PDF Version

March 20, 2019

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 59

The

House met at 10 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Admit strangers, please.

Order,

please!

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I call from

the Order Paper, Order 7, second reading of Bill 58.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Parliamentary

Secretary for Municipal Affairs and the Environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAGG:

Good morning, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development, that Bill

58 be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 58 entitled,

An Act To Amend The Regional Service Boards Act, 2012, Bill

58, be now read a second time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Regional Service Boards Act,

2012.” (Bill 58)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Parliamentary

Secretary for Municipal Affairs and the Environment.

MR. BRAGG:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is

indeed an honour to stand here this morning to speak on Bill 58,

An Act to Amend

the Regional Service Boards Act, 2012.

I guess

the gist of this act is the importance of the Regional Services Boards and the

ability to appoint a chairperson through the Independent Appointments

Commission.

Mr.

Speaker, again, I'm certainly pleased to stand today and speak to Bill 58, An

Act to Amend the Regional Service Boards Act. With this amendment, we are

proposing to allow the Independent Appointments Commission to make merit-based

recommendations on candidates who serve on regional service boards as

chairpersons.

Mr.

Speaker, that's not taking away anything from anybody who currently serves on

any of these boards. I think there are six or seven of these boards that

currently circulate and work throughout this province, and this is in no way an

act to basically take those people out of these positions. We look at, down the

road, when the time comes for those – when their term of office is up, we will

replace those people on a merit-based system through the Independent

Appointments Commission.

Through

this amendment, the chair appointments will be made by the Lieutenant-Governor

in Council through the IAC that we enacted and we formed in government in 2016.

The regional service board is what we considered a tier-one entity. To that, Mr.

Speaker, it sort of raises our regional service boards to a whole new level. It

brings them up to a level that we recognize their importance throughout the

province. Again, we already realized their importance, but we would just like to

raise their profile a little more.

We're

going to elevate the regional service boards and indicate their priority that

government placed on waste management shared. They're not just waste management,

Mr. Speaker. Regional service boards could reach out and do any number of

things. The waste management is one of the main ones, I think that's been a

focus of most that's been in this province in the beginning, but we're looking

at reaching out and expanding their services. In some cases, they already have –

I'll give you an example of that later on. The Northern Peninsula has reached

out and they've done some work with fire services. We have areas that are doing

work with water treatment and waste water treatment. So the regional service

boards, as it employs, will portray and cover an area of great importance in

this province.

We have

looked at the ongoing implementation of provincial Waste Management Strategy and

in January our government initiated a complete review of this strategy and that

review is ongoing. To continue our work on improving the implementation and

strengthening the waste management system across the province, we are

introducing this bill to increase and enhance the regional service boards – the

selection process.

Again,

Mr. Speaker, we don't want to just be seen as it is taking away from the current

role of the chairperson. We want the chairperson to know how much we appreciate

and value the work they're doing and we're going to enhance that by raising the

profile of that and it will be all done on a merit-based system.

The

current government structure of the regional service boards allows for the board

members to be nominated and elected through the municipal authorities in their

wards. This process will not change through these amendments. Anybody who wants

to serve on the regional service boards, through the ward system, they'll still

be able to do the same thing.

I guess,

Mr. Speaker, I should go back and explain the ward system a little more. The

ward system is set up in such a way, it shows that it's equal throughout the

region, the representation, because without a ward system you may have an area

with a larger town, so the larger town could actually influence a board by

having way more people or representation on the board. But with a ward system,

you break it up into certain areas.

A ward

system, I guess, Mr. Speaker, is not unlike the way we do it in the province. We

have 40 districts that are spread out, based on population and geography, and

the ward system for any region will be basically the same thing.

If you

look at the ward system with Central waste management, one that I'm really

familiar with. Central waste was set up maybe over 20 years ago, and I was a

part of that in the beginning, and it was how to be fair to everyone . We

took in an area – if you can visualize the map of Newfoundland, from Terra Nova

Park to Buchans – then we reached north and we did out around Twillingate and

Fogo Island. We took everything along the Trans-Canada on the north and the

south side of the Trans-Canada, so all of Central Newfoundland. Then how would

we make that fair?

When we sat in those very first meetings talking about the

ward system, how could it be fair for a town like Greenspond to be able to be

represented as a town like Grand Falls? When we developed the ward system, we

did it in such a way that we spread it out throughout the area. The ward system

for Central Newfoundland Waste Management, I know that there are some that we

have combined, but there are others like, I think we have Indian Bay area,

Gander Bay area, Gander, Lewisporte, Botwood has a ward system, Buchans has a

ward system, Point Leamington would have a ward system.

So, you get the picture, Mr. Speaker, of what we're talking

about with the wards. Each individual

section of that region gets fair

representation. When it comes time to go to a meeting, each ward would have one

vote when they go to the meeting. Now, traditionally, the way it was done

through all the wards – and in Central there are 12 wards – through those 12

people there was a chairperson selected.

The way that it's being proposed now, the chairperson – and

there may still be a mechanism after this in which the board can say we

recognize the member for, or the ward number 27 to be a candidate. So they could

recommend their person to the IAC, which would enhance then – so you know then

you have the IAC and you have the wishes of the people that serve.

Now, that wouldn't have to be always the case, but the ward

could also bring in some bylaws where they could enhance someone to bring

forward to the IAC. With the IAC doing the appointments commission, it takes out

any chance then of anything that anybody could see as being skewed as one side

or the other, because it's being done unbiased and an Independent Appointments

Commission.

We feel this would be a great move for all these boards. It

shows them at the tier-two level. It shows the importance to government. It

shows their ability of how they're being seen throughout the province. I'm sure

anyone being recognized for one of those boards and being selected through the

IAC, that's sort of – I don't know if I would say put a feather in your hat, Mr.

Speaker, but it sort of gives you the encouragement, and do you know what? I've

been seen by a group of unbiased people that I am the person to lead this group.

So I see where we can get great leadership ;

again, not that we don't have great leadership there now, but it's a way to

promote great leadership down the road.

again, current chairs will serve their term on the IAC and no, they would not be

replacing them until their term in office is up. Municipal councils, local

service district members who are elected to the regional service boards will

still be eligible to serve as chair, but it won't be the same process. It will

be the process where they will apply, through the Independent Appointments

Commission, to be selected.

Through

that, they can have their peers in that group as a part of their reference, as a

part of their résumé going up, those people can really say, you know what, I

really think the member for Ward 27 is the right person for this job and here's

our reasons why, but the Independent Appointments Commission would make the

final in saying that.

So the

provincial government places significant value on the hard work and dedication

of the regional service boards. Their work has been an integral part of the

implementation of the strategy over the past number of years, and the proposed

amendments do not affect the current chairs, but commences when the new

appointments are made for the next term.

I can't

say that enough, Mr. Speaker, because I'm sort of afraid, through this bill,

that people may get the illusion that every chair of every regional service

board, their term will become null and void overnight. That is not the case.

They will work out their term of office. Because we do not want the current

board chairs to think that their job is affected, that they're sort of under the

gun at any moment, that they are the people that are going to serve their term

out. Now, if they choose to step down before that, that's entirely on their own;

but, right now, every term of office for every board chair is pretty well

designed. Everyone, by the way, if they have to follow their constitution, you

would now when your term of office is up.

Our

government is committed to improving the delivery of quality programs and

service to all regions in the province. We are working to achieve local

government sustainability, and this includes supporting regional co-operative

initiatives. We continue to work with the regional service boards and

stakeholders to ensure that they are able to move forward with the work, cost

efficient, transparent and sustainable. And depending on the region in question,

this could include fire services, water and waste water operators, in addition

to waste management services.

So we

see the regional service board being able to expand their role. As I said

before, I'm pretty sure there are seven in the province. I may be corrected on

that, but most of these seven would be set up to cover waste management.

If you

look at our province, we are looking at, on any given day, 120 to 150 boil

orders. The minister has instilled in me to look at the regional concept of

governing of our towns. Well, a regional service board may be able to assist us

in that because there is nothing worse than going in – and most people may not

look at a boil order as a bad thing, Mr. Speaker, but if a boil order can be

prevented, if through some sort of regional service board we can get a

reasonable operator that can go in and can eliminate even half of the boil

orders in this province, what a great benefit that would be for our residents.

We need

to look at the regional service boards as being able to expand their role to

offer services. We have a lot of small, unincorporated areas, areas that – I

don't know if I would call them cabin areas, but people who are living sort of

off the grid, outside of the reaches of towns. So there are services that need

to reach those people.

It's

something that maybe our regional services board – and on the Northern Pen,

Eastern Regional Service Board here on the Northeast Avalon, they have expanded

their services to what they're looking at. We have a regional water service

board, waste water, but the Northern Pen – I go back to the Northern Peninsula,

they've taken on fire services.

A while

ago, we met with the fire services committee and they realized their problem of

attracting – their retention and recruitment of their volunteer firefighters and

so they're looking at a way to co-operate, to work with neighbouring towns,

neighbouring fire departments.

What a

better way than the example of the Northern Pen. They have two fire halls. They

have three fire trucks. They have a fire rescue truck with the jaws of life and

they have approximately 30 firefighters. They've seen the need to bring that

together, to make something happen on the Northern Peninsula to give the people

who live there the confidence that when a fire department is called, when

there's an accident, that they know there's going to be a qualified person

that's going to come forward to their area that's going to provide the first

responder treatment that they need.

What a

great example. Without it, on their own, maybe the fire departments would – I

don't know if they would fall apart, but they wouldn't be as reliable as what

they are now. So the Northern Pen encourages this regional fire department

(inaudible). So they have the support of the people up there and what a great

way to do things around this province.

Again,

there are so many fire departments that are struggling out there and everybody

expects when they call the fire department to hear

Chicago Fire that's coming to their door, but it's your neighbour

that is your volunteer firefighter. So if we could regionalize some of those

services for better training, because training is also the most important thing

out there for any volunteer group, so if we could get the training brought in.

So the

scope and the ability of the regional service boards, to mem they're sort of

unlimited. You wouldn't want them to take over the control of the government,

obviously, but you would certainly want them to provide the service in the

region in which they're set up.

I know

some of the Members opposite smile over that and said that would make our job a

little easier, no doubt, but the regional service board is certainly something

that our government supports. It's something that I think has a great future.

Their ability to go forward and provide services in areas that would normally

not see these services are very important. The appointment of their chairs, we

cannot underestimate the importance of the appointment of those chairs.

If the

appointment of these chairs are done through the Independent Appointments

Commission what a better way to promote their full profile. Let's say we're

bringing provincial – we're bringing the whole province together. We're looking

at how you guys have done, we're raising the bar to what we think that you guys

are and we're raising your profile.

The

chairperson who steps out and chairs the first regional service board after

being appointed through the Independent Appointments Commission can honestly say

I'm not there because four or five of my friends put me there, I'm there because

the province and the Independent Appointments Commission put me there because

I'm the person for the job. And what a better way to serve a region, to serve

the people that you represent.

