PDF Version

November 15, 2023 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 52

The House met at 10 a.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Government Business

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 3.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 54,

An Act Respecting Towns and Local Service Districts.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve into Committee of Whole to consider Bill 54.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Warr): Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 54,

An Act Respecting Towns and Local Service Districts. (Bill 54)

A bill, “An Act Respecting Towns and Local Service Districts.” (Bill 54)

CLERK (Hawley George): Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The Chair is recognizing the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Chair.

Minister, while towns are now being charged real property tax, especially the smaller towns, will they be required to maintain roads that are currently maintained by TI, including the infrastructure that comes with those roads, snow clearing, hydrants, including underneath the roads as well? Will any towns be required to take on any new roads with this new legislation?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you, Chair.

Excellent question – the short answer is nothing changes in terms of town's responsibilities, should this act pass in its current form. If, in the future, towns wish to move down that road, that will be a decision of council.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

I'd like to just touch on that once more because it is a very important question. I know that a lot of towns are watching. For a town to take on any more responsibility financially, in the future, I mean they're very strapped right now, as a lot of people in the province are, the towns are no different. I just want to make sure – because we got a short answer and a long answer and we need to really need nail this down.

Will towns be required by the provincial government to take on any new roadwork that they do not currently have, that is done by TI right now, that they do not have presently to maintain – will they be required to take on any new roads in the future per this legislation?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: The act does not alter any of that.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

Minister, who was consulted during the lead-up to the legislation, what municipalities, LSDs, and by what means were they consulted?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: This has been a lengthy process of consultation. It began in 2018. There was a variety of fora with MNL, with PMA. I think the premier of the day had a forum, too. There was engageNL, an equivalent. There were options to email directly. The list is actually available from 2018 in a What We Heard document.

I think it references two occasions, with over 140 individuals or groups represented. So that was the kickoff since then. I and my predecessors have met with MNL and PMA on a regular basis, as well as toured communities, be they LSDs or towns and cities.

CHAIR: The Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

You said that the consultations started in 2018. How long did they go on for from 2018?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Right up until about three days before first reading, from what my recollection is. I had meetings with both PMA and MNL within the week before the legislation was first brought to the House.

CHAIR: The Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

How many towns and LSDs responded to these consultations, percentage-wise or numbers?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: The What We Heard document gives accurate numbers for those occasions. I don't have the number of municipalities subsequently that have contacted us or been contacted. I can certainly endeavour to find that out, but by then it was much more of a dialogue rather than a contacting exercise.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

Did you use the regionalization consultations as part of the legislation? Concern at the time was lack of consultation with the various LSDs. So was the regionalization consultation used as well?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you, Chair.

Yes, I mean, basically any discussion with LSDs or municipalities of any kind was used to derive their wishes and their views on ideas that they or we would float for part of the process. As I say, very much a dialogue over the course of even my short tenure there, and I know that trend had been set by my predecessor.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

Why are we eliminating the poll tax over the next three years? What's the purpose?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: The advice has been from a variety of sources that poll tax is generally regarded as regressive. It makes no allowance for income or wealth of the individuals required to pay and hits particularly those on income support or with income challenges differentially harder than those who have larger income. There is no perfect tax. However, that is seen as the most imperfect form of taxation and hence the bill's view, currently, that either a straight mill rate on property values or, alternatively, a base rate and a much smaller mill rate on property values would be the way to go.

There is nothing in the legislation that precludes how any town would choose to determine its base rate and this was felt to be much more flexible and provide the municipalities with a much more open way of dealing with revenue issues.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

A new real property assessment, who will do this and at what cost?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: There is no change, currently. The Municipal Assessment Agency is the body mandated to do this. They do this for all but, I think, 48 municipalities. The reason there is a phase-in for three years is to allow those municipalities that don't use the MAA to do so – allow MAA time to do them. There is a charge. I think from memory, it is around $87 or $86 for the initial assessment and then it's $25 or $26, I think, annually thereafter, but if the Member is keen, I can get him the exact numbers. I think those are ballpark accurate though.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

Will changes in the regulations and this act mean towns will have to amend their town plans?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: This act is more around flexibility, autonomy and governance. It does reference taxation, but this is part of a suite of acts which the department controls or holds. Taken together, they will deal with issues current to municipalities. Zoning and town plans, more properly fall under URPA, the Urban and Rural Planning Act. That is not changed in any way by this bill.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: At what cost would this be, Minister? Also, does Municipal Affairs have the staff to be able to deal with all these amendments in place?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: We have a small but mighty team in Municipal Support. I think if you look at their track record, particularly around the Municipal Conduct Act, they trained 98 per cent of councillors in about 11 months. Ongoing training is part of their mandate. It is envisaged and we've discussed already with MNL and PMA about how those support staff would be reallocated to dealing with the changes under this bill. There are transition arrangements and certainly from a material change in terms of the way municipalities might choose to do their taxation or have to. That is a three-year process and we would anticipate that we should be able to deal with this over the course of that time.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Sure, Minister, as you can appreciate, we don't want anybody in your department to struggle or fall behind or not have the resources to do the job that needs to be done with these changed amendments. But, also, we want to make sure that the towns, themselves, have the right personnel, the proper personnel, enough personnel and they're not overloaded, especially the smaller towns.

Is there anything in place to ensure that town staff will not be overloaded with these changes and amendments?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: There is certainly going to be a learning curve and staff in the department feel confident that given their experience with the Municipal Conduct Act in the last 12 months, that will not be unnecessarily onerous for either side. It is our desire to make this work; it gives the towns and Local Service Districts, by and large, what they have asked for and is a modern and flexible framework.

In terms of capacity, which I think the Member opposite kind of alludes to indirectly, we have studied regionalization as a form of governance and for various reasons, including inputs significantly from communities, decided that is not the way to go.

What we are focusing on now is regional collaboration and support. We have spoken with MNL about our desire to help them if they wish to provide some of that. As well as, for example, our Community Collaboration Grants, so a group of interested communities could actually choose to collaborate, work together and receive some seed funding from the department. For example, if they wanted to collaborate on housing initiative, we could, perhaps, get them a housing coordinator, these kinds of things.

That level of support is being provided through roots that are not specifically prescribed in this act, although there are enabling clauses in there to enable them to do that more easily.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

Minister, when did you meet with the PMA?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: I think I would have to go back from memory, but it was within a couple of weeks of taking this office. My last meeting with PMA, in actual fact, was the morning the bill was introduced for second reading. As soon as Members opposite, parliamentary precedent and such, had their copy, I think within an hour I was talking to MNL and PMA.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

Minister, what impact will the elimination of poll tax have on small towns, if any?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: I think that is for each individual community to decide, because their options in the act, which they do have, will allow them the flexibility to match their revenue from poll tax. It's just a matter of arithmetic as to how they choose to do that. They'll have their property values and they'll have that data from MAA. They'll be able to set a mill rate that will mean they should be financially neutral, or to the better, if they choose to increase their revenue stream, or if they choose not to, that's their choice, too.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

Will real property assessment be applied to LSDs when the legislation is implemented?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: LSDs do not have the authority to tax currently and they will not under this new legislation so property values for that purpose are irrelevant.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

This bill allows towns to sell town property for less than market value without ministerial approval.

Are there clear conflict of interest rules around these sales in relation to council members/administrators so that such a mayor or a councillor can't sell a piece of land to their brother for 10 bucks or whatnot?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Where ministerial approval has been removed, council is required to make the decision by two-thirds, so there is more than just a simple majority.

The issue of conflict of interest was dealt with, in my view, by legislation brought in by my predecessor under the Municipal Conduct Act . That is very clear about conflicts of interest. In actual fact, there are allowances in there where members who identify an issue under the Municipal Conduct Act , there is a clause in this bill that makes it that they have to leave or they have to recuse themselves from the vote without penalty. Because, obviously, if a councillor is in the chamber when a vote is called they are expected to vote.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

The tourism accommodation tax, is this for any tourism accommodation in the province and how will this be paid to the towns?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: That is laid out in the bill itself. It is clearly for tourism purposes.

There are discussions under way or will be in the near future. I have staff reaching out to Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador because they have some views on how those monies should be allocated. That is not referenced in this bill but would be dealt with under regulation. We want to make sure that their views are taken into account when we write those regulations, but also that it follows the spirit of the act. The act itself is not prescriptive as to how that money is spent other than on tourism-related activities.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

Minister, when you met with the PMA, did they have any concerns at the time when you met with them and could you outline and talk about some of those concerns, please, if they did?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Yeah, yesterday.

I think that will remain something of a discussion point as they feel that their views don't quite match up with employment law, as I understand it. Not that I'm a legal expert in that field, but my advice is that hourly rates, minimum hours of work for their staff, this kind of thing, are issues between the employee and the council. The intent of this bill is to allow council's discretion or autonomy and flexibility, but also with some accountability at the back end to kind of match that.

