the House, more committees.
Yesterday was a prime example of moving forward on that
agenda, and I think it was great co-operation that we saw in the House of
Assembly happen yesterday. I give
credit to the MHA for St. John's Centre for bringing that motion forward.
It was very meaningful. I
think it is certainly representative of how we are evolving as a Province and a
Legislature.
Most of the people here on this side of the House have
only been recently elected in the last term or two, Mr. Speaker.
So a lot of us are relatively new to politics and we like to see things
evolve and change and we are all part of that, and that is what this is about.
So, modernizing procedures in the House, Mr. Speaker
he also talked about the review of the MHAs' pension reform.
Mr. Speaker, again, this is something that needs to be done.
We have heard from the people
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I would ask the minister to speak to Bill 42.
MR.
CRUMMELL:
Absolutely, here we go. So my next
line, Mr. Speaker, was reduction of electoral seats with fewer MHAs.
That is where I was going with this, Mr. Speaker.
I will stick to the bill and make sure that I do speak directly to it,
going forward. If I stray a little
off, please feel free, as you will, to come to me and let me know.
Again, all political parties agree that reform is
important, if not desirable.
Feedback from the people of the Province has been consistent around that as
well. I heard a member opposite
earlier talk about he is hearing from people that they are not onside with these
changes. Well, we are hearing it out
there, Mr. Speaker. I have to be honest
with you; I believe that the people
of the Province like what we are doing, the majority of the people agree with
what we are doing, and certainly again the other House Leaders have talked about
making sure that happens as well.
So, Mr. Speaker, the political will exists within the Province to make these
changes, and we are here to make those changes through this bill.
The Premier has taken leadership on this issue, and our
caucus and our party are behind him 100 per cent in making this happen in this
time and this place. We believe that
all three areas of reform are achievable, and they are achievable in a timely
way. I will get into that more in a
few more minutes. So the question
is: Why wait? The question is: Why
not get on with it? That is why we
are here. Everybody pretty much
supports it. Everybody pretty much
supports reform. Everybody is on
that page.
The first step would be to reduce the number of
electoral districts. This is
something that was going to happen in 2016 anyway.
Mr. Speaker, it is not unusual for a statutory review to take
place before the set date. We are
just going through an ATIPP review of our legislation.
That stat review was scheduled to be in 2016.
We pushed it ahead approximately a year, Mr. Speaker.
That is not unusual. That
happened on numerous occasions in the past.
We are not setting any precedent by doing that, and moving forward on
this stat review is important as well.
If we
make changes now we can save millions of dollars.
We talked about the financial implications about what that could have.
MR. JOYCE:
A point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (Cross):
The hon. the Member for
Bay of Islands, on a point of order.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, in this
Legislature we always try to put the facts forward.
The minister just mentioned a statutory review under the Freedom of
Information. It is because of how
the government fooled up Bill 29, not because it is part of the mandatory.
It is because they were forced to do it, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
There is
no point of order.
The hon.
the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
MR. CRUMMELL:
Mr. Speaker, as I was so
rudely interrupted a minute ago on a non-point of order, this brings us to what
we are doing today. In order to
facilitate electoral reform before the 2015 provincial election
MR. A. PARSONS:
A point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader, on a point of order.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I believe it is any member's
right in this House to stand on a point of order.
Even if it is not a point of order, it is unparliamentary for the member
to suggest that he was rudely interrupted.
I would ask that he withdraw the comment.
MR. SPEAKER:
There is no point of order.
Order,
please!
The hon.
the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
MR. CRUMMELL:
Mr. Speaker, I did not mean
that in a condescending way. I meant
it in a jocular way. I hope you take
it that way. If you take any offense
to that, Mr. Speaker, I do apologize to the member opposite.
It was more in a jocular sense, not in an emphatic sense.
I did not know he was so sensitive.
Again,
the act provides for the Newfoundland and Labrador electoral boundaries
commission to be appointed every ten years.
Under that current act, the next commission again is due in 2016.
In 2016 they were told to look at forty-eight districts and divide the
Province into forty-eight districts.
The
amendments that our government are bringing forth here today are proposing to
divide the Province into a specified number of districts in 2015.
So we are going to do it this year.
It will require the commission to begin its work as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker, we think this can be done.
Again, I am going to get into that in further detail in a few minutes,
but the required present report within 120 days after the appointment of the
chairperson here.
Mr.
Speaker, the reality here is that we are following a well-established process.
This process is established in law.
It is established in legislation, and we are following exactly that
process. We are changing a few
things. We are moving this review
forward by several months from 2016 to 2015, but the process itself is intact.
The integrity is there and the intent is there, Mr. Speaker.
The
commissions have been given similar direction in the past, exactly what we are
doing here now. In 1973, in 1983, in
2003, 2006, direction was given through legislation to direct a commission to a
specified number of seats. So we are
not setting precedent here. Although
other people do say that we are, we are not.
We are following convention.
We are following practice. This is
nothing different than has happened in the past.
It is important that people at home understand that and get that.
In 1996,
actually, Mr. Speaker, is another story.
I might get a chance to get into that.
Something different happened then, but I am not going to go down that
road for now.
With
regard to the commission, it will be independent.
That is important to note. It
is going to be arm's length from government.
The commission as it has in the past will be comprised of a
chairperson. That chairperson will
be appointed by the Chief Justice of Newfoundland and Labrador from among judges
of the Newfoundland Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Trial Division,
as well as four other members will form that commission.
These
four members will be nominated from the three parties in the House who will be
appointed by the Speaker. To
complete that work the act will give the commission the ability to employ such
resources as required. Technical and
professional staff will be employed.
The work will be done. There will be
a cadre of learned commissioners and highly skilled staff doing this work.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. CRUMMELL:
Like a cadre. No, cadre.
Cadre, Mr. Speaker, is c-a-d-r-e.
We have
an independent commission. We have
direction for the commission as to the number of seats, as well as direction
that will be given to the amendment as to the timelines.
We
talked about timelines. I have heard
members opposite talk about timelines at length.
Can this be done in the right way in this amount of time?
The amendment is proposing a time frame of 120 days after the chairperson
has been appointed.
The
members on the opposite side say that is ambitious.
We have heard that. I say it
is reasonable. I think everybody
over here thinks it is reasonable.
It can be done within that period of time.
With five capable people on the commission, supported by a team of
professional people as well, we think this work can be done within that time
frame. It is a four-month period.
A lot of work could be done in four months with five people and the
number of people supporting it.
Members
opposite have cited other jurisdictions in Canada where at times it took longer;
but, do you know what? We are in
Newfoundland and Labrador. We can be
up for challenges here to get things done; set some deadlines, get things done,
and do it right. We have the
competencies right here in this Province, and I have full confidence that we can
pull this together, do it right, and do it in a timely way.
Mr.
Speaker, I spent twenty-five years in private business.
I was a senior manager with a major corporation.
We did a lot of work here in this Province.
We had distribution systems set up.
I was the sales marketing manager for that.
I was also responsible for profit and loss with the company.
I had major responsibilities for the last ten years that I was with the
company.
We were
a major manufacturing company and we distributed goods throughout the Province,
Mr. Speaker. There were times we
were given our marching orders by our corporate headquarters to say we want you
to do this, big projects that needed to be executed on in terms of distribution,
in terms of how to change our business to be more efficient, more
cost-efficient, more effective.
Mr.
Speaker, this is no different. When
you are challenged to do the work I look at private business, for example.
There are many people on the opposite side of the House who come from
that sector, who come from the private sector.
When you are challenged in private business with timelines and work that
needs to be done, you are professionals, you make sure that work gets done.
You do it in the right way.
You get the team around you that is required.
You do the work that needs to be done.
You do the due diligence.
Timelines are there for a reason, Mr. Speaker, because it will make sure that
people have a goal and that goal is set.
Look at
other jurisdictions in the country.
We heard 900 days, 600 days, 400 days, and 500 days.
Listen, do you know what? If
you do not put timelines in place, some of these projects could go on forever if
you wanted to. In business, you have
timelines set. You can be efficient
on how you spend your money. You can
meet those timelines.
If I was
told in business today that you have four months to come up with a plan, you
have another five months to execute it, you have nine to do that.
I would be shocked if I would look at my boss and say it is not doable.
It cannot be done.
Mr.
Speaker, it is just an analogy I would like to use around that.
I think it is an important analogy to understand in this context, that we
are running government. This is an
important decision for the people of the Province.
There are some understandings there, is this possible?
Is this doable? It is
absolutely possible. It is
absolutely doable.
Mr.
Speaker, let me talk a little bit about representation by population.
The Member for St. George's Stephenville East, I believe it is.
Am I correct?
MR. REID:
Yes.
MR. CRUMMELL:
He was talking about
representation by population. The
basic democratic principle in any western democracy, and certainly in Canada, is
one person, one vote. All votes
should be counted equally. That is
the basic premise of any democracy in the western hemisphere, for sure, and
everybody understands that equality.
Mr.
Speaker, this concept has evolved.
It has evolved in Canada right back to the 1850s, as a matter of fact, if
anyone wants to check out exactly the evolution of how one person, one vote
evolved into what it is today.
In
Canada today we have a different system of voting that allows for geographic
considerations, Mr. Speaker. It
allows for specific community considerations.
We certainly see that in Torngat, in Labrador; we certainly see it in
rural parts of Canada when we look at the House of Commons and where we have a
disproportionate amount of voters in one district, and then you go to the urban
districts, there are more voters there.
People in Canada accept that.
They do get that.
By
reducing the number of seats in the House of Assembly, I think the people in
Newfoundland and Labrador will understand that as well.
As an urban politician, as a politician that represents constituents here
in St. John's, the needs of my constituents are definitely different than the
needs in Torngat Mountains, are definitely different than the needs in Gander,
and are definitely different than the needs in rural communities out around
Newfoundland and Labrador.
We
totally get that over here, and I know that the commissioners will totally get
that. There is going to be leeway,
and the direction will be given by convention to allow them some leeway 10 per
cent, 25 per cent, but in other instances they can go even above that.
The constitutional challenges that we referred to earlier go down that
road.
We know,
for sure, that examples have been set in the rest of Canada.
In terms of the Supreme Court decisions that have been met, challenges
that have been met in the past, and all have failed, that allows for
representation for rural districts with fewer people, and representations at
different levels. So, Mr. Speaker,
this is allowed in our democracy, this is allowed in Canada, and in Newfoundland
and Labrador this has been recognized in the past.
So
voters in this Province get that; voters in this Province understand that.
We know that we are going to have discrepancies within districts.
There are discrepancies now.
There are some districts that have 3,000 people, and some districts have
15,000 people. My district has
12,000 or 11,000, Mr. Speaker. So we
have that range right now, that variance now.
When you
look at the other parts of Canada, when the average in New Brunswick is 15,000
people, when you look at other parts of Canada, when in Ontario it is 100,000
people for the provincial Legislature, we are talking about representation here
at a different level. We are still
going to be one of the highest rates of representation, or the second highest
anywhere in Canada for a province.
So it is not changing much from that respect.
In terms
of the work that we do as MHAs, I am a minister of the Crown and also I look
after my district. I know that some
of the people who sit in the backbenches here are also parliamentary
secretaries. We all have extra work,
but we still look after our constituents.
I think we all do a very good job, Mr. Speaker.
So we are up for that challenge.
I think everybody in this House is up for that challenge
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. CRUMMELL:
and listen, if you want to
get something done, you find a busy person.
I am a firm believer in that, and I think we are up for that task, and I
think the competencies and capabilities of the people of this House are there.
So that can happen very easily, Mr. Speaker.
So when it comes to that district breakdown, I think we are on safe
ground.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I am not going to take too much more time.
I have a couple of points that I want to get out there, but there are a
few important things that I want to get there just in closing.
Again, we are simply expediting a process that was supposed to happen in
2016. We are going to do it in 2015.
That is simply what we are doing here, Mr. Speaker.
Reform
of the House of Assembly will have benefits for the people of the Province for
many reasons, and financial certainty is an important one.
It is setting an example for other work that we are going to have to do
over the next few months, and this is where it has to start.
That is one of the reasons why we are going down this road, and financial
reasons is an important one, but it is just one of the reasons of many.
The
people of the Province will continue to have fair representation, like I just
alluded to, and will still measure among the best in the country in terms of the
number of residents per member.
All
political parties will be impacted by the reduction of seats.
There is no benefit to the people sitting over here as a matter of
fact, there are going to some tussles before this is all said and done in terms
of nominations, I am sure, when everything fleshes out at the end of the day.
So we will be impacted as well, Mr. Speaker.
We will have impact in our jurisdictions, in our districts, going forward
and there is no doubt about that.
Impacts will be happening to ourselves as members as well.
Again,
Mr. Speaker, just to close, all political parties here believe that reform is
important. That is the place we are
right now. That is the place where I
think the people of the Province are.
Why not make it happen now? I
think we are ready for it. We are up
for the task.
Thank
you very much, and I am going to be voting for this amendment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Virginia Waters.
MS C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
honoured to stand in the House tonight to speak to Bill 42, An Act to Amend the
Electoral Boundaries Act on behalf of the District of Virginia Waters.
As many people in this House of Assembly know, the District of Virginia
Waters I believe is actually
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS C. BENNETT:
the third largest district in the
Province as it sits today, so it gives me great pleasure to stand here and speak
on behalf of every one of the constituents who I represent.
I am very humbled with that opportunity.
I think,
Mr. Speaker, one thing that is consistent without a doubt from our side of the
House, the government side of the House, and it has been referenced here in many
speeches that have already been made as part of this debate, is that part of why
we are here is to ensure that the Province is provided and the people of the
Province are provided with the best governance possible.
That
governance certainly cannot come unless you have a very in-depth discussion and
dialogue when you are making changes or suggesting making changes to the
boundaries of the Province and, more importantly, the representation of the
people of the Province. I think it
is a very humbling experience, as the Minister of Education mentioned earlier.
It is humbling to stand here in the House and speak to that.
I think many of us, as parents, understand that the laws that we make in
this House of Assembly and the decisions we make affect those of us who are
coming in the future, and I am very humbled to stand here and speak to this bill
tonight.
The
democracy that is intended to happen in this House of Assembly is very
important, and as an MHA I take that responsibility very seriously.
I have a tremendous amount of respect not only for my fellow colleagues,
but certainly for the ministers of the Crown who wear a heavy burden, and
certainly all of us in this House of Assembly understand that the work that is
done here, while oftentimes can be humorous as we have our debate, the
seriousness of the work I do not think is lost on any of us.
It has been referenced many times in the House.
I am
also very confident that the members on both sides of this House are listening
intensively to all of the discussion that is happening around this debate.
I think the members of this House of Assembly on both sides understand
that these discussions will have important and impactful ramifications on the
people of the Province, and this is something that we take very seriously in our
responsibility here as forty-eight elected members.
Mr.
Speaker, I have to reference back to the beginning of the debate when my hon.
colleague for Burgeo La Poile suggested that the discussion on this bill and
government's action appear to be rushed.
One of the things that certainly has happened since last Thursday when
the Premier made his announcement about his intention to reopen the House,
invite the MHAs to come back in and debate this important piece of legislation,
was that it required all of us, all forty-eight of us, to spend a tremendous
amount of time preparing for this debate.
Like my
colleagues on this side of the House of Assembly who have spent hours and hours
with our researchers pouring over information and trying to get an even better
handle on the historical implications of what has happened in the past around
boundary changes, I am confident that the members on the opposite side of the
House, I am sure, have represented their constituents with that same due
diligence.
As we
have gone through that process over the last four or five days I can certainly
speak to as a Member of the House of Assembly who is going to celebrate her
anniversary in a couple of months as being a first-year MHA, I can certainly say
that in the last number of days I have been even more educated myself on the
Electoral Boundaries Act. I have a
much deeper appreciation. I believe,
Mr. Speaker, those listening at home tonight would expect me to have a much
deeper appreciation for not only the changes that government is proposing today,
but also the implications of those changes, and that I should have a deeper
understanding of the original bill that we are talking about amending.
Also, they would expect me to have, and all of us to have, a much deeper
appreciation for the operational implications of the changes that we are talking
about today.
I
listened earlier in the debate and feverishly took notes.
I know many of my colleagues in the House of Assembly on both sides of
the House listen and take notes as we have discussions.
I listened to the Minister of Finance talk about this legislation and
amendment, and what Bill 42 is intent on doing is not really fundamentally
changing the process. He mentioned
that this process it is my understanding that it has been done six times
before, and now this is the seventh time.
With all
due respect to my hon. colleague across the way, I would suggest, though, and
certainly feedback from people who have reached out to me, is that the seventh
time is actually being done in an election year.
For that reason people have questions because that is a fundamental
change to the process. People are
questioning what government's intention is and why they want to change it in the
middle of an election year.
The
minister, as well as the members opposite, who, I am sure, have done all their
homework in prepping for the debate, have assured us on this side of the House
that Elections NL would have sufficient time to do this debate; however, my
question and I would hope that at some point during this discussion the
Minister of Finance, or the Premier, or the House Leader may be able to answer
this question. I would hope that as
we work through assuming government uses its majority to make these changes
that the operational implications at Elections NL will not be so large and
create such discord that the people of the Province who we represent here today
will be impacted when they actually go to vote.
I think that is a very serious consideration when we talk about changing
the rules in how people are represented.
As I
said before, this has never happened in an election year.
It is interesting. I want to
make it clear, and certainly many members of this House of Assembly, including
my hon. colleagues on this side, including the Leader of the Official
Opposition, have made it very clear that we support a review that would lead to
a reduction in the number of MHAs who are sitting in this House.
As a
matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I had the distinct honour to represent the people
of the Province on a committee after Judge Green's report, the Members'
Compensation Review Committee from May 2009 to October 2009.
We had, as a committee, the opportunity to have consultations around the
Province on the benefits package that MHAs are required to have here as part of
their work in the House. I can tell
you, even though it was not in our mandate at the time, the number of MHAs in
the House of Assembly came up in almost every single one of those presentations
at that time.
This
discussion about reducing the number has been something that has been talked
about in the public for a long period of time.
The Leader of the Official Opposition has talked about it for over two
years. The people of the Province
expect us to make decisions in this House doing the appropriate due diligence.
It is our belief on this side of the House that the current proposal, as
it is presented in legislation in Bill 42, really is setting the boundary
commission up for failure with unprecedented deadlines and a predetermined
ten-seat reduction.
The
original legislation called for the boundary commission to begin its work in
2016. As has been spoken about many
times in this House of Assembly already, the 2016 date would have provided an
opportunity for the boundary commission to be able to avail, my understanding
is, of the most current census information.
It was
interesting, as I was doing my prep I came across a submission that was made to
a former committee that said and I could be wrong, but yes, my understanding
is this was a submission made on behalf of the City of Mount Pearl.
The submission says it would be more timely and effective if the timing
of the review was to happen eighteen months after a census has been carried out
by Stats Canada, and the new information from the census will be as current as
is reasonably possible and would assist in determining more accurately the
population of each district.
Mr.
Speaker, I believe it was the deputy mayor at the time who said that.
I do not have the exact quote here but I am sure people can check that
out themselves.
MR. J. BENNETT:
The deputy mayor or the
Deputy Premier?
MS C. BENNETT:
The deputy mayor.
MR. J. BENNETT:
The Deputy Premier.
MS C. BENNETT:
Oh yes, okay.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to take up the last couple of minutes of my speaking time here
tonight to talk about the comments that I have heard most of the members on the
government side make. Many of them
stood up with great confidence and talked about the fact that they believed the
commission could do its work in a timely matter, and that the amount of time
that was prescribed in this legislation will be sufficient.
I would argue that this precognition, or this future sight that the
government members have on the other side, the ability to know the future, quite
frankly is flawed.
I would
argue that the members seem to have an incredible ability to be able to see into
the future. The people of the
Province, when they think about issues like the expropriation of Abitibi and
Humber Valley Paving taking place in one day, really question what happens when
this government rushes.
One of
the things I have learned as part of studying for this legislation is that every
single jurisdiction in Canada that has been through a boundary change the
province that took the least amount of days to get their reports done was
Ontario at 185 days. The province
that had the highest duration of days just to complete the report was Quebec
with five years. The numbers range
from 275 days in PEI; 695 in Nova Scotia; 284 in New Brunswick; 185 in Ontario,
as I have mentioned; 265 in Manitoba; 186 in Saskatchewan; 325 in Alberta; 275
in British Columbia; 275 in the Northwest Territories; and 250 in Nunavut.
Mr.
Speaker, earlier the Member for St. John's West spoke about the nine-month
timeline being reasonable. I would
argue that in business, tight deadlines can be achieved by buying them and
buying the results. As many members
on the opposite side of the House have said many times, government is not
business. Those numbers I just read
out are the other provinces' amount of days they used to get the report done.
In
addition to that, the days between when they had their election and when the
report was finished, the lowest one is 380 days.
That is Nova Scotia, a combined 1,000 days in Nova Scotia to finish this
work. Because it is not just about
making sure that the boundaries are drawn correctly, as I mentioned in my
earlier comments, it is about making sure that, operationally, Elections NL can
do its work.
Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance said earlier in this House being informed is
much more important than a calendar date.
I would argue that when you are speaking about democracy and you are
trying to jam a schedule in such a short period of time, I think it is
legitimate that constituents question why the urgency.
I
understand that members on the opposite side of the House are all going to wave
at me and say that this is about money and this is about the amount of money
that we can save. Well, Mr. Speaker,
I am also getting legitimate questions that members of the public are saying,
well, why isn't the Premier able to take action on things that he can do right
now, which is the parliamentary assistants?
Bill 42
is really about changing how fast this work is done and people of the Province
and it is okay, the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services can laugh all
he wants there about this, but this is quite a serious issue.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Seniors and Wellness.
MS C. BENNETT:
Seniors and Wellness; oh
right, he has been changed. That is
right; they have changed a lot over there in the last year.
The amount of money this government has wasted on changing Cabinet
ministers and changing departments is something that we should be discussing.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind
the member to keep her comments relevant.
MS C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, this is a 20 per
cent reduction in the seats in an election year.
This is unprecedented. In
addition to the work that I have done on the numbers, I am sure other members of
this House of Assembly I know for sure that members on my side of the House
have taken the time to actually speak to people who have done this work.
I have spoken to representatives of commissions in other provinces.
As we have heard earlier this week, a former commissioner from
Newfoundland said it was highly unlikely that this work could get done in time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS C. BENNETT:
I spoke to another
commissioner who said that to try to complete this work in this short period of
time fundamentally means that government is disregarding the ability for people
to have consultation and input into this discussion.
Mr.
Speaker, let me be clear, I stand behind my leader and support him, as we all
do, and everybody in this House, with the exception of the Third Party at this
stage, has supported that we need to reduce MHAs; but how we do it is equally as
important as the decision we are making.
My constituents and people who have been talking to me are very concerned
about this government's ability to get this done.
The
Member for the District of Terra Nova said that this debate was about
efficiency. I can tell you that my
eleven-year-old son, when he heard that, said: Mommy, isn't this debate about
democracy? I said: Yes, it is.
MR. S. COLLINS:
(Inaudible).
MS C. BENNETT:
The Minister of Child, Youth
and Family Services can certainly mock the fact that my eleven-year-old is
interested in politics, but I think it is very important because quite frankly
when you look at the math, the changes we are making in 2015 will affect the
boundaries that he will be voting in.
We are making decisions today, as part of this House of Assembly, that
will affect voters in this Province for eleven years.
While it is important to take action, it is equally important to make
sure that those decisions are done and done in the right way.
This
government is grossly underestimating the operational work related to these
changes. I would argue like they
grossly underestimated the operational work when they laid off over 1,200 people
several years ago.
Mr.
Speaker, there are a litany of lists that we have asked questions about over the
last couple of days regarding finances.
I certainly will not waste my time this evening talking about that
because I understand the members on the opposite side are very interested in
continuing this debate.
I can
certainly say that when a constituent talks about and I go back to the
parliamentary assistants and the number of ministers in Cabinet.
I had to say to the constituent I cannot imagine that what he said to
me was right. That constituent said:
Do you think this is the Premier trying to make sure that there isn't a caucus
revolt? I said: Look, I cannot
imagine a person who sits in the Premier's seat would make a decision not to
reduce parliamentary salaries
MR. SPEAKER:
I will ask the member to make
her comments relevant to the Bill 42.
MS C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Deputy Premier and the Premier have spoken about better governance.
The people in my district are questioning the motive.
They are questioning whether it is better governance, good governance, or
quick governance. Mr. Speaker,
people in the district, people across the Province, have grave concerns about
the ability for us to get this work done and the government to get his work
done.
So let
me be clear. Mr. Speaker, the people
of the Province expect this government to keep its word.
Every single one of them stood up today, and in the last couple of days,
and agreed and said that this was not about pushing off the election date.
I hope when we come back in the House of Assembly the next time after we
close from this session, I will be able to look across the hall and say that
every one of them kept their word.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
like to assure my colleague across the way that I, for one, will be true to my
words.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON:
I speak for everyone on this
side as well; what we say, we will accomplish. Let
me tell you that. You have rhetoric
coming out of your mouth, that is fine and we can deal with that.
Like I
said, Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight debating a tremendous change in the
landscape of political life here in this Province.
The agent of that change is our Premier.
I would say to the people opposite, be careful what you ask for, because
I have been listening and I heard tell me I am wrong that the Leader of the
Opposition had called for this. I am
told maybe two years ago, I do not care when it was, but he asked for it.
I
understand that the Leader of the Third Party was supportive and asking for it
even though I am not sure about that.
I am wavering a little bit on that one.
We have a Premier who has gaged support for this throughout this
Province.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. HEDDERSON:
Let me start with the Leader
of the Opposition, the Leader of the Third Party, people in my district, and
people in districts throughout this Province tell me that it is not wanted.
Stand up and tell me it is not wanted.
I challenge them, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I
go back to our Premier who looked and listened, heard and acted.
A bold move, a very bold move, but one that I believe honestly the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador support 100 per cent.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON:
The majority obviously,
there are petitions coming forward from staffers and others.
I know there are people in this Province, there are people in my
district, who are questioning this.
There is no question about that. I
say to the people of this Province, you have to
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. HEDDERSON:
in a leadership role it
is all right in Opposition, you can say anything, you can think anything; but
when you are in government, you have to find a way to get things done that the
people of the Province need to have done.
I do not think there is anyone who can stand up and make a good argument
that we cannot reduce this House and still be an effective House, a democratic
House, a House that represents every person in this Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON:
I have gone through, myself,
one of these exercises and let me tell you, it is not easy, Mr. Speaker.
If everyone thinks that I am going to give up part of my district
willingly, forget it. I value each
and every one of the constituents that I have in my district.
In 1999,
I was elected to represent Harbour Main Whitbourne.
In 2006, a decision was made to change the boundaries.
I was disappointed, I was apprehensive, I was not accepting of the
results, because I had worked very, very hard to represent Whitbourne,
Makinsons, Clarke's Beach, and Brigus Junction.
In 2007, I had to go back and I had lost those communities.
They were gone elsewhere to two other jurisdictions.
So, Mr.
Speaker, to stand here and say, oh, it is going to be easy and so on and so
forth, it is not true. I feel for
the MHAs, I feel for the constituents, but guess what?
It came to pass; I got over my fit.
I realized that those communities were well-represented elsewhere, they
were accepting, and life went on. No
different than what is going to happen when the boundaries are reset and we do
have a general election in 2015. We
are going to have that. It is going
to pretty much fit into the original mandate of this government, which is four
years. Whoever wins is going to be
guaranteed four years whether it is September 1, September 20, whatever it is,
and life is going to go on. There
are going to be less members in here, and that is what we are debating now.
I
believe, honestly, that each and every one of us knows that is the right thing
to do. So the problem is the timing.
I heard some colleagues on both sides talking about the money part of it
and the savings part of it, the efficiency part of it and that sort of thing,
but the time has come in this Province for us to get this Legislature to a size
that truly fits the population of our Province.
It is something like, on average, 10,000 now.
We want to get it up to 15,000, give or take 25 per cent or 10 per cent.
So there is going to be great flexibility.
The
debate now is that where will we lie after this, the number and so on.
Then we are going to get a commission that is independent that is going
to carry it out. I will tell you,
those commissions work. I am sick
and tired of hearing from the Opposition about New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and
other jurisdictions. This is
Newfoundland and Labrador. We are in
control. We should know what we can
do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON:
There is no way if a
Newfoundlander or Labradorian says they are going to do something and takes on
that task, and it is the right person with the right qualifications, the job
will get done. I can guarantee that.
I will stand by that because the people will come from all the political
parties
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. HEDDERSON:
Yes, jabber away because I
have faith in you over there, believe it or not.
You are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
You can talk about things that were not done, but you are not talking
about things that we did accomplish in ten years.
I am very, very proud of what was accomplished in the ten years or eleven
years that we were here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON:
I do not want to go down
through the list because when I go down through the list, you say that is that
and that and that, but that is not where I want to be.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. HEDDERSON:
I do not care what happens to
me. Whether I get elected the next
time, whether I do not run the next time, whatever, I will go out of this
Legislature with my head held high, very proud of the accomplishments of this
government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON:
Very proud.
I
remember standing here one day, it was a stormy day in Labrador, December I do
not even know the date; I am not good at dates and announced the
Trans-Labrador Highway, be it under extreme conditions, was going to be opened.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I ask
the member to keep his comments relevant to Bill 42.
MR. HEDDERSON:
I closed it shortly after
because of the weather.
I
understand, Mr. Speaker. What I am
saying is that you can accomplish great things with the numbers that we have;
but whether it is forty-eight, forty-six, thirty-eight, if you have matched it
up to make sure that everything is represented, every person in this Province is
represented, you can accomplish great things as the government has done, like
opening the Trans-Labrador Highway.
All I am
saying is that we have laid out and I have trust in this Legislature; at the
end of this debate, I firmly believe that we will come to a consensus as to the
number, as to the conditions, as to how we move forward.
Then we will place it into the hands of what I believe will be a truly
independent committee, headed up by an independent Chair who is going to look at
the boundaries. The boundaries, once
you get to that number, you will be able to, with the modern technology and so
on, carry out what needs to be carried out, Mr. Speaker.
Again,
the debate continues. I am very,
very proud to say that I am part of it and that I will be fully supportive of it
as we move through. Again, to get
back to and I sort of got sidetracked there, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly
apologize for that; but you have to have a bit of passion in your body and you
also want to make sure that you stay awake and I hope I woke up someone there,
or got you on your toes.
Again I
go back to changes. Since 1999 to
this present day I have seen such a tremendous change in how we do business.
Basically in 1999 when I came in, my ear was rang off in the sense that
all contact just about was with a telephone.
Now if we get two or three calls a day, that is about it.
Everything else is in e-mails or Facebook or whatever the case might be.
Communications have changed.
The ability to get around this Province is getting better with each passing
year. We have the opportunity here
to make sure that we take in all of those variables and continue to bring
Newfoundland and Labrador into the twenty-first century and beyond.
During
the last decade or so, we have led the way in Canada in many other ways, and I
certainly would hope that what we do here will also make us a leader in
parliamentary reform. Not only are
we looking at the numbers, but also how we do business here, Mr. Speaker.
It is very, very important, I say to you.
I hear
from the other side that they are touching base with their constituents.
I have to admit that there is not much discussion in my district
concerning this. It is almost like a
given. I have rooted around here and
there as you usually do when you have anything on the floor of the House.
I have gotten some e-mails on both sides of it, but it worries me to some
degree. You often wonder is there
some degree of apathy out there because even in the media and that it does not
seem to be a contentious issue. It
is just one that is moving through the books as it is almost a given.
I say,
Mr. Speaker, that I have said my piece.
I think I have gotten everything that I wanted to say.
This Province has had a very rich history.
I also would like to mention that I am old enough to remember when there
were dual ridings here in this Province.
One of the first campaigns that I worked on was Doody and Dawe out in the
dual riding in, I think, Harbour Main Bell Island.
That was in my lifetime, obviously, in the early 1970s.
I think there were a couple of others around the Province.
I am not sure, but I think that was the last one of them.
We have
gone from less numbers to more numbers.
We are starting to slide backwards now.
This Chamber is dynamic in that we have to be able to accept change, and
not only accept it but make sure it happens at the most appropriate time.
I like the timing of this one, by the way, Mr. Speaker, I really do.
The
variable that is not talked about too much is the fixed election.
I served from 1999 to 2003, about four-and-a-half years, and after that
now it has been steady four years, four years, and four years.
If you remember, there was an election in 1993, 1996, and 1999.
The
fixed elections came in not so much, I guess, for any other reason but to make
sure that no government had that control that they could politically call.
I hear people talking about we brought fixed elections in for this
reason, but my understanding was that it would take away the power of the
government to call an election after three years or let it go to five years.
You have to have your plans in place and so on and so forth.
Any argument otherwise is really off the mark, I believe.
With the
fixed elections the ten years must fit into it.
That is something we have to consider now as we go forward to make sure
that our review is ten years going to be the one, or is it eight years or nine
years? You know what I am saying.
You need to do it and set it for the next time. That is something else
that should be given some consideration.
Like everything, you have to build into this Chamber the opportunity for
periodic reviews to make sure.
The
timing of this I like because I think, first of all, there is an appetite out
there in the general public and in our political parties to get this done.
Secondly, we can get it done within the period of time that has been
mapped out. Obviously I will admit
it is going to be pretty tight, but with regard to that I still believe firmly
that with the co-operation of all and perhaps even a little bit of luck
because you always have to throw that in there.
As we have learned even this January, you never know what is going to
happen today in politics. The
unexpected is the norm rather than the expected; there is no doubt about that.
I say,
Mr. Speaker, the timing is good. We
will get this done. A general
election will be called, a new Chamber will be assembled, and for four years
then we will go on. Naturally, you
have to look at the fact that, yes, there are going to be some savings
financially. I believe there are
going to be more efficiencies. You
are going to have to work on what kind of committee structure you have and that
sort of thing to match up with those numbers.
I am sure all that will fall into place.
Mr.
Speaker, I am going to leave it at that. I thank the House for giving me this
opportunity. I will again reiterate
my support for Bill 42.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Carbonear Harbour Grace.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SLADE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
First of
all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that it is indeed an honour for me to be
here representing the beautiful and historic District of Carbonear Harbour
Grace.
I have
sat here, Mr. Speaker, and I have listened to the members opposite and I
listened to the members on this side.
Of course we all have points to make here.
Like I said, I am indeed very proud to stand on my feet and bring some
issue to Bill 42.
Mr.
Speaker, Bill 42 is a piece of legislation that is meant to rearrange our
political structure by changing electoral boundaries across our Province on both
the Island and Labrador. It is
important to point out the process is already in place that ensures electoral
boundaries are reviewed and readjusted every ten years to reflect changes, if
any. The next review was supposed to
take place in 2016, only next year.
I did
hear my colleague here earlier tonight from Virginia Waters.
She was talking about a piece of work that came out of the 2006 district
boundaries committee. It was about
the same things I am going to say to you now.
The process was supposed to happen in 2016, and of course it needed to
happen. I heard the Member for
Virginia Waters saying that at one point in time the deputy mayor of Mount Pearl
put a submission into that committee.
He was
saying at that time you need to be eighteen months out or whatever.
In fact, he was not in favour of having it prior to the time.
That is the point I am trying to make on it.
He was not prepared to do that at all, just for the simple fact that it
was scheduled for the next year and he felt strongly that you will get better
information. Mr. Speaker, 2016 is a
census year, so then you would have the absolute truth on the numbers that
actually are there.
Mr.
Speaker, these reviews are meant to examine, amongst other things, whether or
not reductions or an increase in the seats are needed based on many factors,
especially our population. Given
that our population is dropping, the general consensus seems to be a seat
reduction for our Province would need to take place.
It is not the merits of the seat
reduction that is being largely debated.
Not many disagree with at least an examination of reducing the seats, and
therefore the members in the House of Assembly.
Mr.
Speaker, it is not a debate really about reducing the seats.
As members opposite would point out, they agree with it.
We agree that there should be some seat reduction, or at least let it go
to the commission and try to see if indeed they can do that.
The other part of it is, of course, why would you put an arbitrary number
on it of thirty-eight? Maybe it
needs to be forty-two. Maybe the
commission would come back and say less than thirty-eight.
That is the other thing, but at least we gave that committee a broad,
broad scope to be able to work within that, some being an arbitrary number, and
I do not know why.
I would
like to ask the question, why the number thirty-eight?
Was there a reason for that?
What was that based on? Mr. Speaker,
I would certainly like to know why that was done, indeed.
Most
boundary reviews are often described as a difficult undertaking, challenging and
complex. The new legislation
permitted this review is dictating the number of seats that should be reduced,
rather than allowing the commission to do this flexible work in coming to an
appropriate seat number after they had consulted and studied the issue more
carefully.
Mr.
Speaker, we have seen some of the work here by this government.
I will just mention Humber Valley, Bill 29, and things like that.
It is important to have the consultation process.
It is important that we use every avenue we can as MHAs and legislators
in this process.
What is
troubling about this new legislation is that it only states public consultations
will be limited. Now, Mr. Speaker, I
have a problem with that. We are
here on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I am of the
understanding there was going to be one public consultation down in Labrador and
there was going to be one here on the Island.
There
are many, many people in each and every one of our districts here who would like
to have that opportunity to have a public consultation.
I can assure you of that, Mr. Speaker.
I will tell you I am very big on the issue of people not only in my
district but in the districts of Newfoundland and Labrador, all over
Newfoundland and Labrador. It is
important we allow people an opportunity to have a public consultation with
them. People have something to say
here, Mr. Speaker. The forty-eight
of us should not determine that these people not have the opportunity to have a
chance to have that consultation.
Mr.
Speaker, I am after hearing from a lot of my constituents, and some are in
favour. Most are not in favour
because it is the timing of it. What
people are asking, of course, is why now?
Why didn't you leave it until 2016 when you had the census for that time
period? Why did you not do it at
that point in time? People do not
understand that. Mr. Speaker, I am
after having many, many e-mails on the subject many, many indeed.
When we
talk about Bill 42, there are a lot of issues there.
One, we want public consultations, certainly allowing people to have a
say into what happens in this House.
This House belongs to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
You and I, Mr. Speaker, are only sent here to represent those people.
What an MHA basically is, we are a servant of the people.
That is what I intend to stand here as, Mr. Speaker, and every chance to
have a public consultation should be given to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Our
democratic system is one of the most precious things we have to safeguard.
Safeguarding it means we have to be watchful of the ever most subtle
forms of subverting our democratic system.
First of all, by holding the review process early, the electoral
reconfiguration is cutting short a normal non-partisan process for determining
electoral seats.
The
biggest problem I have, of course, is the the minister who is supposed to be
leading this file is supposed to be Minister Manning.
I do not understand how this can be actually going ahead, Mr. Speaker.
People have a right to have a say.
People simply have a right to have a say.
Further,
Mr. Speaker, democratic representation should not be based on old data.
That is what I was referring to on the very first of it.
Like the Canadian census
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. SLADE:
Mr. Speaker, the census would
take place in 2016 also, giving us fresh, new information on exactly what the
population of Newfoundland and Labrador actually is, and does it need to be
rolled back. Do the seats need to be
rolled back?
Again,
like I said, everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador probably has an appetite for
cutting and reducing the MHAs. This
party over here is not disagreeing with that.
It is the process that we are coming to, Mr. Speaker, because I firmly
believe we need to take our time to do it, and do it properly.
That is my firm belief.
As I
said, I have had many, many conversations over the past week or so with many of
the constituents in my district.
Actually, some of them in yours, or close by yours.
People do not understand why this government at this point in time
maybe the House should have been called back for an emergency meeting talking
about the Budget, the shortfalls we are going to have in the Budget.
The price of oil is dropping, and has dropped.
Maybe we should have had that conversation.
Mr.
Speaker, a bad process means bad results.
A good process means good results.
A bad process means hasty conclusions, very limited or no conclusions,
limited examinations of the issues.
A good process means deliberations, detailed consultations, and issue
examination.
Mr.
Speaker, others question whether the timing of this has something to do with the
government, whether it is to their advantage or it is not to their advantage if
an election was held. I am after
being questioned on that. We just do
not understand where this is going.
Anyway,
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to speak my full twenty minutes.
I will sit down now. Mr.
Speaker, I can assure you the people in Newfoundland and Labrador do need those
consultations. They need the
opportunity to have those consultations.
Anything less than that is simply not good enough, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Littlejohn):
The hon. the
Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is
certainly a privilege and an honour for me to rise tonight and speak to Bill 42.
I am very pleased to say that I strongly support Bill 42.
I have
heard a lot from members opposite tonight about why has this come about now and
why the sudden rush. There is no
sudden rush. As members from this
side of the House will speak in turn tonight, we are going to talk about what
has happened in other provinces as well.
What can be achieved in Newfoundland and Labrador by our strong,
intelligent people is anything that we set our minds to, Mr. Speaker.
I am
going to start out talking about we heard tonight the Member for St. George's
Stephenville East. I was a little
confused because he seemed to be arguing somewhat about whether or not fewer
seats are even needed. One thing I
was absolutely certain of last week, based on the media coverage, was that all
three parties were indeed in support of a seat reduction.
In fact, I have right here a copy of a
CBC News clip on January 12 that says
Slash 8 House of Assembly seats, says Dwight Ball.
We just listened, it said Dwight Ball and it is right here on January
12 on CBC, Liberal Leader
says he loves the idea of reducing the number of
seats
.
MR. A. PARSONS:
A point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Burgeo La Poile, on a point of order.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I just ask that the member
use the Leader of the Official Opposition.
We know that we cannot use names.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS PERRY:
My apologies.
All right, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
He said,
he loves the idea of reducing the number of seats
.
So we are all very much in agreement with that, Mr. Speaker.
One
thing that has baffled me in the debate, and we just heard it again from the
Member for Carbonear Harbour Grace, why put an arbitrary number on it?
Why the number thirty-eight?
To that question I counter, why the number forty because their leader had
obviously stated forty seats. So the
difference between forty and thirty-eight is two.
MR. A. PARSONS:
A point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
A point of order.
The hon.
Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Again, I would just ask that
if the member is going to refer to comments by the Leader of the Official
Opposition, that she use the entire quote and saying that it could be forty, it
could be more, it could be less, and it should be done by an independent
commission. I just hope that it can
be quoted properly here in the House.
That is all.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS PERRY:
I am not quoting that quote
verbatim (inaudible) verbatim starting at the opening of the quotation, 'I've
been on record as saying that I believe we can do it with 40 seats or less,'
said Ball. It is a direct quote
from the article, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
I remind the hon. member to
not use proper names.
MS PERRY:
I will put away the reference
to the quotes now, Mr. Speaker, but I just wanted to indicate that was indeed a
factual media report from January 12.
So why
is it okay for the Leader of the Opposition to say forty or less, and they do
not argue, but if we say thirty-eight they argue?
I just find it a little bit baffling, and I am at a loss to understanding
some of the logic there.
Moving
on, all political parties are going to be impacted by the reduction of seats in
the House of Assembly. This is not
about politics; this is very much about the fiscal situation that we find
ourselves in in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador today.
It is not a fiscal situation that any of us saw coming.
As the
Minister of Finance eloquently pointed out today, this time last year our
economy was doing very well. This
time last summer our economy was doing very well.
No one, globally, saw the fall in oil prices coming to the extent that it
has. As a government, we have a
responsibility now to address the shortfall that we are going to be finding in
our Budget. To do anything else, Mr.
Speaker, would be completely irresponsible, in my opinion.
The
Member for Virginia Waters, during her speech, questioned what the intention is
of moving with this bill now. I
would say, Mr. Speaker, two, three months ago we were all here, and I will bring
everyone's memory back to sitting in the House and the constant, frequent calls
for when is the financial fiscal update going to come.
We were not able to deliver that until we could really pin down what was
happening.
We
delivered the update in early December.
The oil prices continued to slide past that date, Mr. Speaker.
Now we are in even a more dire fiscal situation as the price of oil
continues to plummet. We have to
address that shortfall. I personally
and strongly believe the very best place to start is to look at ourselves and to
look at the efficiencies that have to be found.
Why not start with ourselves, especially when everyone is in agreement?
This
would not have come about, Mr. Speaker, probably with such urgency if there was
not a severe Budget deficit problem that we face.
The member indicated, do not do it now; it is an election year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS PERRY:
Do not do it now because it
is an election year, but that is what is probably bothering them, I do not know.
It is
not about it being an election year, Mr. Speaker, as I said just now.
This will impact all of us, all parties, and probably not in good ways.
We have a responsibility to the people of the Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador and $10 million is no small chunk of change; $10 million on the
face of it, and we have not even factored in what the cost of the accrued
pensions would be, so I would venture to say $10 million is a very conservative
figure in terms of the actual savings that will be realized as a result of the
cost-saving measures. We are sure
going to be looking at all aspects of the House of Assembly and all aspects of
government, as our Premier has clearly indicated to us.
The
severe Budget deficit is the reason this has come about, Mr. Speaker.
In order to have this in place in time for the next election, we must
address getting the committee in place today, because there is time to do it and
we can have this done in time for October 2015.
When I
look at all the hoist motions that have already taken place and will continue to
take place, and as the Member for St. Barbe told us in our last sitting, it
costs $22,000 a minute, I shake my head at why are we continuing to drag it out.
To me, there is an intentional effort to drag this out through the hoist
efforts. That, in turn, is maybe
their intention, to slow down the committee process so it cannot be done before
the next election. I do not know.
We are all trying to figure out angles.
What is their angle? I do not
know.
I have
to say that I cannot figure out why all of a sudden now they seem to be opposed
to cutting seats. The global
challenges that are facing the world as a whole makes it absolutely imperative
in my opinion that we find cost savings, and that includes the House of
Assembly.
Mr.
Speaker, when we look at workloads for MHAs across the Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador, I think probably that is one of the reasons why maybe all of us
agree there is recognition that there is a difference.
I look at the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair and the Member for
Torngat Mountains, and I consider them similar to myself in terms of the
geography that we have to cover, the vast number of communities that we have in
our various districts.
For
example, my former colleague, a former minister in the House, Dave Denine, him
and I would often chat about the difference in our workloads; the difference in
his district versus mine; how much he had to do versus what I had to do; how
long it took him to travel his district versus how long it takes me to travel my
district. He could walk, Mr.
Speaker, he told me, from one end of his district to the other in one hour.
In
contrast, if you look at Fortune Bay Cape La Hune it takes three days to
travel my district and then I am only in and out; I am not spending any amount
of quality time with people because the geography is so very spread out.
Another difference that I would say that we face, as rural members, we do
not have the Confederation Building within walking distance or within a
half-an-hour drive.
A lot of
people in cities, in my opinion, are quite capable and do come directly to the
various government offices and resolve problems on their own.
In contrast, in rural areas like where I am situated, we are government,
we are the Department of Health, we are the Department of Child, Youth and
Family Services, and we are the Department of Education.
Any person who has an issue with any department often comes to our door.
We are very happy to help them in any way, shape, or form we can; but my
workday, I would challenge, is much longer.
When the
House of Assembly is open, Mr. Speaker, myself and I am sure members from other
rural, remote areas like me, we go home on Fridays.
It takes us all day to get there.
We spend Friday nights travelling our district, meeting with
constituents. We spend Saturdays and
Saturday nights doing the same thing.
We spend Sundays driving back to town.
I have,
in the last seven years, often worked eighty consecutive days straight, Mr.
Speaker, something I thoroughly enjoy doing, something I hope to continue doing
for a great deal of time longer, because I really enjoy the difference that we
make in people's lives by helping them resolve their individual problems.
I am sure that my former colleague would say to me, I could take 5,000
more people easily and my workload would not change significantly.
Do I
think there is room for fewer seats?
Absolutely. Do I think we should
look at urban areas as well as rural?
Absolutely. Now, of course,
we have to factor in all of the constitutional issues and the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees every citizen the right to vote.
As the Minister of Finance talked about the other day, parity of voting
power has been found to be of prime importance for effective representation as
required by the guarantee under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
There is
a provision for a 10 per cent variance and in some cases a 25 per cent variance.
Of course, in the case of Torngat Mountains it is closer to 50 per cent.
There is recognition of geography.
There is recognition of unique histories, cultural differences,
historical ties, and community interaction, Mr. Speaker.
When I
look at how some of the boundaries are lined, it baffles me how some members in
the same town one member has this side of the street, another member has that
side of the street. Certainly, more
efficiency can be found and we can look at ways of grouping those populations to
be better served, Mr. Speaker, by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The
question I would ask when the members opposite say to us, why rush?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS PERRY:
The question I would
challenge and counter to that, Mr. Speaker, is why wait?
We know we are in a dire financial situation.
We know we are going to be looking for about at least half a billion
probably in savings that have to be found to make things more efficient.
You
might say, puff, $10 million across the way.
They say what is $10 million?
You do not need to save $10 million.
Yes, we do, Mr. Speaker; $10 million saved from salaries and pensions in the
House of Assembly is much better spent in my opinion, and I feel quite strongly
about it, on lifesaving cancer drugs.
It is much better spent on keeping our community youth networks in place,
Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
I remind the member to speak
to the bill, please.
MS PERRY:
All right.
I am tying the boundary seat back to the Budget.