Mr.

Speaker, on that note, I'll take my seat and I look forward to the Members

opposite for their comments.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Indeed

it's a pleasure to get up here again today and represent the beautiful District

of Cape St. Francis. As part as of the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis,

we have a number of towns that are in our district that are involved in the

regional service board. They have a representative on the regional service board

that is a representative from all the towns. It gives municipalities a voice, it

gives them a say on how waste management is done in the area and they get a

voice to be able to make sure that the proper waste management is done through

all the communities.

This

bill today changes the process. I recognize the Member for Fogo Island - Cape

Freels and understand what he's saying there today, but I disagree with him

wholeheartedly on what's happening here today, because this appointment of a

chair is done by individual communities.

What

happens in my area is communities have an opportunity to select a representative

to put on the board. So each community, the towns get together and they look at

the representation that's there. People put their names forward and they get an

opportunity to get on that board. They're representing towns like Torbay, which

is where the representative is from now today, but that town also – the

representative on that board represents Flatrock, represents Bauline, represents

Pouch Cove, and represents Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove. So it's an

opportunity for these towns to have a say.

Now, if

that representative is one of a group of people that also – in the whole area –

comes together and they look at a person they'd like to have as chair of that

board. Now these are municipalities in our province that have a voice in our

province, and what's done here today is we've changed their voice. We gave them

no voice. So right off the bat, it's not going to be done. They're not going to

have a selection. They're not going to be the people that are going to be able

to select their chair, which they should be.

The hon.

Member says it's going to go to the Independent Appointments Commission. Well,

let me tell you, the Independent Appointments Commission is not the final say.

They'll suggest somebody; they give a suggestion to Cabinet but we'll never know

who Cabinet actually decides who is going to be the person that's going to be

chair of this. We'll never know. It won't be the Independent Appointments

Commission. They'll give a suggestion. We don't know what Cabinet will want to

do.

Now

you're putting it into political hands, and they have a choice. It could be a

friend, it could be a former member. It could be anyone they want to have as the

person to chair that. The choice that was given before as communities –

municipalities in this province had a choice. They made their selection, and now

it's gone to the political part.

I spoke

to a member of one of the councils down my way last night, and he said this is

unbelievable that government would do this. This was a great process that was in

place. It gave us the opportunity to select, to have a voice in how the waste

management was done in our province and government is taking it away. It's

unbelievable. He said, I can't believe they're doing this and I don't understand

why they're doing it.

Now I

guess there is some hidden agenda here that maybe we don't see, but the

chairperson is currently elected by the regional representatives, our people,

councillors who are on this municipal board. They have a choice to make, and

they are elected by the people in their municipalities. Then the municipalities

get together; they are the ones that elect. So I don't know what's wrong with

the process right now.

Then to

say that, okay, it's the Independent Appointments Commission and that person can

go to the Independent Appointments Commission like any other person. Sure, but

at the end of the day, it's government that will decide who the chairperson is.

It's not the Independent Appointments Commission, it's not at all. Sure, they

can suggest somebody, they can advise – in the legislation it says they will

advise Cabinet – but they don't get to select. The Cabinet will – at the end of

the day, it will be done by the government party of the day to select who the

chairperson for the regional service board is.

As I

spoke to one of the municipal leaders last night, I agreed with what the person

was telling me, that this process – he sees that there was some head-butting, he

called it, with government and the service boards right now. Again, he said that

municipalities across the province were in favour of the way this was done. He,

especially as a leader, municipal leader – every year they get a report from the

representative on that board.

So now

government has their hands right in and they're going to be the people that are

going to decide who the chairperson is, what the board's direction is going to

be, and it's not going to be the municipalities. The way this was supposed to be

set up in the first place was to let the municipalities in the province have a

voice, and he felt last night that their voices were going to be taken away by

this appointments commission.

Mr.

Speaker, regional service boards – and I agree with the Member, the

parliamentary secretary for Municipal Affairs. I agree, they play a very

important role. They play a very important role. He mentioned firefighting

services, and we look in this province – and it's probably something we should

be doing is regionalization with some fire services in the province. Whether

that chair is appointed by government or appointed by municipalities, I think

that makes a big difference, because at least it'll give municipalities a say in

the way fire protection is delivered. It'll give them a say in what's being done

with our fire protection, and that's what they want.

Municipalities in this province want to be heard. They want to have their

voices, go to government and say: listen, these are our concerns, we have a

problem. He mentioned the Northern Peninsula and different fire services that

are available.

I look

in my area, and right now we have two fantastic volunteer firefighting

communities. Pouch Cove, which does Pouch Cove and Bauline; Torbay, which helps

service Flatrock. Those services are important. Now they have agreements amongst

themselves, and they back each other up. In some cases – for example, Torbay has

a water truck. There are some areas in other communities where there are no

hydrants, obviously, and it's important that that truck, if it's needed, gets

called. They have this agreement among themselves.

So the

region itself can help each other, and that's what we want to see in this. We

want to see some regionalization. We don't want to see duplicating of services

that are not necessary. If there's a piece of equipment that's available on the

Northern Peninsula in one community and the other community, that's what the

boards are there to set up.

These

are elected representatives. It's better to let them make the decisions and see

how things are done rather than for government, because sometimes political

choices get put in the way. That's what happens when we have appointments,

whether government appoints them or municipalities. At least when the

municipalities appoint, that's their choice of a person for the chair.

Mr.

Speaker, again, the people who serve on these boards – and I know the Member

said the same thing I'm going to say now – they put a lot of time and effort

into serving on these boards and they do a great job. Most municipal leaders in

this province are volunteers, and they put in a lot of time. I know being a

former mayor myself of a town, and it was only a small town, but it takes a lot

of time. It's a lot of stuff that'll happen in your town that are really – it's

a different level than what we deal with here provincially.

Municipal politicians are different. They're your neighbours. They're the people

on your side. They're people you grew up with. It's your community, and it's a

whole different way to represent them. To be a volunteer – and I applaud every

municipal leader in this province for doing what they do.

Then a

person who volunteers to go on the regional service board, they step up to the

plate, too. I know the lady that's the representative from my area, she's been a

councillor now for 26 years or 27 years, I think it is, and for her to step up

and work on this committee shows what she's doing for her whole area, and she

represents it well.

I really

don't understand why we want to do this. I think I know why we want to do this,

but I don't know what the impact of the changes are going to have on the

delivery of services. Because the impact of the changes will give the direction

of what government wants to do with the person that they select. Now, granted, I

hope that it's done through the Independent Appointments Commission, and I hope

it'll be done through a person that may be selected from municipalities in the

area. It could be that person, but you're taking away from the voice of

communities in our province. You're taking away their selection and putting it

in the hands of government, which could be political. It could be wanting to do

what direction government wants to lead in rather than the direction that the

municipalities want to lead to.

Again,

the chairperson, whoever gets elected for the regional service board, I hope

they do a fantastic job. I don't know why you want to make this change. Why does

government want to get in and run these boards? I don't know. They can be advice

to government but it's better left in the hands of our municipal leaders in this

province that are on the ground and want to do what they want to do to represent

their communities.

Thank

you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

MS. P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

always a pleasure to speak to legislation, of course, that we pass here in the

House of Assembly and it's always a great honour to represent the people of

Harbour Grace - Port de Grave District. I say it's a strong district.

perspective that I'm bringing to this – the hon. Member, my colleague, who I

respect and consider a friend across the way here, just made a point about

taking away the voices of people throughout the province and whatnot. Well,

having said that, the perspective that I want to speak to, in this bill, is that

was exactly what happened with regard to the current process that was just in

place. I'm going to speak on behalf of cabin owners.

Cabin

owners, of course, in my district and in the region, in particular the area of

the Old Track, it's an unserviced road but they were getting charged with a $180

hefty fee annually in an unserviced area. Some of these areas are not even

accessible year-round. This is something – you want to talk about taking away

voices. Well, I say to the hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, that the voices of these

cabin owners were taken away. I mean, they tried to implement a one size fits

all with regard to the garbage tax or the trash tax.

I also

have to commend the group COATT that have come together. You want to talk about

democracy; we saw democracy exercised in its right with this group of citizens

who've come together. They took the initiative. You want to talk about

volunteers; they're also volunteers and they spent a lot of time coordinating

meetings with government.

I also

invited the chair at the time and the executive director of the Eastern Regional

Service Board to my district some years ago. When I first became elected, this

was an issue that was brought to my attention. I took the initiative; I got

these officials out in the District of Harbour Grace - Port de Grave. We

actually held a meeting at the Spaniard's Bay Legion and it was an opportunity

where I could bring these cabin owners together face to face with these

officials who make these decisions.

I'm

speaking on behalf of the people I represent, but they said this is simply not

fair. It's not fair to go and to implement a fee for areas – and I'm told, by

cabin owners, that the service wasn't even offered in the areas. Talk about

picking up garbage – well, people have been watching. People have been setting

up their own cameras, their own monitoring devices. They say they simply didn't

get the service, yet being charged for the service. Having to go to the Small

Claims Court, Mr. Speaker, and spending money out of their own pocket. Most of

these residents are already paying municipal bills, hefty municipal bills each

year, of course, for the taxes and services provided by the municipalities in

which we all live. We all know, of course, we have to pay these fees.

I want

to commend everyone who comes forward as a municipal leader, a municipal

councillor, certainly volunteer firefighters because they are relentless in what

they do for our communities. So, I don't think anybody is taking away from those

efforts and that dedication. I have, I would argue, the strongest volunteers in

my district, in Harbour Grace - Port de Grave, among firefighters, municipal

leaders there, committee leaders; you name it, run the gamut.

I just

wanted to get up and say this because it's something that I've spent a lot of

time on with my colleagues here in this House – certain colleagues who will also

be speaking to this act –

An Act to Amend the Regional Service Boards Act, 2012,

Bill 58, I think it's very important. I commend the minister for the changes

that were made just recently with regard to taking away this $180 robbery, I'll

say, Mr. Speaker. I think it's robbery to be charging these cabin owners that

fee and, again, not being offered the service, not being able to access these

areas year-round. The Old Track is not even accessible for six months of the

year. So, it's not a one size fits all. It's my understanding that service

boards across the province work with their people in other parts of the

province, in other regions, and I want to see that happen here.

So, as

you can appreciate, my priority is the constituents I represent and I will

always voice their concerns and I will do everything in fairness. Of course, no

one is saying we don't want to be fair. Of course, we want to be fair. We want

to exercise our democracy, but I felt it very important to get up and say that.

Again, I commend the changes made. We're getting positive feedback from the

districts, again, the cabin owners in the Old Track –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Some order, please.