So I think those kind of issues are unique to PMA. Other ones they shared with MNL, and these were really around things like municipal funding and that kind of thing, which actually isn't addressed in the bill. The fiscal framework that MNL has talked about is a topic for discussion between myself, but also other branches of government in the province around how money should flow and sources of revenue. What it does do is it gives towns considerable flexibility which they didn't have before. So PMA have a little twist of their own; MNL share some concerns with them, too.

CHAIR: The Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: I'm sure you can appreciate, Minister, the PMA will be influenced by a lot of this legislation. So they are going to have their concerns, which we hear as well. The bylaw enforcement is critical, but when will these powers include traffic violation and ticketing? Any discussion about that, Minister?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: In these regulations, the enforcement clauses for bylaw offices allow for non-moving violations to be ticketed. The choice of the council, they can have bylaw officers or not. They can enforce or bring in bylaws around non-moving violations. My understanding – and I'm sure colleagues to my right would be able to elaborate – is that when it comes to moving violations these are not solely under provincial jurisdiction.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

Is it the case that the bylaws are intended to replace the regulatory powers that the towns had under the act that's been in place since 1999?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Any municipal town bylaws that are in place today will remain in place after this. Should the council choose to use the framework of this act to change them, it is entirely their discretion. They don't have to.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: And this may go along with that, Minister, but these are the mandatory bylaws a town must impose. This is

section 7. How much leeway will the town have to design these bylaws? How much oversight will the minister and government impose on towns to ensure they comply with the mandatory obligations?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: How they choose to met their mandatory bylaws is down to the council. As long as, for example, waste management or that kind of thing, they don't have to do it themselves; they can contract out. The department is agnostic as to how they do it. Really and honestly, the accountability piece lies with the council.

A lot of these things, I would argue that all of them are things that certainly the larger communities do anyway. So I'm not sure that this is simply just restating what they do currently rather than requiring them necessarily to do anything new. The only thing that is new, that is mandated, that isn't in the old act, it relates to Local Service Districts who have to deal with garbage collection. Currently there are no mandated services required of LSDs.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Training was a big piece of the Municipal Conduct Act . T he department actually had a mix of pretty well any kind of interaction you can think of between staff as trainers and councillors as trainees, ranging from the high-tech end Zoom. For those who were challenged, there were actually in-person visits to the community, and I think on several occasions there were actually one-on-one training sessions done over the telephone; a conference call by, certainly, staff out of Ms. Pomeroy's department in Central, for example. Not to say there weren't in others, but I just use that as an example.

So training is all part and parcel of this. We know we need to do it, happy to do it, and we were trying to enlist both MNL and PMA in the training.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

Minister, this bill mentions crematoriums, but it doesn't mention aquamation facilities. In Grand Falls-Windsor I have an aquamation facility. I was just wondering if they go hand in hand, or if it can be added?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: I would bow to my colleague from Service NL about the regulations required for aquamation as they do differ from crematoria. My understanding of the act here is that it would be entirely flexible and within the town's jurisdiction to bring that in if they wished.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

Has any thought been given to encouraging towns to allow people to keep some farm animals to supplement, like food, eggs, milk, meat – we all know that we don't produce over 90 per cent of our food here; food security is a big deal. And of course, healthy food security is an even bigger deal. So it would be great to see some new legislation or regulations brought in that would at least encourage towns to facilitate any small farms or farm animals that could assist in our food security.

Has any thought been given to that, Minister?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Yes, again, I'm not sure that this is entirely within the remit of this act. The act is written in a permissive way so that when URPA and municipal zoning discussions occur, that will be a newer line of enterprise. Certainly we're conscious of the comments the Member opposite makes and it's not the intent of this bill to prohibit that, if that's comfortable for a local council.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

What kind of town bylaws would ever apply outside the town's territorial limits, if any?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: That's kind of an odd question because I'm not sure that the answer is any. There are references in the act to authorities for municipal town employees to act with protection from the act outside their own community. But that really relates to the provision of fire services.

The other thing is that there is a difference in some communities between the municipal boundary and the municipal zoning boundary. So, again, there may be some nuances there, but it is intended that bylaw officers would confine themselves to the municipality, the town, that employed them.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

Were there any concerns raised about towns imbedding economic development with bylaws that are overly restrictive or new council throwing up roadblocks that prior councils removed undermining industries themselves?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: One of the purposes listed in sections 3 through 12 is facilitating economic, social and physical well-being of the town and its citizens. Decisions of a council are accountable to the electorate and every four years the electorate get a chance, just as they do in this House, to say goodbye.

It is our desire that towns would act in the spirit of that and certainly the rest of the act, with relationship to business, is very much geared to the concept of incentivizing. There is an ability here to alter business tax. There are opportunities here to offer incentives for certain businesses or certain types of businesses. I mean, you can't tax a gas bar one way at one end of town and a completely different way the other. There are also allowances for hardship and these kind of things.

I can't see the utility of a town council acting against the interests of its population, quite frankly.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Just thinking of that a little bit, Minister. What if a town didn't want windmills, 5G cellular towers or power utility towers? What is the dividing line between provincial power and town power when it comes to this development?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: That's a nice knotty question down in the weeds, Mr. Chair. A lot of those things are governed under other pieces of legislation. There's the cable and telecoms act. T here's hydro and this kind of thing that act under their own legislation. It may well be that would be a question better posed in the particular for an individual instance.

Just off the top of my head, one of the things that we've tried to do, on this side of the House, is to – and we do it as MHAs in our own constituency office to a large extent – be the kind of the oil that grease the wheels when there's more than one government department involved.

So I think we're not going to do ourselves out of a job with this act, but I'm hoping that the noise will drop.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister.

Were any concerns raised about extra layers of red tape for businesses and the need to undertake red tape reduction and one-stop shopping for businesses and developers?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Yes, and if you do one of these kind of legislative impact things on this bill, we have a net reduction of 11 ministerial approvals.

This actually fits very nicely with the spirit of red tape reduction and handing more autonomy over to towns and Local Service Districts should they wish to take it up. So I would actually tout that as one of the strong points of this bill.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

The current act requires a feasibility study for incorporation, amalgamation, annexation, boundary settlement or disincorporation. The new bill removes that requirement. Feasibility reports will become discretionary.

Is that reasonable for such weighty decisions?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: I think it's a balance and I think, to be perfectly honest, there are certain occasions where an amalgamation or a disincorporation, the reasons for that, are just so glaringly obvious. You don't need a consultant to tell you that.

It's an attempt to reduce the load on communities and the expense for communities, but I do take your point. I think there is a desire in the department to exercise a degree of due diligence along with that discretion.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

Why is the minister increasing his discretionary authority over such matters when a feasibility study has been required until now and seems reasonable?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: My view is if it seems reasonable and is justifiable, then I would exercise, personally, my discretion in favour of having one. If it doesn't, I would also then exercise my discretion in the other direction.

You know, whilst it is ministerial discretion, it is based on the advice of people who work in the municipal world on a regular basis, full time and have considerable expertise. It's not just the expertise of the individual sitting in the minister's chair that is relevant here.

We have a very knowledgeable staff both within municipal support and within our planning office, not to mention at the executive team level in MAPA and really and honestly, they are any minister's right-hand individuals.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: I'm just looking at clause 35, Minister.

When would a council delegate any of its powers, duties or functions to a town council committee, the town manager, town clerk, department head, bylaw enforcement officer or a municipal service delivery corporation?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: That would be basically up to the council. I mean, we've talked in here about using Standing Committees. I know in my own municipality, they have a finance committee. They do the bulk of the budget work and then present it to Cabinet. I think it's a question of what the council feels would work in their locality. We're not prescribing what it should look like. We're just saying you can and if you don't like it, you can change it.

CHAIR: The Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

Clause 41, these conditions for a closed meeting – that's what it says there – which the current act calls privileged meetings seem to have been limited by the 10 conditions listed in the paragraphs. Currently, councillors could vote to make any meeting privileged. Now, they have to meet one of the conditions.

In practical terms, would it be difficult to meet one of these conditions or no?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Those are not unreasonable things. The decisions have to be made in public, but the discussions can be held in private. We feel that is a reasonable compromise because of concerns from members of the public that said, well, we don't know what they're doing in there behind closed doors until they've done it. This goes as far as is reasonable.

These conditions here actually also fit with other legislation, provincially, ATIPP being one of them.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

Just to stick with that for a moment. Do these provisions provide sufficient privacy protection since they demand documentation? Has the Information and Privacy Commissioner reviewed these provisions?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: The last bit, the answer is yes. I think that was something that I was aware of.

