PDF Version

November 1, 2023 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 50

The House met at 10 a.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Government Business

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, for leave to introduce a bill,

An Act to Amend the Liquor Control Act and the Liquor Corporation Act, Bill 62, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill,

An Act to Amend the Liquor Control Act and the Liquor Corporation Act, Bill 62, and the said bill be now read a first time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, “An Act to Amend the Liquor Control Act and the Liquor Corporation Act,” carried. (Bill 62)

CLERK (Hawley George): A bill,

An Act to Amend the Liquor Control Act and the Liquor Corporation Act. (Bill 62)

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

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

J. HOGAN: Tomorrow.

SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 62 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that

An Act to Amend the Mineral Act, Bill 59, be now read a third time.

SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act to Amend the Mineral Act. (Bill 59)

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

On motion, a bill, “An Act to Amend the Mineral Act,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 59)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I move seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader that

An Act Respecting Quarry Resources in the Province, Bill 58, be now read a third time.

SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that this bill be now read a third time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act Respecting Quarry Resources in the Province. (Bill 58)

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

On motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting Quarry Resources in the Province,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 58)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 9.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

An Act Respecting Towns and Local Service Districts, Bill 54, be now read a second time.

SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that Bill 54,

An Act Respecting Towns and Local Service Districts, be now read a second time.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HAGGIE: Thank you.

I'm pleased today to speak to the proposed Towns and Local Service Districts Act , Bill 54.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HAGGIE: It's been much anticipated, as you can hear from the roars of the crowd at the back here. It's a beast; there are 350 sections here, Mr. Speaker, which makes it one of the largest statutes in the province. It will in turn be a foundation piece for further legislation governing cities in our province.

It's substantive; it's important. The first part of this, in actual fact, was already delivered to the House and passed last year, which was kind of removed and placed under the title of Municipal Conduct Act and that's been in operation now for a year.

So that with this and with a couple of other pieces of legislation the department has, essentially form a suite of legislation, which are a constitution, if you like, for another layer of government, municipal level of government. The current legislation governing municipalities in this province is the Municipalities Act, 1999 and it's got problems. It's old and there is a need to replace it, and that's why we're here today.

The current act, in the What We Heard document, is prescriptive, it's top-down, limiting a town or a municipality's authority and flexibility, it's written for a different era, and the needs and desires of towns have changed. The language is outdated, it's cumbersome, it doesn't fit with best drafting practices and it's not gender neutral. There's unnecessary ministerial oversight in the old act. The processes are outdated; it doesn't specify what towns should do, what towns may do. For Local Service Districts, again, the practices are outdated and there's little or no accountability or oversight measures for it.

In contrast, the new act will deal, we believe, with the problems that have been highlighted to us by a variety of stakeholders over a fairly lengthy process. We know from our discussions yesterday, for example, that there's an interested audience out there looking at what this new legislation will be. We've had comprehensive formal consultations which go back some time now. Since then, we've had multiple discussions at a formal and informal level with individual councils, with chairs of LSDs, with stakeholders, particularly and repeatedly with the PMA – the Professional Municipal Administrators – and MNL as recently as yesterday, in actual fact.

This bill will address those issues that they've highlighted. It's enabling for towns. Modernizations have been made for both towns and Local Service Districts. It's, we believe, written to allow them to succeed.

In contrast to the list I read out about the Municipalities Act, the Towns and Local Service Districts Act facilitates autonomy and flexibility for towns. It provides increased accountability and oversight for Local Service Districts; it provides towns with broad powers to enact bylaws. It does actually outline mandatory services. In so doing it specifies the broad purposes of a town. It increases the opportunities for public oversight, specifically around documentation that needs to be available, but also around closed and public meetings of the council.

It's very readable. In actual fact, it flows in a way the old one didn't. Its language is gender-neutral. It allows towns significant increased flexibility to generate tax revenue and provide tools for tax affordability for its citizens, which currently don't exist.

It eliminates or minimizes regressive taxes; it creates additional flexibility for enforcement – a common request from municipalities. It reduces the need for legislative amendment, and by removing unnecessary ministerial oversight it cuts down on red tape. It provides discretion around feasibility studies, and there's clarity and additional tools to help with economic development of towns.

The proposed legislation moves us from a prescriptive environment to an enabling one. Essentially, that means where prescriptive legislation would only allow towns to enact bylaws that are written in the legislation, as allowable. Enabling legislation is interpreted broadly and is based on the purposes of the municipality, they're clearly defined, but under that, the towns have considerable flexibility about what bylaws they would choose to pass, with a focus – and that is stated in the act – on safety, health and well-being of the people and protection of property.

As an example and a very topical one, this broad power could be interpreted to allow town councils to enact and force bylaws to address nuisance matters, such as the use of outdoor lights on properties.

Whereas, under the current legislation, municipalities would have to request that the department amend the legislation to allow those authorities. We are lining ourselves up with other jurisdictions in Canada, most of whom have enabling legislation.

It clarifies the intent of the legislation by providing more and improved

definitions. It is also, as I say, gender neutral, it avoids gender-exclusionary language and acknowledges and reflects gender diversity.

There are some significant, substantive changes in the bill. I am just going to take a little time to highlight those at a very high level, understanding that the time to go through all these 350 sections will be in Committee later and I look forward to that.

So for towns and Local Service Districts, towns get limited natural person powers. It avoids them being bound by the requirements of legislation in a way that puts them on par with good governance principles.

We've already discussed, or I have already mentioned that the Municipal Conduct Act was actually originally intended to be part of this bill, but it was moved by my predecessor, for very good reasons, and has now been up and running for a year with 100 per cent of councils now having a code of conduct in place and 98 per cent of councillors having been trained on the mandatory components.

It defines town purposes, apart from good governance, as a provision of services, facilities or things needed for the community such as public or affordable housing, where there is a gap in the private sector. The development and maintenance of safe and sustainable communities and its accent is on fostering well-being whether that be economic, environmental or social.

The increased autonomy falls into several changes. The requirement for ministerial approval for the acquisition of property, sale and lease or disposal of property at less than fair market value, now simply requires a two-thirds vote of council. It is not ministerial.

The act allows costs of property remediation performed by the town and charged to the property owner to constitute a lean on that property. Something towns have particularly been asking for. It also extends ticketing authority for bylaw violations to all towns and allows towns to create and enforce bylaws for non-moving traffic violations.

Under the heading of accountability, it's important to note that greater autonomy also brings the need for greater accountability.

So the bill goes into some detail around criteria for closed council meetings. It requires all meetings including committee meetings to be open, except where closed for the purposes that are recognized in the act and usually this is things like contract employment or legal matters.

Under the heading of revenue, we have made some important changes in taxation. Again, those were requested by municipalities. Property tax will be mandatory. Towns will no longer have the option of collecting a poll tax. Communities require stable and predictable tax base, which is best achieved, more fairly achieved, through property tax.

Poll taxes are regressive and shift a disproportionate burden to low income individuals. This government has been keen and has followed through with a variety of maneuvers to alleviate expenses for people on low income. This is another one.

This will take some time to put in place, both of the towns to shift and also for the municipal assessment agency to finalize assessments on those properties that they haven't previously assessed.

To encourage economic development, the act gives towns the discretion to impose or not a business tax. It also retains provisions from the old act, which allows towns to establish classes and subclasses for the purposes of calculating a business tax. It does not allow a town to tax one business differently from another in the same class. It's equitable.

The other interesting thing that came out of our scan was that we are the only jurisdiction that actually has currently a mandatory municipal business tax. Increasing flexibility is also provided on how business taxes are applied and that allows tools for economic development. Towns will also be authorized to implement, if they wish, a tourist accommodation tax of not more than 4 per cent of the room charge. This has been requested by both municipalities and tourism accommodation operators, and the fees generated there are primarily used for tourism related and marketing activities.

It also provides tools to allow taxes to be made more affordable. Towns can apply discounts for demonstrated hardship financially, if they wish, and for charitable and community organizations. So a social enterprise can have a break on its taxes, either permanently or as part of a start-up initiative. They're also authorizing towns to offer equal payment plans for tax bills so it's not one big chunk of money at one time in the year.

Under services and programs, Mr. Speaker, these are things that we realize, and have been informed very clearly, that can be used to facilitate economic development. So economic development is specifically stated in the new act as a purpose for towns. It defines economic development in relation to maintaining and increasing the town's municipal tax base. It uses language to reflect the active role of a town in facilitating economic development and it ensures integrity purposes of a town in that they are not allowed to compete with the private sector.

It specifically prohibits towns from acquiring equity or holding securities in private for-profit development and from providing loans or guaranteeing loans to private corporations.

It also identifies four mandatory services that towns must provide: waste collection and removal, fire protection, maintenance of local roadways and snow clearing of local roadways.

There are changes also for Local Service Districts, strengthening their accountability but acknowledging their role in providing services for their residents.

So we've changed their election cycle. It's now four years and it will be tied to those of the municipalities – less onerous. They must make official documents available to the public on request. It will be mandatory for Local Service Districts to have insurance on assets and to provide mandatory garbage collection. Those are the only two things mandated.

They will, however, if they choose, be able to establish, own and operate recreational facilities and, under certain circumstances, they may be required to supply audited financial statements. The intent of these decisions, these options, is to ensure that Local Service District committees are accountable for the decisions and the fees that they collect and that residents actually get the services that they are being billed for.

Certain matters have been moved from regulation into legislation for Local Service Districts and this is to ensure consistency with our approach for municipalities. It will help avoid confusion in the future that inconsistent approaches have done in the past. We've heard from Local Service Districts that clarity is really important.

This is being done for provisions that relate to meeting procedures so they line up; for financial matters so there's a similarity of process; for staff, service delivery and the election procedures. So that really is a high-level taster of the bill.

This act, I think, will impact the deliveries of services of the daily lives of everybody in the province and it must reflect, really, both the way towns currently operate and the way they wish to empower themselves to operate in the future and meet the needs of their residents. It's enabling. It's flexible. It's modern. It's what we heard and, on the other hand, it provides levels of accountability and transparency for the residents' money that they use.

So I look forward to the discussions in Committee and hearing from Members opposite and I'll take my seat.

Thank you very much, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

C. TIBBS: Thank you very much, Speaker.

It's a pleasure to speak to Bill 54. The minister had 17 minutes. I'm going to take, maybe, that amount of time if not more.