MS. P. PARSONS:

– Suttons Pond, Spread Eagle,

in the neighbouring District of Carbonear - Trinity - Bay de Verde and I look

forward to this healthy debate but, again, I commend this change.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. P. PARSONS:

I'm proud of what our

government has done with this change.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. P. PARSONS:

And again, it is an honour to

represent the people of Harbour Grace - Port de Grave. Mr. Speaker, I will

always get up and represent them and what's fair to them and their concerns.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a

pleasure to get up and speak on this piece of legislation. It's not a deep piece

of legislation, but it got a lot of meaning when you're changing the process

that was in place to appoint a chair. We're opening up the

Regional Service Boards Act, 2012. Basically we're changing the

policy, how you appoint a chair. Now, we're going to do it through the IAC as

opposed to what was previously in place with the board. '

Mr.

Speaker, my colleague from Cape St. Francis alluded to the communities, and he's

absolutely right. But one piece that he never said was those communities are

represented by elected officials. Those elected officials sit on this board.

They make up the regional service board. Those elected officials are duly

elected by the residents in each individual community. That's democracy. That's

how democracy works. They, in turn, then sit on the board and they speak for the

people they represent. No different than every Member in this House of Assembly.

We're elected by the people to do the job we're elected to do. They're elected

by individual communities and one of their roles is to sit on the regional

service board.

In 2017,

Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador opposed the former minister's request

to have the IAC appoint a chair. There was a lot of pushback at MNL and they

backed away from it. The board – which they had the authority to do and elected

by the people – appointed the chair; and that is a true form of democracy.

Now, in

the last number of years – most of us here on the Avalon Peninsula, we have

cabin owners. As recently as 8:30 this morning, I was having conversations and I

understand their argument. I don't get on the public sites and play politics

with it, I just speak to them individually and I get emails and phone calls and

meetings and what have you, because I feel that's the best way of dealing with

it. It's a dicey issue, Mr. Speaker, but it's not one that I don't think anyone

here has shied away from is how you handle it. You deal with your constituents

as need be.

What you

can't help but notice and feel with this here is this is being driven by a group

and the government is playing politics with this. There is nothing more certain

in my mind that the government is playing politics with changing this

legislation, because the system that was there worked. People may not have liked

the chair, and that's not getting into the issue, that's outgoing, that's

ongoing, the trash tax issue, I'm not talking about that issue. I'm talking

about the process.

This

person was duly appointed by duly-elected people. You have an opportunity, if

you have a problem, deal with the board on it. I've spoke to the board many

times. I've gone directly to the board. I've spoken to elected members who sit

on that board and I've expressed my concerns with this overall trash tax. I

didn't get on COATT and do it. I went to the board members. I went to the people

working there. I've had debates with all those people and they've been

colourful, some have been argumentative, but that's what I'm elected to do.

That's what democracy is about. That's what these people are put there for.

Now,

we're going to change it. We don't like the outcomes. We don't like how this is

done. We're going to control this. Isn't that what we were told we were getting

away from? Isn't that what this government came in on? They were getting away

from doing that sort of thing. Is that what they campaigned on? Really, it is

truly what they campaigned on? They were removing all that stuff. Now they're

gone backwards, but they're going to do it under the guys at IAC.

Now, we

all know, we've heard it now for going on four years what the IAC does. Fair

enough, and no disrespect to the members who sit on the IAC; it's the process,

Mr. Speaker. We know that they don't have to accept what comes up. The final

decision is made by Cabinet, and we know how that works. The names come up. We

don't like them. We like this person. End of story. Done.

We'll

never know, we don't know who came up. We don't know who was sent back. We don't

know that, but it was picked by the IAC, but, in essence, it can be picked by

Cabinet. So, then you can control over this board.

I'm not

opposed to government having some control over boards that make decisions that

affect the residents of the province. There's a part of me feels that government

needs to have some sort of leverage there, should things go off the rails.

That's what this place is for. It's the Legislature. You come in, you change

legislation if you feel stuff is not working, but what you're doing here is,

you're not changing the legislation to make it a better system, you're changing

the legislation so you can put your person in charge to make decisions that you

want them to make.

Control

is what it is, Mr. Speaker. It's control. It's not fixing a problem, it's

controlling the outcomes, because regardless of personalities, and park all of

that at the door and park this issue of the trash tax at the door, too, that's

decided by this board that's made up of duly-elected members who, up until after

this legislation goes through, appointed the chair.

That

process, I think, was a fair process. If you didn't like the chair, that's

something that we have no control over. That's something that's picked by this

board and if they didn't like the process or didn't like how the chair operated,

they got a place to do that. Right now, you're dealing with a situation where,

you haven't liked what's happening, you haven't liked the response you're

getting, therefore, you're going to take it upon yourself, you're going to bring

power and control and you're going to bring in a new chair.

fast-forward now. We get this legislation through, government appoints the chair

of their choice and they bring in a policy that's not sitting well with the

cabin owners, that's not sitting well with a lot of residents. How are they

dealing with it then? Because that's the goal.

You're

in an election year, quiet the masses, please everybody. That's what's happening

here, and anyone to think any other got their head in the sand because that's

the reality. I'm not out against any one group in particular, I support all

their causes. I agree, cabin owners make some valid points. They do.

There's

another side of that argument too. There are people who live there year-round.

They're quieter, they have concerns. I feel we have to try to find a compromise

in this review that's going to take until after the election to complete, and we

don't know what the costs will come in on that review. When that's done, I guess

we'll answers, but that's going to be after the election.

another point, Mr. Speaker, we heard last week who is doing the review. It's not

going to be cheap work, but we're looking forward to the outcomes, but it's

going to happen after the election. So, after the election the review comes back

and you say: This process that was in place was a fair process, we're going back

to that policy.

I spoke

to a constituent of mine this morning and I told him, I'm not afraid to tell

them the truth sometimes, unlike some people on the government side.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Order,

please!

MR. PETTEN:

I don't mind telling my

constituents the truth, Mr. Speaker. I wish Members on the other side would be

upfront with their (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. PETTEN:

I don't tell them what they

want to hear, Mr. Speaker, I tell them what I truly believe.

Now, I

can play politics and say, oh, you're right, you're right, you're right, but I

don't, but I do agree with both sides. I see the merits on both sides of the

argument. You have to do it efficiently. It has to be cost effective. It has to

make sense, Mr. Speaker. You have to look after everyone's interest.

Not the

group that's really outspoken – and credit to them, hats off to them, they've

made their stake. SOPAC did the same thing on the moose licence stuff. They're

lobbyist groups, they deserve to be acknowledged for what they've done. They've

made a great point, they've rallied together. I know a lot of these COATT

members, I know a lot of these people individually. Hats off to them, I'm not

knocking them, but you have to make decisions that make sense, Mr. Speaker. You

have to make decisions that make sense, not just to please a certain group. Make

a decision that makes sense for all.

You got

livyers, you got cabin owners and you got seasonal. You got all a mixed bag.

There are some people who want user-pay, there are some people who don't mind

paying the full amount and they all want different things.

We have

a review that's happening, maybe they'll come back and it'll appease all groups.

I hope they do, I really do, because I believe there are valid arguments on all

sides.

To be

getting into doing this now and changing your chair. For what? Because there's

an election, the clock is ticking toward an election. Get this done, get it in

the bag, we have them all pleased. After the election is over, next year they'll

come back and say: Everything is fine the way it was, everything is fine, we're

going back to what we had. So you have four years to let them appease themselves

again.

I'm not

so certain that's not what's going to happen. No one is telling me any other.

This is buying time to get you past the election, because I know, when I knocked

on doors – and Members opposite probably did too because I know they were having

meetings, it was on their Facebook. They're having meetings with the cabin

owners and the board over the cabin trash tax issue.

colleague from Topsail - Paradise, when we knocked on doors in his district, we

heard a lot of people were very fed up and frustrated with this trash tax, the

lack of action government was taking. They were frustrated with how they were

being treated.

knocked on doors and I listened to them, I heard what they said. I didn't

disagree with one word they said because everyone has a right to express their

views. If they don't agree with something, that's their prerogative. They go to

the ballot box and mark an X, but government then was feeling the pressure; they

were feeling the pinch. They were having meetings. There were messages coming

out from ministers, we're changing it. Stay tuned we're making adjustments to it

in the dying days of the election.

Is that

not political, Mr. Speaker? Is that as raw a politics you're going to get? Now,

they're changing the chair. They don't want this chair anymore. He resigned

yesterday but this process was in place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. PETTEN:

We're going to bring the

hammer down now, we're going to put the person –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. PETTEN:

– in who we want to make

decisions.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I remind

the Members, we have somebody speaking.

MR. PETTEN:

That's the issue we're

talking about, Mr. Speaker. This is a minor – this is not a big piece of

legislation. You're making a change but the change you're making is sending the

wrong message. When you're sending the wrong message, you're sending the wrong

message because the people who sit on this board are elected by individual

communities throughout this province.

On the

Eastern Regional Service Board – I live in CBS, members of my town council do,

my colleagues from Paradise, St. John's, Torbay, they all sit on these boards.

They were elected by us to represent, and the cabin owners, the livyers and the

residents of all these communities, to represent them, not only for trash tax

issues, for all of their regional service issues. Robin Hood Bay, obviously, is

ran by them. They can make all these decisions.

question to the government opposite: Who is running the regional service board?

Truly, who is running it? They want to run it, obviously.

They

didn't like the outcomes. I didn't like the outcomes. Did I ever think for a

second we need to go in and trash the chair and change the policy how we pick a

chair?

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. PETTEN:

No. Do I like what government

does everyday? No. Did I like what government did when it was my party who was

in power? No. But that's democracy, Mr. Speaker. That is democracy and that's

telling the honest truth. That's being honest with people.

I've

never once shied away from the fact, if I didn't like something, I don't like

it. I don't sugar coat stuff, Mr. Speaker. I'm as straight a shooter as you're

going to get. If I don't agree with something, I don't agree with it. Ask my

colleagues, they'll tell you. The truest words ever said. I'm not argumentative

but I don't mind saying: I don't agree with this, the way I see it. Sorry, I

respect your opinion, that's my opinion.

I'm the

same way with my constituents and I think they respect that too, but when I see

stuff like this, I'll be honest, Mr. Speaker, it kind of galls me because that's

not the way the system should be. That's not the way the system should be.

They

were going around, they were chasing themselves the last two years. They were

meeting with the cabin owners. They were going away, they were coming back. They

were in this group, they were all over God's creation, until finally a decision

came down.

I spoke

to a person who sits on a board – an elected member who sits on that board, and

they're very frustrated. They are upset. They feel government has drove the bus

clearly over them. That was the words that was used by a member who sits on this

board. A duly elected member, by the way, Mr. Speaker.

They

feel that government – that was their words not mine, the government drove the

bus over them. I challenge Members opposite to tell me if they were in that same

boat, they wouldn't feel that way. When it was told me I said, I agree with you;

I hear you. I'd feel that way, too. It's a total lack of respect for the board

members that sit there, Mr. Speaker.