From the point of view of whether it meets the test of adequacy, I would argue that given the fact it's consistent with all the other provincial legislation, that may be a defence on using these rather than just plucking them out of the atmosphere kind of thing.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Clause 45, Minister: Will the minister confirm that clause 45 adds a new right of appeal to certain decisions to make the councillor's seat vacant? Is this right of appeal new or simply being spelled out in the clause present?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE:

Section 45 is a carry-over from sections 206 and 401 of the existing legislation. But it references the conduct act, which is new, includes gender-neutral language, that kind of thing. So it's a rewording of what was already there.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

Are advisory committees new or were they always permitted as special committees, and confirm that such committees do not require councillors to be on it?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: If you'll just give me a second, I have a sneaky feeling that this is new. The advisory committee's under

section 48 is a new concept and this is as written in 48(1), (2) and (3).

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

Clause 57: Is subclause 57(2) new? It says: “Where a town no longer requires the land, property or an interest expropriated under subsection (1), the town shall give the person who owned the land, property or interest in the land or property at the time of expropriation the first opportunity to purchase the land.”

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Sub (2) is new to this bill.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

Moving to clause 88 for a moment here. The new bill says the council can now approve that decisions by two-thirds vote and within 30 days, prepare and adopt a revised budget in the form set by the minister.

Will the minister confirm that his prior approval is no longer needed with this new legislation?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: This is a new clause. The only thing that requires approval is if the town wanted to establish, and hadn't already got, a reserve fund, an operating reserve or a capital. That's new and that would require ministerial approval. Everything else is down to the town.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

Sticking with the reserve funds: Reserve funds are covered in clauses 85 and 88. Could the minister explain what is changing with respect to reserve funds? Clause 88 lists two specific kinds and points to other types.

How does the minister see this working? What are the pros and are there any drawbacks or concerns with the reserve funds?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Essentially, there's a chunk of this as a carry-over from the old bill, the old act, but it stipulates clearly in this act what they can and can't be used for. It can't be used for speculating on short-term investments, for example. There has to be a level of financial diligence around it and, as I say,

section 88 is new. It requires the town to establish by-law to do it and then it requires ministerial approval for the funds.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

Clause 89: Is anything changing in clause 89 with respect to grants?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you.

It does actually carry-over pretty well from

section 99. There are a couple of new bits in this. You can grant to charitable not-profit – it's specified what you can grant to and prohibits the council from providing a grant that reduces tax or fees. It overtly states that in sub 4. So it's, essentially, adding parameters around the provision of grants to try and make sure that it goes to organizations that would further the purposes as laid out in the initial sections.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

Just reverting to the poll tax for a moment. Poll tax provisions are being eliminated. We know this now. What will the impacts be? Was there an analysis done on the impacts to the people that are charging the poll tax and do you feel as though a three-year window is enough? Has there been any concerns from your consultations with any districts at all that the poll tax that three years wouldn't be enough time to phase this out? Is that a concern?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: The phase-in doesn't seem to have been an issue, the duration of it. Certainly, the Municipal Assessment Agency was the ones that suggested that three years would cover all bases. In actual fact, given their recent performance they may actually be able to get the assessments done in a much more timely way than that. This gives the councils time to do the math, to figure out – as I said earlier on in an earlier answer, it should be cost neutral unless they want make it anything but cost neutral. It's down to how they do the math with either a mill rate or a base and a mill rate.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

Property tax is changing from a discretionary may to a mandatory shall. Towns will be required to impose this property tax. Is every town on board with this from your consultations, Minister?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: I have not heard anyone say that they don't want it. I think on the other side, that's where the bulk of their revenue comes from is from residential taxation; very little comes from business.

That's why, after further discussion, from an incentive point of view, a business attraction point of view, and some of the recruitment challenges that we've talked about in this House, a business tax is a discretionary one. They can set that in the way that they choose. But I've not heard anyone say that they don't want the ability to tax.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: As I'm sure you could appreciate, Minister, we don't, at this time, need any more taxes on anybody in the province. We just don't want to see anybody get hit with a bill that went from $600 to $1,800 within one piece of legislation. It could be devastating to a family.

Is there any possibility that a town could find an adequate revenue source other than property tax or poll tax? Has that analysis been done?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: There are towns that receive grants in lieu of taxes. I know, for example, that the airport in Gander does that. I know that Come By Chance Refinery does that. I also know that some businesses, particularly exploration companies, are providing revenue streams to nearby communities that are outside the tax base. It doesn't preclude that at all. It just has to be declared on their financial statements.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

Would the minister confirm that the tourist accommodation tax in clause 129 is in fact a new distinct clause?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: The Member opposite – I think he said 129. I'm just going to check, because I've actually got a list here which will tell me whether it's totally new for this. I've a sneaking feeling it is. I just want to make absolutely sure for the Member.

The short answer is yes, it is new to this act.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

How have tourist accommodations been taxed until now?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: My understanding is they've been taxed through the cities act.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: If you can elaborate, Minister, on what will this mean for Airbnb and such operations throughout our municipalities?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As the Member opposite would likely recall, in March of last year we introduced the Tourist Accommodations Act and the regulations. We've been working very closely with the platforms because the implementation date is March 31. We've had great co-operation with them.

I had the opportunity this morning to speak to the CEO of Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador and assured him that we will ensure, going forward, the Tourist Accommodations Act and how it interacts with the new Towns and Local Service Districts Act will be in the benefit of tourism operators in the province for certain.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Minister, if I can go to clause 190 for a moment, please. This bill allows towns to sell property for less than market value without ministerial approval.

You talked about the conflict of interest rules on that and it would be held within the municipalities to have their own conflict of interest but, just to make it clear, there's nothing sent down from the provincial government or from your department that would impede or intersect any clear-cut conflict of interest that could come up. It's dependent on the towns at this point, and I'll just elaborate.

We don't want anything to happen inside of a town where a backdoor deal could go wrong. Not saying that it could, it's a possibility and we want to make sure, again, a mayor doesn't sell or councillor doesn't sell his or her brother, aunt, uncle a piece of a land for a dollar that is under that market value. That could cause and create a lot of headaches for your department and for the town themselves.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you.

On the specifics of the question, it is an issue covered under the Municipal Conduct Act . On a broader picture, what we're trying to do is move away from an older, paternalistic approach where the provincial department somehow had rigid oversight of everything that was done at the municipal level.

This is a different level of government. What we are trying to do with this suite of acts is to provide them with a jurisdictional box that is theirs and theirs alone. We're not going to mess inside it. Just as we don't want the federal government messing inside provincial areas of jurisdiction such as education or health without some mutual discussion.

It is very much the approach we have taken in the department that this, along with the other acts like Municipal Conduct , URPA and these kinds of things, almost could be viewed as a constitution for municipalities and describes the working relationship between two equal sections of government rather than a more hierarchical, paternalistic point of view. The towns are down to doing their own thing and being held accountable for it.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Minister.

I'm just looking at clause 301. A council will have a three-year window before it is required to impose a property tax, if it doesn't have one yet. That same three-year window before it has to end a poll tax in favour of a property tax, are there any concerns around this, around that transition, Minister?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: The short answer is we felt that three years was long enough for the communities, the town councils and their staff to come up with a process and to do this. The MAA will have the property assessments done. The town can do the math and seek advice as to whether or not it wants to do a straight mill rate and, if so, what that should be or whether it wants to do a combination of a base rate and a mill rate.

Certainly our staff, Director Stamp and his valiant team of directors, will be around to provide commentary and advice but, at the end of the day, it is the department's view that this is clearly and firmly a town decision. We're here to educate and support but not to dictate.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS: Does the minister have any reason to believe some old decisions and orders might be incompatible with this new bill?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Not especially, although if you look at some of the legislation that we've brought to the House as rewrites or as amendments, they are to deal with changing circumstances. You write a bill in 1996 and then modify it in 1999 and, 27 years later, there are things there that are out of date. It's not exactly surprising. That is the role of council, which is analogous to a legislative review. You review your bylaws from time to time, to make sure that they are still relevant and not obstructive and adapt to the new circumstances.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: Thank you, Chair.

Minister, when we look at a base plus percentage mill rate, how is the base any different than a poll tax currently?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: The base is applied to residential properties. Poll tax is applied to individuals.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: Thank you, Chair.

In a lot of the smaller communities, there's professional training that is mandatory, and I agree with that. It also requires Wi-Fi or cell service to locate the training. Has that been considered for the Local Service Districts and the towns that don't have that ability currently?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Yes, very much so. Our experience with the Municipal Conduct Act showed that we had a variety of tools in our toolbox. We would have regional meetings face to face. We would go to communities and meet with their committees or councils directly or even do one-on-one, in person, or over the phone. So we're open to any and all methods of training and we'll continue to do that and if there are new options and as my colleagues here roll out broadband initiatives, hopefully, that will become less of a problem with time, if they choose to use virtual meetings.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: Thank you, Chair.

