Bill No. 339 - Financial Measures (Fall 2023) Act. - 3rd Reading

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : I wanted to rise and say a few words on this bill. I think there are just a few things that have changed - my colleague covered those - but it is important to note that, once again, we are opening up the Financial Measures Act in the middle of the year. The Financial Measures Act operates to enact the budget, of course, but now this government is in the habit of opening up the Act to tinker mid-year. I think that's a precedent that we should watch because, along with the outstanding appropriations that we've seen with no oversight, this is another way the government enacts pieces of legislation with massive financial consequences without going through that process. It's another sidestep. If we are opening up the Financial Measures Act, why don't we figure out a way to get legislative oversight on appropriations? We would like to see that.

To the merits of the bill - in terms of the pension plan - I would share my colleague's comments. Generally, this seems to be welcomed. However, in addition to the issues around how attractive that plan will be, if we can't index and keep it in a place where it can provide appropriate benefits for the members of that plan - I want to quote, and this has been tabled in Committee of the Whole, the submission from the public sector unions. They said: "We understand Minister MacMaster stated the Public Service Superannuation Plan Trustee Inc. is supportive of the PSPPTA overall. We are aware the PSSPPTI has supported this idea generally, as have our unions. However, our support was a high-level principle and did not pertain to the specific proposals in the bill. The details of these transfers are incredibly complex, and the legislation enabling them requires serious and thoughtful study. This section of the FMA should not move forward until all stakeholders are able to conduct a proper review of the legislation and an opportunity to provide comments."

Here we see a pattern. We have not given the core stakeholders an opportunity for thoughtful study and to provide comments. Surely that could have been done. This was a conversation that was happening.

The other thing I wanted to mention is the removal of a provision for referenda that would be necessary to add provincial HST onto several goods from which it is exempted now. Those would include diapers, children's clothing, accessibility aids, et cetera. That does concern us. I think it's a tiny provision but an important one, especially given the cost of living challenges that people are experiencing.

We understand part of that clause operates to remove, which is why that change has been made. We would have liked to have seen - or at a future date would like to see - it reinstated. There needs to be a referendum to add the provincial HST back, because those are things people can't afford to pay that tax on often.

As for the removal of the HST - to follow the lead of the federal Liberals, as my colleague in the Liberal party mentioned - I think it is likely they will make construction somewhat more attractive from a financial perspective. I don't know that it will - in fact I doubt it will create more affordable housing. Developers are experiencing financial pressure, so it will make it easier to go, but I don't know it will make it more affordable. I don't think it will. I am also not sure it is going to create new units. As with the other bills we've been talking about, we would actually have loved to hear a description of how that's going to work. I think I heard the Premier say when this decision was made, Well, we'll see. We're willing to try things.

That's okay. We support that, but we want to see more than willing to try things. We'd love to see a plan for how we're actually going to get the units we need. In conclusion, we support the bill. We have the questions that I've put forward, and I'll end where I began, which is to say we need better oversight of legislative spending, and we need to use the FMA for the purpose that it was intended, when it was intended. We need oversight on appropriations. I suspect we're back in the billions already, and it makes a mockery of our budget process and of a lot of the work we do here.