Again,

separating ourselves from the issue that's out there on a day-to-day basis, the

issue of cabin owners, we all get that. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking

about the process and the respect that's being shown by government to this

elected board that sit there and govern this regional service board. There's

zero respect, Mr. Speaker.

Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador strongly opposed government interfering

with the IAC. In 2017, government then backed away, but the heat has cranked up

in the last two years, now they're stepping in. No consultation with the board.

The board was not told; all of a sudden this legislation is coming down the

chute.

The

letter came out, a board member – I think I shared it with one of the board

members, a letter from the minister about the changes that were coming. Is that

respect? Is that how you treat your board members that are elected by the

residents in each municipality? That's democracy, Mr. Speaker. Is that respect?

No. They are there because of democracy, but they're not being treated with

respect by this government that was duly elected. So where do we go? What's all

this about? What's the end result?

The end

result is you're putting someone there that will make decisions you want them to

make, because your clock is ticking towards an election. We're going to get a

review that's going to come out next year and I won't be surprised when that

review comes out next year we're not going to hear that this existing system may

need a little bit of tinkering, but it may very well have to go back to what it

was – because there's a cost, Mr. Speaker. I've been told that when I inquired

on behalf of constituents of mine. There's a cost. There are dumping fees.

There's a spread-out cost to all residents.

If you

cut back the revenue coming out of cabin owners, you're going to increase the

revenue on residents in each municipality. So you're going to appease one group

and you're going to make another group angry. That's when I say you have to make

a decision that's going to be fair to all groups. It's hard to do sometimes in

government or any board or any organization, is trying – you have to be fair,

though, Mr. Speaker. You have to be as fair and as open as possible. What I'm

seeing now, I don't know if it's fair. I don't know what it's going to be. It's

all up in the air.

We have

this review that's ongoing, that's going to take, again, until after the

election. We don't know where we are. I've talked to all parties involved and I

tell you, they may be appeasing a certain group, and good for them if they're

appeasing that group, but playing politics and showing lack of respect to

elected members really, really frustrates me, and I think it should frustrate

every person in this province because that's not where we are.

That's

not what this government got elected on. They got elected on openness and

transparency, taking the patriotism out of politics. You name it, they did it

all, but actions have to meet the words. Action need to meet the words, Mr.

Speaker, and they're empty. These promises have been empty. We all seen it.

Go out

and talk to the people on the street. I don't have to repeat myself here, I've

said it many times. They need to come out of this bubble and go out on the

street and listen to the people. I'll tell you, if they go out and listen to the

people, outside a certain group here or there that they feel is pressuring them,

if they go out and talk to the public as a whole, they'll hear it loud and

clear. They want government to govern, not to be interfering, not to be playing

politics every time you look, and we have one after another. We can list off

examples here.

I can go

on forever more, Mr. Speaker, but I'm not going to belabour that anymore today.

I just have to say, this here is raw politics and it's not right. You need to

leave it to the elected members that me and you and everyone in this House

elected to represent them in their regions and let them do the job they were put

there to do and stay out of this.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, I wasn't going

to stand today and speak to this, but hearing Members on the other side, the

hypocrisy of what I've heard. I want to give a little bit of a history lesson

and then I'm going to talk a little bit about the IAC.

The

history lesson, Mr. Speaker, is that prior to June of 2015, in the dying days of

the PC administration, every single member of every single regional service

board was appointed by the minister – appointed by the minister, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, that was up to June of 2015. Every single member was appointed by the

minister – every single member of every single regional service board, and they

want to talk about politics.

Well,

let's have another look at history, Mr. Speaker, because everybody from the head

of the NLC was a political appointment. The head of Nalcor was a political

appointment. The head of Central Health was a political appointment. The Privacy

Commissioner, Mr. Speaker, think about that for a moment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. OSBORNE:

The Privacy Commissioner was

a political appointment. The NLC was a political appointment. Unless you

consider that if you run for the leadership of that party and get appointed to

the NLC, that's not political. I beg to differ.

The

deputy ministers could leave, run political campaigns, get appointed as deputy

minister again, leave, run a political campaign and get appointed as the deputy

minister again. So if we want to talk about politics, Mr. Speaker, let's get

down to the nitty-gritty of who practised political patronage in this province,

because the people who perfected it was the PC Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. OSBORNE:

The PC Party –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. OSBORNE:

– practised political

patronage.

Now, I

want to talk about the IAC, because the absolute insult to the members of the

IAC, Mr. Speaker, the absolute insult to the members of the IAC –and if we want

to have heckling, I'll respond to each and every heckle.

The

Member for Mount Pearl North, Mr. Speaker, blurted out a name. Well, let me tell

you something, Len Simms, was that not a political appointment? Ross Reid, was

that not a political appointment? Ed Martin, was that not a political

appointment? Steve Winter, was that not a political appointment? The list goes

on and on and on. The privileges to having a membership in the club known as the

friends and family of the PC Party were well known in this province, very well

known.

So, Mr.

Speaker, I want to talk a bit about the insult that Members opposite made when

they said there's a hidden agenda, this is very political. I challenge them to

call any of the members of the IAC. They said the IAC can recommend people, but

we don't know for sure if that's who government are choosing. What an insult to

the IAC, because I would suspect that they would resign en masse if we were

practising the politics that the party opposite practised and they accuse us of

practising. The IAC would resign en masse.

question the integrity of people like Clyde Wells and Shannie Duff and Zita Cobb

and Philip Earle, Derek Young, and the new members, Earl Ludlow and Cathy Duke.

I don't think any of those would put up with what they're accusing or suggesting

or the innuendo that they suggest opposite.

Mr.

Speaker, I don't think the integrity of those people would allow them to

continue to sit on a board if they were making recommendations and we were

throwing it out the window and appointing whoever we wanted out of political

patronage. We've had over 200 appointments in this province through a

merit-based, independent process.

If you

want to look at back in 2015, 2014, 2013, Mr. Speaker, the three years that

we've had over 200 appointments made through a merit-based process in this

province, each and every one of those tier-one and tier-two appointments would

be done on a political basis and they have the absolute gall to question the

integrity of the members of the IAC to suggest that they would put up with us

appointing those 200-and-something people through a political process.

That

process was put in place, Mr. Speaker, to clean up what was happening where, if

you're a relative of one of the ministers you'd be appointed to a very high

position or a friend or a party worker. That's not the way it works today. That

is not the way it works today, Mr. Speaker.

Of those

200-and-something appointments, Mr. Speaker, that were not political, they were

merit based and based on qualifications, through the IAC, through the tier-one

and tier-two process, Mr. Speaker. The best people for those jobs were the ones

that were recommended and they were the ones that were appointed. That's what's

happening today.

Mr.

Speaker, I would say, to question the integrity of the members of the IAC, in

and of itself, is despicable, deplorable, political, I would suggest, Mr.

Speaker. I would suggest that that's the case, but the reality here, Mr.

Speaker, is that there's no hidden agenda. The chair of the board will be

appointed through the IAC. Through a very independent process, Mr. Speaker, they

will choose the best people in the province to be chairs of these boards. Not

the people who were serving on the boards selected by the minister in 2015 and

prior but through an independent appointments process we will choose the best

people for these positions, Mr. Speaker, the best people in the province.

People

who are elected to municipal council can still apply for this Independent

Appointments Commission process. People who are not elected to council but have

a vast knowledge and background in waste management and regional services, can

apply through the Independent Appointments Commission process. The Independent

Appointments Commission, the people that I will say have a great deal of

integrity, will determine who the best person to chair that board is. The

remainder of the board members, Mr. Speaker, are still elected and will still go

through that normal process, but the chair, the person who guides this board or

any of the boards throughout the province, will be selected based on

qualifications, on experience and what they can bring to the table. Members of

municipal councils can still apply, and that is the reality here.

So let's

not just throw something at the wall and hope it sticks, because that is

something they are very good at on the other side. We have the cleanest, most

independent process in this province that we have ever, ever seen. So, there's

nothing here, as the Members opposite will suggest, a hidden agenda, or

political, or you never know if they're appointing the people that are

recommended by the IAC or not. I challenge each and every Member opposite to

contact the members of the IAC and ask if the people that are being recommended

by them are the people that are being appointed, because the answer is yes.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm glad

to speak today to Bill 58, an amendment to the Regional Service Boards Act.

Initially, when I looked at this act, I saw it as a simple amendment and

thought, well, there's not going to be anything to this, but then when I sat and

read it carefully and thought about the implications of this amendment, it

became something that was important and serious, and I think the discussion that

has been happening here in the past hour is indicating that.

I don't

want to get into saying what government's motive is. They can figure that one

out themselves and people can figure it out as well. I don't want to get into

laying blame on either one of the parties in this House who've been in

government. I don't want to get into supposing what this is about. I want to

speak to an overall major issue that has been alluded to by my colleagues in the

Official Opposition, but I want to do it more specifically and speak intensely

to it. It has nothing to do with the IAC or people on the IAC. I'm very

disappointed to see the Member for Waterford Valley concentrating on the

personalities of people on the IAC because that's not what this is about at all.

What

really concerns me is that we are losing something that's really important to

the democratic process and that has been alluded to, I think, by the Member for

Cape St. Francis in talking with councillors in his area.

Government is deliberately stepping over the role of the elected representatives

on the regional service board. These are people who come from the

municipalities, as has been pointed out. This is a government that has said that

they are interested in – and the regional services board show it – regional

government. There was a point at which they were talking about regional

government. Regional service boards are a way of municipalities sharing

services, which is a level of regional government without forming another layer

of government. The regional sharing of services is so important as we move

forward in this province.

I don't

want to concentrate on the waste management issue. I think that is a major bone

of contention that has moved what's happened here, but I don't want to

concentrate on that because the role of the regional service board is much more

than waste management. The role of the boards have to do, yes, with waste

management. They also have to do with offering policing services, ambulance

services and animal control services. They also have power with regard to public

transportation. They have powers and responsibilities with regard to offering

regional recreational services and fire services.

The role

of the regional service board is immense and it is a board of municipalities.

That's what this government seems to be forgetting. It's not just any committee.

It's a board of municipalities who are joining together on decision making for

the region when it comes to very particular services. That's part of our

democratic process. It's part of our political process here in this province.

This is what this government is denying by saying they are going to have the

chairperson not chosen by the people who make up these boards, who are elected

from their communities, that it's going to go through a provincial process. I'm

not talking about the provincial process. The provincial process has been

working fine where it should be working. I haven't had complaints to date, but

that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the democratic system in

our province that says the regional services board, which is a board of

municipalities, has its own powers.

I don't

see it. I'm sure government is going to mock this one, but I don't see this to

be any different than government saying that they can appoint the chair of the

committee of a council or of the city. Imagine if they said we're going to make

change to the City of St. John's Act

and the change said that they would have power over who was going to run

committees within the council of St. John's. It's no different.