The introduction of the business tax for municipalities to apply discretionary business tax – why is that not being extended to the LSDs because if we're going to phase them out in three years, wouldn't that give them an opportunity to have some wherewithal to move in the right direction?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: LSDs do not have the authority to tax. Local Service Districts are entitled, however, to apply a fee for services that they provide and collect that fee. That is different than taxation and a tax is an unfettered revenue stream;

whereas, a fee is that we pay $300 and we get our garbage picked up, kind of thing.

From the point of view of a LSD, our concern has always been around capacity for communities. Some LSDs work extremely well and are assets to their residents. Others and towns, as well, do tend to struggle. It is not the intent of this bill to enable any LSD to tax. They can, however, charge for fees for the services that they provide, whether it's garbage collection, which is mandatory. They can do it themselves or they can contract it out. If they choose to go down the route of fire services and these kind of things, they'll have a fee to their residents.

That's the way LSDs are funded and that's an increase, as it were in some respect, over what they're currently able to do. If they wish to change and want to change their way of governance to allow them to tax and have the resources to collect it, then that's another discussion we're happy to have, too.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: For the Community Collaboration Grants: Is there a minimum of how many communities have to be in on that or can it be a minimum of two?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: We set it at three. We've had a good response. The Community Collaboration Grants closed 14 or 15 days ago and we're currently in the process of evaluating those. It's certainly something that was a little bit of an experiment from our point of view and we'd be interested to see what the nature of that is.

At the moment, three seems to be –

(Disturbance.)

CHAIR: Order, please!

Thank you.

I'm going to go back to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, if you want to just continue.

J. HAGGIE: I've been tested and found wanting the ability to switch the damn thing off.

I'm not sure I have much more to add to that. We would love to look at other mechanisms. We have also the Regional Service Boards Act, which is under review. I have open discussions with the chairs of the RSBs about how they could assist in regional delivery of services and regional collaboration in a more structured way.

I've had talks with MNL about sharing of maybe back office functions somehow or accounting. I know MNL already has access to legal advice for any of its members as part of a membership deal. So there are lots of different threads on the go.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: Does this legislation affect a community's ability to make boundary extensions?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: No, if they wish to, they can still go through the process. That process is not governed by this legislation as such. The council would simply need to express a desire and go through the paperwork. It might make it easier if it involved a feasibility study on the criteria set out in the old act. But it's not going to affect their ability to ask and do that if they wish.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: Thank you, Chair.

The last question from me is: Which LSDs and towns were consulted in the District of Placentia West - Bellevue? Would you be able to provide that list to me?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: I don't have it to hand, and yes.

J. DWYER: Sorry?

J. HAGGIE: I don't have a list at hand, but, yes, I can get it for you.

J. DWYER: Okay.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Chair.

Just a question: In the towns that you're saying you're covering on the roads, they're covering their local roads going through. What about the byroads in those towns as well? Some of those are covered now. I'm just wondering about that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you, Chair.

Nothing changes. What they're doing now, they will do afterwards, unless they choose to change it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Chair.

Can municipalities charge accommodation tax on rental units used by fly-in, fly-out workers from out of province?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Accommodation tax, is that a tourist accommodation tax the Member refers to?

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Yes, the new taxing ability from municipalities, will they be able to use it towards fly-in, fly-out workers from outside of the province?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: In terms of the utilization of tourism accommodation tax dollars, those regulations have not been written, but it is the intent of this legislation and our discussions with HNL is to ensure that goes on tourism-related activities. If a rental property is registered as a holiday or a tourist destination, somehow under my colleague in TCAR, they would be eligible to charge a tourist accommodation tax. Whether or not they are mandated to do so, I'd have to defer to others.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Chair.

My point of view is we want to remove the ability for tourists and just have it as an accommodation tax, because municipalities in Labrador West have been asking the ability to tax fly-in, fly-out workers from outside of the province, as they are a drain on services to municipalities. This is something they were hoping to do, but if it's just slated for tourist accommodation, it's very pointless in a place like Labrador West.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: It is conceivable that a town might choose to use the business tax in that regard. That would be down to the town to take advice as to whether or not that would work.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: The problem is they tried but these businesses are not registered in this province, they're businesses from Quebec or Ontario and they are unable to take them that way as they brought in for doing work in the region. This was brought up by the municipalities from Labrador West during discussions of this new act. Why wasn't this implemented?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: The answer there lies between departments. From my point of view, if these accommodations are designated as tourist, then they can charge a tourist accommodation tax. You can't, under this act, tax individuals. You can only tax properties or businesses. So either you're residential, in which case you pay a residential tax, or you're a business, in which case the business pays a business tax, should the town choose to exercise one.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: These are businesses that are coming in from Quebec and Ontario that cannot be taxed that way, as they do not have an address in this province, but their workers are coming in here working and using and draining municipal services. They have no other way to tax them. This is why it was asked that they have the ability to tax accommodations for fly-in, fly-out workers.

Given that, will this accommodation tax be allowed to be used on the bunkhouses in Labrador West for fly-in, fly-out workers that come from out of province?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: These are obviously questions of concern to the Member opposite. In terms of a bunkhouse, again, if this is a business and the business does not pay tax in this province, then there is certainly a challenge. I'm not sure how to resolve that and whether or not that actually lies within the mandate of this act.

So I take the Member's point and certainly would be happy to discuss how businesses that operate in this province but exist outside could be taxed. But this is not in this act; this is around towns and Local Service Districts.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you.

No, just because you put the word tourist in front of accommodation, it makes it just for tourists. If you remove the word tourist and just have an accommodation tax, then that would make sense for opportunities like this.

My other question is: While this legislation will empower municipalities to engage in more activities and services, there really isn't much of a point if we're not going to provide significant financial resources for some of the new opportunities here. Some municipalities right now can't afford to avail of some of the opportunities in this act.

Will there be some financial help in the coming years to help facilitate municipalities to be able to utilize some of the new aspects of this act?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Certainly, municipal financing is not addressed directly in this bill; it's not the intent of that. On a budget note, we did increase the Municipal Operating Grant last year and we will increase it again in budget '24; that is pre-committed and that is a 27 per cent increase.

I think it behooves towns to look at their tax rate, their mill rates, and see how that matches up with the services they choose to provide. If they want to provide more, then one could argue that either the residents of that community pay or the residents of the entire community pay. From a governance point of view, there is an interesting twist there in the sense that a resident of Grand Falls or Gander paying provincial tax through their Municipal Operating Grant subsidizes activities going on in Labrador West yet has no say over those.

From a governance perspective, there is only one person paying tax. Whether they pay it through the province or whether they pay it through the community or whether they pay it as a fee, those are decisions – certainly two of those decisions – that are resting clearly in this act with municipalities.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: In many parts of the bill the town councils are required to request the opinion of the town manager before reaching a decision. Why was this consultation mandatory?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: I think that depends on the context. Would the Member please supply me with the clause and I can provide a more detailed answer?

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Yes, it would be under

section 1.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE:

Section 1, one moment. I'm confused because

section on is: “This Act may be cited as the Towns and Local Services Districts Act .”

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Okay, I must have miswritten down what

section that was in.

It says, in many parts of the bill – there are multiple parts, actually, sections; that's why I wrote it this way. Sorry, my apologies.

In many sections and parts of the bill it says that the town council is required to request an opinion of the town manager before reaching a decision. So this is multiple times throughout the bill. Why was this put into this new act compared to the other act?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: The next bit of those clauses pretty well also states that it is down to the discretion of council as to whether they act on the advice of the town manager. I think it is to make sure that the councils, some of whom have new councillors, some of whom have councillors with different skill sets, would benefit from the advice of a professional municipal administrator. Whether they choose to take it is down to them.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you.

Given that municipalities are expressing concerns about the housing crisis as well as a lack of coordination between levels of government in the front, is there any specific legislation that will allow better, smoother and faster co-operation between the province and municipalities in developing lands, resources, things like that? Given that currently now there is sometimes pointing fingers on who is responsible for what.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: The act in detail and in spirit clarifies the fact that there is not, nor has there ever been, any prohibition on a town, should it choose to, to move into housing. The only caveat is they cannot compete with the private sector. So social housing or affordable housing, these kind of things, are open to them if there is no private sector interest there.

The other elements of the Member's question really rely or fall better into zoning and those kind of discussions which are not covered under this act. Certainly our department has, in parallel with this work, been looking at URPA, the Urban and Rural Planning Act, to see what changes could or should be made there in a hurry, as it were, to facilitate housing and also looking at some of the regulations under URPA and under other pieces of legislation the department hold.

But this act here simply refers to the flexibility they have in choosing how to exercise that. Some of the processes are defined along the timeline set by the town. Some we're looking at do have government timelines in and we're trying to make sure those are as short and as reasonable as possible.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you.

