November 28, 2016
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 49
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
We
welcome today to the Speaker's gallery Debbie, Phillip and Christopher Hibbs who
are the subject of a Ministerial Statement. I understand the raising of the
purple flag in front of Confederation Building would not have been possible
without their advocacy and the support of the Hibbs family.
Statements by
Members
For
Members' Statements today we have the Members for the Districts of Baie Verte
Green Bay, Terra Nova, Ferryland, Mount Pearl North, Bonavista and Mount Pearl
Southlands.
The hon.
the Member for the District of Baie Verte Green Bay.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today to recognize the outstanding efforts of Rich Wheeler to
bring awareness to a terrible disease.
Mr.
Wheeler, who's originally from Baie Verte, took up the fight against
Huntington's disease after his wife, Ruby, was diagnosed with the degenerative
condition in 2012. Instead of letting her condition get her down, Ruby refused
to give up and she has maintained a positive attitude in spite of the many
physical challenges she has had to endure.
Rich
Wheeler found inspiration in his wife's fight with the disease, and he has
become an outspoken advocate for those suffering from Huntington's. He has
helped to organize an annual walk and event in Coachman's Cove which has raised
approximately $60,000 in its four years of operation.
Recently, at the national convention in Halifax, Rich was honoured with the
Michael Wright Community Leadership Award from the Huntington's Society of
Canada which recognizes outstanding leadership and advocacy.
I ask
all Members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating Mr. Rich Wheeler on
receiving this award and thank him for his efforts to raise awareness in the
fight against Huntington's disease.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for the
District of Terra Nova.
MR. HOLLOWAY:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this
hon. House to recognize an invaluable community organization.
For 124
years, the Salvation Army of Clarenville has been supporting those in need by
providing food and emergency shelter to homeless and stranded individuals, as
well as operating the local food bank and thrift store and organizing the annual
VOCM Cares Happy Tree.
On
November 10, Salvation Army Captain Anthony LeDrew led another worthwhile
initiative by opening a soup kitchen in the community. During the official
launch, Deputy Mayor Ashling Avery commented that [the Soup Kitchen] is a great
opportunity for people who have the basic need for food as well as a need to
come out to socialize.
Captain
LeDrew has also added that volunteers, working at the soup kitchen, will come
from members of the broader church community with additional support from local
businesses.
There is
no doubt that the addition of the soup kitchen is among the long list of
resources in this organization's toolbox which will help the most vulnerable in
the community.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Captain LeDrew, the Salvation Army
Church and all volunteers in the Clarenville area for their vision and
compassion to those in need.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise today in the hon. House to recognize the Goulds Volunteer Fire
Department. This year marked their 40th anniversary. I've had the pleasure over
the past years to attend a number of events to celebrate the work of the brigade
and see first-hand what they mean to the region.
I would
like to acknowledge and say thank you to the Goulds Volunteer Fire Department
members of today, as well to all volunteer members over the years who have
contributed greatly to the protection and the well-being of the region. In
addition, I would like to acknowledge the support of the members' spouses,
partners and family members for supporting them in their role as volunteers.
The
volunteers of the Goulds Fire Brigade give the residents of the surrounding
communities great comfort knowing they have someone to rely on in the event of a
fire or any type of emergency. People of the area are very thankful knowing they
would do so without hesitation and can rest easier knowing they are ready to
respond at any time.
I ask
all Members of this House to join me in congratulating all members of the Goulds
Volunteer Fire Department on their 40 years of service.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Mount Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in the hon. House today to congratulate Campia Gymnastics on the grand opening
of its new facility. After years of hard work, on September 19, Campia
Gymnastics held the ribbon-cutting ceremony to embark on its new adventure in a
new facility on Old Placentia Road in my district, which has new equipment and
better safety measures as well. Some of the new equipment includes a foam pit,
which is a lot of fun for the kids and, believe it or not, I also tried it
myself and had to be rescued.
I'm
proud of the volunteers, sponsors, parents and gymnasts who made this possible.
I'm also proud to have been an active supporter of this initiative. Thank you to
the City of Mount Pearl for supporting this effort as well.
Campia
Gymnastics currently serves over 1,200 gymnasts throughout our region and it
continues to grow. Campia is a wonderful sports organization. As a former Campia
coach believe it or not I can speak first-hand of the strength and
importance of Campia's work.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all Members of this House to join me in welcoming Campia
Gymnastics to their new home and we wish them all the best.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Bonavista.
MR. KING:
Mr. Speaker, volunteers are
the heart of every community. That is certainly true for those who give their
time to work for their communities as members of municipal councils. Oftentimes,
this work goes unnoticed and unrecognized and is thankless.
On
Saturday night, I had the honour and privilege to attend the event in the Town
of King's Cove which recognized the hard work and long service of several
community leaders. With only a year-round population of 80, most of the
community packed the Knights of Columbus hall for a hot supper prepared by the
local firettes.
Mayor
Gary Monks, Councillor Hayward Dobbin and former Councillor Tom Maddox were
recognized by Municipalities NL for serving over 35 years with the King's Cove
council. Each recipient received $500 for their community, so they decided to
pool their money for a free community dinner and dance.
At the
dinner I presented volunteer service certificates Gary, Hayward and Tom. As
well, Councillors John Batterton and Bill Murphy received certificates for 16
and 12 years of service. These years add up to thousands of hours to which their
community has benefited.
Please
join me in extending sincere congratulations.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Mount Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is my
privilege to stand in this hon. House to recognize the tremendous success which
was the 28th Annual Mount Pearl City Days Celebrations. Once again this year,
the festivities included various activities for citizens of all ages and
interests, including: a family outdoor movie night, a pig roast, a seniors' tea
time, family fun day, milk carton boat races, show and shine car show and a
princess and superhero pancake breakfast.
As in
past years, the festival culminated with the mega birthday blitz which saw
thousands of residents and visitors gather at the Ruth Avenue Sportsplex to
participate in fun activities, games of chance and take in some of the best live
entertainment that Newfoundland and Labrador has to offer.
Mr.
Speaker, as I'm sure you can appreciate, any festival of this magnitude would
not be possible were it not for the hard work and co-operation of a number of
community partners.
I would
therefore ask all Members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating the
City of Mount Pearl, the City Days Advisory Committee, the various community
groups and organizations, the corporate sponsors and all of the community-minded
volunteers who contributed to the great success story which was City Days 2016.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
rise in this hon. House today to encourage all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
to participate in the 2016 Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) Project Red
Ribbon campaign.
For 29
years, Project Red Ribbon has been the flagship campaign of MADD and on
Saturday, I was honoured to attend the provincial launch in Corner Brook. The
Avalon Chapter will launch their local campaign at the Avalon Mall this
Saturday, December 3, at 11 a.m.
Throughout November and December, MADD Canada will distribute millions of red
ribbons across the country as a powerful symbol of commitment to the fight
against impaired driving. The red ribbon also serves as a poignant tribute to
the hundreds of Canadians who are killed and thousands more who are injured in
impairment-related crashes every year.
Mr.
Speaker, I am proud to note that the national president of MADD, Ms. Patricia
Coates, is from Newfoundland and Labrador. Her stepson, Nicholas, was killed in
an impaired driving collision in 2013.
Mr.
Speaker, we all have a role to play in reducing these statistics. Never drive
impaired, or with an impaired driver. If you plan on drinking, arrange for a
designated driver, call a cab or use public transit. If you suspect someone is
driving impaired, call 911 and report it to the police. These are important
messages which we cannot repeat too often.
Mr.
Speaker, I would also like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that
impairment can also be caused by illegal drugs, prescription or over-the-counter
medication and even fatigue, which can impact the ability to safely operate a
motorized vehicle.
I
commend MADD for their valuable contribution to this important cause.
Project
Red Ribbon will continue until January 3 and I ask all Members in this hon.
House to join me in promoting this year's campaign.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I want to thank the minister
for an advance copy of his statement. I would like to also extend our
appreciation to those volunteers and supporters of Mothers Against Drunk Driving
for their work organizing the Red Ribbon Campaign, which will last a full month
from December 3 until January 3.
Every
day an average of four Canadians are killed and more than 175 are injured due to
impaired-related crashes. MADD Canada and community leaders are doing everything
they can to stop these offences.
As the
holiday season is coming upon us, it's important that we all focus on the
festivities and everything else, but it's also important that we make sure
drinking and driving is not tolerated. This could include ensuring guests get a
run home from different parties, ensuring there is a designated driver and also
calling a cab. We all have a role to play and we all should play that role.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Surely, I, too, support
Project Red Ribbon, as I'm sure we all do in this House. Sadly, driving under
the influence is still a serious problem in this province. We recently passed
legislation tightening up punishments for those convicted of the offences. We
also need to strengthen enforcement and ensure that drivers convicted of
offences take rehabilitation programs. I urge the government to move quickly on
providing the much needed resources.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for the Status of Women.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to highlight that the Purple Ribbon
flag has been raised for the very first time at Confederation Building. This is
to mark the beginning of the seventh annual Purple Ribbon campaign to increase
awareness and responsiveness to violence against women. The flag will remain in
place until December 10, coinciding with the International 16 Days of Activism
Against Gender-Based Violence. I am very proud to say, Mr. Speaker, that
Newfoundland and Labrador is the first province in Canada to fly the Purple
Ribbon flag.
Today,
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to reflect on the continued struggle that
women face every day in our society. Violence is an issue that, unfortunately,
we have not yet successfully eradicated. Last Friday marked the beginning of a
remembrance period for women who have died at the hands of a violent
perpetrator. There are many faces to a violent perpetrator, but the victim is
most often a familiar female face, someone's mother, sister, daughter or friend.
Whether
women succumb to violence in their own home, at a social location or anywhere
else, we should never accept that somehow a woman got herself into an unsafe
situation. We all have the right to come home to a safe house, to socialize with
our friends, to attend a medical appointment, to ride in a taxi or to simply
walk down the street without fear of being attacked.
As the
Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, I hear from women all the time on
this issue. This month, our government introduced legislation to ensure there is
a safe zone near medical clinics to ensure a woman's right to safe access to
medical procedures. I wish there was a way we could legislate safety and
respect. I wish we could legislate a guarantee to women that they could live in
a safe and non-violent society. Unfortunately, we cannot do that.
But we
can and we will ensure there is a focus on the issue of a woman's right to live
without violence. We must teach our children what is right and what is wrong. We
must teach our daughters to be brave and feel empowered to live the best life
they can live. We must teach all of our children that tolerance and kindness are
much more powerful than the cowardice of a violent act. There are many people in
our province who have felt the pain of losing someone to a violent act. The pain
they live with is never ending.
I would
like to challenge my hon. colleagues that as long as we sit in this House and we
represent the people of this province, let us never stop working towards making
our lives safer. To the families of those women who have died at the hand of a
violent perpetrator, please know we support you. We believe we can make things
better if we continue to place the focus on this issue in memory of your mother,
your sister, your daughter and your friend.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
like to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. The Purple
Ribbon campaign is one of the most important initiatives, I believe, that we
have underway. All of us here in this province certainly know someone who has
been directly impacted by violence towards women.
Newfoundland and Labrador's Purple Ribbon campaign was initially launched in
2009. It illustrates how analysis of gender-based violence can be incorporated
into government-sponsored anti-violence campaigns. I'm very pleased to see that
the Liberal government has continued with this most important initiative. We all
know that there's still so much more we need to do.
What
saddens me, though, is that the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women
does not recognize the fact that her government's budgetary choices are pushing
the vulnerable into poverty and also places women and children at an even
greater risk. I commend the groups behind the Purple Ribbon campaign and I look
forward to a day when gender-based violence will be a distant memory for all
members of our society.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for the
District of St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the
minister for an advance copy of her statement. I, too, thank the minister. I
thank Debbie and Phillip Hibbs for their courage, for their leadership, for
their passion and compassion and all those women and men who work with courage
and commitment and violence against women.
Transition houses across the province are seeing more demand as the economic
downturn causes more financial stress and increases the likelihood of violence
against women in the home. Transition houses need more support during these hard
times. Corner Brook itself desperately needs a new transition house. We need
more violence prevention in the schools; we need to teach our children to have
healthy relationships as they do in other provinces and starting in the early
grades.
We
simply must act. Raising dialogue and awareness is not enough. Women and
children's lives depend on it.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Conception Bay East Bell Island.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Vaughn
Hammond, with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, has stated that
small business owners do not support minimum wage increases during an economic
downturn.
I ask
the minister: Did you engage the federation to discuss the wage increases and
consider impacts on small business?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, and
thank you for the question.
I
understand that the Minister of Labour did engage a number of groups, including
the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and talked with a number of
stakeholders.
Mr.
Speaker, it was important to give notice to the business community that the
increase was coming both in April and in October, and as the minister has said,
he is going to be going out talking to various stakeholders about tying the
increases in minimum wage to some inflationary factors so that we can have an
ongoing and committed increase in minimum wage.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
I ask the minister: Can you
table your evidence-based approach, the analysis which supported the decision to
increase the minimum wage at the levels announced last week?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As
Members of the House are indeed likely aware, Newfoundland and Labrador has as
of October of this year the lowest minimum wage in the country, Mr. Speaker.
We could not allow that to continue while we were undergoing a review of the
minimum wage and how we can tie it to some inflationary measures so that we can
have ongoing increases in the minimum wage.
It was
very important, Mr. Speaker, that we increase minimum wage. We gave maximum
notice to the business community so they could take it on piece by piece and
have that information as they go into budget. Mr. Speaker, it was evidence
based, it's important to do so, and I'm sure Members of this House are
supportive of an increase in the minimum wage for this province.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, we on this side
are very supportive of a fair wage for the workers of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I ask
the minister: Have you done an analysis on how your budget tax increases have
impacted small business in this province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm glad
to hear the Member opposite say he's pleased with the increase. It is something
that we felt was very important to do and very important to give maximum amount
of time to businesses so they can plan and budget accordingly.
Mr.
Speaker, the small business rate in Newfoundland and Labrador from a taxation
perspective is still one of the lowest in the country. While we all are
respective and responsible for any tax increases, we do know that we still have
one of the lowest in the country and we're hoping to maintain that, Mr. Speaker.
We would like to continue to grow our small business sector but we also want to
make sure there is a wage that is appropriate for those that are on minimum
wage.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
I ask the minister: Was
consideration given to tax incentives to put additional monies in the pockets of
the working poor?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, there is an
ongoing effort to ensure that we have as small an impact as possible on those
that are on minimum wage. We think it's very important that we have an ongoing
process, and that's why we'll be going out and consulting. The minister, I know,
will be going out and consulting as we move forward on tying it to inflationary
factors. So finding a way that we will not have to that we have a way to
ensure the minimum wage goes up on a regular and timely basis, Mr. Speaker,
that's very important.
We do
know, and I'll speak to the issue of females who make up about 60 or 65 per cent
of those that earn minimum wage. We thought it was very important to do this on
a timely basis. We want to make sure we minimize the impacts, obviously, and
encourage as much as possible the minimum wage earners in this province.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, an increase in
the tax threshold would have been another effective way of putting extra money
back into those low-income earners.
I ask
the minister: Why did you not hold public consultations on your decision to
raise the minimum wage?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much.
I
believe the Minister of Labour has informed the House that he had multiple
consultations. I'm sure the Member opposite would not want us to continue to be
the lowest in the country. While we are having a consultative process tying it
to an inflationary factor so that we have an ongoing and persistent, inclusive
way of increasing minimum wage, we wanted to make sure that we were not the
lowest in the country, Mr. Speaker. We wanted to make sure that we gave the
business community a maximum amount of time so they could plan and budget
accordingly. That is what we've done, Mr. Speaker. We will be consulting on what
is the mechanism on the go forward.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for the District
of Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
What I am suggesting is that
an open and engaging process by all stakeholders would have been much more
effective to address the needs of the working poor.
I ask
the minister: Are you concerned that the increase on top of the Liberal tax
hikes from the budget may have a significant impact on small business and to
owners in this province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of Natural
Resources.
MS. COADY:
As I have indicated, Mr.
Speaker, we will be going out for public consultations on tying the minimum wage
to an inflationary factor. We will be doing extensive consultations on that. The
Minister of Labour has done a number of consultations, including with the CFIB
and small businesses as well as the labour organizations, on this minimum wage
increase and we'll continue to do that.
This is
a very important topic for minimum-wage earners, very important for business;
give them maximum length of time. I'm sure, as he's indicated he is supportive
of these increases. I'm starting to hear that perhaps he's not as supportive of
these increases at this point in time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for the
District of Cape St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Parents
are concerned about school bus safety in the province.
I ask
the minister: What specific actions are you undertaking to ensure inspections
are taking place and buses are safe?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of Service
NL.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Member for the question. It's a chance to speak about bus safety. As we
know, the Department of Service NL does their inspections. Before every bus also
gets on the road they have to go through the inspection stations. Inspection
stations have to be certified stations, a certified mechanic. Come September,
from September to December, all buses are inspected by Service NL.
What we
found is that there are some gaps in the regulations. We will be bringing
forward some regulations to strengthen that gap to ensure that anybody who's
caught will have a greater penalty.
Also,
Mr. Speaker, we're looking at next year, before the school opens, we'll be doing
audits on many buses across the province before it even comes into effect in
September. So that's part of the initiatives that we'll be taking.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for the
District of Cape St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A lot of
parents are concerned about this year. On November 15, the minister said that
school bus regulations will be reported online.
I'm
wondering, when can we expect to see this information?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, I don't want to
make this political, but the Member is saying that a lot of parents are
concerned. Why weren't they concerned in 2014 when the Member right here from
Bell Island the highest number of infractions were in 2014 when he was the
minister. There wasn't one regulation strengthened at that time.
What we
agreed to and that's part of the regulations we agreed to is that we will
put all bus inspections online. We will start that process as soon as we can get
it. That is part of strengthening the regulations.
So if
you're asking us why parents are concerned; they were concerned back in 2012.
They were concerned in 2014, but we will make positive changes to make this
enforcement stronger, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I'm going to ask
the question again.
Minister, when will we see the inspections online? Parents want to see these
inspections online. You promised they'd be in by November 15. When should we see
them?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, at no time did I
say it was going to be in by November 15. What I said is that we're hoping to
have those regulations strengthened and brought to the House of Assembly before
the House of Assembly closes. That's what I said. We're working on those
regulations as we speak. As soon as we can get OCI to help us put it online,
they will be online.
That is
a new initiative that was never done before. Instead of criticizing and asking
us a certain day, they should say it's about time they're put online. Because
they had 12 or 14 years, they didn't put them online. We're going to put them
online. We're going to strengthen the regulations. We're going to increase the
enforcement because we and I'm sure Members opposite agree, any bus on the
road unsafe shouldn't be there and we're going to do what we can to protect the
kids of this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Again, Mr. Speaker, the
minister promised to put the inspections online. Parents want to be able to see
their children are driving on safe buses so they can go have a look at it.
Obviously, they're not going to get that done.
I'd like
to ask the minister: What are you doing to ensure inspectors are doing their
jobs?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, am I hearing it
correct, that the inspectors for Service NL are being criticized for the work
they're doing? Am I hearing this correct, that the hard-working civil servants
in this province who go out and inspect the buses in this province are being
criticized to ensure I have confidence. They are professionals.
I just
find it insulting. I have to pick up for the staff of Service NL. You give the
impression they are not doing their work. What am I going to do to make sure
these professionals they are doing their job, Mr. Speaker. The problem with it
is that when you had the opportunity back in 2012, when the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island was the minister, he did nothing, and the
Leader of the Opposition did nothing.
I will
make recommendations to make this stronger to protect the children of this
province, not (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
A lot of rhetoric there, Mr.
Speaker.
We're
hearing from parents who are concerned about their children that are travelling
on buses today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, the minister
mentioned that he will have regulations coming in. It's toward the end of
November now.
I'm just
wondering, when are you going to bring in those regulations?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
I'm glad now he has stepped
off from trying to assassinate the workers at Service NL. I'm glad you stepped
away from that.
Mr.
Speaker, what I said outside the House of Assembly, and it's on tape by many
media outlets what I said, I'm trying to bring in and strengthen those
regulations before the House of Assembly closes. It was never ever said that I
would have it in by November 14.
Mr.
Speaker, it wasn't even brought up until after November 15. So whoever is doing
your research I just want to let the parents know around the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador, one bus on the roads of Newfoundland and Labrador
that's unsafe is one too many. We will strengthen those regulations. We will put
this online as we committed. We will not sit down like you did in 2012 and 2014
and did absolutely nothing. It won't happen, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Twenty-four-hour snow clearing has been eliminated.
I ask
the Minister of TW: What arrangements have been made for plows should someone
with a cardiac condition have to be transported to St. John's from rural parts
of the province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you for that question. The answer, quite frankly, is no different than before.
We certainly are aware of the fact that we have to provide safety on our
highways, which we continually do on a daily basis. There will be targets; there
will be trigger points we will be looking at forecasting and we can guarantee
that we are looking after the safety of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,
and we will do that on our highways.
Mr.
Speaker, as I mentioned, I think it was probably last week, when you talk about
24-hour snow clearing, it seems like the Opposition is under the understanding
that every place in the province had 24-hour snow clearing. They didn't.
Certainly, we will ensure the safety of the people that are on our highways, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I remind
the minister, it was the highest traffic volume roads. The Outer Ring Road has
40,000 vehicles per day. It was based on the traffic volume of the most used
roads. So I want to remind the minister of that; that was the reason.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the minister: When will the plows come off the road? What time
will the plows operate now under these new rules?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
surprised that the Member opposite doesn't know when the plows are coming off
the roads, because obviously there were times in place such as 9:30 at night and
4:30, starting in the mornings, which has been in place for quite some time.
The only
difference is that up to this point in time in previous years, the fact that
there were 11 areas in Newfoundland and Labrador that had 24-hour snow clearing,
but actually in those 11 areas, it was only five days a week for 24 hours. The
other two areas which, of course, were on the Avalon Peninsula, we had 7-24. So
it was not like it was entirely across the province.
So what
we are doing, we are fully understanding every single day, I get a weather
report, and we are top of it. And if there are areas of concern in forecasting,
we will make sure we have the plows out.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
effort of 24-hour snow clearing is to make our roads safer not all of them,
but most as could be done.
Many
first responders are concerned for the well-being of patients and accident
victims for this upcoming winter.
Have you
met with first responders and what actions have you taken to address their
concerns?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. HAWKINS:
Mr. Speaker, as I said
before, 24-hour snow clearing is not something that has been throughout the
province. So, in other words, is the Member opposite saying that people who are
outside of those areas of 24-hour snow clearing are not important? There are
first responders for the Member opposite throughout the entire province.
We, as a
government, are putting measures in place so that we will make sure the highways
are safe and that we have provisions there. As I said before, there are trigger
points and we have forecasting that we can actually deploy the resources we have
in a more cost-efficient manner. And it's not out there to save dollars; it's
making sure that we have our highways safe. I am very, very confident in the
people that we have working for us that that will continue this winter, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Obviously, he hasn't met with them.