So going through this bill, are there good things in it? Maybe. Are there bad things in that people aren't going to like? Maybe. But the fact that we got a 146-page, front-and-back, 350-section bill, 24 hours ago to go through and discuss with our caucus, with the Opposition, to figure out if it's going to be best for the people that we represent, it's absolutely impossible and it's disgraceful. It is. This is a huge piece of legislation that doesn't affect one

section of the province, or another section, or rural. It affects every man, woman and child in this province, this piece of legislation will.

And again, is it for the better? Who knows? After 17 minutes, I don't know if anybody knows in this House. That right there lies the problem, what the Opposition have to deal with a lot of times. You know, we're all 40 Members elected in this House; we all bring something different, we all bring something from different corners of this province and to get this 24 hours ago, Speaker, it's a lot – it's a lot – 350 different sections over 24 hours.

So I'm looking forward to the robust debate today, from all Members, and we know that here in the Official Opposition, we're not going to be satisfied until we've gone through this bill and we have everything answered and we know what we're dealing with.

It would have been nice to take back to our towns, our Local Service Districts; unfortunately we can't. Maybe roll out some of this legislation, or a briefing last week on a Thursday or a Wednesday, so on the weekend we could have gone back and talked to our constituents. Unfortunately we weren't given the opportunity for that. Not only are we robbed of that, our constituents are robbed of that. And that is absolutely terrible.

Again, that's the bill, 24 hours ago. This act will repeal and replace the Municipalities Act, 1999 . The bill will incorporate many of the provisions of the Municipalities Act, 1999 as well. I hope that this isn't the alternative to the regionalization plan that we've been talking about, discussing throughout our districts for the past four years. Because if it is, it's lacklustre, there's no doubt about it, and we need more. We need more answers.

This new act is modernizing and updating legislation incorporating many of the things municipalities were asking for in recent years. I have no doubt about that. This act is more enabling versus prescriptive in nature, allowing municipalities more flexibility enacting bylaws that suit their community. Listen, we here in the Official Opposition know that for the most part, when the government takes their fingers out of the pot, sort of thing, that can be a definite, positive thing for any municipality or LSD, and we support a certain amount of autonomy for towns, especially if it lets them develop their own economic diversity moving forward, their own plans, there's no doubt about it.

What we don't want are towns or LSDs being left high and dry by a piece of legislation that was not given the proper time to go through. And we won't accept it. The act is simpler in language making it easier for individuals to interpret sections of the act. That's something that we could have discussed with our towns, our mayors, our councillors over the weekend if we had the time. The new act will have more

definitions and improve

definitions once again making it easier for municipalities to work with the legislation, when necessary.

The act clarifies the intent of some sections, again, making it easier for councillors to interpret and implement. A significant change in the act is the incorporation of Local Service Districts in the act versus, previously, being part of regulations of the old act. We spoke about regulations here many, many times over the past couple of years. To be moved over, now, into the act itself, what does that mean? We don't know. We haven't been given the proper time to go through this, do proper analysis and bring it back to the people that really count and, unfortunately, again, that opportunity wasn't given.

Just getting into some of the pieces of the bill that we did manage to pull out, analyze ourselves last night, this morning, yesterday evening and yesterday. It now provides broad powers of municipalities to enact bylaws. A lot of municipalities across Newfoundland and Labrador – I know that we in Grand Falls-Windsor are lucky enough to have bylaw officers as well and this would give the opportunity for bylaw officers to have more power when it comes to doing inspections with regard to municipal bylaws or for housing.

It's great to have bylaw officers in your town. In the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor, I know that they do an absolutely phenomenal job. They have so many jobs to do. They have so many responsibilities. At the same time, they are always up for it. They get the job done and we are thankful. They make a difference. They make a difference in the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor. Just the police presence alone, it's actually fantastic to see and I wish more municipalities had municipal bylaw officers.

To see that change, that one change, it was good to see. Don't get me wrong. We're open to change if it's going to be for the betterment for the LSDs and the towns that we represent, absolutely. We need change as we move forward to ensure the successful future of our towns and our LSDs, but we want to make sure that there's nothing hidden in this act that is going to hamper an LSD or hamper a town, and that is exactly what we will be looking at here today.

There will be a three-year phase-out of poll tax to be replaced with a real property tax. Well, what does that look like? What's that going to mean to our LSDs? What's that going to mean to our towns? Is this going to take more money out of people's pockets who quite frankly can't afford it right now? They can't afford it. When you're paying for your gas, your groceries and everything else, to reach into your pocket and asked to be taxed again? That is unacceptable at this time so we want to make sure that this, in real time, works for the people that we represent.

A new tourism accommodation tax of up to 4 per cent. Yesterday in the briefing we found out that that will also apply to Airbnbs. Now this does give the town the opportunity to go to any business accommodation in their town or an Airbnb and charge up to a 4 per cent tax, which will then go back to the town. I'm sure there might be a lot of people that are going to be in favour of this, some people are not. But any revenue stream that can be brought into the town, as long as it doesn't hamper the most vulnerable or those who truly can't afford another tax, that's okay. A 4 per cent tax comes in, that is something that we can definitely look at.

Once again, talk to the accommodations in our town. Has the minister's department gone and talked to the accommodations throughout the province to see if that works for them? If that will hamper their business, if that will make their business better for the town? If that money, that 4 per cent, goes into something in the town that is going to bring in more business, that's going to bring in more people to stay at their accommodations, well, you know what? That 4 per cent might be a good idea.

Flexibility to make allowances over hardship cases in terms of paying your taxes in instalments, discounts or partial payments. Well, you know what? A lot of people are finding it extremely difficult out there – extremely difficult. So any way that we can defer or help somebody out, it's great to see. Especially seniors throughout our communities; we know now that they struggle with the price of fuel, gas, medication and all kinds of stuff throughout their communities. So if the towns now can work with these people to ensure that payment gets in over a period of time, that's definitely something that could be a positive for a lot of people throughout our towns.

Improved tax sale provision for owner-occupied homes who are in arrears on taxes. Another thing that this act will allow will be a lien on property by towns. So in Buchans, for instance, it's a mining town and their mining is picking up now with Valentine Lake again. They have a lot of row houses that were built for mining families back in the day.

Unfortunately, there are some houses now that have become dilapidated, that have got mould in them. Up until this act right now, the town had little recourse when it came to putting a lien on that person's house or tearing it down and absorbing the cost. So I know right now that when I go back with this piece of legislation, once we get through it a little bit further, this could be something positive for Buchans.

But, again, we haven't had the opportunity to really go and talk to them about it, let their council take a look and see what would work for them. But this could work for Buchans and, again, the autonomy part of it that goes back to the town, that's not something that we have an issue with that we see thus far. No doubt, towns want some more autonomy to develop their own economic development moving forward, to develop the best strategy for their town.

My Town of Grand Falls-Windsor might want something different than the minister's town of Gander. We need to ensure that each town does the work that will individually make them their own, that will make them successful. Again, what works in one town might not work in another, it might not work in an LSD. That's been the conversation since I've been in this House. Not everything works for everybody.

So to pull out 146-page, front-and-back legislation over 24 hours and think: You know what, this is going to work for everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador – absolutely unacceptable. To sell property at under market value, that could be something that could be good as well. I know that before, ministerial approval had to be given to any town that wanted to do this, which you can see why to an extent.

We just want to make sure – and we'll have questions – that there's a policy in there about conflict of interest. We want to make sure that nobody's going to sell – not that they would but we just want to make sure that everything's on the up-and-up and the way government should be, whether you're on a municipal, federal or provincial level. We want to make sure that a councillor's not going to sell their brother a house or a piece of land for a dollar. We need to make sure of that, and we hope that there are stipulations in place for that.

The LSDs move from regulations back into the act now. It could be good, and we're going to find out. Elections are now held every four years versus every two years. Well, we know that a lot of these LSDs have a lot of great people that step up at that time, voluntarily. They step up to do this voluntarily at that time.

Is this going to take away some people that might want to do this? If they look at this and say: Well, you know what, two years I could've contributed to, four years on a volunteer basis to do what we're going to do, that might be a little bit long for me. Now are we taking good people out of the equation that can run an LSD? Again, where is the analysis? This is something that we didn't get a chance to talk to our LSDs about. We have a lot of good people running LSDs throughout this province, a lot of good people. Thank God that we have them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. TIBBS: Because without them, a lot of this work wouldn't get done.

Again, a lot of them may have stayed on for two years and thought to themselves: You know what, two years is enough; that's enough for me. Now to sign on for four years, they might have issue with that, and if they take issue with that, then we take issue with that. But again, how were we supposed to know?

Mandatory waste collection for LSDs – mandatory waste collection. Now listen, we all know that we want to keep Newfoundland and Labrador as clean as we possibly can. But what does that mean? Are the LSDs going to have to pay for this? Are tipping fees going to be more in one LSD than the other? Are government going to help out with any subsidies, if needed? Those are questions that need to be asked. Can LSDs afford to do this?

Taxes on vehicles have gone up. Taxes on fuel have gone up. Fuel has gone up. In order to run garbage through LSDs it's going to be a price tag. Again, it's just: here you are, out to the fire, there you go. It's not good enough, Speaker. It's absolutely not good enough.

Any assets must be insured in LSDs. LSDs can also establish and operate recreational facilities. That could be good as well. That's something that we could look at inside of our own LSDs. We know that a lot of children live in LSDs that could use recreational facilities. Instead of travelling an hour down the road to the next town, who knows, maybe an LSD could share some facilities or some recreational places. I think that's the way we need to move forward.

The LSD chair and the fire chief cannot be the same individual. Of course, we know that anyway, which absolutely makes sense. The goal was to reduce legislative amendments and reduce some ministerial oversight.

Road maintenance: I know that the minister brought it up earlier for towns. A lot of LSDs, they need some roadwork done. They desperately need some roadwork done. I've said this before and I'll say it again when talking about LSDs, we have Millertown, Buchans Junction, of course, up my way; and the amount of traffic that they have on the road due to these big logging trucks, and now all these big mining trucks, it's tearing up the road. It's absolutely tearing up the road.

I've said it before – and I would like to see a discussion on this one day about a certain percentage of the revenue that comes into the province be spent on those roads and that infrastructure for LSDs because they have to drive with their families on the roads.

Do you know what? There is a huge difference between rural and urban here in Newfoundland and Labrador. There absolutely is. But I will say this, the LSDs and the small towns in Newfoundland and Labrador, they are at the pit of the stomach of Newfoundland and Labrador. They are what drives Newfoundland and Labrador. That's where our culture is found. That's where our heritage is found. We need to ensure that we do whatever we can so the LSDs are successful as well. It's very important to have them.