Will the broad

definitions of powers and purposes of towns lead to an increase in litigation or court challenges to multiple bylaws as a result of overlapping or the unclear jurisdiction?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Those purposes outline the spirit behind which bylaws should be written. No bylaws currently will be changed. If a council on review of its bylaws finds that a bylaw could be altered to better suit these mix of purposes, then they're perfectly at liberty to change it. I don't anticipate a rush of litigation on any of this because we don't see anything in that area that is at all controversial and outside what municipalities have asked for.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Chair.

Do the natural person powers allow for towns to sue or be sued? What happens in the case of a town with few resources that must defend itself in court or pay large settlements out?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: If a town is liable at law, the town has to comply with the judgment. That is my understanding. If they find themselves in a situation where they are financially embarrassed as a result of it, they may, depending on their fiscal capacity, have the ability to pay. I'm sure if they haven't, I'll hear about it.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Given that, is there anything in this bill that requires towns to have insurance for cases like this that would cover them in the case of this kind of thing, or is that optional?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: We do not stipulate insurance except for tangible assets. So it's optional.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Given the broadened abilities, would the department consider making it mandatory for municipalities to have a board insurance for situations like this?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: This falls under the jurisdiction of a council. If they wish to spend their money doing that then that's a decision they may wish to take. The provincial government is not going to mandate any activity that we feel shouldn't be mandated. The bylaws in there that are mandated and the framework here is what we feel is a reasonable framework for flexibility, for autonomy and for decision-making at the council level. Again, the flip side of that is if it goes sideways, council carries the can.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: We've heard from a number of municipalities regarding the difficulty they face in addressing housing, especially given conflicting rules and purposes between the municipal level and the provincial level, and on some cases the federal level. Will

section 7 potentially allow towns to increase the number of barriers, either inadvertently or otherwise?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: I can't see why a town would want to increase barriers to housing its residents. This doesn't change their abilities in any way. They have a power to make bylaws. Zoning issues may be relevant. I can't see a town, personally, wanting to bar homeless people from its municipal boundaries.

I'm not quite sure that that's a realistic concern and it may well be if the Member opposite has an instance that he could use to illustrate it, I'd be better able to answer that question.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you.

No, we just want to make sure under

section 7 that this wouldn't be a barrier or anything like that. We just want to make sure that it's not going to be used in any other way. That's what we just want to make sure.

Also under there, is six months a reasonable timeline for towns to adopt changes to the National Fire Code and the National Energy Code? What work must towns engage in before they approve such changes and what work must be done afterwards?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister for Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Those timelines were taken from a jurisdictional scan and fit with what others do. I think it's a reasonable place to start.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: If any municipalities have to incur additional costs leading up to this and the towns are not resource capable, will the department be able to help with the costs to reach this timeline?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister for Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: From our point of view, we don't anticipate a significant cost burden to the town. There will be training and the department has undertaken to provide that directly. MNL and PMA are interested in joining in with that.

Other than that, those communities that move from a poll tax to a mill rate should factor those change costs in. I don't think they are prohibitive.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN:

Section 8, clause 1, does not include ride-sharing services. Why are they explicitly left out of the legislation? If the intent from the new act was to give broader powers, why can't municipalities make their own bylaws stipulating the provincial rules can be given on both sides often between municipalities? After all, taxis often do and they're included here.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister for Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Whilst not the expert on ride sharing, that Member currently sits behind me. My understanding is that is governed by provincial legislation, not towns and Local Service Districts.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN:

Section 9: What happens if a town inadvertently passes a bylaw that is in conflict with provincial or federal legislation? How will the conflict be identified and what is the procedure for declaring that the bylaw is null and void?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister for Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: I think that's more of a hypothetical. I cannot really see due diligence of a council going down that line if they have advice from a clerk; however, it is down to the town to remedy it.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN:

Section 12: Would it not be a good idea to include a list in 12(2), in

section 12, a sort of virtual library on the MAPA website of all the bylaws for each municipality that they would be able to be look in one convenient place and could even use their conduct of their own cross-jurisdictional scans to help drafting or amending their own bylaws as a means of identifying best practices?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you.

To answer the previous question about ride sharing. So that is included in 8(1)(i). That

section does contain the provision around ride sharing for municipalities.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

On the other question, I'm recognizing the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Yes and I've got a mental block here. He's going to have to repeat the question, my apologies.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West, please.

J. BROWN: Perfect. No problem. I'll do that for the minister.

Would it be a good idea to include a list in 12(2), in

section 12, a sort of virtual library for the MAPA website for all the bylaws of each municipality, that way they could be available in one convenient place and the municipalities could even use it to conduct their own cross-jurisdictional scans to help in drafting better bylaws or amending their own bylaws by means of identifying the best practices within the province?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: I'm open to a suggestion like that. I'm not sure whether it would be us that did that or MNL or PMA, but I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea. We, certainly, with the Code of Conduct on our website, have kind of boilerplate templates for Codes of Conduct and these kind of things that towns could download and adapt to their own local circumstances. That was well received.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you.

Under

section 14, why are the minister's powers to incorporate a town retroactive from the date of the order?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: It simply lines up the date of the order with the new town boundary. I'm not sure that that's a significant alteration from the previous act.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you.

Again, under

section 14, under that condition, would a minister issue an order to amalgamate, disincorporate or annex land to existing towns should there not be a referendum mandated as such is the case?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: I'm not sure where the word referendum comes in under

section 14. These are provisions which are kind of rolled over,

section 14 from 312 and 313 of MA, 1999. The feasibility piece is addressed elsewhere and is discretionary. Where it makes sense to do a feasibility study, then the minister can, at his or her discretion, arrange one or order one. Where it makes no sense, then it's not obligatory.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you.

Under

section 15, now that the completion of a feasibility report will be at the discretion of a minister, not mandatory, do you have any specific cases already drawn up where drafting such reports will be mandatory? In what cases will this requirement be waived?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Personally, no, because I've only been in the department since June, but staff and municipalities have advised that this has arisen in the past. I'm guided by their experience and knowledge. I can't really add any more from that.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Under 15, when the minister orders a feasibility report and appoints people to draft it, where will they come from? Will it be department staff, residents of the community or a general member of the public? What qualifications will they have or will it be contracted out?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: I don't see any difference in how we would identify individuals under this piece of the legislation than under the previous one. The last phrase in that

section 2: to prepare the feasibility report in accordance with regulations. So the regulations would lay out some of that.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Given the new way that the feasibility report is not necessary or anything like that, does the minister still have the ability to order a plebiscite in a community, when a community themselves don't have a plebiscite?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: This would come from a community. So from the point of view of us going around looking at redrawing lines on a map or amalgamating things, this is not the intent of this legislation at all, nor does it say anywhere about this. This is all driven by communities.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: The reason for the question is because in the past the minister did have the ability to order a plebiscite between two communities. I'm just wondering if the power still exists within the minister's hands.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: I'll take this under advisement. I'm not sure that plebiscite ever popped up in my consciousness. It was all around the feasibility study and discussions with the communities.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you.

Why is it not mandatory that public hearings associated with feasibility studies be conducted in the area affected by the purpose measures being studied? What was the rationale for not making that kind of stuff mandatory?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: With regard to plebiscites,

section 49 actually references it, which is why I couldn't find it here. It has not changed from the previous act.

In terms of the Member's other question about public hearings, one of the whole issues here is why you would hold a public hearing at a venue that was not related to the communities under discussion. I mean, I'm not quite sure what the logic would be about that. One of our interesting carry-overs from COVID has been – and it's seen in here in the publication

section – other ways of engaging the community to get public input.

So I think he makes an interesting point but I'm not wedded to the idea of it having to be in community A or B. If community A or B want it there or would prefer it there, again, it's a matter of feasibility of having the public hearing in there. Is there a venue that will do it?

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you.

Seeing

section 15 clause (6) could be used to dodge public scrutiny of a controversial proposal. Does this act stipulate a minimum length of time for soliciting public opinion on such thing?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: No, my understanding that's in regulation.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Under which circumstances might the Crown not accept responsibility for those costs associated with a feasibility study? In the case, who would pick up the cost of that?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: There have been communities that keep on requesting feasibility studies for something that may involve, say an amalgamation, where the other community isn't really interested. So that's been asked and answered before and under those circumstances, it is a toss-up as to why anyone would spend public money on doing it a second time, hoping for a different result.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Chair.

Under

section 18: Why would this not be done as part of a feasibility statement? What is greatly concerning? Why approve an amalgamation or other alterations of a town if the ability to sustain itself economically or financially has not been received due to this constraint?

Are we putting the cart before the horse here, potentially?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: It is again a little bit of a hypothetical. To be quite frank, if a community wants to change its boundary and it doesn't involve anybody else, then the question is moot about opposition or unpopular decisions. Quite frankly, if one community wants to take over another, that's never going to happen.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Under

section 21(2)(

c) it appears to give the minister wide latitude in giving orders. Why were these broad powers given and under what circumstances might the minister use such power?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: That is to try and deal with a situation whereby different tax rates applied in different areas prior to amalgamation or even different tax schemes. I think it protects both communities. The other piece about that is, again, ministerial discretion is not unfettered ministerial whim. It is advice of the staff, the civil servants, who live and breathe this kind of stuff and discussions with the communities. But at the end of the day, it is sometimes easier for the communities if somebody outside makes the decision. If they can come to an agreement by themselves, fine by me.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you.