This

committee, the regional service boards, are elected people from their councils

and have to have the same respect from this government as they do within their

own individual councils. When they are sitting on this board, they are

representing their councils. They are representing the people who elected them

and they have the same responsibilities on this board as they have inside of

their own individual councils.

Now,

this is the issue for me. So there's no way that I can vote for this. The more I

studied it, the more I thought about it, I said this is absolutely ridiculous,

taking away the power from the people who are elected in the regions. As I just

said, I'm sure they'd like to laugh at me when I just made the example that I

did, but it's true; that is the parallel. It's no different saying that

government is going to take control over the chairing of a regional services

board than to say government would want to go in and take control over the chair

of a committee inside of a council. It's exactly the same thing.

If this

government thinks that the sharing of services regionally or looking at

different ways in which that we can operate regionally to maximize who we are in

this province for the good of the people, if they think that's a way in which to

go, then this government has to trust the people who are elected in their

communities to do that. That's what they're not doing with this. They're not

trusting the regional services board to have the knowledge and the will to have

good people as the chair of the board.

They're

not trusting the voice of the people in the districts. That's the part that's

very, very disturbing: the lack of trust of the judgment of the people in the

communities who elect their municipalities, and then those people who sit from

their municipalities on their board, they're not trusting them. They're not

trusting the process.

I'm

shocked. The more I thought about it and the more I really looked at the issue,

I realized that's what's here. They're not trusting. They're not trusting the

process. You just can't turn around because of some incident or some individual

and make a change like this to our democratic process because you feel you may

have lost control over something. Well, you know what? That's democracy. When

people vote, it's the voice of the people that counts.

We all

know that. We're all here because people voted us to be here. We might have

different views about who we'd like to see to be the government – I'm sure we

do. Each party has its own view on that. We may have different views on that,

but ultimately we all say the people's voice rules, the people know best.

They're the ones who've made the decision, and that's the way it is on the

municipal level as well.

We have

our municipalities. We do a Municipalities Act. We do have regulations that are

in place that make for accountability from municipalities. They're not just out

there running roughshod over people. They also have a complete electoral system

that's under our regulation, provincial regulations. So when they speak through

the people they elect, the province then has to trust the voice of the people.

They have to, and what they're doing here – I'm not against the IAC and the IAC

process. I voted for that process when we discussed it here in this House, and I

thought it was a good step towards removing political interference from

appointments where those appointments should be made.

So, I'm

not talking about that process. I'm saying this process shouldn't come under it.

The choice of the chairs of the regional service boards should not come under

the IAC. It doesn't belong there because government doesn't belong in telling

the people from the municipalities how to run their municipalities. If people

vote the people they do vote, then we have to honour that vote. So this is a

lack of respect for the people from the municipalities who are sitting on the

regional boards, it's a lack of respect for the municipalities themselves, and

it's a lack of respect for the voters who put those people in their

municipalities and put them on the board.

So it's

for that reason, Mr. Speaker, and no reason other than that – I have no reason

for getting involved in the waste management debacle that's been talked about. I

have no reason for getting involved and talking about the IAC. I have no reasons

for getting involved and even talking about the cabin owners issue because I

think I may have gotten one message from a constituent in my district about

that.

None of

that is what I'm concerned about. What I'm concerned about is the flying in the

face of our democratic process and the lack of respect for municipal elections

and the role of municipalities.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Warr):

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

MR. BROWNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

certainly a delight to stand, any chance I get to represent the good people of

Placentia West - Bellevue. It's been a fascinating conversation. I say to my

hon. colleague from St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, I think you missed the mark on

some of your comments and certainly if you're comparing regional management

boards to, as an example, the special events committee of the Town of Marystown,

I'll use as an example, that organizes the Shining Seas Festival and

participates in the Relay for Life, I'm not quite certain that it's the same

parallel as compared to a waste management board which provides an essential

municipal service to the people of the Burin Peninsula, Mr. Speaker.

So I

think it really shows that sometimes Members can be out of touch with what's

happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I would encourage all Members to

verse themselves in what's happening on the ground in all parts of the province,

not just in St. John's, Mr. Speaker.

Just a

few weeks ago we were in Gander, myself and the Minister Tourism, Culture,

Industry and Innovation, and it was so good to see city councillors there, the

deputy mayor, Ms. O'Leary was there and Councillor Debbie Hanlon was there

taking the time to meet with tourism operators and ensure that they're getting

the rural perspective, Mr. Speaker. That was very good coming from two very

strong female leaders in the City of St. John's and I certainly applaud them for

attending that conference. I would encourage all Members of the Legislature to

verse themselves on these issues.

I will

say that I do believe that Member was not really making good comparisons with

respect to the regional service board and committees of cities or towns. I also

found it interesting, Mr. Speaker, from my colleague from Conception Bay South,

speaking of truths. I'm wondering where the ferry is that went to Romania that

could've and should've been built in Marystown would fall into the truths. I'm

wondering about things like Humber Valley Paving, Mr. Speaker, where that would

fall into the truths.

MR. SPEAKER:

I remind the hon. Member to

be relevant, please.

MR. BROWNE:

This is all very relevant,

Mr. Speaker, to regional waste management.

As we

talk about political appointments and we talk about appointments being done,

Steve Kent, the outgoing deputy premier, in September of 2015, appointed 44

people – 44 people – on his way out the door. That's your record on political

appointments I say to the Member opposite: Steve Kent, the former deputy

premier, appointed 44 people in September of 2015, ministerial appointments –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. BROWNE:

– on the eve of an election.

Not letting the people of the province have the opportunity to elect their own

government and make appointments subsequent to it, Mr. Speaker, they appointed

their friends on their way out. That's about speaking truths. Only when it's

convenient, I say to the Members of the Official Opposition.

This

afternoon, Mr. Speaker, we'll be talking about rate mitigation and I can't wait

for that debate, but we're still waiting to see if Members opposite think

Muskrat Falls is a mistake. We still haven't heard that, but I digress.

The

waste management system on the Burin Peninsula has been one that I feel has been

very successful. The Member for Burin - Grand Bank, the Minister Responsible for

the Status of Women, and I, we've spent several meetings meeting with the waste

management board. It's a beautiful, beautiful place they have built just down

from Jean de Bay on the Burin Peninsula Highway. They have a very competent

executive director, Mr. Joseph Pittman, working out of that facility, with a

staff that provide a good professional service.

The

chair of the board actually is someone who I think is a good friend of mine, but

was appointed by my predecessor who I also think is a good friend of mine, Clyde

Jackman. Mr. Harold Murphy is the chair of the board and was appointed by the

former administration while the former MHA was a sitting minister of Cabinet.

He's done marvellous work in my opinion. He's a steady hand at the wheel for

waste management.

Mr.

Murphy is a good steward of waste management on the Burin Peninsula; in fact, I

would call him an advocate of a strong waste management system – one that can

stay local and keep costs down for both residential and commercial waste

management.

I've

certainly reached out to Mr. Murphy and assured him that there are no plans to

do anything with him and his position because he's doing a great job, and that's

not what this is about. This is about in the future when there are vacancies,

Mr. Speaker. This is not about changing people who are already there.

The

Burin Peninsula waste management board has been doing a good job at managing the

costs to the residents. Nothing is ever perfect, Mr. Speaker, but I believe that

they're on the right path. I think, as time goes, on we'll have some news to

share with respect to waste management and what they're doing on the Burin

Peninsula. I think the residents of the Burin Peninsula in both of our

districts, Mr. Speaker, would say that it is a good system that we have now.

There is

quite a bit of angst amongst the board of waste management, amongst the

residents of the Burin Peninsula about following through with this PC plan of

two dumps in the province, Mr. Speaker. Imagine when we talk about the effects

of the environment – and we know that Members opposite haven't really made their

position clear on whether climate change is happening, Mr. Speaker. They're big

supporters of Andrew Scheer who is a known climate-change denier, and you have

to wonder about the plan to have trucks leaving Fortune, Point May, Lawn,

Marystown, Rushoon and Terrenceville and trucking in over the road to Robin Hood

Bay.

I don't

know where the voices opposite were when this plan was being devised. There is

so much consternation over a simple appointment issue, but there seemed to be no

consternation over the costs that was going to be passed on to the people of the

Burin Peninsula, to the people of the Bonavista Peninsula, to the people of the

Northern Peninsula because of this gamut into waste management, Mr. Speaker.

I would

have to ask: Who benefited from this, Mr. Speaker? Who was supposed to benefit?

Not the people, I say, Mr. Speaker, because costs kept increasing. And,

thankfully, under the leadership of Harold Murphy and board of waste management

on the Burin Peninsula, they've been able to keep it local, keeping those costs

down. That's why we are so supportive of their approach. As I mentioned, this

was someone that was appointed by the former administration and he's going a

great job, and I support the work that they're doing.

So I

think it's very important, as we progress through this debate, to take out the

rhetoric of the Opposition, take out the fear and the doom and the gloom from

over there, Mr. Speaker, and we look at the facts. The Burin Peninsula Waste

Management, in my opinion, they're doing a good job. They're doing a solid job

for the people that they serve. They are keeping costs down, when possible, Mr.

Speaker. They're a professional, efficiently run organization and I fully

support it.

Mr.

Speaker, I do want to thank all my colleagues for their contributions to this

debate and I look forward to continuing to hear from more of my colleagues on

this matter. But suffice it to say, the municipal level of government and the

regional service boards, it's kind of one of the toughest areas in terms of

serving the public, because it is at that local level. It's waste collection,

and it's sometimes difficult. These people do a great service to their

communities by stepping forward to be a part of these communities, to be a part

of this decision making and their goal is to provide a good service to the

people that they serve and represent. So, I certainly commend them on that work.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

MR. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the

Member for CBS here alluded to during my recent election campaign going around

Topsail - Paradise District, the issue around the garbage and trash tax was

evident at the doors, there's no doubt about it. No solutions; there's lots of

opinions on it. We had lots of discussion around what's done differently in

other parts of the province in terms of seasonal rates and so on.

Each of

these is run by boards, as we know. As has been discussed very much today, we

talk about democracy. We talk about trying to get more volunteers out in terms

of participating on boards. So, when they are good enough to sit on a board, and

they've been elected by their constituents in their area, I would suspect that

they're good enough to be the chair of the board. That's their expertise. If we

continue to step in and run the boards, as the Member for Waterford Valley said,

to guide the board, to run the board, in my mind, it's a shot at the integrity

of the people who are elected.

Nobody

on this side of the House had talked about the IAC, the integrity of the

individuals in this discussion. What they've talked about is the IAC is there,

puts recommendations in and essentially Cabinet makes a decision. There was no

discussion, there was no mention of the people on the boards not having the

integrity or the ability to carry out what their doing. But what we're doing

here, in essence, is saying those elected officials out there cannot chair a

board. So, that's a shot at integrity there.