I know some people have said it in here before that geography can be troublesome here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Absolutely, there's no doubt about it and we can be thought of more as a territory sometimes. But these little towns that dot around Newfoundland and Labrador and inside the interior, we need to ensure that we preserve their way of living. We need to ensure that we preserve their success moving forwards.

It's so important. It's so important to the people. It's so important to our tourism throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. The Speaker has great tourism in his area. We have great tourism all over Newfoundland and Labrador and whatever legislation we bring to the floor, that lens should be put onto it. How, first of all, is this going to affect the people that live in Newfoundland and Labrador? Secondly, how is this going to affect the people that visit Newfoundland and Labrador? I want to make sure that this piece of legislation goes further.

I mean, what a great opportunity to open a piece of legislation to have full debate, full support from everybody in this House with this piece of legislation. It would have been a great opportunity. But can I support it? I don't know if I can – I don't know if I can. The simple reasons I can't support it is because it will affect the people in my towns and LSDs and I don't know how it's going to affect them. Is there something in here on page 131 that's going to come back to my town and again hamper the way they do business; take more money from their pocket; reduce their services?

We don't know. I guarantee you, if we don't know, they don't know at this point. That's where the travesty is. That's it right there, Speaker.

I'm looking forward to everybody else taking their five or 10 and everybody can speak about this. Again, it's a huge piece of legislation that affects every man, woman and child in Newfoundland and Labrador, but to have gotten it 24 hours ago is completely unacceptable. I would like to see this bill dragged out for a little bit, or maybe given some time to fully debate, to fully look at, possibly bring back to our districts and ask them does this work for them. Go with them, sit down with our councillors, they may have something to add.

I'm sure that the government put out their portals or whatever for debate to get more information from the LSDs, but I guarantee you not everybody was given that opportunity or not everybody knew about it. So unless every LSD or every town was consulted about this, we need to dig into it. We need to take the proper time, whether that's the next two hours, whether that's the next couple days, we need to take the proper time to dig into this, find out exactly what it's all about and ensure that it works for the people that we represent at the end of the day.

Because if there's something in here that needs to be changed or amended to work for the people, that's what our job is to do, everybody, collectively, 40 people in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. TIBBS: I will take my seat, Speaker, and give some more people the opportunity to speak because I'm sure that there's a lot to be said here today. I look forward to further debate and questions in Committee.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

I echo the concerns there from the Member for Grands Falls-Windsor - Buchans about the timeline on which we received this and expect to debate this and stuff. Even the minister said it was one of the largest pieces of legislation we have. The Member for Grands Falls-Windsor - Buchans is correct, it does affect every single individual in this province. It has an effect on their day-to-day lives.

Everyone understands that municipalities affect everyone's day-to-day lives; it's the most direct service that government provides to anybody is municipal government. It's the water, sewer, roads, everything. Even where your house is situated, it is a very direct service. Twenty-four hours, I didn't even have a chance to go and talk to my municipalities about this and how they feel about this, given the speed that they want to push this through.

First I'll start, that the original Municipalities Act was enacted in 1999 and was intended to be a service manual and a framework for how individuals operate. Since that act was put in, it was amended every single year since it was first introduced, every single year at least one amendment was made to it.

That just shows how much of a live document that the Municipalities Act was. Going forward, I'm going to assume that even this act will be a live document in the sense that I'm sure it will probably be amended every single year as we roll it out.

For decades now, Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador has been calling for the original Municipalities Act to be changed or repealed and replaced and also some of the LSDs wanted some input on that.

So looking at this now, this will repeal and replace what they have now. There was a lot of input put in from municipalities asking for changes to be made. I know speaking with my municipality in Labrador West, they kept talking about how they provide services and also how they tax the residents of the municipality themselves, both municipalities have asked about that.

Another thing they used to ask about a lot, too, was about enforcement and the use of their enforcement officers because they've always had issues when ticketing or enforcing bylaws. There was always some conflict there, there were some issues with the court, with how the process was. They wanted changes made there as well.

They also wanted to be able to increase revenue through taxation. They also wanted a bit more leeway on how they collected revenue into the municipalities because running a municipality is extremely expensive and giving Municipal Operating Grants and taxation stuff, it's sometimes really hard to raise the revenue to operate these municipalities and every year it gets more and more expensive to run a municipality.

I can only imagine outside of places like Labrador West, how much harder it is to run a municipality. Currently, there are 275 municipalities and 78 per cent of them have fewer than 1,000 residents. So if you're running a municipality, and so far what I've seen in this act, it's in prescribing more services that are required to be delivered; 78 per cent of these municipalities are under 1,000 people, how are they going to operate? Are their Municipal Operating Grants going to be risen to accommodate the expense of what's required of them?

A town of less than 1,000 people, the tax space for collecting taxation is pretty small and some of the service and stuff that they are required to provide is just getting more and more expensive.

So how do we bridge that gap? It's hard to say. Is it somewhere in here? I don't know, I haven't had a chance to go talk to municipalities about that. But, at the same time, is government prepared to give municipalities more Municipal Operating Grants to bring them up to actually provide the services that are now required of them even more so.

This is the conversation we need to have because we have an aging population. We have a dwindling tax base for residents. Economic development in some of these smaller municipalities, in order to spur economic development, the municipality needs money to do the thing and unless they're actually getting some influx of an Operating Grant, they might not even be able to get the economic development drawn into their community because they don't have the upfront capital to do it.

So these are things that have to be taken into consideration. Is this government prepared to make sure that they have the capital, the money that they require to do these things? Just to go back there now, my municipalities are trying to spur housing development. The municipalities are trying to find ways to encourage housing development, but it's expensive. Is government going to help them spur this development, and try to get this economic development going?

Like I said, with an aging population and a dwindling tax base, 78 per cent of the municipalities have less than 1,000 residents. These are things that we need to have a conversation about and discuss how this act is going to positively affect that, or negatively affect that. So I'd like to see that the government be prepared to actually help these smaller municipalities fund these things that they're asking of them in this act.

The goal of this bill is to change the tone of legislation in governing municipalities from being prescriptive and providing towns and LSDs with more enabling language. That's another thing, too. Municipalities do want to have a bit more autonomy in how the bylaws and things work and, at the same time, that we make sure that they have protections and stuff in place.

So giving them more leeway in the bylaws, my question would be: What potentialities open them up to litigation? How is the province going to be there when it comes to bylaw enforcement, but also the negative comeback when it comes to potentially opening up a municipality to litigation from a resident, or a business or something in there based on how their bylaws are operating? What framework is there to make sure that no negative impact happens when it comes to those situations?

Especially now with the bylaw enforcement officers and that, is there going to be mandatory training for bylaw enforcement officers and inspectors to make sure that they're carrying out their jobs correctly? Because inside of that you're asking them to go in and do more investigation, have a bylaw enforcement officer. Is the province going to have more mandatory training for them?

Now they've also got the powers with that non-moving traffic violations. So is the bylaw enforcement officer going to have to do increased training now? Is the province going to make sure that they do that, or is it going to be downloaded onto the municipality to make sure they have it? Current bylaw enforcement officers, will they be qualified or is it de-qualification?

So here's the thing that I need to find out: Is that going to be the regulations or is that even something that was thought of? I don't know, haven't had a chance to talk to my municipalities about because I only got this 24 hours ago.

Regarding municipalities, the new act provides the following changes: there's the purposeful design of a broader manner to allow the municipality to govern the affairs of the municipality as it sees fit, with the purpose of providing good government; managing service facilities; ensuring health, safety and viability of a town; and fostering economic, social and environmental well-being of a town.

So there's some stuff in there you're talking about the well-being and everything of a community and you're trying to foster those things. We'll go back to it again: 78 per cent of the municipalities in this province are less than 1,000 people. So you want to do these nice things, you want to foster these nice things. These nice things come with a cost and if you have a town of less than 1,000 people, your tax base is very small.

So, once again, these are nice things you're asking of them, but if you don't put the funding and the capital behind it, it's absolutely pointless. They can't achieve this because they don't have the tax base to work from and they don't have the funding coming in to them to foster these nice things.

Once again, I ask: You wrote this nice thing, but unless there are actually some resources and tools and everything for the municipality to access on a regular basis, not just one time, here's a nice little grant to get it started because once you start this, you also have to continue to pay for it down the road.

So my question again is going to be: Where are the smaller municipalities, which are 78 per cent of the municipalities in the province, going to find the annual funding to make sure that they can achieve these things that you're trying to put out there? Unless it's a continued stream of funding to maintain these things – since it's less than 1,000 people, not a big tax base there – it's dead on arrival, right? You can't achieve it without that.

Towns are specifically enabled to pass bylaws for the above purposes so that the new town act will not have to be amended every time municipalities are faced with unforeseen issues that they are legally prevented from addressing as an occurring case.

So we'll go back to what I said earlier, the current act was amended every single year since its inception. Now, I know the understanding of what we're trying to see here is that you're trying to prevent that and have something a bit more open ended. But at the same time, without the ability to go back to our municipalities and discuss this with them, how is that to be foreseen? We need to have a good conversation about this going forward because it's a massive piece of work. It's a massive piece of work that affects so many people. So we're now seeing here it is but the road of good intentions takes a right or left turn, sometimes.

Vest towns with limited natural person's powers: a measure given to the town's ability to exercise various corporate powers not specifically mentioned in the legislation. They are now able to enter into contracts and other agreements. So here is another thing, does this open up a municipality also to potential litigation? What is going to be there to help a municipality do this and go down the right path with this without opening themselves up to blowback?

This is another question I have: Where is the town's ability to help protect themselves when doing these kind of things. Especially, like I said, when we go back to a town, 78 per cent of the towns in this province have less than 1,000 people. How do we give the resources and tool kits to smaller municipalities who try to go down this road? Where is the protection there for that? At the same time, where is the capital and the money for training and abilities and all this stuff?

Some of this stuff here, a small town council is not well versed on. Are we going to staff up Municipal and Provincial Affairs to make sure that there are people there to help these small towns navigate these new powers and navigate these new abilities? Because if we don't train them up to make sure they're doing things in a correct manner that we hoped that they would do it in, once again, dead on arrival. We have to have the resources; we have to have the people there to help navigate down through these changes because smaller municipalities, 78 per cent of them don't have the power, the resources, and the staff to sometimes navigate this.

Prevents towns from operating for profit: that is a given, a municipality is supposed to operate as a not-for-profit. They are just supposed to be able to be there for the people of the province and to make sure that they're fostering an environment for the residents that are there. That makes sense; a town shouldn't be a for-profit business, it's a town.