Because the reason we are here today discussing the boundary change prior
to October 2015 is because it is very important, one of many very important
cost-cutting measures that have to take place if we are going to guide our
Province successfully and prosperously through tough fiscal times.
That is the situation we are in today, Mr. Speaker, tough fiscal times.
Every
penny we can find that will have minimal impact on the services to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador is where we are going to look first, Mr. Speaker.
We know we are all strong people on both sides of the House; everyone
here is a good representative for their district.
We know that as our districts grow and change we will continue to be
excellent representatives for our districts, Mr. Speaker, so this will have very
minimal impact on the services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We will continue to excel in the service we provide to them as MHAs.
In my opinion, this is one of the very best places to start looking for
some of these cuts.
The
longer we stay here in the House of Assembly, the longer it is going to take to
get the committee in place. I do
worry sometimes that there may be an intentional hoist to keep us here longer to
slow this down. That I think is very
irresponsible. The people of this
Province are entitled to have a government that is efficient and effective and
gets down to business and focuses on the task at hand, and I for one strongly
believe
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I ask
all hon. members on both sides of the House if we could have some attention to
the speaker. The speaker has
something important to say, and I ask all hon. members to give her the respect
she deserves.
Thank
you.
The hon.
the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS PERRY:
I was told I was going to get
heckled a lot before I stood up, Mr. Speaker.
I
strongly believe that we must do this before the election, Mr. Speaker, because
if we do not, who is to say when it will get done.
In 2019, hypothetically, yes, but a lot of things can happen over that
time. Do you know what?
Maybe by 2019 oil prices will be back, we will have identified new
industries, and our economy will be stronger than ever.
If the public of Newfoundland and Labrador at that time come to
government and say we want more representatives, I am sure the government of the
day will certainly contemplate that, Mr. Speaker.
From the
discussions I have had with most people, there is absolutely full agreement.
Do you know what? There is
probably a little bit of room to save some money in the House of Assembly.
When we get to the Budget, Mr. Speaker, talk about it being an election
year; do not do this in an election year.
A lot of times you hear in an election year that there is going to be an
election Budget. This year, Mr.
Speaker, I do not think we are going to see an election Budget.
MR. SPEAKER:
I remind the hon. member we
are speaking to Bill 42.
MS PERRY:
Back to the Budget again,
okay.
I tie my
comments back into Bill 42 again, Mr. Speaker, because this bill and why we are
here today has come about in large part because we are attempting to tackle the
Budget in the most prudent, fiscally responsible way.
We believe we can start doing that right here in our own House.
To do anything else, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, would be totally
irresponsible.
I am
absolutely strongly in support of this bill.
I am absolutely confident that thirty-eight representatives in the House
of Assembly will represent the constituents of Newfoundland and Labrador to the
very best of their abilities and the people will see no decline in services.
They will, however, have the opportunity to hopefully argue to be able to
keep something in health care or keep something in another area of the Budget
because of the savings we will be realizing from these thirty-eight seats.
Bearing
in mind of course, like I talked about a little while ago, workload and
efficiencies, right now I do believe there is a disparity.
Rural members I think sometimes have a much heavier workload.
Looking to my district, I have fourteen municipalities, I have fourteen
fire departments, and I have three ferries, for example.
Again, being the one person who represents all departments in a region,
as compared to some urban members who have no fire departments, no potholes, and
no roads.
All of
this needs to be taken into consideration, I believe, by the commission.
Workloads, population, and cost are all very important.
We will find efficiencies in the House of Assembly.
There will be more to come in terms of efficiencies in the House of
Assembly. This I do believe is a
great start, very responsible.
We are
listening to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who have long talked about
there probably being too much fat in the House of Assembly.
We are tackling that issue, Mr. Speaker.
We are doing it responsibly.
We look forward to the support of members opposite to make sure that the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador do not have to suffer unnecessarily with Budget
cuts because we are looking at our own House first.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for The
Straits White Bay North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
listened quite intently to the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune in her
debate and what she had talked about.
It sounded like she felt she had an overburdened, heavy workload
representing the people of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
I
represent a rural district as well.
I have thirty-five communities that I represent; eleven municipalities, fourteen
unincorporated communities, and ten local service districts.
It is scattered over a large geographical area, but I am very happy.
I am very proud to represent the people, and that the people of The
Straits White Bay North selected me to be their voice.
I am the youngest Member of the House of Assembly, still in my twenties.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
I think we have a lot of
diversity in this House, spanning a lot of years, urban, rural, gender, and
culture. That is what is really
important. We all bring differing
views sometimes because we are representing different geographical areas.
We are that voice from that particular area.
What I bring forward today will be speaking from the perspective of the
district, from a caucus perspective on what we have put forward.
I was in
the building in the early hours on Friday before this announcement came down
that Bill 42 on election boundaries would be put before the House of Assembly
not knowing I would be returning in just a few hours after I had left.
This is the commitment that you take as a member.
You are representing the people.
No matter how short the notice is or what the call, you have to rise and
answer that call.
A lot of
members here have talked about social media, talked about technology, and how
technology improvements can help us do our job better.
Those who know me know I like Twitter.
On Friday morning I found out that the House of Assembly would likely
open next week, Friday morning on Twitter through a news outlet saying that the
House would likely open and we will have legislation on this.
I was on an airplane at the time I got that message.
I managed to get off that airplane so that I could be here and represent
the people of The Straits White Bay North and put forward that view.
Technology is a wonderful thing. I
remember having conversations with past members who represented my district, Ed
Roberts being an example, and how back in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s the
population was higher on the Great Northern Peninsula.
We have seen a lot of poor policy decisions made by this particular
government that have not created the economy that is needed to bolster that
population growth. It is not just
the Great Northern Peninsula; there are many other areas of the Province.
Getting
back to technology and how it has changed, the former MHA, Mr. Ed Roberts, used
to draft letters and sometimes that would take days.
Now things are communicated pretty instantaneously.
People want access to their MHAs more and more and so they should.
We have
e-mail, we have Facebook, we have Twitter, and we have other alternatives of
which we reach out. By doing that
and by the technological advancements that exist, the expectation of being able
to respond quicker is there as well.
That also increases the expectation of the constituent.
Whether you have a small number or a large number, that workload is
there. With the technology
advancement or not, you are still going to continue to see an increased level of
work that is going to be put forward by an MHA, all MHAs, whether they represent
a rural district, or whether they represent an urban district, or whether they
represent Labrador.
Some of
the biggest challenges that we still face, though, when it comes to technology
is that technology is not equal. You
can look at some of the rural districts very close to the metropolitan area that
do not have cell coverage. There are
areas very close to the city that do not have high-speed Internet.
There are over 200 still in Newfoundland and Labrador that do not have
that access right now. There are a
lot of people. There are
limitations.
I can go
into the community of Conche and be unreachable for that day because there is no
cell coverage. There is no way for
people to reach me or if I go into Croque.
You are off the grid and that happens for other people.
That was something that was talked about.
I wanted to put the technology piece out there.
The
Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune said we are debating this legislation,
Bill 42, and it is going to impact all parties.
Her words were: probably not in good ways.
Those were her words. That is
what she said. She is going to vote
for a piece of legislation that is probably going to impact everybody, but not
in good ways. When we are in this
House of Assembly we look at good legislation.
That is why we have looked at what we have had
MS PERRY:
A point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
A point of order.
The hon.
Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS PERRY:
I was referring, Mr. Speaker,
to us from a political point of view in that we, as colleagues, may have a
divide against each other for the same areas because there would be thirty-eight
seats instead of forty. That is what
I meant.
MR. SPEAKER:
There is no point of order.
The hon.
the Member for The Straits White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have
no problem with seeing a reduced number of seats in the House of Assembly, but I
think the issue that we have is how this has come forward.
The Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune has said this is budgetary.
She went on quite lengthy in her conversation around the Budget and how
there has to be at least $500 million in Budget cuts.
Yesterday the Premier confirmed that Newfoundland and Labrador is in a financial
crisis and recalled this House. It
was done in haste so that it could deal with this one single matter which is
Bill 42. It was further announced
that the Budget would be delayed.
Last
year, and when the mid-year financial update came in, it said that the Province
is facing a $1 billion deficit and had to borrow $1 billion.
You can only borrow and have deficits for so long before you do really
have a real problem.
MR. SPEAKER:
I ask the hon. member to speak to the
bill please.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Sure.
Instead what we are seeing here today in this House of Assembly is Bill
42, which is presented in a real dictatorial fashion where it asks MHAs to
support cutting this House from forty-eight to thirty-eight.
Whereas our caucus has made very clear that a better approach, if this is
going to be done because this government has the majority.
It brings the legislation in and it can pass whatever rules and laws it
likes. It can use its majority.
If it wants to, it can.
Members like the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune say this can have a
negative impact; it can impact her in not good ways.
That is what was just said.
MS PERRY:
Mr. Speaker, a point of
order.
MR. SPEAKER:
A point of order, the hon.
the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS PERRY:
As I clarified, the point I
was making was, are they worried about political concerns?
From a political point of view the only worry we would have, and impact,
would be that there will be thirty-eight or us instead of forty-eight of us.
In some areas we may have to vie against each other for the same seat.
MR. SPEAKER:
There is no point of order.
The hon.
the Member for The Straits White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
certainly must be striking a nerve with the member opposite on all of these
points of order. I only have twenty
minutes in debate.
I will
continue to make my points, though, that we as a party had put forward a range
because a range is not dictatorial.
It allows the commission to look at the geographical nature of our Province.
It also looks at the variance in population.
It also looks at differing changes.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Just for the record I will
read out what the population census of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune is.
It is 7,375, basically half of what the Premier is proposing for an
electoral district.
If we
look at where we are right now, and the Finance Minister had talked about this,
our population density per square kilometre, we are only 1.4.
We are more similar to Saskatchewan, which has 1.8.
Well, let's put in context that we have 1.4 people per square kilometer
based on the census of 2011.
On the
South Coast of this Province we only have a population density of 0.8, very few
people, a huge geography. On the
Northern Peninsula it is the same thing, 1.2, very small.
If we
look at the other Legislatures in the country that have less members, they are
at 24.7 in population density. If we
look at other areas of Newfoundland and Labrador based on census divisions, the
Avalon Peninsula fares above that average for Prince Edward Island and it is
28.5 in population. In other areas
it ranges between 0.1 in Labrador, all the way up to 4.0 in terms of population.
Newfoundland and Labrador certainly does work with challenges and I think that
is important to recognize. I would
not want to discredit the work that members in urban areas do, even though they
would be close to the vicinity of access to this building and to other offices.
For the
Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune to say that her office or an MHA's office
in a rural area is the Health Department, is the Justice Department, it is every
department, it shows that certainly there is something wrong in the system.
It is pointing blame, basically, that those who are doing the work, those
civil servants, she is basically saying they are not doing their job.
I have more faith in the public
MS PERRY:
A point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
On a point of order, the hon.
the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS PERRY:
Again, I have to clarify.
I was referencing the fact that we do not have as many government offices
in our rural areas. We have some,
but certainly not every department of government is located in every rural
region of the Province.
MR. SPEAKER:
There is no point of order.
The hon.
the Member for The Straits White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say
the member opposite had her twenty minutes; I hope she will give me the courtesy
for mine. She could have clearly
said that in her twenty minutes.
Getting
back to this piece of legislation that has been put before the House, there was
little evidence that there has been any research, or very little, on this matter
as to when the idea came down. The
legislation was not drafted on Friday because it was not available.
Then it came with an error, and now we are here.
We have been debating this in the House throughout the week.
The
unelected Justice Minister noted that presentations and boxes that we finally
received after being requested from the Mahoney Commission were in storage, and
they were not reviewed by the Justice department.
It certainly was not twenty boxes.
AN HON. MEMBER:
How many did you get?
MR. MITCHELMORE:
We got a couple of boxes.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Two.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Two boxes.
So it is certainly not a thorough process.
I believe in the philosophy that if you do not know where you came from,
you do not know really where you are going, so you need to look it.
There is
no evidence to support the particular number of thirty-eight to show that you
can have a fully functioning House of Assembly supported by committees and other
related works. Obviously, this was
done in haste. That is why we, as
the Official Opposition, our caucus, took time to review the legislation and see
how it can be improved.
We put
forward a couple of reasoned amendments thus far and we will continue to put
forward amendments to enhance this legislation, because hastily drafting
legislation makes way for errors. I
only need to mention Bill 29 and the Abitibi bill expropriation.
MR. SPEAKER:
I remind the hon. member to
speak to the bill, please.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Sure.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There is
a due process, and this was scheduled to occur in 2016 when there would have
been updated census information. It
is clear to the public that this is not really about saving $2 million a year;
it is really just desperation.
As I
said earlier, I support a reduction in seats in the Legislature.
I believe it can be done. I
do not believe, though, that an arbitrary number can be dictated is the best
approach, as presented by this government.
It is certainly not very democratic.
Back to
thirty-eight MHAs, and I have been conducting some research on this.
Let's look at the history.
From 1962 to 1972 there were four general elections, and the seat count at that
time was forty-two members. I go
back to the last time the census was done prior to those elections.
In 1971 now I hope people are listening to this.
In 1971, with forty-two seats, our population was 522,100.
It is very similar to what we have today.
Prior to 1962, less than 460,000 people lived in Newfoundland and
Labrador, with representation of thirty-six members.
Looking
at turning back the clock almost fifty years, this is what this government is
looking at doing, turning back the time about fifty years in the Legislature
when we had a population much smaller, with a number like thirty-eight.
I do not feel that number could be and as the Member for Fortune Bay
Cape La Hune talked about the Leader of the Official Opposition and used a
statement.
Well,
you can use a statement, and you can use the context of what was said based on
the interview, but the Leader of the Official Opposition has said, and has said
since March: Personally, that number could be forty.
It could function with forty, but it could be more or it could be less.
I do feel that number should not be and that is why this draft
legislation can be improved, but this government has a majority and will choose
to use it however it wants.
We have
seen it before where bills have been passed where people of the Province do not
want them, like the monopoly bill, the monopoly bill we passed that limits
innovation to energy such as wind and feed-in tariffs and all these types of
things. It is a little bit
draconian, actually. In the last
three years I have seen a lot of poor policy come from this government.
As the Member for Conception Bay South said, I believe it was: garbage
in, garbage out. We need to see
better policy.
The
Office of Public Engagement which, when we look at a technology perspective,
released a lot of datasets today.
They released datasets about population, population projections.
Now, that is something that is important.
If we are projecting population, we are making decisions based on a
quotient of the population and geography.
I took
some time as the MHA for the Official Opposition responsible for the Office of
Public Engagement, and I downloaded that dataset.
The dataset goes to 2035.
Now, if anybody is interested in looking at that dataset, they will find it is
the most useless piece of information that government has put forward on that
Open Government Initiative. It has
368,000 lines on it, 368,000 lines in an excel spreadsheet.
It is not in useable format.
This
government is clearly not listening to the people when it says it is making
things more available. Well, you can
make things available, but if it is garbage information out and it is not in a
useable format than groups are not going to be able to use it.
If you look at the other datasets that were put forward, it is completely
put in a way that is not user friendly and it will be irrelevant.
I hope
the Minister for the Office of Public Engagement, the Deputy Premier, will
certainly listen to my commentary because I look back and I look at this
presentation that was put forward back in 2006 about information.
This was submitted by the City of Mount Pearl on electoral boundaries
AN HON. MEMBER:
What?
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Yes, submitted by the City of
Mount Pearl, put forward by the deputy mayor at the time.
I think he has moved up to another deputy position here in the Province
right now. It states: It would be
more timely and effective if the timing of the review talking about the
electoral boundaries was to happen eighteen months after a census.
The last
census happened in 2011. We got the
information a little bit later, so eighteen months after that.
That is when this review should take place, not just months before an
election. It says: The new
information from the census should be as current as reasonably possible and
would assist in determining more accurate population in each district because
people do move around and things really do change.
Having good information is really important.
One
thing I have a big concern about is getting this work done in the timeline.
This government says it can do it in 120 days.
It says the commission can do it in 120 days, when everywhere else in the
country it has never been done in an election year.
It has never been done in 120 days, and every other province has done
this.
Other
provinces, like Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, have done electoral boundaries.
Some of them have faced court challenges.
In the case of Nova Scotia, the New Democratic Party did not agree with
the commission. They rejected their
report and sent it back. There are
processes in place where they can say, no, we do not agree.
We want it our way. That is
what the government says.
I would
hope that this government can live up to its word and get this work done in the
timeline so that it does not delay the general election, which there is supposed
to be a fixed election date. This
government put forward the legislation, so let's see if that will happen.
I only hope that they can live up to their words
because there are a lot of other promises and a lot of other words that they
have said for the Great Northern Peninsula and the other people of the Province
that they have not kept. They have
been poor fiscal managers and they have been poor leaders of this Province.
This year's Budget will clearly show that.
I have a lot of opposition right now to this
legislation, as it currently is.
Thank you for the time, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Baie Verte Springdale.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
POLLARD:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, I am certainly delighted to stand in this
hon. House to represent the people of the Province and represent the people for
the District of Baie Verte Springdale.
I always consider it a privilege and an honour to do so.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier is on record that he would do
three initiatives or three things to initiate House of Assembly reform.
One of these he said already is the review of the MHA pension plan to
my knowledge, it has been started two is modernize the procedures to make the
House of Assembly proceedings more effective and more efficient; and, of course,
the third one, which we are here this evening debating, he would take immediate
review and reduction of electoral districts from forty-eight seats to
thirty-eight seats. Hence, we have
the bill, Bill 42, An Act to Amend the Electoral Boundaries Act.
Mr. Speaker, not only will this step be huge savings,
these three initiatives will be huge savings, but equally more important is that
this reform will ensure that the House of Assembly will be more effective and
more efficient in the service of the people of the Province.
Saving $10 million over four years is not
insignificant. I submit to you, Mr.
Speaker, that it is very significant, especially in this fiscal climate in which
we all face, over which we never had any control over.
This move shows strong, prudent, bold leadership, that it is not afraid
to act when action is required. When
tough times come, you cannot hide behind a rock; a leader has to stand up to the
plate. Everyone appreciates strong
leadership; everyone in this Province expects strong leadership.
Anyone can lead when times are good.
We still do have a strong economy, Mr. Speaker.
We have a robust and a vibrant economy.
This Premier demonstrated already that he is prepared
to lead by example how? Well, he
is not going to wait to see which way the winds are going to blow first and then
take a stance. We are not prepared
to lead from behind. This Premier,
this government, is prepared to look internally first, look at our own house,
and take care of our own business first; like the hon. the Member for Terra
Nova, lead by example, look inward, and then we take some action outward as
well.
That is what good leadership is all about, Mr. Speaker,
when there are tough times. You
assess situations from all angles; you then assume a position.
You stick to your guns, especially when it is the right thing to do, it
is the prudent thing to do, and it is the most responsible thing to do.
In my six years I am going on seven years now,
basically, this summer, as an MHA.
Every now and then I hear throughout the district and, of course, all around the
Province, cut the number of seats they say in the House of Assembly; too many
MHAs in there. Well, now that the
Premier is taking action because now is not in line with their philosophy, the
Opposition is saying no, no, hang on a second now; that may not be the right
thing to do.
It was the right thing to do two weeks ago, three weeks
ago, a year ago, and two years ago.
That is fickle, Mr. Speaker. We
cannot have it both ways. We cannot
have our cake and eat it too, so we cannot have that both ways.
I would submit and ask the question: Why not now?
They ask: Why now? I ask: Why
not now? What precipitated this move
in this first place, Mr. Speaker?
We all know, number one, representation is very
important to each person in this Province no doubt, Mr. Speaker, it is very,
very important. Compared to other
provinces, we rank very, very well.
Some provinces have 16,000, 17,000 average in their districts; in our case, we
have an average of 3,200, 5,000, 6,000, 8,000, 9,000, 10,000.
In my district I believe it is somewhere around 11,700.
Even after reducing the seats, Mr. Speaker, we still
have only 13,000 or 14,000 on average per district, so that is not an
overwhelming burden and overwhelming task.
Yes, it is added responsibility.
We all know that, Mr. Speaker.
We all knocked on doors, we all put up our hands to do this job, and I am
sure every MHA here is going to be willing to step up to the plate and do the
work that is required. I have no
doubt, Mr. Speaker.
This still leaves us, as a Province, ranking very well.
I would have some grave problems if every MHA is going to represent
100,000 people, but we are still only averaging 13,000 or 14,000 per district.
This still leaves us, as a Province,
ranking very well compared to the rest of Canada.
All political parties are going to be impacted by this,
there is no question, by this reduction of seats.
This is not self-serving. How
is this self-serving? Ten of us,
basically, are going to lose our jobs.
It is simple, Mr. Speaker. I
do not want to lose my job. It is
not easy. Some of us will lose our
jobs. They love their job.
I love my job. We all love
our jobs, Mr. Speaker.
I have no idea how the electoral boundaries commission
will carve out the Province into thirty-eight districts.
They are independent. They
will do their work, so why not now?
Why wait? If not now, when is a good
time? If you wait until 2016, as
they espouse and propose, reduction would not occur until 2019.
That makes ten MHAs in here redundant, Mr. Speaker.
Imagine, in here for three years, redundant, laying ducks, Mr. Speaker.
What influence are we going to have?
What are the constituents how would they look at you, me, or anybody
else if we are considered redundant?
This sudden drop in oil prices blindsided everybody.
This is not a Newfoundland problem; this is global.
Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, all oil exporting countries, all the
experts could not predict this sudden nosedive in the oil prices, causing
instability and you name it and speculation all around the world.
This is not unique just to Newfoundland and Labrador; this is a global
issue.
MR.
SPEAKER:
I
remind the hon. member to speak to the bill, please.
MR.
POLLARD:
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
In times like these a responsible, prudent government
takes bold action. Government leads
in times of instability. We are
required to make adjustments right now.
We are required to take bold steps to sustain a good, strong economic
stance. We are accountable to the
people of the Province. People in
tough times expect and demand strong, smart, prudent management of all the
resources.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want my District of Baie Verte
Springdale to be carved up, but I have no control over that.
I am sure every MHA feels the same way about their respective districts
because they love their districts; they made relationships with the people that
they have been representing the last one year, two years, three years or ten
years.
It has to happen for the good of the Province.
I am ready to take on more responsibility, should I be fortunate enough
to win the PC nomination again and ultimately be the MHA for that new district,
which I have to fight for, like everybody else.
I am ready to do that.
What is the motive?
They say, well, it is an ulterior motive.
I submit to them, the motive is just strong, prudent management, strong
leadership, fiscally prudent, and just fair representation for the people of the
Province, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
KIRBY:
A
point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
A
point of order, the hon. Member for St. John's North.
MR.
KIRBY:
Mr.
Speaker, if this government wanted fiscal prudence, they would cut the size of
the Cabinet, not increase the size of the Cabinet.
They would get rid of those five parliamentary secretaries that we do not
need, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
There is not point of order.
The hon.
the Member for Baie Verte Springdale.
MR. POLLARD:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Premier does not appoint the commission or the chair of the boundaries
commission. The government does not
appoint any commissioners. If the
government did, we certainly would be skeptical, Mr. Speaker.
The
commissioners will be independent. I
take comfort in that, Mr. Speaker.
We feel that, again, 120 days is ample time for the job to be done.
MR. A. PARSONS:
A point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Burgeo La Poile on a point of order.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I just have to
point this out to the member opposite. I
hope he is clear that the government does actually appoint people to the
commission.
MR. SPEAKER:
There is no point of order.
The hon.
the Member for Baie Verte Springdale.
MR. POLLARD:
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing
sinister here going to take place.
This is the seventh time a commission has been struck to work on electoral
boundaries. In 1973, there were
fifty-one seats. In 1983, there were
fifty-two. In 1993, there were
forty-four. In 1995, there were
forty-eight seats. In 2003, there
were forty-eight seats. In 2006,
there were forty-eight seats.
The
precedent is already set, Mr. Speaker.
There is a process already laid out in legislation so it is not a
sinister process. In order to
complete its work, the act gives the commission the power to employ the
resources that they need, whatever they require.
Any technical expertise, they can have it.
For
example, this was the composition of the commission in 2006.
The legal counsel to the commission was one, technical support.
Then you had an administrative officer.
That is two. Then you had a
cartographer, number three, to provide mapmaking services.
Then you had one from the Newfoundland and Labrador Statistics Agency.
That is where the extra staff was, Mr. Speaker.
Then you had the five members who comprised the commission.
I am
confident that 120 days is ample time because that commission will be given all
kinds of expertise and resources to do their job well, Mr. Speaker.
There is nothing sinister going on here.
The act is simply a mechanism for the review and amendment of the
electoral boundaries in Newfoundland and Labrador.
The act lays out a process to follow.
It is quite clear.
The
chief justice selects the chairperson and the Speaker appoints four other
members. They will be qualified,
professional people, Mr. Speaker, like the 2006 commission which was comprised
of the hon. John O'Neill, who was chair.
The vice-chair was Robert Aylward.
Then we had three commissioners: you had Julie Eveleigh, you had Roger
Grimes, and you had Cle Newhook.
These were the five people who comprised the commission in 2006, chaired by the
hon. John O'Neill, a chief judge.
I have
no problem with the number as well, Mr. Speaker.
The commission needs some boundaries.
The commission needs some information, a framework to do their work.
You have to tell them is it thirty-eight seats, is it forty seats, is it
forty-two seats, is it thirty seats, or is it twenty seats?
Since
1973, every government gave a commission a number that the commission could use
as a template to work with, Mr. Speaker. There is nothing sinister there as
well. I have no problem with the
number. The precedent is already set
with other previous governments and previous legislation.
Mr.
Speaker, just to give you an example of some of the things that could take place
when it comes to a district and how it could be carved up I just went out on
the highway here. In 1952 in my
district, for example, in years gone by, White Bay had a member and Green Bay
had a member. In 1957 it was then
carved up into White Bay North, it was carved up into White Bay South, and Green
Bay. That was three members.
Then in 1972 it was renamed Baie Verte White Bay, and then Green Bay.
That was two members.
In 1996
you had another district called Baie Verte only, and then there was another one
called Windsor Springdale. Then in
2007 you had Baie Verte Springdale.
I said that to say that I have no idea which district is going to be
carved up. That is an example right
there. All we have to do is just
have confidence in the independent commission, Mr. Speaker
Before I
conclude, I want to ask one question and I will give the answer, Mr. Speaker.
How will these amendments change the
process from the last commission in 2006?
Number one, first under the current act the next commission would be
appointed in 2016 and would provide their report by the end of that calendar
year. These amendments would require
the commission to report in 2015.
Secondly, the commission will be required to divide the Province into
thirty-eight one-member districts as opposed to the current forty-eight.
Thirdly, once the chief justice has appointed a chairperson, the Speaker
will be required to appoint the four remaining members within five days as
opposed to as expeditiously as possible under the current act.
Number
four, the 2015 commission will be permitted to use the latest available census
population figures from Statistics Canada regardless of when they are taken, as
opposed to data available as of March 31 as required by the current act.
Fifthly, the commission will be required
to report to the Minister of Justice and Public Safety within 120 days from the
appointment of the chairperson as opposed to reporting by the end of the
calendar year, as was required by the current Act.
Mr.
Speaker, just before I sit down, I heard the hon. member over there saying that
it cannot be done because it was never done before.
If Thomas A. Edison, or Alexander Graham Bell or if Neil Armstrong said
I cannot land on the moon because it was not done before, he would not have had
the vision.
Mr.
Speaker, we were leaders. I thank
you very much for the opportunity to speak to this bill.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber East.
MR. FLYNN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Back
some years ago I had the privilege to serve on a health board.
We had made some decisions that drastically affected patients in the
system. To be quite honest with you,
I was rather concerned about the decisions we made and how it affected the
people we were put there to hopefully support to the point where I actually went
and saw a friend of mine who looked at me one day said: Stelman, if you were
given all of the information at that time that was available, if you had that
information at your disposal, you based your decision on the information that
was given you, and there was no personal gain in this for you, then you had made
the right decision.
Mr.
Speaker, as I look around at some of the decisions we are hearing today and I
will touch on them as I go through.
Some of the decisions that we are making here today are awfully rushed decisions
for the price that democracy costs us in this Province and indeed this country.
If we
look at Bill 42 and the implications that it has on the democracy in this
Province we have to be concerned about where we are going.
I know there were opportunities this week to point out some of the rushed
decisions that have been made here in the House and the cost it has been to the
Province. I will not touch too much
on that. I think what we have to do
here is talk about how this represents the Province as a whole and the effects
that it can have on the Province.
The key
to, I believe, true democracy is that we have a meaningful, thoughtful,
well-thought-out, planned debate, and what we are doing here.
That cannot be defined with one criterion.
That cannot be defined in 120 days and thirty-eight seats, because we
have to take into consideration other aspects about living in this Province.
Now,
listen, I know we are smart people.
I know we are brighter than any other Province that we have.
To think we can actually do this in 120 days, we probably think we are
miracle workers here. I can accept
the fact that we are really smart, on the ball, but I really think we are
pushing the opportunity here to do something right.
We have
basically one mandate in this piece of legislation, and that is to cut the
number of MHAs in this House. Do you
know what? I have no problem with
that. I listened to the leaders of
three parties, and they have no problem with that.
It is just the way this is being done.
When I
hear ministers come forward and say we have put a lot of consideration into
this, I really have to question what some of those people really think a lot of
consideration is. Considering it was
only a few months ago that the Premier secured his own nomination for the
district in which he ran.
Yesterday, I heard my colleague from Labrador get up and speak in the House.
I was really impressed with what he had to say.
Except the first part of that speech I had no clue what he said, because
he spoke in his native tongue. I
think it is important to remember that, and I will come back to that later.
I also
heard yesterday from members on the opposite side of the House say how they
loved their visit to Labrador. They
really understand Labrador, and they understand the people who live there.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I lived in Labrador for over fifty years, and to be
quite honest with you, I do have a strong connection with the people, with the
circumstances in Labrador. I served
many volunteer hours, taking time away from my family to get out and do
volunteer work in Labrador and throughout the Province.
It is always a struggle to make them understand, to make the rest of the
Province understand unique circumstances yes, unique circumstances that are
in Labrador.
When I
heard some of the ministers say, oh yes, we have been in Labrador, I wonder what
announcement they were making or if it was indeed just a fishing trip.
We did not mind taking your money back then either.
Maybe you came down berry picking, I do not know.
In any case, I am rather disturbed by two colleagues of mine from
Labrador West and Lake Melville who are actually not speaking out about this
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I would
ask the member to speak to the principle of the bill.
MR. FLYNN:
I am speaking about the
members being, I guess, muzzled and not being able to speak
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
member has to speak to the principle of the bill.
The hon.
the Member for Humber East.
MR. FLYNN:
In Bill 42, right now it is
saying three seats for Labrador, or fewer, and I am concerned with that from a
number of perspectives, given all the resources that are coming out of Labrador
and what the Province has gained from Labrador and the need to have a voice to
be heard here in this House. I think
every constituent from any district across this Province has a right to have a
timely meeting with their representative in this House.
In many
cases, if you have to travel on ski-doos or if you have to travel by helicopter,
that is not timely fashion to have meetings with your constituents.
When I look at areas like Black Tickle and Nain, how many of you can
actually say you have the same challenges in your district?
A few
days ago when my colleague from Torngat Mountains spoke in his language, I had
no idea what he had to say. That
points I think to the differences we have in this Province, that we do have in
this Province a diverse cultural background, and we have lots of transportation
issues. When we make this decision
on how many seats should make up the Legislature in this Province, all of that
has to be taken into consideration.
As I
travel around my district of Humber East, I run into, many times, people from
the Mi'kmaq group. There are 25,000
registered; there are 11,000 approved.
We really have not given them the opportunity to be able to have input
into this.
The
legislation calls for, in Bill 42, to have two meetings in the Province.
One of them has to be in Labrador and the other somewhere on the Island.
Is that going to be St. John's?
I do not know. I have nothing
against the people in St. John's, but what I will tell you, people in Humber
East are going to want to make their voice heard to the commission as well.
I think by putting time frames on the commission to do its work, none of
those considerations will be put in place.
I think that is dangerous to democracy.
It is certainly dangerous if you want true reform in this House, if we
start cutting the numbers down.
If we
look at the pure numbers across this Province, right now the Avalon Peninsula,
as it looks, will get between eighteen and nineteen members.
The Avalon Peninsula will have 50 per cent of the elected officials
sitting in the House of Assembly. I
believe that is a pretty lopsided representation in this Province.
I know
there are alienations on the West Coast, particularly in Humber East.
I just went through an election there.
I heard it at the door, and I am not putting one area of the Province
against the other. My point here,
Mr. Speaker, is just to point out to this House what is being said on the ground
in the districts and there are grave concerns what this legislation may do if it
is adopted as it presently reads. We
have a responsibility to all of the people in this Province to ensure that we
have balanced representation and under this proposed legislation there is, as
far as I am concerned, no balance, and I think that is a very dangerous threat
to democracy.
One of
the ministers said yesterday that we had to look at the boundaries in each of
the cities because there were some streets you go on, one side of the street was
in one district, the next side of the street was in the next district.
So we are going to throw that to the commission and expect them to hear
from the people of this Province, have all of this ironed out and unless they
are miracle workers, they are really going to run out of time.
In
addition to that, we want this done right, yet we are working with numbers that
are basically more than four years old.
Can we really call this due diligence if we are working with numbers that
are that old? I remember going on
streets in Humber East when I ran there, when I went to the door with the list
and knocked on the door. Is Mr. So
and So there? Oh, no, he died four
years ago. That is how outdated the
numbers we have are. I think that is
pretty demoralizing when you do that.
How do you explain to the family, I am sorry, this is information that
was given to me by the government of this Province and it is that outdated?
Someone
said geography does not affect the population.
A few members here would agree with that, but as we talk to the Member
for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, who, if the road is open, will take at least
seven hours in good weather to travel from one end of the district to the other.
I am fortunate in Humber East that I can do that within a half an hour,
but all of the members are not that fortunate and they sit on both sides of the
House.
We do
have to take that into consideration because I believe it is my responsibility,
as an MHA, to see that the voices of the people are heard back here in this
House. I think it is sad when we
kind of say to these people no, you are not as important any more.
I think that will come back to kick us in the behind as we move forward
with this.
We have
said that we have listened to the people.
It was interesting because CBC had done a poll on what we are discussing
here tonight. Pretty much that poll
was split 50-50, down the middle, on the need for four seats in Labrador as an
example. I consider that remarkable
growth. I can remember being
President of Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador where they left off Labrador
so often that they would put a quarter in the jar every time they did it, and my
colleague across the way can contest to that and I guarantee you I never ever
let them forget it.
If we
take politics out of what we are discussing here tonight and use this as an
opportunity to really make changes to democracy in the Province that is where
the real gain will be to. We should
not be afraid to let the commission once more take all of this into
consideration rather than rush this through the House.
We have
to study the impacts of the decision that we are making here tonight because, if
we are wrong, it will have a tremendous negative impact on the Province.
Maybe we are right; maybe you are right in saying that it can be done.
I am not arguing that, but I think we have to have the full information;
we have to give the people who are tasked with this job the opportunity to be
able to take that and go with it.
I will
not go into the reason why we should not rush Bill 42, because we have seen what
some of these mistakes have made in the past and they have been referenced here
tonight, plus the fact the Speaker will ask me to get back to the bill we are
discussing.
I think
that it is important, Mr. Speaker, that we really give the opportunity to have
the right work done for the right reason.
The right reason is not my seat.
It is not his seat, or his seat.
The right reason is for the people of the Province.
It is for the constituents that I represent in Humber East.
I want to make sure that their voice is heard here in the House, and I
think we have to take due diligence in making sure that it is done.
The
public hearings, again, if I might refer back to it, we are basically saying to
five people: here, you go out, have two meetings, you can have more, but we are
only still going to give you 120 days.
Does that mean the voice of someone in St. Anthony is not the value of
someone in Labrador, or the voice of Humber East is not as valuable as a voice
from someone in St. John's?
Unfortunately, this is where I believe this debate will end up going as we move
through the process.
When we
talk of reform here in the House, is really cutting the numbers that are
actually sitting in this House reform, or is it just standing up and saying, for
political reasons, this is what we have to do to save money because we really
have to cover up some of the mistakes in the past?
I really think that we are talking about reform here.
We are really trying to masquerade mistakes that have happened in this
House in the past, but I believe that due diligence has to be played, and should
be played; take away the partisan politics of this and make sure that due
diligence and the voices of the people across the Province are heard because
this has insurmountable effects that we will not be able to correct, if we are
wrong with this.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Just
before I recognize the next member, I would just like to pause for minute and
ask people to reflect on their twenty-fifth birthday.
We have with us tonight a Page who is celebrating her twenty-fifth
birthday here in the House of Assembly with us all night.
We want to say happy birthday to Fatimah.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's South.
MR. OSBORNE:
One of my colleagues just
said they wanted to sing Happy Birthday.
If that is the case, I give leave on my time if the House wanted to do
that; otherwise, I will continue to speak.
I guess that is off the books, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill 42.
We have all heard from our constituents and from people around the
Province, I am sure, on this bill. I
would say probably 90 per cent of the people in the Province would agree with
reducing the number of electoral districts in this Province, Mr. Speaker,
especially in today's climate where government is looking at fiscal restraint.
There are a number of concerns that are raised.
I have
gotten numbers of people over the past week since government announced their
intention to look at this and it was before that trial balloon word, if you
want to call it that, was leaked to the media.
Government was considering this move and the media reported on it.
Immediately I think the people of the Province looked at it with some
optimism that the number of electoral districts would be reduced and the cost
savings as a result of that.
As
people started to digest what this meant and started to look at what it meant,
there are two avenues that people are looking at in regard to what this actually
means. One of them is the actual
reduction in the number of electoral districts and the fact that people are
happy with that. The other is the
reason behind the timing. I heard
one media report saying it was the same as changing the rules to football the
night before the Grey Cup. Mr.
Speaker, that is truly a factor.
AN HON. MEMBER:
The third quarter.
MR. OSBORNE:
The third quarter was it, the media report said.
It was something to that effect.
That is
essentially what is happening. The
rules for the next election, if you want to call it that, are being changed
because the number of boundaries, the number of districts is being changed.
Each political party was preparing for game day based on the rules that
were in place, including the government party, because they had nominations in
place as well.
There is
a great deal of wonderment, curiosity, questions, and concern about what is
actually happening here. Based on
some of the comments I have received, Mr. Speaker, they wonder if this move is
more political than a cost-saving measure.
I have had a number of people say that.
A number of people have said to me that, yes, while they agree with the
reduction in the number of electoral districts, are there politics behind this?
Is the motivation for this move purely political?
People
want the reduction. They want an
election this year. People have been
very clean on that. With or without
the work of the commission, they do not want the fact that government is now
going to put a commission in place to look at and study the number of electoral
districts and make changes to be a reason to push the election out.
One
person who signed one of the petitions we put forward, Mr. Speaker, said to me
that government knew if they called an election today they would not win the
election. They knew if they
stretched it out to the very last day before they could call it, they would not
win the election. If they called it
any time in between, there is no way government would win that election.
The polling has been consistent over the past couple of years to say
that.
Part of
the reason Bill 42 is being debated in the House today, I would contend I
would agree with the person who spoke to me about that it is because
government had to do something to better their chances at the election.
I believe that is part of the reason for this.
It is not simply a cost-saving measure.
If it was, Mr. Speaker, without delay, the Premier would cut the number
of Cabinet. He does not have to send
that to an electoral boundaries commission.
He would cut the number of people sitting in Cabinet.
That can be done today.
Mr.
Speaker, they do not want to enforce or cause conflict in their own party at
this particular point. They do not
want to cut the number of Cabinet at this particular time.
The Premier even said in the media he will reduce the number of Cabinet
when the number of seats is reduced.
He has since made a statement in the House that all things are on the table.
He is going to look at that along with other Budget items.
If the
reason for cutting the number of electoral districts by eight was a cost-saving
measure, as was said by the Premier, he would look as well at cutting the number
of Cabinet positions. There are five
parliamentary assistants. If the
reason we are debating this bill, if part of that motivation was not political,
Mr. Speaker I submit that if the Premier was absolutely sincere about his
motivations and the reasons he has put forward for the motivations for Bill 42,
An Act to Amend the Electoral Boundaries Act, and cutting the number of seats by
eight, he would cut the number of parliamentary assistants by eight as well or
sorry, the number of parliamentary assistants, there are five of them; he would
cut those five positions.
Other
provinces have parliamentary assistants
MR. SPEAKER (Verge):
Order, please!
I would
ask the member to make his comments relevant to the bill.
MR. OSBORNE:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will do
that.
We are
looking at cutting the number of electoral districts, Mr. Speaker.
As part of that debate there has been a number of things talked about.
As part of that debate we have talked about the parliamentary assistants.
If we look at other provinces
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I would
ask the member to make his comments related to the principle of the bill.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, we are looking at cutting the number of electoral districts by eight in
this Province. That is what has been
put on the table.
AN HON. MEMBER:
By ten.
MR. OSBORNE:
By ten.
Sorry, Mr. Speaker, by ten from forty-eight to thirty-eight seats.
Mr.
Speaker, part of the petition that we put forward, respecting this particular
bill that we are debating now, is the fact that people are concerned as to
whether or not the commission will have enough time to sufficiently consult with
people around the Province. They are
concerned as to whether or not the commission will have enough time to properly
evaluate the geographical implications of reducing the number of seats by ten,
whether or not they will have enough time to properly review the population
implications and the population shift.
Mr.
Speaker, the census is out next year or going to be done next year.
That was part of the reason for the timing of the electoral boundaries
commission for 2016. Will they have
the proper information to base their population counts on?
There
has been a great deal of discussion about Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and the desire
of the members on this side of the House of Assembly and the members of the
Liberal Party to protect the number of seats in Labrador, four seats.
There is a very valid reason we are looking at doing that.
The geography of Labrador is better than two times the size of the
geography of the Island. Currently,
there are forty-four seats on the Island and four in Labrador.
So, Mr.
Speaker, that part of our Province, with such a huge geography, some of the
seats there only have 3,000 or 4,000 people.
The reason for that is the complications and the challenges of travelling
throughout those districts. If we
were to go simply based on the formula that the Premier was suggesting of 13,000
people per seat in this Province, you would look at a reduction of at least one
seat in Labrador, probably two, probably one-and-a-half you put part of one of
the Labrador seats with one of the Island seats.
If you
did that, Mr. Speaker, the challenges in the MHA for those districts in Labrador
to properly service those districts, to be able to travel those districts
reasonably and have people from those districts visit their MHA's office
reasonably, is seriously impeded. So
one of the amendments that we are putting forward on this particular bill is to
protect Labrador as having four seats.
We would like to see Labrador seats protected for that reason.
One of
the other amendments that we are looking at on this particular bill is to put a
range of between thirty-eight and forty-two seats, so that we as legislators are
not dictating to the boundaries commission the number of seats that should be in
place while they do their work so that they can look at different seats and
different areas, different regions of the Province, the challenges in different
regions; if they were able to properly carry out their consultations, their
work, look at different regions of the Province, and say we cannot do it with
thirty-eight seats reasonably, we need thirty-nine or we need forty, or maybe we
need the full forty-two.
We are
not suggesting that it has to be thirty-eight seats.
We are not holding the boundary commission to thirty-eight seats.
We are giving them some flexibility to be able to say yes, we agree.
We will have a reduction in a number of electoral districts in the
Province. We agree with that, but
give the commission enough latitude that after their consultations, and after
looking at the geographical implications and the population implications, and
after looking at the demographics because it is not just population count, the
demographics of some of those populations, Mr. Speaker.
If you
have a district where the population is aging and some districts in the
Province are. Some districts in the
Province, the population is aging, and you have schools where there is only
three or four people in a classroom, three or four children.
That means that if you based their population at 13,000, the number of
people eligible to vote in that district could be significantly different than a
district where the population is considerably younger.
It is
not just geographical implications, it is not just population implications, but
perhaps the demographical implications as well.
For a boundary commission to properly carry out their work and to look at
all aspects of what would affect the ability of a Member of the House of
Assembly to carry out his or her duties and to look at the implications of how
the population in a particular district might be best represented, we want to
give that commission a range. A
range of somewhere between thirty-eight and forty-two seats, so that they are
not handcuffed in carrying out their duties to just simply thirty-eight seats,
and the people of the Province are best served.
They are best served by a boundary commission that can look at and
properly evaluate each and every district and determine whether thirty-eight is
the best number or forty-two members is the best number, or somewhere in
between.
Another
amendment that we are looking at putting forward to this particular piece of
legislation, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that we want to ensure that the election
actually takes place this year.
Carrying out the work of the commission should not be an excuse for government
to delay the election; it should not be an excuse for government to be able to
push the election into 2016.
Some of
the people who I have had sign the petition have said to me that we have had
three-and-a-half Premiers since the last election.
They say three-and-a-half because we have had Premier Dunderdale, we had
Premier Marshall, we have had the almost-Premier Coleman, and now Premier Davis.
So we have had three-and-a-half Premiers since the last election.
Mr.
Speaker, those individuals who have raised that particular concern with me
because I have spoken to many people about this; people are paying attention to
what is happening here on this particular piece of legislation and what
government are trying to do. People
are paying attention. They have said
we will give Premier Davis sorry, I realize I am not supposed to mention the
name of the sitting member. We will
give the current Premier the latitude to say that he can carry on until
September of 2015, but many people do not feel that he has the mandate to do
that. He was not elected by the
people, only by the members of the PC Party.
MS PERRY:
Roger Grimes (inaudible).
MR. OSBORNE:
The legislation, Mr. Speaker
and yes, I heard the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune shout out Roger
Grimes. That is exactly the reason
that party brought legislation in so that you could not have not only for
fixed elections, but you could not have a particular Premier who took over after
an election and it is all part of this legislation.
It is all part of the legislation, but you could not have a Premier take
over it is part of the Elections Act and, in fact, a part of Bill 42.
It is all a part of that, but you could not have a Premier take over and
hold office for two years or even a year-and-a-half.
It is supposed to be done within a year.
If the
election is pushed out beyond 2016, then not only did they not have the mandate
from the people to govern, only from the party, and while the legislation allows
them to continue to govern while they are preparing for an election, they do not
have the mandate to go beyond September of 2015.
So, that is an important part of this.
The amendment that we are putting forward is to ensure that with or
without the work of the boundary commission being complete, with or without that
work, the election will be held in 2015.
Mr.
Speaker, that is a reasonable amendment, it is a just amendment, and it is an
amendment that the vast majority of people in this Province just as many as
would support a reduction in the number of electoral districts, would support
ensuring that the election take place in 2015.
We need
those assurances; the people of this Province need those assurances.
If we are truly here to serve the best interests of the people of this
Province, we would make sure that the election is not pushed out because of the
work of a rushed and while the Premier is saying that the work of the boundary
commission can be done in 120 days, we are not convinced that they can do
justice to the work that they need to do, looking at the geographical
implications, the population and demographic implications to determining the new
boundaries. One hundred and twenty
days is considerably less than it took similar commissions in every other
province to complete their work. It
is considerably less than previous commissions in this Province did to complete
their work.
In fact,
in 2006, Mr. Speaker, there was not a reduction in the number of electoral
districts in this Province, but because of population shifts there was a change
in some of the boundaries. They took
considerably longer. Without
reducing the number of electoral districts, they took considerably longer to
simply change the boundaries because of population shift than we are allowing
with the 120 days here.
Now, the
Premier is telling us be assured, they will get the work done.
We are not convinced, but we are giving the benefit of the doubt and
saying if you believe you can carry out this work in 120 days, so be it, carry
out the job in 120 days. If it is
not done in 120 days, you do not have the ability to push the election out to
2016. We will put the work of the
commission on hold, continue their work after the election, and carry on with
the election.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
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.
It is a
privilege to rise in this House to speak to Bill 42, a very important bill.
I have listened attentively to all of the speakers previously.
I must say, our Premier has been on record in relation to supporting
reform in the House of Assembly, and this government, everyone on this side of
the House, are in support as well.
The Opposition and the Third Party actually spoke in public and is on record in
relation to supporting this particular piece of legislation.
Our
Premier, a great leader, has committed to reduce the number of seats in the
House of Assembly from the current number of forty-eight.
He has asked that this process start immediately, Mr. Speaker, with a
goal to complete work in advance before the next general election in 2015.
I have
talked to a number of people in the District of Bonavista and listened to what
they had to say about the reduction of seats in the House of Assembly.
I had some discussions about what is happening in the global economy as
well, Mr. Speaker, and what we are faced with as a government as we speak on
this important bill tonight. The
people I had discussions with actually approve and agree with a reduction in the
House of Assembly and we, as a government, have a responsibility to lead by
example.
This
government, people on this side of the House, all of the MHAs, my colleagues,
have made a decision that we will lead by example.
There are many difficult challenges we will have to face as a government
as we go through the global economic challenges that we face today.
We will definitely reduce the number of seats in the House of Assembly,
Mr. Speaker.
The
Premier and our government do not appoint the boundaries commission.
By law, a Chair is a judge named by the Chief Justice of Newfoundland and
Labrador, and four other members of the commission are picked by the Speaker of
the House of Assembly. To me, this
is a process where government officials are not making the final decisions.