Every

region out there, as we know right now, has different ways in which their trash

taxes, we'll call it, is applied. As I said, there are seasonal rates in some

place; others are doing everyone pays. So, it's not an easy solution. I

understand that, but I think to get up here – and I'm learning how to stay

relevant to the issue because I understand it's a skill to get up and talk for

20 minutes and really say nothing, but I'll get there I'm sure as I go on.

You

know, in terms of this, this is an important issue for people out there. It's

something that needs to be looked at in a manner that keeps everyone involved.

I think

the easy solution, as the minister responsible noted, and it's been on social

media, is to go out and say, okay, we give you everything. That's essentially

just got to change the legislation to take out user fee or put in user fee.

I think

the public out there, they're not naive. I think the public out there understand

what's happening. I don't think we need to get up here and tell them what's

happening, I think they know what's happening when it comes to these changes and

comes to government appointing a chair.

I think

it's a shot at their integrity, the people that serve out there, if it's a shot

at all because there are people that are duly elected by their representatives

in their regions, in their towns and they know what's happening in their town.

They know how to make decisions. They don't need a government-appointed chair to

show them how to guide through this issue. They don't need that. They're running

their councils on a regular basis.

This is

an important issue and it's not an easy road, there's no doubt about it, but we

don't need to be going like 1984 and Big Brother watching everything that's

happening out there. They have an opportunity, our province runs on volunteers,

people step forward because they have an interest.

they're going to step forward and then have someone else step in and say: Thanks

for you help but this guy is going to run the show. I don't think that's right.

I don't think that's right.

All the

conversations I've had with people on this garbage, trash tax they all have

different opinions, they all have good points. I think we need to leave it in

their hands and let them make the decisions and bring them forward for the

decisions.

Again, I

go back to the people, I think it's an insult to them to think that they cannot

do this and cannot have a chairperson that runs a committee. I think it's an

insult to them because there's a lot of knowledgeable people out there who have

given us some good feedback on this issue.

concern here is, I haven't seen a reason why, I don't know what's wrong with the

system. I haven't heard an issue across that tells me, okay, this is why we're

changing it because this is falling apart; I haven't heard that. I haven't heard

any good reason why we should be stepping in and appointing chairs.

Again, I

know it goes through a committee, but, at the end of the day, we're putting

someone in there that's being appointed as opposed to judging, taking the

judgment of the people in the region and saying you know your region, you know

your people, put in the person that you think can run and guide this process

because, again, every region is different.

I thank

you for the process. I know the Member opposite talked about this being the

cleanest process ever. I don't know, I haven't been around long enough, so

that's left to be seen, but I think we cannot be taking this out of the hands of

the people that are dealing with this issue on a daily basis in the regions.

Thank

you so much.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly glad to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 58. Before I start with

my commentary, I do want to correct the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

When he was speaking he was talking about the PC plan, the PC-to-dump plan, or

whatever it was he referred to it as.

Just for

the record, to be clear, and I'm not defending any party, it doesn't matter to

me one way or the other, really, but I will say that this whole initiative for

the regional waste strategy and so on, actually started during the Tobin

administration, if I'm not mistaken, and it was actually the late Judge Lloyd

Wicks who was the chair of the committee appointed by the Liberal government at

the time, that came up with this strategy.

I'm sure

Members might recall, at one point in time, they were going to put the regional

waste site at Dog Hill. Of course, then, the City of St. John's, under former

Mayor Andy Wells, they lobbied hard against it and it ended up going to Robin

Hood Bay, they put a new liner in and so on.

So, in

terms of the history, that's where it started. Like I said, it doesn't matter to

me, but if we're going to start spouting things out, we should try to be

accurate.

The

other point that he did make is he said that this is not about removing anybody.

The Member said this is not about removing a chair. This is about the future, is

what he said, this is about future chairs.

I will

point out in the explanatory notes, and there are three bullet points, if you

look at the third bullet point, it does say: “allow the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council” – being the minister – “to dismiss a chairperson of a regional service

board.”

So, this

is not just about setting up a process for the future for a new chair of a

board, or to set terms, it is also giving the minister the ability to dismiss

the chair of a regional service board. So the minute this is passed, the

minister could dismiss anyone who's there that he doesn't like for whatever

reason.

Now, in

the case of the Eastern Waste Management board, this has been pre-empted because

the chair has resigned, so that will no longer be necessary, but I suspect, I

got a feeling he might've known this was coming. I got a feeling he did. Had he

not resigned, I suspect that once this was passed and received third reading

tomorrow, I'm guessing that the minister would have said to the Clerk of the

House, I want you to make a trip down to Government House and get his acclaimed

immediately, and I'd say the letter was already written to the former chair of

the Eastern Waste Management ready to send. That would be my guess. That would

be my guess.

Anyway,

I would say, Mr. Speaker, it's important to point out these facts. Now, I'm not

going to get into a big debate over COATT and the trash tax and so on. I would

say that I have several constituents who own cabins and over the last three or

four years, I'm sure like a lot of Members, I received a number of calls from

people in my district and other districts in the neighbouring area, Mount Peal

North comes to mind in particular as well, of people who had concerns over the

trash tax.

course, it was kind of staggered because what would happen was it wasn't all

implemented at once because it took time to set up the regions and the garbage

collection and to find out who own the cabins and so on. In year one, I might

have been getting a bunch of calls from Deer Park and then the next year I

started getting them from people up at Horse Chops somewhere. The next year I

might have gotten them from the La Manche area or whatever, as they started

implementing the tax in those areas you would start getting calls.

absolutely got calls from people and I would say to you that I had, I can't tell

you the number of conversations I had with Mr. Kelly and with Mr. Grant at the

board about these matters. I think the Member for Conception Bay South said we

had some good conversations. We had some good discussions, we had some heated

discussions. We had our disagreements on stuff.

I can

understand both sides of the issue, I really can. I had said at the time that I

personally felt that at the very least we should be, for cabins, looking at a

seasonal rate. I would have said we should have been looking at a seasonal rate;

it would have been fair. That would have been perhaps fair.

I would

have said at the time that, absolutely, and I had those conversations that you

can't go charging people to pick up garbage if you're not picking up the

garbage. That made no sense and, at the very least, I had suggested maybe there

should be a large type sanicare bin or something at the end of the road where

everybody can, when they're leaving on a Sunday, they could put their garbage in

it and go on, whatever the case might be, that you can't charge people for a

service you're not receiving. I absolutely disagree fundamentally with that, but

I would also say there are still challenges. I understand the challenges they

have, because even with what's being proposed and suggested now, there are going

to be challenges.

You take

Horse Chops – I'll just use Horse Chops as an example. The Horse Chops Road is a

serviced road but there are a number of side roads off Horse Chops Road. So if

we're going to do what's being suggested now, the people on the main road going

into Horse Chops are going to have to pay, but if you have a cabin on a little

side road here and there, they won't have to pay. So you have people – they both

have cabins. They're both in the same area. They're both only up there for a

couple of months of the year and so on, and one has to pay and one doesn't have

to pay.

I think

government may not realize that this is going to be a very, very tangly issue to

deal with. I really believe this is going to be tangly to deal with; but, be

that as it may, the decision was made by the minister and the directive given to

the Eastern Regional Service Board on that matter, and we'll see how it all pans

out.

I'm glad

for the people. I'm glad for the people of COATT and so on that had that issue,

had those concerns, and they got together and they lobbied. For a lot of them

they're going to be happy, I know they are.

From my

perspective, when this legislation was passed originally, if we go back in time,

I'm not aware of it ever really being the intent to charge cabin owners, to be

honest with you. That doesn't seem – I don't recall that being the focus. It was

more about unincorporated areas and having a regional system that everyone had

to pay in to; but, at the end of the day, the cabins got thrown into it, and I

understand why people are not happy.

Like I

said, at the very least, I think, a seasonal rate – and, by the way, when this

new review is done, I suspect you may see recommendations to look at seasonal

rates or something. Perhaps that may be the final outcome and it may be a fair

outcome.

The

other point I think, though – and the Member from St. John's East - Quidi Vidi

raised this and she's absolutely right. This is the issue, that this board, in

the case of Eastern – I'm sure they're all the same, but I'll just take Eastern

as an example because it's the area I would be in and have representation.

For

example, the Eastern Waste Management board is pretty much all the City of St.

John's, the entire city council or most of them. So we have Mayor Breen and

Deputy Mayor O'Leary and, I don't know, Sandy Hickman and whoever else. They're

all on the board. There's a representative from Mount Pearl. There's a

representative from Paradise. I think there's one from Conception Bay South.

There's one from the Torbay region, if you will, and so on. Then there are other

regions, the Southern Shore and St. Mary's Bay and whatever. These are all

elected people. So those are the people who are making the decisions.

realize the political benefit, if I can put it that way, and I've seen some

tax; happy to see Mr. Grant gone, because Mr. Grant was the face of it. He was

the bad guy. He was the villain in the story so to speak, but the reality of it

is that Mr. Grant – just because government decides they're going to put in a

process to select a chair, that's not going to change a thing.

That

person doesn't control that board. It's still going to be Danny Breen and the

council. It's still going to be Mount Pearl and Paradise. It's going to the

councils that are still going to make the decisions. They're the ones who run

the show. Ed Grant didn't run the show, he was simply the voice. He was the

chair of the board. He's the one who would have met with council and met with

groups on behalf of the board, but he's not the one who did it. It was the

entire board. It was the entire council.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. LANE:

So nothing is going to

change, whether it's Ed Grant or whether it's whoever the IAC appoints. It's

still one person, and that person is not going to call the shots. It's still

going to be the towns and the cities and whoever who are going to be the ones.

Nothing is going to change in that regard. Nothing changes in that regard.

However,

the only point, though, that I have to agree with the Member for St. John's East

- Quidi Vidi, is that to simply throw the regional service board into the same

pot, if you will, as government agencies, commissions and so on, to say, well,

that's the same thing as going to the IAC to appoint someone to Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing or to the Liquor Corporation and so on, it's not. It is

different.

It's

different because councils have autonomy. I know they're not an official level

of government; they do serve on behalf of the government. They're sort of

creatures of the provincial government, if you will, but they are recognized as

a level of government, and all the people are duly elected people.

So,

basically, by putting this process in place you're kind of saying to the Mayor

of St. John's, who is on that board, we don't think you're capable of selecting

a chair amongst yourselves, we're going to do it for you. That's an issue. If I

was serving on that board as an elected official on behalf of any of those

towns, I don't think I'd be too happy about being told we want you to serve on

this board. This is a municipal service because the collection of garbage is a

municipal service. That's not something the province does. That's something the

municipalities do, but we think this is the process that's going to be used. You

can't select someone amongst yourselves, we're going to do it for you.