List of subjects on which the town must have by-laws, such as rules, procedures at town council meetings, fire prevention, arrears sales, et cetera; gives the minister the direction to order a feasibility report before recommending that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council incorporate a town, amalgamate towns, establish or alter boundaries or disincorporate them. Current feasibility reports are mandatory in these cases even though some listed circumstances are routine or require little examination before approval. The goal is to reduce paperwork and administrative burden on the municipality.

Before it was mandatory, obviously, for feasibility; now it's just at the direction of the minister. So given that we've had this grand chat about regionalization, amalgamation, a bunch of different things over the last number of years when it comes to municipalities, is this a positive or a negative when it comes to regionalization or amalgamation and/or such?

So my question is, given that we never really went down the route of regionalization, it was kind of, you know, quietly put to bed, but there are still a lot of municipalities out there who still talk about the ideas of regionalization, amalgamation and stuff like that. So are we going to foster that environment for when they want to come to a greater degree, or are we just going to hope that some towns just do it on their own, organically?

My question with this is, is there anything in the act here that could possibly foster or nurture the idea of working together, or is there anything in the act that might, kind of, sway the other way? I don't know, I never had a chance to go talk to my municipalities about it because I only got this 24 hours ago. But at the same time, I think we have to have a broader conversation on where do we want to go as a province with this. Once again, 78 per cent of municipalities are under 1,000 people. Many of these municipalities are very small operations, how do we make sure that they are actually given the tools to manage this and other topics that are brought up because of this?

I know communities, they have two employees and now they're expected to do mandatory things that they have to do. With two employees, how do you have the resources to, you know, do most of those things that are prescribed in this legislation. These communities are going to have to staff up. Where are the resources for them to staff up? The tax base is really small; they're very elderly communities.

This is the conversation we're having; are we going to download a lot of burden onto communities? I don't know, only got this 24 hours ago. Couldn't have a good chat with any communities about it. Are we actually going to be downloading more burden on some municipalities? Are we actually going to make municipalities have to do more work with less staff? Are we going to make sure that they have adequate resources, because from what I'm seeing here is, we're going to ask them to operate on shoestring budgets, give them a big list of prescribed things they're going to have to do, and cross our fingers and hope for the best. That's what I'm seeing right now.

At the same time, I think that if we're going to do this, it has to come with some kind of assurance that they can do this; 90 per cent of these councils in these communities, they're all volunteers. They're doing it for their community, there's no other reason they're doing it; they just want to better their communities.

So we're going to have a group of volunteers go through this prescribed amount of legislation, there's a list of things that are being added, how are they going to get through it? How are they actually going to be able to manage all of this when most councils have one, two, maybe three employees at most, maybe a part-timer?

So I'm really concerned for these smaller communities, these 78 per cent of the communities in this province who are under 1,000 residents, with an aging demographic and a laundry list of things they want to get done but they just don't have the capital, they don't have the money to do it.

Just look at the boil-order list in this province. There are a lot of communities that just can't afford to maintain their water system so they end up on a boil order. Many of these communities are just trying to get by. But we're going to give them a big prescribed list of things we want to see them accomplish and not give them the tools or the resources to actually manage that.

We really to stop and have a good look at the Municipal Operating Grants. I know they went up a little bit, but is it actually enough to get them across the finish line and make their community what these councillors dream their community to be.

Many of these people go on these councils and dream, do you know what? I want to be able to make this the best community in this province. When they get on the council, they realize I have no money, I have no resources, I'm just yelling at a wall because there's no one listening to me.

At the end of the day, these 78 per cent of communities that are under a thousand people, can they actually get through this act? Can they actually accomplish what's in this act? Do they have the resources, the training and the ability to get through this? What I'm seeing here is great intention – possibly, don't know, just got it 24 hours ago – possibly great intention, but without any resources, without any capital, without any of this stuff, is it even possible?

You talk about good health, good social well-being, good all that stuff, that costs money. Without proper funding, without a proper way to actually do it these communities won't be able to accomplish that. It's going to actually be disheartening to these councils because it's in the act, these are the things we can do, but I can't do it, my community can't do it because I don't have the money.

These are things you have to think about. It's great to have a plan, but if it has a poor execution, it doesn't work. I really feel for these communities, the small ones. I feel for my own communities and some of the stuff they have to deal with. I understand that the tax base is a little bit different in Lab West, but at the end of the day, there are a lot of great little communities out there who just want to do good by their residents, just want to have all the nice things that they dream of when they get on council.

But if they can't achieve it then I think we're missing the mark, I think we're missing the point. I really would hope that we have the ability to take this back to all of our communities.

I only have two communities in my district. A massive geographical district, I only have two communities. There are some Members in here who I think have 40, 50 communities, LSDs, everything like that. That's a lot of consultations they have to do themselves as their Member and they only got 24 hours to do it. They must've been some busy on the phone because I don't think you can contact 40-something communities by phone in 24 hours.

At the end of the day, I think it's disappointing that we don't have a real opportunity to go back and take this back to our residents.

I'll just clue up with this, Speaker, in really simple words: great intention, poor execution.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Speaker.

I'm pleased to stand up and discuss this bill today. I agree with my colleagues who spoke before me that it doesn't give adequate time in order to address it properly and to drill down on what's important. Like every bill that's presented, there are lots of good things that would be contained in a bill. I have some reservations about some of them and if I can engage you for a short time to illustrate those issues, that would be great.

Speaker, I had the benefit, back in 2015, of working with two other individuals to bring George's Brook-Milton, which was a Local Service District, into an incorporated entity in 2018. It was a piece of work. A three-year-plus journey to bring George's Brook-Milton into becoming an incorporated town. We had opposition in the local community when we wanted to bring George's Brook-Milton to an incorporated entity.

So where is George's Brook-Milton now? Well, we are a town since 2018. We are the 77th largest town in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and how many people? We're a little less than 800 people, but the 77th largest town in the province. We're not a large town.

But in three years, in the journey, we had a lot of resistance on becoming a town. The thing that residents feared the most was property tax. We did our initial survey and in our initial survey we were down to less than 10 per cent interest in becoming a town. When the vote was cast in 2018, we settled in on 66.8 per cent of the vote in favour of becoming incorporated with the promissory note that we would not utilize property tax because they were spooked about property tax.

It may have been us three as messengers that failed in adequately informing them about property tax, but they were spooked. I would say to you, now we have legislation on November 1 that once it's passed every other LSD out there is going to have property tax. I had a three-year journey with three individuals, three years to try to convince and talk about becoming incorporated and property tax.

But we're going to do it now in one morning and in one afternoon, and we're going to decree to those people out there in Newfoundland and Labrador, those LSDs: You've got no choice now. In this democracy you've got no choice. The poll tax is off. You have to pay property tax. Now, whose responsibility would it be that we've got to inform them of that?

I want to state one thing: When we began that journey in 2016, there was a misconception about what LSDs are about. We had a consultation that went around the province. I fail to recall what that consultation was. There was a round table on municipal governance in the province and they went around.

We had one in Clarenville that I did not attend. When they sent out the list of all those round tables, the first one or second one on every list in every centre they went to were that LSDs ought to pay their fair share of taxes. That was the misconception. LSDs ought to pay their fair share of taxes, and that is a misconception.

If you're in an LSD in Newfoundland and Labrador, you are paying every tax in Newfoundland and Labrador that someone in a municipality is paying, except for your local governance. Every tax is the same except your local governance. That is the difference.

I just want to repeat that again for effect. Third time: People in LSDs pay every tax that people in municipalities pay, except for their local municipal governance. No difference. So people pay for what they want or people pay for what they get. The default in those municipalities, in leaders and in decision-makers would be: Well, we plow their roads. The province plows their roads – true. That is true. The province plows their roads.

But let me tell you what difference it made in George's Brook-Milton becoming a town from an LSD. You're an LSD; you receive no funds from government unless you apply for municipal capital works, which you've got the option to do. But you receive no funds from government. You're out there, you receive no funds.

I can see that these House Leaders, MHAs and residents are going to say: Well, you're caught now because you receive no money from government, but we're plowing your roads. That's the only thing that we hear. But let me give you another thought in our debate. We became a town. When we became a town in George's Brook, we received the Municipal Operating Grant from the government because now we're a town. So our Municipal Operating Grant is approximately $54,000.

So now as a town, in 2018, we're receiving a Municipal Operating Grant of $54,000; not bad. Every year, $54,000 as a Municipal Operating Grant. As an LSD, you're out there for governance, local governance, but you didn't receive that. You receive zero dollars. You pay gas tax out – and I want to be clear, people in LSDs pay gas tax, too, same as everybody – but you don't get your gas tax rebate back in an LSD. You don't get it back.

So what difference in George's Brook-Milton did it make? Well, in gas tax rebate, probably a little under $300,000 in gas tax. That's over – I stand to be corrected – a four- to five-year period. So if you average that out, I would assume $40,000 to $50,000 a year. Do the math. Do the math now. LSD, zero. Thus far in a municipality, we're up to $100,000 per year. But it doesn't stop there. Remember, that's $100,000 we didn't have, but the province plows their roads. That is the thing that comes up all the time: The province plows their roads.

Then we're allowed to get a rebate on all the power consumed, or 2.5 per cent of the HST paid on our power. We can get that back as an incorporated town. As an LSD, you can't get that back; 2.5 per cent of the power expended per year in our town, we get back. So my hon. Member now for Ferryland is saying how much is that? I just heard him say it. Well, the Town of George's Brook-Milton receives every January, a rebate cheque for that 2.5 per cent from Newfoundland Power, to the tune of between $19,000 to $20,000 to start off their year in January.

Do LSDs get that back? Absolutely not. They don't. Do the math. Now you're up to 120. I don't know as I stand here what rebate we get back from the tech companies like Bell, Eastlink that offer that service in our community. I don't know, so I can't speculate. But if you did the math and said: LSDs are a drag to the province because we plow their roads – that is wrong. That is wrong, and that is a misconception, and I'd like for us to make sure we clear that up here now.

LSDs aren't a drag to the province; they're a benefit to the province because in George's Brook-Milton before we got incorporated, there was $130,000 a year that we didn't receive but somebody else did. Did we have an entitlement to it as a Local Service District? I bet we did and we ought to have. It's not corrected here. There's nothing in this legislation to look at that imbalance.

But one thing that comes up in this legislation is that you may have to look after your roads now. LSDs, you may have to look after your roads now and we'll hear more about that in the future. There's nothing wrong with incorporated entities looking after their roads. Nothing wrong with it. The roads may be in better quality and be better maintained if the towns looked after their roads. No doubt about it.