The
Minister of Transportation and Works indicated the road crews will be available
on-call, should they be needed.
I ask
the minister: Who will monitor road conditions and how often will they monitored
overnight?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Member again; it gets a little bit tiresome in repeating the same answer
over and over again. As I have said
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. HAWKINS:
You got the right answer. The
right answer is that we are on top of it. We know what's happening. As a matter
of fact, Mr. Speaker, if the Member opposite would like, every single day I get
this copy this is a forecast of what's happening when the snow is coming up.
If you'd like to have a copy of that, we can provide that every single day.
So we
have people in places he's saying that our regional directors are incompetent,
because I'm getting a lot of incompetence coming from that side. We are
continually we know what's happening, and of course for the Members opposite,
forecasting today is a lot more accurate than it was probably 10 or 15 years
ago. So if the Member would like to have those, I can certainly provide that
every day, as I get them, for the Member opposite as well.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So
obviously, it used to be a supervisor who used to travel the roads during the
nighttime and call people in as needed; now we're going with the forecast. If
he's following in Newfoundland and Labrador, our forecasts are off at the best
of times.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. PETTEN:
Mr. Speaker,
Budget 2016 increases costs for snow clearing in small
municipalities.
I ask
the minister: What is the status of the implementation of this new Liberal
program?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Member opposite for the question. Obviously, we've had many, many years we
actually had 72 communities that we were providing snow clearing, whether it was
some contracting out or whether we were doing some of it with our own resources.
We found that in our budget, when we started to look at our budget, there were a
significant number of areas within our province that we were highly subsidizing.
There are 72 communities that were included in that. So we decided to put in, as
part of the budget, that the communities would look at contracting out
themselves.
So
obviously, if we could contract out some of the areas, certainly the towns could
contract them out. As a result of that, Mr. Speaker, we were able to find there
were 12 communities that came back and were successful. The other 60
communities, we accepted the fact that they could not get a tender that was
considered to be reasonable
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. HAWKINS:
and we were doing the snow
clearing for them.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So is
the fee increase of $1,600 a kilometre still in effect for those small
municipalities?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, it
is to a certain degree and not necessarily depending on a number of kilometres
that the particular town is clearing; some of them are less than that. If, in
fact, it was over the amount that was allocated, we are charging out the $6,600
hundred plus the HST. And we are also making provisions within that to extend
that for another year to give municipalities an opportunity to get a fair
contracting price.
And
that's what we're encouraging them to do, Mr. Speaker. The onus is not on us, or
should not be on us to do snow clearing for a select number of communities when
many other communities are actually doing their own snow clearing. So we're
trying to improve the efficiencies of doing that and that's why we're looking at
that as an opportunity for communities to do their own contracting.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
I ask the Minister
Responsible for the Status of Persons with Disabilities to update this hon.
House with progress made on the Provincial Strategy for the Inclusion of Persons
with Disabilities during the last 12 months.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the
Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune for the question. It actually gives me the
opportunity to speak about disabilities in this House.
Let's
talk about disabilities. Let's talk about the individual who is number 68 on the
wait-list at Vera Perlin, Mr. Speaker. Let's talk about why that individual is
there and why that individual has been there for two years. Because this
previous administration froze the funding to Vera Perlin, that's why.
That's
what we need to talk about. We need to talk about the resources that are not
there for persons with disabilities, Mr. Speaker, because this previous
administration decided they were going to freeze funding for persons with
disabilities.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for Fortune
Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
I guess similar to last week,
Mr. Speaker, she can't answer the question.
So how
about this one, I'll ask the minister: How many hires were made this year via
the Opening Doors Program?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
I thank the Member for the
question again, Mr. Speaker, to give me the opportunity to speak about
disabilities in this House.
What's
important to remember here is this government is supporting the Opening Doors
Program. We're supporting the employment of persons with disabilities.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
We're investing in the
employment of persons with disabilities. That's what's important to remember
here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for Fortune
Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Again, no concrete answers.
Let's
try this; I ask the minister: What specific actions have been undertaken in the
past year under your leadership with regard to assistive technology for persons
with disabilities?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Thank you very much for the
question.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm very familiar with assistive technology for persons with
disabilities. In actual fact, Mr. Speaker, my son uses the program Proloquo2Go.
He was introduced with that program through the Department of Education.
He uses
an iPad in school and many children with disabilities use iPhones and iPads in
school. We support the use of assistive technology in the school system and we
support the use of assistive technology for individuals with disabilities in the
community.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for Fortune
Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
In
Budget 2016, significant reductions
were made to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.
What
specific program changes have been made as a result of these funding cuts?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, $3.3 million is
about to be invested in transition houses. I spoke on this topic just recently
in this House. When we started to review the Rent Supplement Program at
Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, it was evident that every single program and
service needed to be reviewed.
Right
now, there is a process of review undergoing. That process will bring
information to the government in March, with an action plan to be put in place
by June, Mr. Speaker. So we are working diligently at Newfoundland and Labrador
Housing to ensure that the individuals who need the supports and services are
going to get those supports and services as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
I ask the minister: How many
people are currently on the wait-list for housing in this province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, that's a really
good question; how many people are on the wait-list? We're addressing that
wait-list every single day. Mr. Speaker, we're also addressing the numerous
maintenance issues that we have at Newfoundland and Labrador Housing that were
left over by this previous administration.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, we are
investing. We support Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. We support the
investment. We have a partnership with the federal government, and we plan on
ensuring that individuals can get a roof over their head.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune, for a quick question.
MS. PERRY:
Mr. Speaker, a whole lot of
non-answers.
With the
growing demand for programs and services from Newfoundland and Labrador Housing
and I can assure you we all are receiving calls of people who are impacted by
the slashes and cuts that your government has made how do you justify slashing
over $15 million from Newfoundland and Labrador Housing this year?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development, for a quick response.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, the last time I
was briefed by my staff, we're investing in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.
We have a really good relationship with the federal government. I'm not sure how
connected the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune really is with Newfoundland
and Labrador Housing because there are not a significant number of clients in
her district receiving the services.
This
government supports Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. We support the people
that need a roof over their head, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Before I
recognize the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi, I remind all hon. Members
that it's important for the Speaker to hear the individual that has been
recognized to speak. The level of noise in the House is starting to get a little
higher than I'd like to hear.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, five days before the election the Premier tweeted: Cutting jobs is not
part of our plan. Under a new Liberal government, public sector jobs are safe.
We now know public sector jobs were not safe.
I ask
the Premier: Can he tell this House how many public sector jobs have been lost
in 2016?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes,
prior to the election campaign, that tweet was made, as the Member just
mentioned. There were a lot of things changed five days later, once the election
was over. The financial situation of the province has changed dramatically since
that time.
I will
say, however, though that we've engaged in a very meaningful discussion with our
public sector workers and we continue to have that. We look forward now in the
upcoming negotiations that we will work closely as many of our Members and
ministers and caucus Members, and I'm sure all Members of this House have openly
said on many occasions, we value the work of the public sector workers in this
province.
Mr.
Speaker, throughout the last year we continued to decrease the footprint,
primarily in the management area. We've taken nearly 20 per cent of the deputy
ministers out.
Mr.
Speaker, what taxpayers in our province want is to make sure we operate and
provide efficient services in our province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Mr. Speaker, what public
service sector workers want are jobs.
I ask
the Premier: What analysis has he showing the impact on our province's economy
of removing thousands of well-paying jobs?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We
recognize that across the province right now we're seeing which is something
that's happening nationally, when you see provinces like Alberta and other
provinces that are experiencing difficult times because of the recent drop in
the price of oil.
Mr.
Speaker, I consider it a missed opportunity by the previous administration not
to plan for the situation that we're in today. That is the reason why, Mr.
Speaker, in the last budget, with nearly $570 million invested in
infrastructure, we've been able to leverage that money with some private sector,
with municipalities and with the federal government.
Mr.
Speaker, the impact of the infrastructure spending in our province will
primarily be felt in 2016-2017. So you'll see those infrastructure monies coming
back into our province, not only providing upgrades in infrastructure but also
providing jobs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, the Labour
Market Observer at Memorial University reports the province's unemployment rate
for 15 to 24 year olds increased in September by a whopping 8.8 percentage
points for males and 5 percentage points for females. These are our young adults
with student debt, credit card debt because of school, losing their jobs or
unable to find a job, pushing them into poverty. We need our young people to
stay and help build our economy. This is a growing crisis.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the Premier: What are his concrete plans to combat youth
unemployment and give our young people a chance to make a life for themselves in
our province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There
are many concrete plans we have in place, Mr. Speaker. Investment in education,
as an example, making sure that young people in our province, when they go
through a post-secondary education, as they come from the K to 12 system in our
province, when they make decisions based on what type of post-secondary
education they want. So we put in place really what the market needs will be for
the future. That is important right now so that young people in our province can
make informed decisions.
The
current situation that we're facing right now, Mr. Speaker, in many areas, as an
example of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, as part of our vision is we want to
make sure that we do the best that we can do, extracting wealth from fishery,
from forestry, from agriculture.
Mr.
Speaker, we're not only just laying this out there, but we are challenging
ourselves and putting targets in place.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, they need jobs,
not platitudes.
I
recently spoke with Melissa, who is finishing her master's degree program. She
said she's leaving because in the last budget
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
She said she's leaving
because in the last budget government told her there is no future for her here.
She wants to stay, this is her home, and she has this huge student debt load.
I ask
the Premier: What concretely is he going to do to keep our well-educated young
people here once they've graduated? Where are the jobs for them? The jobs, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
first of all, I would suggest that Melissa give me a call and the Member for St.
John's Centre she's more than welcome to give me a call. I would look forward
to talking with her, Mr. Speaker.
Melissa,
like a lot of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians right now, as I just mentioned,
is that when you make informed decisions on what your next job, what your
profession should look like, Mr. Speaker, we will do a market development plan
to see what skills are required in our province.
Mr.
Speaker, just last week when we talked about how you work with our oceans, as an
example, the opportunities that we would have in the arctic. We're seeing right
now young, educated Newfoundlanders and Labradorians finding employment in our
province. So it's important we put that analysis out there so that young
Newfoundlanders, as the Member just said, like Melissa, can have a future in our
province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The time for Question Period
has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, I give notice
that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Consumer
Protection And Business Practices Act. (Bill 52)
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
The hon.
the Member for the District of Terra Nova.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HOLLOWAY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move
the following motion:
WHEREAS
Newfoundland and Labrador has a diverse and thriving social enterprise sector
which is actively meeting social, cultural, economic and environmental needs
throughout the province; and
WHEREAS
social enterprises can help communities control their own economic future, fill
critical gaps in the economy, and provide space for a new generation of
entrepreneurs to apply their skills; and
WHEREAS
social enterprise development is another innovation tool for advancing regional
growth opportunities to benefit the economy;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House supports the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador's initiative to implement a social enterprise action
plan including long-term strategic goals supported by an annual work plan early
in 2017.
Mr.
Speaker, this motion is seconded by the hon. Member for St. George's Humber.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Pursuant
to Standing Order 63(3) the private Member's resolution just entered by the
Member shall be the one that is debated this Wednesday.
While
I'm up, Mr. Speaker, I would move, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House
not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Monday, November 28, 2016.
Further,
I would move, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 10
p.m. today, Monday, November 28.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
pleased to present the following petition this afternoon:
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
provincial wait-lists for long-term care continue to grow; and
WHEREAS
hospital beds are increasingly being occupied by individuals who are in need of
long-term care; and
WHEREAS
this government cancelled the previous administration's plan to increase
capacity by 360 beds province wide;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to immediately develop a plan to address the
shortage of long-term care beds in order to ensure people receive appropriate
care and are treated with dignity.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, this is an issue I've spoken to in this hon. House in the past. I won't
speak at length about it today, but I do want to continue to bring these
concerns to the House of Assembly.
The
bottom line from where I sit is that we had a viable plan that would have
resulted in 360 additional long-term care beds opening in our province in 2017.
They would be under construction right now. The plan made sense. It was cost
effective. It was modelled after best practices in most other Canadian
provinces. It's a model that has had a lot of success, even in our own region of
Canada, in provinces like New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
In the
past year, we've seen nothing happen. If the government had concerns with our
plan, that's their right, but to not present any kind of alternative and to not
take any kind of action over the past year is rather concerning, Mr. Speaker.
We have
long wait-lists for long-term care in our province, and there's a ripple effect
throughout the health care system because of this present situation and
government's inaction. We have more surgeries being cancelled, we have people
lying on stretchers in hallways in our hospitals, we have people waiting for
even longer periods in emergency rooms because we have patients that are waiting
to move into long-term care and they can't. Some of them are in personal care
homes, some of them are in their own homes, some of them are waiting in
hospitals and they've already been medically discharged.
It's a
real concern, Mr. Speaker, and action is needed. We've seen none in the past
year and I'm pleased to present this petition to call upon government to finally
take some action.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
Newfoundland and Labrador has the greatest percentage of the workforce earning
the provincial minimum wage in Canada, with women, youth and those from rural
areas making up a disproportionate number of these workers;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to legislate an immediate increase in the minimum
wage to restore the loss of purchasing power since 2010 and an annual adjustment
to the minimum wage beginning in 2016 to reflect the Consumer Price Index.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Well,
Mr. Speaker, I point out that the petitioners were duly disappointed last week
when the Minister for Advanced Education, Skills and Labour made an announcement
that indeed without any public consultations, and without publicly announcing a
review was taking place, that he was indeed making changes to the minimum wage.
But those changes did not reflect the concerns raised by these petitioners
because, number one, it is going to do nothing to restore the loss of purchasing
power since 2010. A 25-cent raise next April and again next October would go
nowhere near bringing us up to the purchasing power, which will be a year late
again another year added to the request of these people.
And
then, again the petitioners ask that the increase in the minimum wage begin in
2016 to reflect the Consumer Price Index. Some hope, Mr. Speaker; they now have
to wait until April 2017 to get any increase at all, the increase of 25 cents,
and that increase will go nowhere near reflecting the loss of purchasing power
and reflect the Consumer Price Index.
Even
though this petition is signed by thousands of people in this province, has been
presented over and over in this House, the minister paid no attention to the
petitions of people throughout the province. He paid no attention to their
concern of the loss of purchasing power in the last almost seven years now, not
six years. He paid no attention to the fact of what they were calling upon him
to do. He did not hold any kind of public hearings to hear people present why
they signed this petition, to hear the details I'd like to know his analysis
because we got no analysis of how he's going to deal with the loss of
purchasing power; 25 cents next April and another 25 cents next fall is not
going to cut it.
He
claimed here in this House of Assembly that this was going to take care of the
fact we are now the lowest minimum wage in the country. What does he think that
the other provinces are sitting still and that they're not going to raise theirs
next year? Of course they are, so we'll probably still be the lowest in the
country after these raises happen, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A
petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents
humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
many students within our province depend on school bussing for transportation to
and from school each day; and
WHEREAS
there have been a number of buses removed from service over the past few weeks
for safety reasons, calling into question the current inspection and enforcement
protocols for school buses in the province; and
WHEREAS
there have been concerns raised by members of the busing industry regarding
government tendering practices as it relates to the provision of school bus
services in this province; and
WHEREAS
there are many parents throughout our province who have raised both scheduling
as well as safety concerns regarding the English School District's 1.6-kilometre
policy, the courtesy-seating policy, the new double- bus-run schedule, as well
as overcrowding on school buses;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to strike an
all-party committee on school busing to consult with stakeholders and make
recommendations to government for the improvement to the school busing system in
our province.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm glad to be able to present this petition, once again. I will say
that it is encouraging, listening to the Minister of Service NL in Question
Period. It is encouraging to hear that there are going to be some amendments to
legislation, which is hopefully going to improve the safety on our school buses
in terms of how the inspections are done and when they're done and so on.
So I'm
very glad to hear that. There does seem to be movement there. Anything we can do
to make school buses safe for our children, everybody in this House, I'm sure,
agrees we need to do it. I'm also glad to hear the minister say that they would
be doing some audits and so on prior to September. I think that's positive.
Personally, I would like to see all school bus inspections done by Service NL
prior to September so that before school buses go on the road, before school
starts, we would know they have been independently inspected and they're safe.
Certainly, this is a move in the right direction, if he does what he says
they're going to do, and I have no doubt that he will.
In terms
of the other issues around the 1.6-kilometre rule, the double-busing runs and so
on, this is something we have to look to the Minister of Education, as opposed
to the Minister of Service NL. It seems like he's doing his part, but we need to
look to the Minister of Education to stop hiding behind the school board.
MR. KIRBY:
The school district.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. LANE:
I hear him over there
chirping there now. To stop hiding behind the school board
MR. KIRBY:
The school district.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. LANE:
and to actually start
taking some ownership of these issues to address these issues. Because I know
when he was over on this side of the House, he raised these very same concerns.
Now, all of a sudden it's not a concern and it's the school district.
Hopefully, these issues around the 1.6-kilometre rule and around this new
double-busing schedule I'm not sure where that ever came from, but that's
wreaking all kinds of havoc on children and families and I ask him to look into
it.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
fisheries policy regulations link harvesting quotas to vessel length for several
species; and
WHEREAS
many harvesters own fishing vessels of various sizes, but because of policy
regulations are restricted to using smaller vessels, often putting their crews
in danger; and
WHEREAS
the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of
Assembly to urge the government to make representation to the federal government
to encourage them to change policy, thus ensuring the safety of fish harvesters
in this province.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
This is
a petition that I brought before. This is the second time now I've brought this
to the House of Assembly and it's very important. It's very important to people
in my district.
I spoke
to a fisherman this weekend. As you know, this weekend, the winds were
unbelievable. And some of the conditions we see fish harvesters having to go out
in is unbelievable. We live in the North Atlantic, the roughest area in the
word, I would say, when it comes to wind conditions. To have regulations that
are putting our crew members and fish harvesters really in danger of losing
their lives every year, we hear tell of it.
Every
year in this province there are people who die fishing. One life is too much.
There are regulations that can be changed. All we have to do I understand when
it came in, when the crab first started that they had to make sure the inshore
sector was protected, that it wasn't just the larger boats that were getting the
majority of the crab. So they put an inshore sector where they went from 35'9
and under, and then they went over to 65 footers.
Mr.
Speaker, today most of the inshore harvesters have a number of licences. I know
people in my area that have six different boats that they go out and harvest
crab, and they're forced to use these boats. Again, like I said the last time I
was up, some of the boats they got are no problem at all, but when you have six,
I'm sure there are ones that are better on the water than there are others.
I'm just
asking the Minister of Fisheries, asking this government to protect our fisher
people, protect the people that are out on the water. It's important.
Newfoundlanders have lost too many lives in the past, and we don't need to lose
any in the future.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
government has once again cut the libraries budget threatening the closure of 54
libraries; and
WHEREAS
already strapped municipalities are not in a position to take over the operation
and cost of libraries;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to keep these libraries open and work on a
long-term plan to strengthen the library system.
As in
duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Again,
Mr. Speaker, people might feel how odd to stand up and present this petition
when government has reversed their decision. Well, they haven't really reversed
their decision; they've just postponed it. It's a little bit in suspended
animation right now around what they're going to do about these libraries that
came under the threat of closure. So they've hired a great big, old consulting
company, giving them almost $200,000 to tell us whether or not we need
libraries. And we know we do. Experts tell us we need them. Librarians tell us,
teachers tell us, community leaders tell us, mayors tell us. Everybody's telling
us we need our libraries.
As a
matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, there were people all over the country who were
astounded that this Minister of Education, who professes to be so concerned
about education, is undercutting some of the very significant foundations in our
communities that support literacy, that support education. It's odd, Mr.
Speaker. It's like falling down into a rabbit hole and the world has become
topsy-turvy.
So these
particular petitions have been signed by the good people of Lourdes, and Lourdes
is on the Port au Port Peninsula. It's another small community in the province
which was shocked to learn a few months ago that the library, a pillar of their
community, was on the chopping block.
Now
having already lost the services of the former Port au Port development
association, the people of Lourdes and surrounding communities, from Mainland to
Abraham's Cove, relied on their public library. The only place left in the area
where they could get practical supports such as job search and help writing a
rιsumι. It was housed in the local school.
The
Lourdes library is popular with children, seniors and tourists alike. In the
past year, the library get this, Mr. Speaker was mandated to offer the Every
Child Ready to Read program.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, imagine, they
were mandated to offer Every Child Ready to Read program. I guess if
government's Plan A goes through, every child will not be ready to read on the
Port au Port Peninsula or in many other areas for that matter.
Children
in the community are asking the librarian and their parents, why are they
closing our library? They want to know. It makes no sense. It makes no sense at
all, Mr. Speaker.
So I am
pleased to support this petition from the citizens of Lourdes and surrounding
communities. Once again, I call on the Minister of Education and Early Childhood
Development to say, sorry, I messed up. Sorry, we messed up; we'll reinstate the
adequate funding for our valuable public libraries.
Mr.
Speaker, he did mess up. Not only that, we're seeing a tax coming on January 1
on our books.
Thank
you very, very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Orders of the Day.
MR. SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call from the
Order Paper, Motion 2.
MR. SPEAKER:
WHEREAS section 85 of the
Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 2015 provides
that the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner be filled by the
Lieutenant Governor in Council on a resolution of the House of Assembly; and
WHEREAS
section 85 further provides that the Speaker establish a selection committee for
that purpose; and
WHEREAS
that selection committee was established and that committee submitted a roster
of qualified candidates to the Speaker of the House of Assembly; and
WHEREAS
section 89 provides that the Lieutenant Governor may, on the recommendation of
the House of Assembly Management Commission, appoint an acting commissioner if
that office becomes vacant; and
WHEREAS
the office was vacated and Mr. Donovan Molloy was, on the recommendation of the
selection committee, appointed in an acting capacity on July 22, 2016;
NOW
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Mr. Donovan Molloy be appointed as the Information
and Privacy Commissioner.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
happy to stand here and speak to this motion today, one that's quite significant
and will give some, perhaps, finality to a decision that was made a number of
months ago. But as you just stated in the motion, we have to make it official
here in the House of Assembly. I guess the crux of that motion is in the last
section which is that Donovan Molloy is to be appointed as the Information and
Privacy Commissioner.
What I'd
like to do is just take a few minutes at this time. I certainly won't be using
the hour that's been accorded to me, but I want to speak about the process. I
want to speak about the office, and to speak about Mr. Molloy himself who I've
had the good fortune in my time in this role to work with in his previous
position.
As we
all know, our Information and Privacy Commissioner is a very important role. It
is an independent office of this House of Assembly. The position itself has been
around for a number of years now, and had previously been served by a gentleman
named Mr. Ed Ring, who gave notice of his retirement. We thank Mr. Ring for his
service and wish him well in his retirement.