We have an independent body, a group of independent people who will make
the decisions on the final boundary changes to the electoral process in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Bill 42
is most likely one of the most important bills that we are faced with in
relation to changes in this House of Assembly.
Every member on each side of the House of Assembly are speaking to this
bill with good, strong points of views, Mr. Speaker, views of concern, views
that will affect each and every member's district in the House of Assembly.
We are all concerned. We are
all faced with those challenges, and we, as a government, will make the
decisions. We are responsible.
We will make the decisions in the best interests of the people who
elected us to the House of Assembly.
I
remember a time back in 1997, I was a councillor, and we had to make tough
decisions, similar to what we are doing here today, based on some fiscal
realities we faced as a council.
From time to time as a family we have to make difficult decisions, similar to
what we are doing here tonight. The
debate that is taking place in this House of Assembly is very prudent, very
responsible.
We, as a
government, are not rushing this process in the House of Assembly here tonight.
I have heard on a number of occasions from members opposite that this
process is being rushed. This
process is not being rushed, Mr. Speaker.
We are allowing each speaker to speak for twenty minutes at a maximum.
Some are speaking less than twenty minutes, but everybody in the House of
Assembly here tonight, each member has a right to stand on their feet and have
discussion around this important bill, Bill 42 that affects each and every
district, each and every boundary in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Any time
there is an independent review like this it shows leadership.
It shows leadership from a governing party that we agree with a system of
democracy, Mr. Speaker, because it is democracy when you allow a review like
this to happen. I am so delighted to
be able to be part of this great government that can stand on its feet and
support such an activity in the House of Assembly here in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
I have
heard some of my colleagues and some members talk about technology change.
We talk about the time that would be allowed for this event to happen and
decision makings of the independent review.
Time is always a factor, but as a government going into an election and
our members on this side are affected the same as members on the opposite side
with a boundary change. No one knows
what the outcome will be, Mr. Speaker.
The
independent process, the review, will take place.
As I said earlier, no one knows the outcome.
It is a process that is very democratic because I have heard some
comments about democracy and stifling democracy.
That is not what anyone in this House of Assembly is doing, Mr. Speaker.
We need to have discussions around that particular issue.
It is important that we listen to what people are saying in our
districts.
I am
sure each and every member on each side of the House had major discussions
around this issue with constituents in their districts.
I know I have had a number of discussions, and I can safely say, by far,
the majority of people who I had discussions with in my district, the District
of Bonavista South, agree with a reduction in the number of seats in the House
of Assembly they agree.
They
agree that this move is being fiscally responsible, something that we should do
at this point in time in our history, not only based on finances but based on
population, based on what is happening in other provinces around Canada.
Similar, in some cases, to population decline and, in some cases, because
of technology change and so forth, it makes a lot of sense to do House of
Assembly reform, House of Assembly changes, that will be prudent and fiscally
responsible.
I would
like to say there is nobody flip-flopping on this side of the House.
MR. KENT:
Not today.
MR. LITTLE:
Not today, as the Member for
Mount Pearl North just said.
Anyway,
we, as a government, will continue to listen to the people of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador. Our
Premier definitely showed strong leadership in making a bold move like this, Mr.
Speaker. We, on this side of the
House, are united. We support our
leader, our Premier, we support our Cabinet, and we support the decisions that
are made to bring about changes to the House of Assembly, to bring about a
reduction in the number of the House of Assembly.
This
move shows a long, hard, thought-out process, and strong leadership and action.
We mean action. This is why
Bill 42, we came back to this House to present Bill 42, to have discussion on
Bill 42, and definitely have Bill 42 in place prior to the next general
election.
We have
nothing to hide, we listen to the people, and we are realistic, we are very
responsible, and we know what is happening.
No one could predict what happened in the world markets.
No one could predict what happened to the lower oil prices.
No one can predict what is going to happen in the future, really.
We, based on what we are faced with at this particular time, had no other
choice.
Now,
some people look at this and say $10 million savings, some members will look at
it, but every dollar counts, every dollar from $1,000 to $10,000 to $100,000 to
$1 million, and cost is part of what is going to be the outcome of seat
reduction in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker.
Definitely we, as a government, will make sure the process is very, very
transparent, very, very open, and very, very committed to making sure the final
outcome occurs in the timeline that is set.
At this
particular time, I would like to close by saying that I appreciate all of the
comments made on each side of the House.
Each and every comment is important, it is the freedom of speech, and it
shows that democracy is taking place in the House of Assembly.
With
that, thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Trinity Bay de Verde.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you,
Mr. Speaker.
I was
just thinking, the last time I was in this Chamber at 11:00 in the evening it
was during the Newfoundland Hydro debate back in the 1990s.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. CROCKER:
No, it certainly was not.
I am
going to focus first of all on the timelines, Mr. Speaker, the 120 days.
It is like when we were all students and if you had a paper due and the
paper was due on a Wednesday, we would always wait until Wednesday night to get
it done, but we would get it done.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. CROCKER:
Maybe not the Member for
Humber West, but myself, yes.
It is
interesting, Mr. Speaker. I have
confidence that the report will be delivered in 120 days, but I caution in that.
Will the report be rushed?
I have rushed a lot of reports and lots of times when you rush a report,
you do not get the best paper, the best grade.
We have to be very cautious that we do not rush this; it is too
important. If you look at other
jurisdictions in the country that have completed reviews in recent history, the
shortest review in the country from beginning to end was 380 days.
The longest review was 1,126 days.
That is the timeline from the beginning of the review until election day.
Mr.
Speaker, if you look at our fixed election legislation here in Newfoundland and
Labrador, an election is supposed to be called September 25 or September 26,
2015. If you back that up from
today, we have 246 days 246 days.
The closest to that was Nova Scotia who completed a report and went to an
election with 380 days one year, Mr. Speaker, a lot more than the 120 days
that we are allowing for this report to be completed.
That is
one of the concerns and that is one of the amendments that we, as the Official
Opposition, have put forward to Bill 42.
It is an amendment hopefully we will get an opportunity in the coming
hours or the coming days to debate here in the House.
Mr.
Speaker, I will move from the timeline for a moment and just go to parliamentary
reform, which the members opposite have referred to, and I think here on this
side of the House we have often referred to parliamentary reform and the need
for parliamentary reform in the Province, and maybe even the country.
Parliamentary reform is a lot more than cutting the number of seats.
Actually, parliamentary reform may require this many seats or a different
number of seats. So we may be
putting the horse before the cart, or the horse may get out of the barn.
Sometimes once the horse gets out of the barn, it is hard to get it back.
So if we
go to a committee system and realize, wow, we have not got the numbers to have
an effective committee system, that is something that we have to bear in mind,
that we do not get ahead of ourselves.
I understand the savings and I understand savings are very important, and
it has been referred to a lot by members opposite over the last two or three
days of debate about the savings.
Yes, there will be savings.
Mr.
Speaker, let us bear in mind, this government has the ability to bring in
savings today. We do not need Bill
42 to start savings. No other
Atlantic province has parliamentary secretaries; we have five.
That could be resolved tonight.
We need to bring our Cabinet back that reflects our Legislature and the
tough times. These are decisions
that do not have to take 120 days or even 246 days.
These
are moves that the Premier could make tomorrow morning.
Members opposite talk about the bold moves the Premier is making.
Well, let's take some of these bold moves and get it done, and get it
done now. As the previous speaker
said, every dollar does count, and nobody on this side of the House would argue
that every dollar does not count.
Mr.
Speaker, one thing that Bill 42 does, it is going to rush a decision.
Back to the timelines, no other jurisdiction has come even close to
completing this type of reform in the timeframe that we are being given, Mr.
Speaker. At the end of the day we
too, here, have to realize that these changes need to be made, but is this the
time or do we have the time to properly make the changes?
We have
made mistakes in this Province, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to rushed decisions
and decisions without due diligence.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Really?
MR. CROCKER:
Yes.
Just back in September, Mr. Speaker, there was a by-election here in the
Province. The by-election was
delayed and delayed and delayed, and due diligence was not done.
I believe the first day this House came back in this fall sitting the
first piece of legislation that had to be passed that afternoon, job one, was to
fix a typo because something did not get done.
Mr.
Speaker, I know exactly because it was my district that was affected by this
typo. It did not get gazetted.
We could have lost the by-election on that if the parties, the
Opposition, would not have gone along that day.
We would have lost that by-election.
It would have just been null and void and we would have had to start over
again with the cost already incurred.
The cost would have been incurred.
That is why when we sit here or stand here tonight and debate Bill 42
MR. LANE:
They did not want to go
through that again.
MR. CROCKER:
I say thank you to the Member
for Mount Pearl South.
Mr.
Speaker, we have to be cautious due diligence.
Yes, is $2.5 million or $10 million over a four-year period important?
It sure is, but once that horse is out of the barn can we get it back in?
Mr.
Speaker, there were other rushed decisions in the Province; the Abitibi mill,
Bill 29
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I would
ask the member to confine his comments to the principle of the bill.
The hon.
the Member for Trinity Bay de Verde to continue.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will
get back on track. Mr. Speaker, our
second amendment as the Official Opposition is the amendment surrounding range
and the fact that we are asking this commission to go out and do a job.
In Bill 42, it is prescribing that the number is thirty-eight.
Why thirty-eight? I think
listening to the Minister of Finance it is a workable number; 13,500, 13,800,
13,600, whatever the division is.
When you
ask five independent people in an independent commission, why can't we have them
make an independent decision of how many seats this Province requires?
Why do we need to say thirty-eight?
Give them a range. I
remember, Mr. Speaker, back in 1993 when Premier Wells sent out the commission
at that time, the Mahoney commission, back in the early to mid-1990s.
It went out and it came back.
Yes, we had a range of fifty-two to forty-four.
AN HON. MEMBER:
What happened when it came
back?
MR. CROCKER:
Exactly.
What happened when it came back?
I thank the member for bringing that up.
What happened when it came back?
What
happened when it came back was they realized that this is not going to work
because square hole, round peg; forty-eight.
Mr. Speaker, back at that time it went back out and we did it again.
If you were to ask the people today in Harbour Grace, or the people of
Upper Island Cove, or the people of St. Mary's, or Spaniard's Bay were they
beneficiaries of those reductions.
There were reductions.
We lost
the District of Harbour Grace. The
District of Harbour Grace was removed.
Similar to what is going to happen with Bill 42, there will be districts
that are going to just disappear.
Bonavista South disappeared, Mr. Speaker.
St. Mary's disappeared.
Mr.
Speaker, there are challenges that are brought into this system.
I am sorry if I am boring somebody.
MR. KIRBY:
That is okay.
MR. CROCKER:
You are okay, Dale?
Mr.
Speaker, we just came through a period of review with the federal electoral
boundaries commission. There were
some interesting things. I actually
took some time. I was involved a
little bit in the federal boundaries commission, involved in a presentation.
Some of
the things the federal commission looks at in their guidelines as they go into
boundary redistribution, Mr. Speaker; not only do they look at the parity of
voter, which is very important, but there has to be some historical and
manageable geographic issues.
Transportation links are considered, access to government services and
commercial and social recreation amenities, existing municipal boundaries, and
the boundaries of regional planning and economic development.
In a
rush decision, Mr. Speaker, are we looking at what is happening in the future
when it comes to population trends and population growth?
I believe the Member for Mount Pearl North made a presentation to the
electoral boundaries commission back in 2006.
I think I have the direct quote here.
What the member did say at that time was we should be doing these reviews
eighteen months post-census. We are
doing this review twelve months before a census report is released.
We are going to see changes again in that census of 2015 or 2016.
Another
concern, Mr. Speaker, is that if you look back through the previous commissions,
the guidelines in Bill 42 allow for two hearings: one hearing in Labrador and
one hearing on the Island. If you
live in the District of St. George's Stephenville East, or the District of
Trinity Bay de Verde, or even the Member for Torngat Mountains' district, how
accessible are those public hearings going to be?
There
has been reference made throughout the week of the use of technology.
Mr. Speaker, the use of technology is a wonderful thing.
I live one hour and ten minutes from the city.
When I go home I have no worries about anybody bothering me on the
cellphone because it does not work.
We still have challenges that close to the city.
Imagine the challenges and the boundaries that people from other parts of
the Province will have when they want to have their input on Bill 42.
Mr.
Speaker, a lot has been said in the last two or three days with regard to the
Official Opposition's other amendment, the amendment of protecting the four
seats in Labrador. The federal
electoral boundaries commission said: the continuance of the separate electoral
district of Labrador; the population is greatly below the electoral quota, but
it received unanimous support to continue with the seat in Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, in our caucus we have two members from Labrador who sit around the
table every day. Let me assure you
they espouse support and they are committed to their part of our great Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CROCKER:
We should protect that, Mr.
Speaker, as we go forward.
Mr.
Speaker, there is another part of Bill 42 that concerns me somewhat.
Kudos to the Government House Leader and the Minister of Business,
Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.
MR. LANE:
Justice.
MR. CROCKER:
Justice actually, to the
Member for Mount Pearl South, that is where I am going.
It is his role as the Chamber Justice Minister.
In Bill
42, or the Electoral Boundaries Act, The commission shall be responsible to the
minister. Ironically, Mr. Speaker,
the minister is not responsible to this House.
All forty-eight of us in here put our names on a ballot.
Some of us recently, some of us quite some time ago, but we have all done
it. We have all knocked on the
doors. I can assure you, as I said
in my maiden speech yesterday, I am confident that every single member of this
House is here for the right reason.
Mr.
Speaker, we have knocked on the doors.
We have asked for people's support, and we are here to ask questions.
The minister who is responsible for this act, for this legislation, is
not here to answer the questions on Bill 42.
In a democracy, is that correct?
Mr.
Speaker, we have seen that before.
Every time we have seen that before in the parliamentary system we are in, Mr.
Speaker, that minister ran at the first opportunity.
The minister responsible for Bill 42 has had ample opportunity to have a
seat in this place.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Relevance.
MR. CROCKER:
It is relevant to the simple
fact that the Minister of Justice is responsible for Bill 42.
So there is the relevance.
Mr.
Speaker, I have enough notes here to go on all night.
Mr.
Speaker, to summarize my three points, number one, I am not confident we can do
this in 120 days, and if we make the wrong decision it is going to be a long
time before we get the opportunity to fix it.
I have heard comments from the other side that practically tie the number
of seats to the price of a barrel of oil.
Is the next Premier going to bring in a bill we have Bill 42 here right
now, Mr. Speaker, but we have a ten-year period of electoral boundary review,
and we have changed that. So, does
the next Premier change it again?
There
was a reason we picked the number ten.
As we go forward, it just cannot be at the whim of a Premier.
The next Premier wants to increase it if the price of oil goes up or if
the price of oil continues to go down.
What is the right number? I
think our commission should be given a range to come back to the powers that be,
to the Minister of Justice, and say listen, this is the number and here is the
reason why round hole, square peg.
MS DEMPSTER:
(Inaudible).
MR. CROCKER:
No, I say to the Member for
Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, round hole, square peg is not difficult at all;
chip a bit off.
Transportation in rural areas actually, Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
bringing up a point. I will go back
to my own district and look at the services that are provided by my constituency
office, and I am new, Mr. Speaker.
It is interesting because people who live in local service districts and
unserviced areas rely on the constituency office for a lot of their services.
It surprises me, Mr. Speaker, because I am new to it and I am really
surprised at some of the services we have been asked to provide.
There are people in my district who have to drive two hours to get to my
constituency office, and I assure you there are people who have a lot farther to
go.
Mr.
Speaker, I am assuming or guessing that I will get an opportunity to speak to
this legislation again and I will take my seat.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. CORNECT:
Merci, Monsieur le Prιsident.
Ce soir ηa me fait un grand plaisir de me prιsenter dans
cette Chambre d'assemblιe et de participer dans le dιbat pour amender les
circonscriptions ιlectorales dans la province de Terre‑Neuve‑et‑Labrador.
Monsieur le Prιsident, moi aussi je suis trθs passionnι
comme dιputι d'avoir le privilθge de prendre part dans ce dιbat. C'est vraiment
un honneur, Monsieur le Prιsident.
Mr.
Speaker, like the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains, I too represent a district
that is very rich in culture. The
French, the Acadians, the Irish, the Scottish, the Mi'kmaq, the American
influence have all woven the wonderful, warm, and hospitable fabric that the
District of Port au Port and our Province has to offer.
Mr.
Speaker, we talk about the uniqueness, the people, the coastlines, the natural
beauty, our dance, song, music, and storytelling tells a story of a people who
are strong and resilient and proud to be called Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians. The whole Province,
like Port au Port, is steeped in a unique culture and a very intriguing history.
So, Mr.
Speaker, as I said, I am honoured to be standing in my place representing the
great people of the great and cultural District of Port au Port in this debate,
Bill 42, An Act to Amend the Electoral Boundaries Act.
As
legislators, parliamentarians, it is our task and our responsibility to make
laws in our Province. The amendment
to this bill is just that: we are making a law in the Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador. We are making our
Parliament, our House of Assembly, efficient and effective.
It is amending a law, a bill that will make our House, like I said, more
efficient and effective.
What we
are debating this week, Mr. Speaker, is to review and amend the Electoral
Boundaries Act to reduce the number of seats in our Legislature.
There are currently forty-eight parliamentarians who represent
forty-eight boundaries carved out in our Province.
We were, and we are, elected by every person nineteen years of age or
older, or the legal age to vote.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Eighteen.
MR. CORNECT:
Eighteen.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Nineteen is a majority.
MR. CORNECT:
You had your chance to speak,
I tell the Member for The Straits White Bay North, now give me my chance to
speak. As he told the Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune, give me that respect.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I remind the hon. the
minister to speak to the Chair.
MR. CORNECT:
Donne-moi le respect.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind
the hon. minister to speak to the Chair, please.
MR. CORNECT:
Mr. Speaker, we were elected,
and are elected, by the people of the Province of those districts to represent
them in this hon. House, the people's House.
What a privilege, what an honour it is to stand here talking, speaking,
acting, and making laws on behalf of the people of the Province who elected us.
Mr.
Speaker, as I go about my district, how many times have I had the comments
mentioned to me: The House is too big; get rid of MHAs.
Those are some of the comments I hear.
We need to reform our House, they tell us.
My
comment to them would be: Well, the act says that in Newfoundland and Labrador
there is a Newfoundland and Labrador Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission
appointed every ten years to look at exactly that.
According to the current act, the commission is due to be appointed next
year in 2016 to do this work.
Mr.
Speaker, when our Premier travelled throughout the Province during the summer,
during the leadership campaign, he made it a part of his platform that our
Legislature needed electoral and parliamentary reform.
That is what we are doing, Mr. Speaker.
This is the first step of reform: to reduce the number of seats in the
House of Assembly.
Mr.
Speaker, as I said, the commission was to be appointed in 2016 and whatever
decisions made from that review would come into effect at the general election
of 2019. What our Premier and our
government is saying is let us amend Bill 42.
Let us amend it now, and which we are debating this week.
When that is done, when it is amended and passed unanimously, I hope, the
process starts. When the election is
held in the fall of 2015, there will be reduced seats in our Legislature.
After
this, the Chief Justice of Newfoundland and Labrador will appoint a Chairperson
for the commission. So once the
process is done, we have amended the legislation, the Chief Justice of the
Province will appoint a Chairperson for the commission.
This person will come from among the judges of the Supreme Court, Court
of Appeal and Trial Division, as well as four others.
The hon. Speaker of this House will appoint four members who will sit on
this commission. The four members
who will sit on this commission, that will be appointed by the Speaker, will be
citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, which I have great confidence in to do a
great job for the people of the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CORNECT:
Then, Mr. Speaker, the
commission will be given the resources whether it be employment, technical, or
professional staff as it is deemed necessary, to carry out this work
efficiently and effectively.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, what our Premier and what our government has done and said and proposed
is to have this commission be appointed this year.
They will have 120 days that is four months to do the work.
Then this will allow the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer to do
their work to make sure that this is prepared for the election in the fall of
2015.
The
commission will go about and do its work.
They will do the research.
They will travel the Province. They
will speak to people. They will hear
the views, like in past commissions, past consultations, past reviews, and they
will do that. According to section
15 of the act it 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.
So, Mr.
Speaker, when I listen to the Opposition argue their points why we should not do
this and why we should not reduce the seats, they are making it sound that if we
expand boundaries the communities that will be coming into existing boundaries
now will not have a voice, will not be heard.
We are legislators and if we are elected to represent that district, it
is our parliamentary legal right and duty to represent those people in a new
district.
The
commission will determine the proper division of the Province and the boundaries
of electoral districts. I am very
confident that the work can be done in time for a fall election, which everyone
in this Province wants. They want a
fall election. Our Premier stood up
in this House and said there will be a fall 2015 election.
Everyone in this House wants to reduce the seats in our Legislature.
Our Premier is on record for saying it, the Leader of the Opposition is
on record for saying it, and the Leader of the Third Party is on record for
saying it.
Mr.
Speaker, we had the analogy earlier about a football game.
If we are all committed to the same goal, let's get started with this
process so that we have the 2015 election, with reduced seats, for a more
cost-efficient, cost-effective Parliament in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Because
we will have less seats does not mean the people will have less representation,
as I said earlier. That is what the
Opposition will make you believe. I
do not know about you and the members opposite, but I am sure the realignment of
boundaries in the next general election I do not know, like I said, about the
members on the opposite side, but members on this side will campaign door to
door, every door, in the new district that he or she will represent our party
with, asking for their support to represent them in the Parliament of
Newfoundland and Labrador. A good,
effective, caring, concerned, and compassionate MHA will work hard to represent
every person of the district no matter where the boundary is.
Mr.
Speaker, my District of Port au Port will probably expand.
It will require me to represent everyone in the district.
What we are doing is about the people of the Province.
The people have asked for this.
We, as representatives of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, have
every right to do what they ask us to do, and that is to reduce the seats in the
House of Assembly. They want this
change, and we should deliver and we will deliver.
Whatever
the number of seats are it is indeed, as parliamentarians, a pleasure, a
privilege, an honour to represent people.
Mr. Speaker, they place their trust and confidence in us to represent
them. So when they ask for this
electoral change, why shouldn't we deliver and deliver now for the election of
2015?
I am so
humbled, Mr. Speaker, to represent the great and cultural district of Port au
Port. Many friendships have been
made over the years. If the
district, let's just say, were to expand, new friendships will be made.
There will be new challenges, new responsibilities, new successes, new
working partnerships, and relationships.
All of this will happen because of our commitment and concern to work for
the people of our districts and our Province.
Je suis trθs sympathique de reprιsenter les citoyens et les
citoyennes de la circonscription de Port-au-Port. Je suis trθs fier, Monsieur le
Prιsident, de nos cultures, non seulement dans la circonscription, mais aussi
sur la cτte Ouest, et oui partout dans notre province culturelle et historique
Terre‑Neuve‑et‑Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, when the Member for Trinity Bay de Verde was up on his feet just a
few minutes ago he talked about the famous 1993 Mahoney commission.
Then there was a report. A
report that then Premier Wells rejected.
Who did he hand appoint? Who
did he hand pick to do the next report, to do the next commission?
What was the mandate? What
parameters were set for that commission?
Silence in the Opposition.
AN HON. MEMBER:
We have not read the report
yet to get it.
MR. CORNECT:
Ask Mr. Wells.
Mr.
Speaker, there is an evolution of seat changes or electoral boundary changes in
our Province. I look at my district.
In 1952 it was called St. George's Port au Port.
In 1957 there were two districts, Port au Port and St. George's.
In 1975, there were three, Port au Port, Stephenville, and St. George's.
In 1996, after the famous 1993 commission there were two districts, Port
au Port, which takes in half of Stephenville and the other half of Stephenville
is now in St. George's Stephenville East.
Mr.
Speaker, when the commission has completed its work it will then submit their
work report to the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, who must in turn
submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
The report must be tabled in the House of Assembly within fifteen days of
giving the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council if the House of Assembly
is sitting. Or it has to be brought
to the House of Assembly fifteen days after the beginning of the next session if
the House of Assembly is not sitting at the time the report is received.
The commission will be required to submit its report to the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety within 120 days after the chairperson is appointed and
selected.
Mr.
Speaker, getting back to the bill, the proposed amendments will be examined in
2015, again in 2026, and every ten years after.
The Member for Trinity Bay de Verde when he was up on his feet also
said: What is stopping a future government from changing it again?
That is so true. There may be
a need. It may be necessary to
change the commission date. The
population could decline more. The
population could grow.
What we
are saying today is that the people have been asking for a reduction of seats
and we as a government are responding to the request of the people of the
Province. I think that you should do
your due diligence as Opposition members and join us in supporting this
unanimously in the reduction of seats in our Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CORNECT:
Mr. Speaker, time is getting
short on my speaking duties here tonight.
I am very privileged to be up on my feet, and very privileged to have the
opportunity to speak in my maternal native tongue here in the House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CORNECT:
It is a great privilege, Mr.
Speaker, to represent the great people not only in my district, but the great
people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, parliamentary reform is good.
An effective parliament makes for good government.
Involved parliamentarians make good MHAs.
Hopefully this will also probably spark the necessary interest in getting
our voting population interested and involved in the political process as well.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all parliamentarians here in this hon. House to let's do this,
let's do the boundary changes, and let's go to the fall election of 2015.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Littlejohn):
The hon. the
Member for St. Barbe.
MR. J. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We are
here this week debating Bill 42, which proposes to change the Electoral
Boundaries Act. In changing the
Electoral Boundaries Act it is a little bit premature because, properly
speaking, the current legislation says we should do it in 2016.
In 2016 we would have the benefit of a current census.
The census we are going to be using is four years old.
By the time we get around to doing it the next time, that census will
have been fourteen years old and we will have had who knows how many elections
on a census that will end up being fourteen years old.
Mr.
Speaker, two of the issues that are important to people who are watching one
is how do we determine how many people should be in an electoral district?
Do we decide it is simply based on votes as some people would say?
Do we say that a vote is a vote is a vote no matter where you are to such
a fine point that maybe you would divide a household to have the precise number,
one district versus the other district?
Clearly that would be ridiculous.
That would not make any sense.
We do not need that much precision, or so we say.
Furthermore, if members do nothing more than vote, then I suppose we could have
a precise number of electors per Member of the House of Assembly.
If that would mean that we would only come here and debate legislation,
and pass or defeat legislation, amend legislation if we have no other work
other than to come here then probably we could have the same number of voters
regardless of geography.
Mr.
Speaker, if we have decided that what the role of a Member of the House of
Assembly is today if the role of the Member of the House of Assembly is to
deliver government services, then clearly some areas take a larger amount of
effort to deliver the same amount of services as other areas do.
Does that mean, for example, if somebody is in a rural district, in order
for them to be able to provide the same level of government services, then they
should represent a smaller number of people?
If people who live in an urban area where people are more compact, there
is less travel time and fewer communities, maybe only one community, then maybe
they should be able to represent a larger number of people.
Maybe in
a geographically large district somebody would have a smaller number of people,
and in an urban district someone would have a larger number of people, keeping
in mind that people in St. John's, Corner Brook, Grand Falls, or Clarenville,
any of the larger centres, Labrador City even, they would tend to have more
government services accessible to them close at hand so they would not have to
travel to visit their member at extended distances.
What is
the goal? What is the job
description of a Member of the House of Assembly today?
I say there are forty-eight people in the Province who should have no say
in the job description. The
forty-eight people who should have no say in the job description are the
forty-eight Members of the House of Assembly.
Who gets to go to work and tell their boss: I think this is my job, I
think this is what I am going to do?
Well, doesn't it mean we are doing the same thing?
If the
voters have elected us to come here and represent them, and then so far through
the term that we were elected to represent them, we say: By the way, we think
this is what our job should be, we do not really care what you think anymore.
There is an election coming some time in the next year or so and
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. J. BENNETT:
we have decided we really do not care much about what the voters think.
We are not going to bother to consult with you.
We are going to say this is the number it should be, and, by the way, the
number is thirty-eight. If the
number is thirty-eight, we are going to impose that number.
Historically, Labrador was given a certain preference, preferential
treatment in the number of members who would represent Labrador, and that was
based on geography.
If you
look at Labrador, Labrador has four very distinct areas and a population of
26,000 or 27,000 people, according to the numbers we will be using.
The numbers we will be using are the 2011 census numbers.
It really does not matter how many people are there today in 2015 because
we are going to use numbers that we know are four years old anyway.
Labrador
West is very distinct in that geographically it is remote.
It is a mining centre with a relatively compact population.
There are all sorts of similar issues, but remote from any other areas.
Labrador
Centre, or the Goose Bay area, it is also geographically distinct.
It has a relatively compact population but a whole range of different
social issues than Labrador West would have, and it also now is the site for or
adjacent to the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric development.
So that is clearly its own distinct area.
Then
north of Goose Bay, north of Lake Melville in fact, Lake Melville includes
Sheshatshiu. Maybe Torngat Mountains
should include Sheshatshiu because the split we have now actually divides two
Innu communities into two districts and maybe they should be in Torngat
Mountains alone.
The
Member for Torngat Mountains, my colleague, needs six days to travel to every
community within his district because no community in his district is connected
by a road. Is it fair that he should
have to represent the same number of people as somebody in an urban area who may
be able to walk across their district in an hour, and in some districts probably
walk across their district in half an hour, or maybe walk the full length of
their district in an hour? Somebody
can walk a district in less than a day, whereas somebody else needs six days to
travel by boat, snowmobile, or airplane to work for one-quarter of the
population of an urban centre.
Then
there is the Southeast Coast and The Straits area, which also has a relatively
small population. A small population
but a spread out population, a population that borders on the Province of Quebec
and is also separated by The Strait of Bell Isle, so people they would not have
what you would call reliable transportation generally in the wintertime, unless
you think an occasional trip to Corner Brook a couple of times a week by ferry
if you have to make medical appointments in St. Anthony, you take a twelve- or
fourteen-hour ferry ride and then you drive back northward 500 kilometres or so.
They have distinct issues and challenges.
Traditionally and historically, we have, in this Province, decided that Labrador
should have four seats, but one part of the amendment to Bill 42 takes away that
protection. It takes away that
protection, based on the formula that is in another piece of legislation, based
on the formula which says there is a certain tolerance that the legislation
allows which says that we provide a 10 per cent tolerance.
Mr.
Speaker, that means in the case of your district, you have somewhere between a
12,000 and 13,000 population, according to the numbers we are looking at, and if
we take away a seat from Labrador then we need to represent, we need around
13,500, plus or minus 10 per cent, then that means your district should be
intact. Your district should be
fine. There should be no change at
all; however, is it fair to put into place legislation which the formula will
require the commission to take away a seat?
There is
absolutely no way, with this change in legislation, that Labrador does not lose
at least one seat. I have heard the
Premier commit publicly to say that north of Lake Melville he is willing to
agree there should be one seat. I am
not sure how he can agree publicly unless we deal with it legislatively.
If you
assume that Torngat Mountains should be its own seat, then that leaves
approximately 23,000 people in the rest of Labrador.
What do we do with the rest of Labrador?
That means 9,000 or so from Lab West, we would need to add a couple of
thousand from Goose Bay, a four or five hour drive.
We need to add a couple of thousand from Goose Bay and put them with Lab
West. We take the rest of Goose Bay
and all of the Southeast Coast and The Straits, now we have Labrador with three
seats.
The
member who represents part of Goose Bay would also represent Lab West.
The other member who represents part of Goose Bay would also represent
the Southeast Coast. That does not
seem fair, and the logic of the cost saving that we are talking about simply is
not there.
If you
look at what we are dealing with, with Labrador let's say Labrador was a
nation on its own. If we were to say
Labrador was a nation on its own and I do not mean a province and I do not
mean a territory. If Labrador were a
nation on its own, by geography it would be the sixty-eighth biggest country in
the world, behind the Philippines.
By population, it would be sustainable.
It would be sustainable because it would be a little smaller in
population than Monaco and it would be a little bit bigger than the British
Virgin Islands. Clearly, Labrador
does not need Newfoundland.
Newfoundland needs Labrador.
If
Labrador were a nation on its own, it would have all of the minerals of Labrador
West. It would have a road to the
rest of Canada, so it would not need a fixed link.
Why would it want a fixed link to an island that they are alienated from?
Why would they need a fixed link if they can drive to the mainland?
They are the mainland. They
do not need to drive to the mainland.
They can drive from Labrador West, from Goose Bay.
They
would have Lake Melville. They would
have the Upper Churchill. So why
would they not charge an export tax on electricity, a couple of cents a
kilowatt, and be the richest people not only in North America, but the richest
people in the world? They would be the
richest people in the world if Labrador were to receive the 26,000 or 27,000
people were to receive the royalty value they could have for the resources that
are in Labrador.
They
would also have Muskrat Falls. They
would have Muskrat Falls because they would be Labrador.
They would have shipping through Lake Melville.
They would have a fishery on the coast.
So why wouldn't this Province want to preserve four seats for Labrador in
this legislation? Why would any
government want to go down in history as alienating Labrador?
Who would want to be the Benedict Arnold that would split up this
Province, who would take the first step to go that far?
Hopefully we will never go there.
It is certainly not to be advocated, but it is certainly to be
considered, because people in Labrador are and I would encourage all members
to spend some time in Labrador. Not
just flying through and not just dropping, but meet and visit and talk with some
people in Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, I have a son in law from Labrador, and I have visited Labrador a fair
bit. Not the North Coast of
Labrador, but certainly Sheshatshiu and all the of the other communities on the
South Coast of Labrador. The first
time I visited there was in 1969 on a motorcycle, and the road would only go to
Red Bay. I did business there in
years after that. So I would urge
this Legislature and this government to preserve Labrador's four seats,
regardless of whatever you do to the rest of rural Newfoundland.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, keep Labrador's position in place.
Now, if
we come to the rest of the Province, how do we deal with rural districts like my
district and like the eight or nine other districts that have between 8,000 and
9,000 people? We have eight or nine
districts that have between 8,000 and 9,000 people, and in the case of my
district and I will speak only about my district; I will not speak about the
district for the Minister of Natural Resources, or for the Minister of Tourism,
and a whole bunch of other jobs and to be fair, he is doing a pretty good job
because he is handling about three ministers' jobs up to now, plus House Leader.
So we
have a number of seats in this size.
In the case of my district by the time I get off the plane in Deer Lake I am
not complaining. This is not the
best paying work I have ever had, to be perfectly frank.
It is about the third-best paying work I have had, but it is the most
rewarding work that I have had. I
signed on for the work, and I am going to sign on for it again if my seat is
still around. If my seat is not
still around, I am going to come looking for one of your seats.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. J. BENNETT:
So you are on notice.
Not the
Member for Cape St. Francis, because he has been there too long and it is too
blue from Tom Hickey's days. No, no,
no but I might go after the Speaker's seat and I do not mean this Speaker, I
mean the other Speaker. Lewisporte
is a pretty good place. I could go
out to Twillingate. I have clients
in Twillingate who I have defended, and I have relatives in Change Islands, so I
am redistributing so I am telling you we are coming after seats.
We are coming after seats.
In my
district, by the time you get off the plane it is 425 kilometres to drive from
one end of my district and go out through all of Gros Morne National Park.
It is thirty-five communities, it is fifteen incorporated municipalities,
and it is eighteen local service districts.
It is two hospitals, two police stations, and thirteen volunteer fire
departments. That is in one
district. The problem is there are
only 8,500 people.
Ideally,
you will give me a little more ground, a few more people, and keep the seat
relatively intact, but there is no guarantee of that because just north of that
is the Member for The Straits White Bay North.
He has to push southward so he can pick up another couple of thousand
people or so, because even on the 25 per cent tolerance of 13,000 people, if you
take away one from Labrador, which you really should not do, if you do not take
away one from Labrador and leave Labrador with four then we have almost 14,000 a
piece we have to represent, so you have to give him around half of mine and then
the Leader of the Opposition, I guess he would get the other half of mine and go
in with Deer Lake.
I am
going to be coming looking for a seat.
I like Baie Verte too, I like Springdale, and I like La Scie, all the
places where I have represented the fishermen over the years on the food fishery
and the whole works, more than happy to be there.
Leading Tickles all of the fishermen in Leading Tickles who I
represented, so incumbents will be coming looking for your seat.
Mr.
Speaker, you can see the issues that we are faced with in rural parts of the
Province. In rural parts of the
Province we have large geography, many needs, many communities and high
expenses. The government is saying
that the reason that they need to do this redistribution today is because of the
big drop in oil prices. Mr. Speaker,
I ask the people who are watching at home if some people are still watching at
home I have a list of oil prices and oil prices I understand what the
minister is saying that everyone is going along fine until the price of oil just
sort of fell in July.
The
price of oil fell in July from $105.22 to December, $60.55, which is 32 per
cent. It fell $44.67 and that is a
pretty dramatic fall. However, July
of 2008 the price of oil was $132.00 and by December it fell to $41.53, which is
lower than it is today. It fell
$91.20 in 2008, a 68 per cent drop, twice as big a drop as this past year and we
did not redistribute. We did not
have a financial crisis, or did we?
What I
am saying, Mr. Speaker, is if the price of oil fell twice as far in 2008 in the
same five months as it did in 2014 in the same five months, more than twice as
much, it was $132.00 and fell to $41.53 versus being $105.22 and falling to
$60.55 then this must be either a manufactured crisis or manufactured excuse and
not the real reason for this debate on this legislation this week.
Then we would need to look to find out what was different in 2008 and in
2014.
Well,
2008 was not an election year and 2009 was not an election year and 2010 was not
an election year, so there is no need to worry about the price of oil by this
government unless it is an election year.
There is an election year coming now.
So even
though the price of oil has fallen only 32 per cent, compared to 68 per cent six
years ago, now we have an emergency.
Now we have a crisis. We cannot
possibly have a crisis, Mr. Speaker.
The deficit that we are talking about, the billion-dollar deficit, over half of
that was already planned. Over half
of that deficit was already in the original Budget.
MR. SPEAKER:
I am going to ask the hon.
member to come back to the bill, relevance of the bill.
Speak to the bill, please.
MR. J. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, thank you for
that. I am trying to connect to the
speech of the Minister of Finance who said that we have this catastrophic fall
in oil. I am trying to connect to
all the members of government who claim oil fell so we have to save $10 million
in four years so we need to redistribute the seats.
Mr.
Speaker, it is not true that this is the biggest drop in oil prices.
So why are we fast-forwarding by at least a year, we have to run
legislation through the House so we can work on census data that is four years
old, instead of new census data?
Even the
Minister of Health, the Deputy Premier, is on quote from when he was in
municipal government saying that you should wait until about a year-and-a-half
after a census so you will have current numbers.
Wouldn't that make sense today?
It seems to make sense today.
All I
can say is the reasons that are given for this debate are not the real reasons.
People watching will know the real reasons.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to stand tonight and speak on the Act to
Amend the Electoral Boundaries Act.
I have been listening this is the fourth day in the House.
Yesterday was a break from this particular piece of legislation, but I
have listened intently Tuesday and today on this act.
I think most everybody in the Legislature has spoken to this.
There are a few who have not, but I guess the pleasure of speaking this
late at night is I do not have to compete with
American Idol.
That is a good thing.
I know there are people from my district who are
keen to hear what I have to say, and there are people listening from my district
who are keen to hear what I have to say.
Before I get into it, I have listened to most every
speaker, and most every speaker who has spoken has mentioned Labrador.
I am glad to see that, because it shows that Labrador is a big part of
the Province. Labrador
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
is not a separate part of the Province, Labrador is a very unique part of the
Province, and I am glad to see that.
Before I get into the meat of what I have to say, I
would like to give a bit of an explanation, first of all, about the act itself
and then I would like to talk a little bit about the amendment.
The act itself goes back to 2006 when the boundaries
were actually changed, and it talked about going into forty-eight seats.
Of course, a lot of it is done based on population.
There was a commission put in place, there was a Chair appointed to the
commission, then the Chair appointed the commissioners and they went forward.
So it is arm's-length, as I have heard a lot of my colleagues talk about
in the House.
It is an arm's-length process from government;
although, the Chief Justice will appoint the Chairperson and then the Speaker of
the House, who is an independent member when they sit as Chair, appoints the
commissioners they appoint the
four commissioners. In this
particular case, as was in 2006, there would be two commissioners by choice of
government. There would be one by
the Official Opposition and one by the Third Party.
That has not changed.
So that is how the commission is actually set up.
You can have a Deputy Chair appointed to the commission, and that could
be done by the five commissioners the Chair and the four commissioners.
If they so choose to appoint a Deputy Chair, they can do that in the
auspices of the commission itself.
It takes two members on the commission to form a quorum.
When I was reading down through the act and for those
who are home listening and people in the gallery, reading legislation is not the
most interesting thing because of the language that is in it.
I am the first to admit I will sit back and read it two or three times to
get my head around it because it can be fairly tricky when you are reading it.
So, this particular act, because I have heard so much about it, I really
wanted to understand it. I will tell
you, I do not mind saying I have read the act about eight times.
I read it word for word. I
would pick it up and I would put it down and I would pick it up and I would put
it down, and I am glad I did because I think I actually got my head around the
act.
The important thing about only needing two members of
the commission to form a quorum and I have sat on many, many boards over the
last fifty-plus years. The important
thing about only needing two members to form that quorum is that it could be two
members from the Opposition; it could be two members from the government.
To me, it is a very fair process, the way that is written.
If somebody decides halfway through the process, when
the commission is put in place, this is not for me, I really do not have the
time or the energy to put into this, they could step away.
The commission themselves have the right to replace that person.
They do not have to replace that person, but they do have that right.
To be eligible to sit on the commission you cannot be
an elected Member of the House of Assembly, of the House of Commons or of the
Senate. You cannot be a member of
that. I heard a member from across
the way, from the Opposition say you put Judy on there.
Judy is not on the commission, and I do not mind saying Judy is the
minister who the commission is responsible for.
That is the difference.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
In
making that point, another point, sitting back here and listening right through
the fall session and listening over the last few days and I have heard the Judy
Manning and I will use the word of the Member for Conception Bay South, his
favorite word, was fiasco. He used
that word today, and I was thinking he loves that word.
Listening to the Judy Manning fiasco from across the
way, I think and I am surprised no one else has said it.
I know I am getting a little bit off here, Mr. Speaker, and I will get
right back to the bill. Judy Manning
is not one person. She works with a
full Cabinet and a full caucus and they work together, and I speak from
experience.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Mr.
Speaker, in order to be eligible as I was saying, you cannot be an elected
Member of the House of Assembly, the House of Commons, or the Senate.
Then once the chief justice puts the chairperson in place there are time
limits. It says it has to be
expedited, as expeditiously as possible to put the commission in place.
As soon as the chair is appointed by a chief justice,
who by the way has to be a judge, that chair of the commission very
expeditiously then has to go to the Speaker of the House to have the other four
commissioners appointed as quickly as possible.
Then they go through the process and I am not going to talk a lot about
it because there are so many other speakers who have talked about the process
and the duties and responsibility of the commission.
None of that has changed.
Once they have their job done they go back to the
minister responsible, then the minister goes back to the Cabinet.
Right away, the minister goes back to the Cabinet.
Then within a matter of fifteen days, if the House of Assembly is opened,
if not, within fifteen days after the House of Assembly is opened, that has to
be tabled in the House of Assembly.
The only things that are changing with the amendments
are that we are changing the time from 2016 to 2015.
In saying that, we are not spending any more money by doing it in 2015.
The money was going to be spent and allocated for in 2016.
We are just speeding up a process.
Now, I have been an elected Member of the House of
Assembly for about three-and-a-half years.
I was a municipal politician before that and before that, while I was in
municipal politics, I was a business man.
I can tell you that going back, not just a week ago but many, many years
ago, one of the things that was a common conversation around the table of many
of the restaurants and pubs and bars that I owned was there are too many people
in the Legislature. Why do we have
so many people in the Legislature?
Now, why it has not changed before, I cannot answer
that question; but I am very proud to stand here tonight and say I am part of a
party, with a leader, that was bold enough to say we need to make the change.
That is what is being done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
That change is being made.
What we are doing is going from 2016 to 2015.
No more money. No extra cost.
We are just expediting it. We
are going the members down to a certain number.
Another thing I have heard listening to a lot of people
speak in the last few days, and a question that was asked on a regular basis:
Where did the number come from? I
thought the Minister of Finance in his opening statement articulated that quite
well. He looked at the rules around
what the commission would have and talked about population and discussed
geography.
That is where that number came from, the population we have in our
Province today divided by a number of seats.
Then you
would calculate around that. I am
not a mathematician. I am certainly
not the Minister of Finance. I
cannot decide where they are going with that, but it made sense to me.
When the minister talked about it, it made sense to me where they came up
with the number. The other thing is
to try and clean it up a little bit and getting the report in, in 120 days.
That is the only changes that are being made.
In
saying that, I listened to what the people had to say.
There are a couple of things I have to say.
Number one, I agree with the reduction.
I agree very strongly with the reduction.
I agree we need to debate, which I think we have done a very good job of
doing, and I also agree that we need to look at geography.
We need to put the geography into how we are going to make our decisions.
There has to be, whether you want to call it a calculated risk or making
another bold decision, there has to be times when I am hoping they will make
some difference.
I have
heard everybody else talk about Labrador.
There are only two people, I have to say and I am going to point them
out who disappointed me. I was
flabbergasted by one; one did not surprise me at all.
The
Member for St. Barbe, I heard him talk a lot about Labrador.
I heard him refer again to it being its own nation, using the word
separatism, using the word alienation.
It was disappointing, very disappointing, but most disappointing was the
Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair when I heard her use the word
separatism. I heard you use the word
alienation, and I heard you use the words attack on democracy.
I heard
the Member for Harbour Main stand and talk about the day he went to Labrador in
2011 and was so proud to open the Trans-Labrador Highway, when he felt I had
arguments with him, because I sat on the Combined Councils.
I was the President of the Combined Councils at the time and felt it
should not be open. This is relevant
to the geography.
May I
say that it was the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, her members who
were pushing to get that highway open so they could use it.
MS DEMPSTER:
A point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
On a
point of order, the hon. the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
MS DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, if the Member
for Labrador West wants to talk about the $2.5 million savings that ten seats
are going to bring in a year, why doesn't he talk about the $20 million Humber
Valley Paving fiasco since he heard the word?
MR. SPEAKER:
There is no point of order.
The hon.
the Member for Labrador West.
MR. MCGRATH:
That is a great segue into
where I was going, because if the hon. Member for Cartwright, who I had a
sidebar conversation with over here, over the Humber Valley Paving catastrophe
or whatever you call it, and I told you give me a list
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind
the hon. member that he should address the Chair.
MR. MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I
will address the Chair.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask you, as I had a conversation with the Member for Cartwright
L'Anse au Clair, I would be more than happy
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind
the hon. member as well that he needs to come back to the bill.
We are talking on the principle of the bill, Bill 42.
MR. MCGRATH:
Okay, I will do that.
Mr.
Speaker, when it comes to the geography of the regions in Labrador, if she has
any geographical members in her district who are having a problem, she can bring
it to me.
MR. J. BENNETT:
A point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
Barbe on a point of order.
MR. J. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the
Member for Labrador West to wait until we get into committee before he launches
personal attacks because he does not have to be relevant there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
There is no point of order.
The hon.
the Member for Labrador West.
MR. MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, as I was saying, it was very disappointing to hear a member from
Labrador, with only four districts in Labrador again, she certainly talked
about the size of Labrador, which I am very aware with.
I went to Labrador thirty-seven years ago by choice.
I am still there by choice, and I plan on being there for quite a few
years yet.
I would
also like to let the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair know I am fighting
to keep four seats in Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. MCGRATH:
Unlike the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, I will not get on the open
airways nor will I stand up in this sacred House and talk about separatism.
I will do it with a party where I would be negotiating.
I will not speak for my colleague for Lake Melville, I am sure he is
quite capable of speaking for himself and will do so when he gets the
opportunity, but I can guarantee you I have been negotiating with the Premier,
with the Cabinet, and with the caucus, and I will continue to do it.
I will continue to advocate for the four regions in Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. MCGRATH:
Mr. Speaker, another comment
I was taken aback by the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, was when she
said she is the spokesperson for Labrador.
Well, I
can guarantee you, I have had the opportunity of being the Minister of Labrador
and Aboriginal Affairs. I have been
to base camp in the Torngat Mountains, to the Fermont border, and everywhere in
between. I have let the people in
Labrador know I was representing all of them because that was my job, but I can
guarantee you as long as Nick McGrath is where I am not sure if I am allowed
to say my own name in the House, if I am not, I apologize but I can guarantee
you as long as I am the representative for Labrador West, I do not need you
speaking for my people.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Order,
please!
The hon.
the Member for Labrador West, and I remind him to speak to the bill.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I have talked to the people in my district, and I think I am
representing the people in my district quite well.
I talk to them every day. I
have yet to come up to one person in my District of Labrador West, which is one
of the largest districts in Labrador, the most heavily populated in Labrador,
and I am proud to say a district that is doing well.
We are going through a bit of a downtime right now but we are going to
get through that. We are going to
get through it as a population. I
have yet to talk to one person in my district who is not in agreement with the
reduction in the House of Assembly.