But you cannot leave it to towns or anybody else if you're not going to bring those roads up to a standard that's presentable. If they got to come up with a massive amount of money to bring them up to a standard before they've got to maintain them, that's an injustice. I'm not sure I see that here and I don't know where we're going with that and what the regulations are going to say in relation to the upkeep of roads.

But I would say to you, the minister stood on his feet and gave the

preamble to us and we did our consultation with the chairs. I think the minister will correct me if I misspeak, but I would say they did the consultation with the chairs of the LSDs. Well, in my district, I have the second largest Local Service District in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Lethbridge and area LSD, serving eight communities, a picture-perfect textbook example of regionalization.

So I took the liberty to text to see –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

C. PARDY: – as to whether any consultation occurred: none. In fact, I was asked: What's all this about? Again, I disclosed nothing because this is going to break out in the media very soon. I would say to you, every one of us in this House are going to have to respond to what this does to the residents of which we serve.

I presented a petition a short time ago in the House and I said that I have one unincorporated area and one LSD who is enquiring about becoming incorporated, and they are not getting much traction. We were over three years. We found in the third year, to become incorporated, we had to hit the Open Line .

My first time speaking to Paddy Daly was back in about 2017. That address that I just had then was about the same thing that I told Paddy Daly. LSDs weren't a drag to the province. LSDs are not a drag to the province. If you believe that, absolutely incorrect. But by golly, we'll move legislation to make sure we hit them or we affect them.

We're not saying that we're going to give them funds to help them out in their governance. We are the 77th largest town in the province, George's Brook-Milton, less than 800 people. Lethbridge and area LSD has 1,500 people, twice the size. They would settle around the 40th largest in the province, but they're an LSD. You add up the math of what we received as an incorporated entity in George's Brook-Milton and double it for Lethbridge and area, I would think that they should be entitled, if they were a town, to $250,000 a year coming back to their community. But what do they get back? They get zilch.

They get nothing back and this legislation won't do anything for those people living in those communities.

The regionalization document that was driven by MNL. Those viable LSDs ought to have a pathway to incorporation. Now, if I read what's presented here, the pathway you've presented was that the minister may have discretion in ordering a feasibility study. He may. He may not.

That is the only thing I can glean from the notes, when we're looking at trying to create a pathway for those viable LSDs out there to become incorporated. Because becoming incorporated, the LSD in Lethbridge, it means a quarter of a million dollars coming into the coffers to help them better govern. No different than what it is in Clarenville, no different than what it is in Bonavista, no different than what it is in George's Brook-Milton. But there's nothing in this provision to monetarily help Local Service Districts manage or govern their residents, nothing. Not for me to see, unless the minister highlights it in an upcoming address.

So I do have concerns. I have concerns about the roads and you heard us all talk about the condition of our roads in rural Newfoundland. I've always stated that we probably have the worst roads in the province in the District of Bonavista.

AN HON. MEMBER: No you don't.

C. PARDY: I believe we do.

The only thing I would say: Where is government's thinking with taking over the roads? Because you can put it out there to say, here's what we're headed towards. What is your thinking as to passing these roads and giving them the ownership to maintaining their roads in their jurisdiction? Because that's not something you would spring on somebody. It's something that's process oriented.

Will government make sure that the roads, before you pass them over, are brought up to standard? Because if you do the Town of Trinity Bay North in the District of Bonavista has been trying to take over a road in Melrose that is in horrendous condition. They said we will take it over if you bring that road up to standard. That was way back before I got elected.

I've had conversations with the minister, not the current one. I think I may have mentioned it to the current one, too, but I think I might have mentioned that we need to make sure that those who want – like in the community of Port Rexton and Melrose in Trinity Bay North – to take their roads over – the problem is that government either financially or whatever is not going to bring them up to standard to pass them over. I know that's a big undertaking. I know that's not easy. It's a big undertaking. But when you throw something out in this bulletin that they're going to be responsible for the roads, that's a little unnerving.

Tomorrow morning, I'm going to wake up after this hits the media and when I wake up, I'm going to be inundated with calls tomorrow on this, I guarantee you. Not only my frequent callers, but there are going to be a lot of other ones calling and saying where did this come from? I'm assuming that if Lethbridge and area, the second largest LSD in the province, were not consulted or were not engaged, I'm assuming all the other ones in the District of Bonavista were not. If the largest one was not, I'm assuming all the other ones.

So I would say to you, I know I can't make that assumption, but I would think I would have heard if there was a conversation about this particular bill.

The only thing I can relate to is back in the UK when Margaret Thatcher was in and they had the poll tax, property tax. Listen, it brought our government down. I don't know what's going to happen with the LSDs in rural Newfoundland where we're going, but we need a little more clarity on this.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member's time has expired.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Speaker.

I'll just take a few minutes to make a few comments on Bill 54.

First of all, Speaker, I will say that from my perspective as the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, this has no impact on me whatsoever. I know one of the Members talked about this is going to impact every single person in Newfoundland and Labrador, but unless I'm missing something, this is not the cities act. I think there's going to be a separate cities act. It's certainly not indicated in this bill that this would be the cities act so anyone living in the City of St. John's, Mount Pearl, Corner Brook, this does not impact them. This is all the towns and LSDs and so on, but not the three cities.

Where I represent St. John's and Mount Pearl, this has nothing to do with me. Other than, of course, I would have residents and so on who might have summer homes or whatever in a Local Service District or whatever and there would be some impact there. But in terms of the actual act itself, obviously, I would be anxiously awaiting to see what the new cities act is going to look like.

With that said, I will echo the point that it is 146 pages long. Besides the fact that we only just received it yesterday and it's a lot to digest and analyze and so on, my bigger concern or certainly equally my concern is not just the fact that Members in this House of Assembly, particularly those Members who represent the towns and the Local Service Districts, would not have adequate time to do their research and really pick this apart and understand all the implications, my bigger concern would be for the towns themselves.

I'm not sure if the minister said it in his

preamble or not but I'm pretty sure that MNL definitely would've been consulted and I would think would've had a big role to play in the creation of this. I'm not sure about the Local Service Districts and so on, if they had any consultation. Because we know on the regionalization document that it was the Local Service Districts and unincorporated areas who came out in opposition to it. They indicated at the time that there were no consultations with them; they felt it was a pure MNL document of which they had zero say. Of course we know what happened with that regionalization document.

Again, has MNL and have Local Service Districts seen this document? Did they see this document last week or the week before that or a month ago? Did they have a chance to, not just give input into what you're going to do, but after you did it, did they see this document? Did they have a chance to go through it or are Members on this side of the House, and probably Members on that side of the House as well, going to be inundated with phone calls once they actually see this? All of a sudden they're are going to say, my God, I don't agree with this, I don't agree with that, I don't agree with something else.

This is going to have implications for me. Nobody asked me, we didn't recommend this. Is that what's going to happen? I don't know.

I suspect that is what's going to happen, though. I have a sneaking suspicion that there are going to be town councillors or there are going to be people on Local Service Districts that are now going to be looking online, they're going to see this document and they're going to say what the heck is this all about? There are going to be issues raised. I have a feeling that's going to happen.

That's why in terms of process – and it's been brought up in this House before. I'm not dumping on this administration because it's the way it's always been done – doesn't mean it's right. It's one thing to consult on a document and a piece of legislation, but once you've done your consultation and you've now created a piece of legislation, why not then take that in draft form and say here's what we heard, here's the document we've drafted, what do you think of it? Does this meet your needs? Did we get it right? Before it comes in this House of Assembly.

That's what we should be doing, really, with all this kind of legislation that's going through this House. We should be consulting, then drafting a document and then taking that draft document and going right back to the same people we consulted with and say here's what we've drafted based on your feedback, what do you think? That's what needs to happen. I don't think it happened on this piece of legislation. I'm pretty sure it didn't. That would be a concern I would have with it.

Now, with that said, there are a lot of good things I see in here. I did serve on the board of directors with Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador in a former life as Avalon director. I had a lot of rural municipalities that would've been in my region. The region went right up to the Isthmus, I guess, and included Trinity Bay, Conception Bay, Placentia Bay, the Southern Shore and so on. I know that there have been concerns raised over the years for the need for an updated Municipalities Act. I'm sure that is welcome in general and I'm pretty sure that having more enabling legislation, I see that as a positive as well. I see that as a positive having enabling legislation.

I'm not going to speak for the Minister of Municipal Affairs because I know he's been listening intently and I seen him there making notes as everyone has been speaking. I'm sure he will have a lot to say. But my colleague from Labrador West, he was talking about the fact that all of this is being put on municipalities and they need more money, more resources and so on to do it. That's not how I read it. I'll be looking for clarification from the minister because the way I read it is that we are enabling them to do things. That doesn't mean they have to do them.

Just because we can enable someone to have municipal bylaws and municipal enforcement, that doesn't mean that we're forcing them and saying, now you need to have municipal enforcement and municipal bylaws. The only thing we're forcing them to do, I believe I heard the minister say, was pick up garbage, I think. I might have missed something else, maybe fire protection, but there are a couple of things they have to do, which they're likely doing already anyway, but most of these additional things, this enabling legislation is giving them the ability to do it, if they choose to do it, if they want to do it and if they're able to do it.

It's not necessarily a matter of resourcing because a town can say well, now I have the ability to do this, it's something we wanted to do. It's something we can afford to do, we're able to do; we're going to do it. Another smaller municipality might say, we just don't have the means to do it. We haven't been doing it for the last 100 years; we won't be doing it any time in the future because we don't have the money to do it.

If our circumstances should change where the population should grow, some business should come in, someone discovers a gold mine in our backyard that we can get some taxes from or whatever and now we're able to do it, we have the money, then we can do it at that point in time.

Alternatively, something that I didn't hear really brought up a whole lot is just because that regional governance document is dead, so to speak, in terms of forcing regionalization, that doesn't stop towns and Local Service Districts from getting together and sharing services. It does not stop it.

So now I have the ability, as an example, to have bylaws and I want to have enforcement. Okay, we can't afford enforcement officer, but maybe the 10 communities that are all sort of next to each other for this particular geographic area, we all get together and we say do you know what? We can afford a municipal bylaw inspector between us. We'll all chip in on it and then we will do it. We could do the same thing for animal control.

We all have problems with wild cats and roaming dogs or whatever the case might be. We can't afford a dog catcher, or animal control person, to use the right term. But 10 of us can get together and we can chip in and we can all pay for an animal control person. You can do the same thing with water; we talk about the water systems and testing of water systems, and you train someone and then they leave and now your water, you have no testing – you could do that same thing.

You could get together and say, we're going to train a person and pay the salary of a person to test all the water systems for the whole region, and we'll all chip in on it. This person will do it for all of us. Waste water, no different. You can do it for all these things.