If
anybody has any interest in this topic, all they have to do the OIPC has a
great website that one can access. They talk about their mandate; they talk
about what they do. Most people know they basically deal with the act, the
ATIPP, the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy, and as well as the
Personal Health Information Act. That concept has had a long history in this
province. It's one that the legislation brought back in the early 2000s.
We went
through changes to that legislation back in 2012, and a subsequent revision in
this House of Assembly not too long ago. It was in that most recent revision
that was done here in the House of Assembly that there was a new process created
which was applied and which led to the selection of Mr. Molloy as the Acting
Information and Privacy Commission.
If you
look at what this act does; it was first passed in 2002. It replaced the Freedom
of Information Act which came about back in the '80s. The Commissioner who, as I
said, is an independent officer of this House has a number of responsibilities
under the two pieces of legislation that I mentioned. Basically, it's providing
oversight, and oversight includes conducting reviews of decisions, investigating
and attempting to resolve complaints as it relates to Access to Information and
the Protection of Privacy involving public bodies.
I guess
when you look at what it does we talk about the concept as it relates to
information, there's the thought process that all information, especially as it
relates to public bodies, should be public information. And that's the process
there has been a mindset change over the years where there has been a tendency
to protect information, to hold that information and not release it, to more of
a mindset now where information is public but it is subject to limits. It is
subject to certain protections, especially as it relates to personal
information. It's finding that balance, and it has been laid out.
It is
our Commissioner who, in many cases, resolves disputes that may arise where
interested parties make application that they want access to certain
information. There, in many cases, may be a refusal to provide that information
and we have to interpret the legislation and make these decisions. It is an
extremely busy job. It's an extremely busy office, especially since the latest
revision of this legislation which made it one of the broadest pieces of
legislation of that nature really in this country. So it is an important
position and one that we take seriously.
People
must realize that when it comes to the independent nature of this office, this
statutory office of the House of Assembly, it certainly carries with it an
importance that can't be understated and one they don't answer to politicians.
It is not a case of, well, we're saying this is private; you need to keep it
private. No, no, that is not how this office like any statutory office of this
House works, it's offices of importance that answer to the House of Assembly but
they don't answer to elected officials, and that's needed for the benefits of
all citizens of this province.
So if
you were to go through whether it's our ATIPPA or whether it's the history I
don't think there's any real need to belabour the debate we're having here today
to talk about how it came about. There was a report done by Cummings some time
ago, it led the legislation. What we need to talk about is the importance of
this role and the importance, basically, of that office and the need to ensure
qualified individuals fill this. We've seen that in the past and certainly we
want to ensure that going forward.
I don't
need to talk about the debate we had here in this House just recently where we
talked about we had a review that was done by the hon. Clyde Wells. I think
that committee also involved Mr. Doug Letto and Jennifer Stoddart who also
carried a national role as it related to access to information. They reviewed
legislation. It was under the mandate of a previous premier who wanted a review
of the previous ATIPPA that he helped bring into place back in 2012.
This
committee looked at it; they took submissions from a number of people. It was a
pretty comprehensive review, one that was done over a period of time, brought to
this House and that we have voted on. It has a number of aspects to it, whether
it is the independent review mechanism.
There's
a whole number of things, but one of the fundamental concepts really is the
facilitation of democracy. That's done by ensuing that citizens have the
information required to participate meaningfully in the democratic process,
increasing transparency in government public bodies and protecting privacy. A
lot of times the protecting privacy aspect sometimes gets left out, or it's
maybe not as well-known as the first part, but there is information out there
that should be kept private and that's as it relates to our personal
information.
So there
is that balance that the Commissioner and his office have to strive to uphold.
They have a number of anybody who gets access to these emails or looks at the
site and sees that there are reports filed on a very regular basis, there are
court decisions, there's a lot of information out there, more so than I can tell
you ever before I was elected to this House in 2011. It's not something that I
was aware of but certainly I am now.
I think
there is a greater awareness of this issue as it relates to the public. I think
a lot of that stems from the debates that we've had here in this House of
Assembly. We've had debates over access to information. I think these debates
have led to that broadness, that awareness that the public has as it relates to
information and the need to have that information.
One of
the things I want to talk about obviously, I think everybody understands the
role of the Commissioner, the role of that office. One of the things is this
piece of legislation that we debated just last year in 2015 created a process to
appoint the Information and Privacy Commissioner. That's set out in section 85
of this legislation, the ATIPPA, 2015. It wasn't too long into 2016 that the
previous commissioner gave notice that they would be retiring, as I mentioned
earlier.
So in
May of 2016, a selection committee was established by the Speaker of the House
of Assembly in accordance with section 85(3) of the act. Now I have to note
it's my recollection, I may be wrong this process was a part of a bill that
was brought to this House and was voted on and was agreed on unanimously by
Members of this House of Assembly, if I recall correctly. I look across at the
Member for St. John's East Quidi because they were a part of this debate too.
I think I was right in that it was unanimous in this House of Assembly when we
debated that.
So this
process is one that every Member agreed on. I can't recall if there was a
Division called. I think there probably was, but the fact is I need to note the
unanimity when it comes to selecting this new process.
I just
want to go to the side for just a second, because one of the things that we did
in our first session of the House was we brought forward the Independent
Appointments Commission. Part of that process was that we created new processes
to be used for a number of statutory offices. We tried to basically bring in
line a lot of these offices, their terms, their tenures and the selection
process.
But this
Commissioner position was specifically excluded from that process. The thought
process employed to make that decision was that we had just gone through a
session in this House where we voted on this legislation. This process was the
one that was selected by the committee and we didn't feel it the best move to
change a process that we hadn't already employed. So we wanted to exclude this
specifically from that and go through the process that was identified by Mr.
Wells and the committee and voted on in this House.
So in
May, 2016, a selection committee was established and this committee consisted of
the individual sitting right there in front me, you may not see her on the House
camera, anybody that's out there watching but it's a lady named Ms. Sandra
Barnes, who is the Clerk of the House of Assembly. She's here with us in the
House of Assembly every day. She's not often on camera except when she's doing
the long readings of the legislation, but she was a part of that committee.
There
was also Ms. Julia Mullaley, who is the former Clerk of the Executive Council
and was a part of this process; Chief Judge Pamela Goulding, who is the Chief
Judge of our Provincial Court of Newfoundland and Labrador; and Mr. Kent Decker,
who is the Vice-President of Administration and Finance for Memorial University.
This was
the committee that undertook this process. The first thing they did was invite
expressions of interest for the position with support from the Public Service
Commission. If I recall correctly, I think there may have been ads put out in
the media, through the newspapers, it was put online. So it was wide-ranging and
it was public. Many people had the opportunity to apply for this. They had
notification and went through this process.
The
committee then, after going through this process and providing ample time,
developed a roster of candidates obviously, all qualified. That roster was
then submitted to the Speaker of the House of Assembly pursuant to section 85(4)
of the legislation. The Speaker then in turn consulted with the Premier, the
Leader of the Official Opposition and the Leader of the Third Party to discuss
this process.
Following this consultation process, the Lieutenant Governor in Council, on the
recommendation of the House of Assembly Management Commission, then appointed
Mr. Donovan Molloy, QC as Information and Privacy Commissioner on an acting
basis pursuant to section 89 of the act, which was effective July 22, 2016.
Going
back to the motion here, the fact is that the Management Commission and the
House has the ability to put somebody in place on an interim basis, but it
always has to come back to this House of Assembly for us, as Members
representing the citizens of this province, to have a vote on to make sure that
it becomes final and to have that say.
Mr.
Molloy has been in place on an acting basis since July. Again, I'd like to say,
this is just perhaps my opinion, I think this process seemed to work well from
my involvement in it. I think there were a wide number of people that applied
for the position. I'd like to thank the committee, the individuals that I just
named, Ms. Barnes, Ms. Mullaley, Chief Judge Goulding and Mr. Decker for their
work on this.
These
are all public servants that took the time away they all have busy roles. They
all have very busy positions. They carry out a number of tasks, but the fact
that they took the time to sit on this committee and do this work, we appreciate
that as well. It's time out of their lives. It's extra time they put in, because
we all realize the importance of this role and the importance of putting a good,
qualified individual in this position.
My
personal opinion and I think the opinion of many Members in this House
certainly I expect, after I sit, Mr. Speaker, that Members from the other side
will be able to stand and speak to this and provide their input on the process
itself and their thoughts on it. But I thought it seemed to work well. We're
very supportive of the process and I'd like to think the Members on this side
will be very supportive of this motion and will certainly be supporting it.
One of
the reasons is that (a) we think that the process itself seemed to work. Again,
that's one of those things that I'm sure there will be consultations and
discussions on because you can always look at processes and look at can they be
done differently, can they be done better, can they be improved. There must be a
constant goal of change for the purpose of betterment. That's something we must
all strive for. The second reason: I think that when it came down to it, we
couldn't have appointed a better person with a very strong, specific skillset
for this.
I'd like
to talk for just a second, Mr. Speaker, about Donovan Molloy. Donovan, who is
from Marystown, has a Bachelor of Laws, with distinction, from the University of
New Brunswick. He graduated in 1992. He actually had a Bachelor of Science
degree from Memorial University, called to our bar 1993 and articled actually
down in Marystown. He practised in 1994 and then he made probably one of the
biggest moves and something that led to him being in a position where I got to
work side by side with him, work with him, and that's when he became a Crown
prosecutor.
He moved
in to Public Prosecution and he practised there in the Marystown area up until
he came to St. John's in 2002. Since that time, he left the office; he was the
director of Public Prosecutions right up until he left to make this change. It's
a significant change in many ways going from the director of Public
Prosecutions, from handling matters of that significance, that importance, to
moving to this which is obviously a very important matter, but one that has a
different nature.
Mr.
Molloy has appeared before all levels of court in this province. He also worked
as a prosecutor with Alberta Justice, with the Public Prosecution Service of
Canada. Mr. Molloy has also served in a number of roles outside of this
capacity, whether it be a bencher with the Law Society, the National Criminal
Law Program, the Rotary Club.
Being
the director of Public Prosecutions, it was assistant deputy minister level with
the Department of Justice and Public Safety. Again, stepping into my role, I was
so fortunate to have the Premier put me in the role as minister on December 14
of last year and it's since that time that I got to work with Donovan on very
much a day-to-day basis.
Now,
without talking too much about the Office of Public Prosecutions, the
independence of that office from the political side is one thing, but that
doesn't mean I got a real education working with Donovan on a day-to-day
basis. I had an understanding before appearing in the court system, but having a
chance to work with him and his staff, with other prosecutors, has given me an
even greater understanding of the importance of that job, how hard they work and
the good work that they do on behalf of the people of this province.
Again,
Donovan, being director, handled that for the entire province. It's a very
trying matter. You can think about the matters that you see in the news every
night, some very serious files; files that, in many cases, can be disturbing at
times. Again, he was in charge of all that and ran that for a number of years,
and did a great job.
I did
this during a previous debate, but I'd like to thank Mr. Molloy for his work on
behalf of the Department of Justice and Public Safety over all those years, for
his work as a prosecutor, for his work as the director of Public Prosecutions.
He did excellent work. We're very lucky that in this whole process that we've
had a very good transition from when Donovan left office, and we now have Ms.
Knickle, who is doing an excellent job in that role.
Donovan
really made the jump and he stepped into this role, and I think, in his acting
capacity, seems to be doing an excellent job. Again, I heard from him, as the
minister, in many cases, when he writes the reports, and some of them deal with
our department, as he deals with every department, and we hear about ways that
we can improve, ways that we can changed, ways that we can improve access to
information for the people of this province.
Something we have as one of our most important mandates is to ensure we are
transparent, to make sure we are accessible, to make sure we have information
out there. Because it's not just about having the information, it's about having
it on a timely basis.
Donovan,
I really think that it is his legal background and skills that he's acquired
through his education and through his work career that have allowed him to step
into this role and provide a methodical, intelligent and diligent approach to
this. There's certainly a lot of reading to this; that understates it. That
skill set that he had allowed him to, I think, to provide he's a very highly
qualified candidate and what I thought was an easy selection, having somebody of
that calibre put themselves forward with this position, we were certainly very
happy, and certainly very happy to stand here and support this motion in the
House of Assembly.
So, Mr.
Speaker, without belabouring it too much, and again, my colleagues would have an
opportunity to speak to this, there's no understating the value of access to
information and the protection of privacy and private information. We need
individuals who are independent and qualified, who can interpret that law, and
can provide decisions that are in the best interests of the people of this
province, and to do so as an independent Officer of this House.
I think
that the right choice was made in Mr. Molloy. I'm very happy to stand here and
speak to this today, to speak to his qualities, to speak to his capabilities, to
speak to his qualifications. I'm happy to stand here and speak to that.
On
behalf of the government, we'll certainly be supporting this motion. We wish Mr.
Molloy and his office all the best as he goes forward with an increased mandate
with the passage of the ATIPPA, 2015. There has been an increase in the
capacity, we'll say, since the previous incarnation, so he certainly has a lot
of work on his hands. We wish him well. We know he has a mandate there to do the
job and I'm sure we'll be in touch with him.
Actually, I'm looking forward I'll throw a shout out now that Mr. Molloy is
actually leading a conference. He'd be here right now but there is an access to
information conference going on here in St. John's. I think it's today, tomorrow
and, I believe, Wednesday. I'm looking forward to speaking at that conference
tomorrow. If anybody has any questions, I'm sure they can find the information
online. In fact, I tweeted it out today because we need more people that are
interested in this.
So I'm
very grateful for the work that he has put into this. As the minister also
responsible for ATIPP in government, a new part of my mandate that was given to
me earlier this fall, it's something I take to be very important. I look forward
to working with him and his staff to make sure that we provide this very
important service on behalf of the people of this province.
Thank
you for the opportunity to speak to this. I'm very happy to support the motion.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to join in with the Government House Leader in having a few comments on
this motion before the House this afternoon. This is a motion, as the Government
House Leader had indicated, to appoint Mr. Donovan Molloy as the Information and
Privacy Commissioner.
My
comments will be fairly brief this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. Before I speak to the
work he's done so far and my contact with him in his appointment, I just want to
take a moment to acknowledge the service of Mr. Ed Ring, the previous
Information and Privacy Commissioner, quite often known in short as the Privacy
Commissioner.
I want
to take a few minutes to thank Mr. Ed Ring for his service to the House of
Assembly, but also to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I can tell you
that the Privacy Commissioner I know from my own experience in dealing with
privacy matters and dealing with people who have gone through or have had
questions or concerns about privacy matters or looking for information and so
on, that a lot of this lands squarely on the Privacy Commissioner's desk.
Sometimes it can be not an easy task to interpret the legislation, understand
the intent of the legislation and apply to the circumstances that exist at the
time.
As the
Government House Leader mentioned, Mr. Ring had given notice earlier in 2016 of
his intent to retire. Then, back in July of this year, the Members of the
Management Commission met and Mr. Molloy was appointed, I believe, on July 22 in
an acting capacity.
Now we
have a motion before the House to appoint him in a permanent capacity. I can
tell you, Mr. Speaker, again in my own experience, I know Mr. Molloy. I knew him
back in his days as a prosecutor. I knew him in the early days as prosecutor as
well. He was always been very, very professional in his handlings of his duties
and responsibilities. I know, from my experience and my knowledge of him, he has
always applied himself to the best of his ability.
I dealt
with him a little bit during my time in government, in Cabinet, and he spent
some time in the Department of Justice, under the Department of Justice and
worked there as well. From time to time over the years, I had instances to deal
with him. Since he became the interim Information and Privacy Commissioner,
Members of caucus and myself met with him one day and had a good discussion with
him. I've spoken to him on the phone once or twice as well, other than that,
over some questions asking his clarification or advice on.
He's
there to do that. My experience, thus far, is that he's been very helpful and
accommodating and also provides the information. When we ask for a clarification
or his position on something, he's willing to do that as well, and that's part
of what the Information and Privacy Commissioner does. He provides a greater
understanding. He has a position where he can make rulings and decisions.
Therefore when someone is trying to interpret the language or the circumstances,
sometimes he can lend some assistance to that as well.
Mr.
Speaker, we know that we're in an age where the demands on the position are
increasing and not only are they increasing, but they are also becoming more
complex. As time goes on, interpretation of law and so on becomes more complex,
becomes more complex to the courts and then courts issue decisions when people
challenge decisions and you appeal them to higher level of court and you get
complexities, higher level of understanding. Then when a person is using the
act, they have to also include the decisions from the higher courts on matters
involving that particular act.
Mr.
Molloy is kind of in the centre of the driver's seat when it comes to all of
those happenings with information and privacy. We know with the significant
discussions that we've had here in the House in the past on privacy and the
Government House Leader commented on our legislation here in Newfoundland and
Labrador and I'd say the final result of what we landed on with privacy and
information legislation here, from what I know, is the best in the country. It
was at the time and I don't know if we changed, but that means that there's more
work for the Information and Privacy Commissioner to do as well and certainly
we've seen that. We anticipated there would be increases in requests. Our
government started a process of proactive releases, and providing information
proactively so people didn't actually have to apply for it.
And
we've had occasions where people pick up the phone and ask for something, and
the effort we made to provide it without having to go through the actual
application process. But the application process is online today, very simple to
follow. Anyone can log in online and through a fairly confidential process
there are requirements of confidentiality of who is asking for it, and they can
ask for that information. The practice that we started in government was to post
those answers online. So if someone was looking for something, they go online
and have a look for it or they could ask for it, use the online system to make a
request for it and wait for the results to come back.
So that
happens there and, quite often, people have questions about the process or they
don't like the answer they received from government. Government may write back
and say no response of records, which is a term sometimes used. Someone may ask:
What does that mean? Does that mean they have records, but for one reason or
another they are not going to provide it? So there's a process you can go
through to get the clarifications to that, and again, all of that will land on
Mr. Molloy's plate.
Mr.
Speaker, I can tell you, based on my own experience, background and experience
with Mr. Molloy and understanding Mr. Molloy's past, including the comments by
my colleague across the House who talked about him graduating in 1992, did very,
very well in his education, added to the Bar in 1993, and the experience he's
had over the last number of years, a very fitting person for this position.
I'm sure
he'll have his own challenges as he goes along with doing the job that he's
accepted; however, I'm sure he's going to do it to the best of his ability. I
congratulate him on his appointment.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm glad
to join with my colleagues from the government and the Official Opposition in
recognizing Mr. Donovan Molloy being newly confirmed as the Information and
Privacy Commissioner.
The
Minister of Justice and Government House Leader has very thoroughly explained
the process and also the Leader of the Official Opposition. So I won't go into
explaining all of that again. People who may have missed what the Minister of
Justice said can, of course, go into Hansard after today and check it out. But
the process that we are doing here today is making a final decision upon a
recommendation from the House Management Commission that Mr. Donovan replace Mr.
Ed Ring.
And
before going further I, too, want to recognize the tremendous work of Mr. Ed
Ring when he was the Information and Privacy Commissioner. He certainly set a
high standard and I'm sure that Mr. Molloy is ready to rise to that high
standard. Mr. Ring showed himself absolutely committed to making sure that
people of the province had full and open access to information and that privacy
was protected. He fully understood that role.
I note
that when Mr. Donovan was taking this on, he was being very, very modest. In
actual fact, he called himself a newcomer to access and privacy. He participated
in the federal Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics
in October, and that was probably the first time that he played his role on the
level.
In
recognizing himself as a newcomer to access and privacy, he acknowledged the
fact that his background was not in this area but his background was a legal
background. As the Minister of Justice indicated that legal background which
went back to 1993 when he started as a prosecutor in our province, in what was
then the Marystown office, so the Department of Justice's Public Prosecution
Division, his background in law certainly has given him the ability to
understand the legal dimensions of access and privacy. It is really complex
dealing with the rules and regulations, dealing with legislation, being present
to represent the people of the province because that's what he has to do.
All of
that, I think, are things that he would fully understand because of his
background. When one looks at the work that he did, both here in Newfoundland
and Labrador and then Alberta and then back here again, he certainly has always
worked in the area for which he was trained.
So it
was not difficult, as a member of the House Management Commission, to come to
the conclusion to recommend Mr. Molloy. I don't know him myself, but I did speak
to people who knew him over the years in the work he has done in the province
and I was impressed by the things those people said.
Of
course, I was also impressed by the fact that Mr. Molloy went through our new
process for the selecting of a position such as the Information and Privacy
Commissioner and that he was chosen by this selection committee that is part of
our new Appointments Commission. So I had no doubt when the Management
Commission was asked to look at this recommendation from the selection committee
that then went on to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, that I was secure in
saying yes to recommending him to be appointed. I'm glad that now we're finally
able here in the House of Assembly to make it not just an interim appointment,
but a permanent appointment.
I think
he has really shown, since July when he first took up the position July 22, I
think in some of the issues that he has spoken to publicly that he was either
being very modest when he said in October that he's a newcomer to access and
privacy or he's a very quick learner. I suspect it's both.
I've
been told he's not somebody who seeks the limelight for himself. People who have
observed him have told me that. He's not somebody who's doing something so that
he can be recognized. He's somebody that works very, very hard in the background
in the work that he does. I think that tells me he's a person who's very
judicious. If there's nothing else we want in this position, it's somebody who
is judicious. I think we have that in Mr. Donovan Molloy.
He has
been active since he's been appointed to the role, as I said; a few times
publicly being out there with regard to issues he's had to deal with. But doing
that because of the importance of what he was looking at, at those times, not
doing it so he could get coverage and be any kind of a public figure.
I have
no doubt that he is going to live up to and maybe surpass, who knows, what was
set by Mr. Ring when he was in that position because as I said, he set the bar
high. I think Mr. Molloy is up for that and has shown in his past, and even in
the work he's done since July, that we will be very pleased that he has taken on
this.
So I'm
happy to officially welcome him to the role. I look forward to his future
decisions that he will make with the excellent and experienced staff in the
office because that's been my experience when Mr. Ring was in the position. We
also, obviously, didn't work just with Mr. Ring over issues; we've had to deal
with the staff in that office. It's an excellent staff. I'm sure Mr. Molloy is
already finding that out and is enjoying being in his position.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for Mount
Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm just
going to take a couple of moments, for the record, to say that I too wanted to
thank Mr. Ed Ring for his service over the last number of years. I know he has
done a stellar job and, of course, the Privacy Commissioner does have a very,
very important role to play. As I said, Mr. Ring certainly did a great job
there; I want to acknowledge that.
I, too,
want to congratulate Mr. Donovan Molloy on the appointment. I don't really know
him very well, as other Members might. I have met him on occasion, found him to
be a fine individual. I know he has all the qualifications in terms of education
and in terms of experience to do the job. He's been doing it since July, as has
been said, and he's done a good job. I'm sure he will continue to do so. So I
certainly support this appointment and I congratulate Mr. Molloy on it.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
All
those in favour of the motion?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
I
declare the motion passed.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Service NL, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of
the Whole to consider Bill 46.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is that the House
resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 46.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Dempster):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 46, An Act Respecting Procurement By Public Bodies.