Now,
like anybody else, any other politician sitting in this room, I am sure you have
talked to members in your district and they have said: Yes, we want a reduction;
yes, we want fewer members, but do not touch our district, do not cut us
smaller. We are all going to hear
that. That is why there is an
independent commission put in place and it is not just a decision of government.
As I
said, I will advocate for four seats in Labrador, and I will continue to
advocate. I am not sure I will win
my battle, but when I lay my head on my pillow at night I can guarantee you my
constituents will know that I worked hard for them that day.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I am
under the understanding that this House will take a short recess.
The
House is in recess for ten minutes.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER (Verge):
Order, please!
We will
resume debate on Bill 42.
The hon.
the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. RUSSELL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Bear
with me; as you can tell, I have a little trouble with the voice here tonight.
Mr.
Speaker, as I always do in this hon. House, it is a pleasure and an honour to be
here and to get up and speak once again here tonight on Bill 42.
As I always do when I stand in my place, I would like to give thanks to
the great people of the District of Lake Melville.
Through Churchill Falls, through Goose Bay, through Sheshatshiu, through
North West River, through Mud Lake, time and time again, the people come out to
support me. I am there to liaise
with them, they are always there to have my back, and they know that I have an
open door and they can always reach me.
To them, I honestly say, thank you so very much for your continued
support, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. RUSSELL:
We are here tonight to speak
about Bill 42, of course, An Act to Amend the Electoral Boundaries Act.
We have heard this on this side of the House and we have had
acknowledgement from the other side as well that we can get this done within a
time period that allows us to have our election in 2015.
I stand by that. That is what
we want. That is what I want.
That is what everybody in this House wants.
That is what the Province wants, Mr. Speaker, and we can make that
happen.
We have
consensus in this House about the idea of parliamentary reform, the idea of
bringing down the number of seats across the public of this great Province right
from the tip of Labrador, from Nain, right down to the Avalon.
We have consensus among the people as well, not only inside this House
but outside as well, that they would like to see a reduction in the number of
seats.
We
understand, Mr. Speaker, in times such as this of fiscal restraint, we have to
be very frugal, we have to be very prudent, and the cost reduction associated
with this is evident. When you talk
about salaries, support staff, you talk about expenses, you talk about even in
the long term about people not being included into the pension plan and
pension reform, of course, will be next it is just being fiscally responsible.
No matter which side of the House you sit on, we can all agree that with
circumstances with the price of oil right now and our revenue streams of income
to this Province, we all have to have that mindset.
Of
course, across every district there is always a continued want, a continued
need, but we have to watch our costs as we go forward.
It is about making sure we make the right choices, Mr. Speaker.
Again, going back to Bill 42 here, what we are talking about is that cost
reduction as well.
What I
am going to attempt to dominate my twenty minutes here with, Mr. Speaker, is
about the four seats in Labrador. We
have all seen it in the media, we have seen it in this House, we have listened
to people across the away, they have listened to us everybody is being really
intent on listening and sharing their experiences about what they think about
cost, or about House reform in general, and the Labrador seats.
We have all seen it in the media; we really have.
I
believe the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair talked about the weight of
it. I absolutely acknowledge that
and I think when we talk about jobs we talk about people being concerned about
maybe their district is going to become too large now and I will not be
represented, my voice will not be heard, my ideas of what governance is and what
we need for our people and our communities, they have that concern that maybe if
things changed they will not heard all very valid concerns, Mr. Speaker.
I was on
Labrador Morning this morning and they
are like, Keith, where do you stand, or Minister Russell, where do you stand?
Where do you stand? At that
point in time what I committed to was the process behind amending Bill 42 to
achieve what we all want to see in this House and across this Province, and that
process of course is what we are doing right here.
We have
heard lots of talk about democracy.
What we are seeing right here is a bill comes to the floor, amendments could be
proposed, everybody gets their say, the people are represented and then we move
forward. Eventually, we will come to
a point in time when a commission is put together, a Chair is selected, and
members are put together. They look
at what the legislation says and they do what is best for the Province.
We move forward and, hopefully, we get this done I guarantee we will
get this done within the time frame that allows us to have our election in 2015
with the four-year period (inaudible).
With
that, Mr. Speaker, I will just say that I committed to listening.
I committed to hearing everybody's opinion around all of these different
parties here. I committed, as every
other MHA in this House did, and we do every time, is listening to your
constituents, listening to the community leaders.
In my case, it was heavily ladened with listening to Aboriginal people
and Aboriginal leaders as well, Mr. Speaker.
With
that, if we look across the way to the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains and we
realize, yes, with no road access, with heavily populated Aboriginal people in
his communities, Nunatsiavut Government in place of which I am a beneficiary
as well as a member we recognize that special circumstance, we certainly do,
but the justification is out there and it has been put here by other hon.
members, both my colleague for Labrador West and the colleague for Cartwright
L'Anse au Clair, that the other districts in Labrador are indeed unique too.
When you
look at Labrador as a whole, what do you see?
We call it the Big Land, Mr. Speaker.
Geography the location of Torngat Mountains was used in that decision,
as with every other district. As my
colleague for Lab West said at one time, somebody said, do you know what?
I sent a document to the Goose Bay office.
They knew he was in Lab West could you run over during lunch hour and
pick that up? Well, I do not advise
my colleague for Lab West to do the seven-hour drive in one hour.
It is just not a good idea, but having said that, when you look at Lab
West, there are some trying times.
We have seen commodity prices go down.
We have seen hard times for Wabush Mines.
What does our government do?
We step in; $3.8 million worth of grants helped them through their time of need.
What we
have is a separate community, completely geographically separated.
A different culture, Mr. Speaker, different groups of people,
hardworking, honest, good people who have a place in this Province because of
what Labrador delivers to the economy in terms of the mines that are going to
come up, power lines. We see that.
We see that going through to Churchill Falls as we come into Lake
Melville, what I call the melting pot.
The
Innu, the Inuit, the NunatuKavut people of Southern Labrador, we see all of them
come together in Lake Melville right where Muskrat Falls is.
We go from Lab West and we see IOC and Wabush Mines.
Then we go to Upper Churchill and Churchill Falls.
Then we come to Muskrat Falls in my district.
Then, Mr. Speaker, we look up towards I will say just quickly once
again about Torngat Mountains. We
look at the potential for uranium.
We look at Voisey's Bay, and again extending down into Cartwright L'Anse au
Clair, opportunities are going to be there.
There is a lot of opportunity there.
Going
back to Bill 42, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that when you talk about
Labrador as a whole, these four districts with a population of about 28,000
people and I have say this as Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs
over 15,000 people are Aboriginal.
Not only do you have a high concentration within the Member for Torngat
Mountains' district but you also have that across Labrador as a whole, which
makes us completely unique when you consider the population of the Big Land with
its massive geography, its unlimited and untapped resources, the majesty and the
beauty of the land. All that put
together in one you have to admit it is unique, it is special.
It warrants a little bit of talk when you are talking about whether or
not we need four seats in Labrador.
Then we
talk about within the legislation, Mr. Speaker, the qualifiers, the quotients if
you will. You talk about 10 per
cent; well, there is maybe 20 per cent, 25 per cent in special circumstances.
What I say to you is that the importance of Labrador right now, as
evident in our history, what we are seeing is we are taking a real hit because
of the price of oil. Right now we
need Labrador more than ever in terms of diversifying our revenue streams as we
prepare for the long-term sustainability of the power and the robust economy
that we have right now in Newfoundland and Labrador.
We need that.
All the
people of Labrador need to know, regardless of population and geographic
separation and whether or not they are Aboriginal, whether or not their
particular community right now is mature to a point, that they have a wonderful
megaproject or whatever, they need to know their voices are heard.
They are separate; they are distinct.
They need to be represented, Mr. Speaker.
You say,
where am I going with all of this?
Mr. Speaker, it is about the justification for those four seats.
I just heard my hon. colleague from Lab West stand up, and what does he
do? He talks about the need for
those four seats. I believe in that
as well, Mr. Speaker.
A lot of
people have wondered, Keith, where do you stand?
Minister Russell, where do you stand?
You have an obligation. It
takes a lot of hard work to be a Cabinet minister, I am learning that.
I have to take guidance from fellow ministers, from our Premier, from our
Deputy Premier. You have to
understand that just because somebody wants to know where you stand personally,
you have an obligation to your colleagues.
You have an obligation to this government and our civil servants, and you
have an obligation to the people to do what is right by the Cabinet and its
structure. That is a very hard thing
to transition into, Mr. Speaker, when you are used to firing out your opinion as
you see fit.
We have
seen a passion from our representation from Labrador.
We have seen the passion from all districts across this great Province.
We have seen that, Mr. Speaker, and it is not lost on any one of us on
either side of the House. Sometimes
it gets heated, and just to talk about that a little bit in reference to this
bill. We understand politics, we
understand optics, we understand when they get up and put a petition out from my
district. I follow the petitions,
and it is wonderful to see some Labrador names on these petitions from time to
time.
We
committed to coming here and we committed to saying, what do you have to say?
What do your people want you to say?
We have done that, Mr. Speaker, and it is part of this process with Bill
42 here to say, let's go through the Legislature with this bill.
Let's look at how a commission would want to structure this House and
make sure that everybody has that voice in this House.
That is all part of it, and I have done that.
I think everybody has. We
have had a great debate up to this point.
I do
want to make some commentary about some of the debate up to this point.
You call it rebuttal, you call it answering, giving an opinion maybe on
what was said in specific reference to the four seats in Labrador.
I have to say, I am not looking to be controversial.
I am not looking to take somebody down personally but I think we have a
responsibility in this House, not only to the people of each of our districts,
but a responsibility when it comes to governance, when it comes to opposition,
when it comes to fighting for what you believe in.
With
that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say and I will talk about the Member for
Torngat just for a little bit here.
I just want to say one quick thing about the Member for Exploits.
There was a little bit of a heated debate where he was talking about
roads and how it is not unique in anyone's district to not have a lot of roads.
It was taken out of context, but a hon. man, as the Member for Exploits
is, went over and offered an apology.
That is how it works. People
see the heat of the moment when you are at home but sometimes you do not get to
see that we are all people here. We
respect each other. We respect each
other's opinions, and we are willing to reach out personally when sometimes
there is a little misgiving there.
I will
correct the Member for Torngat. He
did get up in the House I am only reading from Hansard here saying that the
Member for Lab West and I were in support of getting rid of four seats.
Never at any time did we say that, Mr. Speaker, and never at any time did
our leader, the Premier, say that as well.
We were prepared to be open, to keep options on the table, Mr. Speaker,
if you will.
In terms
of one more comment from the Member for Torngat, he did say that, more or less,
Labrador was being treated like a shed door that was being opened and we take
what we want. Mr. Speaker, when some
of the projects that we have, that Labrador contributes to our economy and
allows us to diversify our revenue streams, you have to consider, you have to be
responsible in your messaging. You
have to say there were some antiquated royalty arrangements in place and some
power regimes that really did not see us get the lion's share, Mr. Speaker.
That is
why we have to work together in unity, Mr. Speaker, we have to be together on
all aspects, the Labrador portion and the Island portion together.
Together we are strong.
Together we will realize our full potential and begin to have an economy that
cannot be touched by any volatility in one commodity or the other.
We will be able to balance, and hopefully we do not get to a situation
where we might be coming to where we have to make some hard calls, and show some
true leadership. That does not bode
well politically, but sometimes it is what is right for the people of the
Province. Sometimes you just have to
do that, Mr. Speaker.
Moving
on, I would just like to say in terms of some of the things we have heard in the
House and I guess the Member for Lab West, my friend and colleague, brought up.
We did hear some separatist talk, and I am not going to try and single
anyone out. It is not about beating
up on an individual. What it is
about is the statement I just made.
It is about unity. It is about
making sure that people are well represented.
Bill 42
is going to help us achieve that and make sure the balance is struck.
Labrador needs to have its voice as well, but we cannot afford to be
irresponsible to the point where we are willing to compromise our unity as a
Province. The strength and resources
of the Big Land, the oil of the Island portion and the sheer numbers and the
professionalism, all the people we have, the wonderful communities and the
experience we have, our education system and the young people coming through the
system, we cannot compromise that, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. RUSSELL:
We have to stand together,
and that is my point. If you were to
ask me as a native son in Labrador why talk of separatism, why does it bother me
so much, and why is that coming up in the topic of Bill 42, where we are trying
to justify keeping seats and moving seats and what that magic number is, it is
because of my heritage.
I have
stood in this House many times, Mr. Speaker, and I have talked about my wife
Brenda from the Northern Peninsula.
I am born and raised in Labrador, yes, but we have a fisherman's daughter, the
daughter of Rosie and Whyman up in Green Island Brook on the Northern Peninsula.
My kids,
Mr. Speaker, know that dad is a Labradorian and know that mom is a
Newfoundlander. They know that her
dad was a fisherman and mine was an electrician.
We do not come from money. We
are average, everyday people who strive and work to make a way in this world.
That is what every Newfoundlander and Labradorian that is the
opportunity they should have. We
help foster that, but we have to be united.
I think
about my Aboriginal grandparents, gram and gramps, Eliza and Norman Edmunds who
came down from Northern Labrador to make a way for their family.
I think about my nan and pop Frank and Maude Russell who came from the
Island when my dad was only two to go to work at the American base just to make
a way for themselves, Mr. Speaker.
You have to take those things into consideration when you do make comments that
could even intensify any type of advocacy for separatism.
It cannot be tolerated.
I see my
time is winding down. I just want to
talk a little bit more about the absolute unique characteristics of the four
districts in Labrador. When I talk
about the Innu you see a beautiful people and a strong people with culture, Mr.
Speaker. When you talk about
NunatuKavut, when you start moving down to Cartwright L'Anse au Clair I had
the pleasure of spending some time with them facing some real issues, hard rural
locations where water and sewer is hard, facing relocation, issues that we face
all across the Province.
I spent
years in the Legislature up in Torngat Mountains, Mr. Speaker, fighting for the
people of Lake Melville and fighting for what they thought, too.
I saw how they lived. I did
everything I could to help improve those circumstances.
That is what we have to do.
When it
comes to Labrador, Mr. Speaker, are we unique?
Yes, in geography. In people,
yes, we are. We have a wonderfully
diverse culture, like I said, heavily laden in Aboriginal population.
We welcome all people. It is
not just about Aboriginal people either; we welcome all people.
Do we have our challenges?
Yes. Do we have resources?
Absolutely, that should benefit everybody, no matter where you live in
every district in this great Province.
When it
comes to Bill 42 I just want to make sure that we move forward together.
Let's get this done. Put
politics aside. If we are going to
have an election in 2015, let's do it.
Let's get the right number of seats here and let's be fiscally
responsible together, Mr. Speaker.
Let's get to a point where we do not have to use politics, putting digs at each
other and say you are not representing your district.
We have to have a measure of respect for each other, Mr. Speaker.
That is where I want to see us go.
We have to get there.
With
Bill 42, yes, it is contentious because we are talking about those jobs, cuts,
all of those things. When you look
at Labrador as a whole, and I talked about Nunatsiavut, I talked about
NunatuKavut, I talked about the Innu Nation, Sheshatshiu, and Natuashish, and I
talked about the communities in all of the districts represented here in this
Legislature, I would just like to end by saying that Labrador, the Big Land, and
its unique landscape and geography, its unique people from all walks of life,
the beauty of the Aboriginal groups and their cultures, and I am proud to be a
native son of Labrador ultimately, that is one of the greatest things that I
have in my life, Mr. Speaker.
People
saw in this House that we over here on this side of the House, we have true
leadership. We have the flexibility
to meet with a private member's resolution of the NDP to say, do you know what,
let's form an all-party committee and let's change our course of direction in
order to serve the people of the Province, Mr. Speaker.
Therefore, I would like to say, with my last few seconds, that I would like to
announce that in the Committee stage to come in the debate for Bill 42, under
the leadership of our Premier, I would just like to say that we will be putting
forth an amendment that will protect and maintain the four seats in Labrador.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just
want to stand for a few minutes to speak on Bill 42.
I just heard the minister if I am correct saying that if we go to
Committee the government will put in an amendment to protect the four seats in
Labrador. Is that what I just heard?
Mr. Speaker, I am some proud of Dwight Ball and the two members for
Labrador
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. JOYCE:
who Monday morning said
Labrador is unique. We have to stand
for Labrador, Mr. Speaker. We have
to make the stand. I am proud of
this Liberal caucus. I am proud of
the two members for Labrador and I am glad that the government is stepping in
with us to help Labrador and make sure Labrador is protected, like they should
be. I am so proud.
Thank you, government, for doing that.
Thank you, Dwight Ball, and the Liberal caucus.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
Legislatures do work and this
is a prime example, Mr. Speaker.
Win, lose, or draw, Labrador is the winner after that statement and after what
we heard here today.
Mr.
Speaker, I am going to speak about some of the changes to this act.
We all agree; there should be a reduction.
The number, the process sometimes is what gets convoluted and we have a
few problems. We agree with a
reduction; we agree that there should be changes.
The amount is what we disagree on and how it is done.
As we all know, the act is for every ten years to come in and have a
change. Mr. Speaker, the government,
in their wisdom, said okay, we are going to speed that up and move it ahead a
year early. That is the government's
prerogative. It is our prerogative
to defend it. It is our prerogative
to make amendments, which we did do for Labrador.
The
process, the 120 days is part of the process that I feel is wrong, that it will
not give time for the presentations around the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador. I really feel that.
Because once the process starts in 120 days, what if every community
wants to have a presentation? Are
they going to be heard? Are they
going to go out and have public consultations?
I know
in the act it says minimum of two: one for Labrador and one for the Province.
This is my concern: Will the committee be squeezed and say, oh, we shall
have the report in 120 days? Will
they stop people in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador from having their
democratic process of being heard in this report?
I am not saying they are not, but I am asking is there a possibility
because of a short time frame? That
is the concern, Mr. Speaker. It is a
legitimate concern because there are a lot of people who have their various
opinions on this.
As I
said before, this is going to be done for ten years, so we have to do it right.
Will four months make sure it is done right, Mr. Speaker?
That is the question. Will it
be done right so that for ten years, the process was done right?
We
already said we are not going to go with the census of 2016, Mr. Speaker.
To me, that is one mistake that we are making, but anyway it is the
government's prerogative. You are
the government, and we have to live with that, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, emotions run high. In a
debate like this, emotions right high.
We see it here in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker.
We saw it here today, we saw it here yesterday, and we have seen it here
tonight. Emotions run extremely
high.
I just
want to tell the people of this Legislature, I have been through this.
In 1993, I made a presentation.
In 1993, I was a parliamentary assistant at the time, but I went up and
made a presentation. It was just on
the numbers because I felt the commission did not have the numbers properly.
At the time, it was all going around the Province having hearings, Mr.
Speaker. I can assure you, emotions
run. We are in this House, the
forty-eight of us; we can see how emotions run high.
They really do. It is human
nature to make sure that our views are heard on behalf of our constituents, on
behalf of ourselves.
Mr.
Speaker, I can assure people in this Legislature and I will get back and I
will explain why I am saying this. I
will assure the people in this Legislature there are going to be towns against
towns because of this; there are going to be communities against communities.
This is what is going to happen.
I do not think anybody in this Legislature is going to be saying that or
promoting that, but it is human nature.
There will be towns and communities fighting against each other.
I know
in 2006 when there were changes to the boundaries, there were streets divided.
There are going to be streets against streets, people complaining because
your street is one area of a district, my street is and another street.
I have been through it. Trust
me, emotions are going to run high with all this.
We as
parliamentarians, Mr. Speaker, are going to be faced with neighbours against
neighbours. We are going to be faced
with family members in one town against family members in another town.
We have to be prepared for that.
We have to be prepared and ready for that.
We have to ensure that if this process goes ahead, we have to do it in
such a way that it is as easy as possible for the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, this is going to be hard on a lot of members because a lot of members
are going to be torn. I am speaking
from experience. A lot of members
are going to be torn. When you have
one community taken out of your district that has been there historically and
put in another district and you have to make a decision, do I stand up for this
community or do I stand up with the community that is going to be part of the
district, it is going to be tough.
It is really going to be tough.
Mr.
Speaker, when I went through all this back in 1993 and in 2006 as an elected
member, I saw a lot of people become bad friends.
If there is anything that I can ask this Legislature to do, and this is
in all honesty, whatever is decided in this House of Assembly in the next three,
four, or five days, that we act as leaders in the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador and lead. Whatever happens
after that, ensure that we keep the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador towns
together, communities together, districts together because I can assure you
there can be a lot of division that may take years to heal.
Personally, Mr. Speaker, Bay of Islands could be affected.
I will be the first to say it the Bay of Islands could be affected.
I want to make this commitment here in this Legislature and make it on
the record. If the Bay of Islands is
affected, I will fight as hard as I can for the Bay of Islands and ensure that
they are going to get the proper representation in whatever district the
electoral boundary commission may decide; but, at the end of the day, I would
ask the people to be united whatever the decision will be, whatever it will be.
I think all of us here agree that at the end of the day we need a united
Province.
We need
to fight for it, we need to bring forth our issues, we need to ensure that all
parts of our districts are well represented, and I am sure everybody in this
Legislature will do that, Mr. Speaker.
That is one thing that we have to do as parliamentarians.
There
are times when we are going to see and I have been through it members pitted
against members. There are going to
be seats combined where there are two members in this House of Assembly going to
be one seat. There are going to be
members pitted against members. It
is sad, but that is the reality of it.
That is the reality.
I say
again to the members who are going to be faced with that, face it head on and
face it with gusto. At the end of
the day, win or lose, stand united because I can assure you this is going to
take years to heal once it is done.
That is my request for everybody here tonight, Mr. Speaker.
I go
back to the legislation itself. We
all know that the Chief Electoral Officer said that he needs four months.
He needs four months. So you
take September 25 back the four months, we are at the end of May.
If the commission starts their work February 1 or is appointed February
1, the clock starts ticking. We have
four months very tight timelines, very tight, Mr. Speaker, extremely tight.
As I
said earlier, in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador everybody in their
communities have a right to be heard.
I just need a commitment from the commission and I am not
predetermining and I am definitely not putting any negativity on the commission,
but I just want to ensure that whoever wants to appear in front of this
commission in Newfoundland and Labrador has the opportunity and they cannot be
rushed because of the timelines. I
need that commitment to feel assured that everybody will have a right to appear.
Everybody has a right to be heard.
Everybody has a right for their point of view to ensure the commission
would understand each unique situation in the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, I heard members opposite and I am not being critical here.
I definitely am not being critical.
I heard members talking about timelines, how if you are told to do
something. I will just give you one
example. I am not saying this is not
going to happen. I am going to say
it is going to be very tough. I will
just give you one example.
The
review on Bill 29 is delayed. The
report will not be put in until the end of January.
That is just the latest one.
That is just the latest report in this Province that this government asked to go
out, gave a timeline, they came back and said we just cannot do it.
There is just not enough time.
That is my fear.
I have a
commitment from the government and the government said publicly that once the
report you have 120 days, fifteen days to the Legislature, then, by law, if it
is not ready then we revert to the electoral boundaries which are in place now.
That is
a safeguard for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The government has said it on many occasions that this is not a delay
tactic. When you get the Premier of
the Province standing up and saying this is not a delay, the election will be in
2015, people in the Province have to believe the Premier.
When the Premier stands up and says that, we have to say okay, Premier,
there will be an election.
We have
to go on the basis that if this timeline is not met in 120 days and if it is not
in the fifteen days when it goes to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, that
will stop the work and the election will go ahead in the pre-existing
boundaries, Mr. Speaker. That is the
commitment from the Premier and you have to take the Premier on face value, his
word, and I accept that.
Mr.
Speaker, I have to say, just my view, with this being rushed in now because of
the reasons that were given and I am not going to get into the reasons because
they have been hashed here tonight.
Mr. Speaker, in 2016 we would have had a new census and I can assure you the
census is going to be different from what we are going to do this on now. The
electoral commission will have a census that is outdated, five years outdated,
so the information they are going to go on and I just want to put this on
record. The information they are
going to go on, that is going to make it for the next ten years, will be the
census. It was five years old.
Instead of having an up-to-date census for fifteen years this is going
to be in place for a census which is outdated.
I
personally feel it is fundamentally wrong to do that.
I personally feel that, and I understand I will not get into the
reasons. I will not debate it.
I do not want to harp on the reasons why it was passed and why we need it
done now. I will not get into the
reasons why or how I can say, well, here are other ways.
Fundamentally, Mr. Speaker, if you are going to make a decision for the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador, people of Newfoundland and Labrador expect you to
have the most up-to-date information, they do.
They honestly do. Mr.
Speaker, I want it on record that I feel, fundamentally, we should wait until
the new census but the government decided not to, and that is the government's
prerogative in the Legislature.
Mr.
Speaker, I heard the Premier say on numerous occasions and I will use Bill 29
when they came back and said, okay, we need it done.
The Premier's statement, and this rings in my ear, we better do it right
than fast. That was Bill 29 when
they asked for it, and he said, what is the rush?
It is better to have it done right than to do it fast.
My
question, isn't it better to do it this year right than fast?
Isn't it better to ensure that we have the most up-to-date information?
Isn't it better to make sure there is a timeline in place that every
Newfoundlander and Labradorian who wants to speak in front of this commission
has an opportunity? Mr. Speaker,
those are the Premier's words, not mine.
I agree with him. I agree
with him 100 per cent, that it is better to take your time.
Mr.
Speaker, there is one more point.
This may come off a bit we heard about technology.
We heard a few people speaking last night about how technology has
changed in the last five or six years.
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt it has.
Absolutely, there is no doubt.
Again, I am not trying to be critical, but these are the things after
being in the Legislature enough times, you hear different things.
When we
were debating Muskrat Falls, we have to buy power from Nalcor for the next fifty
years. Technology does not matter.
If any new technology came into it for energy, it does not matter for
this government because it does not fit their bill.
Technology has changed, so we can go ahead and do all of this now.
Forget about the census, forget about it being rushed.
Forget about not having a timeline so that people can have a proper
hearing for everybody who wanted to meet, but technology has changed.
I just hope you are right, I honestly do, Mr. Speaker.
I hope the government is correct on this, but I do have some major
concerns.
Mr.
Speaker, in closing, I am just going to say a few words right from a person who
has been through this twice. We all
debate. People out there see us
debate in the House of Assembly.
People see us sometimes heckling each other, and some members do heckle each
other. I will be the first to admit
it, Mr. Speaker, but this is one time that if you want to heal wounds in
Newfoundland and Labrador, if you want to ensure you do not have towns pitted
against towns, members in this House are going to be pitted against members,
trust me. Trust me on this.
I tell everybody, I have been through it.
I know in 1993 it almost happened in the Bay of Islands, trust me.
What we
need to do in this Legislature, as leaders of the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador, Mr. Speaker, let's work together to work this out somehow so that if
it is going to go through, let's make it as painless as possible for the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are
all legislators. We know, and it
happened to me, you can get voted out pretty easily.
You can get voted out. If you
are voted out, it is the will of the people.
It is the majority. You
cannot lose when the majority says we want this, we want that.
You cannot lose, Mr. Speaker.
That is what democracy is all about.
Mr.
Speaker, as leaders, as people who are going to go through a lot of difficult
times over the next four or five months, reach out, because it is going to be
tough. Reach out to your fellow
MHAs, reach out to this side, reach out to the NDP, reach out to the leaders in
your community, and let's have an open discussion about this because, at the end
of the day, we all are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
We all need to stick together to ensure that the leaders of the Province
of Newfoundland and Labrador, the forty-eight of us here, will do what we were
elected to do and lead the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
When all
of this is said and done, I just wish everybody the best for their communities,
the best for their towns, and I just hope the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador will come together. We have
to do that, Mr. Speaker. We have to
promote that and we have to ensure that.
There
are going to be a lot of times when we are going to go into difficult meetings,
Mr. Speaker. We have to park our ego
at the door, we have to park it at the door.
When we park our ego at the door we have to go in with the concept that
we need to take this head-on, Mr. Speaker, and go to towns that are going to be
pitted against each other and say okay, we understand, but things are going to
work out. We need to do it.
I have been through it. I
have seen people who were running, still not talking to each other.
I have seen communities still not talking to each other over some of the
things that were said during this heated debate.
It will get heated.
I say to
everybody here, let's stick together as parliamentarians to lead the community.
I know we are going to have our differences.
I will be the first to stand up after this speech and point out the
differences. If there is anything
that I want to leave with everybody here tonight is that it is going to be
difficult times and we have to help people through it.
Some of us may lose our jobs over this, but I guarantee you it is a lot
easier to lose our jobs than to have communities torn apart for the next fifty
or sixty years because of this. We
need to make sure it does not happen.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a
pleasure to stand and have a few words with respect to Bill 42.
I know it is late, and we have come a long ways in this debate since
early in the week.
I want
to recognize the comments made by my colleague opposite and the experience that
he shared, and the recognition that this is not an easy task by the people of
this House and the recognition that it will not be an easy road as we go forward
with this fundamental decision on how we are going to operate the Legislature of
the House and how we will represent the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I will
say in listening to his comments, I think for all of us, we have come to a
realization that when you step into this job it is not an easy job, but the
minute you think the job is about you, then you are in trouble as a politician.
That is why we are here. That
is why we have leadership on both sides of the House.
That is why we had agreement that it is time for us to move forward,
modern-day legislation with a modern House.
It is not about us. It is
about the people we represent. It is
about what we are going to offer to the people of the Province.
That is
not party politics, Mr. Speaker.
That is what we all do; that is what we all commit to do.
We are proud of the work we do.
We are proud of our jobs. I
would say everybody in this House wants a job at the end of the day and needs a
job, but beyond that there is something greater, and that is the conviction that
we all have in this House.
When we
started this discussion there was one goal in mind and I will give credit to
our Premier who had the courage, because this has been kicked around for a
number of years. Our Premier had the
courage granted, members opposite have made comments around the size of the
House. The Leader of the Opposition,
full credit, has made comments as well, and maybe the Leader of the Third Party,
about the need to reform the House and shrink the House.
I give
credit to our Premier who had the courage and it does take courage, because he
will impact every one of us and the people of the Province to go forward on
principle that we need to reduce the size of the Legislature.
Given today's modern technology that we reference and all other aspects
of improvements in the Province, we need to move forward and shrink the
Legislature. That took courage, Mr.
Speaker, and I give him full credit.
What we
have done this week is debated, quite well, as to how we are going to do that.
We set some parameters around that and then we debated back and forth the
spirit of what we do in the Legislature any time we make significant changes or
decisions for the people of the Province, we need to have a healthy debate and
we have certainly seen that. We have
been able to come to some resolutions, come to some agreements, and that is what
it is about.
Bearing
in mind, at the end when we walk out of here and decisions are made,
fundamentally the decision is led by the Premier, but certainly agreed to by the
members of this House, we will make the Legislature of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador much smaller than it is today.
That is the principle, that is the goal, and we will achieve that
collectively, no question.
Mr.
Speaker, through this debate probably one of the areas that has been talked
about the most, so far, is the area of Labrador.
I have had the fortune to be in three of the seats of Labrador.
I have not been in Torngat Mountains yet.
I want to speak about that for a second, about the four members of
Labrador and the process during this debate.
I give credit to all four of them on how they handled because it has been
a very difficult situation for them.
For the
members opposite, they stood and they did what they had to do to represent their
districts. They spoke well.
They spoke with passion. We
can debate some of the things they said but, Mr. Speaker, they are representing
the people they have been elected to represent.
They took the avenues that most often when you are sitting in Opposition
you take. You stand, you slam the
governments, and that is all a part of what we do, Mr. Speaker.
You stand and challenge and fight and you do the Open Lines, you do the
radios, and you do the interviews.
That is okay, Mr. Speaker.
That is how it works.
We can
go back, and no matter which side of the House or which party is on which side,
that is how it happens. Opposition
takes that route; but the other route, when you are in government, as we have
seen so often, no matter which party is in government you see it, the members
often take a different route, working through behind closed doors, meeting with
leadership, discussing with their colleagues, influencing around the table,
having discussions. I give full
credit to the two members, our colleagues for Labrador as well, who took that
route to very effectively as the others for Labrador did to deliver a
message to this House and certainly to the entire Province around the challenges
of Labrador, the geography of Labrador in particular, and the challenge to
provide representation that they wanted to provide.
Mr. Speaker, they were very convincing in doing so.
So I give full credit to the four members for Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY:
Mr. Speaker, a big concern is
around the timing of the election.
The Premier has been clear, members have been clear of what we want, and the
members on the opposite side of this House have been making it clear they want
an election in 2015 as well.
The
Member for Bay of Islands is very clear.
If everybody wants 2015, then we will get there.
The route is co-operation. He
talked about it, and I am sure we are going to get co-operation through this
whole process.
Throughout the debate, members opposite have cited so many other studies and
provinces. I think tonight, maybe,
the Member for Virginia Waters referenced the 185 days that it took in Ontario.
One hundred and eighty-five days is quite a few days more than 120; it is
sixty-five days. I am not like the
Minister of Finance; I can get it.
It is sixty-five days.
Mr.
Speaker, let's take a look at that just for a second and put it in some
perspective, because there are two sides.
If you look at Ontario and 185 days, Ontario has 107 seats that they work
with; we have forty-eight. Ontario
has a land mass more than double of ours, over 1 million square kilometres, so
their geography is a challenge as well.
Mr.
Speaker, the other side, when you talk about a commission and a process and
allowing people to have input whether it is face to face, whether it is through
a Web site, or other ways, Ontario has twenty-four times more people than we do.
We have 500,000 people; they have over 12 million people.
They did the work in 185 days, according to the Member for Virginia
Waters.
I point
that out, Mr. Speaker, because if you want to use examples, then there are two
sides to that. They were able to get
all of that work done in 185 days. I
believe and I have confidence that five people from this Province, one appointed
by the judge, four appointed by you, the Speaker, five competent, capable,
knowledgeable people who will be put on a commission are going to be dedicated
to do a task in four months. I believe
they are going to be able to get that work done.
Now, the
key part of that and I would agree with members opposite is the opportunity
for people in Newfoundland and Labrador to have input.
We all want that. How that
input takes place, there is obviously a lot of different ways to have input.
As for seeing how it would shape, I think the second day after this was
announced people were sending us maps as to how it would look.
Two days granted, we could all sit down and do up a map; but, at the
end, that is what we are going to end up with, is a map of the electoral
districts of the Province, and it will change, no question.
It just
points out some of the concerns, are they founded?
One could certainly argue no, they are not.
Four months is a considerable time for five competent people to do a
piece of work. I think, comparably,
you can go to other provinces and see where that piece of work has been done.
Are the
timelines tight maybe? Well, let's
stop for a second around the debate around the principles because they are all
important, the number of seats and how it is going to work; but, at the end of
the day, our commitment, our conviction to this, the conviction from our Premier
is that we need to reduce the seats of the House and we are going to achieve
that, and that is what this is all about.
As we debate the different nuances, the different details of this which
are all important, it is important we give people an opportunity to have a say.
At the end of the day, this Legislature is going to make a decision and
inform the people of the Province in the tough financial situation that we are
in, the tough fiscal times that we are in, we are going to save money; but we
are also going to stand symbolically and tell the people of the Province
because I can tell you, as we all know in our districts, they are all looking at
us. What are you going to do?
They are all looking at us to see what we are going to do.
While
added to the fiscal responsibilities that we have, we also have an obligation,
symbolically if nothing else, to stand to the people of the Province and say, do
you know what? We are going to do things.
We are going to lead. We are
going to make tough decisions. We
are going to work together to do what is right for the people of the Province.
Symbolically, we need to send that message.
I think when this is all done, that is exactly what we are going to do,
collectively, in this House.
As we
move forward with the legislation, we will look at the right way to get this
done, the commission to be put in place, the Chief Electoral Officer will get
his work done; but we will have achieved something that has been talked about
for a long time. We will have the
leadership in place to deliver on that, Mr. Speaker, and we will have a smaller
Legislature. We will find that
balance. People want a smaller
Legislature, but they also want representation.
That is going to be the task for all of us.
All of us who put their names on the ballot in the next election, that is
going to be the true test.
That is
where you are going to have to stand up and do more work.
That is where we are going to have to find ways to provide that
representation, and I am sure we will.
I am sure everybody is committed.
I am sure the four members of Labrador will be equally as committed and
motivated to go out and do their work and be able to continue to deal with the
challenges that they have in Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, I just want to have a few words around that and recognizing that
through this whole debate at the end we will make a decision here.
Again, I recognize the leadership of our Premier and the courage to stand
up and say we are going to need to do this.
We will
end up, Mr. Speaker, with a smaller Legislature.
I believe we will end up with co-operation in this House.
I believe we will get to where we need to be and I believe the work will
get done. I certainly believe the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador will continue to have good, strong
representation, just as they do today.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a
privilege for me to stand in this House tonight, too, and speak to Bill 42.
Of course, it has been a long day for many of the members right now and
our staff as well, as they have been in this House listening to members on both
sides debate Bill 42 and the impact that it would have on future Legislatures in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
The
reduction in seats is nothing new for me as leader.
Almost two years ago in March of 2013 it was the first opportunity that I
had to discuss seat reduction within the Province and the impact that it would
have on the Legislature. At that
time, I had given a number and I knew it was important then that there would be
a committee that would need to be involved to actually help us work through that
process.
That
process, as we know now, as we have heard from many members speak tonight, would
have been started in 2016. It is
important for all of us as we find ourselves in this very difficult time, if
there is an opportunity where we can save money for people in Newfoundland and
Labrador, find a more efficient and just as effective way to represent the
people who elect us, well indeed we should do that.
We should make sure that if there is an opportunity available to us, we
should exercise that right and do so.
We find
ourselves here today with Bill 42.
There will be a series of amendments.
This bill affects the current piece of legislation that is there.
It really impacts about five to six sections, one of which would be the
number of seats. We will see where
those amendments go over the next few hours, as we listen to people debate the
number, what will be the number that will be agreed upon and voted upon as we
get to the Committee stage, and, therefore, the final days when we will actually
vote on this piece of legislation.
Of
course, one of the things for me, too, is that when you put in place a committee
and many members have spoken about how that committee will be made up.
Of course, we know the chief justice would have an appointment here, that
person would appoint the Chair. So
it is important that that person would get in place as quickly as possible.
We understand by the discussions we have had that indeed could happen
within five days. Then there would
be four other people who would be elected, representing the political parties in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
This is
a process that we saw similar to what we saw in the mid-1990s where we saw all
parties represented. It was on that
committee where we saw the first female committee member.
At that time, we know that was an exercise that lasted about two years,
but in the final analysis it was that decision back in the 1990s that led us to
where we are today with forty-eight seats in this Legislature.
This
process is not new. It goes back
many years, when back in 1973 and when I look around here there are probably
people in this Assembly that were not even born at that particular point in
time. Commissions are nothing new.
In 1973 we saw the first commission.
The second commission was in 1983.
The subsequent commissions and commissions prior to the one that we will
see in place in the next few weeks, these people have done a remarkable job when
it comes to redrawing the districts in Newfoundland and Labrador.
We have
been as high as fifty-two districts when the District of Torngat Mountains was
added. This was back in the
mid-1970s, I guess it was. In 1979,
that was the first time when we saw Labrador with four districts that were
carved out.
I want
to speak to that for a few minutes because much of the debate today and this
week and certainly within the media and others that have chimed in to this
debate and we encourage that, I will say is around Labrador.
On Monday morning when we spoke to the media and we laid out what I felt
were three amendments, three reasonable amendments, to this piece of
legislation, we laid out the need to carve out and protect the four seats for
Labrador.
There is
a long-standing history there. When
you look back at the report that was issued in the mid-1990s, it was that
report, too, that spent a lot of time, an extensive amount of time, speaking
about the importance of carving out and protecting four seats in Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, last weekend I spent a fair amount of time reflecting on this piece of
legislation and the impact that it would have on Newfoundland and Labrador as a
Province, but a lot of time thinking about the impact that it would have on
Labrador. I spent a lot of time
thinking about, in the last three years, a number of trips that I made there.
It is pretty easy to make the argument and we have four members in this
House of Assembly today that call Labrador their home.
The people and their constituents live there; they have been elected by
the districts in Labrador. So I
thought a lot about this last Saturday and Sunday as I would plan my day for
Monday.
Through
that reflection there was one thing that stood out to me, and I want to remind
some members in this House tonight that in just a few days, Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians will remember a tragic story in Labrador.
Of course, that was the loss of Burton Winters.
In the next few days a lot of us will be reminded of what Burton Winters
went through. In February of that
year, before the House of Assembly opened in March, I took a trip to Makkovik
with my colleague for Torngat Mountains.
It was a memorable trip for me, because it was my first time in that
community. I can remember as we went
into the school and I talked to many of the kids there that day and they talked
about a day in the life of some of the schoolchildren in Makkovik.
That
night we had a public meeting. There
were about eighty people who came out to the public meeting, but while we were
getting ready to go to the meeting I can remember at the place where I was
staying I got a phone call. It was
someone who I had met earlier that day at some of the places that we had been
visiting. The lady called me up and
she said: What are doing in our community?
I said: I am up here with my colleague, the MHA for Torngat Mountains.
She said: You know, politicians only show up when there is a problem and
you think you can fix it. So I said
to the lady: Ma'am, this is my first time to your community.
I came to visit; I came to talk to the people in your community.
I say
all this because I want to make the point about the challenges and how unique
Labrador really is. So she said to
me: You only show up here because you think you can fix something.
You come from the south to fix a northern problem.
You come from the south to fix a problem that is in the north.
I have always remembered that.
So the
story went on, as I continued to talk to her, I said, in the next few weeks I
will be standing in the House of Assembly and we are going to be telling a lot
of stories about the tragic event that occurred in your community over the last
few weeks, the loss of young Burton Winters, the search and rescue and so on.
We were all here through all of that.
Many people in this House today sat through that.
I said,
I think it would be very unfair of me to be talking about you and talking about
your community without being here.
That is the reason why I am here.
She said, no one has ever said that to us before.
She said, what are you doing tonight?
I told her where I was going and she came out.
I will always remember that.
We cannot recreate, we cannot walk in other people's shoes.
You have to be there to try and experience that.
Labrador is kind of like that for me.
I will always remember that story and I have made trips back there since
then. It has really kind of grown on
me to some degree.
So it is
important for me on Monday, when we set aside the amendments that we outlined to
the media and to the people in the Province, that to carve out and protect the
seat in Labrador was important to us.
I am certainly hoping that before this week is done that those seats will
be carved out for Labrador, just like they were in the mid-1990s and just like
it was in 1979.
Mr.
Speaker, we find ourselves here today talking about what a new Legislature will
be, and in this particular case to reduce ten seats or whatever the final
analysis, whatever the final number will be, there will be a significant change
in the number of MHAs and the way they work in this Province.
My
colleague here from Bay of Islands, and my colleague from The Isles of Notre
Dame made mention of this. In the
district that I represent, Humber Valley, there is a community there, it is
Pasadena. Many people in this room
are familiar with it. In 2007, that
community was one of the communities that was impacted by the boundary changes.
Now Pasadena is one of the communities that I represent.
I can remember in 2007 reading petitions into this House of Assembly.
They did not want their community split down the middle.
What we saw was one-third in the District of Humber East, and two-thirds
would be in the District of Humber Valley.
Mr.
Speaker, over the next few weeks and the next couple of months we will hear a
lot of stories about that. As this
commission goes about their work speaking to people, Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians across the Province, there will be many stories of people who will
be reluctant to change. Mr. Speaker,
I am committed, and I know my party and my colleagues are committed.
We believe that with the work the commissioners will do, we want to give
them a fair chance to succeed in all this, and I believe they will.
The
120-day timeline that has been outlined here a lot of people have said and
when I looked at the reviews that have happened in other provinces, I have laid
it out there, too, that I would be skeptical.
There is nowhere, when you look at the reviews that have been done across
the country, it will show you, where this kind of review has been done within
120 days, but we have to try it.
Nowhere will you find that this kind of comprehensive review has been done
within an election year.
In a few
short months Elections NL will be tasked with pulling off an election in
Newfoundland and Labrador. It is
important for us, because there will be a lot of people watching our Province,
to make sure this gets done right.
The importance of making sure the election is done right because there are
people who will look at Newfoundland and Labrador, they want to see stability,
so it is important.
I will
tell you this, if the election goes wrong, lots of people will be noticing.
It is important for us that this process gets done within the 120-day
timeline, and then Elections NL and all the good people there who are
responsible for that will be given the appropriate and the right amount of time
to make that election work in 2015.
Mr. Speaker, that is what we are working towards.
That is what we believe in.
What we find right now is we find ourselves with all parties agreeing to the
reduction in seats. It is important
now that we give the commission the opportunity to get their work done.
One of
the other things I talked about on Monday is the flexibility of the commission.
They have some flexibility as they kind of draw out that map.
Like most Members of this House of Assembly, I too have seen many of
those maps. Those maps have been
flying around everywhere from people we do not even know and probably from
people who have never set foot in Newfoundland and Labrador, I would say, Mr.
Speaker. Indeed, we could expect a
lot more than that in the next few days.
All of
us will be watching to see which communities will be added to our districts.
We will be also watching to see which communities we lose.
Not only will we lose the community itself, but there is a great
relationship that as MHAs you actually develop with the people you represent,
the communities that you drive into, and your little trap lines, as I call them,
as you go through your communities, as you weave in and out.
Lots of
times as you drop in on some of your constituents we have all done this you
will get those raisin buns at one place and there is a coffee you can count on,
or a cup of tea or something that you can count on somewhere else.
These are the kinds of very unique relationships that MHAs build up with
their constituents. Some of them
will be new faces, but, Mr. Speaker, that is what happens because every ten
years by law in our Province right now, this is a process that we go through.
As the
commission begins its work, it is important for me, and one of my objectives
coming out of this debate is they be given a fair opportunity to get the work
completed, to get it completed on time, to get it done accurately, and to get it
done so that Elections NL are given the opportunity to pull off the election
that we all want in the fall of this year, I say, Mr. Speaker.
Before I
move on, Mr. Speaker, someone talked about the land mass.
I want to go back to the Labrador piece again
just for a few minutes.
People talk about the land mass of Labrador.
I was reading an article just this week, 269,000 square kilometres, the
Island portion being 109 square kilometres.
When you think about it I extended that and I said let's overlay that
into the Maritimes. I think the
Maritimes turned out to be 113 square kilometres.
Labrador is a big part of our Province.
It is a big, big land mass, and from one community to the next community
it is not always easy for people to travel around.
I see
the MHA here for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune. I
have been through her district many times and there is a long drive down there
too, I would say, Mr. Speaker. So
all of us, we have unique experiences within our own districts.
What a
lot of people do not know, in the District of Humber Valley there is a community
called Harbour Deep, which is still part of my community and still has two
people who actually live there. I
will tell you, I have not really had a sign on their lawn in either one of the
last two elections, but we keep in contact.
They are great supporters, I say to the Deputy Premier; yet these are the
unique challenges we have to deal with from to time from people who live in our
districts.
One of
the catalysts for making this decision tonight is the current a lot of members
have talked about it fiscal challenges we face in our Province and what is
happening with the global economy and oil.
All of these are factors, and I agree that if we can find a way to save
money, still do the right job, still do it efficiently, it is important to do
that.
When we
make the decision on Labrador and, by default, when you say the catalyst is a
financial one, I want to put it in perspective.
Our Province right now spends almost $900,000 per hour.
At Muskrat Falls right now, the largest project in the history of the
Province in Labrador, we are spending almost $140,000 per hour.
The savings for that one Labrador seat was $250,000 for the year.
I just want to put that in context when we make this decision, even
though $250,000 is a lot of money, I want to put it in context of the decision
that we are making here today.
Mr.
Speaker, I will not take up too much more time, but I want to say thanks to my
colleagues who have done a great job here today as they were involved in the
debate, on both sides of the House, and to the Third Party as well.
I believe that we will be all served with a good process.
I think we are all looking forward to encouraging people to do their part
and have their say into the electoral maps and the new boundaries however they
are shaped and redrawn over the next few months.
I would
encourage MHAs as well to make sure that if they have concerns, to make sure
that that gets involved; but more importantly, as my colleague for the District
of Bay of Islands said, make sure that we encourage the unity, we encourage
community associations to stick together, because it is important.
We will
hear in the next few weeks and months how people feel like they have become
disconnected, disenfranchised with this whole process.
In some ways, we will hear people talking about how they are even more
upset with politicians; but, at the end of the day, I think we will see new
boundaries and I think we will see more competitive elections.
We can expect to see all that later this year.
Mr. Speaker, more importantly, what I hope to see is that we will see a
Legislature that is better functioning, we will see better use of committees,
and we will see that the trust level of politicians will be raised and the
confidence levels of politicians will be even more.
I
believe that whatever the number turns out to be in the final analysis on all of
this that if we are all united and we are committed to this process, we can see
it work.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure for me to rise tonight and speak to Bill 42,
as we know, An Act to Amend the Electoral Boundaries Act a very important
piece of legislation. I have
certainly enjoyed the debate over the last couple of days, certainly again
tonight. The Member for Humber
Valley spoke, the member for straits
AN HON. MEMBER:
Isles of Notre Dame.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
The Isles of Notre Dame.