I would

suggest the directive given by the minister about cabins and so on, I'm sure

there are members of that board who are not happy about that either. Again, they

said, well, we made a decision of how we're doing it and this is why we're doing

it, and you're going to tell us no, you're going to do it this way. I know we

have the right to do that but there are only so many times you can start

interfering, if you will, with these elected officials before they're going to

simply turn around and say: Do you know what? Do it yourself – do it yourself.

If you

want to set up a board, I'm not going to sit on a board and then every time we

make a decision that you don't like we're going to tell you what to do. It

wouldn't be me. That has nothing to do with any issue in particular, but it's

the fact that you're put on a board to do a job and if you're going to have all

your decisions second guessed and told, no, change this, change that, change to

something else, pretty quickly the person serving on that board is going to say,

guess what? Do it yourself. Let the province run it. See how easy it is. Let the

minister be the one to take all the phone calls from everybody on every

individual complaint or whatever. Direct it all up there. See how you like that.

I can

understand where municipalities wouldn't necessarily be happy with the concept

of interference. It got nothing to do with the IAC, by the way. I will be the

first to say, it got nothing to do with the IAC.

While

the Members who talk about the IAC, technically, by legislation, they're right,

that the Cabinet doesn't have to accept any of the names, but I honestly – I got

to be honest. I really don't believe the people on the IAC would stand for

having their names just thrown out and people putting whoever the government

wanted. I cannot believe they would ever want that. If I was on the IAC it would

happen once and I'd say see you later. That's how I feel about that, but they

are technically right in terms of the legislation of how it could go, right.

Anyway,

Mr. Speaker, again, the reality over there is we're putting a process in place.

There's nothing wrong with the process in the sense that nobody would argue that

we shouldn't have qualified, competent people on the board. Nobody would argue

that the chair of the board should not be qualified, have experience and ability

in that area. No one's arguing that. I certainly wouldn't argue that. I don't

think anybody would argue having four-year terms, not having someone there

indefinitely, I don't think anyone would argue that; and maybe the ability to

appoint to second term, which we see that, that's fairly normal. Nobody would

argue with that.

But the

point that I think that the argument has to be made – and again, the Member for

St. John's East - Quidi Vidi made that argument very eloquently, I must say, and

I agree with her a hundred per cent. It's the concept of this is not a

government agency, board, commission the same as NLC or the same as the Liquor

Corp or any of the committees of government. This is being run by a level of

government. This is being run by our municipal governments, who are all duly

elected people. This here really is interfering, is what it's doing, it's

interfering in their role, it's taking some control, if you will, away from

them, and I don't know why we'd want to.

I mean,

I'm very confident that Mayor Danny Breen, and all the other Members here I'm

sure that they're very capable of selecting a good chair. I don't think they

need anyone to tell them how to select a competent person. I think I have enough

faith. Mayor Breen and council, they got like a $200-million budget or whatever

it is, running the City of St. John's, and I don't have any misgivings about

their ability to select someone to chair the waste management board, nor do I

from our representative from Mount Pearl or Paradise or Conception Bay South or

any of the other municipalities, I really don't. I think that this is sort of

taking it a step too far and it's interfering in a legitimate process,

interfering in a process that belongs with the board.

The only

thing it does, as I said, which I believe is perhaps the motivation, is that,

from a political point of view, it's very good to be able to go to COATT and

other groups and say: Hey, guess what, guys? We got rid of Mr. Grant; we got rid

of him. The villain is gone. We've saved the day. He is gone. It gives that

ability, politically, but people and anyone who is listening and anyone from

COATT need to realize is that it wasn't Mr. Grant. It was the board, and the

board is still there. It's still the same board. They're the ones making the

decisions. Mr. Grant was the messenger. He was the messenger and I think that's

an important point to make.

With

that said, I do want to thank Mr. Grant for his service. He served five years, I

believe. I thank him for his service. I think that while everybody may not have

agreed with all the decisions he made, certainly a very competent, qualified

individual, businessman, 24 years experience on city council, and served in many

capacities on council. Can't argue the man's ability or his credentials. Whether

you like the way he rolls, whether you like his demeanour on every issue,

whether you like his decisions that were made and how he conveyed them, perhaps

if you're not getting the answers you want to hear, you might not like it, but

at the end of the day he served that position well. I believe he did.

That's

not an endorsement of the decisions around Cabinet. He is the guy just conveying

what the board has decided – not what he has decided, what the board has decided

and they all decided.

I heard

somebody say who appointed him, that it was all politics and so on. My final

comment before sitting down on that one is that, in 2011, he had a blue sign on

his lawn; 2015, he had a red one; and, in this coming election, he's going to

have an independent one. So there you go.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. PERRY:

It certainly has been an

interesting morning here in the House. I rise today with honour and privilege

representing rural Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. One of the earlier

speakers this morning talked about rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, I can

assure you, I continue to live in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I've been in

politics for 12 years; I have not moved to St. John's. I continue the trek every

weekend because of my commitment to rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, I will echo the comments of all of my colleagues on this side of the

House when I say that this bill is indeed regressive to democracy. Our people in

rural Newfoundland and Labrador are quite capable of electing their own

representatives and they are quite capable of appointing chairs to the various

boards and entities within the regions. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that our

people living in the communities know our people best.

To me,

this is indeed a regressive bill and it's, again, bringing back political

patronage. Why, in God's name, would you need a political patronage appointment

for a regional board that has clearly established guidelines around its mandate?

If you

look at the Newfoundland and Labrador Waste Management Strategy which, as my

colleague from Mount Pearl - Southlands clarified, was brought in by the Liberal

government in 2002, each regional waste management area will prepare, for

government's approval, a business plan, an operations plan and environmental

assessments for the regional waste management system. Why, in the group

preparing these submissions and reports and business plans, environmental

assessments, it's all being handed to government for evaluation anyway – why

does government see the need to appoint political patrons to the chair of these

boards?

I say

that again – one of the Members got up this morning and talked about the IAC and

I, too, have great respect for the members of the IAC. I feel for them in that

they aren't truly able to pick the best person for the job. They can pick three

recommendations and the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, Cabinet, picks one of

those three names. They have a role, but they don't have final say.

describe that process as the cleanest process ever seen, all I can say to that,

Mr. Speaker, is we have different

definitions and understanding of what a clean

process means.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Some order, please.

Thank

you.

MS. PERRY:

Again, it's nice to have the

IAC model but, in practice, what are we seeing, we're seeing former Liberal

candidates appointed to clerk of Executive Council, assistant deputy minister in

Public Safety and Enforcement, assistant deputy minister in lands and Municipal

Affairs, deputy minister of business, tourism, and rural development.

So while

the act is in place, Mr. Speaker, the practice is far, far, far from lacking

political patronage; in fact, it's the worst I've ever seen in my 12 years that

I've been in politics.

I will

move on, Mr. Speaker, from that. I see that some Members find that very funny.

For all times –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. PERRY:

– in politics I will say

this, political patronage appointments have been there since the days of Joey;

they continued through all successive governments. It was the Members opposite

who campaigned that they were going to do it differently and failed miserably,

Mr. Speaker. So that's where we are with political patronage appointments in

Newfoundland and Labrador today.

Another

thing about this bill that's very disturbing, and the Member for St. John's East

- Quidi Vidi said it quite eloquently, this bill really does fly in the face of

democratic reform. It will give the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, Cabinet, the

ability to remove a chair from a position, for no reason. The reason's not

spelled out. It could just be because maybe they're a Tory or maybe they're an

independent or maybe they're an NDP, who knows? They can do what they want with

that clause in this bill.

So,

certainly as a person who represents rural Newfoundland, I will stand up here in

this House any day to say rural Newfoundlanders are quite capable of shaping

their own destiny. In fact, I'd say if you take politics out of the way, they'd

do even far better because decisions being made for political reasons result in

things like $40-million tax breaks in a time when our economy is falling apart.

So, I

certainly will not be standing in support of this bill. I concur with my

colleagues on this side of the House that it is regressive to democratic reform,

and it is absolutely terrible that we're seeing, this day and age, a bill like

this come before the hon. House.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

I just want to stand for a

minute and to speak to Bill 58,

An Act to Amend the Regional Service Boards Act.

When the

parliamentary secretary spoke earlier in second reading to introduce the bill, I

just want to clarify what the Explanatory Notes talk about: “require the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council to appoint the chairperson of each regional

service board;” – which is a significant change – “set a term of 4 years for

chairpersons of regional service boards; and allow the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council to dismiss a chairperson of a regional service board.”

It was

my understanding – you can correct me when you get up to respond after second

reading – is that, he kind of indicated there would be no change once someone's

appointed for that four-year term and they would have the option to, in every

circumstance, complete that term.

This,

and the subsequent act, doesn't speak to, or speaks quite differently to it when

it gives specific authority to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the Cabinet,

to dismiss a chairperson of a regional service board. That's quite clear. It's

in the act, and it now gives that authority to Cabinet to carry that activity

out if they so wish. So maybe the parliamentary secretary could clarify that

when he gets up.

As well,

it talks about transitional: “A person who is the chairperson of a board on the

coming into force of this Act continues to be the chairperson of the board until

reappointed, replaced or dismissed.” So, again, the term dismissed is there, and

that authority is now granted with the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, with

Cabinet, any time, as soon as this bill is passed, that the authority now exists

to dismiss any chair of any of the boards.

colleagues have spoken to it in regard to the representative nature of the

current system and how it's reflected in the wards that are set up and how

that's very reflective of the grassroots democratic process where determination

is now made, collectively, by those elected representatives, who is selected for

chair and for that period of time, and work with those individuals in terms of

carrying out the strategy and initiatives of the regional service board. What

we're seeing here now, that's going to be changed. The process now is going to

go through the Independent Appointments Commission.

There

was some commentary made by the Minister of Finance in regard to not respecting,

not acknowledging the work that's done by the Independent Appointments

Commission. On this side, nothing can be further from the truth. We always

recognize those individuals who engage and give their time in public policy or

administration and do that work with their best intent, many with a variety of

skill sets, bring that to the process and provide that service. We all recognize

that and certainly support that.

What the

question was and discussion was is about the process of the Independent

Appointments Commission. That's something we spoke about when this bill was

brought to the House. It was the flagship bill for this administration.

Our

concern had always been, we're taking this process now and replacing a current

process, which is a very democratic, very grassroots initiative and putting in

the Independent Appointments Commission where it is reviewed by that commission

and names are put forward to the Cabinet who ultimately makes the choice at the

end of the day, and that's quite distinct and different from what's happening

today. That's the issue that has been identified by a number of speakers in the

House this morning in regard to why this is being done, why the need is felt to

take that authority away from the local representatives on the ground.

I met

just last week with the members of the Southern Shore Joint Council. We had

about 15 or 20 elected members in the room – municipalities, local service

districts – who, based on some of the things we've heard this morning, much of

that was reflected in their conversations in some of the things that are going

on in regard to the changes and what's transpiring.