A bill,
An Act Respecting Procurement By Public Bodies. (Bill 46)
CLERK (Barnes):
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The hon.
the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Madam
Chair.
This is
a very important piece of legislation and it's very important to a lot of
municipalities in our province. Being a former municipal leader myself,
sometimes, especially when you become a new member, it's important that we have
proper training and people know the rules, especially when you're dealing with
small municipalities because a lot of times we talk about conflict of interest
and we talk about making sure the best value. It's a part of the legislation
that I really do like. I have a lot of questions on that part of it, the best
value part.
I just
have a couple of questions for the minister. Minister, the first one is going to
be a general question. For municipalities, like I said, this is going to be a
big change for a lot of them. I'm just wondering, is there going to be any
training or handbooks or some kind of support that will be given to
municipalities in the province?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Yes, it
was a great question and, yes, there will be training. There will be training.
For anybody who wants to apply for our fees, there will be training put out.
There will be templates put out also for people to use. There will be follow-up
after. If anybody has any questions about the RFP, you can rest assured there is
part of the component of bringing in this new Procurement Act
is that there will be training sessions for anybody who wants to partake in
it.
There
will be information sessions, education sessions all across the province for all
businesses and all municipalities that want to partake in the procurement; yes,
there will be. Also, there will be staff there to help councils to work through
the procurement if there are any as I mentioned earlier, there will be a
they're trying to set up a template for it. The rule of thumb with people who
are involved with the three pieces, the more information you can put out, the
better accuracy that you can have with it. So there will be, yes.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much,
Minister.
I know
you understand the importance of letting the municipal leaders in most cases,
people that are running our municipalities are volunteers, and in a lot of cases
you'll see that in small communities. Again, it's the best value I spoke to
some municipal leaders the weekend and we talked about different things like
snow clearing, garbage collection and different services that they offer in
their towns. The question that came to me most times, Minister, is under the
best value, again. I guess they're asking me what would be the criteria.
I know
it's under the regulations that you're going to be bringing it in down the road,
but a lot of municipalities are wondering what kind of criteria are you going to
use for best value. Does it mean there will be reference letters? Or does it
mean it's on for example, if a town has snow clearing and they're not
satisfied with that snow clearing the year before, does that mean they can just
get rid of that person.
That's
what best value really does. People want to make sure that the services they
offer their communities. So questions like the criteria for best value, I'm
wondering what you could give us on that.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Yes,
best value is instead of buying something for the lowest price, the lowest-cost
option, the idea of the RFPs and best value is to look over the long-term cost
and the long-term I'll give you a good example. If, as we speak now, a town
council hires someone to do snow clearing, and if the snow clearing job is not
up to the standards, it's almost impossible not to bring that person back if
they put a bid in the following September.
Under
this here, the best value if you can show that this person is not getting the
best value by not cleaning the streets on time, not doing the number of runs a
day and not putting the proper salt and sand, they can be excluded from this.
This is the best value.
For
example, if you look at a truck and I'll just use this for an example. If some
department is buying a truck, you say, okay, the lowest truck is $50,000. But if
you can look at the 10-year maintenance free of another truck, that would be
best value in the long term. So you may buy the cheaper truck but the value
that's going to last longer would be the one with the 10-year maintenance that
would be a lot less cost. So it is the best value for all products, goods and
services. That is something that can be put into the RFPs, and will be put into
the RFPs.
I'll
give you a good example. A prime example is out on the West Coast where they
just did the six transfer stations. The lowest bid never got it. They said over
the life of the period of 25 years, the best value that we would have would be
the person who's a bit higher, but because of the value we'll take that person
because in the long run we'll save money. So that's the idea of looking at the
long term instead of just the lowest price on a regular basis.
CHAIR:
The hon. Member for Cape St.
Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Madam
Chair.
Just
another question on municipalities; Minister, most municipalities that have
services, a lot of times it's small towns that go out and sometimes they're
worried about conflict of interest, worrying about how their aunt or uncle or
relative who may have a service, and sometimes they get the opportunity to bid
like everybody else.
What
mechanism is going to be in place for a person who has the lowest bid that the
relative doesn't get that bid, because sometimes there's going to be a conflict
there? You're going to have a bidder saying I did my job; I have just as good
equipment as this person. Again, we want to keep all the conflict we want to
make sure the towns get the best bang for their buck.
I know a
lot of regulations are coming later, but what regulations are going to be in
place to make sure that incidents like this and it does happen in rural
Newfoundland and Labrador, we all know that. You're dealing with your friends,
your neighbours and everything else. I know people don't want to be put in that
position.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you.
That is
a great question again, because that's happening today, as we speak, under
conflict of interest. There are conflict of interest guidelines in this. It's
pretty straightforward with father, son, spouse in the conflict of interest. A
lot of times, Madam Chair, with the conflict of interest is that if someone
feels they are in conflict, they can step aside from the vote.
Can you
say in this legislation there's going to be something that if your brother or
sister has an RFP that you shouldn't vote on it? There's always Municipal
Affairs who will give you help, who will give you assistance if you are in
conflict. But the thing about this, and I'll say to the Member, which is going
to be great, is now any RFP that is given out, awarded, will be posted online.
That's the other thing.
We're
setting up a system whereby it will be posted online. So anybody who feels they
are in a conflict or if any company feels a municipality didn't award it to them
because of conflict, or they have nieces or nephews or someone on it, they have
a right to come in, and under this legislation the chief procurement office has
to have a debriefing with that person who lost the contract and go through it
step by step. That's something that's new now that's going to be a part of this
act, is that you can come in for a debriefing to go through step by step why you
never got it and prepare for the next time, and that's for those issues.
As I
mentioned earlier about the conflict, there are conflict of interest rules in as
we speak, guidelines in now for municipalities. If people feel they may be in a
conflict we get a lot of letters asking us to clarify if they are or if they
aren't and we're more than willing to help them out. A process that's going to
improve here is that it will be posted online so every individual who applied,
or never applied, can look online and see who got the tender and they can come
in for a debriefing on why they never got the RFP.
CHAIR:
The hon. Member for Cape St.
Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
A last question on
municipalities, just a concern of mine.
Municipalities sometimes are usually like I said, they're volunteers and
everything else, and timelines are very important to them. What mechanism have
you put in place to make sure that if a person say, the bid for snow clearing
is opened in October and a person says, okay, I didn't get it, the third person
up the ladder got it. How are you going to do the timelines so the person who
didn't get the bid can have time enough to say okay, that's not fair that I
didn't get the bid and I was the lowest bidder. What timelines are you going to
put in place?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Minister of Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
They can come in immediately
and ask to be debriefed on why they never got it. The timelines themselves on
the RFPs depends on the town and their consultants, when they want to put them
out, to have it out in time. So there's no timeline saying you got to have it
out. It's up to the town.
Most
towns, as we speak now, for the tendering for snow clearing do have it out prior
to, to give them time for the winter to make sure they have the proper tenders
out, make sure there's someone accepted, and make sure then that whoever got the
tender and in this case with the RFPs, to ensure they got the materials to
work and they have the staff in place to do the work and give them plenty of
time.
So
there's no timeline put on the town when they got to have it done, but most
towns in their own preparation has it done in time for any project that is
needed or any service that is needed in the town.
CHAIR:
The hon. Member for Mount
Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have,
I guess like everybody, a number of issues or concerns I suppose, but I want to
speak to section 5 first of all. Section 5(1) talks about the
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. JOYCE:
(Inaudible) I thought we were
going to go clause by clause.
MR. LANE:
I thought that happened. I
thought when she first reads it you can speak to everything and then you go
clause by clause. Is that right or wrong?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
CHAIR:
Order, please!
Right
now the Chair is recognizing the Minister of Service NL, on a point of order.
MR. LANE:
Okay.
MR. JOYCE:
I just want to say what they
were going clause by clause and we're still at clause 1. So you're welcome to
ask any questions but once you go to section 5, that means I'm assuming then
everybody is fine with the others, but we
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. JOYCE:
Yes, so I'm saying we're only
at clause 1.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Madam Chair, I have no
problem going by the clause. I was under the impression that when Committee of
the Whole started and you read out the first clause, then that was open to the
whole bill. Then after that, if you get beyond that, then it has to go into
individual clauses.
If
that's not the case, then I'll wait. It doesn't matter to me, one way or the
other.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
It is
the Chair's understanding that it can be wide ranging in clause 1. It depends on
what way we're going to go. I guess we can go clause by clause. Sometimes clause
1 can be wide ranging.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Okay, that's what I thought,
Madam Chair.
I guess
on clause 5 and it goes beyond that but it starts on clause 5(1). It says:
This act applies to procurement by public bodies with respect to the
Energy Corporation Act and
Research and Development Council Act.
I'm less concerned about the Research and
Development Council Act. I'm glad that it's going to be included.
The
Energy Corporation Act would be
referring to Nalcor and its subsidiaries, as I understand it. On the surface,
that sounds like a very good thing. I support that 1,000 per cent, to bring
Nalcor now under the auspices of the new
Public Procurement Act.
Where I
have a concern or a question, or both, whatever you might want to call it I
suppose, when we get towards the end here, Part IV, Consequential Amendments and
Repeal, and section 17 section 17.1 says: The corporation or a subsidiary
and of course it's referring to the Energy
Corporation Act and says it's repealed and the following substituted: The
corporation or a subsidiary is exempt from the
Public Procurement Act with respect to procurement in the following
areas and then it lists (a) to (c) (a) energy and energy products; (b)
where the corporation or a subsidiary is acting in a strategic partnership,
joint venture, or equity investment with other public bodies or private sector
entities; or (c) for the purpose of meeting the requirements of a benefit
arrangement.
So the
way I read that
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I just
want to clarify when I talked about wide ranging in clause 1 it's like when
we're in second reading. But as the Chair is listening you are getting down into
the weeds more, and I think that's something that we can debate when we get to
that section of the bill.
MR. LANE:
Okay. I'll try to keep the
comments a little more general, Madam Chair, if that's fine. But the problem
with going that way is where we are talking two linked pieces and if I go with
one, then I don't know if I can speak to the other one and vice versa because
they are tied together.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
I guess my question or
concern, or as I said maybe both is that basically what I'm reading here is that
Nalcor is now going to be brought under the
Public Tender Act. But when you look
at all the exemptions that are listed from (a) to (c) when we talk energy and
energy products, I'm not exactly sure what that means, per se.
I mean,
to my mind, what I'm seeing here is that if Nalcor itself decides they're going
to buy their office furniture and office supplies and all that kind of stuff,
they're going to fall under the procurement act. But if you're going to be
buying, let's say if they were to do a refit on Holyrood which would be an
energy product, I'm assuming, if we were to apply the existing Muskrat Falls
Project where there was a whole bunch of contracts let that was part of a joint
venture or whatever with Emera and all the benefits agreements, if we were going
to do something on the oil and gas side where there would be a benefits
agreement in place with the oil companies and all that, it seems like everything
is exempted.
So it
would almost give the impression that when they're buying their office supplies
and things like that for their office over on Captain Whalen Drive or whatever,
they're under the tender act but everything else, all the big ticket items, all
the contracts and all that, everything is exempted from the
Public Tender Act.
I don't know if I'm reading this wrong or not, and I guess
that's part of the problem with some of this in terms of not having necessarily
the regulations and everything around this stuff is that I'm not sure what it
means. On the surface, it sounds like everything except some basic office items
are still going to fall outside the Public
Procurement Act. I guess given all of
the cost overruns we've seen at Muskrat as an example, and concerns people have
raised about tendering and contracts being awarded and all this kind of stuff,
then it would seem like this is doing nothing to prevent those types of issues
and public disclosure and so on from
happening in the future.
Now, it
does go on to say that six months later, Nalcor would have to send a report to
the minister, who would in turn give it to the new procurement officer who would
post the contracts and awards online which is fine to say, but that's six
months after the fact, that's after the contracts are awarded, maybe even after
they're completed. And it just says post them online.
So what
does that mean? Does that mean you're going to have to name the company and how
much money they were paid, or the name of the company, the work they did? Is
that going to show transparency in terms of how many companies bid on different
things, how it was awarded, did they follow good tendering processes, was it the
low bid, was it the best value bid; or is it just simply a list of this company
made a million bucks here, this company made two million here, this company,
whatever, six months after the fact?
I guess,
based on what we have today, it's better. At least, it's going to be posted
online, albeit six months later. And at least we're going to bring Nalcor under
the Public Procurement Act in terms of
its day-to-day operations for office and stuff which is good. I see all that
as a positive, but I don't see anything here that will address any of the big
ticket items and the ongoing big ticket expenses associated to Nalcor or its
subsidiaries, and I think it could be an opportunity lost to make changes and
require changes that the public would like to see as it relates to openness and
transparency with Nalcor.
So I
make that as an observation, and I also ask it as a question. If I am
misinterpreting what I am reading here, then I would certainly appreciate it if
one of the ministers could set the record straight as how that works, because
maybe my definition of energy and energy products and all this kind of stuff is
wrong. Maybe what I'm thinking here is wrong. And if it is, then I'd love for
someone to correct it and we can see that we're going to improve things. If not,
then like I said, the only improvement I'm seeing here as it relates to Nalcor
is that when they buy their post-it notes and furniture, they're going to follow
the act and then everything else, they won't.
So I'll
sit down for now and maybe we can get some clarification on that issue.
Thank
you, Madam Chair.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Madam
Chair, for the opportunity to respond, I guess, in a general sense.
I'm sure
the Member opposite remembers when Nalcor was completely exempt from the
procurement act. We are, I think, being very open and transparent and
accountable to put it in the procurement act. We want to make sure that Nalcor
is.
There
are three only three things that will take Nalcor out of the procurement.
That would be negotiated benefits that would apply for the province. I'm sure
the Member opposite would be very supportive of, if there's a benefits agreement
that we make sure that is done to benefit the province.
The
other is the buying and selling of electricity, which is quite normal and
natural. The buying and selling of electricity of other energy products would
not be covered. This is quite normal as well. I believe another Member opposite,
the House Leader for the NDP, has also concurred that is a normal part of the
process.
I think
what the Member is really delving into is when we're in partnership with
somebody else. I'll use a couple of examples of that. When we, as a province,
are doing seismic through Nalcor, Nalcor is entering into an agreement to
purchase seismic activity, that's a little different and that's what we're
trying to cover under this exemption. What they do is they go in with a number
of other partners in that seismic activity. It's not like you go in and go to
public tender on that activity; you are formed in partnership with others.
I'll use
the Hebron Project as another example, Madam Chair, on this particular instance.
When the Hebron Project was underway, Nalcor has a percentage of equity in that
project, as such a very small percentage when you look at the full project,
but as a small percentage of that larger project that involves multiple oil and
gas companies this act would not apply because they own such a small percentage
of a very large commercial opportunity.
So
that's what we're talking about under these exemptions Madam Chair.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
So just
for clarification from the minister, I'll just ask this direct example and
perhaps she can answer this one. If, let's say for argument sake, next year
Nalcor decided or Newfoundland Hydro, I will say, decided they wanted to upgrade
one of their substations I'll just use that as an example. As a result of that
upgrade, they need to award a bunch to contracts and maybe they have to purchase
transformers or whatever they do to generate the electricity and so on. If that
were to happen, would that fall under the procurement act or would they be
exempt?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is not exempt from the procurement. Therefore,
the example that you used even though it's supposition would be covered
under the procurement act.
Thank
you, Madam Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
So
again, I just want to clarify, the Energy
Corporation Act here, which is included here, which is bringing it under
Nalcor and it says their subsidiaries. So what the minister is telling me is
that today, if Nalcor decided to do an upgrade at a substation today, forget
this act, that they would have to follow the
Public Tender Act to purchase their stuff and award their contracts.
Is that what the minister is saying?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you.
I'm hopeful a lot of this was covered in the briefings but, Madam Chair,
I'll be happy to clarify that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro which is
responsible for those substations would be subject to this act and would be
required to go under the tendering process. This is a public utilities process
and, therefore, they would be subject to this act.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Madam
Chair.
It's not what I wanted to speak to, but I want now to go further and get
clarification from what the minister just said in response to the Member for
Mount Pearl Southlands. Minister, isn't Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro a
subsidiary of Nalcor?
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
(Inaudible) named in this act
as having to go under the Public
Procurement Act.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Well, the clause that was referred to by the Member for Mount Pearl
Southlands is the clause that includes subsidiaries under Nalcor following the
same procurement laws as Nalcor. And that, to me, means that you are talking
about Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro when you're talking about what Nalcor is
following.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
For clarity for the House,
Hydro is not exempt from any of these activities required under the
Public Procurement Act just for clarity. There are other
subsidiaries, they might talk about I'm going to talk about the energy
marketing as a subsidiary of Nalcor Energy and because they buy and sell
electricity that would be exempt. But, for clarity, Hydro is not exempt.
CHAIR:
The hon. Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Madam
Chair.
I want
to speak to the bill in general about a concern that I did express a bit during
this second reading, but I'd like to go more deeply into, and that is the way in
which the bill is described as a framework. That's been made clear by the
minister. It's made clear in the bill itself when it talks about the purpose of
the bill. The purpose of the bill is described as the bill being a framework.
I have
some concerns. In this definition of framework, it seems to me that there are
details that are being left out of an act that I think should be in an act and
should be in this act. That's what I want to speak to and talk about, those
concerns.
In the
act, in three parts in particular in section 8 which talks about Treasury
Board, in section 16 which talks about the chief procurement officer and in
section 28 which talks about the Lieutenant Governor in Council a lot of what
I consider to be essential areas are being left in the hands of those bodies
without detail being given in the act itself regarding what those bodies are
going to be dealing with.
It
concerns me when, for example, powers are given saying that policy will be
developed by. Well, I would like to know why the government didn't and I'm
putting that question to the minister put in place in the places where it
talks about policy and all of those three areas it does talk about policy, the
three areas I've mentioned any direction with regard to what that policy
should look like. Again, the statements are so general that I don't know what
will be used to evaluate those policies.
It's not
clear to me where those policies go. Well, Lieutenant Governor in Council, we
know where that goes. That's Cabinet, that's government doing its work. But
there's nothing saying that the Treasury Board, in establishing a policy for
procurement of professional services there's no direction given as to what
that policy should be covering, what it should look like. When power is given to
the chief procurement officer in section 16 to develop and publish general
policies for the procurement of commodities for application by all public
bodies. Again, except for a general statement about what the chief procurement
officer should be paying attention to, there's no detail given as to what those
policies should cover.
I think
there's a lot going on out there in the private sector with regard to
procurement with a lot of practices in place around policy; practices with
regard to sustainable procurement; how evaluations of RFPs, what they should
look like, how bids would integrate social and environmental factors with
financial considerations. There are so many details that are not in the act. I'm
not asking for regulations to be in the act, but I'm asking for direction with
regard to policy development and who is going to look at those policies. So it's
very disturbing to me that we're being asked ultimately to approve a bill
without knowing what the heart of the procurement is going to look like.
Under
section 28, for example, where the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make
regulations, those regulations are covering everything. Some things of which I
can see as regulations, another which are things that should come here to the
House of Assembly; broad sweeping statements such as valuing diversity in
procurement. Well, what would that look like? That's more than a regulation.
Exactly what does that mean? What does this act mean by diversity in
procurement? That's just a general statement. We don't know what it means.
It
doesn't tell us what the actual value of the government is, and that's what's
missing. What are the values? We have broad general statements but diversity in
procurement could mean an awful lot or it could mean just a little tiny bit. It
could mean access throughout the province. It could mean access, making sure
there's equality with regard to smaller businesses. It can mean gender
diversity. It can mean recognition of Aboriginal groups. There's nothing in here
telling us what it means. Different people define diversity in different ways.
How does this act define it? What are the regulations going to look like
determined by that act? These are the questions.
I'm very
concerned about framework bills that become acts; that are frameworks without
adequate direction from the act itself. That's what I'm concerned about. The
sweeping powers being given to the Treasury Board, to the chief procurement
officer, to the Lieutenant Governor in Council is not good enough.
In each
case, again, for example, in talking to the Treasury Board, it may establish a
policy, the chief procurement officer may require that public bodies coordinate
the group purchasing of commodities, et cetera. There are a number of places in
the act where things that are essential, such as the setting of policy, are not
defined with a timeline.
So I
guess I would like the minister to explain to us what his expectation is with
regard to these three areas in particular which do talk about policy and which
do talk about regulations. What is his expectation around when this stuff is
going to happen?
There
are two things I have a concern of, one is the fact that so much is being left
outside of the act and the other one is, how is the minister going to ensure how
and when those things are going to get done?
Thank
you, Madam Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I hear
the Member, and I'm not sure what she's asking actually because there are about
10 questions there. I'll answer any question I can. If I can't, I'll bring it
under advisement.
The
question you were asking about the policy. The policy is to get best value for
the money. That is the policy, the best value for your money instead of lowest
price which causes a lot of problems.
You
asked about regulations and what's exempt from them. There are two or three
things exempt here. One is financial and the other is legal. We brought
everything else under this legislation. So when you say everything is exempt,
it's factually incorrect.
When you
talk about the regulations, these regulations will be developed. We already gave
some guidelines on goods and services of what limits, are we going to increase
the limits for some on the request of Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador.
The
policy we're deriving is to get best value for our money instead of you have to
accept the lowest price. It's common in this House of Assembly, step one is to
bring in the act. Then you follow up with the regulations.
At the
press conference and at the briefing I don't think you were at the briefing,
but at the briefing we did give some parameters of what we were setting up to
increase the guidelines that were asked by municipalities, asked by businesses,
to reduce red tape, to help out rural Newfoundland and Labrador, for local
buyers also.
I'm not
sure if that answers your question. This is something that was on the books
since 2008. It was put forward in this House in 2012 because people recognize
that the best value for your money is better than getting a lower price.
As the
Member for Cape St. Francis asked earlier about education for people in how to
proceed to this, that will be all in the education process. Part of this whole
act is to bring it in so people become familiar with how to proceed with it,
open the guidelines, forums, so everybody will have an equal opportunity across,
even for bidders; also to explain to bidders the best way forward, the best way
to proceed with your bid.
Sticking
with the policy and the regulations, as I said before, and it was in the
briefing, that the regulations will be forthcoming. A lot of the regulations and
a lot of the parameters that were used were given in the briefing also. I gave
some before in the last speech that I had in the House.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The
Minister of Natural Resources, in speaking to exemptions, I'm not sure if I
heard her correctly in regard to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, whether it was
totally exempt or not. Maybe we could get that clarified. I ask that in the
sense of there are implications in international trade deals and something like
CETA in regards to infrastructure, hydro infrastructure and development. So
maybe we should get that clarified because I'm not sure if I heard her correctly
or not.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The
Minister of Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
Under this act they're not
exempt. They won't be exempt under this. There are other regulations, for
example, CETA, it's not signed yet, but they would be others. Like the Atlantic
Procurement Agreement, we have to follow some of their regulations and
procedures also; CETA, we have to sign. That's the kind of thing that up to
$300,000 in some services with CETA that they are looking at now. Hydro is
included. All of the regulations, and I mentioned some earlier about the goods
and services, and public works also are going in with the Atlantic Procurement
Agreement.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you.