There you go, I enjoyed that one as well; that was pretty good.
Mr.
Speaker, it is certainly always a pleasure to get to stand in the House of
Assembly and represent the fine people of Ferryland district.
That district, the electoral boundaries now stretch from Petty
Harbour-Maddox Cove, parts of Goulds, parts of the City of St. John's, on down
south and around the Southern Avalon to the small community of St. Shotts.
It certainly brings a variety and distinct culture as well, an identity,
as we talked about earlier this evening of many other parts of the Province.
It is an
area that was settled many years ago by the Irish, and there is a strong Irish
connection. As we know, it is
referred to as The Irish Loop. It
has a strong connection overseas, certainly, to the UK, Scotland, and Ireland as
well. If we go back and look at the
district I think, historically, the name Ferryland is representing a district
that dates back to the mid-1850s.
Actually, 1832 is the date it was named.
So it is probably one of the oldest named districts in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
We
talked about electoral boundaries.
When I first had the privilege of being elected in a by-election of 2007, at
that time prior to that in 2006 the electoral boundaries review had taken place.
At that time my district stretched from Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove to
Trepassey. I went back to the polls
in October of that year, 2011, because of the set dates that our government have
brought in in regard to elections every four years, went to the polls again that
October, and because of that the electoral boundaries had changed, and as the
Member for Placentia St. Mary's had said, I picked up the community of St.
Shotts.
So,
through this process and as has been mentioned already, and certainly tonight,
we will see actual change in electoral boundaries.
That is part of the process.
In that, we will readjust. Certainly
as has been said, we will pick up areas, maybe drop others; but, at the end of
the day, it is about democracy and it is about representing the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador in whatever region of this great Province you are, and
whatever great region of the Province you certainly have the privilege to stand
in this House and be elected by the people to speak for them in this House.
It is a privilege to do so.
There
has been a lot of talk about the discussion in regard to the ten-year
legislative review. It is part of a
legislative process that is in the law of the Province.
As I said, ten years ago, 2016 was the intended review in regard to the
statute. This government, the
Premier, in looking at where we are I know in my district over the past number
of years people have talked about the number of MHAs, have talked about the size
of the Assembly, and talked about our population overall in the Province.
We
reference and talk about as well in other jurisdictions and look at the ratio to
the population and the number of elected representatives.
When we look at all of that, I think it is well served at this point.
I congratulate the Premier on that in moving this forward and the support
of folks on the other side of the House as well to collectively looking at it.
It is time.
It is
not a new process. The Electoral
Boundaries Act and legislation exists.
There are dates to do it every ten years.
This is taking the initiative to move that up recognizing that there is
an opportunity to do it now, that collectively we can do this, move it up,
follow the guidelines and the parameters, and to do a review as has been defined
in the legislation. In regard to the
commissioners, they will have a chance during those 120 days to go out and hear
from Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in regard to their desires, their
concerns, and what they believe needs to be done in terms of various boundaries
and the democracy of our Province.
It gives them first and foremost an opportunity to participate.
That is extremely important.
We
represent them. We go to them and
ask them for their support in representing them here in this House.
As we go through this electoral boundaries process, it is crucial that
they be heard from. Through that,
the commissioners will accumulate all that information and then come back with
recommendations, which again will come back to this House.
It will be voted on by the members in this Legislature as we move
forward.
In doing
that, it is all about making sure that the representation of the Province is met
and best according to how we have talked about the geography of the Province,
the culture, the nature of who we are, and how that is reflected in our
representation as well. That will
all be done through this process that we go through when the committee is
struck. It is very open, very
transparent, and everybody has an opportunity to participate.
Within that we will take those recommendations.
Through this House, we will redefine the electoral boundaries and do what
we need to do in the requirements of the legislation.
Again, I
say, it is about democracy. It is
about doing this process every ten years.
We have moved it up. As a
Province and looking where we are, it is also looking at what do we need in
terms of our population and the size of the Province.
Comparatively, we look at other jurisdictions and what they have in terms
of numbers and representation. I
think everybody agrees, it is time to scale it back, put it in perspective, and
in doing that, it saves us some money which is so important; $10 million.
As we look forward, we will redefine our boundaries.
That will serve us well moving forward.
We have
the members in the House here. It
has been referenced already tonight in regard to the effect it is going to have
and the changes to all of us. Right
now, we have twenty-nine in our group.
All of us will see the implications of the changes.
In some cases there will be significant redefining of the boundaries.
That will cause instances where various districts adjacent to one another
could be changed dramatically and some could be changed not as much.
Either way, from our perspective, we recognize there are twenty-nine of
us here. We will certainly see the
effects of that.
That is
about the leadership of our Premier and leader to recognize this is important to
do. In doing that, we all understand
there could be changes in all of our districts and it could affect us when we go
back to the polls. That is what
leadership is all about, standing up and making those changes.
Looking forward for our Province on what we need to do to continue to
recognize who we are as a Province, and follow through on this action as we need
to do with this legislation.
As I
said before, in regard to how the committee will be struck, the chief justice of
Newfoundland and Labrador of the Supreme Court will appoint a Supreme Court
judge. From there, there will be
four individuals who will sit on the commission and hear from the residents of
the Province on what is important to them as we look forward to realigning the
electoral boundaries.
The
overall principle here, obviously, is the vote of every elector in the Province
having an opportunity to have an equal vote as an elector.
That is so important because that is fundamental to our democracy, that
everybody has a vote. Then we will
go through looking at the population overall, the amount of seats, and what that
quotient will be as they go forward and look at the work.
Then they will look at a twenty-five variance depending in the Province
where they are.
Those
are the types of things they will look at as they go through to make sure that
it duly reflects and takes in recognition of all those variables we talked
about, whether it is culture, geography, or transportation concerns.
It could be communications.
All of those things are reflective as the commission looks at the work and over
those 120 days will come back with those recommendations.
We
talked about in prior years in terms of the length of time maybe to do it and
those types of things. We all know
every ten years there are huge jumps in terms of technology and the ability to
complete this type of work. We are
confident that within those 120 days this can be accomplished.
Then the Chief Electoral Office of Newfoundland and Labrador can carry
through and do the work we need to do to carry us into an election in 2015 in
the fall, which is consistent with our current legislation under the Elections
Act for defined dates in regard to going to the polls.
Mr.
Speaker, as I said, this is a fundamental process in terms of every ten years
reviewing the legislation. It is
important to us and all Members of the House of Assembly with regard to moving
this forward and recognizing what we need to do.
I congratulate everybody who has spoken on this.
It was joining collectively.
I hope, as we move forward through the night, to make sure that we can conclude
this process with regard to the legislation, and that as quickly as possible we
can get moving towards striking the committee and making sure the committee can
get out and start doing the work so that we can move forward, get this done, get
it completed, get it back to the House, full disclosure.
Come back to the people's house with regard to what is done, and then
with all good intent we can get to that election in the fall of this year.
Mr.
Speaker, I do not have a lot more to add.
I think it has been very good in certain terms of discussions in what we
have had. It has been broad based
and certainly it has been very good in terms of everybody's discussion here.
I want to congratulate those who have participated in the debate.
We certainly look forward to moving this forward in the days ahead.
As the
Member for Ferryland, I support Bill 42.
I recognize again, as I said before, the leadership of the Premier to
drive this, to move it forward. It
is in the best interest of the Province that we move it forward.
As I said, those are heard in Newfoundland and Labrador from around the
Province through the commission, through the work they will do.
They will be heard and have an opportunity to participate, and tell the
commission what they think in regard to our Province and how we are moving
forward.
The
Province has changed over the past ten years from the last time it was done.
In terms of population and that population from rural to urban, all
those, oftentimes we see changes.
That will be reflected no doubt in the recommendations that we see coming back.
That is
all part of it, the holistic approach, looking at what we are doing and how we
do it. It will serve us well.
At the end of day, as I said when I started, it is all about democracy;
it is all about being here and representing the people of the Province and to be
fortunate. We are fortunate.
Sometimes you might get some tough knocks in politics and some people often are
scared away from elected office. I
think it is important that we always continue to encourage people to get
involved in elected office because that is what is so fundamental to who we are
as a people and to democracy. We
need people to come, especially our youth, to make sure they are involved and
encouraged to be involved in politics because it is so important.
Mr.
Speaker, I will certainly be supporting Bill 42.
I congratulate all those on their involvement in the discussions.
I thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and
good morning to you. You have
punched a lot of hours today. It is
good to see the Speaker of the House of Assembly earning his keep and working
hard on behalf of the Legislature and the people of the Province.
It is very good to see. It is
not an easy role, especially when you have long days and nights in the House of
Assembly. The presiding officers and
the Table Officers have to work quite hard and pay close attention to the debate
as it unfolds in the Legislature.
I
understand that one of our Pages celebrated a birthday since we have been
sitting today. I want to take this
opportunity to say happy twenty-fifth birthday to one of our Pages who is
celebrating with us.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Unfortunately, there is no
cake. I would go cut you a piece if
there was some, but we do not even have donuts.
I cannot speak for the Opposition Parties, but our rations are running
low. We might have to collaborate at
some point before the sun rises.
On a
more serious note, it is a great pleasure to rise in this House of Assembly
tonight to participate in a very important debate on Bill 42, An Act to Amend
the Electoral Boundaries Act. It is
actually a very short piece of legislation.
The Explanatory Notes indicate that the bill will do three things really,
fundamentally. It will amend the
Electoral Boundaries Act, which I will speak about in a moment, to require the
electoral boundaries commission to report upon the delimitation of the province
into districts in 2015; 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.
So that
is why we are here. That is the
piece of legislation we are debating.
I will explain why I feel it is important for members to have their say.
I have been really pleased through the course of the debate over the past
number of hours to see virtually every Member of the House of Assembly take an
active role in participating, and I am glad now to have a chance myself to
contribute to the discussion.
I am the
MHA for Mount Pearl North, not South, and there is often confusion.
In fact, just this week as this debate unfolded, I was attending an event
that took place in my district, and my colleague from across the House, the MHA
for Mount Pearl South was in attendance as well.
When I put my name tag on at the event when I walked in the name tags
were already prepared it read Steve Kent, MHA, Mount Pearl South.
So when I stood at the podium, I assured my colleague that it was not
some kind of conspiracy, there was not an elaborate plot.
Boundaries in Mount Pearl have not changed at this point, and I really
hope I will be running in a district that resembles the current District of
Mount Pearl North.
Along
those lines, I am actually the first MHA for Mount Pearl North.
I was elected in 2007 following a review of boundaries and a change that
occurred to boundaries. The majority
of my district was formerly part of the District of Waterford Valley, which was
represented for a long time by Harvey Hodder, a former Speaker of this House.
A member
opposite is indicating it is a beautiful district, and it is.
I understand he has sleepovers in my district from time to time, and he
is welcome in my district any time.
I do not encourage him to stay for too long, but he is welcome to visit any
time.
The
former District of Waterford Valley, prior to the boundary changes, actually
took in a good chunk of Mount Pearl, the older, more historic part of Mount
Pearl which I still represent, and it actually took in part of St. John's at the
time. It evolved over the years.
At one point it took in a chunk of Cowan Heights.
Last going off I believe the District of Waterford Valley took in I
think it was something like only a handful of houses in the City of St. John's.
Now I am proud to represent both the Town of Paradise and the City of
Mount Pearl.
Mount
Pearl now has three MHAs. As a
result of the last round of boundary changes we have now three MHAs as opposed
to two, what we traditionally had.
The Town of Paradise is in a similar circumstance, with three MHAs representing
the town.
The
debate that has unfolded since we have been in the House this week has been a
sensible one. I am pleased that
there has been lots of time given for members to have their say and to express
their views on legislation that really does affect all of us, as has been said a
number of times tonight. It really
is an exercise in democracy. I think
the positive outcome that will come from all of this is a smaller Legislature
that still has good representation for people from all regions of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
I want
to applaud the Premier's leadership in identifying the need to reduce the seats
in the House of Assembly. I know it
is something that is supported by both Opposition parties as well.
We can have a healthy discussion around the details and around the
specifics of the timing and the approach and so on, but we all seem to have
acknowledged the need for some reform.
The
reform that needs to occur in this House of Assembly has to be more than about
the number of seats. We have to look
at how our parliamentary system does business.
We do need to look at our Committee structures and how they are utilized.
We do have to look at how Members of the House of Assembly are engaged in
the process. I am glad to see
movement on this issue. I look
forward to seeing further initiatives in which the Premier has alluded to, to
move democracy forward in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I am
really happy we are taking action now as opposed to waiting several years.
If we were not making some of these changes to the legislation, the next
changes to boundaries would likely occur five years from now.
I am glad that we are moving and that some progress will likely be made
as a result of this debate that is taking place tonight.
It is
not just about the decisions that we make as Members of the House of Assembly.
This is a process that beyond passing the legislation
MR. O'BRIEN:
(Inaudible).
MR. KENT:
Can you call for some order
please, Mr. Speaker, and protect me from the Member for Gander?
I would appreciate it. Even
some of the most rambunctious members of the House are behaving themselves
tonight.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I would
ask the minister to be relevant to the bill.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate your wisdom and I certainly have great respect for your ruling.
I once again ask for your protection.
As I was
saying before I was rudely interrupted, it is not just about the decisions we
are going to make, and they are very important decisions that we are going to
make as part of this process. It is
really important for citizens to take an active interest in what happens beyond
Bill 42.
There is
a commission I am going to talk about if I have time left that is going to
embark on a process that will encourage citizen participation.
I hope that individuals will get involved, I hope that communities will
get involved and have their say just as we did, not that many years ago, in
2006. I will speak about that in a
moment as well.
We have
talked a number of times through this debate, both inside and outside the House,
about saving money. It is important
to consider the cost implications of the decisions that we make in terms of this
bill. Rightsizing the Legislature
will save us some money. I think
that is the responsible thing to do.
When you
look at the population of our Province and you look at the other provinces of
Canada and how big their Legislatures are and you look at representation per
capita, our Assembly is relatively large.
I have no doubt that the people of the Province have been served well by
the Legislature but it is time to modernize this structure, a structure that is
a very historic one, and come up with a Legislature that is the right size for
our Province today and into the future.
There
have been several references in this debate to the 2006 process.
Several members opposite have alluded to the fact that I participated in
a process at the time. I know over
the years there are numerous Members of the House of Assembly who have taken
part.
I was
the Mayor of Mount Pearl in 2006. We
did make representation to express views and concerns on behalf of the citizens
we represented municipally, because we were concerned about ensuring that our
city would continue to have adequate representation and strong representation in
the House of Assembly.
As this
process unfolds, I hope that communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador,
large and small, will share their views on how they wish to be represented and
how their citizens wish to be represented in this Legislature.
I hope communities will take part.
As a
result of the 2006 process, which led to boundary changes in 2007, just the very
next year, Mount Pearl gained an MHA.
That MHA is the MHA for Topsail, our Premier, who now represents a small
portion of the City of Mount Pearl.
As I
said in the beginning, we are talking about several amendments to the Electoral
Boundaries Act. What that act does
is it puts a mechanism in place to review and amend electoral boundaries.
It allows for a commission to be appointed every ten years.
Under the current act, the way it is worded currently, the next
commission will be appointed in 2016.
It is very prescriptive around the number of districts.
It will be divided into forty-eight one-member districts.
The
commission will have a chairperson.
That chairperson will be appointed by the chief justice of Newfoundland and
Labrador. It will be someone who is
either a judge of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal or the Trial Division
in our Province. There will be four
other members of this commission who will be appointed by the Speaker of the
House of Assembly. That is you, Mr.
Speaker. That is an approach that
has served us well in the past and it is an approach that I think can work well
as we embark on this process at this point in time.
The
commission will be required to submit a report to the Minister of Justice and
Public Safety. The minister then has
to immediately submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
The minister also has to table the report in the House of Assembly within
fifteen days of submitting it to the Lieutenant Governor in Council if the House
of Assembly is sitting.
MS SULLIVAN:
What about if it is not?
MR. KENT:
That is a good question.
One of our members just inquired about what happens if the House of
Assembly is not sitting at that time.
Well, then the report has to be submitted within fifteen days after the
beginning of the next session of the House of Assembly if the House is not
sitting at the time the report is received.
MS SULLIVAN:
You are a wealth of
information.
MR. KENT:
Thank you.
It is
refreshing to see that at 2:30 in the morning members of the House are taking
such an active interest in the process and the debate.
I applaud you all on all sides of the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. KENT:
Back to the point I was
making, Mr. Speaker. The heckling is
rather distracting as I am sure you can appreciate.
In 2006,
the commission was specifically instructed at that time to have four districts
in Labrador. While that is not what
is proposed in the current Bill 42, I am really pleased to hear the debate that
has unfolded here in the House of Assembly this week.
It is great to see members on both sides of the House standing and
advocating for the constituents they represent.
Labrador
does have some unique needs, challenges, opportunities, a unique geography,
unique culture, and unique communities.
I think the move to amend this legislation to preserve four seats in
Labrador is a really positive one. I
want to commend members on both sides of the House for making the case.
Specifically tonight I would like to congratulate the Member for Labrador
West and the Member for Lake Melville for very articulate, passionate, and
informed participation in the debate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
In terms of the amendments
that are proposed in this bill, Mr. Speaker, this bill makes some amendments
that are very specific to what is going to happen this year in 2015.
This is not unlike what has occurred in the past.
Just as
an example, to ensure that the commission can get to work right away and get its
work started as soon as possible, the Speaker of the House will be required to
appoint the four remaining members of the commission within five days of the
chairperson being appointed by the chief justice.
Don't plan any vacations, Mr. Speaker.
Things will move quickly and that will be good for the process, it will
be good for democracy.
I do
believe that the time frames are achievable.
I know there has been considerable discussion about that.
Lots of thought and research has gone into this.
I think if we all work together we can ensure that the time frames get
met because we do need to have a general election in 2015.
We want to have a general election in 2015 and I know that all members of
the House agree on that as well.
Census
figures will be available. The 2015
commission will use the latest census figures that are available.
It has come up that there is a census taking place in 2016.
I acknowledge that but the data from that census will not be available in
2016. I presume it will be available
at some point in 2017. Then, we are
back to talking about waiting five years from now to see changes to our
boundaries. If we are all in
agreement that there is a need for change, there is no time like the present to
bring about that change.
I am
really happy that members of the House are here working through this process
which will result in changes to boundaries for this general election that is
coming up later this year. It is an
ambitious time frame. There is a lot
of work to be done, but we have clear framework in place that we can follow in
order to bring about the changes that are needed and get the work done.
The most
recent census figures will be used by the 2015 commission.
The 2015 commission is also going to be required to provide its report
within 120 days. That has been
discussed numerous times during this debate.
I am not a Finance Minister and I am certainly not a mathematician, but I
can confirm that is about four months.
After the appointment of a chairperson the commission has 120 days to get
its report in.
There
are also a number of amendments in this bill that will apply beyond 2015.
It has been mentioned several times throughout the debate that the next
commission would then commence its work in 2026 and every ten years thereafter.
Of
course, future sessions of the House could result in other changes to the act.
That has happened in the past.
It is quite reasonable to expect that the House will contemplate changes
in the future. The intention is that
there will be a commission every ten years or so to do this work.
Things change, demographics change, the population of our Province
changes, and where people live in our Province changes, so it is important to
review the boundaries and make sure they still ensure the best possible
representation for the people of the Province.
What is
proposed for 2026 and beyond is that the commission would commence its work as
soon as is convenient after March 31 and report by the end of the calendar year.
That is what is currently set out in the act, Mr. Speaker.
Reports would continue to be tabled in the House of Assembly within
fifteen days of receipt, or within fifteen days after the next session of the
House opens.
This is
a process that makes sense. It is a
process that has served us well in the past.
I think there are great advantages to getting going early with this, to
making the amendments that are required to allow us to make the changes now
rather than wait another four or five years.
Let's get on with it.
I know
there is a desire on the part of Members of the House of Assembly on both sides
to rightsize the House, to make it smaller, and to bring about other
improvements and changes to our process in this House of Assembly.
I look forward to debates about that as well.
We can
do better. We can better utilize our
committee structure. We can make
sure that all MHAs are actively engaged in the process.
There are a number of other things we can do to modernize the historic
democratic practice that happens on the floor of this House of Assembly.
It is
quite late or quite early depending on your perspective.
I want to thank members for their attention.
I want to thank all members for participating in this debate.
I am certainly happy to have had a chance to rise and speak in support of
Bill 42. I look forward to the
discussion that is going to occur when we get to the Committee stage of debate.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista North.
MR. CROSS:
Good morning, Mr. Speaker.
It seems
so long since we came here, but I guess what is important and always important
is that if we have something to say we should bring it to the table, on the
table. We should also think that
there are forty-eight of us currently sitting in this House and if we all bring
a unique opinion and we can have one distinct point of view each time we speak
that is different than what anybody else speaks, then we would have forty-eight
new ideas on every bill or every idea that comes here.
It is
always great to stand and speak.
Like many of colleagues, I say it is an honour to represent and speak on behalf
of the people of Bonavista North. I
cannot profess to speak for all of my constituents if I say that everybody in
Bonavista North supported this piece of legislation, because as in most of our
districts, we are still divided in lots of ways by party lines.
So there are three opinions in every single district.
I guess in the last general election the opinion that brought me to this
location was the strongest opinion.
That does not say that all opinions are not valid and are not welcome.
From the
time I was elected, as all members in this hon. House, as soon as you walk back
into your district, you are the member for the district.
You are just not a member for the people of the Conservatives or the NDP
or the Liberals. You are the member
for the entire district.
In a
debate such as this, Bill 42, we talk about reduction in the size of this House
and the mechanism that gets us there.
We know and we always say: Well, how is this going to impact me?
How am I going to be impacted?
Most of the people in our districts say the same thing, how is our
district impacted?
It is
not just am I going to pick up a few votes or a few people or constituents to
the north, the south, the west or the east, but ten of our districts just will
not exist, or eight of our districts will not exist in the next general
election. That means there is some
stark reality for all of us here and it is the reason why we all put extended
effort or thought into the comments that we make to bring towards this, because
we have to make the right decision, the right fit at the right time.
For
people who might have just tuned in, you woke up with indigestion or you have
been there since 5:00 o'clock this afternoon, what are we doing here at 2:30 in
the morning in the House of Assembly?
We are still talking about the changes the 2015 amendment for Bill 42 is
going to make.
There
are five real changes that will be impacted with this bill.
First, the original legislative review document, the legislation
currently requires us to meet in 2016 to appoint a commission, to review our
districts, the size of them, the number of them, and we have, through the bold
leadership of the Premier at this point sometimes, as my grandfather would
say, you have to take the bull by the horns and you attack a problem to find a
solution. In this case, the bold
move was to move up the reduction in the number of members in the House of
Assembly by one calendar year.
Maybe
the only unique point I might bring to this debate, that I have not heard yet,
is that 2016 was a cycle of ten years.
We have all talked about ten years; that we would come together and have
this commission and the Legislature would be reviewed, but we do not operate in
ten-year cycles in the Legislature.
We end up operating in four-year cycles.
Every time this ten year legislation rolls around, if you do your
multiplier effects, you are going to end up every four or five times in the
cycle it is going to happen in an election year.
Maybe
one thing the commission has to think about, or the legislation has to be
adjusted for the future, is that really it needs to fit the cycle of four year
elections. It is either done every
eight years or every twelve years, but it fits in neatly in the package between
two election years such that you are not like next year, there would have been
a review in 2016. All the members
who might have been reduced, as we are saying, would have been here redundant
for three years, feeling that at the end of three years my district either does
not exist, or you have to convince your neighbour not to run so that three years
later you have a district to run in.
If you keep the cycle going in either an eight-year or a twelve-year cycle, it
fits in between two elections and you do not have that type of effect.
MR. S. COLLINS:
(Inaudible).
MR. CROSS:
The Member for Terra Nova is
challenging me already before the next nomination process.
Second,
we are required to subdivide the Province into a required number of districts.
In this legislation we are stipulating a required number.
That is good leadership as well, because if we are looking at the time it
is going to take for this commission to meet and to talk about the number of
potential districts, if they had to go through four or five scenarios, every
scenario would have taken extra time to figure out.
In the 120 day process, by giving a distinct number it means you are
focusing in on a number from the beginning and you stand a much more real chance
of meeting that target.
If you
have a range and the commission has to talk about all the scenarios to make up
say forty, forty-two, forty-four, then after all the deliberations they have to
stop and start again and go into different-sized numbers, and then they have to
come up with the real number that they would like to bring back as their
recommendation. So that takes more
time. By focusing this much for the
commission, it means they do not have to spend so much of their time trying to
divide or to come to some decisiveness about what the right number would be.
I am
just reviewing my notes, Mr. Speaker, but
AN HON. MEMBER:
Start over again.
MR. CROSS:
Start over again?
The
other thought that you think about in the sense of what the physical makeup of
this place is, and my seatmate here and I earlier tonight sort of looked around.
If you look at the reconfiguration of what this looks like, just to give
a picture for the members in the House, and the people at home probably would
not have this realization; but if you look at the two pods of seats that are
here or six, and then there are two, and two more over there, potentially the
original idea of reducing ten seats these four pods of seats would not be
needed in the next Assembly. There
will be lots of room for extra furniture.
We did
talk about the idea of the fiscal challenges we have now.
If you look at the $10 million that we would expect over the next four
years to save by the life of this, in that four years as well we also save forty
vested pensionable years. Forty
vested pensionable years is approximately five pensioned salaries of a normal
two-term MHA. The other savings that
comes in this is the amount of pension that five pensioned two-term MHAs would
make for the rest of their lives. It
is also a saving in this if you look at just the pure dollars.
It is hard to be exact on numbers like this.
The
first instance that we had we talked about how the cuts will be, you wonder what
the impact would be on your district, but no one member can answer this
question. If I had to ask any of the
members here around this House what impact is it going to have on my district,
not one of us can say because not one of us will have a say.
That is the important thing about this independent commission.
Just for
people in the general populous and for the people who are looking at us tonight,
or are going to review this from the Web cast tomorrow, we will not have a say.
One of the clauses there I think the Member for Labrador West alluded to
earlier tonight. I thought I had two
original points, but he took one of them.
He referred to the fact that no elected member, no Senator could be on
the commission. Neither can a
Premier.
At this
point no one can impact the deliberations of that independent commission.
The results of what they bring back in the configuration of the districts
and the seats means that it will be truly independent.
That is very important as well.
I am
trying to piece through my notes, the few notes I did have.
I do not really want to repeat what most others have said.
Some things have been said as we go through.
I talked about the cycle of ten and twelve years.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Tell us again.
MR. CROSS:
Tell us again.
Just think about how this changes and probably the impact that seat
reconfiguration has had over many seasons.
Some people have talked about their seats as being the first, like Member
for Mount Pearl North because it was a reconfiguration that created that seat
from another district or as districts were expanded.
Traditionally, I just want to let everyone know a little bit about
Bonavista North and how seat configurations changed Bonavista North over the
years.
Just for
my friend from Terra Nova District, in the 1960s and 1970s Bonavista North
started at the northern extremity of Cape Freels, but it included your district
as far as Traytown. Originally or
historically Traytown, Glovertown, Gambo, Hare Bay, Dover were in Bonavista
North. I am not sure if we are going
to have them back or what, as the reconfiguration comes.
In the
1970s and 1980s Gambo, Hare Bay, and Dover were a part of the district.
Believe it or not, two of us standing in the House some have a long
history in the House. I am a new
rookie MHA but the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor Green Bay South and myself
were candidates in 1989. In 1989
Gambo, Hare Bay, and Dover were in Bonavista North.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible)
MR. CROSS:
Yes, I ran in 1989 as a young
fellow younger than you today. I
went as far as Cape Freels.
Today,
in the 1990s the reconfigurations took the look of the district and elongated
it, took it right down into Gander Bay which everybody says, how are they a part
of Bonavista North? It is Bonavista
Bay North and going further north.
It goes around the Straight Shore and into Gander Bay.
In the
reconfigurations in 2006 Rodgers Cove and Victoria Cove, the farthest two
communities, were carved off. I
believe the Speaker's district has them now.
The Member for Bay of Islands spoke earlier about people having a fear as
part of your district gets carved off.
There were some conversations then about Rodgers Cove and Victoria Cove
leaving the local service district of Gander Bay North and being represented by
a new member, but they were quite happy to have the one they have, I do believe
that, a good member.
I would
ask all hon. members just to think for a minute I am going to wind down now.
This time next year what will this House look like?
One year from now this review will be done, as we are going to assist as
much as we can in the configuration procedure to be complete.
As everybody wants, the new election will have taken place.
No one has the magical crystal ball to figure out what is going to happen
in that.
I would
just like to say congratulations to all of my current colleagues who will be in
that new House of Assembly which will be in place next year.
Some others of us will probably decide to retire or not to run, but we
are all confident that the Legislature will be effective, and it will be lean
and mean. The MHAs who are selected
will make the House and every House evolves in its own way.
A little
earlier when I thought my words might have had a little more importance I wanted
to refer to a little quote from Shakespeare.
We talk about doing things at the right time, the correct time.
We talk about how members on both sides of the House understand that this
is a move that needs to be made.
This is a little quote, I believe it is from
Macbeth.
The quote says, If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well.
It were done quickly. We do
not put off to do a good thing on the right time at the right place.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is
indeed a privilege to stand in this hon. House and speak to Bill 42.
Normally around 3:00 in the morning I am checking the weather forecast, I
am getting ready to phone the operations for the ferry terminal tapes to see
what ferries are running. Very
seldom am I in a really good mood, depending on the weather and the ferry
service, but, Mr. Speaker, we are on the right path to solving all that.
Along with solving all that, we are on the right path with solving reform
to the House of Assembly. It is a
very important piece of legislation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, before I talk to
that, I want to note a few things. I
missed the first two days of debate.
I was in Halifax with my Atlantic colleagues trying to work on improving our
infrastructure here when it comes around transportation.
I did get back for Private Members' Day.
Mr.
Speaker, I was very happy to be part of a historic debate and discussion for
particularly a historic agreement in setting up an all-party committee to look
at mental health and address the issues around that important piece of health
care that we need to implement.
I would
like to say to the Member for St. John's Centre, honestly, bravo, because that
is part of history and I am glad to be part of that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
I know everybody in this
House was, to be part of that process.
Mr.
Speaker, a couple of weeks ago it was the fourth time I said to a Premier: Are
you serious? I said it to our
Premier when he had first brought up the point about reforming the House and
getting to where people had talked about getting.
I said
are you serious, to three other former Premiers on issues that I did not agree
with. That is democracy, and we went
from there. On this one I said
again, are you serious, because like everybody, I was very apprehensive.
When you are talking about something as open, as new, and as bold as
reforming the House of Assembly, particularly when you are discussing six,
eight, ten members of the House no longer existing within a year, Mr. Speaker,
it brings some apprehension and you want some clarification.
After we
spent a few hours discussing where things were going, the process, why this was
important to the people of this Province, it brought me back to a political
science course I had done almost thirty-five years ago in university.
It was called Political Structure.
The professor at the time was making a statement.
I never quite got it at the time, or I did not pay attention.
It was the early 1980s. There
are probably other reasons why I could not understand what was being talked
about at the time, but we will not get into that.
What he
had said to the class was: democracy thrives when elected leaders do things that
do not seem democratic. I never
quite got it until I started to analyze exactly where we were going with this,
and then it really hit me at the end of the day.
It hit me over the last couple of days listening to the debate here.
Real
democracy and real leadership is doing things that people do not think are
democratic. There is no doubt there
are people out in the general public who think what we are doing here now is not
democratic because we are changing what they understand.
We are changing the way they always voted.
We are changing the scale of how they voted.
The geographic makeup, they are comfortable.
People are averse to change, but it shows real leadership when we come
forward with something that is about changing the existence of our own futures
in some cases. It shows there is a
really bold approach to it.
What I
liked about our discussion too, Mr. Speaker, was we all sort of had that same
open apprehension about how we get to this, and there were some example used.
I say this tongue-in-cheek, but it did bring out a realization now when I
think about it. Some of my members
used Bell Island as an example, when we do carving out of where districts may
go. People said what about Bell
Island? Where would that go, for
example? Of course, a lot of people
said do not give it to me, I do not want it, leave it where it is.
There are too many challenges around ferry services and that.
Then it made me think that this is not new about changing boundaries,
changing names of districts, changing who you represent, and the numbers you
represent.
I just
look back in my own district since I have been involved in politics as a young
man. It was the District of Bell
Island. I can remember as a young
man putting up posters on poles.
Then it was the District of Harbour Main Bell Island, then it was the District
of Mount Scio Bell Island, then it was Cape St. Francis, and now it is
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
This whole process is not new about change, about boundaries, of opening up
exactly who represents who.
This
case is probably a little bit bolder because it serves a number of purposes.
It shows that we are open. We
are taking a leadership role and the Premier has taken that role.
It shows we are going to be fiscally responsible.
It shows that as things have progressed in technology, in our
infrastructure for people to be able to be mobile and get to what used to be
really remote parts of this Province, we have eliminated a lot of that and we
improved it.
Technology has been a great mainstay where we are now.
It is only going to improve and improve.
It makes the ability here to make a very large, vast Province a lot
smaller. It makes the connection
between people in various communities a lot easier to maintain and make that
connection, Mr. Speaker. That is a
very important component of where we are with it.
That is
why the Premier wanted to bring it in and why we supported it, and as I see now
from the discussion in this House, why everybody in this House supports the fact
that we need a smaller Legislature.
We need to be able to show to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that you
can still be represented, that you are not going to lose that ability to have
input in how we govern here, in what the policies are, in what the legislation
that is passed in this House is all about.
It does
not change the fact that when you cut up the pie financially with the same
geographic set up, people will still get their equal share.
That whole process is there.
The fear for people now should be at the end of the day we are doing something
that is fiscally responsible. We are
doing something that is modern, something in tune with other jurisdictions.
When I
was in Halifax, I was sitting down with my colleagues and we were talking about
some of our own infrastructure things. Then the conversation changed a little
bit because their bosses, their Premiers, had been in Newfoundland and Labrador
that same day meeting with our Premier.
They had heard about what we were doing.
One of the comments was: that is very bold.
It is very out there. For
someone to go to that extreme to go out and say we want to change the
Legislature.
We want
to put things in place and we want to do it now, but we want to do it with
everybody's co-operation. We want to
follow a process. We want it to be
neutral. We want it to be open.
We want it to be engaging and we want to have fair representation.
That is the process we have proposed here.
It is what the Premier has brought forward.
That is what we have had a debate over for the last number of days.
I would hope and think we are getting to a very close point of bringing
this to a closure where people are comfortable with the process moving forward
and we can get on with the work at hand.
I have
talked to a number of my constituents, a number of people who are very
politically astute, some who support our party, some who support other parties,
and they all agree that where we are going is the right place.
They may have some apprehension about the process we use, the numbers,
where we are going with this, but they all agree this is the time to do it, now.
Do it before the next election.
Be ready to do it, then whatever is implemented is on a go-forward basis
from there on.
People
know financially what you are saving.
They know who their representation is.
Geographically, we will all know what districts are going to be
represented. Will it have an impact
on some people in this House? No
doubt. Will it have an impact on
some other people who were going to put themselves forward to run for a certain
district? No doubt it will.
That is the evolution of politics, Mr. Speaker.
As I
noted, in only a short period of time in my own district, five times there have
been changes, five geographical changes, not just a name change.
When you talk about at one point Mount Scio, part of my district, went in
as far as the Marine Institute. It
is a far cry from Bell Island to the Marine Institute from there.
At one point people came from Bell Island, got off the ferry, and went
through another district to get to the other part of the district in Cape St.
Francis. There are times Bell Island
went out to Harbour Main. There were
three communities between there and where they were represented.
There is
a good cross section there to understand where we are now is a better place in
my opinion, to be able to carve out exactly the geographic locations that are
more common to each other physically.
Probably even some of the economic bases, some of the social nuances that
are more comfortable with each other.
Also, being very cognizant of the populous, you have to have that as part
of it. There has to be a gauge when
we go that route.
The
discussion here talking about Labrador and the Big Land, we all realize the
uniqueness up there; geographically, the size of the actual piece of land up
there, but also the extra nuances up there, the cultural differences that are
part of that. As a small populous,
it is spread on a large area with all kinds of diverse backgrounds, all kinds of
diverse needs and cultures. You have
to be cognizant of that.
I am
glad we have seen such a good debate here.
I do not mind saying and I give credit to, no doubt, the two members from
Labrador on the other side. They
were very passionate about it, but I can guarantee you from firsthand
experience, the two members on this side in a caucus room and in a Cabinet room,
how they spoke up about the importance of making sure Labrador was represented
properly and making sure the open discussion was about that Labrador should have
four seats. How do we get to that
point? How do we carve that out?
How do we make sure proper representation is there without alienating
anybody else in Newfoundland and Labrador?
It is
not about this. This is about being
fair to all of our constituents, all the electorate in this Province and making
sure when we do our district boundaries that they best represent the people in
those particular areas to better govern and better represent how every economic
part of this Province can be represented.
Every part of our districts can benefit from the economic growth n this
Province, Mr. Speaker.
When I
did talk to my colleagues from the other provinces to get a better understanding
if we were on the right track, if this was the right thing to do was it in
line with other jurisdictions? Did
it make sense from a geographic point of view, from a cultural point of view,
from a fiscal point of view, and from the number of seats in the Legislature?
Were we too big, that we were not governed in the same way that we could
be when it comes to debate in the House of Assembly?
Were we going too small as part of that process?
Then, I
looked at the numbers, Mr. Speaker.
I looked at Nova Scotia, 950,000 people and fifty-one seats.
It is a smaller land mass.
When you look at that and you equate we are talking thirty-eight or forty seats,
whatever may be carved out here, I am thinking then that looks like we are in
tune with what Nova Scotia would be with its populous and its geography to be
able to properly represent people.
I
thought that fits well. We are on
the same sightline as we would be with another one of our colleagues in Eastern
Canada. Then, I looked at New
Brunswick, forty-nine seats and 760,000 people.
The same thing, I looked at their land mass, compared that and looked at
the numbers. Thirty-eight to forty
seats in Newfoundland and Labrador would almost be directly in line with exactly
where they are when it comes to representation for the populous.
I said it works well.
Then, I
went again to Saskatchewan I just wanted to throw one out there out in Western
Canada fifty-eight seats and 1 million people.
It is a massive land mass, almost three times the size of Newfoundland
and Labrador. I looked at that and
said what is proper representation?
Their representation would be different than ours.
Ours now would be well in line with what they are on the national
averages when it comes to that.
With
that being said, and looking at what some of my colleagues said about the
timelines, about being able to do this, knowing where we are, knowing what we
have to compare it to, knowing that we already have technology out there,
knowing that we already have well after our debate tonight, the next number of
days, the next weeks, wherever it takes us we will be giving the direction to
the commission to be able to take this and move it forward.
Knowing that we are going to have very competent individuals to do that,
and the resources to be able to do that, Mr. Speaker, is very important to us.
Mr.
Speaker, as people said here before, democracy at times is very challenging.
It has its own challenges. It
sometimes can be frightening because you have to make some decisions that you
hope are the right ones to guide people in the right direction and best
represent them. To do that, you have
to have great open dialogue.
That is
the thing I have enjoyed here the last couple of days, listening to my
colleagues across the floor, listening to my colleagues on this side
passionately talk about what they feel are the important things when we look at
Bill 42 here. How they feel it
should be implemented. Why they feel
it should be important for the people.
What we need to be cognizant of if we are going to do this to make it
work.
If we
are going to be serious about making the House of Assembly smaller, but still
properly represent the people of this Province, how do we do that?
We can only do that by expressing our concerns, our experiences, some
information we have, some of our own affairs, some of the information we have
heard from people, and some of the concerns they have.
Put it all on the table and having those discussions so that we on this
side can also take that into account.
While we also put out why we think this is a good move, why this works,
why it will still properly represent the people of this Province, we can also
express to the Opposition what it is we are trying to achieve here.
I have
noticed over the last couple of hours, I think we are getting very close to
being on the same page, particularly with the majority of the people in this
House. We are very close to being on
the same page and the same page, as I see it, around a number of things: making
sure the House of Assembly is smaller but functional, making sure that the land
mass is carved out in such a way they represent people properly, and that there
are minimal restrictions to people being able to travel if you are an elected
official to parts of your district.
There is
no doubt there are going to be challenges.
As the Minister of Transportation, I know the challenges on our roads,
our ferry services, and our airstrips getting people in there.
I know that on a daily basis, so I do know that some MHAs are going to
have more challenges travelling than others.
That is why better use of technology and better ways of engaging citizens
will help eliminate some of those issues and make sure everybody gets proper
representation.
Another
one of the things I think we have all come to an understanding on and we have
all agreed to is Labrador having four seats.
The importance of proper representation up there, the importance of
acknowledging cultural needs, cultural diversities, and the importance of
understanding geography does have an impact on how you can govern and more
importantly, how you can engage people.
Having
those four seats up there at least gives people an understanding that they have
the proper representation. We are
still going to use technology. We
are still going to improve our transportation infrastructure.
As the years go on the Big Land will have a better opportunity for
citizens to be better and more engaged.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
That is very important to
what we are doing here. It is very
important to what the Premier outlined when he talked about his bold initiative,
this change. It was about better
representation.
Sometimes bigger is not always better.
In this case we are going on the backwards swing on that.
We are saying smaller can be better because we are going to think this
through and we are going to have this open dialogue.
Like the all-party committee we set up, this is an all-party debate.
We have had a very open debate here.
We will then have an all-party commission that will look at how we better
move this forward. We will have an
open dialogue how we get information in so people understand exactly what it
is we are proposing and they can have input to make sure that what we do is done
right. The Premier said that.
We only
have one opportunity to do this right.
The best way to do that is to engage everybody who has input to that and
has a stake in it. The first
stakeholders are in this room. The
majority of the stakeholders then are outside.
How we engage them is going to be very important.
We know that will be a major job of the commission and the resources they
have.
The way
we can do it and the way we can start that process is what started this House
over the last couple of days; co-operation, understanding, and trying to sell
the message to everybody that this is about better governance, it is about
fiscal responsibility, and fiscal governance.
It is about finding a way to make sure that this Province is in line with
other provinces, but more importantly finds the way to be able to represent the
people who are in this great Province who elect us here.
It shows that the reality is here.
We are going to follow some financial challenges over the next year, two, three,
four. It depends on where our
economy goes over the next period of time.
We have to lead by examples.
We have done that other times here; we have to do the same here.
When you are leading by example you are not cutting for the sake of
cutting, you are cutting because this is the right time to do it.
It is the right opportunity for us to be able to put a House of Assembly
in place that best represents what a House of Assembly should look like with our
population, our demographics, and our geography.
It is
the time to do it; political sciences will tell us that.
Other jurisdictions will tell us that we need to be moving that way.
We have already talked about it.
It is part of our process every ten years to have that evaluation.
We have moved it up one year to say we can do it in the same time frame,
have it done before the next election.
That becomes the go forward.
People will know what districts are carved out and who represents them.
We do
still save that money and show that we are fiscally responsible, that everybody
in this House did something. Some
people in this House will probably do more because they are actually sacrificing
their jobs, their employment, and what they stood for.
Part of
what you stand for when you get elected is a legacy.
Part of that legacy is doing the right thing.
That is what we are doing here.
That is why the Premier proposed doing this.
It is why there has been great debate back and forth.
It is why there has been an open dialogue between leaders here.
It is about finding what works best for the people of this Province, Mr.
Speaker. That is where we came from,
that is where we are and, and I am confident that is where we are going.
That
will only happen, Mr. Speaker, over the next period of time as we open up and
talk about some of the concerns. It
is not about talking about why we cannot do something; it is talking about how
we can do something. That is where
we need to go.
Mr.
Speaker, as I have listened to people here, I have seen some people stand up and
at times be very apprehensive, but this is the right route to go.
I noticed the change in the mindset as the discussion goes around on both
sides of the floor about, yes, we need to go there, but be very cognizant of how
we go there. How we are going there
now is the process that we are about to put in place.
A committee, very open, very qualified, and fully resourced to be able to
do it. A process that we already
have out there, the media already has it out there.
The
general public knows what we are proposing.
We are proposing radical change to the House of Assembly, but radical
change that is going to better represent them, and radical change that also
shows we are willing to do what it takes to keep our fiscal house in order.
We are going to ask the citizens to co-operate with us on that line also,
Mr. Speaker. That is why it is very
important.
Mr.
Speaker, I will close by saying it has been an honour to be able to speak in
this House on Bill 42. It has been
an honour to see the co-operation here.
There is no doubt there are going to be jabs back and forth, but no doubt
people here are on the same mindset and have the same philosophy that the people
of this Province should be represented properly, and this is the thing to do.
MR. SPEAKER (Cross):
Order, please!
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
I remind the member his time
has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Port
de Grave.
MR. LITTLEJOHN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the people in the Opposition who are always talking about relevance and I have
not even stood up yet. I always
dreamt about standing in the House of Assembly at 3:15 in the morning speaking
to a bill, and I guess I get this opportunity.
First of
all, I am very pleased, as the Member for Port de Grave, to get an opportunity
to speak to Bill 42. Bill 42
obviously is a very important bill to all of us.
The basis of the bill is a reduction in the number of seats in the House
of Assembly as we go forward.
I think
I am not unlike most members I have heard from over this long debate and very
passionate debate, may I say, over the last ten or twelve hours.
Most people have heard that most of the public want a reduction in the
seats in the House of Assembly, and I am no different than that.
Since this broke, I have talked to many people in my district.
Again, there are more people saying they would like to see a reduction.
I talked
to a gentleman. He called me Friday
morning on an issue and we were having a brief conversation.
We finished our conversation on the issue he wanted to and he said you
are going to cut the seats in the House?
I said yes. He said, boy, you
should have taken another couple.
That is the general consensus that reducing seats in this House is not a bad
thing.
In our
District of Port de Grave, in my recollections, in my time in the District of
Port de Grave I recall three boundary changes, and three boundary changes that
sometimes have been very significant.
I remember back originally in the District of Port de Grave, it took in
basically from Georgetown to Bay Roberts, but did not include Shearstown.
Shearstown was in the old district of Harbour Grace.
Harbour
Grace was a district represented at one time by Mr. Haig Young.
Mr. Young represented Shearstown, Spaniard's Bay, Harbour Grace,
Riverhead, Upper Island Cove and Bryant's Cove.
Then that district was collapsed in a reform and the Port de Grave
district ended up taking in Spaniard's Bay, Bishop's Cove and a piece of Upper
Island Cove. It went as far as South
River I believe, maybe Makinsons.
Then in
another boundary change I recall the District of Port de Grave went as far as
Georgetown but ended in Spaniard's Bay.
Over the years as we have evolved, the District of Port de Grave has
certainly changed. No doubt, the
District of Port de Grave will change when we go about passing legislation to
reduce the number of seats in this House of Assembly.
One of
the things and I know my hon. colleague, because he represents the other part
of this community. One of the things
we have heard loud and clear, and it was heard loud and clear at the commission
hearings the last time, is the concerns of the people of the Town of Spaniard's
Bay. Right now, myself and my hon.
colleague from Carbonear Harbour Grace, we share the Town of Spaniard's Bay.
The Town of Spaniard's Bay, certainly under this boundary reform
MR. JOYCE:
(Inaudible).
MR. LITTLEJOHN:
I say no to my hon.
colleague.
The Town
of Spaniard's Bay is clearly on the record that the next time the commission
meets they will certainly be advocating that their full community be within one
district or the other; be it in the District of Port de Grave or whatever that
name will be, or whatever the name of the District of Carbonear Harbour Grace
will be. I know right now standing
here that the people, the council, and the citizens of Spaniard's Bay wish to be
under one MHA. They have said it
loud and clear and they have been saying it loud and clear for the last seven,
eight years, and I support that. The
District of Spaniard's Bay and the Town of Spaniard's Bay, I believe should be
under one MHA.
Mr.
Speaker, in the District of Port de Grave, even though compared to some
districts, compared to the district of my colleague from Fortune Bay Cape La
Hune or my colleague from The Straits White Bay North, I have a district that
I sit in the middle of; my home is in the middle of the district.
Give me fifteen minutes and I can be in either end of my district.
It is a small compact district.
Although I represent over 12,000 people in my district, the district is
easily accessible.
Also, my
district is not as unfamiliar as some of the more rural districts in the
Province. I have six municipalities
in my district. I also have a local
service district in my district. I
also have unincorporated areas in my district.
I do have although some would argue it could be urban in nature, there
is a very rural aspect to my district in Port de Grave.
The citizens there come from all walks and backgrounds of life.
Mr.
Speaker, we are always challenged.
For electoral boundary reform we are always challenged.
We are always challenged on, how do we decide what is the right line in
the sand? I know in past commissions
population always seemed to be the dominant force.
Mr.
Speaker, I think other things need to be taken into account.
Population is important, but demographics are important as well.
Not only that, I would argue in some areas of the Province associations,
commonalities are important, where people go to buy their groceries, where
people go to the doctor, where people go to get their services, because
communities in our region of the Province have affinities with each other.
We have affinities.
If the
people of Carbonear want to go to a hockey rink, where do they go?