Section 25 clause (4), it is noticed that the prohibition on altering wards is longer after an election than before. Why is this the case? What type of practices is the post-election ban on amending wards designed to prevent?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: It lines up with other jurisdictions. I think sometimes there is a discussion about who would have voted which way, as a ward, given a different boundary. This House has a Boundaries Commission. This just simply says that you can't do it immediately to the run up to an election, nor can you do it afterwards. It is a four-year cycle, you have plenty of time. There is no need to jump.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN:

Section 25, under clause (5) and (6): Is it mandatory that a town council having at-large members? Is this correct or is it going to be mandatory? It has to be at least some at-large members.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: How the town want to do that, I think, there is a requirement that you have at-large members. I will verify that and get back to the Member opposite.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Under

section 25: Why must the members, the at-large councillors be greater than the total number of councillors elected under a ward?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: This is a carryover from the previous act and nobody seemed to mind to want to have it changed, Chair. It fits in with practice elsewhere.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Under

section 28: How many towns currently select their mayor by using this practice?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: I don't have that number. I would try and get it for the Member opposite.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN:

Section 35: In the interest of maintaining the authority and ability of town councillors, is it necessary to authorize delegates to confer power on sub-delegates? Under what circumstance might we need sub-delegates?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: This is a new

section and it addresses concerns that were brought to us by MNL so that there would be some clarity in the minds of councils, if nothing else, as to who was responsible for what in a community. So if you had someone designated as director or manager of water treatment and you had a water treatment question, you don't go to the outside worker. It was for clarity.

Section (2) basically says you can delegate someone but you can also tell them what the limits of that delegation are. Also in section (3) it shows what cannot be delegated and those are really core functions of council.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister.

Section 37: Does this

section mean that the first meeting must take place within 14 days after an election or merely that date of the first meeting must be set within 14 days?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: It's no change from current. My reading of it, it means it has to be set.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you.

Section 41: Why is the act prescribing the rules for closed town meetings to the public where meetings are being necessarily closed – subsection (

d) allows meetings to be closed when the acquisition or disposition of land is being discussed? Residents should be entitled to be informed about development of their land. What was the acquisition in the first steps of that process?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: This relates to an answer I gave earlier to the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans. These are lined up with ATIPP. The default is that a town council meeting should be open. The reason for that is that this could give commercial advantage or it could give commercial disadvantage to individuals in business, and that the decision that's made at these closed meetings has to be ratified at a public meeting.

This is a balance between ATIPP protecting confidentiality, business interests and commercial sensitivities, with also the desire that business is seen to be done in an open way.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you.

Under

section 44, under what circumstances are town councillors required to meet a two-third vote majority when approving something?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Those are identified, Chair, within the appropriate sections of the act. For example, if a council wish to dispose of land or an asset at below market value, that would require a two-third vote. There are various ones listed. I'm sure you could just rummage through and find at least three more.

Those are the ones, by and large, which replaced ministerial approval. As we have 11 removals of ministerial approval, I suspect there are 11 of them.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you.

Why are town councillors generally prohibited from abstaining from voting?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: If we're in the House, we vote – same logic. You have a duty to exercise the duties of your office as a councillor. Just as if we're in the Chamber when a vote is called as MHAs, you have to vote. There are no abstentions.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you.

Section 45: Is it really fair to declare a councillor's position vacant when the councillor owes taxes or fees to council, especially given the economic climate? There might be some people going through – no fault of their own – and find themselves in a predicament, considering the variety of circumstances under which this could happen? Is there any offer of leeway?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: There is discretion under the act for a council to come to a payment plan with someone who is delinquent on their taxes or fees. My understanding is if they have a payment plan, they're not in arrears; if they haven't got one and they are, they need to set an example. It's called leadership.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Under

section 45(1)(h)(i), could a person in a position of power use this subsection to abuse their position withholding sworn duty of an elected councillor because of a personal grudge or difference of opinion?

After 60 days, the problematic councillor would be declared unable to hold the post.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: That's a bit of a stretch but the short answer is that, you know, if the council give an individual leave to be absent, then these clauses are not triggered.

If you're not sworn in after 60 days, you're not interested in doing the job.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Under

section 45, why is a councillor not allowed to carry out their duties while waiting for a ruling on an appeal of their dismissal?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: That's consistent with previous approaches to this. If there has been a dismissal, you are dismissed. You're only reinstated, and retrospectively maybe, after the appeal have been heard. Those are legal nuances. If you're dismissed, you can't function.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you.

Section 48: Will the non-elected member of the advisory committee receive a vote? If so, should it be explicitly stated in the legislation that the vote of an advisory committee carry no legislative weight or any binding power to the municipal policy?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: An advisory committee by definition, as I understand it, advises. It doesn't tell anybody what to do.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN:

Section 49(2) is vague. What necessary changes would be required to proceed if laid out of the Municipalities Act in order to hold a valid plebiscite?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: That's how it is done, not whether it's done.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Under

section 50(3), I would see that the town is charging unreasonably high fees for obtaining copies of information listed as a means of restricting access to that information. What safeguards are in place to protect public to obtain this information and not be charged unsightly high fees, if the municipality chooses so?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: How much does it cost to put a piece of paper in a photocopier for a salaried employee? The other piece is that if you go further down, you can ask for electronic copies, which are not charged.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you.

Sometimes a person in a community wouldn't read the act to know that, but if there's something in place for a municipality to stick up a sign and say $50 for it. I just want to make sure people aren't taken advantage of.

Under

section 56, has sufficient consideration been given to subsection (2) that might be the instance in which the towns find themselves necessary to provide goods or services when there are already a private market provider such as there is a monopoly being abused or gouging residents, in service or goods provided of poor quality or private provider lacks the capacity to meet demand?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Yes, I think this is again a balance. Councils are mandated to operate as not-for-profit entities in the best interests of their residents. Businesses are residents. I think that is trying to tip the scales a little bit in favour of the local and we here have regular debates about why work is going to non-Newfoundland and Labrador properties and companies and this kind of stuff. This is kind of a reflection of that. If you can keep it local, let's do so.

Seventy municipalities have separate elections for mayor I have been advised.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you.

For the purpose of this act, does the term “property” include a corporation or business, even if it is a for-profit business that the town then does not intend to run on a for-profit basis, going forward?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Which

section are you referring to, please, Sir? It's a little difficult with quotes taken out of context.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: I'll double-check that from my notes.

Okay, that would be under subparagraph (

a) and (

b) on

section 57.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Okay.

URPA controls this part of the

section and it states in subparagraph (

a) that it can be expropriated if the person who owns the land, property or interest refuses to accept the amount offered in writing by the town; or, (b), the person who owns the land, property or interest is incapable of conveying the land or cannot be found. It then allows the town to expropriate, subject to the conditions under URPA.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: I thank the minister for that.

Section 59: When a town manager delegates the authority to someone, is that person then protected by subsection (4) as well?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Yes.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you.

Section 65: The language and procedure proposed here seems circular. If the town council under 63(b)(

i) has the power to set a maximum amount where the expenditure (inaudible) case, why can't the amended amount be the original resolution? Why this extra step in consulting with the town manager?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: I assume here we're talking about

section 65(1). This is a requirement to consult with the town manager. The town manager, if he doesn't respond in a timely way, the council is allowed to go on. It doesn't require the council to adopt the recommendations that are made by the town manager if it feels, as an elected body, that they are not appropriate. This is a carry-over of sections 58(3), (4) and (5) of the current act.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you.

Under

section 67, when a town clerk designates their authority to an employee, is that person also protected under subsection (6) as well?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Yes.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you.

Section 70: The language here deals with a request. What happens if the department head requests that the town manager report the issue at the next town council meeting but refuses to do so? This doesn't seem like it's an obligation.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: This is a carry-over from subsection 57(2) of the current act. The Code of Conduct may apply because it is possible that the individual who is not being heard may file a complaint under that, which will then bring it to the council's attention.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you.

Section 84: Under what circumstances would a minister approve the postponement in preparing, adopting or submitting a budget?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Well, the most obvious one would be when the town's finances are in a mess. Other than that, you know, there are circumstances where – sorry, which

section was it again, 84?

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: That was

section 84.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you, Chair.

This, again, is current in the legislation at

section 77. I can't tell you when the last time that was triggered but if it's of interest, I'll see if I can find out.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Minister.