So just because the regional framework – which was thrown out there, which was basically forcing LSDs and so on to do it. They can still do these things on a voluntary basis, where it makes sense for them and their residents. I see all these things in terms of enabling these things to happen and encouraging these things to happen – and I'm sure the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the government would be continuing to engage in conversation and encourage municipalities to share services where it makes sense. You're not forced to do it, but where it makes sense.

But I would say to my colleague from Bonavista, about some of the issues he's raising, I understand that concern that as well. We cannot be saddling people – and this is why I had a big concern over the regionalization plans. You cannot be saddling people with all these extra costs and so on, particularly if they're not getting the services, or they don't need it or they don't want it.

If I'm living in a small area, and I'm saying as much as I'd love to have a recreational facility, as much as I'd love for us to have animal control, as a group we've decided we can't afford it, and we don't want to pay extra taxes to have it, that should be their choice. I think where the issue comes in for people in the larger towns and cities, is that they take offence to the fact that there's a perception that you don't want it, but you want me to pay for it.

As long as people are getting what they pay for, and as long as they're not having to be subsidized by someone else's taxes then sure what odds. That's how they choose to live, who cares? As long as they're picking up their garbage and doing the basics they need, and they're happy and it's not costing me anything and I'm not having to take my tax dollars to pay for them, then why would we care? Why would we be forcing something on them they don't want? That's how I would see it.

Now, if they're asking me to subsidize it, that's a different discussion. I do thank the Member for the education because I've heard people in my area, it comes up from time to time: Why am I paying for the road? They do see it as a drag, they're not paying anything. But when you put it in perspective, if they all came together as a town it would cost more, actually, than what it's costing now. So I think if people understood that it would cost more, they might have a different view on that matter.

At the end of the day, I don't see this as a bad thing. There's a lot of good stuff in here. I like the fact that it's enabling legislation and it's something that's been asked for, for many years. So I definitely see that as a good thing. I do understand the concern my colleague has, but the bigger concern I have, as I said from the get-go, this is not impacting me per se; it's not impacting the residents of Mount Pearl and St. John's directly, like I said, unless someone has summer cabins.

But it is impacting potentially the towns, the Local Service Districts, and again, for a document that is this comprehensive, this large, I really believe that when you did your consultation you came up with this, you should have then taken this in draft form, brought it back to those people and said: Here's what we're proposing; what do you think?

If they were satisfied with it – and I know that no matter what you do, there are going to be people that are going to be for and against. I understand that, too. You'll never please everyone – impossible. But at least give the opportunity for feedback from the people that are impacted, to say: What do you think?

Gather that feedback and then we could have a much more informed debate in this House, knowing what the people impacted the most, how they feel about it. That way the Members who represent those people could do so in a more informed way, based on the feedback from their constituents. By the time we do this now and feedback is received, it's going to be too late, probably. It'll be a done deal and that's unfortunate.

Anyway, with that said, I'll take my seat.

Thank you, Speaker.

SPEAKER (Warr): Thank you.

The Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Speaker, thank you so much. It's certainly a great opportunity to get up and represent the constituents of the Ferryland District.

I've got to say, just to get this this morning just before you come in the House and try to discuss this, knowing that the people in my district, certainly LSDs, have no idea what's going on here right now – they didn't include the MHA to go to the meetings to be consulted. They didn't consult us as MHAs over here when this was coming out this morning. We did a briefing yesterday; 24 hours ago we got this. Now we get up and have to speak on it and not sure how to speak on it. That's the problem.

You're trying to represent your district, your whole district, and you have municipalities, you have LSDs. You're trying to get in here and trying to get the right information. You come in here, first thing you're waiting for is to get up and say something that's wrong in a debate that you don't even know if it's right or wrong. That's the first thing you're going to jump on, the first opportunity, one of those MHAs on the other side are going to jump up and correct it. Mark my words. If I say it, you'll certainly hear it back. You'll certainly hear it back.

That's the most disappointing thing in this House of Assembly, is the consultations. You never hear back. You never hear on this side. I'm tired of bringing it up. It's so hard to represent your district when you're on the outside looking in. Twenty-two runs 18, 22 runs 40, basically. There are no consultations. If somebody can argue with that then I'd like to hear it, because I am tired of talking about it. It drives me mad, I have to tell you. It drives me mad when you can't speak to people. We've got no information on this, none.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

L. O'DRISCOLL: Oh, sit over here and you're showboating now because you get up and you're speaking. Well, I'm going to tell you, I'm going to represent the district I'm in and I am tired of this garbage. Tired of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. O'DRISCOLL: Every time I get up it's the same thing. You get over here, oh yeah, well we'll speak about it later. I think the Member for Bonavista mentioned that they don't pay a property tax and the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure said: No, that's wrong. We don't know if it's wrong. R eally, you have 24 hours to get briefed on it. Why can't you have this before? That's the problem. Now you're going to talk to us. Why don't you talk to us before it gets here? That's the problem I have with it. That's the problem.

You get in here and you try to represent your district and you listen to that every time. This is the information we have and we get the chirping every time we get up when they don't like to hear what they don't want to hear. But they're going to hear it, because we're not letting this go. I can name roads, you go in and you have to call to get them graded. They're going in and grading nothing. They need to put soil down or rock down or whatever they have to do. You're going to go in now and hopefully take them over and this is going to be accepted, the way the roads are? It's not acceptable. I can just imagine the phone calls I'm going to get tomorrow from these LSDs.

Now, there is some good stuff in it; don't get me wrong, there is some good stuff in it that's going to help municipalities, no question. There are lots of good things there that are going to happen, I acknowledge that. That's the way it should be. You consulted with municipalities. Yes, you might've consulted with a certain group of LSDs.

Whatever happened to town meetings that you could go together? I live in a district, I can call every LSD and if we're going to have a meeting in two weeks' time, if they're not there, then they don't get represented, but if they're there, the minister can come out and speak to them and tell them what's going on and how it's going to affect them.

Now I have to try to bring that back to them, and there's no way it's going to happen based on 24 hours. I don't know, I don't know. I'm sitting here thinking the amount of calls that's going to come from the LSDs and the people in the districts, thinking that they're going to get taxed. They don't know if they are; we don't know. So that is the problem that I have trying to pass that on and not knowing the information that I'm passing on properly.

So I'm going to say, hold on now, relax a second, let's talk this out. We'll get together, whether there's a committee on our side or we sit in our caucus and say here's what we'd like to have asked, if you're going to sit down and be on a committee, then we pass that on. Then they come back with some suggestions, okay, we'll have to pass that on to our LSDs.

That didn't happen, exactly as the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands said. We bring it back. We had no consultations. I haven't met with anybody. I have LSDs. If they met with them, maybe they did in a single one, but they didn't include the MHA to know that. I haven't heard anyone say, b'y it's great that the minister came up and met with us when they were talking about regionalization, because that's when it all comes out. It's a backdoor way of doing it by the sounds of it to me.

Do you know what? There's lots of good stuff here and I acknowledge the good stuff, I really do. Some of the ministers I've been dealing with have been great, when you call them, they call you back and there's nothing better. You are representing a district that you're in and there's nothing better when they call you back. If it's a bad answer then we'll try to get around it, or it is what it is. It's the rules. You can only operate by the rules. This is not operating by the rules, in my mind. Not getting consulted is my problem.

I was only going to touch on it for a minute and I'm six minutes in talking about consultations. Every piece of legislation is the same way, every single time. You go in and get one sheet of paper, it might be good, we might go in and have a look at it; somebody went to the briefing. You get consulted on it. Yeah, it seems like it's a good thing, yes.

One hundred forty-five or 146 pages in this and they try to read the WHEREASes. It's unbelievable how to understand it. What are the changes? Are the changes highlighted that are there? That would be nice if you sent us the briefing with all the changes that are made from the previous one so you know what you're reading or what's changed. That hasn't happened, ever. That would be pretty easy – not easy to understand but it would be easy to read and understand what's changing. Wouldn't that be something, highlight what is changed in the act. That would be great. That doesn't happen.

I see some of the Airbnbs. I heard from municipalities, there were places in our community, in all communities that were getting Airbnbs. They were getting paid and didn't have to pay any taxes to the town councils. So the people in the towns that had apartments and everything for rent, yeah, they were ticked off. They were paying taxes so why shouldn't he if he's in the next building? It makes a lot of sense. It's a good change. I think that's a good thing. So the Airbnbs have to pay the same as the people that got apartments or whatever they're renting. That to me is a good change.

As I said, it's not all bad, but to get this the way we've got it, is so disappointing, I've got to tell you. Again, I'd love to hear the correction on when the minister said no, they don't get charged property tax. Do they? How does it work for them?

I've got people calling me in the Local Service District with a small road, they'd like some brush cutting done. They can't get it done. Really, the Department of Transportation doesn't do their own brush cutting or very minimal. They're doing some in my area. They've got a nice small mini excavator doing it and it's been great. In certain areas it is done.

Again, as I said before, it's about maintenance. So the Local Service Districts don't get any of this. They get in, they plow the road and they go on. If they have a washout, they go in and fix it. Now, they pay for their own garbage collection and they pay for their fire fighting fees in certain areas. There are certain places in these places that there's a group that takes up their own garbage collection, their own fees for garbage collection, their own fees for fire fighting service and there are towns next to them that they don't service them.

So they get their own collection done, like two minutes outside of town. So there is a lot of stuff that needs to be discussed and it hasn't been discussed.

You're talking about cellphone coverage. In this area, it's just so frustrating, I've got to tell you. It's so frustrating. The cellphone coverage, for some of these Local Service Districts, they don't have it. So now you're talking about bringing them together. Who is going to collect for the Local Service Districts or who collects it if there is property tax or what is it all about? We haven't had the explanation. We need to get the explanation.

Again, I looked to the minister, when the previous minister brought in a code of conduct, they really wanted that in the towns and they got it. They got what they wanted, 100 per cent of the people are on board, I think they said, and 98 per cent of the people have completed it. So that's a good thing that they did. It's a good thing that they did. They brought it in here. We discussed it. They did and they got 98 per cent of the people on board. So good for them and that's a good piece of legislation. That's in there. That's added. But this here with the 145 pages.

With municipalities or towns, I use towns as an example, there are some towns that still don't meet in their town council office. They meet online, still today. I'm not saying everything is back to normal, but some of these towns have got to be forced to get back to their offices to hold their meetings. That's got to happen. It just has to happen. So they're still operating online, doing meetings online. We have to get back to normal here; we have to get back to normal in some of these places.