All the
provisions in this procurement would apply to Newfoundland Hydro. Just to be
clear, no exemptions.
CHAIR:
The hon. Minister of Service
NL.
MR. JOYCE:
Correct.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. I want to be sure I
understand because under section 17.1: The corporation or a subsidiary is
exempt from the Public Procurement Act
with respect to procurement in the following areas: (a) energy and energy
products; (b) where the corporation or a subsidiary is acting in a strategic
partnership, joint venture, or equity investment with other public bodies or
private sector entities; or (c) for the purpose of meeting the requirements of a
benefit arrangement. Then you have section 2 about the reporting.
So I
want to clearly understand. Section 17.1, does it mean that Hydro is exempted in
those areas in the same way the main corporation is? That's my understanding of
reading that.
CHAIR:
The hon. Minister of Service
NL.
MR. JOYCE:
They are not exempt; they're
included in this Public Procurement Act.
CHAIR:
The hon. Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Well, maybe the Minister of
Justice, with his legal background, will have to explain then. If Hydro is not
included in the meaning of section 17.1, what is meant by the subsidiary because
Hydro is a subsidiary of Nalcor.
I'm not
trying to be difficult here; I'm really trying to understand. It seems to me
reading this, Hydro, as a subsidiary, is exempt from the
Public Procurement Act with respect to the three areas that are
spelled out here. Not with regard to everything but with regard to these three
areas. I mean that's what it says.
CHAIR:
The hon. Minister of Service
NL.
MR. JOYCE:
I'll just read the
Energy Corporation Act. I can't table the BlackBerry and I've said
it three or four times, so I'll read it right from the act itself. In the
Energy Corporation Act in 2(h.3)
'subsidiary' means a subsidiary of the corporation except Newfoundland and
Labrador Hydro
. That's in the act now.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
That's good. I wonder could
the minister tell us what section of the
Energy Corporation Act that is, because section 17.1 of the
Energy Corporation Act is repealed and what's in this bill is going
in. So was what he just read in section 17.1 of the current
Energy Corporation Act or somewhere
else in the act?
CHAIR:
The hon. Minister of Service
NL.
MR. JOYCE:
It's section 2(h.3) in the
act, that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is exempt from the subsidiary.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
(Inaudible) I didn't get
which section the minister said. He said (inaudible).
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
(h.3)
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, but (h.3) is a
subsection. Is that part of section 17.1, because if it is then we have a
problem, because that will be repealed.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
It's section 2(h.3).
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
I just want to come back to
what the minister and I were discussing prior to the Member for Ferryland
bringing up that point and I'm really glad we have the clarification, because
that's extremely important. I really am happy we have that clarification.
I
understand what the minister is saying. He's saying the main point of this act,
and the main policy statement if you want to put it that way is getting the
best value for money. But even that is a broad statement. So best value for the
money for whom?
I mean,
yes, best value, I'm sure it's for government when government is looking at
these; but what is the impact on communities? What is the impact on smaller
business? Best value for money, again, is such a general statement, and that's
my concern with the bill. The minister doesn't have to respond to that, but if
he can give me a better definition of what he means, fine; if not, I just want
put it on the table what I'm concerned about.
I would
also like for clarification and put it on the table that a Member not attending
a briefing does not mean that the Member has not been briefed. When we send
researchers to a meeting because we can't be there ourselves, we get a full
briefing afterwards. As a matter of fact, I even had our researcher call the DM
and ask a couple of questions about stuff I wanted to be clear about. So I'd
just like to put that on the table.
Thank
you very much, Madam Chair.
CHAIR (Warr):
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr.
Chair, I thank the minister as well for a clarification, because I got to be
honest, I was really confused but now it makes a lot more sense, now that he
referenced the other act.
I guess
tying into the exemptions again and where it talks about strategic partnership
as an example, I'm assuming that would mean that if at some future date, we were
to enter into a strategic partnership with the Province of Quebec on developing
whether it be related to Muskrat or the Lower Churchill or whatever it might be
that then that's all going to be exempted as well. That's how I read it.
So in
the same way that Muskrat Falls, we have all the issues and concerns people have
raised about overruns and the way some of the contracts were let with all this
cost plus, plus instead of it being performance based I'm sure we've all heard
that commentary out there and concern. So based on joint venture if that were to
occur with Quebec to actually develop the real Lower Churchill, then I'm
assuming that they would be exempted from the
Public Procurement Act as it
relates to the letting of all these contracts and services and so on.
Just
clarification if that would be correct?
CHAIR :
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Too bad
he didn't look into that when he was doing Muskrat Falls and ask all those
questions, when he sat on this side and approved Muskrat Falls. Great questions;
it is just about four or five years too late.
Mr.
Chair, I'm not going to get into hypotheticals. I'm not getting into any
hypotheticals of what if, what if but I can tell you one thing the Premier of
the province said if we signed any deal, before it's approved, it will be
brought to this Legislature.
So I'm
not getting into hypotheticals if we sign a deal with Quebec, if we sign this.
But I will say if you did your homework back on Muskrat Falls when you sat over
here and stood up and criticized everybody for asking questions like that, this
province would be better off today than they were three or four years ago when
this deal was signed and sanctioned.
If you
want to talk about hypotheticals I can't talk about hypotheticals, but I can
talk about the present and going forward.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We're
trying to have an informed debate here and I don't know if there's any need to
be into mudslinging but certainly the Member did ask a lot of questions when he
was on the other side. So now I'm doing the same thing. If he didn't have a
problem with him asking questions, I don't know why he would have a problem with
me asking questions.
He is
right; I wish there had been more questions asked or perhaps more answers given
and not so many false assumptions as we know that actually happened. So I will
agree with him on that.
Anyway,
Mr. Chair, I guess the other point and concern I have, and it ties into what the
Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi said, is section 28, 29 and so on of the act
and the fact that it seems that most things here are being tied to the
regulations.
When we
talk about value for money, that all sounds good and I think we all agree with
that. There's nobody in this House who would disagree about getting the best
bang for the buck. I don't disagree with it; I'm sure nobody does. I think the
intent is right and it's a good one, but one issue that's been raised with me by
some constituents and people is that fact that under the current
Public Tender Act, I'm told, we've had
situations, and we continue to have situations, whereby somebody was not
successful in their bid and you run into a situation where people could appeal
it or get into court action and so on, against the government because they
didn't get a contract. That was based on low bid and so on.
So if
we're going to be into a situation whereby we're going to say best value, which
is a pretty broad definition, and nobody here maybe the minister knows, but
the rest of us don't really know exactly I understand the intent of what is
being said, best value. We all understand that concept but without any detail as
to exactly how that's going to work for example, are we going to derive best
value by having a point system? Is that what it's going to be?
Is it
going to be a point system that says cost is worth so many points, if it's local
it's worth so many points, if it's got a better warranty it's worth so many
points, if it's got local service it's worth so many points? Is it going to be a
point system like that or what do we mean exactly by best value? Because if it's
just simply going to be a judgement call every time to say based on our
judgement, we feel this is the best value, then I think we could be opening
ourselves up for an awful lot of law suits and stuff like that by companies who
don't get the bids.
Maybe
I'm wrong in that but I can see the potential for that happening, unless there's
some sort of a criterion which goes more specific than simply the statement of
best value. So if it is some kind of a points system if that's what it is, I
don't know what it is then maybe the minister could explain is that the plan,
to have some kind of a system so we know exactly how contracts would be awarded,
or is it simply a judgement call each and every time by somebody in the
particular department or through the the chief procurement officer who makes
that judgment to say, yeah, we think this is the best value and then has anyone
considered what that might mean in terms of companies suing the government when
they don't get contracts because someone felt it was not the best value.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I
apologize if you think I'm slinging mud, but I'm just stating a fact, your vote
in this House of Assembly. So that's not slinging mud; that's just stating that
you voted for a bill in this House of Assembly that's costing the province now
dearly. Then all of a sudden, all the questions are coming forth about what we
could have done when that Member had the same opportunity.
So
that's not slinging mud. Please don't put an impression that I'm slinging mud.
I'm just asking you to stand up for the record that you did, when you sat in
that seat, when we asked these questions, and you stood.
Mr.
Chair, getting back to the bill itself, of course it's going to be a value-based
system, a point-based system. I just find it odd. I actually find it odd.
There's
going to be a lot on the 2008 Read report a lot of the recommendations. That
government had a copy of the Read report. That Member was the same part of the
government that had a copy of the Read report. In 2008, when they brought the
bill in in 2012 when it was brought into this House of Assembly as Bill 1,
it's in the Read report. So a lot of the exemptions that's going to be in the
Read report, a lot of the criteria and the regulations, it's in the Read report
that that government went ahead, paid for it, got it brought in, ready to pass
it, but wouldn't do it.
So on
the value base, of course there's going to be a criterion set up, Mr. Chair. Of
course there's going to be an education system put out to people on how you
evaluate an RFP in the province. Of course it is. We're not unique to it. RFPs
are happening as we speak in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador now.
We're just trying to make it easier.
Just for
the record and I know the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi spoke about
small towns this is endorsed by Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador. This
is endorsed by them. They want this brought in the House of Assembly. So if they
want this brought in the House of Assembly, Mr. Chair, they're well informed.
They know how it's going to help municipalities. They know how it's going to
speed up projects in there. They know how it's going to help so local
contractors would have a better opportunity under the exemptions that we're
going to raise.
So it
will be a point-based system; it will be evaluated. As I said earlier, Mr.
Chair, the more information that you can put into a request for a proposal, the
more information you could put out, there's less opportunity of having a
subjective evaluation and less opportunity to be taken to court. That's the idea
of the education program that we're going to put in place.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I guess
that ties into the issue that I think most of us over on this side have at
least I have is the fact that, like the minister just said, it's going to be a
point-based system. Good, I'm glad. I think that's a good thing. But nowhere in
this document, as an example, does it say we're going to have a point-based
system; it's not there.
So until
I asked that question, I didn't know. And it doesn't say here that they have to
have a point-based system. The minister is saying they're going to have a
point-based system, and I'm not suggesting that the minister won't put in a
point-based system, not at all. But the way the legislation is written, where it
doesn't say there's a point-based system, somebody next year, whatever, could
decide to change it. If that minister left that post and somebody else went in
or if there was another government or whatever happened, they could follow this
legislation and not put in a point-based system because it doesn't say there's a
point-based system. That's just a good example as to the issue and concern that
we have with this piece of legislation, is that those details are not there to
outline those things.
Now,
nobody's saying the regulations would say and should say the details as
to how that point-based system will work; to say the point-based system will
contain a, b, c, and d, and how the points will work and how much they'll be
valued at. That would be in the regulations, but the act itself should say we're
going to have a point-based system. It doesn't say it, so we don't know what
they're going to have.
While the minister is saying they are, and I'm glad they
are, that could change tomorrow. It could. Like I said, there could be a new
minister or whatever the case might be and someone could say, you know what, the
minister had a great idea with that point-based system, but I don't agree with
it and I don't have to put it in there, because this here says I don't have to.
There's nothing saying I got to. So that's the concern.
If you look at other sections in section 28 when we talk
about the amounts of money, exemptions and so on based on certain amounts, the
minister is saying that those numbers are going to be raised, which is going to
be helpful to municipalities. That's a good thing. I'm glad that he's going to
that. If anything we can do to help municipalities by doing that, that's a good
thing. I support them. I am sure everybody does. But again, it's very vague; it
doesn't say exactly what we're going to be doing.
So we're talking about respecting the manner in which bids
are to be evaluated. That's going to be covered under the regulations,
respecting the manner in which contracts are to be awarded
. That's going to
be in the regulations; establishing the processes to be followed for the
submitting and treatment of supplier complaints
. That's an important one. If
suppliers have concerns and they have complaints and so on, there has to be some
kind of a process. It doesn't say what the process is. Nowhere in here does it
say what the process is. Do they go to the minister, chief procurement officer?
How does it work? There's a whole list of these.
The same
thing when we get to section 29 on the Procurement Advisory Council. There is
absolutely nothing here to say it says the minister will decide what the
duties, the makeup and so on are.
Now, for
the chief procurement officer, if you look at the beginning of the bill, there's
a whole bunch of information on the chief procurement officer. It gives more
details as to who the procurement officer will be, and some of the functions and
powers and duties and all that kind of stuff. It gives a list here under section
16, Powers, functions and duties of chief procurement officer.
Here in
the act itself under section 16 in the act it gives the duties of the chief
procurement officer but when it comes to the committee there are no duties. It
just says the minister will establish what the duties are. So why is it that in
the act we're going to have the duties of the officer but we're not going to
have it in the act for the committee? Why one and not the other? It doesn't seem
to make a whole lot of sense why you would do one and not the other.
So,
essentially, what's happening here is we are being asked to support a piece of
legislation and albeit, a piece of legislation a long time coming, a long time
coming, I agree. I stood here in the House of Assembly and I asked questions to
the former administration, the former minister about the procurement act and why
it died on the Order Paper and all that. So I agree with all that.
We have
the act now coming forward but we don't have many of the details. We're not
talking about all the details, but a lot of the pertinent details around this
are not contained here. We're being asked to vote for this piece of legislation,
and as I said there are good things in there. They're going to be bringing in a
lot of the consultants that weren't there before. That's a good thing. I applaud
the government for doing that, bringing in all these consultants that were hired
left, right and center, whoever they wanted. They could hire who they like. That
wasn't right, we all know that. That's going to change; that's good.
There
are a lot of good things in this piece of legislation that everybody here I
think would or should support, but a lot of the details that we need to know,
some of the important things are not covered. It's all under the regulations. So
we're asking to sort of vote blind faith that all these regulations are going to
be good regulations. And I'm not saying they'll be bad. They might be the best
I hope they're the best regulations in the country.
I have
no doubt that the minister is committed to putting in good regulations,
absolutely, but we don't know that. There's nothing here that says that has to
happen or what it has to be, and we're going to be voting for something and we
don't even know really what we're voting for. I don't know how I can stand and
support something like that if I don't even know what it is. I don't even know
what is going to be contained in it, the guts of it. We don't know.
I don't
know how any Member can just vote with blind faith that all these details that
we need to know are not here and we're going to say, that's alright, b'y, we're
going to leave it to you and trust that you do it properly. If they do it and
they put in regulations, and there are some flaws in the regulations if it
happens, I'm not saying it will but if there is the first thing they'll stand
up then and say: sure you voted for it, you supported it. That's what will
happen. I can guarantee you that's what will happen; they'll say you voted for
it sure.
So
that's the concern we have. It's not that I'm against this legislation. I'm in
favour of this legislation in principle, but there's an awful lot of stuff here
that we don't know what is contained in it. I don't know that I can stand up and
vote for something when I don't even know what's in there, what all the
important, crucial details are.
That's
the concern that I have. I think it's a concern that a number of Members have
over on this side of the House. It's a concern that every Member should have,
given the fact we're spending $3 billion to $4 billion a year annually, per
year, on procurement. We should all be concerned about that. We should all be
concerned.
So, Mr.
Chair, I'm going to sit down now and let somebody else have their say, but
unless I see some significant changes, I don't know how I can support it. What I
would like to see which would be great the government has committed, in
their platform they committed to establishing all-party committees. That's in
the Five Point Plan. If that's the case and they're committed to that, why not
have an all-party committee oversee the development of the regulations. Why not
have Members from all sides of the House oversee the regulations? That way we
all know what's in there, we all know if we can support it or not, and we can
all say we support it or don't support it; but, right now, we really don't know
what to support.
MR. LETTO:
(Inaudible.)
MR. LANE:
I say to the Member for Lab
West, you can stand up and have your say about it. Stand up and have your say
about it.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. LANE:
That's what I say, Mr. Chair,
to the Member for Lab West. If he has a problem with what I'm saying, he can
stand up and set me straight because he seems to have an awful lot to say about
me but he's sat there saying nothing about it, other than to be heckling. That's
his contribution to this important debate.
Anyway,
Mr. Chair, I thank you for the opportunity to speak. I really want to support
this legislation. I think it's good legislation in principle. I applaud the
government for bringing in new legislation that should have been brought in long
ago. I absolutely applaud them for it, but without the details we need, I don't
think I'm going to be able to stand up and support it.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Chair, this is a great
bill for Newfoundland and Labrador. I can go through how many people I'm
appalled by what this Member was saying. He was the one who stood over and
brought in Muskrat Falls without the regulations here and all of a sudden we
want regulations for everything. He was the same Member who stood up here and
passed numerous legislations without bringing in the regulations. That's the way
this procedure works.
Even
James McLeod from The Telegram put
out, he has yet to see a piece of legislation brought in and regulations don't
follow after. It's the procedure of the House. So you can stand on your chair
now and you can stand up and say we should do all this stuff, but it's not the
way this Legislature works. He was a part of that.
I say to
the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands, you can walk away from your record, but
I was in this Legislature when you stood up and passed many pieces of
legislation without the regulations. So you can't now all of a sudden stand high
and mighty and say we shouldn't do this. He did it. He has done it.
Mr.
Chair, I just find it kind of all of a sudden, this great piece of legislation
MNL, which he was a big part of for years, supports this bill. I can go through
numerous associations, numerous people we consulted with, numerous groups that
support this, support it. So if he wants to stand up and grandstand because
we're not bringing in the regulations, let him go ahead.
Mr.
Chair, I'll tell you now, you give us a lot of latitude on this here, and he's
talking about the regulations. How many polls did you manipulate for the
regulations?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. JOYCE:
How many?
Yeah, you're right. I'm just getting tired of this holier than thou, that no
matter what you bring in this House of Assembly, no matter all the good people
that support it, all the good people that want it and now all of a sudden
anything we bring in this House of Assembly is bad. It's bad. I can't support it
without the regulations.
I say,
he supported at least 40, 50 pieces of legislation without the regulations in
this House of Assembly. What he didn't like, he went out and stacked the polls
so he could say the government did like them. That's what happened.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. JOYCE:
I'm just getting frustrated,
Mr. Chair, because if he wants to criticize I'll tell him what to do, go out and
meet with some of the groups. Go out and meet MNL; go out and see UMC. Go out
and meet with UMC and say you shouldn't do it. Go out and meet with small
business groups who want this brought in, Mr. Chair, to cut down on the red
tape; go ahead and do it. Go ahead, not a problem. Let's see you do it.
Don't go
rigging any polls against it now. We're familiar with that. Especially the one
against the Coalition of Persons with Disabilities, that's one I'll never
forget. I'll never forget that one.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I ask
all hon. Members to stay relevant to the act.
MR. JOYCE:
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I
agree.
I'll say
to the Member if you're not going to support it, it is only because you're
trying to grandstand. It's not because all the other groups in this Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador who asked for this.
Mr.
Chair, I have to leave you on this note and I'll answer any questions I can in
this House. In 2012 when they brought it in, he was supporting this. He was
supporting this. The Read report of 2008, he had a copy of the Read report and
now all of a sudden he is wondering what's going to be brought into it.
It says
right here, right in it, it is up on the recommendations of the Read report,
which he had a copy, which he is now standing and saying we don't know what's
going to be in it. Either he never took the time to read the Read report or he
is standing up now knowing the facts and saying that he doesn't know the facts.
Either one of the two, he can decide which it is, Mr. Chair.
But I
can tell you one thing this is a good piece of legislation and when you want to
talk about how's it going to be evaluated, someone like me, if I'm gone, someone
else come in, oh, I don't like it. It's done on a matrix system. RFPs are done
now regularly. They are done regularly.
There's
one done, as I mentioned, for the transfer station out in Western Newfoundland;
there's an RFP done. Go out and tell Don Downer and the Western Waste Management
Committee that they changed all that; they shouldn't have went through the RFP.
What they did was wrong, the matrix system is wrong, go ahead. Go ahead, here is
your opportunity.
Mr.
Chair, when you stand up and say, as a minister, someone else might come in and
scrap the point system, it's done on a matrix system. No matter who stands in
this chair, who sits here, it's done on a matrix system. You just can't take a
matrix system and throw it out the window and say, oh, I'm going to pick you,
you and you; it just doesn't operate that way. This is why we're bringing this
in.
For
years and years and years people have asked for this. People want this. People
want to make sure they have the best value for their money. People want to make
sure they are getting the best value for their money. They want to make sure
they're getting best product, they're getting the best services. They want to
make sure it's being fair. That's why the education program is so important to
this.
If the
Member opposite wants to keep asking questions or standing up, I'm good all
night. You can stand up as long as you like. You can keep standing on your high
horse and talk about how bad this is, but just remember in 2012, Bill 1; he was
a part of the government that brought this in. Now, all of a sudden, he's
standing over there looking for a place to grandstand. Everything is bad
everything is bad. Everything about this bill is bad. It's not bad. I'm telling
him if he thinks it's bad, go out and meet some of the groups that we're after
meeting. Go out and consult some of the groups that we're after consulting, Mr.
Chair, and you'll see, you'll get a different opinion.
Mr.
Chair, I know my time is getting short here, but I can tell you one thing, I
support this bill. Our caucus supports this bill. I'm pretty confident that the
Opposition, after getting the information that they want and need and that's
part of it. I have no problem with answering the questions. If I don't know the
questions, I'll bring back the answers to the best of my ability. I have no
problem with that whatsoever.
But I'm
pretty confident that instead of grandstanding, the Members in the Opposition
will stand up, ask questions and get clarity, which is part of their duty. I
understand. But they won't stand and grandstand. They won't stand up and
grandstand for a bill that they approved here now, the legislation when I go
back and I can say I can find 40 or 50 the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands
brought in without regulations. Now, all of a sudden, saying regulations should
be brought in with the bill, which he knows is totally not the way this
Legislature operates, knows totally that's not the way it is.
If
someone doesn't like any of the legislation, Mr. Chair, you know what? They can
bring it up the following session in the House of Assembly. They can ask
questions in the House of Assembly as if it's a done deal, as if no one will
ever hear anything about it. Nothing is further from the truth.
If we
bring in regulations that businesses don't like, do you think we're not going to
hear it from businesses? Do you think we're not going to hear it from
Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador? We already gave them the parameters
what we're setting up, the ceilings. We already gave them that. They know that.
They're pleased with it. We're going along with the Atlantic Procurement
Agreement. They know that.
So to
stand in this House and try to be holier than thou, after doing completely
opposite and doing the exact same thing that we did in this House of Assembly,
is nothing but kind of hypocritical, Mr. Chair. It's kind of hypocritical.
I can
assure you that the people of this province are going to be better off with this
bill. This bill will get through, Mr. Chair, because the people of the province
want this brought in. If you don't believe me, go out and meet the 50 or 75
groups and people that we met to show that they wanted this. They're thanking us
to bring this in.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's
great to get up and stand and speak once again. I'm going to try to actually
stick to the bill as opposed to, once again, personal attacks.