Again, under 84, what resources does a town have if the proponent expenditures must exceed revenue, especially given that towns are liable for differences between the funds government approved and the capital works and now we see inflation in the cost occurring between those things and the final build? What would be for that, given the current economic situation we also face right now between budgeting costs and inflation?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Towns are supposed to operate without deficit. There is leeway, now, around reserve funds, an operating reserve. A prudent organization keeps a reserve fund. Certainly, from my experience in the not-for-profit sector, we would endeavour to keep a year or even 18 months of operating funds as a reserve and, certainly, that didn't affect our not-for-profit status. That is simply a matter, I would suspect, where the minister or the department might go back to the town and say, you're running into the hole; can we help you?

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you.

Under

section 86, the language is a big vague here. What will the procedure be for determining whether a revised budget is necessary? Will there be certain thresholds in regulations that would be triggered for a revised budget?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: This is again down to the town. The council should really be their own fiscal stewards. It is, again, a rewording for clarity of

section 80 of the current act and doesn't anticipate any change in current processes.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you.

Section 89: Doesn't

section 89(2)(

c) open up the town for towns to possibly try to outdo each other competitively. Take for example a company choosing where in the province to locate or expand. Towns could start bidding wars with various financial incentives. The larger and more prosperous ones will clearly have an advantage against other smaller municipalities.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: That is an interesting concept, Chair. I have to say a certain level of competition, I think, is healthy but that is not the intent of this. If people in the town feel that is what they're doing and take issue with it, then they have a voice to deal with it.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN:

Section 90: What kind of advice would the department employee be giving to a town in this situation, how in-depth would it be and would it be a detriment to the services of the town providing or the financial well-being of its residents thinking higher taxes or establishment of a list of fees?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: This, again, is a carry-over from the current

section 84. The bottom line is the answer to that would be it depends, quite frankly. It depends on what their problem is. A lot of the time it is something, you know, when these kind of things have occurred during my tenure, they've been cash flow issues. Some competent financial management skills, which the department has supplied from time to time, will remedy the situation over a period of time and that is the way out.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you.

Under

section 95, what kind of situations might the minister waive the requirement for the audit? Is this for very small municipalities with very few resources?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Often under these circumstances, someone from the regional office will go in and have a look at the books and if they're happy, I'm happy.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Under

section 97, regarding the adequacy of a town's safeguards against fraud, does this department currently provide training and other supports to municipalities so they can prevent fraud or quickly identify suspected fraud?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: That's a good question. I would have to check on that. I know there have been discussions between the department and some communities about instances of fraud but I couldn't tell you at the moment whether that was general. I'll look.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister.

Section 106: Has the department undertaken any study to figure out if or how much the collective changes to taxation powers in this bill will improve capacity of towns to grow their income?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Well, with respect to

section 106, that's a rewording of existing

section 101 in the bill.

I think the areas of growth, really, as it were, may lie in business attraction and how the towns choose to use incentives and tax breaks, tax holidays or differential tax rates to manage business.

It's very, very much a local issue and that's why we have councils rather than the department doing it. Councils know their council.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN:

Section 115: Are corporations considered persons under this

section and can a person representing a business apply for exemption, remission or deferment in taxes for the company?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: That's a legal question that's not covered in this bill. A corporation is a corporation. We have talked about natural person's powers for the town. I would defer to my legal colleagues for an answer to that question.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Under

section 117: Property taxes are often labelled as regressive since two owners of a property of equal value could have significantly different incomes.

Has the department considered a way of making property taxes less regressive other than allowing deferment or exemption from taxes on a case-by-case basis?

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: One of the areas, I see, that has particular merit here would be the use of a base plus a mill rate rather than necessarily a flat mill rate. That's an area that I think would be interesting for some towns to explore.

The challenge with taxes is that where there are two owners, if one has resources and the other hasn't, then it would make sense if the designated individual was actually able to pay.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Under 117(3), it allows for the possibility of assigning one owner of a property all responsibility for paying the taxes.

What other ways might a town legally assign responsibility for paying taxes in case of multiple ownership on single properties?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: The town could decide that because it actually says where there are two or more owners, the town may designate one of them. It doesn't have to.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Under

section 118, the wording of subsection (2) is a bit off. As the current stands, the real property tax income and other venues are not at all significant to the covering of the expenses that the town might responsibly incur. Is this correct or is it just the wording of it? It just seems a little off.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: That's a carryover from the current act. Basically, it says you have several streams of income, add them all up and the property tax should make sure, at the end of the day, that the sum from income is the same as sum from expenditure.

CHAIR: Thank you.

J. HAGGIE: It's a balance book (inaudible) deficit, no change.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Minister.

Under 118, the wording here is a little confusing. Does it allow the town to change the different rates of residential properties assessing at different tiers of value or is it all residential properties to be taxed at one rate as opposed to commercial ones, which can be taxed at another?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Those are categories of tax base. Once you're in one, the category should pay equivalent taxes across those businesses. So, for example, if residential, they should all be on a level playing field in terms of how they're assessed and obviously that would vary with property value. Commercial property you can have different classes of commerce and you can set different rates should you choose to for fabrication, commerce, rather than storage or for gas bars.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Chair.

Under

section 120: There are many ways a person might come to occupy property, what scenarios does the department have in mind for

section 120?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: We just carried this over on the advice of MNL. From my point of view, if you can't find the owner, and there are occasions where that does happen, then the occupier carries the can.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Given that funds going to municipalities, each municipality has their own issues and different obligation, and to meet some of their obligations under

section 121, should the province be expected to pay some property tax or grant in lieu of tax for some of the properties they have in municipalities?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: That has not been the case either in previous iterations of this act or in other jurisdictions. It's an interesting discussion, but not relevant particularly under this. We're just following precedent.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Why are students' residences attached to Provincial Health Authorities exempted from taxation but other residences and apartment-owned properties are not exempt under

section 121?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you, Chair.

That's, again, been a precedent in the past. From my point of view, it's certainly consistent with government not paying taxes to another level of government for its existence and that's consistent throughout.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Under

section 121, farmland and woodland within town boundaries are exempt from taxation. Is this a carry-over or is this something new?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: It's a carry-over.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Chair.

Clause 122: Why should tenants pay a tax on properties that they do not own?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Hang on a second, I will just read. This is 122(1) is it?

“A town council may require a tenant who pays rent or other valuable consideration for real property exempt from real property tax to pay a tax equivalent to the tax that would have been payable by the owner if a property was subject to real property tax.”

That is a carry-over from before. It really kind of ensures that there's a revenue stream from the tax for – again, consistent with the previous bill. It's reworded for clarity. I think if you read it with the preceding of the following clauses it makes a little bit more sense than if you just try and read it in isolation.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Under

section 125, when a business has a fixed place of business, their tax is calculated based on their property value. If the business does not have a fixed location, they are taxed based on their revenue. Wouldn't it be more flexible to allow the towns to tax businesses on a fixed location based either on property value or revenue, given one versus the other?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: This is what was asked for by the municipality. It's a kind of mishmash; it incorporates elements of the old act, but it gives the town the ability to do the same for businesses, in that you can have it based on a percentage of the assessed real value of the property, or a base amount plus a percentage of the assessed value of the property. So it's akin to the residential one.

That

section about not operating from a fixed location, it actually brings them into the tax base and also does it in a way that is more consistent with their ability to pay, necessarily, than anything else.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you.

But given a business that has a fixed location, they cannot be taxed on their revenue, just on their property, but while a business that doesn't have a fixed location is just based on their revenue, why can't a municipality have the option to tax a business with a fixed location based on their revenue, like a business that doesn't have a fixed location? Why don't they have the leeway like that?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: The impact to the town in terms of its expense and infrastructure is related to the property more often than it is related to the revenue. So it's fairer for the town.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you.

Under

section 126(5), what would be counted as a valid reason for obtaining a revised estimate?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Read the last bit and, I would say the Member, I think it explains it there: “… for a revised estimate where the business is able to show a valid reason for the revision to the town council.”

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker I move that the Committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the Speaker returned to the Chair.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.

B. WARR: Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and direct him to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the bill be received?

J. HOGAN: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the Committee ask leave to sit again?

J. HOGAN: Presently.

SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again presently, by leave.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Motion 5.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I move seconded by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs that

An Act to Amend the Water Resources Act, Bill 46, be now read a first time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce Bill 46, and that said bill be now read a first time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to introduce a bill, “An Act to Amend the Water Resources Act,” carried. (Bill 46)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act to Amend the Water Resources Act. (Bill 46)

SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

J. HOGAN: Tomorrow.

SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 46 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Motion 6.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I move seconded by the Minister for Municipal and Provincial Affairs that notwithstanding Standing Order 9, this House shall not adjourn at 5 p.m. on Wednesday, November 15, 2023, but shall continue to sit for the conduct of Government Business, and if not earlier, the Speaker shall adjourn the House at midnight.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Motion 7.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I move pursuant to Standing Order 11(1) that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, November 16, 2023.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 2.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I move seconded by the Minister for Municipal and Provincial Affairs that

An Act to Amend the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, Bill 60, be now read a third time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 60 be now read a third time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act to Amend the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act. (Bill 60)

SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, “An Act to Amend the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 60)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I move seconded by the Minister for Municipal and Provincial Affairs that this House do now recess.