In these towns, they have to get back and have general public come in to the meetings, if that's what people want to do, but they don't have that opportunity in some of these places. Some they do; some they don't. Some of these people are trying to do it online; it can't happen online. They don't have the capability to do it, they just don't.

They're talking about poll tax. We had a big discussion on poll tax this morning in our caucus. One of the communities I have says they have a poll tax. Now, it's not a poll tax, it is a property tax, but they call it a poll tax. They just pay poll tax. The Department of Transportation comes in and cleans the roads, they collect the poll tax, of course, and they get their garbage collected and they got their firefighting.

But the Department of Transportation, in a lot of my communities, is doing the roads and to put that back on a community, I'll use St. Shott's, I don't know how this is going to work so this is why I'm bringing it up. St. Shott's has 50 or 55 residents, 14 or 15 kilometres from the main highway of Route 10, you go down 14 kilometres or 15 kilometres and you have to plow that road. Now you're going to leave that on 50 residents that are paying a poll tax. You tell me how that's going to be done.

They pay taxes the same as we do; they should get the same things. They're getting charged sugar tax down in St. Shott's so why shouldn't they get their roads cleared? They're getting charged every other tax. They're getting charged taxes; you're putting that in your revenue. The Department of Transportation has to clean it. That's what got to happen.

So when you charge a tax; they are paying taxes. They should get their roads cleared and that's what should happen. They're getting their garbage collected. So what are you telling them now? Fifty people, are they going to have to put out a tender to clean the roads all the way down? Is that what's going to happen? We don't know. I don't want to keep repeating that, but I am going to have to because we don't know.

So where do these answers come from? We get in Committee, you'll be here for a month of Sundays by the time this is passed with the questions we'll have on this. There is no question about.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

L. O'DRISCOLL: Yes, I know it is good, great. You can make a joke out of it; it is not a joke in my district, I can tell you that. It is no joke; it is pretty serious.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

L. O'DRISCOLL: No, it's not a joke.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

L. O'DRISCOLL: Well, you all know, you all should get up and speak on it. No one over on that side yet got up and spoke for the minister. Did anybody else get up yet? You'll have your chance, I suppose, after you hear everything over here and pick out the stuff you want to throw back at us. No problem. Bring it on; I got no problem with it.

Anyway, Speaker, when I get another chance, thank you so much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The Chair is recognizing the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Speaker.

I'd like to say it's a pleasure to get up to speak to this bill, but quite frankly it's not. The reason is the lack of consultation on this bill is disgraceful. I'll start off first with an assessment of the minister's

summary of this legislation – this 146-page legislation. When he spoke, he talked, first of all, about how it's a beast and it is a beast, that's for sure – 350 sections, 146 pages.

He, himself, said it's the largest statute in the province and he gave us an approximately 17-minute gloss over of this major legislation. He, himself, said it's very important. He, himself, said it's very substantive. He, himself, said it's a beast. Yet, we got this legislation approximately 24 hours ago and we are expected to analyze and discuss and debate this in a very short period of time without proper consultation.

Now, I heard the minister say that he had consultations – or I should say conversations with chairs of LSDs. Well, I have several LSDs in my District of Harbour Main and I have not heard from them that they had conversations about this piece of legislation. I've reached out to one of my chairs today to try to get the assessment from this chair of what her views are on this because this is important. We need to have consultation.

Whenever I speak on a bill, Speaker, and analyze whether it's good legislation for the people that I represent and I guess for the people of the province, whether it's going to improve the lives of the people I represent, whether it may need amendments to make it better, and will I vote and support it or against it, I look at the legislation and analyze it. But that cannot be done if we don't have the opportunity and the time to do proper analysis.

That is the concern that all of our MHAs here in the Official Opposition have with this bill. How can we properly assess it? How can we properly analyze whether it's good legislation? We don't know. Yes, we will debate it, but how can we really get into the merits of the legislation without having proper analysis of it?

Speaker, it's a major concern. I heard the minister say, in his 17-minute analysis of this legislation, that it's replacing the old Municipalities Act. That's fine. It needs to be replaced because it was written for a different era, he said. He said that the language is outdated. So we have no problem with avoiding legal terminology. As a lawyer, I know that that can be very negative and in terms of not being user friendly. We're all in support of that, in having user-friendly language.

We're all in support of having gender-neutral language. There's no problem with that. Updating language is good, but that's superficial. That is not what we're concerned about over here. We're not concerned about the language or the fact that it needs to be modernized. We're all in favour of bringing legislation into the times and bringing it into the proper era that we are in; there's no issue with that. But what we have issue with is when there's substantive changes like, for example, that there will be a real property tax for all towns and LSDS within our province –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: If that is not the case, then I'm willing to hear what are the facts. So if that is not the case, that there will not be property tax for towns and LSDs, I stand corrected and I look forward to hearing and look forward to clarification on that, because that is a very important point. That is the substantive point, I would argue. That is the crux of our concerns, that for our LSDs and towns, whether they're going to be subject to property tax.

That was not made clear in the minister's 17-minute

summary of this legislation. That goes to the point that we need more clarity, we need more discussion and we need more analysis, because we don't know. That's why we are concerned about this, Speaker.

The minister has stated that they engaged in comprehensive, formal consultations and conversation with chairs of LSDs. In his initial

summary of this legislation, that is what I took from what he said: comprehensive, formal consultations and conversation with chairs. If that has happened, then we want to know about that. But I am concerned that that is not what happened.

Why is public consultation so important? It is important in a democracy, Speaker. In any kind of democratic governance, we need to have proper consultation. It doesn't mean sending out invites to try to get opinions; it's more comprehensive. It has to be an exchange of information. It has to be an exchange of opinions. It has to be a process which encourages the public to give meaningful input into the decision-making process.

I know that one of my four chairs of LSD was not consulted. That, in itself, is very concerning. Were the others? We've heard from the Member for Bonavista who referenced one of his chairs of LSDs, who also was not consulted on this important piece of legislation. How do we improve our democratic governance? How we have more of an inclusive democratic society is by having consultation, public consultations that are meaningful, that provide meaningful input and we are not getting that with this piece of legislation. I have not heard it.

Now, we will find out in questions, when we question the minister, about exactly what consultations were involved, and we need to know exactly what consultations. Were people given the opportunity to give their input? Because we know, Speaker, that any trusting relationship between a government and the people they represent has to have this strong foundation of consultation.

Without that, you're not going to have a trusting relationship between government and the citizens that they represent. So why is that important? We need to build and maintain and ensure that consultations happen. I don't believe that it has happened here.

Speaker, we're very concerned about this. I can only say that what we've heard so far is inadequate. It does not give us the understanding that we need in order to be able to support this very important bill, this very important piece of legislation, Bill 54. I must say that unless I hear a lot more about what this entails and how it's going to impact the people that I represent in the District of Harbour Main and the LSDs that I represent, and the towns, because it has implications for all of those entities.

Make no mistake about it, at least from what I can tell from a glossary review of this legislation, it will have serious impacts on these entities in the district that I represent, as it will for all of the MHAs, not only in the Official Opposition, but as well in the government.

Again, Speaker, major concerns with this beast and we need to hear more. We need to have proper consultation. That has not been done and until I'm convinced that that has been done, I'll have very serious problems with this legislation.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Thank you, Speaker.

It's always a pleasure to get up in the House of Assembly on a bill, especially such an important bill as this. It relates to a lot of communities, a lot of LSDs. In my district, I'm probably combined with LSDs and municipalities. When it comes to some of the municipalities, I know there are probably LSDs in some of the other districts that are probably just as big as the municipalities that I have in my district. It relates to a lot of them.

I was going through the bill here. Again, I have to agree with my colleagues, I really do. Twenty-four hours to receive this bill, 350 sections, 145 pages within 24 hours, to make an analysis on such an important bill, such recommendations in it that – I'm sure the intent of the bill is good. I'm not disputing that part. I'm sure the intent is good, but I do see that it poses a number of questions as well. I think once we get to Committee we will have a number of questions pertaining to all our districts because it's very important. In a piece of legislation like this, it certainly poses a lot of questions to make sure that we understand what's really happening in this piece of legislation.

It is

An Act Respecting Towns and Local Service Districts, it seems like it's a combined act, towns and Local Services Districts, seem to be in the same category. It's probably good for some of the towns. I'm sure the towns will appreciate some of the legislation that's in here. Some of the LSDs will probably look at it in a different light.

That's the thing that concerns me. What is really happening here? It does support some challenges to the LSDs and when I was looking at the notes in the legislation on page 3, this bill will require that towns provide waste collection and removal, fire protection, and snow clearing and maintenance to all local roadways. Now is that going to compel the LSDs for maintenance to all local roadways? That's one of the biggest questions.

I've got a district that's Department of Transportation – and thank you, Minister, you do the roads right down through our district with regards to snow clearing and maintenance. When you do a good job on it, you do a good job; that's when they do it. There are a lot of potholes in the district, anyway, that need to be fixed and needs attention at all times.

So with the tax base for LSDs, with the tax base for some of the smaller municipalities that I do have in the district, if that's a requirement, that snow clearing and maintenance to all local roadways, does this mean that the LSDs in smaller towns will be required, if they're getting the extra tax base somewhere? A lot of them don't have the tax bases. A lot of my smaller municipalities don't have the tax base. That's why they rely on the MCWs; they rely on the ICIPs and the programs and things that government have to offer.

So that's why this one does concern me with regard to the roads in the district. Like I say, the province does the roads, but if that's turned over to the municipalities to fend for themselves, I think that's going to create a great problem in my district. I would certainly have questions on that alone; just on that alone, I'd have a number of questions with regards to knowing exactly what's in this piece of legislation.

Again, the intent might be good and I am sure it is, but it poses a number of questions and that one would be, because I know there are small communities right into the end of my district that certainly wouldn't be able to maintain the roads.

It's almost like back last year, I think you were looking at regionalization to have those roads, so that everything could be combined in one certain municipality, certain LSDs band together to have that done. At that time, that was banned because of too much cost to government. So is government just relaying this back now on the smaller communities, smaller LSDs, to fend for themselves? Like I said, that's a big question.

So when they said we're not having anything else to do with regionalization, we'll scrap that, or amalgamation, whichever words they did use, government had a lot of challenges with it so government ignored it. Now they're coming in with those challenges to the smaller communities and the LSDs. A lot of the larger communities, a lot of the larger towns, yes, can absorb it. They've got tax base. They can utilize a lot of tax base.

Some of those towns that are still growing towns. They've got buildings and units that they can use. They can provide property tax and they can put buildings in their properties. The only thing is, again, some of the smaller communities, when it comes to Crown lands in their communities and having access to the Crown lands, how they use it; it's got to be done by government.