They go to Harbour Grace. If
the people are in Spaniard's Bay and they want to go to a hockey rink, they go
to the Bay Arena in Bay Roberts. So,
we have affinities. People have
traditional patterns of affinity where people go to get their services.
I think sometimes that needs to be taken into consideration.
Mr.
Speaker, Port de Grave is not a whole lot different.
I think no matter what happens we will have a different look in that
district. It may not be called the
District of Port de Grave. I would
strongly encourage the commission to continue to use the District of Port de
Grave.
Port de
Grave, historically, is one of the oldest districts in the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador. I believe
the District of Port de Grave has been in every election since 1862.
There might be one that there was not a District of Port de Grave.
It is not as old as Ferryland, I may add, but certainly an historic
district.
Mr.
Speaker, there has been a lot of talk from all colleagues on both sides of the
House. I think, without exception,
everybody wants an election in 2015.
I know I want an election in 2015.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LITTLEJOHN:
I want an election in 2015
and the people of this Province want an election in 2015.
It is incumbent upon us all to ensure we can get this work done and that
we do everything. I heard some
members tonight talk about co-operation and support.
As we go through this process there are going to be some strong feelings,
and there are going to be some divisions.
We need
to work together. We need to
co-operate. We need to support each
other. If we do not support each
other, Mr. Speaker, that lines up for trouble.
I know as we go forward we will have that co-operation and support.
With that co-operation and support we all get what we want, we get an
election in 2015. That is what every
member of this House has said over the last number of days.
As well,
Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of concern about the 120 days.
To be honest I also have concerns, but I believe that the people we
appoint to the commission are competent people and I believe they can get the
job done. They are going to need
support.
As
members of this House have already said, as well as that, people want to be
heard. As the commission goes around
this Province, they want to make sure that the commission is going to be
accessible. I think it is incumbent
upon all of us to make sure that the commission is accessible to all residents
of Newfoundland and Labrador. If
that means the commission needs to break up I think they can have a quorum of
two and do more hearings I think, Mr. Speaker, that is in the best interest of
all of us. We need to hear from the
people. We need to hear what they
believe would make an appropriate district.
Whether
the number turns out to be thirty-eight or wherever we are going because I
understand there may be some amendments coming forward from the Opposition.
Whatever number we settle on, it is important that we get it right.
Demographics and geography must play a part.
We have
heard strong advocacy here for Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make a note of the advocacy for Labrador as well
because that is where I started my career.
I went to the beautiful Town of Happy Valley Goose Bay in February,
Valentine's Day, 1987 actually.
AN HON. MEMBER:
By yourself?
MR. LITTLEJOHN:
By myself.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Were you sent as a gift?
MR. LITTLEJOHN:
I was no gift hon. minister.
I went
to Goose Bay. I spent time in Goose
Bay as a youth and recreation specialist they called it then.
Mr. Speaker, I had the responsibility for all of Labrador.
I got the opportunity to travel throughout Labrador during my time in
Labrador. Labrador is a big place.
They do not call it the Big Land for nothing.
Labrador is a huge land mass.
I
remember going to the Straits and Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
We were going to a parks and recreation regional meeting.
I was in a small plane landing in Blanc Sablon.
Mr. Speaker, the plane nearly turned around in mid-air.
I remember those days fondly.
It was a scary flight let me tell you.
Mr.
Speaker, there is uniqueness.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Giving a lot of latitude.
MR. LITTLEJOHN:
I am glad the Speaker is
allowing me latitude at 3:30 o'clock, I say to the hon. member.
One
thing I learned while I was in Labrador is the passion and conviction of the
people. Whether it is my hon.
colleagues, the minister and the Member for Labrador West, or whether it is the
colleagues opposite in Cartwright L'Anse au Clair and Torngat Mountains, one of
the things I always knew about the people of Labrador is that their passion and
conviction for their land is second to none.
I compliment them all on that.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Oh, oh!
MR. LITTLEJOHN:
Oh to get heckled at 3:30 in
the morning.
Mr.
Speaker, speaking of Labrador, I support the four seats for Labrador.
There are four distinct regions in Labrador and I believe they need to be
represented. I am glad to hear from
the minister that as we go forward this evening there will be an amendment put
forward that will allow for four seats in Labrador.
During my time there I realized the distinctness of it.
When you
go to Labrador West you are in a very distinct part of Labrador.
When you go to Torngat Mountains and you go to Makkovik and Nain, it is a
very different piece than Labrador West.
I want to compliment and congratulate my hon. colleagues for their
advocacy within caucus and Cabinet.
I want to congratulate the members opposite for their passion and commitment as
well.
Mr.
Speaker, as we wind down here I just want to say, to review for just a second,
that when the commission is in place, the chief justice of the Supreme Court of
Newfoundland and Labrador will appoint a justice to be the head of the
commission. All parties will get an
opportunity to have representation on this committee.
It is important that all parties be represented because this is an
important time. It is an important
time in our history.
Mr.
Speaker, as we go forward and we go through this process of reducing this House
and as my hon. colleague from Terra Nova said, he might have to have a little
bit of a discussion with my hon. colleague from Bonavista North.
They might have to have some kind of jellybean fight or something he
talked about. That is going to
happen and there are going to be challenges, but I think all parties have an
active role to play here in appointing good representation.
These people have a big piece of work to do and an important piece of
work to do.
I had
the good fortune this past summer to be in New Brunswick.
They were just finishing electoral reform, Mr. Speaker, where they had
reduced their House or legislative assembly, as they call it, by seven members.
They increased the number of representation and people want to know that
they are going to be represented.
Whether you are representing one in 3,000 or one in 12,000, the people of this
Province want to know that their MHA is representing them.
That is very important.
The
concerns that I heard in New Brunswick when they decreased their House by seven
members, Mr. Speaker, was the concern of representation.
I think we can represent a larger number of people in a larger
demographic area. It is going to
take some work, and it is going to take some commitment from all of us.
Mr.
Speaker, as we go forward, I just want to say that I support Bill 42.
I support that we will have an election
in 2015, and I look forward to the amendments that are coming forward, which I
think are significant amendments and will protect some of the unique and
distinct cultural and resource issues in Labrador.
I thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker, for my opportunity to speak and to get my point of
view on the record.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Verge):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor Green Bay South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HUNTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the boundaries are not changed yet, so we are still going to go with
Grand Falls-Windsor Green Bay South, which I am very honoured to be
representing in this House of Assembly for the last sixteen years, going into
the seventeenth year now in the spring.
It is certainly indeed a pleasure to get up and have a few words to say
on Bill 42. Of course, I am not
going to say much new, Mr. Speaker.
There has been a lot said here today, and the last few days actually, and it is
going to be hard to say anything new.
It is going to be hard to stay relevant to the bill.
Mr.
Speaker, I know in the last two hours, for sure, a lot of people have been
speaking and have been saying things over and over and over because basically
the intent of the bill is what we are speaking on.
There is not much new you could say other than try to relate it to your
own district.
I
remember back in 1987, when I first ran part of my district back then was called
Windsor Springdale no, it was Windsor Buchans back in 1987.
I remember well when I ran in 1989 and 1993 in the same District of
Windsor Buchans. I knocked on
pretty well every door in the district; three times, I might add.
After
1996, the district was changed to Windsor Springdale.
Of course, when I wanted to run again it was a whole new ball game.
It was a whole new district.
The Town of Springdale was added and Green Bay South.
Of course, all the time I ran in the Windsor Buchans district, all
those doors that I knocked on certainly did not help me in 1999 when I ran for
Windsor Springdale. I must say, I
was very, very pleased to be elected to the House of Assembly for the District
of Windsor Springdale back in 1999.
I found the Green Bay area, and the Green Bay South, Springdale area,
very, very honourable to serve that area.
Now my
colleague, the Member for Baie Verte Springdale, certainly has the biggest
part of that district that I had back in 1999 up to 2007.
Now my district is Grand Falls-Windsor Green Bay South.
It is an honour to serve in that district, too, Mr. Speaker.
We are
all concerned about the boundaries.
We are not sure what the boundaries are going to be.
I know my colleague from the District of Exploits, if he takes in part of
my district, then I have to decide if I am going to take him on in a nomination.
The same thing applies to my colleague from Grand Falls-Windsor
Buchans.
I think,
overall, things will work out with boundary changes, Mr. Speaker.
I think when we decide that we want to run and put our name on a ballet
for any district, that we have good intentions.
In my years here in this House, I have not seen an MHA yet who did not
put everything into his job or her job, and the calibre of people we get
representing the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I have
been listening very intently in the last few days to most of the member here who
have spoken. It is a learning
process. It is not unique to the
needs of all the districts. We have
people calling everyday looking for roadwork and water and sewer, and all kinds
of things. We are pretty well even
in a way when it comes to serving our districts and our people.
I do
respect Labrador, and the Member for Torngat Mountains and the challenge he has
serving his district, even the member before him who I knew very well.
We had a lot of discussions about the role he played in his district.
I really admire MHAs like the Member for Torngat, the Member for
Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, and the Labrador members, my colleagues on this
side, the hard work they put in for their districts.
I am
very pleased to be sitting in this House of Assembly with such a calibre of
people. The honesty and the hard
work they put in and to be able to participate in things, especially when we
come to the private member's resolution.
I was very honoured to be here to be part of that resolution put forward
by the member here. It makes things
a bit more pleasurable when we do something good because we all have things in
our districts that sometimes are difficult, very, very difficult.
This
bill we are debating today, and the last couple of days, I know has been a
challenge for a lot of people in this House.
People are not sure what the boundaries are going to be and not sure if
they are going to be sitting here after the election in the fall.
There are some concerns we may not be going into an election until 2016,
but I feel very comfortable and very assured that we are going to be into an
election this year in 2015. Whether
all of us are going to put our names forward and on the ballot again, I am not
sure who will and who will not but it is a decision we all have to make very,
very soon.
Mr.
Speaker, like I said when I first started out, what do you say about this bill
after almost every member is after speaking about it in this House?
What do you say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador when we are
not sure what is going to happen with respect to the next election?
Who is to say we are going to be in power after the next election?
We do not know that.
We do
not know the political side of this bill, but we all have to think about it.
We all have to make sure we do our best to serve our districts.
Putting our name on the ballot is probably one of the toughest choices we
have to make in our careers because not everybody runs a second time, third
time, fourth time. In my case, it
will be seven times running.
When I
was listening to all the members tonight and listening to this bill, I said,
what am I going to speak about?
Should I read this bill out again?
Maybe some people are just tuning in, like my colleague said over there earlier,
a couple of hours ago when he was speaking.
Maybe someone is tuning in who does not know about this bill.
So I could be pretty boring and read it all out again if you want to do
that. Maybe it is worthwhile for me
to do that. We all know what it is
in here but I guess for the many, many people who are listening tonight in their
homes, sitting down and drinking coffee like our members here tonight, Mr.
Speaker, I think they are getting a bit hungry now.
They are talking about breakfast already.
This
bill is an Act to Amend the Electoral Boundaries Act, Bill 42.
Mr. Speaker, like I said, it is not new to me.
I have been around the political scene for forty years.
I was involved in the party for forty years, so this act is probably
something we have all thought about up to now.
If I may, I would just like to read down through some of the things.
In the
Explanatory Notes, this bill would amend the Electoral Boundaries Act.
The three points that are in the bill are, require the electoral
boundaries commission to report upon the delimitation of the province into
districts in 2015; reduce the number of one-member districts in the province to
38.
Now, I
am not sure what the amendments are going to end up doing tonight, but there was
a lot of concern about the number of seats, Mr. Speaker.
I remember back many years ago when I first got involved in politics
and I think representation by the number of seats depends on the calibre of the
member. If the members do a good job
which I have not seen any proof or any evidence, since I have been here, that
we had any members not worthy of being here.
I have seen such fantastic work done by all members on all sides and all
parties.
The
third point in the Explanatory Notes, make consequential amendments for the
purpose of a commission report in 2015.
Like a lot of my colleagues were saying, 2015 is just a year earlier than
when it would normally happen anyway.
It is scheduled to happen in 2016; 2016 would be after the provincial
election, which I am sure we are going to be into before the end of this year.
If we go into 2016, then we are going to have to rely on old information
and old census information. It would
probably not be fair to prolong the election to 2019, if we have to wait for a
new census to be taken in 2017.
Mr.
Speaker, I can still read down through the act for those who have not heard it
yet. I think there are probably a
lot who did not, and I am sure they are listening tonight.
1.
Section 6 of the Electoral Boundaries Act is amended by adding immediately after
subsection (1) the following: (1.1) For the purpose of the appointment of a
commission in 2015, the speaker of the House of Assembly shall appoint the
members of the commission not more than 5 days after the appointment of the
chairperson under section 3.
2.
Section 13 of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: 13.(1) In the
calendar year 2015 the commission shall divide the province into 38 proposed
one-member districts.
(2) In
the calendar year beginning in 2026, and every 10 calendar years after that, the
commission shall, as soon as is convenient after March 31, divide the province
into 38 proposed one-member districts.
(3) The
commission shall determine a quotient for each proposed district by dividing the
total population of the province by the number 37.
Mr. Speaker, I guess after tonight we are not sure exactly what is going
to happen yet but the amendments are certainly going to make this a little bit
different.
(4) For
the purpose of establishing the quotient for the preparation of a report in
2015, the population of the province shall be taken as in the latest census
figures available under the Statistics Act (Canada)
That would be some area of concern for a lot of the members who were
speaking on the opposite side. That
certainly made it quite clear that this could be a big problem.
In some
districts on the Avalon, maybe some of the members have alluded to, that it is
okay because some of the members on the Avalon, particularly in the St. John's
area, might get the number of people in the district they need just down the
street or a couple of streets but in rural Newfoundland it could be so much
different. I have seen these changes
in rural Newfoundland and I have to tell you, it is not in my time here.
I did not see it a whole lot different representing more people in rural
Newfoundland with the technology that we have today.
It is a lot easier. I know we
do not have cell coverage everywhere, but it is a lot easier to represent people
today than it was even ten years ago.
I
remember the first nomination I went to back in 1987, with five people running
for the nomination. It was very
difficult trying to get your support out because we never had cellphones and
computers. We had to basically rely
on the landlines.
I
remember at the Legion that night in the nomination meeting when candidates were
tying up one phone line in the building and a couple of buildings nearby.
The other candidates were trying to get into different buildings to get
to a landline, a phone line to get their supporters out.
Today we do not have to do that if we have cellphone coverage,
particularly in some of the bigger areas.
I find
in my district I have cellphone coverage pretty well all throughout the
district. It is so much easier now
to call on your supporters to either get out e-mails, or cellphones.
There is always a way you can rely on your supporters getting out.
Just seeing the difference in today and what it was even just ten years
ago, it is just unbelievable that we can sit down in front of a screen and come
up with a list of voters and drag those voters out for your support in a
nomination, or even on election day.
By
changing this, I think the time is right.
Our Premier is keeping to his word and making this part of the mandate of
this government to put forward changes in the House of Assembly.
That was not an easy decision for any leader to make, because the first
thing you have to do is look around and see who is not going to be around here
in the next election. We really do
not know that, because we do not know the boundaries yet.
I know
everybody must be nervous. I am
particularly not nervous because I have not fully decided yet if I am going to
run again or not, but I do feel for the members and my colleagues in the House
who really want to come back to work and really want to continue working for
their districts, continue doing great work for their districts.
That has to be a concern for all the members in the House; all the
members on the opposite side and the members on our side.
It is the right thing to do at this particular time in our history now
when we have to look at big deficits and trying to decide what are we going to
do with the few dollars we are going to have.
We have
been very fortunate, Mr. Speaker, in the last number of years with the oil
prices so high that we did do necessary work that we had been waiting for many
years trying to get done in the Province.
In the last few years we saw opportunity to do all these good things with
roads and hospitals and schools.
I
remember back when I was in Opposition, Mr. Speaker, we had leaky windows and
roofs in some of the schools in my district.
There was absolutely no money to do windows and doors and roofs, and no
money to do roadwork, no money to enhance the health care to make health care
more efficient, and better diagnostic equipment for the patients in the
hospitals. So, by doing this, it is
part of a solution of our deficit.
It is part of the financial solution that we need.
It is part of a commitment by our leader and our Premier. It is part of a
commitment by a government that is concerned about the future of the Province,
the future of the people in all of our districts.
We do
have to do these things. We do have
to do a certain amount of repairs in schools, hospitals, and that to change
this act to make sure the people of Newfoundland are still going to be
represented in the House of Assembly, and that we do these hard things.
I congratulate the Premier for taking this hard stand and doing this.
I am
going to clue up now, Mr. Speaker.
Thanks for the few minutes tonight to speak.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bellevue.
MR. PEACH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It gives
me great pleasure to stand in this House at 3:49 in the morning and take my
place as the MHA for the District of Bellevue and speak a few words on the Bill
42, An Act to Amend the Electoral Boundaries Act.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. PEACH:
If you are going to keep on
at me, you might get me to sit down again.
You encouraged me to get up so now listen to what I have to say.
When I
started out as an MHA and I looked at the district I had to represent from New
Harbour to the Burin Peninsula, and the distance I had to travel across my
district I listened to other people in the House over the last couple of days
talking about their districts and the distance they had to travel, and the
different places they had to go. I
look at my district where I have a three-hour drive across my district; I
certainly appreciate when other people say they have four and five hours.
I know my colleague here from Placentia St. Mary's has 500
kilometres-odd to travel. Our
districts are pretty complex.
The
Trans Canada is I guess the only thing that separates Placentia St. Mary's and
my district in the Whitbourne area.
I do not know too much about the districts back over the years because I did not
live in the Bellevue district only since 1989.
It was my understanding that when the hon. Jim Reid was the member in the
House of Assembly back then he represented what was known as Trinity South.
Then the
district got changed somewhat again shortly after that which took in part of the
Clarenville district. It took in the
Hodge's Cove area down through the Hodge's Cove area, down that shore, and went
so far as Goobies. Then after that
the boundaries got changed again and it took in the Burin Peninsula.
In 2006, when the boundaries got changed, it got changed again and
Trinity Bay de Verde used to be in Dildo and New Harbour.
Those two communities got added into the Bellevue district.
I sit
back now and I listen to what we are talking about, the boundaries changing, and
I wonder what it is going to be moulded out to be this time because the district
that I have can go either way. The
district that I have could go down the shore towards Green's Harbour, Whiteway,
which would be part of Trinity Bay de Verde.
The district could probably take in part of Placentia St. Mary's, which
I know already that there have been some presentations made.
Some people from the Whitbourne area and the Long Harbour area have been
talking about getting the boundaries changed.
They wanted to be in the Bellevue district because they were so close to
the Bellevue district. Often, me and
my colleague have spoken about that.
He said you can have them and take the roads with them.
When we
look sat that, there is good representation there.
Our member has represented Long Harbour and Whitbourne very, very well.
Long Harbour at one time was in my district.
In 2006, it got changed for some reason.
From what I can understand it was for economic reasons it got changed
because of Vale Inco and the businesses that are going on in Argentia.
They thought that it was more economically feasible to have those two
towns put together in that district.
Whitbourne, at that time in 2006, was under Harbour Main.
They took Whitbourne and put it in with Placentia St. Mary's.
They took Long Harbour out and put Long Harbour in with Placentia St.
Mary's because there was more uniqueness on the go there with the Vale Inco site
on Long Harbour road and between Argentia and Placentia.
Once the
boundary changes come again this time one would wonder if the Burin Peninsula is
going to be part of my district. Is
my district going to go back down towards Hodge's Cove?
Is the district going to exist at all?
One does not know. We do not
know. As many of you have said
before me, none of us knows how the boundaries are going to be moulded and how
the boundaries are going to be.
I
certainly want to say thank you to our Premier for the very bold move in making
the decision to move forward with the reduction in the House.
It is not the first time I have heard it.
I have heard it many times going through my district and in the
discussions I have had with people in my district; why don't you decrease the
numbers in the House of Assembly? No
one ever came up with the answer of how many.
Our Premier has made this bold move of moving the numbers down to
thirty-eight and I really support that.
I
support our caucus. I support our
Cabinet on that decision. I support
our Premier on the great job that he is doing and the great leadership that he
has given this caucus on this side.
Mr.
Speaker, we have seen many things over the years that have happened in the
districts when it comes to the boundaries.
When I first took over as MHA and I travelled from Norman's Cove to
Blaketown, one day I put in my travel claim.
Somebody said how can you claim to travel from Norman's Cove to
Blaketown? I said why?
They said where are your boundaries there?
I said I do not know, tell me.
When I
went to check it out my boundaries were inside the Trans Canada.
Somebody had to define if I was travelling in my district.
Because I was claiming inter-district travel, somebody had to determine
that the boundaries were in the centre of the Trans Canada going to Blaketown on
one side or on the other side. It
was really a tangle up for me and I was not really sure where I was going.
I asked them if I had to get on an ATV to get there or did I have to go
from Norman's Cove across the bay in a boat.
It took two or three days for somebody to define that but it was finally
worked out.
I
certainly support this amendment, Bill 42.
I can only say and hope that the committee that is put together really
does a good job and that everybody in this House is quite satisfied with the
work that will be done.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a
pleasure to get up and close out debate on this important issue we are talking
about here this evening on reforming the House of Assembly and reducing the
number of seats that we have here. I
want to thank all members who participated in the debate, first of all.
It has been a lot of lively discussion,
lots of very interesting perspectives on what it is we are trying to accomplish
and the process that we are going to go through to try to accomplish that.
For
those who may be tuned in for the first time at 3:57 a.m., perhaps I could start
out by simply saying we are debating Bill 42 here this evening which is a bill
that outlines a process to reduce the number of seats in the House of Assembly
by ten, at this point in time at least.
We anticipate there may be amendments that will come forth in Committee.
It is a
piece of legislation designed to reduce the number of seats in the House of
Assembly and part of a package of initiatives that have been identified by the
Premier, along with pension reform and actual reform of the Legislature here
itself, as a means of focusing on trying to improve the things we do and how we
do it.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Relevance.
MR. KING:
I welcome my colleague the
Opposition House Leader to join in at any point in time when I need a breath of
fresh air to stand and raise a point of order.
Mr.
Speaker, we are talking about changing the number of seats for a number of
reasons. Many of us have focused on
the fact that there is cost savings.
There is no doubt that we are talking about a sum of money in the area of $2.5
million a year, which is a very significant amount of money if you think for a
moment about many of the items we discuss in here on a daily basis.
As a
matter of fact, only yesterday we had a very important debate where there was
unanimous agreement on an all-party committee on mental health and many other
initiatives like that where $2.5 million could make a significant difference.
So, for
those out there, particularly those in the media sometimes who criticize and say
when you are looking at a potential deficit of $600 million or $700 million or
$800 million or $900 million, $2.5 million saved is pittance.
Well, it is all contextual, I suppose.
For us, it is a significant amount of money.
It is an effort to demonstrate to the public that we are serious about
starting right here in our own shop in trying to contribute to saving money.
It is
also important, Mr. Speaker, that it is not only about the savings.
It is about recognizing it has been some time since there has been a
review of the number of seats in the Legislature.
I think, unequivocally, as we listen to all members speaking here this
evening, without a doubt, I do not think I have heard one member say that they
are against reducing the number of seats.
The population in Newfoundland and Labrador has changed fairly
significantly over the past number of years.
One of
the things that we have to be mindful of as we go through this exercise, of
course, is that as we reform the Legislature we have to be mindful that it is
still all about democracy and ensuring that districts have proper and adequate
representation.
As a
number of my colleagues have said over the last number of hours since we have
been debating this today in particular, times have changed from the way things
used to be many years ago with the advent of cellphones, other types of
technology, texting, and I think I heard my colleague for Cape St. Francis say
this afternoon that he gets more e-mails on Facebook than he does on regular
e-mail. Actually, I think that same
thing applies to me. People reach
out in many ways and there are many different formats you can use to reach out
to your constituents.
Fundamentally, it is about democracy, it is about ensuring that people in the
Province, on the Island part of Newfoundland and, of course, in Labrador have
proper and adequate representation.
There
have been a number of thoughts shared here this evening on how we might move
forward. The bill has been drafted,
of course, and laid on the Table.
Members of the Opposition have shared some ideas on some amendments they would
like to bring forward. Of course,
members on the government side this evening have talked about some changes that
we are interested in either supporting or advancing ourselves.
There
has been some discussion amongst all of the parties and I hope at least that
there can be a way to move forward from this debate this evening where we will
see some consensus reached that it is important to get on with the business of
reform of the House of Assembly in the Province because, as everyone knows, time
is of the essence. We are all
focused very clearly on going into a provincial general election.
I think it is late September, if I am not mistaken, that it has to be
held I stand to be corrected, but sometime within September or the first week
of October.
In order
for this process to take effect and to make a difference in the Province, we
have to get on with the process. So,
I do encourage all members who have spoken in support of this to certainly
support, as we move forward, any amendments that look to improve the bill and
try to get it through the Legislature so that we can get on with the business of
what has to happen.
The
process, for those who are, again, just tuning in for the first time, the review
will actually be done, there will be some parameters established here this
evening, whenever the debate finalizes.
The parameters will be established where there will be an independent
committee appointed, chaired by, I suspect it will be a judge certainly
appointed by the chief judge for the Province and four other individuals
appointed by yourself, of course, as Speaker of the House of Assembly.
The
process will unfold over I believe the time frame being discussed is 120 days.
AN HON. MEMBER:
How many months is that?
MR. KING:
There would be four months in
120 days, I believe. Just check with
the Finance minister; he is better on math than I am.
Mr.
Speaker, there is an opportunity here for members of the Province to become
engaged, and many people are not engaged in politics in any significant way on a
regular basis, but this presents an opportunity for people to become engaged in
their communities and in their regions as the independent committee will reach
out and will seek input from people.
They will want to hear views.
I am
certain, as my colleague for Bay of Islands said earlier, that will not be an
easy process on anyone. For those of
us who are sitting in the House here today with the prospect of fewer seats, it
means fewer opportunities to get re-elected.
As the seats change, the boundaries change.
When the boundaries change, the dynamics of communities change.
There is
lots to be discussed and I certainly encourage people in the Province to become
a part of the process and to provide their views on how they feel about the
district they are in now, how they feel about realignment, what the new district
might look like and make sure that they take the opportunity to share that
information with members of the commission, because that is the kind of
information that is going to inform the commission and inform the decisions that
they make.
Again,
one of my colleagues said, as the process unfolds and new boundaries are
established things can become confusing for people, particularly when new
boundaries are implemented. I
remember, as a story, in the 2007 election actually, the first day of the
campaign I went out and spent a full day knocking on doors and had a great day
actually. I put up somewhere around
fifty, fifty-five, or sixty lawn signs I think it was, a great day, painted it
blue
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. KING:
I say to my colleague from
the Burin Peninsula no, it was not a headquarters.
I
painted the community blue, Mr. Speaker, only to find out the first thing the
next morning that the boundary had shifted so the winner in all of this was my
colleague, the Member for Burin Placentia West, who now owned that particular
community. I spent two hours, picked
up every sign I had and put his sign back in, and he had a day's work done in an
hour. That is how the boundaries
confuse people sometimes; even politicians get confused.
I am
going to be brief and conclude my comments.
We are going to move the debate I think from here into committee stage,
but I do want to thank the Premier for leadership on behalf of government in
moving this initiative forward. It
does take a lot of guts and a lot of strong leadership and strong desire and
will to make change happen.
I also
want to acknowledge members of the Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition and
the Leader of the Third Party who participated in discussions today, all
recognizing that we need to make change.
My hope would be, as I said a few moments ago, that as we move into the
committee stage there are going to be a number of amendments put forth and
debated that I think, when we see the amendments put forth by members I think
they will enhance and improve the bill that is before the House.
It will
be my strongest hope that all members would become united around the common
purpose of what this is all about, which is making this Legislature smaller and
I believe more effective. Let us get
on with the business of appointing the committee and getting the process started
so that we can get the results back and have the reduced Legislature, the new
boundaries designed and implemented in time for the election that, as I said a
few moments ago, will occur. As I
said, I believe it is sometime in late September of 2015.
With
that, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity and thank all
members, and I will take my place.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Seeing no further speakers,
is it
Is the
minister standing to close debate?
MR. WISEMAN:
I am, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance to close debate.
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This has
been a long day, but an interesting one.
There has been lots of good discussion, lots of good contribution to this
debate.
Bill 42,
one of our colleagues in the House described this as a monumental and
significant transition for the structure of the House of Assembly, the
representation that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have.
I think the appreciation for the significance of this change has been
reflected in the emotion and the intensity and the conviction of the comments
made by members of this House on all sides.
I do not
want to prolong the debate in second reading, nor do I want to repeat what all
of the members have said, but I do want to thank everybody who has participated
in this discussion for their contribution to this debate that we are having on
Bill 42. In a few moments we are
going to get into committee, and, no doubt, as we get into committee there will
also be some good debate, good discussion, and good questions.
At the end of the day, as with all bills as they come to the House, there
will be a vote on the bill and with a majority support for it, it will pass in
the House and I think the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will be well
served by it.
Again, I
thank everybody for their contribution.
I look forward to the continued discussion as we move into committee.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House that Bill 42 be now read a second time?
All
those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Electoral Boundaries Act. (Bill 42)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR. KING:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act, read a second
time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House Presently, by leave.
(Bill 42)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the
House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 42.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the
Whole to consider Bill 42.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Littlejohn):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 42, An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act.
A bill,
An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act.
(Bill 42)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The hon.
the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am
happy to stand here this evening, this morning, today, whenever it is, to speak
to Bill 42, clause 1 of this very important piece of legislation.
I last
spoke on Tuesday. I think today is
still Thursday, according to the Parliamentary calendar.
I seem to recall us having a similar type debate once where it was
Thursday but it might have been Tuesday, something along those lines.
I have
been counting the number of speakers we have had to this piece of legislation.
I think we have had close to full participation by all members of this
House speaking to this bill, Bill 42.
I think
a lot of people were taken aback when this bill was first brought in, or first
discussed last Thursday. It was
certainly a shock to many people, a surprise to many people, certainly on our
side of the House. We did not
anticipate this bill coming. Since
that time it has been really a whirlwind.
When you think about it, it has been seven days since that time.
To go
back through a timeline of this piece of legislation, we received a draft copy
of it on Saturday morning. We looked
through it. We had the briefing on
Monday morning. We had another
version given to us Monday afternoon.
There
was some talk earlier in the week about being obstructionist.
We have always made clear that we had no intent on being obstructionist.
There is a difference between keeping a bill held up for no good reason
and making sure the bill gets the proper scrutiny that it should.
That is why the Opposition made sure we wanted to have a good look at
this and make sure we had a number of sets of eyes on it to do the briefing, to
talk about it, to discuss it amongst our caucus.
One of
the things with our caucus it was only a couple of years ago I stood here and
there were six of us. We were mainly
from rural Newfoundland and we had two members from Labrador.
Since that time we have grown.
We have added members from the urban areas.
We have added members from all over.
We have really expanded and we have gotten a wide array of viewpoints
when it comes to the parliamentary process to representing constituents.
That is really what this bill is about, is representing constituents and
our ability to do so.
It has
been said that the purpose of this piece of legislation was to reduce it.
We have heard on a number of occasions the cost factor.
We can do it to reduce costs, but at the same time do it effectively.
We have spoken from a similar vein.
I do not think this type of reform should be linked directly to our
economic fortunes because that could be a very slippery slope.
We have had a week in this House to stand here and every day we have had
the opportunity not just to debate this piece of legislation, but to ask
questions. Virtually all of the
questions have come around the state that this Province is in right now.
Obviously one of the big factors is the price of oil.
I think
we have made clear that even though we support the concept of seat reduction
we have all spoken to that I do not think we have ever linked it to the fact
that it should be dependent on what the price of oil is and what our economic
circumstances are. That presents
itself with a very slippery slope where if the cost of oil goes down, are we
going to drop more members? If the
price goes up, we are going to add people back in.
We cannot do that. That is
imperative. That is not where we
come from.
It has
been stated on many occasions, sometimes by members on the other side and
certainly by members on our side but our leader has always maintained for at
least a couple of years now that he felt the House could be just as efficient
and operate just as effectively with fewer members.
He referenced forty. It could
be lower, it could be higher. He
wanted an independent commission to look at that.
He wanted it to happen in 2016.
Now we are here faced today with doing it sooner and this is the
situation that we find ourselves in.
One of
the things I want to talk about is that we are faced here and I did not go
into this as much during my first opportunity to speak.
I spoke during second reading and used just over fifty minutes as the
Opposition House Leader and Justice Critic, normally the department responsible
for carrying this bill. I spoke
about a number of things.
One
thing I did not speak a whole lot about was my District of Burgeo La Poile,
which is like the districts of virtually every member in this House, except for
the members from Labrador now that we know the seats from Labrador are going to
remain the same. We called for that.
We are happy to see it and now happy to hear that tonight.
I hear the Leader of the NDP seems to think she is solely responsible for
that, but again, there it is.
What I
can say is that our position has remained the same since this began and we are
happy to see that.
MS MICHAEL:
(Inaudible).
MR. A. PARSONS:
It is hard sometimes to
debate this when the Leader of the NDP is heckling me.
I am trying to stay where we are.
I am trying to stay on this piece of legislation and this bill and talk
about my District of Burgeo La Poile, which is one that faces, obviously,
expansion. It is hard to sometimes
fathom.
I
believe it was after the last boundary commission the district has gotten
bigger. It used to be from just
basically Cape Ray down to Rose Blanche and then down taking in La Poile and
Grand Bruit. La Poile and Grand
Bruit both had to be serviced by ferry.
Then, it expanded and took in Burgeo.
I think it was around 1996 that act became effective.
That was a big change because even though Burgeo is further along the
coastline, you do not go down there by ferry.
You have to drive, basically, three hours.
You drive past the Stephenville turnoff and drive down the Burgeo road.
It is a long way.
I have
been very lucky. The road itself is
not fun I can guarantee you that. I
know the Minister of Transportation has heard a lot about that road in the last
couple of months. He has had to deal
with situations down there. Once you
get off that road, which is not so fun, it is a great community.
Then, in
2006 it expanded to take in the island of Ramea and the community of Grey River,
both of which are very, very remote.
For Ramea you need one-and-a-half hours on ferry, and for Grey River it is
another hour and a half down the way.
They are beautiful communities but isolated.
They have their very strong points, but they have their challenges as any
resident in those communities will tell you.
I have
always laughed that I have had to drive through a good portion of the District
of St. George's Stephenville East just to get back into mine.
As soon as I go past Cape Ray I am in that district.
I drive past McDougall's, drive past the beautiful Codroy Valley, drive
past South Branch right on up past Stepehnville turnoff and then you hit the
Burgeo road. I have always found
that interesting.
I am
faced with expansion. I cannot
imagine my district is going to get smaller.
Even though geographically I have a huge district, I am faced with the
fact that my district has gotten smaller population-wise, which is very sad.
It is a fact that is faced by many here in this House.
I look
on with great interest, with great concern, and with great optimism as to what
we will face after this commission does their work.
I do not know what we are dealing with.
I know people are concerned.
They want to make sure they get the same representation and you hope that you
can deliver that same representation.
I am looking forward to seeing how that process unfolds.
I have
watched it from afar the last time in 2006.
I was not quite engaged in politics.
I knew the process was ongoing.
I was part of groups that made representations as just watching, seeing
how they did that. It is going to be
interesting to see how it unfolds and I look forward to it.
I know
the commission is going to have, as it has always had you have your justice
who chairs it. Then you are going to
have your four members who are going to be picked basically by the different
parties. They are by the Speaker,
but we know there are representations made to have these people put on.
It is a hard job. It is a
hard job to travel the Province and sit down and listen to all the presentations
that are made, and all the submissions that are made.
It is an important job. It is
one that takes great dedication.
I look
forward to seeing how this process unfolds, hopefully getting back here within
the 120 day time period that I think is an important part of this.
I do not mind saying, as we have said on numerous occasions, I think the
120 days is a tight timeline. I am
hoping, as has been stated by members on especially on the other side because
this is a piece of legislation proposed by the government, and the logic behind
it has always been that the 120 days is adequate.
I do
think that in the ten years since the last one technology has advanced.
Obviously it will be easier.
I do not know if they use things like Skype.
Obviously it has unfolded so much, but it is still going to require a lot
of travel. No matter how much
technology unfolds, our great geography stays the same.
That highway stays the same.
People have to travel, people have to fly.
I look
forward to watching this process and seeing how it unfolds.
I believe I am going to have the opportunity during this Committee stage
to ask many more questions, to make my points, and to get them across.
I am sure members from all sides are going to stand here and get the same
points across.
I think
at this point I am going to sit and let one of my colleagues have an opportunity
to address the Chair, to speak about clause 1, and to speak about Bill 42.
I look forward to moving on into the morning.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I am
happy to finally, after a long, long, long time of sitting throughout Thursday
and the continuation of Thursday listening to my colleagues, being able to get
another chance to speak to this bill.
Last
week we were quite surprised, shocked I was to get word that the government
was looking at doing something fairly radical, and that was going against
legislation that is in place, the Electoral Boundaries Act, to start the process
of the electoral boundaries commission a year earlier than our legislation calls
for.
This
bill, Bill 42, while it is a short bill, is a fairly radical one because it is
doing something that we have never talked about here in the House.
Nobody had talked about the electoral boundaries commission over the past
year. Nobody had talked about the
fact that perhaps we needed to look at doing something earlier.
There was no discussion anywhere that I am aware of and then, all of a
sudden, we get this announcement that we are going to be brought into the House
of Assembly at a time of year when nobody can hardly remember when the
government sat here in January not that I have a problem with that.
As a matter of fact, I think we should be in the House much more
frequently than we are, but we were being brought in to do one thing and one
thing only, and that was to deal with this bill, Bill 42.
Since
getting this bill last Thursday when we first got the statement from the
Premier, and that statement outlined what it was that the bill was about, we saw
things that were rather startling, that we were going to have a major cut to
seats in the House of Assembly by ten, that we also were going to have changes
that would leave wide open the issue of the seats in Labrador and I do not
take credit for the fact that government has changed its position from its bill,
but I do take credit for the fact that from the first minute that I saw that in
the statement from the Premier, from the first minute that I saw the seats in
Labrador were not going to be protected, I said that was wrong.
I will take credit for that.
That got
reaction from people because people in Labrador certainly I knew when I read
it, this could not happen and I said it immediately.
I was not open to that and I said it immediately.
I take credit for that because so much had gone into, over the years,
getting to the point where Labrador had four seats.
The fact that the Premier could even think about, and a government that
has said over the past years that I have been here in this House that they care
so much for Labrador, that they were not even going to take responsibility for
ensuring that those four seats remained.
So, I will take credit for that.
One of
the things that have happened since this bill has come to us, because initially
the bill was a bill to cut districts, to cut seats.
That is what the bill is all about.
That is what the core of the bill is all about.
Whatever is in the bill, as I said the other day, are consequential
amendments for the purpose of making the core of the bill work.
That is what the bill is all about.
Since
getting the bill, since this bill has become public, since people out there have
started reading it, we and not only we, every MHA in this House has been
receiving information from people who really know what this is all about.
The political scientists in our Province
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MS MICHAEL:
Mr. Chair, could I ask for
some silence here?
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you.
I am
going to repeat this because I have said it in this House before; I do have a
hearing impediment. It is not
serious but when extraneous sound is going on around me, I literally lose my
focus so I am asking for that, please.
MHAs in
this House have received the same e-mails that I have received from some of our
political scientists in this Province.
Those political scientists, the experts in this Province and the experts
at our university who study the political system, are shocked by Bill 42.
They are shocked by many of the things that I am shocked about and one of
those people they have been public, so we can say their names.
We have received their e-mails.
For example, Dr. Russell Williams wrote all of us, sent all of us an
e-mail, and then made part of that his analysis of what the impact of Bill 42
would be.
He and
other political scientists at the university have pointed out, number one, that
you just do not cut seats without doing a full analysis of why those seats need
to be cut. One of the professors at
the university has gone so far as to say there should not be any cuts in this
House of Assembly. Yet, in its
wisdom, this government and now the Official Opposition with them are saying oh
yes, the cuts have to happen even though there has been no analysis, even though
there has been no study, even though we have not put an electoral boundaries
commission in place to do its work.
We have not heard
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MS MICHAEL:
We have not heard a solid
reason, Mr. Chair. We have not heard
a solid reason for why this is happening why a year earlier than is required
this is happening. Especially when
we look at the fact that apparently our system that is in existence must be
okay, because what Bill 42 does everything that is related to what is
happening in 2015 and in one of sections and I will talk more about it when we
get to that everything reverts back after 2015.
By that I mean, instead of things happening, they are happening in 2015.
Instead of things that we thought would happen in 2016 are happening in
2015; but after this year, and after we do what is going to happen in 2015, ten
years after 2016 is when the next electoral boundaries commission is going to
be.
So in
other words, doing the work every ten years, apparently, is fine; that is not a
problem. So then the question is:
Why is it happening this year and not in 2016?
If ten years is not fine, then why is government not changing the system
that we have? They are not changing
the system. For some unspoken
reason, for something that they will not come out and say what the real reason
is, something is happening this year and this year only, and the system remains
the same. So ten years after 2016
will be the next electoral boundaries commission ten years after 2016.
Not ten years after 2015, not five years after 2015, but exactly the same
system that exists in our act right now.
They
have ignored the voice of people with expertise in the Province.
There have been people from outside the Province who have spoken out
about this. The points that we have
made here in this House, the points that I and my colleagues made in second
reading, are not things that we have made up as individuals.
They are things that people with expertise are talking about.
There are people with expertise who know that this process is wrong.
As I
have said right from the beginning, and a lot of my colleagues have used the
phrase maybe they would have used it anyway but the cart is being put before
the horse. The commission should be
put in place; the commission should be given the task to do its work.
I heard from the government side of the House, I think it was today or
Thursday, talking about we have to give the commission flexibility, so we will
give them a range. Maybe we will
change and give them a range.
The
flexibility is to say to the commission, you do the analysis.
You do what has to be done with regard to analyzing who we are as a
Province, analyzing the number of seats we have, and the flexibility is for you
to look at the picture and give us recommendations.
That is the flexibility, not coming up with a range of seats for them
before we have done any kind of analysis.
Mr.
Chair, I am looking forward to the rest of Committee of the Whole because there
are many points I want to raise.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It is a
pleasure to stand again and speak to Bill 42 respecting the electoral boundaries
commission. There is a lot of humour
here this morning. I am very happy
to see that after such a lengthy period of time that we have all been
participating in the debate yesterday, today, and the last few days.
I have
to agree with other members who have spoken.
When we all work together in the House of Assembly we can come to
conclusions about legislation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. KIRBY:
It is really important that
we are able to achieve some consensus because I think we all agree that politics
is about compromise. There is really
no benefit to be uncompromising all of the time and to be obstructionist.
I think it is important sometimes to put your heads together and try and
find a way to move forward. I think
that is what has happened with the four Labrador seats.
We all agree we would need to protect those seats for the people of
Labrador, for the voters there, and that is exactly what happened.
That is a very positive thing, Mr. Chair.
I have
to agree with other people who have spoken as well, that there are a lot of
people in Newfoundland and Labrador who are calling for seat reduction.
There is certainly the odd person out there who is against that.
I have heard from two or three people who believe we need more seats and
we need to keep the same number of seats but I think the majority of us, here at
least, feel we can get this work done with fewer members.
I have
talked to people across the country in fact, in the past week who tend to
agree that we can have actually a vibrant committee structure in this Province
with fewer members. We have talked
about what that number would be. It
would be nice to see some direction given by the House.
I do not really believe it is a responsible manner for us to conduct
ourselves in to sort of throw this out to a commission and not provide any
parameters to them. I think that is
completely irresponsible if we were to do that.
I think
we have to give advice to a commission.
They have hard enough work to do as it is.
We should give them some guidance on where the House of Assembly, or at
least the majority of the Members of the House of Assembly see this going.
We do have some responsibility.
We also have to ensure they have some degree of flexibility in whatever
direction that is provided by the House of Assembly, and that is incredibly
reasonable. So I wanted to agree
with those things.
I am
still a little perplexed about the way all of this unfolded.
As I said earlier in the debate with the Member for Mount Pearl North,
the Deputy Premier, and the Premier, the Member for Topsail having been more or
less successfully contesting their nominations, at least in the Premier's case,
and the gentleman who is going up against the Leader of the Opposition, Humber
Valley, having secured his nomination.
That going on, and then we had Christmas.
Then all of a sudden someone leaked this to VOCM last Monday.
It was all the news, and it is a big surprise to us.
I know
the Premier and the Finance Minister we never heard from the Minister of
Justice, interestingly enough, who is responsible for this legislation.
We never heard from her on it first or last, but I know the Minister of
Finance and the Premier, and some other members of his caucus and Cabinet, were
out there fear mongering saying the Official Opposition were going to be
obstructionists and not going to co-operate and so on.
We have
certainly come to this debate with a lot of good will.
We wanted to make sure we would have a thorough, thoughtful debate.
That there would be the sorts of deliberations on this piece of
legislation in the House of Assembly that the public expects from us.
That we would not necessarily obstruct it but we would ensure the process
is dealt with in a very deliberate way so that everything gets discussed because
you have to read the fine print in all of this legislation.
It is no sense going crying about it later if you do not thoroughly
debate it and read the fine print now.
So we want to make sure that has happened.
I think
the Government House Leader said earlier in the debate, there were typographical
errors in this legislation when we were provided it originally.
That is problematic. We have
made mistakes here with legislation before.
That is why we have the distinct honour, I suppose, of being the only
government in the whole Dominion of Canada with our own pulp and paper mill that
we expropriated for ourselves. Those
sorts of mistakes happen when you hurry along blindly and do not give things
ample opportunity for examination, debate, and thoughtful deliberation.
There
are all sorts of other examples that we have talked about.
I know I have talked many times before about the Act to Amend the Act to
Amend the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act, there is Bill 29, and changing the
name of the Department of Justice and on and on.
It is sort of an endless supply of examples of where a knee-jerk reaction
and hurrying along without reading the fine print causes us to have much despair
later on, to say nothing of Humber Valley Paving and so on.
CHAIR:
I am going to ask the member
to remember to speak to the bill, please.
MR. KIRBY:
Yes, I guess the other thing
I wanted to say, Mr. Chair, that I had not said previously was, I wonder about
this government has been in power for that length of time, eleven years and
change, and we are only seeing this now.
It is such a lengthy period of time to have some sort of parliamentary
reform, to have a debate about that, but we are being hurried through this.
You only
have to look back at the events of last year, going through three-and-a-half
Premiers over that period of time.
The business of the government party trying to organize a couple of leadership
conventions to ensure there is a Premier in place.
CHAIR:
I gave the hon. member some
leeway. I am asking him to speak to
Bill 42.
MR. KIRBY:
Sure.
It just slowed things down an awful lot, I guess, Mr. Chair, was my point
there.
The
other thing we have talked about a bit, and I think it is important to have a
fulsome discussion is really the only reason the government has given for
pushing this ahead at this time instead of sometime during the previous eleven
years that they were in power is the financial situation that we find ourselves
in today. I know a number of members
have talked about the plunging price of oil but there has not really been a
whole lot of emphasis on the fact that we have put a lot of our eggs in one
basket. There has not been a whole
lot of serious attempt at economic diversification.
A lot of
monies have been expended on a lot of things that we could really question and
debate the merits of as I said, Humber Valley Paving being one.
The schools with lights on and nobody is home being another.
The moose detection systems that
CHAIR:
I am going to ask the hon.
member to speak to Bill 42 or I am going to ask the member to sit down.
MR. KIRBY:
I just want to clarify one
matter, Mr. Chair, that I know I had a bit of back and forth with the hon.
Government House Leader about was the whole issue of the 120 days.
He had said to me by social media: Well, that 120 days is in there.
There is no question about that.
That is included in the just one second now, if you could bear with me,
Mr. Chair. That is included in here
on page 4, under 14(2), but there is no question about that.
I think
our interest is really ensuring that the government does not change any other
statutes, does not sort of forge ahead and change other laws to suit its
electoral purposes, and that we continue on and honour the fixed election date
and honour the law that we have in place which says we need to have a general
election call within one year of the governing party changing to a new Premier.
As I said we have our current Premier who was elected by 381 people at
the PC leadership convention last September and we have had a couple of others.
We had an interim Premier and an almost Premier, and so on and so forth.
We want
to make sure we adhere to that 2015 general election date.
There are a lot of people out there who are saying this is just an effort
to kick the general election date out another year so that this government can
have an opportunity to, I do not know, I guess recover in some way from all of
the poor decision making and the subsequent fallout with public opinion that has
really come on over the past number of years, at least since the 2011 general
election at least since then.
I will
leave it at that for now. I have a
lot more to say. I know there is
lots more time to get up and talk.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
There
were some other points I wanted to make.
Of course, that is what Committee is all about, to be able to continue
one's ideas and raise points and issues.
Some of
what I have to say is about the bill itself and some of it is about comments
that have been made by government during the debate around the bill.
The Explanatory Notes of bill, I did talk about this in the second
reading, but I am doing it for a different reason now.
The bill
is amending the Electoral Boundaries Act.
It is not a bill about reform of the House of Assembly.