SPEAKER: This House do stand recessed until 2 this afternoon.

Recess

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

Before we begin this afternoon, in the Speaker's gallery, I would like to welcome the Commander of 5 Wing Goose Bay, Lieutenant Colonel Aleem Sajan and Chief Master Warrant Officer Paul Mooney.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: In the public gallery, I'd like to welcome Jim Hickey Jr. and his daughter Jasmine Hickey. They are family members of Jim and Ann Hickey, who will be recognized this afternoon in a Member's statement.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Also in the public gallery, I'd like to welcome our former Sergeant-at-Arms, Wayne Harnum and his wife Diane.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Finally, in the public gallery, I would like to recognize Ken Drover, Sherri Hiscock and Steven Forward. They are here this afternoon to be recognized in a Ministerial Statement.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

SPEAKER: Today, we'll hear statements by the hon. Members for the District of Mount Pearl - Southlands, Mount Pearl North, Placentia - St. Mary's, St. Georges - Humber, Placentia West - Bellevue and Bonavista with leave.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to rise in this hon. House to recognize several outstanding young people in my community.

The 2023 Mount Pearl Focus on Youth Awards was a tremendous success and highlighted the great talent, athleticism and intellectual ability possessed by some very amazing youth. These individuals included: Mount Pearl's Youths of the Year, Alexander Fahey and Grace Lee; Youth Volunteer of the Year, Alexander Corbett; Youth Athletes of the Year, Kailey Murrin and Chris Weeks; Sport Team of the Year, Mount Pearl Senior High girls under 15, tier 2, Soccer Team; the RNC Youth in Service Award winner, Alexander Fahey; the S.T.E.M.

Award winner, Eric Goulding; Youth Group of the Year, O'Donel High First Responders; Performing Arts Individual Award winner, Summer Bennett; Visual Arts Award winner, Argeline Cabral; and Literary Arts Award winner, Brianna Fleming.

There were also performing arts recognition awards presented to O'Donel High Drama Club and the Mount Pearl Senior High production, Into the Woods .

I ask all Members to join me in congratulating these amazing youth on their accomplishments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

L. STOYLES: Speaker, I stand today to recognize another successful business in my district.

Marlene and Wade Hickey started their company, Hot Frost, out of the basement of their home in 2007. Over 16 years later, they have seen their business grow from a small family business to a very successful business in the District of Mount Pearl North. They now have 20 full-time employees. Their staff have been recognized by clients to be extremely helpful and efficient, all while providing quality work. Their professional customer service is certainly one of the main reasons for their success.

Just this past year, they were awarded the Canadian Daikin Dealer of the Year. This business is located on Topsail Road and still has a welcoming family atmosphere.

Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in saying congratulations to Marlene and Wade Hickey on their success.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Placentia - St. Mary's.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Speaker, today the Port of Argentia is a heavy industrial seaport located on the southeastern portion of Newfoundland and Labrador in the Town of Placentia. It was formerly the site of a US naval base.

As a child growing up in Placentia, I associated the base, as we called it, with watermelon and bowling. In the '60s and '70s, it provided economic opportunities for the area and today it continues to do just that for the province. Argentia is being redeveloped with a diverse group of port users and tenants providing support services to key industry sectors such as marine transportation, renewable energy, aquaculture, offshore oil, mining and wind energy.

The Port of Argentia is North America's first and only monopile marshalling port in support of US energy transition. Argentia's strategic location and proximity to US offshore wind developments are key factors in securing contracts to receive offshore wind foundation monopiles for laydown and storage. Utilizing its existing infrastructure and vast land assets, the port has dedicated over 70 hectares of paved runways within two kilometres of waterfront to monopile marshalling.

Congratulations to the 34 board and staff members who are successfully managing the Port of Argentia's activity and growth.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. George's - Humber.

S. REID: Speaker, the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador is the province's highest honour and recognizes individuals that demonstrated excellence and achievement in any field of endeavour benefiting in an exemplary way the province and its residents.

I rise today to recognize the achievements of Andrus Voitk, one of this year's recipients who lives in the District of St. George's - Humber. Since his retirement, Mr. Voitk rediscovered a childhood interest in natural history and pursued a curiosity about fungi.

While president of the Humber Natural History Society, h e sought out a group of like-minded enthusiasts and organized the first annual mushroom foray in 2003, which evolved into the provincial mushroom club: Foray Newfoundland and Labrador.

From this beginning, over the past 20 years, FNL has recorded almost 2,000 species of fungi native to Newfoundland and Labrador, with the help of the Grenfell Campus of Memorial University. Over the years, Mr. Voitk, along with his wife, has received many awards and recognitions for their work and publications.

I ask all Members of this House to join me in recognizing the contributions of Andrus Voitk and his wife Marie to the study of natural history in this province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: Thank you, Speaker.

Today, I stand in his hon. House to recognize Anne and Jim Hickey of Terrenceville, the owners of A&J Mini Mart, for celebrating 60 years in business.

They started in 1963, with $700 worth of merchandise, picked up in St. John's in their taxi, as there were no deliveries to Terrenceville.

While Jim was busy as a taxi driver, Anne managed the store and took care of the passengers while they waited for the coastal boat to leave. They were both actively involved in the community of Terrenceville, providing employment and community support to many organizations.

Anne and Jim both have fond memories of owning and operating their business built with long hours, determination and dedication. They have lived their lifetime in Terrenceville, raising their family and are proud to say their lifetime of hard work continues to provide employment opportunities for residents of their community and region.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members of the 50th General Assembly to join me in congratulating Anne and Jim Hickey on their business success and their contributions to Terrenceville and the surrounding area.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista, with leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: On behalf of the residents of the District of Bonavista, I thank my hon. colleagues for leave.

In 1723, Reverend Henry Jones took up residence in Bonavista – the first Church of England clergy to take up residence in Newfoundland and Labrador.

This assignment was likely the first of five to be founded in North America at the time. In 1726, Reverend Jones built the first church school in the province at Bonavista, and in 1736 the Christ Anglican Church was erected.

Today, Wednesday, November 15, a celebratory event is happening in Christ Anglican Church in Bonavista with a supper at 5 p.m. and Holy Eucharist at 7 p.m., with a reconciliation and healing purpose. Archbishop Chris Harper of the National Indigenous Anglican Council will be presiding.

A smudging ceremony will be conducted which acknowledges the historic spiritual event of our First Nations. Archbishop John Watton of the Central Diocese will also be attending. Although the Bonavista area did not have major interactions with the Beothuk, the congregation strongly feel the reconciliation theme is quite appropriate and timely.

I ask Members of the 50th House of Assembly to join me in celebrating Christ Anglican Church in Bonavista during this milestone event.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my hon. colleague for slapping my arm when we get going here.

I'm very pleased to stand and rise in this hon. House to highlight the launch of the public engagement process for two new proposed Climate Change Action Plans in Newfoundland and Labrador.

In 2019, we released the first provincial Climate Change Action Plan, and I am pleased to say we have taken action on all 45 items identified within this plan.

These efforts, together with reduction emission targets for large industry, have lowered greenhouse gas emissions to 8.3 million tons a year – the second lowest on record and well below the 10 million tons per year average over the past decade.

Building on this success, we are now developing two new action plans for the 2025 to 2030 period.

The Climate Change Mitigation Plan aims to reduce greenhouse gas emission to achieve the province's 2030 greenhouse gas reduction targets, establish foundational actions for net-zero emissions by 2050 and support the transition to low-carbon economy.

The Climate Change Adaptation Action Plan will focus on actions to adapt to the impacts of climate change, such as increased flooding and wildfires. This will be the first stand-alone climate change adaptation strategy for our province.

Public engagement in developing these plans is important to ensure that they reflect the priorities of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in building and supporting resilience and prosperous communities that are sustainable for future generations. I encourage everyone to visit engagenl.ca to participate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Thank you Speaker, and I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

In the interest of being completely accurate, the previous PC government, on August 16, 2011, started implementing two action plans to address climate change: Charting Our Course: Climate Change Action Plan 2011 and Moving Forward: Energy Efficiency Action Plan 2011 . These plans were built on the 2007 Energy Plan, which was another PC action plan to address climate change.

Obviously, this government doesn't like to talk about those action changes, but they had enormous positive impact on our province's reduction in emissions. We welcome actions, if they actually work, to reduce emissions, help us adapt to the changing climate and to help mitigate the impacts of climate changes that are already happening.

That means such things as ensuring water bombers are in good repair and properly crewed in time for forest fire seasons – something the government failed to do, despite the warnings they received