When it comes to taxes, just looking at a piece there on page 61, number 120: “Where real property is occupied and the owner is not known despite a reasonable investigation by the town,” – they still don't know who the owner is – “the occupier is considered to be the owner for the purpose of the imposition and collection of the real property tax.” So the act says yes, they can pay the tax, they own the land, but Crown Lands can say no, the occupier doesn't. It's a bit confusing.

So that kind of stuff is a problem there as well. But, again, I agree, if they're going to be responsible for their roads, for the upkeep of their communities – and a lot of towns take pride in their communities. They really do. I know the Town of Bishop's Falls in the past few years have taken a lot of pride in their community and our community is doing well. They've put in boardwalks. They've put in street lights. They've done well on their walkways. They've really beautified communities and that comes from a tax base; that comes from government supports.

We know we have to have a tax base to get all that stuff done. The properties, to be able to charge taxes on; yes, they get a lot in from that and government supports as well. But the LSDs, I think, and some of the smaller communities are going to find a big lot of trouble to do that.

Again, like I say, even with the gas tax money, they can't spend their gas tax money in the way that they would like to utilize it. There are lots of towns, lots of communities that would like to do things in their community but they're challenged on the way they spend their gas tax money.

That is something that I'm sure this act can look at and the department can look at in order to – if they're going to be challenged with regard to their roads, because, like I say, that poses a big, big question to my district and I'm sure a lot of communities. If they're going to be challenged with doing their roadwork, snow clearing, maintenance alone – we know it's a big cost, even the government knows, to get this done, to maintain those roads.

The municipalities, some of the smaller towns and LSDs would need access to other funding if that were to happen. I don't know, again, I'm just going by what the act says here, so I don't know for sure. Again, we'll ask a question on it and try and get some confirmation of that so that I can go back to the LSDs, some of the smaller communities and say look b'ys, this is what's happening, get ready for it. You're going to have to find ways to absorb this cost. I tell you, they're not going to like it. I know they're not going to like it.

Again, to the bigger towns, bigger municipalities, yes, they will be able to absorb some of this because they have access to a lot more funding. They have access to the ICIPs, they have access to the MCWs and they have access to how they spend their gas tax monies. That will help those communities, along with some of the tax bases that they have already.

I do know that they need a tax base, that's what builds our communities. That's what takes pride in our communities. They can probably offer incentives to communities, especially volunteer groups, some volunteer sectors with regard to their own buildings and what the volunteer sectors themselves can do for the communities. They really do a great job in our communities. I know the Lions Clubs, the Knights of Columbus, even the church groups, they can provide a lot of incentives to the town, do a lot of work in the town. Maybe some tax breaks that way, which can be absorbed by the town. It certainly helps those groups and those individuals that can also help the towns.

Like I say, there are some good things in this act, no doubt, I can't say that it is not there to help some. But I think, again, with that, some of the smaller communities, some of the LSDs will find themselves very challenged in the work they can get done.

Water in some of the small LSDs. I've gotten calls, they can't afford – I know they can put in those PWDUs, I think they're called, but that's a cost. There is a big cost to them. When you have no water in those small LSDs, the water is dirty, you can't drink it; it is a big cost to those LSDs. They just don't have the tax base; they don't have the resources to be able to even have clean drinking water in those small communities.

I know we can have some water put in but that's a cost to the town. The LSD has to absorb some of that cost. Again, they have no access to the gas tax money. It relies all back on the government to provide the monies for that, so it's challenging on both ends, I know, but it has taken a big lot of challenge to those LSDs to even have clean drinking water. Without government supports, they'd never have that drinking water, even the tax base that they had to provide.

You take some of those LSDs that can't even get the tax base to get clean drinking water. You force them to have to snow clear the road, do the maintenance on the roads, upkeep the roads – again that's going to be a question – if that is happening, then how are they going to survive? How are they going to stay there, they haven't even have water? Because they won't be able to have water, they won't be able to keep up the road maintenance, they won't be able to support their own communities.

That is probably even some of the bigger municipalities. My colleague mentioned George's Brook-Milton, I think he mentioned somewhere between 700 and 800 people, I think that was the number that he used. So some of those small communities, they're incorporated as municipalities. I've got a lot of them in my district, 700 to 800 people. I can look at every district here, our 40 districts, and I can see where each one of us has those sized communities.

For the individuals to gain just from the tax base from their own communities, to absorb all those costs, especially to have roads, water, maintenance, upgrade, upkeeps, those are a big lot of challenges. I don't know where they would really fare out in regard to doing this kind of stuff.

So that is going to be one of the bigger questions that I would have with regard to what's really the intent of this legislation. Again, 350 sections, 145 pages, there have got to something in here good. It's a big bill, no doubt about it. I'm not just here saying this to pick some bad situations of it. I'm just trying to wrap my head around it as well as we all are. If this is good for our communities, it's good for our districts and good for our province when it comes to that, of how this is going to work.

I'm sure, like I say, the intent is good but there seems to be a lot of challenges there for the smaller communities. Again, like I say, even the small government supports like CEEP and that kind of stuff, even this year, they probably had different rules in them that people couldn't even get access to CEEP to do up some of those smaller Local Service Districts, some of those smaller communities. They rely on that. They rely on these programs.

Like I say, if government had the programs, the MCWs, the ICIPs, the gas tax monies, CEEPs, all those programs are big initiatives for any community, especially my communities. I know that the smaller communities, they rely on them. They want to try to beautify their towns. Every town takes pride in their communities. We see it. We see the signs, well-kept communities, well-maintained communities. Municipalities get awards and that kind of stuff for communities – great initiatives. That got there through a tax base of the municipality, probably, even programs. Especially, even keeping their communities clean. They need those small programs to keep those communities clean.

If they've got to rely on their own tax base, their own supports just to do their roads, their maintenance, their upkeep, they've got no extra money left over. They're not going to have none left over. They're going to have less. Some of them, probably, won't even survive but it's communities that take pride in their own communities and they want to stay there in those communities but it seems to be getting tougher for those communities to survive in some of the rural areas.

That, Speaker, would be some of my concerns. I guess that's probably the biggest concern is how this will be kept up. I mean, the act is there – it is written there. Again, it says: “… require that towns provide waste collection and removal, fire protection, and snow clearing and maintenance of local roadways ….” That's going to be required, and this act as it combined there,

An Act Respecting Towns and Local Service Districts – so is that all one compiled act? Is everybody going to be responsible for it? Are there some sections there that divide the Local Service Districts from a different size town? Is the amount of people in that town going to make a difference to the amount of monies coming into that town, or what they're going to be required to do?

Those are some of the questions that I would like to have answers and I'm sure we will be asking those questions in Committee. But there are going to be a lot of questions in Committee because this is a big act and there's a lot to it.

With that, Speaker, I'll take my seat and hopefully get a chance to ask some questions in Committee.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER (Bennett): The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that we adjourn debate on second reading of this bill. I also move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that we do now recess.

SPEAKER: First of all, on the first motion regarding debate, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

This House do stand recessed until 2 this afternoon.

Recess

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

Before we begin, in the public gallery I'd like to welcome Alex Ryan, who will be recognized this afternoon in a Member's statement. He is joined by his parents, Frank Ryan and Carolyn Shepherd, as well as friends Derek Ryan and Nathaniel Besso.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Also in the public gallery today, we're joined by a number of Grade 9 students, who are here today participating in the national Take Our Kids to Work day.

Welcome, everyone.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

SPEAKER: Today we'll hear statements by the hon. Members for the District of Placentia West - Bellevue, Terra Nova, Exploits, Ferryland and Cape St. Francis.

The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: Thank you, Speaker.

Today I stand in this hon. House to recognize the Kidney Foundation and their annual Kidney Walk to celebrate the strength of our kidney and transplant community.

On September 17, I had the honour to join the Kidney Foundation at their Kidney Walk, located at the Marystown YMCA, who raised a total of $4,056 for this year's walk. When you participate in the Kidney Walk, you're joining a passionate community with the shared belief in doing all we can to provide hope and support to those living with kidney disease.

Our support helps them provide the reliable information and support that they need to stay safe and healthy, and to raise funds that go into research that improves lives affected by this disease in every community across Canada. In 2023, the Kidney Foundation has achieved $2,031,828.20 in donations to date.

I ask all hon. Members of the 50th General Assembly to please join me in congratulating the Kidney Foundation on their remarkable achievements and helping raise awareness for kidney disease.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The War Memorial monument in Shoal Harbour was originally constructed by the United Church. Its location was too close to the road and unfortunately salt and sand ate away at the monument, causing considerable damage. The monument had to be moved this past year to a more suitable location. After securing the new location, the cost of the removal and relocation was the first hurdle that they had to overcome, so fundraising began.

The Town of Clarenville, its staff, the community, the Legion and local businesses began to put their plan in action. Donations to install the monument started coming in and the work began. Two of the four storyboards are already there, benches are installed and the security fence will soon start. Funds for one of the benches were donated by the Wiseman Family, and funds for the second bench were also raised by the Wiseman Family Reunion in July of 2023.

The rededication of the Shoal Harbour War Monument will take place on the 11th of November at 3 o'clock. As a proud veteran I will be there for the rededication of this sacred place and to remember our fallen comrades.

Please join me in thanking all the individuals who made this a reality, and honour our veterans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Thank you, Speaker.

Today I would like to recognize the Lion Max Simms Memorial Camp. On October 19 the camp was inducted into the Business Hall of Fame by the Exploits Chamber of Commerce.

Named after Lion Max Simms, the camp opened its doors in 1981 after many years of planning by Lions and other groups to accommodate a place to go for individuals, regardless of their abilities. After 42 years and fully funded by Lions Clubs of Newfoundland and Labrador, the camp continues to be a rewarding experience for both campers and Lions members throughout our province.

Speaker, I would like for all Members to join me in congratulating the Lion Max Simms Memorial Camp on being inducted into the Business Hall of Fame.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Speaker.

I rise today in this hon. House to recognize the athletes of the Ferryland District who were recipients of the 2023 Premier's Athletic Awards.

It's an honour to stand here today and congratulate Jack Walsh of Goulds and his award for bowling; Michael Gosine of Tors Cove on his award for boxing; Rachael Tuff of Witless Bay on her award for figure skating; and Ryan Maher of Petty Harbour on his award for softball.

Being chosen to receive such an award as an athlete proves the dedication and hard work that each individual puts forth in their chosen sport.

I also want to take this opportunity to recognize the coaches and parents of these kids for the amount of time and financial assistance they put into supporting their kids in recei