It is about the Electoral Boundaries Act which is very, very specific.
The amendments would, require the electoral boundaries commission to
report upon the delimitation of the province into districts in 2015; 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.
Everything about the bill is about cutting back on the number of
districts in the Province and amendments that back up that main goal of the
bill.
The bill
is not about reform of the House of Assembly.
There is going to be an impact on the House of Assembly because there
would be fewer people with the cut in districts.
The numbers of people in the House of Assembly does not dictate how the
House of Assembly is run. I am
curious that the government keeps pushing the fact that this is about reform of
the House of Assembly, reform of how it operates.
The Government House Leader even said it in his comments at the end of
second reading.
I want
to clarify because I think people are confused out there.
I believe we absolutely need the House of Assembly reformed.
I absolutely believe that. I
am really glad the standing committee has been put in place.
That has happened during this process during the week, but we have to be
clear that this bill is not about that.
Some of
the examples of reform that is needed in the House of Assembly are exactly what
we are doing here today, and that is we have gone directly from second reading
which has been going on for several hours.
It started on Tuesday. We had
Private Members' Day yesterday so we did not have it yesterday.
We started on Thursday and for many hours the second reading has gone on.
We kept
being told throughout second reading that amendments were coming.
Then we go directly from second reading into Committee of the Whole.
We are going to be presented with amendments and we are going to stay
here for several more hours until we do that and there is a vote.
That whole process to me is not a good process.
It is not a healthy process.
This is
one of the examples of why we need standing committees where serious legislation
is worked out in the standing committee first, before it comes into the House of
Assembly for second reading. We have
the process all wrong in this House of Assembly.
That is one example of reform that is needed.
There is absolutely no doubt about that.
Even the
way our Question Period goes, we need reform there as well.
There are so many things that need reform.
I absolutely agree with the Premier and with the government with regard
to that, but that is not what this bill is about.
We have to keep that clear.
We have to keep it straight because I think it is being done to confuse people.
It is
about cutting the districts. It is
about making changes for this year only to our process of the electoral
boundaries and the work of the electoral boundaries commission.
I think it is extremely important that we make that point of what this
bill is really about.
I would
like to point out a couple of comments that came from the political scientist I
mentioned a few minutes ago, Dr. Russell Williams and some of the points that he
has made. It is a warning to us that
when boundaries are done, it is the practice everywhere the key thing that
changing boundaries is dependent on is population.
That is why the timing of the reviews of the work of an electoral
boundaries commission is based on a ten-year framework and tied to the census
and information from the census.
The key
factor in drawing boundaries has to do with population.
It is that very factor that is going to mean if Bill 42 goes ahead, and
Bill 42 goes in the direction in which it is being indicated, that rural
Newfoundland and Labrador well not Labrador.
Labrador we now know, government has changed its mind and seen the light
on that one and those four seats will be protected.
Rural
Newfoundland is going to be impacted immensely by this.
Not urban, not the Northeast Avalon, not the Greater St. John's area,
there may be some changes but they will be minor.
Rural Newfoundland is going to be impacted immensely by this and yet, I
have heard MHAs from rural Newfoundland here today speaking quite easy about
that. Oh, people will understand,
people will not mind. I have a
feeling they will mind when they find out that the ratio of rural to urban MHAs
is going to change radically because of Bill 42.
That is
something I do not understand. The
government has so many MHAs from rural Newfoundland, so I do not get it.
I do not get either why the Official Opposition, which has so many rural
MHAs, is also supporting this now. I
do not get it because they are going to be impacted.
As it
happens, in our caucus right now three of us are from St. John's.
There may be some changes to the districts we represent, but they are not
going to be the kind of changes that are going to happen to the rural.
I do not understand even how the government is doing this with that as a
factor. None of it makes sense to
me; absolutely none of it makes sense.
It does not make sense to an awful lot of other people either.
I wanted
to make that point, Mr. Chair, here at the beginning.
I have a lot more to say and I will say it as the evening goes on.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It
certainly is a pleasure to speak to Bill 42 once again.
I cannot think of anywhere I would rather be at 4:51 in the morning than
here with all of my colleagues discussing this great piece of legislation.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. LANE:
That is true.
My colleague says Church of the Good Shepherd, and I am always pleased to
go there as much as I can.
Mr.
Chair, I have spoken to this already and I do not want to be too repetitive, but
I do want to make a few points on this, just to reiterate some points that have
been made. First of all, it is about
the timing. When we talk about the
timing of this and we are talking about the fact that it was supposed to be done
next year, there are a lot of people who would question why is it being done
this year when it was supposed to done next year anyway.
Why is it being done when the census information is a year or so away?
It comes
down to, really, do we want to do it for the sake of doing it, or do we want to
do it right. Now, everybody on this
side well, okay I will not say everyone on this side of the House.
Everybody in the Official Opposition, I cannot speak for the other party,
but certainly in the Official Opposition I think that we believe, as government
members believe, in speaking to our constituents, certainly the vast number of
constituents I have spoken to believe that we can have a seat reduction.
They would like to see that.
I heard
the Leader of the Third Party talk about the fact that we have had these
professors and people from outside the Province who have made commentary and so
on. I respect their opinion.
I have heard their opinions.
I have heard what they are saying and I understand their concerns.
To some degree, I definitely understand where they are coming from; but
the bottom line, though, is that those are not the people that I work for.
People from outside the Province and some of these people, they are not
my constituents. I have to do what I
believe my constituents would like because I am supposed to represent them.
I have heard that from other members on the government side as well, that
most people want to see that reduction.
Of
course now we get into a question of do we do it now, do we do it later.
The government has seen fit that they want to do it now.
That is their prerogative to put that legislation forward; there is no
doubt about that. I do have some
concerns in terms of the timing piece, in terms of the census.
I have heard a couple of members mention I believe it was my colleague
for Conception Bay South talking about during the by-election that there were
streets that did not even exist on the map, houses that did not exist on it
because of all the growth.
I know
even in Mount Pearl, when you look at Mount Pearl North, Mount Pearl South,
well, in Mount Pearl South, the area which I represent, really we do not have
that growth. We are kind of boxed
in. On the Mount Pearl North side of
the district, if you will, up off of Topsail Road, Moffatt Road, that area, we
are seeing growth, and in the Paradise part of the Mount Pearl North district we
are seeing growth. The numbers are
not reflecting those, because the numbers are like three years old.
So I believe, Mr. Chair, that if we were to do it properly, we would have
the up-to-date numbers and we would be able to adjust the boundaries
accordingly.
Now, on
a personal note, in terms of my particular area, it really does not matter to
me. I said it the other day, I heard
the member talk about a luncheon we were at and as I said at that luncheon, it
does not matter to me where the boundary line is to.
I do not care if the boundary line is Ruth Avenue or Park Avenue or where
it happens to be. For me, if it is
Mount Pearl, it is Mount Pearl, and what part, or where the line is drawn, fine
with me. If we have to make some
adjustments I know Topsail district, for example, cuts into Mount Pearl, a
little piece I actually live in Topsail district, per se cuts into about
half of Power's Pond. It never was
there until the last boundary change.
That is when that change occurred.
I did not really understand it then, and still do not, to some degree.
So, I could see that being changed.
There is
also an anomaly. The boundary
between Mount Pearl North and South, there is a boundary of Ruth Avenue, but
then there is this little anomaly that comes in and Mount Pearl North takes in
Second Street and half of Roosevelt Avenue, and four houses on Second Street,
and three or four houses on Sunrise.
So there is this little piece carved out.
That makes no sense. I could
see changes being made there.
I could
possibly see my district expanding perhaps over and possibly taking in what is
known as Brookfield Plains, or maybe part of Southlands, because even though it
is in the City of St. John's, the reality of it is that most of the people
there, their children are going to school in Mount Pearl and the people there
are shopping in Mount Pearl. They
are in sports in Mount Pearl and so on.
So in terms of communities of interest and so on, I could see a change
here.
Regardless of what the change is, which is not for me to decide, the bottom line
is I will live with that change, as will everybody else, but we have to be
willing to accept change. I think we
have to be willing to accept that fact that the majority of people want to see a
reduction.
If we
were to do it, like I said, right, I think we would wait.
I think we would get the census information, the most up-to-date
information. We would follow the
legislation, as is already prescribed; but, at the end of the day, from our
perspective here now, the government has brought this forward, it is their right
to do so, and we have to try to work together to at least make the best of the
legislation that is there. Hopefully
we can come to some compromises.
Hopefully we can bring some amendments forward so that it is the best we can do
with the legislation that is put forward.
We are
trying to co-operate, as my colleague, I think, for Burgeo La Poile mentioned.
It was never our intention to be obstructionists on all of this.
MR. KIRBY:
I said that.
MR. LANE:
Maybe it was my colleague for
St. John's North; but, at the end of the day, we just want to make sure that it
is done right, that it is done properly.
That is why we have proposed some amendments.
We are hopeful that some of the amendments well, certainly we have
heard the amendment on Labrador. The
government has indicated that that change will be made.
We are certainly hoping to see some progress on a couple of the other
amendments that we have proposed.
At the
end of the day, Mr. Chair, the intent is, obviously, we want to make sure
everybody is treated properly, everybody is treated fairly.
We want to ensure geography is taken into consideration, communities of
interest are taken into consideration, population is taken into consideration
and we have districts which are manageable.
Certainly, there is a big difference when it comes to urban areas, like I would
represent and a number of my colleagues would, and the rural areas.
We have heard those challenges.
We have heard challenges around distances, communities of interest, and
so on. I do not have those
challenges. I could quite easily
tack on an additional 2,000 or 3,000 or 4,000 people or what have you, that
would be fine; but in a lot of the rural areas, they have those challenges.
The
other thing, of course, is that it is not just the challenges of geography from
the perspective of distance, but also the number of communities that you have to
deal with. I deal with one
municipality right now, just one.
AN HON. MEMBER:
You are lucky.
MR. LANE:
I am very lucky.
The City of Mount Pearl; that is it.
Mount Pearl, being an urban area, when it comes to issues around snow
clearing and water and sewer and all those types of things, the city takes care
of all those issues; whereas in rural areas where the department of highways are
involved, they are having to deal with snow clearing issues and road issues and
whatever. I do not have any of those
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR (Cross):
Order, please!
The
noise level has increased.
MR. LANE:
Any of the urban MHAs do not
have those issues. So, there are
differences, and we want to make sure that is recognized and that everybody is
treated fairly.
I have a
few seconds left and I may speak again, but the other point here that I would
like to make is the 120 days. I am
not so sure that what needs to be done can be done in 120 days, and I certainly
have some concerns about that.
I only
have a couple of seconds, so I am going to sit down now, but I will have an
opportunity to speak again and I intend on doing so.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I rise
again on Bill 42, and of course we are getting into Committee stage here now.
I just wanted to get up here again and reiterate some of the points that
I made earlier when it comes to this piece of legislation and how much of a rush
this is actually happening in. It
seems surprising that while I was away for part of last week and this week, so
I did miss the first part of the debate unfortunately, but of course I was able
to come in here with the tail end of things I guess you could say and get back
into the swing of things.
Mr.
Chair, I just wanted to again talk about the simple fact of why this House of
Assembly has to actually look at reducing the number of seats, and if we are not
in fact doing a disservice to the people of the Province at the same time when
we are seeing government act in a little bit of haste here.
We have
heard from a number of speakers here today and tonight and this morning about
the fiscal restraints that this Province is facing, and the fiscal situation
that it is facing now, and probably for the foreseeable future, according to
some of the estimates. We have heard
how they have tied it in with the price of oil.
That is how we got in this situation.
We did not have the foresight to bank away a few dollars and, at the same
time, to not become so reliant on the aspect of natural resources that we have
become reliant on. We were trapped.
That did
not just happen with this government.
It happened pretty much since first oil was brought into this Province in
1997 that we got into the nasty habit, both governments, Liberal and
Conservative, of taking the money from royalties and sinking it into general
revenues and spending it. Again, Mr.
Chair, we have nothing to show for it, some people would argue, and it certainly
looks that way now.
Now, in
the interest of fiscal expediency, I will call it, we have seen that the
government came out with the argument that we have to be seen as doing our share
when it comes to taking cuts. We
have to take it on the chin. In some
ways, some people would believe that democracy has suffered.
Mr. Chair, from the people who I have talked to and some of the political
scientists that you hear out there, we could, in fact, actually be doing
ourselves a disservice by making these reductions post-haste.
Mr.
Chair, earlier I talked about and I would really like to reiterate the fact of
federal representation and what would happen if we heard that the federal
Conservatives would end up cutting representation to this Province.
There would be such a huge cry from not only this government, but from
all sides of the House if we did that.
We would be seeing that as being unfair to this Province, number one, and
we would be talking about the simple lack of representation, effective
representation, if we had to have six federal Members of Parliament.
We have basically thirteen representatives now when it comes to Senators
and when it comes to federal Members of Parliament.
It tells
you right off the bat that there is a pretty good sizable number that our
servants in Ottawa are dealing with right now.
Some people would argue that this Province should see more representation
in the House of Commons. I sincerely
believe that that should be the case, that we should have better representation.
Some
people would argue in this Province about proportional representation too.
So, Mr. Chair, again we have to ask the question that because of the
effect of less representation when it comes to the federal end of things, why we
do not fight for more representation, for example, and argue the reasons why we
have forty-eight seats rather than the fact that government wants to reduce it
by ten. It seems that both
government and the Official Opposition are coming to some sort of consensus
around that number, that we are going to see a reduction of ten people.
Ask the
people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador if they are going to have effective
representation. It seems like right
now that Labrador is going to be secure, and I think everybody in the House has
reached a consensus on that part, that Labrador is not going to be affected.
That is great; we support that fully.
The simple fact is the rest of rural Newfoundland, the Island part of the
Province, is going to be affected.
So we have the simple fact that thirty-four districts are going to be created on
the Island portion of the Province, whereas there would have been forty-four
districts on the Island. The Island
portion of the Province is going to take that hit.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. MURPHY:
While we are looking at that
particular number, Mr. Chair, you have to ask on behalf of those people in rural
Newfoundland, if that is going to be fair to them.
Again, we can come back to the simple argument if the same thing had to
happen on a federal perspective, if the people in rural Newfoundland would think
that it would be fair that we only had six Members of Parliament rather than
seven. Again, Mr. Chair, I think we
should be having more. We should
have a louder voice in Ottawa, the same as the people of rural Newfoundland
should have a louder voice in this House of Assembly.
When it
comes to the role of MHAs, we have also heard that the role of the MHA has
changed and, of course, with the advances of modern technology we have easier
access. That does not mean that our
work has become lighter. In certain
cases, Mr. Chair, I can tell you that in conversations with some of my fellow
MHAs, the workload has actually become heavier because it is easier to gain
access to your particular Member of the House of Assembly.
It is not necessarily true that your workload becomes lighter.
Access has improved that, we know of; but there are other areas of this
Province as well that simply does not have as much cellphone services, let alone
Internet services. So we still have
issues around communication too.
Our
responsibility, Mr. Chair, is to advocate on the part of people who cannot do
it. Those challenges around
advocating, the demographics of which are changing pretty much on a yearly basis
the population in this Province, by the year 2026, we are going to be dealing
with an aging population, where we are going to find about 27 per cent or 28 per
cent of the population is going to be age sixty-five and over.
Not
everybody is into using Facebook. In
some cases when it comes to access, some people still like to use the telephone.
That is great, but we are going to be having more issues, for example
around seniors. So we know that
workloads are going to be picking up, particularly when it comes to rural
Newfoundland because we know that certainly, this much is true, that with high
unemployment, for example. We also
have transient workforces, we have people who are commuting back and forth too,
and they leave parents behind. It is
something that we have to think about too, and we have to have the commission
think about at the same time.
It
should be the responsibility as well that we pay attention to what the
commission says in those reports.
The commission may come out with varied numbers of reasons as to why, for
example, the number that government is picking out, thirty-eight, would be a bad
number. We have to pay attention to
the fact that if the commission comes back and says no you cannot reduce it down
to thirty-eight, you have to have, for example, forty-eight seats and they
have the reasons to justify that. We
have to pay attention to that.
We know
that there are only going to be recommendations.
The simple fact is if the commission should come back and say that zero
reductions are going to have to be the number that the House of Assembly is
going to have to pay attention to, or government is going to have to pay
attention to, we have to have the assurance from government at the same time
that they would adhere to those numbers.
Mr.
Chair, I wanted to start off by saying that.
I will have other points to say as the Committee stage goes on.
We have to keep in mind that for effective representation less does not
necessarily mean more or better representation in this particular case.
I wonder
at the same time what government's rush is in doing this.
We could wait a few more months; wait until 2016 to ensure that we are
going to have the right statistics to go by to do this right.
It was the timing in the first place that the commission was going to
have to be going around, doing its work anyway.
Mr.
Chair, I will thank you for your time at this present time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
MS DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It is
5:10 in the morning. I was thinking
that normally when you are coming into the House you are showered and you are
pretty fresh as you are going to be going on camera and things like that.
We started this a few days ago.
Once you get into something like this, Mr. Chair, you do not know how
long you are going to be here or when it is going to end.
We are losing a few here and there, but I am happy to see that most on my
team here still look to be in fine form.
Mr.
Chair, for somebody like myself I think I have had three sittings in the House
it has been quite an experience for me to go through to see democracy at work
up close like this, and to sit here and be a part of good, healthy debate.
It has been an experience that I will not forget.
On
Friday, I was just getting ready to head back to Labrador when the news broke
about being called back to the House.
We quickly gathered around our own caucus table, and I can tell you since
last Friday we have had a lot of meetings as well and wondering what position
the majority would be happy with.
I was
delighted, Mr. Chair, on Monday morning when our Liberal Leader held a press
conference that we all attended. He
outlined the three amendments that we would be putting forward.
I will just run through the three amendments again for the purpose of the
record here. The boundary commission
legislation must be amended to state if the commission's work is not completed
in 120 days then the existing electoral boundaries will apply for the 2015
general election.
We have
had a lot of discussion, Mr. Chair, around the 120 days and the concern about
whether or not that happens. I guess
the overriding principle here is that if the work whether it can or cannot be
done, we believe that it is in the best interest of the people of the Province
to go to the polls in the fixed date that is in place right now of September,
2015. Over the last number of hours
we have heard countless members on the other side say they supported that so
hopefully that will be the case.
The
second amendment we would be proposing, Mr. Chair, would be that the boundary
commission not have a prescribed number but there be a range.
Now we do not know where this is going to play out but I am just
reiterating.
I would
be remiss and I cannot deny, Mr. Chair, the one near and dear to my heart was on
the four seats for Labrador. I have
to give credit where credit is due.
My colleague across the way, the Member for Lake Melville gave a powerfully
moving speech tonight. I could see
the passion and I share that passion.
I am not as passionate at 5:00 a.m. after we have been into this for
week, but he talked about unity and he talked about the uniqueness of Labrador.
There are some things that no matter where we live in Labrador do bring
us all together as a people.
I was
pleased to see that sometimes when you stand and you educate people about the
diversities and the challenges, that sometimes we can put partisan politics
aside, Mr. Chair, and we can look at it for the greater good of the people.
I love and I reference it many times my colleague from Carbonear
Harbour Grace often calls it the people's House.
That is why no matter what we do here, whether we are doing it at 5:00 in
the afternoon or we are doing it at 5:00 in the morning, we have to constantly
remind ourselves that it is the people who we work for.
We have to keep in mind what they would want.
I was
very touched as I listened to our leader get up and talk about Labrador and the
impact that it had on him, and he shared about Burton Winters.
The one thing that will stay with me probably most from all of this was
when he talked about his trip to Northern Labrador and that lady had said what
are you doing here? Have you come
from the south to fix our problems in the north?
Mr.
Chair, that is why when we get up and we talk about Labrador, we talk about it
with so much passion. Sometimes we
say words that go a long way in the media just because we are trying to really
stress a point that for too long we have had decisions top-down and the people
on the ground have not had their say.
That is not a healthy democracy.
Even
when I look at the district I now represent, Mr. Chair, for many years we were
represented by people who were not from the district, people from outside.
I could name off a number of them.
Eugene Hiscock was a fine man.
He represented us well, but he was not a native to there.
He did now nominate my grandfather Ben Powell for the Order of Canada and
he was successful. That is one of
the things I remember Eugene Hiscock for.
Mr.
Chair, as we continue to deliberate, now that we have moved into Committee on
this very important act, Bill 42, the electoral boundaries, it is very important
for us to get it right. When we look
at the 120 days, when we look at the range, I look forward to continuing to hear
more debate on that.
Mr.
Chair, the four seats in Labrador furthest from the legislation is the
accessibility issue, the geography that has come out very clear over the hours
that we have debated. Just a couple
of days ago when we were not sure where this was going, I got into the Northern
Strategic Plan and former Premier Williams, a powerful man in this House.
We all know some of the legacy that he left.
I began to read some of the quotes that he had said about Labrador.
That is why I was so determined that what is happening here will be
wrong, will be unfair if we are to regress Labrador back to where it was forty
years ago.
I am
going to read a couple of these quotes into the record, Mr. Chair, from that
former Premier Williams. He said,
Our government recognizes that Labrador will play a pivotal role in shaping the
province's future and understands that Labrador is a distinct part of the
province in its geography, demographics, history, and culture.
These are some of the points that we have been trying to make over the
last couple of days. This is why you
cannot take districts in this vast Province that we have and carve them up based
on population alone. There has to be
other considerations given.
He also
went on to say, Government is aware of the importance of consultation and the
need to consider the Labrador perspective in provincial decision making and
program and service delivery.
Mr.
Chair, that is all we ask for is some say into decisions that are made because
we believe the people on the ground have that knowledge.
As we move forward further into consultation, into deliberations on this
act, Mr. Chair, we are going to hear a lot more about the importance of the
consultation.
After
our job here right now is done, when the independent commission goes out it is
going to be absolutely vital that they get out and that the people are informed
and know where the consultations are being held.
That they have a say and there is ample time for them to make
presentations and to put it forth.
We have the four seats protected in Labrador, but I do have concern provincially
that in all of Newfoundland and Labrador this is done right.
Even
though Labrador, we know, is very diverse in terms of demographic needs, Mr.
Chair, there are a lot of challenges around other parts of the Province as well.
There are a lot of rural parts.
We are concerned for them. We
want to make sure people have their say and that this process is done right as
we go forward.
Mr.
Chair, a former minister for Labrador said the provincial government and people
will work together to advance social and economic development so that residents
share an improved quality of life.
Mr. Chair, I think I could speak provincially again when I say: Really, isn't
that why we are all here? It is
because, provincially, we want to see an improved quality of life for all of the
people.
The job
of a government is to provide a service to the people, the best service they
can. Sometimes they come out with a
decision, Mr. Chair, and it is the Opposition's job to look for the flaws in
that, to pick it apart to say let's go back to the table, let's revisit this,
let's propose amendments, we can do this better.
It is our responsibility to not accept the first thing that is tabled.
We have to take it; we have to flesh it out.
We have to ensure there is ample time so that at the end of the day the
end result of the piece of legislation that gets passed in this House is the
best that it can be for the people of the Province who have elected us here.
Mr.
Chair, with that, I see my time is gone again on the clock.
I am sure I will have an opportunity to stand again and speak to Bill 42.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I would
like to start off first to thank all the extra staff who have been working from
probably 8:30 in the morning and continue to work, our Table Officers who really
have not had much of a break, the people in the Broadcast Centre, people in
Hansard, people who are working really hard.
My concern, Mr. Chair, is I am not so sure that it was necessary to do it
this way. As a matter of fact, I am
absolutely sure it was not necessary to do it this way.
The
Minister of Finance I cannot remember if it was yesterday or the day before
said we make strategic decisions, and we are making decisions that affect us at
least twelve months down the road.
We are not just looking today but we are looking into the future.
We are looking for long-term sustainability about our decisions, and they
are tough decisions.
Mr.
Chair, the decisions we are making here this morning it is 5:22 in the morning
so far, I do not know when this is going to be wrapped up, but I do know that
tough decisions are going to be made and the decisions are about how we conduct
our business in this Province, about the governance of our Province.
It is a very, very important decision, and here we are at 5:22 in the
morning, people are tired, people have worked hard, people are committed to
staying here.
The
situation we are in now is the creation of the government because not only are
they putting the electoral boundaries commission up against the wall with an
unrealistic time frame, but they have done this to the House of Assembly as
well. This is not the way to make
tough decisions. This is not the way
to make strategic decisions. This is
not the way to make decisions that affect us for years down the road, because
the decisions that are made here tonight are for over ten years, eleven years.
These are really important decisions, really tough decisions.
I would
also like to speak to a few of
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MS ROGERS:
Mr. Chair, I would also like
to address a few misnomers, a few phrases that have been thrown around here all
through the night and into the morning.
Some of
our members have talked about we have been here for days, we have been here for
the week. In fact, Mr. Chair, on
Monday we did not debate this act.
Tuesday, we debated the act from about 3:30 in the afternoon to 10:00 in the
evening. Wednesday, we did not
debate this act. Wednesday we had a
private member's motion. Thursday,
we started to debate this act. So we
have not been in this House debating this act for a week.
We have had part of Tuesday and most of Thursday.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Relevance.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MS ROGERS:
Mr. Chair, I am talking to
the time frame and the important decision that we have to make.
The
other misnomer we have been hearing, that people have been talking about, that
several members have been talking about is electoral reform.
This is not about electoral reform.
Bill 42 is not about real electoral reform.
Bill 42 is about cutting seats.
It is the same as cutting a piece out of a pie.
It is not about changing the recipe.
It is the same old pie with a piece gone out of it.
Mr.
Chair, I just want to establish that, in fact, we have not been a full week
debating this, nor is this real electoral reform.
We are simply cutting seats.
We are taking a piece out of it.
My
concern, Mr. Chair, as well, is the time frame.
Not only the time frame to look at this very important, very fundamental
piece of legislation, but the time frame that will be allocated to the electoral
boundaries commission. I think many
of us have raised that. It is an
impossible task. It is an absolutely
impossible task, and the electoral boundaries commission, the work that has to
be done is incredibly complex.
We also
heard from one of our members who has lived through two different events in the
Province where electoral boundaries were changed.
He talked about how complex it was.
He talked about how difficult it was for communities.
He talked about the great divisions that were a result of not doing it
properly.
Mr.
Chair, we know this is complex. It
has to be done properly. Our
decision this morning has to be done properly.
We have been pushed up against the wall.
The electoral boundaries commission will be pushed up against the wall.
This is not the way to make strategic, informed decisions that affect how
we govern ourselves as a people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The role
of the MHA, Mr. Chair, is not just what happens here in this House.
The Premier, and many of the members on the other side of the House,
government members, have said that what we are talking about is cutting the
number of seats in this House, the number of MHAs in this House.
I would like to say there is more work to the role of an MHA than what
happens in this House. This is a
very important role. The work that
happens outside this House informs, in fact, what the MHA does inside the House.
As an MHA, we do not come here individually.
We come as someone who represents the people in our district.
It is not simply about cutting the number of bodies that are in this
House. It is more than that.
It is about our whole governance process.
Mr.
Chair, I would like to see real electoral reform.
I would like the House of Assembly to look at the issue of proportional
representation or ranked ballots. I
think we need to look at that. If
this Premier is serious about modernizing our way of governing, then we have to
look at real reform because that is not what this is.
The
other concern I have is when we look at the complex role of the electoral
boundaries commission, one of the things in the act is they are required to have
at least two public meetings near the end of their process: one in Labrador and
one on the Island of Newfoundland.
At those
public meetings, first of all, they have to publicly advertise those public
meetings for at least ten days. Then
what they have to do in those public meetings is they have to present all the
maps, all the new names of the new electoral districts.
They have to present all their work in two separate public meetings that
have to be advertised for ten days.
That, in and of itself, is a few weeks work, just that piece, Mr. Chair.
They
have to show where the new boundaries are.
They have to show maps and the new names.
That is not just to present their work; that is for consultation.
That means that process does not stop at that meeting.
That meeting is for consultation.
When we
look at the work that has to be done, it is really complex work.
I believe this government is actually setting up the commission to fail.
What is so important is not just the actual nuts and bolts of identifying
boundaries, identifying maps, but also it is about working with the people of
the Province because we cannot afford to have communities divided.
We cannot afford that, Mr. Chair.
The work must be done in a respectful manner, and I believe that the time
frame that has been given for this work actually violates the spirit of what
electoral reform is.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I said
when I concluded debate in second reading, I was looking forward to the
opportunity to get back up again as we got into Committee and to contribute to
this important debate of the House.
As we talked about this particular piece of legislation, it is interesting how
we have been able to ramble all over multiple topics, some of them relevant and
some of them not, but it is all a part of a very significant and serious debate
around a serious piece of legislation.
One of
the things that debates do, debates inform, debates gives us an opportunity as
members of this House to share with others our thoughts, gives us a chance to
because this proceeding is televised and people around the Province are
interested in what we are doing here because it affects every Newfoundlander and
Labradorian. A debate in the House
of Assembly such as this generates other public discussion, a lot of public
discussion, I say, Mr. Chair, and that is important because it helps shape our
thinking. We should, as legislators,
as we debate legislation and as we do the work that we have been asked to do on
behalf of the people, be responsive to the comments and wishes and things that
we hear from the public and we should inform each other.
There
are various points of views that are shared in this House that are opposing, but
they are all insightful and they are all important that we express them and it
helps shape our thinking. As a
result of this kind of healthy debate that we have had on Bill 42, there have
been a lot of changes in people's thinking, better understanding of the issue
before us, and that is important.
That is what democracy is about: having strenuous, rigorous and sometimes lively
and spirited debate where opinions are expressed, opposing views are shared, and
what we are seeing here tonight is a continuation of that.
One of
the things we are also seeing, Mr. Chair, is a recognition by many members in
this House that this is a valuable piece of legislation and people of
Newfoundland and Labrador are asking for it and we need to respond to our
responsibility to ensure that we bring in legislation that is progressive,
reflects the wishes of the Province, and reflects the collective views of all of
us who are in here sharing in the debate and the discussion.
It is
with that view, Mr. Chair, we are now debating clause 1, and I would like to
introduce an amendment to clause 1.
I move, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, that clause 1 of the bill be
deleted and the following substituted:
1.
Clause 1 of the Bill is deleted and the following substituted:
1. (1)
Section 6 of the Electoral Boundaries Act is amended by adding immediately after
subsection (1) the following:
(1.1)
For the purpose of the appointment of a commission in 2015, the speaker of the
House of Assembly shall appoint the members of the commission not more than 5
days after the appointment of the chairperson under section 3.
(2)
Section 6 of the Act is amended by adding immediately after subsection (2) the
following:
(3)
Notwithstanding subsection (2), the appointments of the members of a commission
in 2015 shall lapse after the expiration of 120 days after the appointment of
the chairperson under section 3.
(4)
Notwithstanding subsection (3), the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, may by
order, extend the time period referred to in subsection (3) for one additional
period of not more than 10 days.
(5)
Where a commission appointed for the purpose of preparing a report in 2015 does
not report as required by this Act, the failure to report shall not in any way
affect the requirement for a general election under an Act of the province, and
a general election shall be held in accordance with that legislation.
(6)
Where a commission appointed for the purpose of preparing a report in 2015
lapses without the commission having submitted a report in the time frame
required under subsection (3), a commission shall be appointed in the calendar
year 2016, and all references in this Act to a requirement of or a consideration
by a commission appointed for the purpose of preparing a report in 2015 shall
apply, with the necessary changes, to the commission appointed in 2016.
Mr.
Chair, there are a number of key things I want to point out with respect to this
amendment. Number one, this is being
made by myself as the Minister of Finance.
Number two, it has been seconded by the Leader of the Official
Opposition.
Secondly, Mr. Chair, I want to point out as well this amendment and the language
in the amendment clearly speaks to what the Premier and members of our
government have been saying since this debate began.
It was never our intention, still is not our intention, and never was our
intention to try to use an amendment to this bill or bringing in this bill to
amend an act to allow us to extend the normal course of an election in 2015.
It was always our intent, still is our intent, to have an election in
2015, and whatever happens with this commission will not change that.
The language that is embedded here in this amendment helps strengthen our
commitment and points out clearly that now we have it embedded in legislation,
it speaks to exactly what we have been saying all along.
So I
think, Mr. Chair, this is an important amendment.
It reflects the wishes of the people who we have been talking to.
It reflects the spirit and the contributions that all of us have made to
the debate in this House in recent days.
So I would ask, Mr. Chair, that you consider these amendments to
determine if they are in order, and I look forward to the continuing debate
around the amendment.
CHAIR:
The Committee is in recess to
review the amendment.
Recess
CHAIR (Cross):
Order, please!
We
recessed to review the amendment, and the amendment is in order.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It is a
privilege for me to stand here to the amendment that was just proposed by the
Minister of Finance. Of course, this
amendment makes some significant changes to the original act.
In section 1.1 you will see a noticeable difference of this now being a
five-day appointment by the chairperson, the commission,
the House of Assembly
shall appoint the members of the commission not more than five days after the
appointment of the chairperson
.
Typically, this is an extended period of time, but given the tight timeline that
the commission would have to work with this amendment this could all be done
in five days.
Of
course, the next thing is the lapse.
Of course, during most of the debate, and certainly in the House of Assembly
this week, the whole idea of this piece of legislation being used is to actually
in some way extend an election into 2016.
In this particular case, what this amendment does is it allows the
commission to lapse after 120 days, after a 120 day period.
They shall report within 120 days.
This is kind of a sunset clause here where the committee itself will
lapse after 120 days.
Section
4 in this allows for one extension period one only of ten days.
Of course, that would be from the 120 days.
There is one extension period that would be allowed that could actually
take the commission up to 130 days.
Further in the legislation you will understand as we get through all of this
and the pieces, like everything, as they fit together, you will understand the
impact of that in some other sections of this new bill.
The
election in 2015, as I just mentioned, it says here in section (5) Where a
commission appointed for the purpose of preparing a report in 2015 does not
report
. So if the commission does
not come back with its report within 120 days,
a report in 2015 does not
report as required by this Act, the failure to report shall not in any way
affect the requirement for a general election under an Act of the Province,
of course that refers to our Elections Act or fixed election dates, as most
people would know that as and a general election shall be held in accordance
with that legislation.
What
this does, it speaks to the general election in 2015.
That any activity and the failure for this commission not to report, they
would not be seeking an extension, let's say, in their mandate, indeed they
would lapse and the election in 2015, under our current fixed election laws,
would continue.
Mr.
Chair, with that, I am pleased to second this amendment that has been put
forward by the Minister of Finance.
I look forward to any further discussion on this particular amendment as the
evening progresses.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party, the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I have
to say, I am quite disturbed by the fact that we are getting an amendment like
this, getting put in your hand and then having to respond to it in a very short
period of time. I will do it, but
the amendment, especially part (2) of the amendment, Section (6) of the Act is
amended by adding immediately after subsection (2) the following:
What we
have is a whole list dealing with this commission that will be set up by Bill
42, which is such a particular situation manipulated by this government that you
have to have all of these rules put in.
The bottom line is government is finally hearing, which it did not
initially, that trying to do this work in 120 days is just about impossible.
Now they are trying to say: Well, okay, if it does not happen, what are
we going to do?
What you
are going to do is if the report cannot be done, if there is not a report in
2015 as required by the act, that means within the 120 days, if that does not
happen
the failure to report shall not in any way affect the requirement for a
general election
. That is fine.
The
government is obviously responding to the fact that people have been saying I
have not been one of them, by the way they did not want to have an election in
2015. I am one person who has not
been saying that.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MS MICHAEL:
I have not.
No, I have not, and you will not find it anywhere.
As a matter of fact, when people have said it to me I said I do not think
that is the agenda. I have said it;
however, when you go on it says, Where a commission appointed for the purpose
of preparing a report in 2015 lapses without the commission having submitted a
report in the time frame required under subsection (3), a commission shall be
appointed in the calendar year 2016.
Lo and
behold, all of a sudden a commission that had been set up, a commission that had
done work for 120, maybe 130 days, because you have the allowance there for an
extra ten days if needed, this commission of five people, all the work that has
been done, et cetera, all of a sudden: Oh, too bad, they did not get the work
done. There is no report and we will
go and have the general election.
I cannot
believe it. I cannot believe that
this is what you are doing. There is
no way that I can support this amendment.
There is no way I can support the bill as it stands.
I believe the whole process is wrong.
I have said that from the beginning.
I am not changing my opinion.
This does not help. I am glad to
know that government is committed; it is saying definitively that it is
committed to the general election.
That is important. People need to
know that, but this whole thing is so manipulated that I am shocked, I really
am.
I am
concerned about the fact, and I hope everything is straightforward, I am
concerned about the fact that I do not know when this was written.
I assume it has been written sometime over the last twenty-four hours,
maybe while we were sitting here in the House finishing second reading.
Who knows if everything in it is correct.
We all
will remember that a week ago we were given a bill on Saturday that had to be
taken back and a typo had to be fixed in it, something that
was not serious if it had not been found, but it could be in terms of the
meaning. So how do we know that
everything in this is absolutely perfect unless we take it, sit down and go
through everything do everything the Department of Justice did with the first
bill that got taken back from us.
The speed with which this stuff is happening is really
abominable. I cannot understand that
people in this room do not think that is serious: the speed with which it is
happening. I cannot believe it.
You talk about how you care about how the House is being run.
You do, do you? Well, if you
really care about how the House is being run, why are we having all of this
rammed through?
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MS
MICHAEL:
It
is what is happening.
CHAIR:
Please address the Chair.
MS
MICHAEL:
It
is being rammed through. We are not
taking time to be thoughtful. Yet,
this is such an important piece of legislation what you are doing and we are not
taking time to be thoughtful. It is
shocking. It is absolutely shocking.
What you are doing is making sure that people cannot
say you do not want to have a general election.
Now you have that nailed down.
Nobody can accuse you of that.
You are obviously recognizing that the time frame is probably not good
enough. There is nothing like this
in the regular act because there does not need to be anything in it in the
regular act because the regular act gives a year for the commission to do its
work. They get appointed and they
have to have the report by the end of that calendar year.
So, you do not have to have any of this stuff in the
regular act. That only points out
how much this bill that we are dealing with is a contrived piece of legislation
to meet some goal of this government, a goal that they have not named at any
time. They have not named what that
goal is.
They go back and forth.
Sometimes it is because of the deficit and we have to save money.
Sometimes it is because we really need to have a smaller House.
That is not a reason for doing it.
If a real study is done, we may find out that we may not need the
forty-eight districts or we may find out we do.
We may find out we need more.
I have not had questions answered about what if, when
the report comes out, it may not agree with government and it might say we
cannot cut the ten seats. What
happens then? There is nothing about
that, what if you do not like the report that you get.
Mr. Chair, I think I have made my point very, very
clearly. I am very upset about it.
This does not change for me, the bill.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS
ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Here we are, it is three minutes past 6:00 in the
morning, and it is very interesting amendments that are put before us.
It reminds me a little bit of the French expression,
folie ΰ deux, and that is when two separate parties share
the same kind of delusion. What
happens is that neither of the parties can really see clearly any more.
Mr. Chair, I do not quite get it, because basically what this amendment
is doing
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please
MS
ROGERS:
is that many of us have said that the 120-day deadline is not feasible, it is
not possible in order to do the work really well, and now this is saying well
maybe it is not and if it does not, then we will call the whole thing off.
Even though they have done it, we are going to call the whole thing off;
or, we will add another ten days, and then if that does not work we will call
the whole thing off.
We all have talked about how important this legislation
is. We have all talked about how
important the House is. We have all
talked about how important the role of MHAs is, how important that role is, and
here we are do you know what it reminds me of, Mr. Chair?
It reminds me of that quick decision that the Department of Justice is
now the Department of Public Safety.
Oh, whoops, we are going to reel it back a bit.
This is reeling back a bit here as well.
It reminds me of the cuts to the Justice department:
the Sheriff's Office, the Crown we have been presented with a piece of
legislation and now there is an awful weird kind of buffer zone that is being
offered. Obviously this has been
worked out between the Official Opposition and government and we have heard
there was a forewarning, there was a little bit of telegraphing when we had
members stand up and talk about compromise and working together.
I do believe there is a difference between compromising and being
compromised. I truly believe that
there is a difference between that.
Also, Mr. Chair, I have been somewhat concerned with
the pushing and the pushing and the pushing of Bill 42 in terms of the time
frame of what is expected of the electoral boundaries commission that has been
done with a certain
sense of bravado. Sometimes in our
lives we make decisions where we say, damn the torpedoes, we are going to go for
it. I do not think we have the moral
authority to take something so important as how we are going to govern ourselves
and say damn the torpedoes, we are going to go for it.
This is not the time to damn the torpedoes and go for it.
This is the time to do this properly.
I
believe that these proposed amendments are the acknowledgement that the false
bravado that has been shown around let us damn the torpedoes and go for it, is
really ill-advised. Mr. Chair, I
would like to point out again that I do believe that there is a certain air of
folie ΰ deux
here this evening.
Thank
you very much.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I
thought this was going to be a great example.
We heard so many members here tonight, today, talk about co-operation in
the House. We heard them get up at
the same time and mention to the Member for St. John's Centre, my fellow party
member here, about the great motion yesterday that everybody was working on in
the House and then I look at Bill 42, and this is what is really upsetting.
As much
as the government here has taken a risk with the people's money and bet on the
price of oil, they have also taken risk here.
The one thing that they say right here and I will go to the Explanatory
notes and explain this they talk about 120 days, and then all of a sudden
there is doubt on the part of government here that they can get the work done
here in 120 days. So they decide,
and the Liberal Opposition also decide, that they are going to go ahead and they
are going to give an extra ten days' extension because there is a little bit of
doubt there and they are unsure of the step here that they are going to be able
to get all the work done in the time required.
That is
point number one. I tell you what
else I see in this, too. If there is
a little bit of doubt here too they are also playing folly with the taxpayers'
money when it comes to doing this work, because for all the work that may be
done within that 120 or 130 days, if the work is not going to be completed in
that particular time we are going to have 120 days' worth of expenses
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. MURPHY:
130 days' of expenses on
the taxpayers' back. What will we be
seeing after that? We will be seeing
government and the Liberal Opposition resorting back to the 2016 census and the
regular time frame of doing things.
They are risking, again, taxpayers' money when it comes to doing this.
So, this is not well thought out.
There is
no way that government can tell me, or the Liberal Opposition can convince me
that this is good on the part of the taxpayer, number one, and it does not do
anything to enfranchise me when it comes to working co-operatively on a measure
in this House, because this is something that both government and the Liberal
Opposition got together on. We just
saw this literally a couple of minutes ago when we took the time out, when you
called recess for us to look at this amendment.
I think
that, really, we have to sit back, and if you talk about reform in this House
and if you talk about wanting to rework this House of Assembly and have
everybody working together pulling on the one rope, they should act like it.
They should be wanting to pull on that rope and include everybody in
something like this.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
Carried.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division.
CHAIR:
Correction.
Shall
the amendment carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, amendment carried.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry, as
amended?
All
those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1, as amended, carried.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division.
CHAIR:
Division is called.
Division
CHAIR:
Are the whips ready?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Ready.
CHAIR:
All those in favour, please
stand.
CLERK:
Mr. King, Mr. Hutchings, Mr.
Kent, Mr. Dalley, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Crummell, Mr. Sandy Collins, Mr. Wiseman, Mr.
Jackman, Mr. Granter, Mr. Littlejohn, Ms Perry, Ms Sullivan, Mr. Cornect, Mr.
Brazil, Mr. Russell, Mr. Forsey, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Felix Collins, Mr. Hedderson,
Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Little, Mr. Pollard, Mr. Peach, Mr. McGrath, Mr. Ball,
Mr. Andrew Parsons, Ms Bennett, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Slade, Mr. Mitchelmore, Ms
Dempster, Mr. Edmunds, Mr. Kirby, Mr. Lane, Mr. Reid, Mr. Hillier, Mr. Flynn,
Mr. Crocker, and Mr. Davis.
CHAIR:
Those opposed.
CLERK:
Ms Michael, Mr. Murphy, Ms
Rogers.
MS MICHAEL:
A point of order.
CHAIR:
Could we finish the tally
first? It is procedure.
MS MICHAEL:
My point of order is with
regard to this.
CHAIR:
Okay.
I recognize the hon. the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi on a point
of order.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you.
The
Premier came into the room after the vote and the room had been secured.
I am questioning his taking part in the vote.
CHAIR:
I did not see, so how would
you rule on (inaudible).
The hon.
the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL:
I am going on the practice in
this House. We are all MHAs in this
House. Three of us are leaders of
parties in this House, but we all have rules we have to abide by.
I, myself, have missed out on votes because of not getting here in time.
I think we all abide by the same rules.
I really do believe that. I
am shocked by what was just said, he is the Premier.
Yes, he is the Premier, all the more reason why he should understand why
we keep the rules in the House.
CHAIR:
Okay, I will take it under
advisement.
The hon.
the Government House Leader, speaking to the point of order?
MR. KING:
Yes.
Mr.
Chair, I have no knowledge of whether the Premier came in late to the House or
not. He was late to his seat, but
government wishes not to make a fuss of this.
If the member is convinced that the Premier came in late and somehow
forced himself into the House, we are prepared to withdraw the Premier's vote on
this particular one.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
In
response, while the vote was being called I did see the Premier to the side.
I was not sure if he had entered late or not at that point.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible) going to withdraw
the vote.
CHAIR:
Okay.
CLERK:
Mr. Chair, the ayes,
thirty-nine; the nays, three.
CHAIR:
Carried.
Clause
2.
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Once
again it is a real pleasure to stand and to be able to speak to Bill 42, and
more particularly, clause 2 of this bill.
This is an area where once again, as I commented earlier, there has been
lots of discussion around the appropriate number of seats that exists in the
Province, what might be an appropriate allocation, and how might we go about
determining a quotient to be used in a calculation and the distribution of the
seats.
Mr.
Chair, I am proposing an amendment to clause 2.
I would move, seconded by the Member for St. Barbe, that clause 2 of the
bill be deleted and the following substituted:
Clause
2 of the Bill is deleted and the following substituted:
2.
Section 13 of the Act is repealed and the following substituted:
13.(1)
In the calendar year 2015 the commission shall divide the province into 40
proposed one-member districts.
(2) In
the calendar year beginning in 2026, and every 10 calendar years after that, the
commission shall, as soon as is convenient after March 31, divide the province
into 40 proposed one-member districts.
(3) The
commission shall determine a quotient for each proposed district by dividing the
total population of the province by the number 39.
(4)
Notwithstanding subsection (3), for the purpose of the commission's report in
2015, the commission shall determine a quotient for each proposed district by
dividing the total population of the province by the number 36.
(5) For
the purpose of establishing a quotient under subsection (3), the population of
the province shall be taken as in the latest census figures available under the
Statistics Act (Canada) on March 31 of the calendar year in which the quotient
is being established, irrespective of when those census figures were actually
taken.
(6) For
the purpose of establishing the quotient under subsection (4), the population of
the province shall be taken as in the latest census figures available under the
Statistics Act (Canada) when the quotient is being established, irrespective of
when those census figures were actually taken.
(7) For
the purpose of the commission's report in 2015, the total population of the
province shall, for the purpose of subsection (4), be considered not to include
that portion of the total population living within the area of the province
comprising Labrador.
(8) For
the purpose of subsection (3), the total population of the province shall be
considered not to include that portion of the total population living within the
area of the province comprising the district proposed by the commission under
section 15(4).
Again,
Mr. Chair, the most significant piece of this amendment is the number of seats.
We have had a lot of debate, a lot of discussion in this House of what
might be an appropriate number of seats.
There have been lots of suggestions about a number.
There have been lots of suggestions about how we arrive at a number.
Again,
this healthy debate that we have had in recent days has helped to inform a lot
of our thinking. That is why we are
able to stand here today and to make a motion, as I am introducing a motion, to
amend clause 2, and it has been seconded by colleague in the House of Assembly,
the Member for St. Barbe, to get a reflection of how people are able to come
together in the House with turning their heads to something that is important
for the people of the Province, sharing thoughts, sharing ideas, and recognizing
that there will always be spirited debate where there is difference of opinion
on a variety of fronts.
Recognizing, in the end, that we are all here for one single purpose, and that
is to serve the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
It is important that we never ever lose sight of that.
As long as we are here in this House that
is our role and that is our responsibility.
As we share thoughts and ideas, we learn from each other and respond to
those new insights we have.
That is
what we are seeing here in this particular amendment, a reflection of informed
views, informed thinking. Now we are
seeing an amendment to more accurately reflect what we believe are the wishes of
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the wishes as expressed by the
people who they elected to come to this House and represent them in the House of
Assembly.
Mr.
Chair, I look forward to some continued comment on clause 2.
I do thank you for the opportunity to make this amendment.
CHAIR (Littlejohn):
Thank you.
The
House will now be in recess to consider the said amendment.
This
House is in recess.
Recess
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The
amendment is in order.
The hon.
the Member for St. Barbe.
MR. J. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think
when we came here on Monday and not all of us were that thrilled to come here
on Monday, finding out on Friday that it is January and you are going to be
going back into the House. It is
great to come to the House, but it is okay to have some notice too.