How the

regional service boards have a distinct function that's outlined in legislation

and how they give somewhat of an independence to the governance structure, as I

talked about. That grassroots structure is on the ground today, and how they

feel that maybe they're being infringed on and being directed to carry out

activities of a government of the day, when in fact, there, through the

legislation, is given the ultimate authority as an elected body to carry out

things like a waste management strategy for those they represent, which is on

the ground and provide that service as needed.

Mr.

Speaker, those are the two points I want to just make. I hope when we close

debate in second reading, the parliamentary secretary, on behalf of the Minister

of Municipal Affairs, can clarify the issue in regard to – as this act clearly

states, the Cabinet will have the ability “to dismiss a chairperson of a

regional service board.” If he could confirm that, because that's what the

actual act says. There have been no amendments put forward, so I guess it is

what it is. So if we can have that clarified as we move forward into committee.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

I'm just going to stand and

have a few words on this, Mr. Speaker, and talk about – I'm going to go back

with the history of the waste management in the province. I'm not sure, there

may be one other person here that was here with the history of the waste

management. I'm going back in 2002 when it was first initiated, and then 2003

the PC government took over the waste management itself.

I just

want to look at going back with the funds that were provided by the federal

government. The initial concept was to have three waste management sites in the

province, and, of course, Labrador. One of the first sites was going to be

developed in St. John's. The second one was out on the West Coast. That was

scrapped. Then it went to Central; the second one went to Central.

remember all the debate – and I'm going back in 2008, 2007-2008, '09, '10, '11,

'12 – with the Western going to the Central. I remember when the PC government

appointed this biologist, but the part of it they forgot to mention, it was a

marine biologist by the name of Don Downer. That's the point they forgot. When

Don Downer was put in there – and he was a good friend. The former premier, Tom

Marshall, that was his really good friend; co-campaign manager and all that, Mr.

Speaker.

This is

where a lot of this went off the rails for the government, because what they

did, instead of appointing the most qualified person through an independent

appointments committee, what they did is appointed one of their buddies.

What

happened with Don Downer, Mr. Speaker, I have to say with this marine biologist,

he didn't have a clue about waste management. I remember, Mr. Speaker, I

remember the day – it's personal but it's factual. That's what they put on his

résumé. I say to the Member for CBS, look at the facts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. JOYCE:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I know he's

upset with it, but I'm just giving the facts here.

And I

have to say that what happened then, and I just want everybody in the province

to know, the person that Don Downer, when he was appointed and he had the board,

and they went ahead –

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. JOYCE:

The Member for CBS, you'll

have your time. Jeepers. Mr. Speaker –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What

happened, he was pitted to do the PC Party duties. There's absolutely no doubt.

Here's what happened, and this is why you need someone qualified for it.

I want

to make it quite clear to the people of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador that someone on the board can put themselves forward to be appointed by

the Independent Appointments Commission. I dealt with this last year a fair bit.

Don Downer at the time, who was chair, and then of course they had a bit of

bidding to do for his buddies, the PC Party, and here's what happened. They had

a meeting – I think it might've been in May; it may have been May or early June,

I can't remember the exact date, and I'm going way back now, back in probably

2008, 2009 – here's what happened.

They had

a meeting, and part of it was about waste management, part of it was: How are we

going to collect our waste? On the sub-part of that meeting there was a motion

put forward on something that wasn't even supposed to be on the agenda: shipping

the garbage, waste, to Central. In the report that they ship it to Central, they

were going to ask for a $1.8-million subsidy. That's what it was going to cost

extra for that.

So what

happened, and here are the facts of it – and I can get anybody in this House who

wants the minutes to the meeting, I can get the minutes to the meeting. What

happened is that they were adamant not to ship the garbage unless they got the

subsidy from government. In the meeting in May or June, they had a meeting, a

motion was put forward that wasn't even on the agenda, that they go ahead and

ship the garbage.

Do you

know who wasn't at that meeting that day, that night? Two representatives from

the City of Corner Brook were never at that meeting, and the other person, Gary

Bishop, the mayor of Pasadena, was never at the meeting. The two largest

municipalities to ship garage from Western out to Central were never at the

meeting. That's how that happened, and Central became the central location of

it.

So, when

Mr. Downer wants to stand up and talk about me not doing it properly and this

and that, there's something I got to say – and this is why the Independent

Appointments Commission is very, very important. When Don Downer said that he

was off the board, do you know who asked Don Downer to leave the board? His own

members. His own members because he made in appropriate statements at a

fundraiser. They phoned Don Downer and asked him to relieve himself of the

board. That's the fact of it.

you're going to put someone in place, Mr. Speaker, it can be someone who's

already on the board. It can be an elected official but it should be someone

who's the most qualified – the most qualified, that's the key here. It's not one

of your buddies. It's not one of anybody's buddies in this room. It has to go

through a process.

Mr.

Speaker, I'll just give you a good example out in Central. How many meetings did

we have out in Central to try to straighten things out? How many meetings? A lot

of meetings, and I remember they were looking for this piece of equipment. I

remember distinctly they were looking for this piece of equipment. You got to

remember the people of this province; it's the taxpayers' money that's going in

there, so people who are the head of it should have the best qualifications to

run it.

This is

not disparaging on any councillor or any mayor in the City of Corner Brook or in

Western Newfoundland for the Western Regional Waste Management. I'm confident

they would agree that if there's a person who's qualified for Western Regional

Waste Management – I use Josh Carey, for example, very qualified guy, great guy,

very knowledgeable. If he's the most qualified, put your name forward. His name

will come forward.

I know

last year when I was looking at this myself, Mr. Speaker, a lot of the people

said just let us pick from within. I said: Well, why can't you just add your

names and put it forward? They said: Yeah, that's a good idea; we can do that

too. So when you open this up as chair, there's no one on these 20 boards for

the Eastern Region that can't put their name forward, they can. It's easy to do.

What

happened with Central, as I said earlier, they were looking for this (inaudible)

and I'm sure everybody is aware of it. It operates, what, four or five days a

month I think. They were looking for some funds. They said: No, you can't get

all the funds because here's what basically you need. What controls were in

there? Very little. What are the controls on the Western Newfoundland? What are

the controls that they have? If government is going to be putting the funds in

we should have – not we, I should say government, the government should appoint

the best qualified person to chair on the board.

I know

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands was talking about the Eastern Regional

Service Board and the reason why they had some – there are 10 from St. John's

and 10 from outside and they needed someone who would actually, if there was

ever a need for a tiebreaker or whatever, someone independent.

Mr.

Speaker, I know last year when we were talking about the tax on the cabins,

there was a lot of stuff went on there. A lot of things went on there that I'm

not sure if the people were aware of – a lot of things. I know we were into a

meeting with some of the groups and they were talking about this legal opinion

they had. They never had a legal opinion. They might have won it in court later:

a legal opinion. But there are some things that realistically you can change.

Grant, no doubt, he was the follower of the board and absolutely, no doubt, Josh

Carey is the board chair on the West Coast and he has to follow direction also.

But by appointing the most qualified person – unlike Western Newfoundland now

who has to subsidize their own garbage to ship it out, because they appointed

Don Downer, a really good friend of the minister at the time, a very good friend

who, in my opinion, left the West Coast in a bad spot with this $1.8-million

subsidy.

So, when

you want to talk about appointing the best, qualified person, I think it's much

better to appoint a most qualified person than appoint one of your political

buddies, which the people in Western Newfoundland are about to pay the price

from here for a nice while until we work something out.

Mr.

Speaker, I just want to stand and say that I'm not against this bill. There's

stuff that we can talk about, but by appointing an independent chair who is well

qualified – do I think Josh Carey will put his name forward? Yes, absolutely. Do

I think he's qualified? Yes. Do I think Ed Grant is qualified? Yes. Do I think

he'll put his name forward? I don't know if he will. He might not, but this is

the point: Then you could have a variety. I definitely don't want a marine

biologist any more in there flaunting how good of a biologist he is, Mr.

Speaker, just so he can get on the board.

remember distinctly how they're supposed to go from Eastern to Western and

Central, and they built this place in Central, Mr. Speaker. We all know the size

of that place in Central. We all know that once you build that infrastructure,

there's a certain amount of fixed cost to it that you have come up with the cost

to make sure that this beast, this monster, is paid for, and that's what

happened in Central. I going back in 2003 up to 2009, 2010, 2011 when it opened.

Mr.

Speaker, the issue with all this here is that government is putting in these

funds because I know government is always getting asked for additional funds so

that they can improve certain sites and different initiatives, which is great,

but you should have the most important person who is chair of the board, that

should be the most qualified person of the whole group, Mr. Speaker.

There is

absolutely no reason – and I know a lot of councillors, a lot of mayors out in

Western Newfoundland. There are a lot of qualified people, and a lot of them can

put their names forward. I tell you, if the ones that I know out in Western, and

I'm sure there are a lot here in Eastern too, if they put their names forward,

the IAC is going to have a hard time picking the most qualified person because

there are a lot of qualified people to do it. People always say that we should

put the most qualified person in it, so, Mr. Speaker, I think we should.

I want

to thank all the volunteers that are on the boards. They're doing the best they

can all throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I'm confident that

once this goes through, a lot of the board members will agree with this, and

people who are on the boards now can put their names forward, Mr. Speaker, so

they can be chair of the board.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I do

want to just read a little reminder to all Members of the House, and this is

regarding reference by name to members of the public.

Members

are discouraged from referring by name to persons who are not Members of

Parliament and do not enjoy parliamentary immunity, except in extraordinary

circumstances when the national interest calls for this. The Speaker has ruled –

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

Speaker has ruled that Members have a responsibility to protect the innocent,

not only from outright slander but also from any slur directly or indirectly

implied. It's suggested that Members avoid, as much as possible, mentioning by

name people from outside the House who are unable to reply in their own defence.

Thank

you.

The hon.

the Parliamentary Secretary of Municipal Affairs and Environment, if he speaks

now he will close debate on second reading.

The hon.

the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Just for clarification.

While I

was listening to – I heard Ed Grant's name brought up about 20 times.

MR. SPEAKER:

There's no such thing as a

point of clarification, Sir. A point of order, a point of privilege.

MR. JOYCE:

A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER:

Point of order.

Proceed.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, the ruling you

just made; I heard Ed Grant's name brought up at least 20 times, 25 times, but

this was never brought up. Why is it brought up now?

MR. SPEAKER:

Sir, I just brought it up. I

just recognized the extent of the discussion. I felt it's important to remind

all the Members, so I'm reminding the Members. Nothing more to it than that. I'd

ask you to consider that in your debate.

The hon.

the Parliamentary Secretary of Municipal Affairs and Environment, if he speaks

now he will close debate on this bill.

The hon.

the Parliamentary Secretary of Munici