Mr.
Chair, I would say in response, though, that when we talk about a bill that
first came in 2008, I wasn't even elected in 2008. So I'm not sure what he means
about that.
In terms
of the bill that died on the Order Paper, when I was in the same party the
Member was, I stood up as critic of Service NL and raised questions about the
fact that it died on the Order Paper and that it should have been brought
forward many times. You didn't have a problem with me then, only has a problem
with me now. I wonder why I wonder why.
Now, I
understand he wants to play politics with it. That's fine. If that's what he
wants to do, fill his boots. I don't care, I really don't. Water off a duck's
back.
I would
point out though, Mr. Chair, I want to say again for the record, unlike what the
minister is saying there I am not against this legislation. I say it for the
record again; I am not against new procurement legislation. I think we need new
procurement legislation. I support new procurement legislation, I honestly do.
I've said a number of times now that there are very good parts in this
legislation, very good things here that I support.
I also
believe, as I already said, that when the regulations do get written, I have no
reason to believe they will not be done to the best regulations that we can get.
I don't believe that someone is going to write bad legislation, bad regulations.
I don't think the staff here we have professional people working here in
government. They're going to bring forward the best regulations, I'm sure. I'm
sure that nobody over on that side wants to have bad regulations. I'm not saying
that.
What I
am saying and by the way, for the record, the minister is right that
regulations do not get debated in the House. There's lots of legislation that
goes through here, bills that go through here and there are no regulations. They
do not get debated in the House. He's absolutely right on that. I agree with him
100 per cent. Nobody is saying, at least I'm not saying, the regulations had to
be brought to this House for debate because that goes against what we've always
done. That goes against the House rules. We don't debate regulations in the
House.
I didn't
say we were going to be debating regulations in the House. Not once did I say
that. But what I am saying, and some other Members have said, is that there are
key elements that should be contained in the act which would govern the writing
of those regulations. There are key aspects of the bill that should be in the
bill, not in the regulations. That's what we're saying.
So I'm
not saying debate regulations, bring in the regulations before this House. I'm
saying change the bill to bring in a number of items that are currently left
open to the government, to the Cabinet to make regulations. Take some of those
items the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi talked about a couple and
bring them in to the act.
If we
have contained in the act now the duties and responsibilities of the chief
procurement officer, then we should also have the duties and responsibilities of
the committee as well, but they're not. They're not in there, but it should be
in there. If we are going to have a point system as the minister is saying
which is a good thing, I believe, depending on the details then that should
say that in the act; we're going to have a point system.
Now
every last detail of exactly how those points will work and the matrix could be
contained in the regulations. I agree. I totally agree with that. But the fact
that we're going to go with that system, that should be in the act.
Again
I'm not against the legislation; I'm not against the bill. It is just that the
bill is incomplete and there are too many things left to the regulations. That's
the only concern I have. That's what it's all about for me. It's not about
grandstanding. It's not about, oh, you were here and you voted for stuff without
regulations, you voted for bills. Yes, I did. I absolutely did, but what I'm
saying is that the act is incomplete and there's too much left to the
regulations. Therefore, we're going to be voting on, sort of a blank cheque, so
to speak, and leave it to Cabinet to decide how everything is going to go down.
Too
much; we're leaving too much to Cabinet. A lot of it can be left to Cabinet. The
regulations can be left to Cabinet, but not every single item, every important
piece of the legislation left to Cabinet. That's all I'm saying. That's all
anybody is saying.
In the
absence of that, if we're not able or willing to amend the act to include some
of those things, I simply made the suggestion, given the importance of this, why
not allow other Members to at least oversee the regulations that do get written
to make sure that concerns are addressed and so and it's done to everybody's
satisfaction. I don't see anything wrong with doing that.
If the
minister was talking to Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, good, I'm
glad. Yes, there's no doubt in my mind that Municipalities Newfoundland and
Labrador he talks about UMC which is a part of Municipalities Newfoundland and
Labrador, the urban municipalities are in favour of a new procurement act. I'm
sure they are.
A number
of the things the minister has used here in examples about increasing the amount
they can get bids on and get better prices and all that stuff, of course they're
in favour of that. We're all in favour of it. But you can't say because MNL and
this group and that group are in favour of a new procurement act that
automatically means because they're in favour of a new procurement act, we'll
just put in whatever act we want and you have to be in favour of it and not
question anything. That's not the way it's supposed to work, Mr. Chair.
We're
supporting the act but we have concerns. If we raise concerns, that's our job.
My job now is to raise these concerns. I'm not going to apologize for raising
concerns. When the minister was over here on this side he raised tons of
concerns himself. He did the exact same thing. Good for him. He did his job and
he did it well. I'm trying to do the same thing. I'm trying to do my job and do
it well and raise the issues and raise concerns. I'm going to continue to do
that in this House, whether it be this bill or any other bill.
It's not
about getting nasty or taking shots at each other. That's not what I'm all
about. I'm not going down that road. If the minister wants to do it he can, I
don't care, but I'm not going down that road. I'm not going to not speak to
bills because every time I get up to speak someone is going to go taking shots
at me or heckling me. If that's what they want to do, fill their boots. I don't
care. Water off a duck's back; I could not possibly care less.
Anyway,
Mr. Chair, I did want to emphasize the point once again, I am in favour of the
act in principle. There are a lot of good things in the act which I support. I'm
sure that, when the regulations are written, the intent would be to do it
properly and have good regulations. Unfortunately, there are a number of items
which should be contained within the act that are not contained within the act.
That's the concern I have. That's why I'm finding it very difficult to support
it.
CHAIR:
Seeing there are no further
speakers, shall the motion carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Against?
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 to 36 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Clauses 2 to 36 inclusive.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm
obviously happy to approach this however you wish. We do have questions on
specific clauses so it may be easier for the minister if we go clause by clause.
But we're okay either way, whatever the Chair wishes.
I'll
start with some comments on clause 2 if that's acceptable to the Chair.
CHAIR:
We'll go clause by clause.
MR. KENT:
Okay, great. Thank you.
Are we
okay?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Oh, yeah.
MR. KENT:
All right. Great.
With
regard to clause 2, these are the definitions of key terms in the legislation
which might seem pretty mundane. We actually do have some comments and
questions. I think there's actually some good stuff in here that I hope to have
a chance to highlight as well.
Cabinet
will also have the authority to define more terms in the regulations according
to paragraph (p) in section 28. We'll probably get to that later this evening.
I'm just
wondering if the minister could tell the House if any of the definitions are
reflected in other procurement legislation that has been in place elsewhere in
the country for a period of time and tested in practice. I'm just wondering if
you found a model that has worked elsewhere and that's where some of these
definitions are coming from. Rather than throw more questions at you, I'll allow
you to answer and we'll continue.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's
nice to get a good question on that. Yes, a cross-jurisdictional scan has been
done. What we're doing we're looking at other provinces and other places where
3Ps have been in place for a number of years. We looked at the best value for
their money.
So, yes,
we did do a jurisdictional scan across Canada. This is where a lot of this is
coming from. We're looking at some all other areas that do have 3Ps, we tried
to pick the best we could out of all the ones that we found.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just
wonder if the minister could speak in regard to the definitions about matching
those with other jurisdictions and suppliers that could submit procurement here
in the province under various or current anticipated trade agreements. Was there
an overview done of that, sort of synergies between other jurisdictions here for
internal trade and then
AN HON. MEMBER:
Yes, we're going to be into
MR. HUTCHINGS:
I'll ask that first.
Interprovincially, is there a consistency in terms of definitions and those
types of things?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
Yes, there has been. The
Atlantic Procurement Agreement is one, for example. Some of the ceilings we have
raised are in conjunction with the Atlantic Procurement Agreement. So we did
look at all the provinces across Canada. There are some agreements in place that
we must follow. A lot of the increases I mentioned in goods and services are
from the Atlantic Procurement Agreement.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
I thank the minister for
that.
As well,
too, vice versa. Obviously, we want to get access to procurement in other
jurisdictions too. There's a good balance there in terms of some of the reviews
that have been done in terms of definitions. So we're fairly safe there from the
minister's perspective?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
Yes, we are. There are some
things that can be brought in from other parts that we looked at. Most of the
act that has been brought in when we did a scan across Canada, we brought in
what we thought was the best and we compared ourselves a lot to Atlantic Canada.
If you
look at the Read report, it just shows a scan of what we're bringing in and how
strong it will be for different parts. I can definitely provide the House with a
copy of the Read report if you want to have a look at that, and the
recommendations and the legislation that we're bringing in, how this will
strengthen our position on RFPs in the province, and because of how we're doing,
the raising of the limits and other things in jurisdictional, with the limits
we're putting in also.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's North Mount Pearl North, I'm sorry.
MR. KENT:
No problem. You're not the
first Chair to do that in this hon. House, so no worries. Both great cities,
both great cities for sure.
I have a
question about a few of the definitions. Really what I'm trying to determine is
if some of the definitions are intended to be comprehensive. For instance, and I
won't go through them all because I don't want to unnecessarily prolong
discussion on it, but just to give you a few examples, like commodities or
goods, or professional services, or services, just to use those examples.
I'm
wondering if the minister could tell us could he give us examples of what
might be excluded under those categories, commodities, goods, professional
services, services, or perhaps they're intended to be comprehensive. I'm just
wondering if there's anything that's being deliberately excluded from those
particular definitions.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you.
The only
things that are excluded are legal services and financial. We have to do some
financial arrangement or legal services. Everything else is included in the
service agreement itself. Engineering would be; architect will be. So everything
except financial and legal.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you.
So it
sounds like the definitions are indeed comprehensive and, frankly, I think
that's a good thing. I appreciate the minister's answer.
We spoke
in second reading about best value, and I want to talk about the definition of
best value that's in (b). Again, not to unnecessarily prolong discussion, but
the principle of best value is actually one of the things that is fundamental to
this legislation. As I said in second reading, it's a principle that I really
support. I think the concept is good and I commend government for bringing it
forward.
The
definition of best value in (b) is an important step that everyone wants to see
but I'm just wondering if pinning down exactly what that's going to mean could
be a challenge. Best price can be quantified with more precision but best value
leaves more room for judgement calls. I'm just wondering if government has
considered how to deal with that. I think it's important to ensure that these
judgement calls are as objective as possible so the bids can be fairly evaluated
without bias after the fact.
I'm
wondering if best value includes such things as proximity of the supplier to the
market or local production or local servicing and repair capacity. I'm wondering
if government does have any analysis of whether this best value definition would
withstand challenges in the courts or before trade tribunals if the government
was accused of bias or favoritism.
I say
all that, Mr. Chair, knowing full well that the intention of this legislation is
to eliminate bias and favoritism. That's obviously not what's intended but I'm
just curious if best value has been further explored in light of what I've just
raised?
So I'll
ask the minister to respond.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
A great question, because it
is sometimes, people can say, how you interpret it. That is why you set up a
matrix system. You put up the cost, the value, the longevity of the RFP.
We
looked across Canada, and what we came up with is the more information you can
put into your RFP, the less likely of a court challenge. If you just put out we
want a building 50 by 50, then someone comes back and says here's what I'm going
to put in your building. To ensure greater certainty, you put more information
in your RFP of what you're looking for and when you do an evaluation of it.
So this
is not new around Canada, the RFPs. What we did, we went out and looked at all
the best practices across Canada. We came back and said what we need to do is
put in the matrix system how we're going to rank the RFPs, included in that is
put whatever information you want; service agreements would be a prime example.
I know the Member mentioned service agreements.
If you
look at the RFPs for the three sites out in Western Newfoundland, a big part of
it was the service agreement after, who can best service it after. So instead of
saying the lowest price, in the long run you look at the service you're going to
have, the cost of maintenance. That is how it's going to be evaluated.
I used
the example, the very simplistic example this afternoon, about if you buy a
truck. Both trucks are $40,000 but one has a 10-year warranty, bumper to bumper,
and one doesn't. Which truck would you pick? You'd pick the 10-year warranty
because over the 10 years you'll save money. So that's simplistic but that is
how we looked at it across Canada.
I say to
the Member, I agree there is an opportunity for court challenges across the
province. There have been a lot of court challenges, and you learn from them
across Canada. What we learned is that you put in as much information as you can
in the RFP at the beginning to ensure that what you're asking for is in the RFP.
It's a
great question and we did look at all the ones across.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I wonder
if the minister could just speak to 2(k); it speaks to the joint purchasing
agreement. It's good provision certainly. It looks at agreements entered in by
the province and one or more jurisdictions to look at joint acquisitions of
commodities required by the public body. In terms of the economy of scale and
working together under jurisdictions and accessing commodities and other needs
I think of health care for one, the vast amount of things that go on there and
if we can partner with other jurisdictions to do that and then send it to
market, the economy of scale certainly would help.
So this
would override any current agreement because, oftentimes, I know we've had
agreements with other jurisdictions, so this provision would override all other
agreements. That's one question.
The
second one is this is reciprocated in other jurisdictions, so this sort of
mimics or patterns what other jurisdictions have done so there would no problem
doing this in the future.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
I agree. This has been
mimicked in a lot of jurisdictions across Canada. But, of course, in the
Atlantic Procurement Agreement there are regulations involved. This here abides
by that. This does abide by the Atlantic Procurement Agreement.
All
across Canada, we did take all the information that we can. The best value is
prevalent in all the jurisdictions that we scanned. It's in it to make sure it's
the best value; not the lowest cost, the best value.
So all
the information that we have and this is why a lot of the increases that we're
going to have in goods and services and rental, it does abide by and is a part
of moving up the ladder for Atlantic Canada under the Atlantic Procurement
Agreement.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think
I only have a couple of more questions on clause 2. Just a comment first; it
seems progressive to include lease of space in the definition of commodities in
section 2(d). I note that lease of space is actually defined in section 2(l), I
believe. So I just note that.
The
electronic notification system that's in section 2(f), I'd just like to suggest
to the minister and to government that must not only allow for broad and open
communication, but also for timely and user-friendly communication, so
government can ensure that the database is updated as rapidly as possible and
easily searched using all various devices from desktops to smart phones and so
on.
I
recognize that's a challenge for government. It's been a challenge historically.
I'm sure it continues to be a challenge. But I think there's an opportunity here
for us to make the technology right so that the aims of the act can be fully
realized. I just offer that suggestion to the minister and government.
Here's
my first question. The Minister of Justice may wish to comment on this as well,
or perhaps the Minister of Service NL will handle the question, or the Minister
of Finance for that matter. It seems progressive again that the act covers
professional services, as we talked about a little earlier, and it's noted in
(o) and (p) here in clause 2. That includes legal and certain financial
services.
So I'm
just wondering if one of the ministers could explain how this will actually be
applied in practice and how it will differ from the way things are done now. I
think it's really good that this is being done; I'm just curious what does it
really mean in practice and how will things be different moving forward.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll try
my best to be brief. My understanding and I've gone through this act, but as
it relates to legal services, they're a bit different in the sense that they
have to be provided on a timely fashion. That's why they've always historically
been exempt from the process. In many cases, you need opinions, you need advice
and service rendered immediately, which is why they have been traditionally
exempt from this process.
That
being said, the department since I've been here, and before I was here, always
provides a list showing firms and money spent on outside counsel. Traditionally,
I did so in my first estimates and even when I was in Opposition, government
would provide that information, upon request, showing the firms that have been
hired, the amount that was spent and generally not without again there's
solicitor-client privilege, but you can give a description of the matter without
identifying stuff that should be protected.
So
that's why I think that was kept the same in this matter.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
I thank the minister for the
explanation. That makes sense.
I
thought I only had one more, but I think it's really two. The second one is real
quick. The first thing is first; in 2(q) the definition of public body appears
very broad but some things are excluded. So I'm just wondering if the minister
can give us some clarification on what's actually excluded.
For
instance, corporations in which the province has less than 90 per cent of common
shares, I'm just wondering if the minister can give us some examples related to
that. I'm also curious if government chooses to enter into any kind of
public-private partnerships, how will they be impacted by this?
I guess
that's a two-part question, but I'll allow the minister to respond.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
In actual fact, the public
bodies just updated where it was government funded. So now we have any public
body around that receives government funding, municipalities. So they would be
included.
As for
the 3Ps, under this here if there's government involvement with it, there would
be the same regulations as if it was a public body because there are public
funds put in.
There's
one thing I just wanted to mention that the Member asked earlier. If there are
any exemptions in this bill, they will have to be reported to the minister who
will have to report to the House. So even the exemptions have to be reported to
the minister within six months and the minister has to report it to the House.
CF(L)Co is an example of the exemptions.
I just
wanted to make that clear that if there is an exemption, the minister has to be
notified and the House of Assembly will be, or put online in actual fact,
we're going to put it online. It's even better actually when you put it online,
then everybody in the province can see it and everybody can be a part of it.
That's just the other thing about some of the exemptions.
So once
you're exempted, it would still have notification what was exempted.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Sorry, just a follow-up to
that question and I appreciate the minister's answer. What I believe I heard
him say is that anybody that receives government funding would be subject to the
act. I guess what I'm confused about, and I'd ask the minister to just help us
understand, in 2(q) it reads: public body means a corporation in which not less
than 90 per cent of the issued common shares are owned by the Crown. So that
would suggest that a corporation where the Crown owns less than 90 per cent of
common shares would be excluded. But what I just heard the minister say is that
any organization that receives public funding would be included.
So I'm
just curious if the minister could elaborate because that seems to conflict with
what in (q).
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
It is in there now. CF(L)Co
is a prime example of something that is publicly funded and less than 90 per
cent owned. CF(L)Co is a prime example.
MR. KENT:
(Inaudible) so therefore it's excluded.
MR. JOYCE:
Excluded, yes.
And the
other thing I use here under the definition that you mentioned, publicly
funded is public body. It is any public body and before it was just
government. So it's the same; it's just updating the terminology from it.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I move, Mr. Chair, that the
Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Shall
the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
The hon. the Deputy Chair
of Committees.
MR. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report progress and ask leave to sit again.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed him to report progress on Bill 46.
When
shall the report be received?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, report received and adopted.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, earlier in
the day I called Orders 4 and 5 pursuant to Standing Order 11, but I don't
believe that the motions were voted on.
So at
this time I would move again for the sake of the record and to ensure that we
use proper procedure pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn
at 5:30 p.m. today, Monday, November 28, and pursuant to Standing Order 5, I
would move that the House not adjourn at 10 p.m. today, Monday, November 28.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
There
are two motions to the floor. The first is that the House do not adjourn at 5:30
today.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
Carried.
The
second is that the House do not adjourn at 10 tonight.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
MR. SPEAKER:
Carried.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call from the
Order Paper, Order 5, second reading of Bill 48.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
pleased to rise to speak to Bill 48, An Act To Amend
MR. A. PARSONS:
(Inaudible) I move, seconded
by
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, that Bill 48, An Act To Amend The
Hydro Corporation Act, 2007, be read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 48 be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation Act, 2007.
(Bill 48)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I got
a little bit ahead of myself.
This is
a very straightforward bill, I believe; the act to amend the Hydro borrowing
requirements. The change is required basically from the length of time since the
debt ceiling for Newfoundland Hydro was set, as well as we want to make some
investments in Newfoundland Hydro. The Public Utilities Board has reviewed these
investments.
In 1988,
when last the bill was changed and amended, the debt ceiling for Newfoundland
and Labrador Hydro in legislation was basically the current debt plus $600
million, which was basically $1.6 billion. Today, we're asking to raise the
ceiling to $2.1 billion, which in constant dollars would be about $2.9 billion.
The
ceiling now would actually be lower than what it would have been in 1988, in
constant 1988 dollars. The amendment really, Mr. Speaker, will support
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's mandate to ensure reliable and safe
electricity service to the people of the province. The Public Utilities Board
and, indeed, the Liberty reports made specific recommendations about maintenance
practices and actions to improve system reliability. In April of this year,
Hydro received an order from the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities,
PUB, outlining the PUB's decisions on cost recovery of 11 specific projects,
examined as part of the prudence review undertaken by the Liberty Consulting
Group.
Currently, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's electrical system consists of 3,700
kilometres of transmission lines, 3,300 kilometres of distribution lines, nine
hydroelectric plants, one oil-fired plant, three combustion turbines and 25
diesel plants. This system provides electricity to Newfoundland Power, the
province's industrial customers and to over 36,000 of Hydro's own residential
and commercial customers in Labrador and in rural parts of the Island. Over 50
per cent of Hydro's generation assets are over 40 years old, Mr. Speaker, and
over 50 per cent of transmission assets have been in service for 35 years.
The
renewal of aging electricity infrastructure is a key issue throughout the
Canadian utility industry, and as with other utilities, significant investment
is needed to ensure a continued safe and reliable source of electricity.
Correspondingly, Hydro's investment in asset renewal has increased from the
average of about $66 million annually during the period 2009 to 2013, to an
expected average of $284 million for the period 2014 to 2018. Mr. Speaker,
Newfoundland and Labrador needs the ability to make necessary long-term
investments in our electricity system to meet the needs of the people of the
province.
Through
the proposed amendments, Hydro will be provided with the ability to expand its
borrowing capacity to access funds to complete projects within its five-year
capital plan. The primary component of the capital plan is the new 188 kilometre
high-voltage transmission line running from Bay d'Espoir to the Avalon, which
this government has moved forward to ensure continued stability and reliability
of the Island interconnected electricity system as the demand for electricity
has shifted more towards the Avalon Peninsula.
The line
is particularly needed during future faulting events, such as those that may be
caused by lightning strikes, equipment failure or other factors. During any such
of these events, the system must be capable of interrupting and isolating the
faulted equipment while it is being repaired, without causing wide-spread
interruptions to customers' power supply.
This
$292 million project will require $59 million in 2016 and a further $178 million
in 2017. The remainder of the capital program includes a variety of other
smaller projects, carryovers from multi-year projects and approved supplemental
capital. In total, the capital plan encompasses $218 million in 2016 and $271
million in 2017. Additional to the capital program, Hydro must finance the
surplus in the rate stabilization plan to customers.
This
work is central to meeting the energy needs of the province. Given the level of
work required for these projects, Hydro will need to borrow from the market, as
required, to finance these projects. The current amendment before the House
today to the Hydro Corporation Act, 2007
will have the effect of raising Hydro's debt limit, which is currently
capped at $1.6 billion, up to $2.1 billion in order to finance these projects
and, again, to ensure a safe and reliable provincial electricity system.
I will
remind this hon. House the last time it was raised, it was in 1988 and, in
constant dollars, that would be roughly $2.9 billion, so we're actually asking
for less than what would have been available in 1988. Hydro's current legislated
debt of $1.6 billion was set, as I said, in 1988 and, in constant dollars, when
you're factoring in inflation that would be up to $2.9 billion; we're only
asking for $2.1 billion just for clarity.