This is
important legislation. It is
important legislation that needed and needs to be passed on a timely basis so
that the electorate, our constituents, the voters, the people we serve have the
best chance to benefit from the change this year this year being the election
year.
This
amendment creates forty electoral seats in the Province.
The proposal, with the bill as it came, was for thirty-eight.
The Leader of the Opposition had previously floated the idea of forty
seats plus or minus somewhere in that range.
Over the course of the week, even though we had been debating and maybe
because we had been debating, maybe because all parties have been putting forth
points of view, it became possible for the Opposition and the government to
co-operate and collaborate, maybe more closely than we have in some bills in the
past, but certainly this is an important one.
The way
that the seat distribution is calculated really provides a benefit to the voters
and the taxpayers in general. If you
look at the forty seats, the calculation is done initially by using forty and
going back to the number thirty-nine, which means that you black out the
population North of Lake Melville district because that is a district which is
almost exclusively an Aboriginal district.
Furthermore, as we go forward, to calculate the size and the number of the
population in each seat in the Province, only the population outside of Labrador
is calculated, is taken into consideration and divided by thirty-six.
This means that if you look at the population outside of Labrador, the
figure that the Premier was looking for, more or less 13,500 people per district
is met almost precisely, almost exactly on the bubble.
It is exactly what was floated.
At the
same time, we do not use the population in Labrador for that calculation because
all of those seats have smaller population.
It would unnecessarily and unfairly skew the population.
The mathematics works out precisely.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. J. BENNETT:
The flexibility is also there
for the commission, with the two extra seats, to have additional flexibility to
be able to most appropriately and reasonably assign boundaries for electoral
districts that would be in keeping with communities of interest, communities in
general. So it provides additional
flexibility by virtue of more numbers and it also provides a calculation and a
method to take into the future.
Those
are my comments, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Signal Hill Quidi Vidi, on the amendment.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
Obviously, the heart of this amendment is changing the proposed number of cuts
from thirty-eight to forty. The
amendment deals with that, number one, and then the impact on the determination
of how to assign a quotient for the districts affected by another decision of
the government, which is that they now will protect the four seats in Labrador.
So, what is here also has to reflect the different mathematical things
that are going on because of that as well.
As far as I can tell, all of that is correct.
I do not
have the time to sit down and go over every line and make sure there are no
typos or that there is not a wrong letter in there or anything of that nature.
I certainly do not have the time to do that.
I hope there is not, as there was with the first draft of the bill that
we received.
The crux
of the whole thing is the issue of assigning the number.
I have said before, and I will say it again, that we have not been given
a rationale by the government for the number that they originally have and the
new number. Obviously, the new
number comes from discussions that went on between the Official Opposition and
the government, of which we were not part.
You have come up together with this number.
We have no rationale for it.
I read
an extremely excellent document yesterday, Wednesday, since we are still in
Thursday here in the House, done by one of the political scientists here in
Newfoundland and Labrador which gave in great detail the process through which
one goes to try to assign, to figure out how to cut seats.
It is a very scientific explanation and he looked at a number of
different scenarios as how one determines that, and the lowest number he came up
with was forty-four and with other scenarios the number went higher.
I think the biggest cut he could see was maybe one district.
Obviously, this kind of analysis has not been looked at by either the Official
Opposition or the government. Nobody
has told us how you have come up with the number.
Based on the scientific analysis that I have looked at, I am quite, not
only willing to believe, I am convinced there are ways to determine the cuts
that are scientific, and that has not been used.
There is no way I am going to be able to support a number that has been
plucked out of mid-air, because it has been, and changing it to forty does not
change that position for me. I still
continue to be shocked by the fact that we are dealing with this issue, that it
is being dealt with in such a fast way.
When you
consider we met with the Premier last Friday, the House leaders, the party
leaders met with the Premier last Friday, and last Friday the bill was not even
written. We were told the people in
the Department of Justice were working on it and sometime on the weekend we
would get it. We did ask, I did: If
we don't get it until Sunday night what is going to happen?
The Premier said: Well, I will be flexible, if you do not get it until
Sunday night but as it turned out we got it Saturday morning, but even as we
met with the Premier the bill had not even been finalized.
Now we are getting amendments that have been done under great stress and
pressure, and on the fly as well.
So, all of that is very disturbing.
People
are observing it, and they see the speed with which all of this has been done.
We know from experience in this House that when there is speed errors
happen. There are two issues for me.
One is that, and the other is the thing of just plucking a number and
saying that is going to be it, without coming up in a scientific way with that
number. As I said, there are
scientific ways to do that. There
are people in this Province with the knowledge and the ability to do that, who
could work with government in doing that if they do not have anybody in house to
do it.
Once
again, this is not something I can support.
I am hoping there will be maybe there will be an amendment that will
come that I will support, but nothing like this is going to change my position
on the bill. I disagree with the
whole premise that you can just take a number without giving a rationale for
where that number is coming from.
That is
my position, Mr. Chair.
Thank
you very much.
CHAIR:
Is it the pleasure of the
Committee to adopt
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I would
like to echo the words of the Member for Signal Hill Quidi, but I would also
like to add to that. I believe this
is incredible, shabby, patchwork that is happening here in this House right now.
It is disrespectful I think of our democratic process to come up with
and some of this legislation was being written in the hallways this evening and
during the morning.
As the
Minister of Finance has said, these are important decisions that affect us for
years down the road. We all know
that. I am sure we all know that.
I think the people of Newfoundland and Labrador deserve better than this.
This has been done on the fly.
It is scrambling, it is trying to patchwork stuff together.
We are not making a quilt here.
We are making decisions on the governance of our Province and how we live
together as a people.
I
believe the agendas of the two compromising parties are probably different, but
that is theirs to work out. I do not
believe this process that is unraveling before us right now in fact is a
respectful process that honours the needs of the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
CHAIR:
Is it the pleasure of
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am
just adding a couple of more thoughts when it comes to this particular
amendment. Mr. Chair, I still have
not heard a clear answer from government or the Liberal Opposition on what
happens if the commission goes against what you want.
You are
putting in a fixed number here of forty people to serve in the House of
Assembly. If the commission comes
back and says no, you are going to need more than that, what is government going
to do? What is the Opposition going
to do? Are they going to still stick
with that forty number, or are they going to go by the numbers of the
commission?
We know
the commission, when it makes its recommendations, are just that,
recommendations. In other words,
government does not have to abide by that.
That is disconcerting in itself too.
In
echoing also the thoughts of the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi and my
friend from St. John's Centre, I will add that particular thought.
Hopefully, government might be able to answer that one, but for some
reason I doubt it.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
Just one
or two more points I would like to make.
I certainly concur with the comments that have been made by my
colleagues. The speed with which we
are dealing with this right now, we know it is being dictated by the fact that
government made a very speedy decision at some point over Christmas I guess, or
just after when I do not know to go ahead with a piece of legislation that
last weekend they had not yet finished.
It is not that they had the legislation done and thought about it.
It was not even finished.
They
made a decision to do it knowing they have to call a general election by
September 25. That is the date.
They know they have to do that.
They know the timeline they are under.
Now they have tried to deal with that in the amendment we voted against
in clause 1; but, given that, even though they put that in, they still obviously
want a report.
They
still obviously want the commission to be able to report to them, but they have
themselves in this box, and I do not understand the box.
I do not understand why that decision, which was such a tremendous
decision, was not something that was brought to the House when we were in the
House in the fall. This is what I do
not understand. What went on between
mid-December and last week that all of a sudden made the Premier think that this
was a wise thing to do? I just do
not get it.
CHAIR:
I have given the member fair
leeway. I am going to ask her to speak to
the amendment as presented, please.
MS MICHAEL:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will
just make a couple of more comments with regard to this, just one more.
It is
the point about population. I want
to come back to population. I think
this section does recognize the importance of population.
It is population that obviously is the driving criteria in doing the
divisions and doing the districts, and it is for that reason that I think the
commission has to do work first around that in order to be able to fix the
quotient and decide on cuts look at the various scenarios.
It is
not a matter of doing and I know some people have been out there doing maps
and they have sent them around to all of us; we have all received them.
Some of the maps that people have done they did it to sort of show what
it could look like if we went with thirty-eight districts, for example.
What they did was do district boundaries and look at what it could look
like if you did those boundaries that way.
That is not the way the cuts should be made, and that is not the way the
districts should be done.
It has
to be done by a population. I know
that work has not been done. That is
the work that the commission would be assigned to do and based on the analysis
that they do, then you come up with a number.
I cannot say that often enough and I just need to impress once again that
same thing.
So, once
again, even though I have used it before, I am going to use it again, it is the
cart before the horse. It is giving
them no leeway. It is telling them
this is what it is. I want to echo
what the Member for St. John's East said.
What happens if the commission does their report within 120 or 130 days
does their work, and their conclusion is this is impossible, that it is not good
to do this, then what are you going to do?
That is not in your amendment.
It is not in your amendment, what happens if you do not like the report,
what happens if they tell you that it cannot be done the way that you want to do
it. That is not in your amendment.
I ask
the Premier what his answer to that is.
He has been asked by the Member for St. John's East, and I am asking him
it as well, what is your answer to that that the commission is being bound by
the number forty. If we have the
people with the expertise on that commission, then I know we will have good
people on that commission.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MS MICHAEL:
If we have those good people
on that commission and they do their work well and if that work reflects any of
the stuff that I have been reading and studying, then they very well could say
this is just not reasonable; it just cannot be done.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I still
have a couple of more thoughts when it comes to this particular piece of
legislation. I keep thinking about
growth. Government likes to talk
about economic growth. We know that
in the Northeast region of the Avalon Peninsula, Mr. Chair, under the
possibility of redistribution, maybe there are going to be seats removed from
the Northeastern region, and maybe there is not.
We have not seen the work of a commission yet.
God only knows they are going to have a lot of considerations.
I wanted
to touch on a couple of other considerations that they are probably going to
have at the same time, especially when it comes to growth.
I will talk about St. John's East for a second directly, when it comes to
being affected by this number. One
proposal I saw actually had the removal of St. John's East as a possibility.
Here is a reason why they should not.
The City
of St. John's has already approved several projects within the city that show
there is going to be growth, there is going to be occupancy of more houses and
that sort of thing, particularly as well, condominium developments.
We are not talking about areas here where we have areas where there they
are actually going to be building houses, but areas where they are going to be
building up.
The
population of the district right now is about 11,700 people roughly, but we are
talking about the possibility of that population growing.
At the same time we already know what is happening in the Northeast
region, particularly the city, the Northeast regions of the Avalon.
Think about it; Stavanger Drive, Airport Heights, Kenmount Terrace,
Paradise, CBS, Ferryland, Bay Bulls, Witless Bay are all showing immense growth.
We are
talking about Galway. I think that
there is a possibility here when the former Premier who owns the development
was talking about the possibility of moving the Town of Gander in there.
We could be talking about the addition of another seat into the House of
Assembly as a result of that.
We are
talking about the immense possibilities for growth that is going to be happening
here that the commission is obviously going to have to pay attention to.
At the same time, if we are talking about growth and the addition of
seats in the Northeast Avalon, which the commission is going to have to
consider, then obviously the other seats that they are talking about reducing
having to come from somewhere.
There is
only one answer for that. It cannot
be Labrador because we have already stepped up and we have protected Labrador.
The other answer has to be rural Newfoundland.
In that we are doing a disservice, Mr. Chair.
I say the current number of districts represents an institutional
protection for rural Newfoundland and Labrador and that needs to be protected.
There is
some accommodation within the one person, one vote premise in the act that takes
into account the realities of a rural district.
Mr. Chair, I think that is a very important point that we have to
remember. We have a responsibility
to represent our people. We also
have the responsibility if the commission is going to be going by the potential
growth in various regions and if they are going to consider such factors as a
growing economy, these are important factors that they are also going to have to
remember that the Northeast Avalon, all of a sudden, is going to have a
disparity of seats there and there is going to be less power in rural
Newfoundland and less representation.
I ask
the government to consider that as a very important factor when it comes to this
piece of legislation. I think for
the commission it is going to be a very important body of work when it comes to
the commission and what they are going to be presenting to government, and the
question still goes to government on this particular matter that if they find
out that there is going to be a disparity in representation there, number one,
and if they find out that they are going to actually have to present a proposal
to government, that they are going to have to be more seats rather than the
forty that the government and the Liberal Opposition are proposing, are they
prepared to stand by the number that is going to be presented in the report from
the commission?
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Is it the pleasure of the
Committee to adopt the amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On
motion, amendment carried.
CHAIR:
Is it the pleasure of the
Committee to adopt clause 2?
All
those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
I am sorry is it the
pleasure of the Committee to adopt clause 2, as amended?
All
those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, clause 2, as amended, carried.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division.
CHAIR:
Division is called.
Division
CHAIR:
Order, please!
Are the
whips ready?
CHAIR:
All those in favour of clause
2 as amended, please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Davis, Mr. King, Mr.
Hutchings, Mr. Kent, Mr. Dalley, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Crummell, Mr. Sandy Collins,
Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Jackman, Mr. Granter, Mr. Cross, Ms Perry, Ms Sullivan, Mr.
Cornect, Mr. Brazil, Mr. Russell, Mr. Forsey, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Felix Collins, Mr.
Hedderson, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Little, Mr. Pollard, Mr. Peach, Mr. McGrath,
Mr. Ball, Mr. Andrew Parsons, Ms Cathy Bennett, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Slade, Mr.
Mitchelmore, Ms Dempster, Mr. Edmunds, Mr. Kirby, Mr. Lane, Mr. Hillier, Mr.
Flynn, and Mr. Crocker.
CHAIR:
All those against, please
rise.
CLERK:
Ms Michael, Mr. Murphy, and
Ms Rogers.
Mr.
Chair, the ayes thirty-nine; the nays three.
CHAIR:
Carried.
Clause
3.
The hon.
the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am
happy to stand here again and speak to Bill 42.
Looking at clause 3 which deals with section 14, there are a couple of
different aspects of this particular section.
The section that I want to pay close attention to right now is 14(2).
In the
bill as presented, it states, Not more than 120 days after the appointment of a
chairperson for the purpose of the commission's report in 2105, and before the
end of the calendar year 2026 and before the end of every 10 calendar years
after that, the commission shall submit the report referred to in subsection (1)
to the minister, who shall
(a)
submit a copy immediately to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council; and
(b) lay
a copy before the Legislature within 15 days after the report is submitted to
the Lieutenant-Governor in Council if the Legislature is then sitting, and, if
it is not, then within 15 days after the beginning of the next session.
That
particular clause, we had some concern about.
As we already know, there was an amendment presented to deal with the 120
days. We do have an amendment here
that deals with section 14(2)(b).
As you
can see there, we know that within the 120 days the report will be submitted,
presented to the minister, who presents it to Cabinet.
Then Cabinet has to lay it here in the House within fifteen days, and if
the House is not sitting, within fifteen days after the beginning of the next
session. That was a concern to us,
because if the House was not sitting then theoretically this report could sit
there. We would not be able to
debate it, we would not be able to get it in the House, and it could present
delays which are not wanted by anybody.
The
amendment we have here will ensure that the report must be tabled in the House
of Assembly within ten days of the report being delivered to the Lieutenant
Governor in Council. Basically, what
this is doing, the reading of this amendment will show that there are 120 days
but if it goes above that there is still leeway there, but the max will be 130
days. Any day after the 120 will
come into the ten days that Cabinet has to present this, and it will ensure that
it has to come here into the House.
It eliminates some of the concern we have.
At this
point I would like to propose an amendment, which will be seconded by the
Government House Leader, that Clause 3 of the Bill is amended by deleting the
proposed paragraph 14(2)(b) and substituting the following:
(b) lay
a copy before the Legislature within 10 days after the report is submitted to
the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.
CHAIR:
The House will take a short
recess to consider the said amendment.
This
House stands in recess.
Recess
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The
amendment is in order.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am
pleased to just have a couple of comments to this section.
As my colleague, the mover of the motion, the House Leader on the
Opposition side said, section 14(2) is intended to obviously place time frames
and restrictions around two components: one is the time frame with which the
commission is to submit its report which is firm at 120 days; and the second,
prior to the amendment of course, gives fifteen days for the Lieutenant Governor
in Council, which in laymen's terms is the Cabinet, to submit the report to the
House upon receipt of it.
The
intent here is to expedite the process.
All of us are concerned, the Premier and government, as well as the
Opposition Leader and his caucus about ensuring we get through the process in a
timely manner. We have an election
coming up in September. It is a
timeline we intend to meet.
What we
have done here is essentially reduced the time frame with which Cabinet will
have the opportunity to present the report to the House of Assembly.
Instead of having a fifteen-day window to present the report, we will
simply reduce it back to ten, as I said, to demonstrate that we are all
committed here, those who are supporting this amendment, on the government side
and the Official Opposition side committed to expediting the process so that
the 120 day time frame is met or in fact in under.
In no more than ten days Cabinet will have the report shared and we can
start the debate on moving the legislative changes forward.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
Mr.
Chair, one of the biggest stresses in my life is being on time.
I have to work so hard to be on time and I have to work so hard to meet
time deadlines. I do it, but I
really have to work hard at it.
I want
to do my reality check again in terms of a time frame.
We know that the House of Assembly debate is this week which will bring
us to
AN HON. MEMBER:
Relevance.
MS ROGERS:
This is very relevant, Mr.
Chair. It is January 22; possibly on
January 23 we will be finishing this debate.
The
chief justice has thirty days to appoint the Chair of the commission, but
government says that it can be done by January 30.
That is compressing that time frame.
On February 6 the other members of the commission are appointed by the
Speaker of the House of Assembly, which is no more than five days after the
Chair is in place.
Mr.
Chair, I am getting to the time frame because that is what we are talking about
here with this ten-day time frame.
Let us see because some of the concerns that have been talked about,
particularly from this side of the House is it possible to do all this work
and meet the election deadline for the fixed election date of September 25.
Then, by
May 31, the commission submits their report to the Department of Justice and
Public Safety, 120 days, four months after the Chair is in place.
What has been said is that by this amendment, by reducing the number of
days from fifteen to ten will shorten the time; however, in a previous
amendment, it allows for an extra ten days on top of 120, just in case.
So, in
fact, Mr. Chair, what happens is that these ten days are not an extra ten days
because it can be taken up by the ten days that the commission, in fact, is
extended. It is a zero sum game.
In fact, there is no extra time.
That still brings us close to the end of June.
Then
what happens is Elections Newfoundland and Labrador says they absolutely have to
have four months in order to do the work that they have to do to get ready for
an election, which means that brings us beyond the date of September 25, which
is the last legal date to drop the writ.
In fact,
Mr. Chair, it looks like we are gaining five days by shortening the time from
fifteen
CHAIR:
No props, please.
MS ROGERS:
Yes, thank you very much.
That is
the amendment, Mr. Chair. It looks
like, in fact, we are gaining five days by shortening the time from fifteen days
to ten days. However, we have added
ten days government and the Opposition have added ten days onto the
possibility of the work of the commission if they need it, which means we are
even shorter by five days. So,
although this looks like an attempt to shorten the process, the process is still
extended by the initial proposal.
Again,
Mr. Chair, I can only say that this type of legislation at 7:17 in the morning
that is patch work, that is being written out in hallways is totally
unacceptable. It is unacceptable to
the people. It does not honour or
respect the people of
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MS ROGERS:
Newfoundland and Labrador,
nor does it honour or respect our democratic process in this House of Assembly.
I think it is shameful, it is shoddy, and it is unprofessional.
I am absolutely opposed to this kind of work being done at this time.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I am
speaking to section 3, including the amendment.
This has to do with the report the commission will be making and the
recommendations that they have to make.
I want to speak to subsection 14(1)(a), which is they will be making
recommendations concerning the division of the province into the number of
one-member districts determined under section 13.
That number now has been voted on and that number is forty.
They are
being expected to make recommendations, with regard to the division, into forty.
I have said this before but because it is so important I have to say it
again, it is quite possible these people will discover that trying to do that is
impossible in the sense that it would not be the best way to do it.
They could do it, but even in doing the boundaries, even in trying to get
the population they need in each of the districts becomes impossible.
What do they do?
There is
nothing in here about them being able to let government know that ahead of time.
If they do the report and the report says our recommendation is not to do
a division into forty, what does the government do with that?
They have to be open for that possibility.
They have to be open to the possibility that the commission could start
its work and determine that it cannot be done.
I guess in that case they could all resign and government just go ahead
and we have our general election and things start in 2016, as it should be
happening anyway because that is what our legislation says.
Government is contriving this new piece of legislation because nobody has
proven, nobody has given any evidence as to why this is demanded at this time.
I have heard the Premier say it has to happen, it needed to happen.
I have heard the Government House Leader say it, but they have not given
us any proof as to why, none whatsoever.
When you
look at the whole thing of and I am concentrating on the number.
When you look at Bill 42, and you look at existing legislation, and every
MHA in this House received what I am going to be referring to from Professor
Russell Williams. It was an
excellent analysis that he did of redistribution, and the redistribution that
would happen
CHAIR:
I am sorry to interrupt the
hon. member, but we are discussing clause 3, and clause 3 talks about having to
come before the Legislature within ten days after the report is submitted to the
Lieutenant Governor in Council. Can
we stick to the clause, please, hon. member?
MS MICHAEL:
Well, I am.
That they have to report with regard to the division of the Province into
the number of one-member districts determined
CHAIR:
No.
The amendment is ten days.
MS MICHAEL:
Oh, you want just the
amendment. Okay.
CHAIR:
The amendment just talks
about ten days, hon. member, thank you.
MS MICHAEL:
Okay, then I will speak to
the other, because I want to speak to the whole clause.
We have not had a chance to speak to the whole clause because the
amendment was brought in by the first reader.
I have to understand that I am going to be able to speak to the whole
clause.
CHAIR:
Yes.
MS MICHAEL:
Okay.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, as long as that is the case.
Within
ten days, I think that my colleague actually through that time frame shows that
this I can understand having time to lay a copy before the Legislature within
ten days after the report is submitted, but how does that affect the time frame
that she was talking about? How does
that affect the time frame with regard to the pressure the government is under
with regard to calling the general election?
How does it affect the time frame with regard to the work that has to be
done by Elections Newfoundland and Labrador?
So, I think that is a question.
It would
not be a question, and it is not a question under our act, because there we are
dealing with what I would consider to be a normal situation, a commission put
together under our act with a calendar year to do their work.
Here we have a contrived piece of legislation to do something that this
government wants, and for some reason the Official Opposition wants to do along
with them, and they have all these timelines.
They are in a box, and so it makes it quite different.
Having
this ten days under the act would be fine.
Having it here is adding extra time to the whole process.
It speaks to the difficult situation this government has created and that
it is finding itself in. I think it
is going to get more difficult as this gets played out.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Is it the pleasure of the
Committee to adopt the amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, amendment carried.
CHAIR:
Is it the pleasure of the
Committee to adopt clause 3 as amended?
The hon.
the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL:
I do want to speak to the
clause. Thank you.
I am
assuming it has to happen now if I am going to do that.
CHAIR:
As amended.
MS MICHAEL:
Okay.
Thank you.
What I
was talking about was the whole thing of the number of districts, the forty, and
what will happen under Bill 42 as analyzed by Dr. Russell Williams.
As I said, I have never met him, probably many of us have not met him.
I think he is showing himself as a public servant.
The professors at the university, I have heard many of them define
themselves as public servants. They
realize their expertise. What they
have to offer is a responsibility for them to do it.
I think Dr. Williams has shown that, by taking the time to put these
tables together to show us what we are dealing with.
What he
has shown I am not going to do the comparison because it gets too complicated,
but the overall analysis is that what he has shown is that under Bill 42 and
this is very telling in rural Newfoundland we would have an inordinate number
of districts. Now this is our
forty-eight districts right now. We
would have an inordinate number of those districts that are way below the
quotient, even more so than 25 per cent, which is our magic number.
For
example, if Bill 42 goes into place you would have this will be what the
commission would have to work with, and he has worked this out.
You would have, for example, Fortune Bay Cape La Hune would be over 46
per cent below the quotient for the population of the district.
The Straits White Bay North would be 39.6 per cent below the quotient.
St. Barbe would be 38.6 per cent below the quotient.
The Isles of Notre Dame would be 38.3 per cent below the quotient;
Bonavista North, 38.2 per cent; Bonavista South, 38 per cent; Trinity Bay de
Verde, 37 per cent; and it goes on.
What it is showing is that you would have a large number of rural districts that
are going to be so far below the quotient that they are the districts which are
going to have to be brought together.
In some
cases just taking two of the districts that would be natural ones and one of
the ones he looks at is the Northern Peninsula and looking at St. Barbe and The
Straits White Bay North they would be over the quotient when you put the two
of them together. They are under it
by a large margin and over it when you put them together.
What he
is showing here and it is something I referred to earlier and it should
concern the people in this room and it should concern the people of rural
Newfoundland is that it is absolutely definite that rural Newfoundland is
going to be hit immensely by this.
This is his big concern. He is
pointing it out; I am not going to say it is his concern.
He has done the analysis and he did it as a service to all of us.
He sent this to all of us so that we would have information to help us in
making the decision. I think what it
shows is that the difficulty in doing the work is immense, as we have already
said.
The
other thing I want to look at again is with regard to the number and with regard
to implications. I look at my own
District of Signal Hill Quidi Vidi, a district that in 2006 had a population
of 11,718 and in 2011, 8,137 electors.
Using
the old census numbers is going to be very misleading.
We think about places outside St. John's that are growing, but if you
take a place like my District of Signal Hill Quidi Vidi, the map that is here
from, I think it is 2008 if you take that map and look at it today, there is
going to be a big difference. There
are going to be new streets everywhere, especially in the most eastern end of my
district. Just Pleasantville alone
has new apartment buildings and new condos.
The whole thing is growing.
Using
the 2011 census numbers is going to very, very problematic in making the
decisions. So again, it is a very
serious problem that the commission is going to be faced with.
Even myself, as the MHA, I have been going around physically door-to-door
to all these new buildings and new houses in my district just to try to get a
sense of who is living there now.
Well, that stuff is not going to be documented.
This is
the kind of stuff that has not been thought about, it seems to me.
It has not been thought about because what is happening has been driven
by an agenda that the government has, and they have not put any thought into the
real implications of what they are doing.
We have
been told by people like Dr. Williams, and by others that and again, he sent
this to every single one of us, his concern that he really believes this is
absolutely problematic. He
encouraged us to review the information.
He believes that the legislation is drastic and has not been fully
thought through, and yet we have had no sense that anybody in government even
has read his e-mail or studied the work that he did for us here in this House of
Assembly. I do not know what else to
say, Mr. Chair, to try to get this government and the Official Opposition to
understand what they are doing by passing this piece of legislation today.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Is it the pleasure of the
Committee to adopt
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I would
just like to stand again and speak to the amendment that lays a copy before the
Legislature within ten days after the report is submitted to the Lieutenant
Governor in Council. I am just
wondering, Mr. Chair, if in fact the report is later than what has been laid out
and that pushes the date? Will that
be a problem with the time frame that is being proposed here?
CHAIR:
Is it the pleasure of the
Committee to adopt clause 3, as amended?
All
those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, amendment carried.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division.
CHAIR:
Division is called.
Summon
the members.
Division
CHAIR:
Are the Whips ready?
All
those in favour of clause 3 as amended, please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Davis, Mr. King, Mr.
Hutchings, Mr. Kent, Mr. Dalley, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Crummell, Mr. Sandy Collins,
Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Jackman, Mr. Granter, Mr. Cross, Ms Perry, Ms Sullivan, Mr.
Cornect, Mr. Brazil, Mr. Russell, Mr. Forsey, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Felix Collins, Mr.
Hedderson, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Little, Mr. Pollard, Mr. Peach, Mr. McGrath,
Mr. Ball, Mr. Andrew Parsons, Mr. Joyce, Ms Bennett, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Slade, Mr.
Mitchelmore, Ms Dempster, Mr. Edmunds, Mr. Kirby, Mr. Lane, Mr. Reid, Mr.
Hillier, Mr. Flynn, and Mr. Crocker.
CHAIR:
All those against clause 3 as
amended, please rise.
CLERK:
Ms Michael, Mr. Murphy, and
Ms Rogers.
Mr.
Chair, the 'ayes' forty-one; the 'nays' three.
CHAIR:
Clause 3 carries as amended.
On
motion, clause 3, as amended, carried.
CHAIR:
Clause 4.
The hon.
the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am
happy to stand and move the following amendment in Committee of the Whole House.
I am submitting an amendment to Bill 42, An Act To Amend The Electoral
Boundaries Act.
1.
Clause 4 of the Bill is deleted and the following substituted:
4. (1)
Paragraph 15(3)(a) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted:
(a) the
community of interests of the residents of those communities of the province
that are not connected by road; or
(2)
Section 15 of the Act is amended by adding immediately after subsection (3) the
following:
(3.1)
Notwithstanding subsections (1) to (3), for the purpose of the commission's
report in 2015, the commission may recommend the creation of not more than 2
districts on the Island portion of the province with a population that departs
from the quotient established under section 13 and the deviation permitted under
subsection (3) where that departure, in the opinion of the commission, is
warranted on the basis of those considerations referred to in subsection (3).
(3)
Subsection 15(6) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted.
I am
especially pleased to offer the next amendment, (6) Notwithstanding the other
provisions of this section, for the purpose of the commission's report in 2015,
the commission shall divide the Labrador portion of the province into 4 proposed
districts, including the district referred to in subsection (4), and shall, in
describing the boundaries of those districts, consider their historical
boundaries.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS DEMPSTER:
Basically, Mr. Chair, what
this amendment is saying and I am sorry I am a little bit sleep deprived.
This amendment is seconded by my hon. colleague the Member for Lake
Melville.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS DEMPSTER:
Basically, Mr. Chair, what
this amendment is saying is that everybody's vote is equal and notwithstanding
certain circumstances, there will be allowances for 10 per cent deviation either
way. In some circumstances it may
require a deviation of 25 per cent either way.
Mr.
Chair, this amendment goes even further.
It gives the commission two districts of their choice on the Island
portion of the Province. In this
circumstance they can exceed more than 25 per cent variance for two districts
only.
Mr.
Chair, when the commission sets about the important work that it is to do, I
have no doubt that they will choose who the two districts are to be after they
have considered a number of factors, like accessibility, culture, distance from
services, et cetera. So I am happy
to submit that amendment.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
House will recess to consider the amendment.
The
House is now in recess.
Recess
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The
amendment is in order.
The hon.
the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. RUSSELL:
Thanks everybody.
Mr.
Chair, I would just like to say, specifically in line with the Member for
Cartwright L'Anse au Clair concerning the four districts in Labrador.
CHAIR:
Excuse me, if the hon.
minister it was my mistake. There
is time remaining for the previous speaker.
MR. RUSSELL:
Not a problem, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, and I apologize.
MS DEMPSTER:
No problem.
We have been all going for about twenty-five hours, so no worries.
I will
be very brief. I just want to say
this is an historic day I think for Labrador.
I am so pleased. Since last
Friday, our own caucus, under the leadership of Dwight Ball, we have had many,
many meetings. The way we worked
together
CHAIR:
Excuse me, hon. member.
I remind
you, you cannot mention names of leaders, the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MS DEMPSTER:
I apologize.
Either
way, Mr. Chair, we have had a number of days here debating and it has been a
good outcome. We heard some
wonderful stories about Labrador.
This would have been very regressive for Labrador.
It would have taken us back forty years, Mr. Chair.
I am happy the members opposite acknowledged that.
They listened to us, they heard us.
They heard many of the challenges that were there a long time ago, many
of them still exist in terms of accessibility and transportation issues.
It is a
wonderful day. I am happy to be
sitting next to my colleague here who was a driving force as well, and our
Deputy House Leader from the Bay of Islands.
From day one, I ought to give credit where credit is due, he was
vehemently speaking out in support of Labrador and I commend him for that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS DEMPSTER:
I want to thank my two
Labrador members across the way, the Member for Lake Melville and for Lab West
for doing your piece, working within your party on the other side.
I think this is a win-win for everyone.
Given
the hour of the morning, I will not go any further.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Once again, the hon. the
Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. RUSSELL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again,
concerning the four districts in Labrador, Mr. Chair, I would like to say that I
stand here today with a very full Labradorian heart.
I would like to personally thank Premier Paul Davis and Deputy Premier
Steve Kent for their support on this matter.
I also want to extend my thanks to our Cabinet, our caucus, for their
willingness to engage in continued open dialogue about the validation of the
distinct and unique characteristics of all four districts in Labrador.
To the
people of Labrador, Mr. Chair, I say, the calls, the e-mails, the letters, the
chats about the need to maintain and protect these four districts was heard by
me, and that message was received with crystal clarity.
I just want to say and reaffirm to the people who know me and trust me
that this was my number one priority when dealing with this bill on the floor.
Today,
their trust in me, their trust in my colleague from Labrador West, their
combined trust in the Member for Torngat Mountains and the Member for Cartwright
L'Anse au Clair has led to a very, very productive level of co-operation
between government and the Opposition party.
I would like to say, Mr. Chair, this co-operation has resulted in a
situation that leads to serving the best interests of Labrador, her residents
and their representation in this House of Assembly.
So with
that, I would like to say thank you very much to everybody involved.
With that, and the late hour, I will take my seat.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL:
I am going to defer to the
Member for Torngat Mountains (inaudible).
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank
the Leader of the Third Party for allocating this time.
Mr.
Chair, I do have a few comments, and my comments will be relative to the seats
in Labrador, the four seats. If we
could go back, if I could be permitted to do so, Mr. Chair, to last Friday or
Thursday when this whole issue came forward.
It was just a couple of days later that we got to look at the proposed
legislation.
I was
actually quite disturbed when I looked at section 15(6) that was to be repealed,
and that there was the threat of Labrador losing seats or a seat.
The warning bells went off as they did with, I am assuming, the Minister
of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, the Member for Labrador West, my colleague
for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, and our whole Liberal caucus.
In the
comments I have heard since then, we have heard commentary from everyone in this
hon. House. For the most part, there
was a lot of discussion on Labrador.
Going back again to the frustration that I felt, I talked to my colleague the
Member for Lake Melville outside of the Chambers and we had some really heated
discussions. I was desperate.
I did not want to see this seat disappear, or seats disappear.
My frustration was focused on my colleagues from Labrador on the
government side, Mr. Chair, because I wanted to know where they stood.
I did not want them to make the wrong decision.
I did not want them to support Labrador getting a number of seats
reduced.
Our
party made a clear and concise decision that we did not want the seats in
Labrador reduced either. Every one
of my colleagues and I have to give them credit stood up and they backed
that decision. There are times when
the most important thing is taking credit, but I think in this issue when you
have the frustration and the passion, and to see the government go from
repealing section 15(6) and putting it back on the table, and to hear my
colleagues both on this side of the House and my colleagues on the government
side to be able to speak in terms of supporting it.
I
questioned that because all week I could not get a response from them.
I wanted them to respond. I
wanted them to support the decision to leave the number of seats in Labrador the
same. I was glad to hear them
because it is still called today, even though it has been twenty-five hours
come out and support this. Mr.
Chair, had I known they would have supported this on Monday, I would have asked
for six seats.
Mr.
Chair, I would just like to talk about my own district.
Once I saw the legislation the first thing that entered my mind is that
everything was on the table. I
entertained notions of going for the nomination and maybe running in Lake
Melville Torngat Mountains. I
entertained the notion of my colleague from Cartwright L'Anse au Clair running
for Cartwright Lake Melville. All
these thoughts were going through everybody's mind, ours as well.
In the
discussions I have heard around the table and they are wise words of wisdom
from my hon. colleague from Bay of Islands and the Member for Grand
Falls-Windsor Green Bay South who stood up today and talked about what could
happen, the impacts, the feelings, and the emotion that is going to come by
implementing legislation such as this.
There have been a lot of amendments put forward and we support them.
The question is if it had gone another way and we saw what the government
brought in I will say last Monday for the sake of starting a week, Mr. Chair
with a majority government. I have
no qualms in saying that my reasoning is that they want to hold on to the next
election. I will say that.
Mr.
Chair, with a majority government they could have done that.
They could have said we are going with thirty-eight seats.
This is the direct route we are going to give to the commission.
We want this to happen. We do
not need you. We have a majority
government.
Mr.
Chair, we would have objected all the way.
Maybe the only defence we would have had is that we would have taken a
position and maybe we would have had the backing of the people of the Province.
Maybe we would not have. To
see some agreement reached, there are different scenarios for ideal situations
given whichever side of this hon. Legislature we sit on.
I do not think I need to define that.
Back to
my district, the one I represent now; come election time everything is on the
table as the Premier has referred to so many times.
The only time it is really on the table is election time.
There are no guarantees.
I then
learned, Mr. Chair, the only seat in the Province that was actually safe was the
District of Torngat Mountains. I
could have been selfish. I could
have said, well, all I have to worry about is who I have to run against in the
next election. I could have taken
that stand, but I chose not to, because I come from a region that is over twice
the size of Newfoundland with less than half the population, less than a quarter
of the population. It has four seats
and it has four seats for a reason.
After
hearing what everyone has had to say as this legislation unfolded, as we saw
amendments come forward and as we addressed them, we saw a change.
There was a little bit of give and there was a little bit of take, but we
saw a change. That is the reason we
are up here now going on twenty-six or twenty-seven hours, I do not know
anymore. There is a sense of
resolution. Something is being
resolved. Will it be the perfect
scenario? No.
No one will ever admit to that.
Are we cautious? You better
believe we are cautious.
It was
good to finally see an amendment put forward that is accepted.
I know over the last five days of debate there were reasoned amendments
that were submitted that were not accepted, Mr. Chair.
What I
would like to say in my closing remarks is that we can all steal the thunder for
this. We can all go out and say we
did it, we did it, we did it. As
true Labradorians and I am sure my colleagues on the other side will attest to
it what is the sense of bragging or taking credit?
We are just thankful that the job got done.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
MR. MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr.
Chair, I am pleased to be able to stand on this amendment when it comes to
Labrador as we have heard over the past few days.
I think every speaker in the House made some comment relating to
Labrador.
Labrador
is unique, it is distinct. To some
of us, for certain for four in the House, I can say it is very special.
With my colleague from Lake Melville, my colleagues in Cartwright
L'Anse au Clair and Torngat Mountains, I am glad that I was a part of making
this decision. I am glad we have the
result we have. I certainly thank
all colleagues in the House of Assembly for being a part of that.
I cannot
go without saying that it was very contentious on this side of the House also.
Although, as I said when I spoke earlier this evening, neither myself nor
the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs were out kicking and screaming,
but I can guarantee you, internally we were in kicking and screaming.
We were to the rest of the Cabinet and to the rest of the caucus stating
our case. Fortunately, we were
heard. I thank the Premier for that
and his Cabinet. I certainly thank
all of my caucus colleagues.
I am a
man of few words, believe it or not, but when I do have something to say I do
not mind saying it. In the past week
there were a few times when I had a few things to say.
I said to one of my colleagues, today was probably the most frustrating
day in my political career. I did
not know what was going to happen and I knew what was on the line.
To have
the result we have, I am really pleased.
To be here and be able to stand here tonight or this morning now I
guess it is and say that we have achieved something, but most importantly we
have achieved it together as a full Legislature, I am proud to be a part of
that.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party and the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I think
it is important that I stand. I am
not putting myself in the same group as my colleagues from Labrador.
Because of our position on the bill itself which I have been very clear
on and I think my colleagues share it, they were pretty clear on it as well.
I think it is really important to stand and say one of the things that
did disturb me most is what was in the original bill with regard to the seats in
Labrador.
I want
to say, first of all, that we are voting for this amendment.
The amendment is so important.
The bill itself I do not think should be going forward.
If this government is going to put this bill forward, then I think what
they have done is really important because they have not undone the work that
has been a struggle for decades in this Province.
It would have been shameful if that had stayed in as it was.
I am glad all of us together can say we are voting for this amendment
together. I want to say that.
Just on
a personal note some people know this; I think the Member for Torngat
Mountains certainly does for at least thirty years I have been, in different
ways, involved in solidarity with the Aboriginal groups in Labrador.
I think that was the reason why I found it so hard when I thought that
government would not take a stand, because it has been an ongoing struggle, and
the struggle is not over, and I think the Member for Torngat Mountains has sort
of referred to that. So I am proud
that we can all together now vote for this amendment.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Is it the pleasure of the
Committee to adopt the amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On
motion, amendment carried.
CHAIR:
Is it the pleasure of the
Committee to adopt clause 4, as amended?
All
those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On
motion, clause 4, as amended, carried.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 5 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On
motion, clause 5 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Electoral
Boundaries Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill with
amendments?
All
those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendments, carried.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division.
CHAIR:
Did someone call division?
Division
is called.
Summon
the members.
Division
CHAIR:
Are the whips ready?
All
those in favour of Bill 42 with amendments, please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Davis, Mr. King, Mr.
Hutchings, Mr. Kent, Mr. Dalley, Mr. Crummell, Mr. Sandy Collins, Mr. Wiseman,
Mr. Jackman, Mr. Granter, Mr. Cross, Ms Perry, Ms Sullivan, Mr. Cornect, Mr.
Brazil, Mr. Russell, Mr. Forsey, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Felix Collins, Mr. Hedderson,
Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Little, Mr. Pollard, Mr. Peach, Mr. McGrath, Mr. Ball,
Mr. Andrew Parsons, Mr. Joyce, Ms Bennett, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Slade, Mr.
Mitchelmore, Ms Dempster, Mr. Edmunds, Mr. Kirby, Mr. Lane, Mr. Reid, Mr.
Hillier, Mr. Flynn, and Mr. Crocker.
CHAIR:
All those against Bill 42
with amendments, please rise.
CLERK:
Ms Michael, Mr. Murphy, and
Ms Rogers.
Mr.
Chair, the ayes: forty; the nays: three.
CHAIR:
Bill 42 is passed with
amendments.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the hon. the Premier, that the Committee rise and report Bill 42 as
amended.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 42 as amended.
All
those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr.
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Verge):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Port de Grave and Chair of Committee.
MR. LITTLEJOHN:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have asked me to
report Bill 42 with amendments.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have carried Bill 42 with amendments.
When
shall the report be received?
MR. KING:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, report received and adopted.
MR. SPEAKER:
When shall the said bill be
read a third time?
MR. KING:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you.
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Premier, that the amendments be now
read the first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the amendments be now read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
CLERK:
First reading of amendments.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, that the amendments be now read the
second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the amendments be now read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
CLERK:
Second reading of amendments.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to thank all members for their participation in the debate.
As we know we have gone through a fair degree of debate here over the
last number of hours to cover second reading and Committee.
The House rules of course permit us to do two steps in one day.
What I
would like to ask if there would be leave of the House while we are all here
fully engaged in the debate and despite our differences I think there is
consensus on wanting to move the process forward.
I would ask if the House would give me leave to move to third reading so
that we could close debate on this bill and get the process started as early as
later today.
MR. A. PARSONS:
It would certainly be a
pleasure to give leave.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Yes, granting leave, Mr.
Speaker.
It would
be unconscionable of all of us, I think, to spend the money to bring people back
on Monday. I do not think we should
do that.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to thank my colleagues, the Opposition House Leader and in particular the Leader
of the Third Party since her party in particular was against the bill as a
whole, but providing leave of the House to move forward.
I thank you, Leader of the Third Party.
Mr.
Speaker, with leave of the House, I would like to call from the Order Paper Bill
42.
It is
moved by me, seconded by the Premier, that the said bill be now read the third
time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 42 be now read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 42 be now read a third
time?
All
those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Electoral Boundaries Act. (Bill 42)
MR. SPEAKER:
Bill 42 has now been read a
third time, and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on
the Order Paper.
On
motion, a bill, An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act, read a third
time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.
(Bill 42)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
The
Leader of the Third Party is standing on a ?
MS MICHAEL:
Did I not stand when I should
have? I just wanted to make a
closing comment to the bill.
MR. SPEAKER:
The bill is now passed.
MS MICHAEL:
Okay, all right.
MR. SPEAKER:
With leave of the House, you
can make a closing comment.
Does the
member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Leave.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much to the
House.
I am
sorry about that. I guess we are all
tired, so I missed when I should have stood.
This has
been a long, hard couple of days that we have been involved in this discussion.
I think that we as a party have made it very clear why we could not
support the bill. After everything
that I heard, I heard nothing to change that opinion.
I wish this bill had not been brought to the House.
I wish we could have used our democratic process through our Electoral
Boundaries Commission Act to do things the way I think they should be done.
I am
glad that during this week the Standing Orders Committee has been set up, and
that all parties, of course, are part of the Standing Orders Committee.
What I referred to during the process over the last several hours, I want
to say again. I think we have a lot
to do with regard to the House and how the House is ran.
I am taking on good faith that we all want to do that, and I am ready to
work on the Standing Orders Committee to do that.
I do not
believe changing the number of districts is part of the renewal of our House and
how the House runs, but I am encouraged that the Premier has seen that as a
priority. I am certainly ready to go
into that process with the same energy that I came into this week, because I
think it is extremely important.
I think
we are still young, believe it or not.
It was only 1949, it is still not that long ago.
I think we are still young as a Legislature, and we had years when this
was not run the way a Legislature should be ran.
I think a lot of us know the history of things that went on in the House
of Assembly after 1949. I think
there is a lot of history in this country and in the parliamentary system that
we can learn from.
I really
look forward to being involved as a member of our party.
We all know I will not be the leader of our party after March 7, but I
will still be in the caucus.
Hopefully, the new leader will agree with my continuing to be on the Standing
Orders. As long as I am at it, I
want to put energy into really working together with everybody to see if we can
really openly look at the things that need to change in this House.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition with leave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Leave.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will
just be a few minutes. I just want
to actually reach out and thank the staff again for doing a tremendous job this
week. It has been a short session,
but down in Hansard, the people in the Web cast and certainly our Table
Officers, but in particular, too, this evening the people who are in the
Department of Justice who have been working through all of this process with us
tonight.
It has
been one of my first experiences in the House of Assembly where we have seen
such co-operation on an evening like this to get some work done.
Something that we all believe in and supported now for quite some time.
We wish the commission all our best as they get out and do the job
engaging with people through public consultations across the Province in the
hope of getting the seat reductions in place for the next provincial election.
Also,
this week, of course, we saw something that has really been somewhat
unprecedented here in the House of Assembly.
On Wednesday, we saw the all-party committee on mental health.
That was an important initiative I believe, and maybe sets the tone for
some new direction within the House of Assembly, a spirit of co-operation.
All-party committees can actually do, I believe, some significant work in
the future and make some significant changes in the way government and this
Legislature works in the future.
Mr.
Speaker, thank you for this opportunity.
I look forward to seeing the work and the accomplishments.
We wish the commission great success.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier with
leave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Leave.
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Member for Bay of Islands for the humour this early in the morning or this
late at night, depending on how you look at it.
Mr.
Speaker, I will just take a few moments to thank all members of the House for
the work that has been accomplished here in this House this week.
I think it is an excellent example of how we can come together.
We can exchange our viewpoints, and in the best interests of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we are able to achieve consensus and bring
forward a piece of legislation that we have all agreed is important to bring
forward for Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, as the member opposite has already mentioned as well, I would like to
acknowledge the work of the staff in the House of Assembly.
It is a big production in order to operate the House behind the scenes
here.
I would
also like to mention, as well, officials in the Department of Justice and Public
Safety who have been here throughout the night and have worked with us to ensure
that amendments could be completed in a time that would work for all parties,
and that we could continue the progress and make the progress that we have made
overnight in passing Bill 42.
I would
like to thank the Leader of the Opposition and his party for their co-operation
as well over the last couple of days.
We have had many conversations probably more than we have ever had.
We had some good discussion, frank and fair discussion, and it resulted
in the production of what I believe to be a good piece of legislation that will
be good for Newfoundland and Labrador for years to come.
There is
still work to do, and we have also included amendments and the legislation deals
with ensuring that work gets done accurately and it gets done effectively.
It allows for an independent process to do the work throughout
Newfoundland and Labrador to assess all of the circumstances, have a
consultative process, and then to result in a recommendation to us in a timely
manner that will allow for this legislation to take effect before the election
this fall in 2015.
So, Mr.
Speaker, in closing, if I just may, just very briefly as well, I would like to
acknowledge a couple of members on this side.
The Minister of Finance and the Government House Leader, who, the three
of us have worked very closely together for this side of the House, with the
support of our caucus to make sure this happened.
I also
want to acknowledge all four members who represent Labrador today in the House:
the Member for Torngat Mountains, the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair,
the Member for Labrador West, and also the Member for Lake Melville all who
have done a tremendous job in representing the views and interests of
Labradorians. I commend them for the
work that they have done throughout the last number of days and ensuring that
all of the interests of Labrador, the uniqueness of Labrador, was on top of mind
for all those here in the House of Assembly.
So, Mr.
Speaker, with that, I will conclude my remarks and again thank everyone in the
House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It has
been a long debate.
At this
time, I move, seconded by my colleague for Bay of Islands, that the House do now
adjourn.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Government House Leader, your motion to adjourn is to adjourn to the call of the
Chair, am I understanding?
MR. KING:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the motion
is to adjourn the House to the call of the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
This
House now stands adjourned until the call of the Chair.
On
motion, the House adjourned to the call of the Chair.