Hydro's
net debt as of December 2015 was $1.1 billion and the proposed borrowings to
finance the PUB approved capital plans for 2016 and 2017 will increase that
number to $1.7 billion. The new proposed borrowing would enable Hydro to issue
the long-term debt needed for these projects, while maintaining an adequate
buffer to accommodate future borrowings and ensure Hydro has the flexibility to
go the market quickly. Hydro has maintained this buffer as part of its debt
structure and will continue to maintain this buffer.
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro needs the ability to operate appropriately for
this province, Mr. Speaker. Part of this service includes maintaining Hydro's
current assets and growing our provincial asset base to ensure we have the
resources in place to meet our provincial needs.
To
assist Hydro in acquiring long-term debentures, one of the tools the government
in Newfoundland and Labrador offers Hydro is a provincial guarantee of debt.
This provides Hydro with the ability to go to market and obtain favourable
financing rates in order to complete capital projects and to do the work that
the province needs and expects to have done.
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has a sound plan in place to allow its current
debt to be retired, along with any new issue of debt to be retired over 30 to 40
years. Hydro has given careful consideration to putting a framework in place to
pay back this debt in a timely fashion, without stress to the company or,
indeed, its ratepayers.
It is
important to note that as Hydro progresses with any long-term financing, the
Public Utilities Board is fully engaged. Also important to note is that there
was no change in the current practice of all capital plans, financial
expenditures and rates being approved by the Public Utilities Board.
Mr.
Speaker, our government is committed to ensuring a long-term, reliable
electricity system for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Through these
amendments, Hydro will be provided the ability to access the financing it needs
to meet the electricity needs of the people of this province.
While
the provincial guarantee will provide a better interest rate for ratepayers for
these borrowings, it's important to note that there are no associated direct
financial implications on the province's finances. This is consistent with this
government's commitment to fiscal responsibility and management.
This
process will ensure that Hydro can finance the investments necessary to maintain
a reliable and safe electricity system for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
for years to come, and brings the legislative borrowing of 1988 to 2016 levels.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is
certainly a pleasure to rise to Bill 48, looking at the Hydro borrowing
requirement on a go-forward basis. Obviously, as the minister said, the
investment in electricity infrastructure is required to address maintenance and
ongoing reliability concerns.
My
understanding, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has put forward a five-year
capital plan, which includes, among other things, routine maintenance,
replacement and rehabilitation of assets which, in some respects, are at the end
of their lifespan.
As the
minister said, this has been approved by the Public Utilities Board. I think one
of the major projects of this plan is the transmission line that would run from
Bay d'Espoir to the Western Avalon. I think it is approximately $292 million;
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's five-year capital plan requires $218 million
in 2016 and $271 million in 2017.
In order
to facilitate the maintenance and other aspects of the capital plan,
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is looking to increase their debt capacity, and
that is what this bill is all about. They're asking for it to be increased from
the current level of $1.6 billion to $2.1 billion. The debt capacity of $1.6
billion the minister has referenced this as well has not increased since
1988; obviously, a considerable period of time. According to my understanding,
the officials in the Department of Natural Resources I think the minister
referenced this as well $1.6 billion in 1988 would equate to about $2.4
billion in today's dollars.
The
increase of $2.1 billion would cover the capital plan expenditures of $218
million in 2016, and $271 million in 2017. As well, along with the borrowing
required to fund Hydro's portion of the RSP return. A $400 million buffer would
also be included within this capacity to cover any emergency expenditure. So as
has been proposed here in the bill by the minister, when we look at the Hydro
borrowing requirements, obviously there are specific needs, maintenance upgrades
that have been approved by the PUB and dollar figures established with them.
From an
operational point of view, certainly from Hydro's perspective, there are often
unseen circumstances that may occur. The increase here allows a $400 million
buffer for issues that come up. Hopefully would not, but often do occur;
therefore, they would have the debt borrowing capacity to deal with it. That
provides, as I said, a buffer to do that.
The bill
makes changes to section 30 of the Hydro
Corporation Act, repeal the current language anybody who wants to read it,
it is certainly somewhat confusing. It does not explicitly state the current
debt capacity of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro but it referenced debt held by
the corporation in 1988, plus an additional $600 million. I agree with the
minister, it is a tad confusing.
So this
total would go to $1.6 billion, but that $1.6 billion doesn't appear currently
in the legislation. The language that's proposed is to be added to section 30,
explicitly would reference $2.1 billion as the proposed debt capacity of
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. That's where we're going from 1988 to increase
that debt capacity for ongoing maintenance and work that has been approved by
the PUB and then, as I said, the $400 million is there as a buffer in case of
issues that come up that need to be dealt with.
In
regard to the borrowing process for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, the act, is
my understanding, requires that Cabinet give approval to borrow, and the
Minister of Finance approves the details of the borrowing. My understanding is
this stays current in the current bill.
In that
particular case, Hydro would make a determination after getting approval from
the PUB. On maintenance or upgrades that would go to Cabinet to be approved, and
then it would be overseen by the Minister of Finance of any government. My
understanding too, in terms of borrowing, the credit rating of the province is
used in the borrowing process as well.
Bill 48,
as the minister said, since 1988 is looking at the borrowing capacity of
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro related to the work it needs to do to continue
to maintain assets that we have, continuing to improve those assets and in some
places it's replacing them. In other incidences, it's providing upgrades to
ensure reliability and capacity. This allows the borrowing capacity to increase,
as is needed to continue that work. The oversight is there through Cabinet,
through the Minister of Finance in terms of approving those borrows when
requests come in for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.
We
certainly look forward to moving this forward and having discussion in
Committee.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
happy to stand and speak to Bill 48. I thank the minister for her words.
Obviously, it's quite understandable why the cap would have to be raised when
you look at the difference between now and when the first cap was put in place.
We all know what inflation is, and this makes absolute sense.
I have a
couple of concerns. We know that raising the cap to $2.1 billion is recognizing
the need for a buffer amount, and the buffer amount is $400 million. There are a
couple of areas where I'm thinking this buffer amount might be needed.
The
third transmission line that is referred to as one of the expenditures that
Nalcor has to deal with is pegged at $290 million. Now, we know that an awful
lot of the expenditures that have happened have been over cost when it happens.
So I'd like the minister to speak to us with regard to the potential for the
cost overruns. We all know cost overruns happen. Was that $400 million taken
into consideration when that buffer was set? Does she have confidence it would
cover an overrun that might happen?
The
other concern and this probably is a very straightforward answer it was
pointed out in the briefings that the post-Muskrat Falls power rates include
this increased borrowing. I'm wondering what post-Muskrat Falls power rates were
used? What was the most recent Muskrat Falls power rate that was used in this
calculation, because I think that would be important as well.
So I
don't know if the minister has that information right at her hands right now or
she might have to get that information. I think both of those points that I'm
raising are points that could affect the need for the borrowing. If the power
rates are lower, higher, et cetera, and if there's an overrun on the
transmission line, I think it would be good to have answers to two of those
questions. I'm going to vote for it obviously. I just want to make sure that in
terms of the setting of the $2.1 billion, that all of those points have been
brought into play.
The
other question is again, this is based on something that was noted in the
briefing. It was noted that Hydro would be rolling over some debt. The current
debt load is $1.1 billion and they'd be rolling over some debt. We weren't told
how much of the current debt load would be rolled over. So I think that would be
good information for us to have as well.
I don't
think there's any need for me to go further, Mr. Speaker. It's an obvious
decision that needs to made, but I would like information on the three points I
have raised. We have to make sure that Hydro continues to run for the people of
this province, that energy is there for our people. It's important that
government is doing due diligence in terms of overseeing Nalcor and making sure
the public utilities recommendations are put in place that came out of DarkNL
and the investigation after DarkNL.
I'm
supporting doing what we're doing. I just want to make sure these points that
I've raised have been considered.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to stand once again today and speak to An Act to Amend the Hydro
Corporation Act. I think pretty much everything has been said, but I did want
to, at least for the record, indicate my support for the bill.
As has
been said, we're going to be raising the cap with Nalcor from $1.6 billion to
$2.1 billion at Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Nalcor. We're told this is
for maintenance and so on of the equipment that needs to occur.
When the
bill was originally set at the $1.6 billion, that cap was set many years ago. So
all we're doing, really, is just updating it and coming in line with today's
dollars. Obviously when we talk about maintenance on the equipment, that's very
important.
A lot of
this stems from, as the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi spoke to, the
whole issue of DarkNL. We all know what happened there, and the subsequent
Liberty report showing that they weren't even doing basic maintenance at
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro on the equipment, which was shocking, to say the
least.
I'm glad
to see now that there will be a renewed focus on doing just that in taking the
recommendations from the Liberty report and moving forward and doing something
that, quite frankly, we never should have required a report to begin with to say
that we maintain the equipment at our utility. The fact that that had to happen
is, like I said, shocking in itself. But now that we're going to be moving
forward with required maintenance, obviously you need money to do that
maintenance and as has been said, we're simply allowing the ability to increase
the cap on borrowing for that maintenance and to bring it in line with today's
dollars.
So based
on that, I will be supporting the bill.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
If the hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources speaks now she shall close debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much.
I thank
the Opposition for their support of this. I think it's very important, and I
agree with my hon. colleague to say that we must upgrade. We all remember the
circumstances of, I guess it was called DarkNL, Mr. Speaker, a very serious
situation in the province, and we do not ever want to have that repeat. It's
important to make the investments, and especially where we're looking at the
borrowing threshold hasn't been increased since 1988.
To
respond to a couple of the questions, and I'll try and get all of them in there.
Whether or not the line, which is an incredibly important line from Bay
d'Espoir, is on budget, and I understand that it is and it will hopefully
continue to be. It is on budget, it is on time. I think it's going very, very
well. However, we do have that $400 million buffer zone which would more than
adequately cover any overruns, though, we're not anticipating any.
The $400
million buffer zone what we've been calling it, buffer zone is what they
would have had in about 1988 as well. We want to maintain that to ensure if
there are any unexpected things that have to be done, there is capacity in order
to do that.
Mr.
Speaker, on what the ratepayers may possibly pay and what the assumptions are
post-Muskrat Falls, they were indicated, I think, in June as to what that rate
would be. If memory serves, and I don't have it right here in front of me, but
it's about 22 cents. We have committed, as a government, to mitigate those
rates. We will be using other mitigations but at the very least we will be using
any of the sales of export power to mitigate the rates, which will bring down
the rates; which I think is a very important question my hon. colleague asked,
because we understand and know the impact that will have on ratepayers in this
province.
Mr.
Speaker, I can tell you, we take this very seriously. That's why this government
has directed Nalcor to find ways to reduce those rates. Sale of export power is
one. Perhaps there are other ways. Making sure we have some of the cheaper power
on the grid. That's some of the things we're looking at with Newfoundland and
Labrador Hydro, making sure we can keep those rates as low as absolutely
possible.
So
maintaining and improving the assets that we have for electrical generation in
this province is important to this government. It's unfortunate they weren't as
adequate as they needed to be. According to the Public Utilities Board and the
Liberty reports, they needed some serious upgrades. We're committed to doing
those upgrades. We're committed to making sure we have a reliable electrical
system in this province, Mr. Speaker.
With
that, I'll take my seat and look forward to Committee.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 48 be now read a second time. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Hydro Corporation Act, 2007. (Bill 48)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the said bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, An Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation Act, 2007, read a second
time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.
(Bill 48)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Natural Resources, that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 48.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is that the House
resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 48.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Dempster):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 48, An Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation Act, 2007.
A bill,
An Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation Act, 2007. (Bill 48).
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The hon.
the Member for Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want
to follow up on a point made by my colleague for St. John's East Quidi Vidi in
regard to the expenditures and the new rate in regard to Nalcor, post-Muskrat, I
think was 21.4 cents. These expenditures, are these included in the projected
rates? The capital cost, is it included, or is the overall budget of $2.1
billion?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I
understand these costs have been included in the assumed rate. I will check with
officials to make sure that is the case and thank you for the 21.4 cents, as
indicated I said 22 cents, but it was 21.4 cents. I'll make sure they are
included in that proposed rate or the rate used in the assumptions.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think this is a very
important bill and I'll let my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources
continue to speak to it.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
I appreciate it.
As these
are capital costs, these are in a capital budget, so not in an operating budget.
So I just wanted to make that clarity in response to the hon. Member's question.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, indeed, it is in the
capital budget, but overall those costs, whatever its maintenance, need to flow
into a rate for ratepayers. So are you confirming that those costs are in the
21.4 cents projected rate for post-Muskrat?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As was
disclosed at the end of June, the rate was 21.4 cents. That was the projected
rate. And we are anticipating that, without mitigation, would be the rate that
the ratepayers will have to pay. But as I've said repeatedly, Madam Chair, there
would be an awful lot of work being done over the next number of years. That
rate is some ways into the future. Muskrat Falls is not finished as of yet.
Madam Chair, we will be mitigating those rates.
So as
I've said repeatedly, in particular, we will be mitigating those rates with
export power, but there will be other mechanisms. We've asked Nalcor to consider
all means. One of the means and mechanisms of course is in generation of
electricity in the province that is at a lower cost. We're looking at all
avenues to keep those rates as low as possible.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just to
be clear, with rates, there's ability there in regard to excess energy to
mitigate rates. There's also the 8.4 per cent equity share in regard to
mitigating rates. But just to be clear, so the 21.4 cents that's being projected
for post-Muskrat, are these costs included in those rates?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
I am understanding that the
capital as well as the operating costs are inclusive of those rates.
CHAIR:
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Hydro
Corporation Act, 2007.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report Bill 48
carried without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I move, Madam Chair, that the
Committee rise and report Bill 48.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 48
Is it
the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
The hon. the Deputy
Speaker.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have asked me to
report Bill 48 carried without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed her to report Bill 48 carried without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the said bill be read a third time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, given the
hour, and we have moved Standing Order 11, but I would move with the consent of
my colleagues that the House adjourn now and reconvene at 7 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER:
Recess?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Recess, yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
This House now stands
recessed until 7 p.m. this evening.
November
28, 2016
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 49A
The
House resumed sitting at 7 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call Order 3, second reading of Bill 45.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change,
that Bill 45, An Act To Amend The Independent Appointments Commission Act, be
now read the second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 45 be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Independent Appointments
Commission Act. (Bill 45)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
happy to stand here tonight and speak to Bill 45, An Act To Amend The
Independent Appointments Commission Act, which is certainly one of the flagship
pieces of legislation that this government has brought in, and was brought in
during the first session of the House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
At that time, it was and it
has always been known, and I would anticipate we'll see amendments of this
nature brought to this House on a regular basis, which in many cases are
housekeeping in talking about the addition of new entities, the deletion of
entities for various reasons, and that's the kind of thing that we would expect
to happen.
Just a
few pointers when we talk the Independent Appointments Commission. The fact is
when it comes to ABCs they do make up 43 per cent of total government
expenditures and 75 per cent of public sector employment. So to guide their
work, what we've said and this was set up in the lead up to the election. We
put it out there and it was voted and supported in this House is we need a new
process put in place. One where we're putting the right people in a position
based on merit, based on openness and transparency, based on having an
independent commission look through the applications, then put names forward,
and from these names you would pick the right individual.
We've
had this debate, and I don't want to belabour it or reiterate everything but we
talked about the difference between tier one and tier two boards. In fact, they
took the time to be here with us in the House of Assembly that day. The Chair is
Mr. Clyde Wells, and then I believe on the Committee we also have Ms. Zita Cobb,
we have Ms. Shannie Duff. I think there may be Phil Earle, and there's one other
gentleman, Derek from Corner Brook my God, the name is escaping me right now.
This only happens when you're stood up on the air obviously. I do fault my
fellow colleagues here for not shouting out that name right now. It will come to
them and they'll shout it out and then I'll put it on the record.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Young.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Young. Derek Young, there it
is.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you to the Members
opposite for tossing that out.
These
people took the time to be here. Do you know what, since that time, and I know
throughout the summer and throughout the fall they've had a tremendous amount of
work for them as we've had a number of agencies, boards and commissions, some
very high profile, some more unknown and obscure, but all of them are important
because at the end of the day they are guiding a lot of government policy, a lot
of government work and they are guiding how things proceed for the taxpayers of
this province.
They've
had a tremendous amount of work to go through, processes. In fact, we had one
just recently that went through this process, and that would have been the
Consumer Advocate position. It went through a process where there was public
advertising, an interview process done. At the end of the day in that case, Mr.
Dennis Browne, QC, was appointed as Consumer Advocate after going through this
process that had never, ever been in place before, having your name selected as
one of the possibilities by this Independent Appointments Commission.
We've
taken the time and just as a Member of government and Members of the
Opposition, anybody, any time I get a chance I always to say to people, there's
a website set up. Make sure you look and see what's there and put your name
forward. We need people to put their names forward for these boards and
commissions. We need perspectives from all over this province, whether it is
rural versus urban, whether it is male versus female. Some people coming from
different sectors, from different perspectives, from different employment, from
different volunteer backgrounds. We need these perspectives there, but we need
these individuals to look and see what's there and what might meet the
objectives they have.
In some
cases, there's an extensive workload. Some of these are paid positions. Some are
volunteer positions, but we're saying to people take the opportunity to look and
be a part of this process. It's almost unique in Canada. It's one of the most
open processes that exist in this country. We're very happy this was an
endeavour and an undertaking of the Premier during the lead up to the election.
It was a promise he made, and that was our Bill 1, our flagship bill, and one
that so far has led to the fulfilling of a number of positions in our public
service and in our agencies, boards and commissions.
As we
said, with these amendments that we're discussing now, the IAC is responsible to
recruit for 34 tier one entities, while the Public Service Commission are
responsible for tier two. There are actually 123 tier two organizations. So
that's a tremendous number there. They have to go through an extensive process.
There's a lot of work that goes into this.
In fact,
when we came in many of these had not been filled. There had been vacancies. In
many cases people were sitting on boards when their term had expired. They had
been sitting there, they continued to do the work but in many cases people
they put a lot of time and energy into something. They don't want to give up and
walk away, but they were ready to finish their term. This Independent
Appointments Commission and the Public Service Commission have ensured that
these boards have been filled as timely as possible, and we're appreciative of
the work they are doing.
In this
case here, Mr. Speaker, a very small amendment, really, when you think about it.
The Schedule is being amended by (a) adding immediately after the entity
reference Public Service Pension Plan Corporation with respect to government
appointees the entity reference as Teachers' Pension Plan Corporation with
respect to government appointees; also adding, and subsection 14(1) we're
adding Regional Health Authorities Act;
and finally in 1(c) of the amendment that's being proposed here we are basically
deleting, in the entity reference Legal Aid Act.
Someone
said, well, why are you adding and why are you deleting? The first one I want to
talk about is the deletion when it comes to the Legal Aid Commission. The fact
is a lot of these boards and agencies, it's not just the department, it's not
just the whim of the minister or the Lieutenant Governor in Council to fill
these positions. Actually, there are a number of other agencies that have their
say.
One of
them, for instance, is the Law Society. The Law Society, which is the
self-governing regulatory body of lawyers across the province, they have a say
in who is submitted. Obviously, we can't force third people to go through this
process when they have the say under legislation to apply these people. They get
to make the selection and to have those names given consideration and appointed.
In the
case of the Teachers' Pension Plan so we have the Teachers' Pension Plan being
added. There are people that are sitting on that. They'll go through this
process.
The CEO
positions at the four regional health authorities will be added to this. Now
that's four big positions. Our health authorities; we all know, it's no surprise
to anybody of how important these positions are, how important these health
authorities are. They are significantly-sized bodies, especially when you look
at Eastern Health. It's a huge entity, thousands of people, millions and
millions of dollars of taxpayers' money. We need to ensure these have the best
people leading them and that they should go through this process. So we're happy
to see that there as well.
Under
this legislation, the IAC maintains responsibility of recruiting for the boards
of the four regional health authorities. The exclusion of the four chief
executive officers, that was inadvertent. This is a case of having an addition.
You're always going to see amendments to this brand new piece of legislation to
take in groups that may not have been considered, groups that are newly created
and, in some cases, to exclude from groups that should not have been there, so
we're providing that opportunity to do that now.
As
everybody knows, during every session of the House of Assembly there are a
number of pieces of legislation brought forward that are referred to as
housekeeping pieces of legislation. And this is one in that there's an addition
and there's a subtraction.
The
Premier's Task Force on Improving Educational Outcomes and the Oil and Gas
Development Council are tier two entities which means they are not referenced in
the IAC Act and they were added by Cabinet to Schedule C of the PSC Act which
doesn't require reference to the House of Assembly. So those are tier two.
Again,
there's not much else I can say to this except that we've been very happy with
the outcome of that piece of legislation, with the fact that we got such
qualified individuals to be a part of this Commission. There's been some
commentary about some of the names that have been selected. I would say that we
have a committee in place that if there's all of a sudden a move afoot to say
we're not going to listen to what they got to say, it ain't going to be long
before there's a new committee in place because the ones that are there aren't
going to sit around and have their work tossed out the door.
They put
a lot of work into this. They are great individuals with very distinguished
resumes and certainly they're independent people, of that there is no doubt.
So, Mr.
Speaker, on that note, I'm going to take my seat. I look forward to hearing the
commentary from my colleagues and again we'll move into the Committee stage and,
hopefully, I can answer any questions that may arise.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Good
evening, I hope everybody managed to get some supper during the brief recess. We
had a quick supper on this side of the House, thanks to the Member for Cape St.
Francis who helped make that happen. Despite what some people say, he's a really
good guy, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure there are some Members who would agree.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Thank you. No, he's a very
nice guy.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Popular fellow.
MR. KENT:
Popular in Flatrock and
Torbay and Pouch Cove and many other communities.
So I
digress. I am pleased to have a chance to get up and speak to this bill this
evening. I'll try and follow the tone set by the Government House Leader and the
Minister of Justice. He refers to this as a housekeeping bill. I think that's a
fair assessment. As he did in his few minutes, it does create an opportunity for
us to reflect on our Bill 1 debate from back in the spring and talk about where
we are with the so-called Independent Appointments Commission.
So I
have an opportunity to give a one-hour speech on all the things that we see
wrong with the process, but I think we did have a very significant debate back
in the spring. We put forward more than a dozen amendments. We proposed more
than a dozen amendments. A couple passed, most failed, a few were ruled out of
order, but we did our best to try and fix the legislation and hopefully create a
commission that was truly independent, and one that could make appointments.
During
the heat of the debate last week, there was a minister who made some comments
about how we were, on this side of the House, questioning the qualifications or
the work of the Independent Appointments Commission members, the ones that the
minister just listed.
I just
want to be on record once again, as I was in the spring, Mr. Speaker, in
pointing out that we have no issues whatsoever with the individuals who were
appointed. They have very impressive resumes and they've contributed a lot to
our province. We have no doubt that those folks will do their best to make good
recommendations. But our issue and I won't belabour the point tonight because
we made the point in the spring, and we're on record where we stand on the
legislation related to the Independent Appointments Commission.
Our
issue is the process, not the people. Our issue is that government made a
commitment to do one thing and I'd respectfully suggest that we feel strongly
that they've done something quite different than what was promised. This is a
process that is not independent and this is a process that's not free from
political interference, and it's a process that doesn't result in an independent
body making appointments. They will make recommendations to Cabinet and Cabinet,
behind closed doors, will make appointments.
Fundamentally, that's our issue with the Independent Appointments Commission
process. That said, I won't belabour that point tonight, Mr. Speaker, I'd rather
focus on what's contained in this bill and move the debate along.
So the
bill is actually quite short. I've marked up my copy, but the entire text of the
bill is, that. So we're talking about something that I think can be reasonably
categorized as housekeeping as the Government House Leader has suggested.
The
Teachers' Pension Plan Corporation is being added because it was created since
Bill 1 was introduced back in the spring. So it's a new entity and therefore it
needs to be added to the legislation. I consider that to be a reasonable
addition.
The
second part related to the Regional Health
Authorities Act surprised me a little bit. It appears that it was a drafting
error with the legislation. Now, I can recall debates in this House when I was
sitting on the other side of the House where Opposition Members would have
considerable fun at the expense of government when these kinds of mistakes
happen, but it really does amount to a mistake. It wasn't caught in the spring;
it's been caught since. And I acknowledge that clearly it was the spirit and the
intent of the legislation that the CEOs of the regional health authorities would
go through this process and not just the volunteer board members.
So what
we're doing here, the CEOs weren't included in the original act. The wording
that was in the Schedule that was part of bill implied only the boards would be
subject to the act and not the CEOs. So we're addressing that error that was
made in the spring.
When it
comes to legislation, it evolves and sometimes you discover problems after the
fact and you have to make changes. So I don't think there's a need to make
political hay with that so to speak, it happens and it's being addressed
quickly, so that makes sense.
The
final piece and the minister spoke to this as well the Independent
Appointments Commission process doesn't apply to Law Society appointees and
that's in reference to the Legal Aid Act.
This
amendment clarifies that the Law Society is responsible for the nominations to
the Legal Aid Commission as outlined in the
Legal Aid Act. The Law Society
nominates five candidates and the traditional process then is that Cabinet picks
three from the five candidates that the Law Society puts forward. It makes sense
to make that adjustment.
My issue
this evening is not with these minor changes that are logical, my issue
continues to be with the overall challenges with our Independent Appointments
Commission process again, not the people. Good people who I'm sure are making
good recommendations, but let us not be fooled into thinking that they are
somehow able to make appointments because they're not. That was fundamentally
our issue with Bill 1.
With
that said, I think these changes are logical ones. A little surprised by one of
the misses, but overall I do agree with the minister that this is housekeeping
stuff. At this point, I'll conclude my remarks in second reading. I look forward
to the other stages of the process on this bill.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
happy to stand and speak to this bill today, Bill 45, which is making amendments
to the Independent Appointments Commission
Act. I couldn't help but think when I was listening to my colleague for
Mount Pearl that perhaps the name should be the independent nominations
commission act, because that is what they do.
I'm not
saying that's wrong but, in reality, that's what they do, they come up the
nominations, and I believe that part of the process is excellent. So far, we've
had some wonderful people whose names have been brought here into this House
through this process. The nominations have been very good but, ultimately, the
appointments are made by government and government can either accept or reject
the nominations. That's a reality.
When it
comes to this bill, it is a housekeeping bill, as the minister said. I don't
know if it's the fact that it's a night session or what but different, funny
thoughts are coming to head; it looks like some balls of dust were missed in
putting the bill together.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, I am getting mildly
crazy.
This
housekeeping bill has cleared things up a bit and we have some revelations that
have been picked up by the department, which is great, because these are things
that should be in here. What we see added here is basically, in three cases,
making clarification about who it is that may be under the
Independent Appointments Commission Act.
For
example, in the Schedule that goes with the act it says that the Public Service
Pension Plan Corporation is under the processes that are followed by the
Independent Appointments Commission; but, in actual fact, it's only those who
are appointed by the provincial government on that corporation who can be
covered under the Independent Appointments
Commission Act.
It's the
same way with the Teachers' Pension Plan Corporation. Again, it's only those who
are appointed by the government who can be under the act. So it really is a bit
of housekeeping but, legally, it's very important that that is correct.
And when
we come over to the Legal Aid Act,
it's the same thing. Legal Aid nominates the people who are covered by this
section here. The members chosen by the Law Society to serve on the Legal Aid
Commission are exempt from the act. The Law Society chooses five people and
Cabinet picks three. So that means that process is not covered by the
Independent Appointments Commission Act
either.
So this
is housekeeping. It is making sure that the Schedule is absolutely clear about
what it is covering. And it is important that the language always be right and
always be clear. That's why sometimes when we're dealing with bills from this
side we are trying to get clarity of language because it's so important to make
sure that we understand what everything says.
The one
area that doesn't have to do with appointments made by provincial government
with regard to the change that's being put in here, it has to do with regard to
the Regional Health Authorities Act.
We now have a clarification that ensures that the CEOs are covered, along with
the members of the board.
So it is
housekeeping. I think it's a sign that when we question the speed with which
acts are dealt with, the speed which acts are put together sometimes and the
speed with which they are dealt with in this House, it's legitimate to be
raising those points. I certainly didn't expect to see this act be back in our
hands so soon after it was put in place. It was put in place in the spring and
here we are doing housekeeping changes to it already.
I'm sure
that this has alerted the minister and his department with regard to this act to
make sure that everything else in it now is covered, and covered correctly and
adequately. As I said, it doesn't change anything about the process with regard
to the appointments.
The
government made a really big deal about this act and was so outright with regard
to speaking about how it certainly showed how nonpartisan they were, and that
this act was going to ensure that you don't have government putting people in
positions, that the positions have been openly advertised and the nominations
are coming from the commission. But the government has managed, in other ways
and with other positions, to show that they could be as partisan as anybody
else, because we've had so many appointments that they've made that have been
partisan appointments people who are publicly known to be big supporters of
their party getting positions.
So in
other places where they can ignore the
Independent Appointments Commission Act, they know how to do it. But in the
meantime, we're dealing with the act here tonight. We have these housekeeping
changes. They have to be made, they're logical and we'll support the bill.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to stand and speak to Bill 45, An Act to Amend the Independent
Appointments Commission Act. After careful deliberation and discussion at my
caucus meeting earlier today, we decided that we would have a few comments to
make.
Mr.
Speaker, certainly, as has been said, what we're dealing with here is primarily
housekeeping; there is no doubt. I was a little disappointed when we first heard
that we would be having an amendment to this flagship legislation, as it's been
called. We were hoping to see some more substantive changes, as were made by the
Official Opposition, in terms of some of the recommendations that were made. I
was hoping we would see some of those and that we'd be actually able to stand in
the House and say that we would be debating an act to take the politics out of
taking the politics out of appointments. But instead, we are going to be dealing
with some housekeeping matters.
So, as
has been said really, we're talking about the health care board CEOs that
weren't included originally. That was obviously just an error and an oversight.
Obviously, it makes good sense. If we're going to appoint the boards, the health
care authorities, then it would make good sense that we would certainly appoint
the CEOs who have a tremendous responsibility; there's no doubt. So I certainly
support that.
The
Teachers' Pension Plan Corporation, that's a new entity, it didn't exist, so it
only makes sense that one would be added. And of course, we have the Legal Aid
Commission and the only sort of exception to that one is that, I guess, the
public members of the Legal Aid Commission as I understand it, the public
representatives would go through the Independent Appointments Commission;
however, the Law Society also still retains the right to appoint certain members
on behalf of the Law society.
So
that's what is being captured there, and it all makes good sense to me. I think
that there's no doubt there are positive things in this legislation, certainly
in the original legislation, Bill 1. At the very least we're ensuring that
people are well, first of all, we're ensuring there is an opportunity for
everyone in the province to apply for these positions, including these new
positions. That's obviously a positive thing. I support that 100 per cent.
Of
course, once these people apply for these positions, it will go through the
commission. There's no doubt that the individuals who sit on that commission,
they were all here in the House as has been referenced and they're all very
credible individuals. I don't think anybody would argue that.
I do
believe the government. When the government says that if the people sitting on
this Independent Appointments Commission, if they were making a bunch of
recommendations and they all kept getting turned down by ministers, I have no
doubt in my mind that these people would resign and tell government exactly what
they think about that. So it would be nice to see that gap closed, but I do
understand from a practical point of view, I'm sure they wouldn't stand for that
if it were to happen.
Based on
that, I support the bill. The only point I would raise, Mr. Speaker and
perhaps it would be best to wait until Committee, but I'll mention it here
anyway and the minister can make a note and respond if he wishes is that under
the new procurement legislation that we're in Committee of the Whole with that
we're still debating, in that, it talks about a chief procurement officer. That
chief procurement officer is not on this list.
I would
have thought it would have made all good sense to me that while we're making
amendments to this particular bill and adding new positions, I don't know why we
wouldn't be adding the new chief procurement officer. Given the fact that
there's no doubt, with a government majority, the legislation will go through.
It will be passed. I don't know if there was a reason why the chief procurement
officer was left off this list, if that was an oversight. Or perhaps there's a
good reason why that position is not here.
If it
was an oversight, I would point out to the minister that probably this would be
the opportune time to get it added to the list. Maybe the government could make
an amendment to add this position to the list as opposed to having to come back
in the next sitting of the House or whatever and do this all over again. Other
than that, I do support the legislation.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader, if he speaks now he shall close debate.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll try
to be brief in my commentary. First of all, I'd like to thank my colleagues
opposite for speaking to this bill and supporting this amendment in general. I
realize they've expressed some concerns with IAC but that's not surprising. I
would expect that on any given day, but they support what we're trying to do
here.
I do
want to thank the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands for his question. His
question was, well, you're doing procurement legislation and since you're doing
that why would not take the chief procurement officer and add them here now? The
first thing I would say is it would be probably putting the cart before the
horse to add something that is theoretical in nature.
In fact,
the procurement bill, as you know, is only in committee to add it before it's
even created. That was the argument I would use, but I have to give credit to
the Member for Mount Pearl North because the Member for Mount Pearl North during
the question said the procurement bill actually has a provision that repeals
that and adds that already. The procurement bill takes care of what you just
suggested. I have to give credit to the Member for Mount Pearl North who brought
that point up.
I'm not
as familiar with procurement legislation as the minister or parliamentary
secretary, or apparently the Member for Mount Pearl North, but the fact is your
issue is taken care of by the fact that it's already specifically put into the
bill and will take care of that issue. But, do you know what, it is a good point
to make and I'm glad we're able to answer it. In the spirit of bipartisan
co-operation, I don't mind giving credit where it's due. So I give the Member
credit.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Is the
House ready for the question?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is that Bill 45 be
now read a second time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Independent Appointments Commission Act. (Bill 45)
MR. SPEAKER:
Bill 45 has now been read a
second time. When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, An Act To Amend The Independent Appointments Commission Act,
read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House
presently, by leave. (Bill 45)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Natural Resources, that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 45.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is that the House
resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 45.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Dempster):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 45, An Act To Amend The Independent Appointments Commission
Act.
A bill,
An Act To Amend The Independent Appointments Commission Act. (Bill 45)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 2.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 2 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 2 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The
Independent Appointments Commission Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the long title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report Bill 45
carried without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I move, Madam Chair, that the
Committee rise and report Bill 45.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 45.
Shall
the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
The hon. the Deputy
Speaker.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have asked me to
report Bill 45 carried without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed her to report Bill 45 carried without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the said bill be read a third time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call Order 4,
second reading of Bill 47.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Member for Lab West, parliamentary secretary for Municipal Affairs, that
Bill 47, An Act Respecting Relocation Of Certain Communities In The Province, be
now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 47 be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, An Act Respecting The Relocation Of Certain
Communities In The Province. (Bill 47)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just
want to stand and speak to this very briefly. Again, that says nothing about the
bill, but I guess what I'm going to talk about is a bit unorthodox for how we
usually do things in the House of Assembly. This was a bill, actually, that we
were hoping that and again, we've made a practice of increasing the authority
and the responsibility of people within our caucus.
In fact,
during our first session, it was one of the first times where a parliamentary
secretary actually fielded questions in the absence of the minister, which
happens from time to time. I want to recognize the Member for Terra Nova who
stood that day and answered questions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
It's not something we've
always seen in the House of Assembly.
In that
spirit, this was a piece of legislation again, it falls under the Department
of Municipal Affairs, and certainly the Member for Lab West, the parliamentary
secretary for Municipal Affairs, is certainly well versed, has been briefed and,
in fact, has been part of this concept from its genesis.
This is
a very important bill. It may get some attention. Again, unfortunately due to
our Standing Orders, I don't think it's possible for a parliamentary secretary
or a non-minister of the Crown to move legislation which I do think is
unfortunate.
I can
say on a side note there that I'm very happy to be the Chair of the Standing
Orders Committee where we've had a very productive number of months. My
colleagues on the other side, my colleagues on this side, we've sat down and
we're trying to revamp and revise our Standing Orders which, in many cases,
they're important but they do need to be revised to take into account a modern
House that we want to fix. In that spirit, I'm moving this legislation on behalf
of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Member for Lab West.
I can
say, as the Member for Burgeo La Poile, that I have dealt with this issue of
evacuated, relocated communities on a personal level, on a professional level.
It was only a couple of years ago that there was a change in government's policy
as it related to this. And it's something that affected me because I have a
couple of communities that have had these conversations: the communities of Grey
River and La Poile.
Whenever
this topic comes up, it generates a lot of conversation within these
communities. It can be very difficult. And there have been a lot of questions
asked by these communities. In fact, I'll leave it to the Member to talk about
the most recent experience that government faced when it came to one of these
votes. Again, I'm doing more of a procedural duty here.
I can
say as someone that prior to being involved in politics and practising law, I
actually handled the litigation, the relocation on behalf of the community of
Grand Bruit. It was a tremendous learning experience going down to this
beautiful community which is actually based in Burgeo La Poile. It's one of
the most beautiful, pristine communities that you'd ever see. Having to go down
and talk to all the citizens and talk this is a sensitive subject; you're
leaving your home, your birthplace, the birthplace of your parents, of your
family and that community is being relocated.
It's a
significant move, and it's happened in the history of this province and it will
happen in the future, I'm sure. But having that opportunity to speak to these
people, to listen to them, to empathize with them and, in this case, I was
retained on behalf of government as part of these situations to work on behalf
of the citizens to help them with their transaction, which was basically the
conveyance of their property to government and there were deeds done. It was
amazing to go through that. It's amazing to see a traditional real estate deal
where you have surveys and you go through a lot of procedure.
There's
a lot to that and then when you go to these communities where there's no
surveys, there's none of this in fact, the question was, when I talked to
somebody, about how much land they owned they said well, this is how much I mow.
And that's their ownership. This land has been passed down from generation to
generation. It was done by families. I want to build a house and I'm going to
build it here, and they help you build that. So it was never one of those things
well, I own this much, the dimensions and lay out specifically, worrying about
title insurance and worrying if I'm on somebody's land. They never had that
issue. So it was certainly an interesting and wonderful experience for me. I
think it was interesting also for the government solicitors, who I guess you
could say I'm the minister of that department, to go through what they normally
deal with to dealing with this and to find out ways to get over these hurdles.
I've had
that experience and it's one that has stuck with me. I'm still friends with a
number of these people. They've relocated to various other communities and I
still get to see them. Many are in Burgeo. They are on the Southwest Coast. Many
have moved away. This has brought me tighter with them, and I appreciate the
fact that I could be with them during this very trying time. And in fact, many
of them have still returned back to that area. There was a come home year
planned at one point for Grand Bruit.
On that
note again, I'm happy to speak to this. I think it's a necessary piece of
legislation, but I'm going to allow the privilege and the honour and I think the
benefit of all of us to listen to a Member who has worked very hard on this on
the last number of months. He'll get an opportunity to speak and he'll do a much
better job than I of explaining the concept of this bill, how it's going to be
done and why we are doing this as a government.
Thank
you so much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I was
just listening to the minister talk and it's pretty hard when you go back all
together, there were 279 communities over the years that their homes have been
taken from them in some cases. When you look at the pictures of years ago, you
see the home travelling across Placentia Bay with the boat in tow. I know there
are all kinds of folk songs and everything else made up about it. But you can
only imagine how hard it is on those families to tie up their roots.
I know
most of us come from small communities in Newfoundland and Labrador and we're
very proud of it. I'm sure that those residents were very proud of it also.
Sometimes in circumstances beyond anybody's control, I'm sure everyone would
want to stay there, stay in their homes and stay where their roots are to is
what, I guess, we all call it.
When I
went over and did the briefing over at Municipal Affairs, it doesn't include
those 279 communities. It basically includes the five communities that we
recently relocated. What it is, when the relocation happened in those
communities, government came in and basically purchased the properties of the
people who owned them. They paid them compensation to move, whether it was an
island or wherever it was, just to get them to move, so they could start their
lives in another part of Newfoundland and Labrador. So while government went and
did that, government basically took ownership of their properties.
I'm
going to have a couple of questions for the Member later on when we do go to
Committee because there are a couple concerns that I do have with the bill.
What
we're basically doing here is making sure that, more or less, the liability of
what could happen down the road, if government purchased those and took
ownership of those homes and cottages that are out there now, if something
happened down the road, government could be sued or whatever. So this is
basically issuing a permit for occupancy and also telling the person that while
it's part of your family homestead, if anything happens there, they're not
responsible because government had ownership of the property.
If you
went back and somebody walked up to the front door and the step gave out and
they broke a leg or anything at all, basically what they're saying is it's like
your own home, there's a liability there to make sure that the place is good and
safe.
Like I
said, I'm going to have some questions when we get in Committee. When we issue
permits, I want to know things like who's priority is it because back in the
day, when you look at here in Newfoundland and Labrador when a will comes out,
sometimes the family has somebody they put in charge, it could be a cottage, it
could be a cabin or whatever, and I want to know about the permits and how the
permits are going to be issued and stuff like that.
This is
basically making sure that there's no liability to government; the government
don't hold any responsibility if somebody goes back there and gets hurt. Like I
said, this is a hard bill for some of the people in the province because I know
there is nobody who wants to leave but sometimes you have to when you have
people who need medical attention or sometimes it's just education because you
can't provide it in communities where the population is after decreasing. The
needs of people are better suited when they move to a certain area when it's not
in that certain community.
This
bill, like I said, is a good bill. It's making sure that households that when
people go back there there's some kind of protection for them. I understand, and
I guess the Member will speak, but I don't think the permits are too expensive
or anything like that. I asked a question in the briefing and someone said it
could be $5 or $10 or something like this for the permit. So that's pretty
reasonable.
Anyway,
that's about it for what I have to say about this bill and we will support it.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure for me to stand here tonight to speak on Bill 47, An Act Respecting the
Relocation of Certain Communities in the Province.
Just a
bit of a background I guess. The amendment is being undertaken so that the
Evacuated Communities Act that we have
in place now can be repealed, and that act goes back to 1974. There were a
number of communities that were listed in that act and I'll list some of them
later on.
At
present, the provincial government has been making seasoned access to the gated
communities possible through five-year permits provided to the former owners. We
know in a lot of those communities that have been vacated since time immortal
had a lot of buildings or whatever, returns or whatever has gone on there, it
has gone on without permits and it's something that government has not really
policed or managed over the years.
While
they're in government, I guess under government authority, it opens government
up to a liability that certainly we have to look into, because it introduces a
liability to the provincial government with respect to damages, injuries,
building removal and environmental issues. So, given that, it's something we
have to discontinue.
As the
Member for Cape St. Francis alluded to, under that bill in 1974, there are 279
vacated or evacuated or resettled call it what you like communities. If you
go through the list, they are in all parts of the province, in all parts of
Newfoundland and Labrador. When I looked through them first, at first I
questioned some of it and one that comes to mind are communities like Battle
Harbour.
If we
were to relieve our liability of a community like that, would people go in? We
all know what Battle Harbour is now. We're trying to rebuild that into a
historic site. Fortunately for us, the historic site will control that. Because
of the historic site, people will not be allowed to go in there and do what they
like because that's a place we're trying to protect and trying to develop into
an historic site; and one that has been very successful by the way.
There
are 279 communities around the province that really, we have not done a good job
of policing. By this act, we are replacing the act that was in place,
The Evacuated Communities Order of
1974, with Bill 47, An Act Respecting the Relocation of Certain Communities in
the Province. It's in this act that we will continue to monitor and continue to
require permits for anybody going back to five communities, and they would
probably be the five communities that have been resettled or evacuated most
recently.
They
would include Big Brook, Grand Bruit, Great Harbour Deep, Petites and Round
Harbour. If we move forward a bit to the relocation policy and as other
communities become vacated, then I would think they would be added to this list
as well.
What's
going to happen for these five communities is that the minister will have the
authority to issue a permit to a person if they want to, for the purpose of
erecting or occupying a building in the vacated community. So if they want to go
back to any of these five communities and build a summer home, summer cottage,
cabin, the minister can provide a permit for them to do that.
We would
then be responsible for enforcing that because a person who builds or occupies a
building at a vacated community, in any of these five, if they do it without a
permit or for a purpose other than that stated in the permit, or if they get a
permit and do something else, or in contravention of the terms and conditions of
a permit, is guilty of an offence and liable upon summary conviction to a fine
not exceeding $200.
I know
the minister mentioned the cost of a permit. I don't think that has been
determined at this point, but it would be very reasonable. It would probably be
in the $5 to $10 range. So it's not astronomical. The main premise of this is to
relieve the province of the liability of maintaining and permits in the 279
communities that were evacuated or resettled in earlier years.
We all
know that resettlement and moving communities is something the department is
considering and reviewing the regulations around that. That's why, during that
process, we identified this as an issue. As it stands now of course, should
there be more than 90 per cent of the residents of a community agree they wish
to relocate from the existing community, the provincial government can offer
assistance. We are prepared to do that, provided we have at least 90 per cent of
the residents that are there.
We go on
to define what a vacated community is. It means a community in which the
remaining inhabitants move with financial assistance from the province. We also
refer to those communities as being resettled or relocated.
As I
said, this act requires a person to obtain a ministerial permit. The Minister of
Municipal Affairs has that authority to issue a permit if somebody came forward
and wanted to go back to any one of the five communities that are listed in
Schedule A, which are the five that I just mentioned. So we still have that
authority in place.
The Evacuated Communities
Order of 1974, as
I said, listed hundreds of vacated, 279 to be exact. Seasonal residents, cabin
owners, technically require a permit to occupy or build property in these
communities.
I would
venture to say that very seldom happened, that anybody who went back there and
I'm sure there are people who go back and have some ancestral roots to some of
those communities. We hear it every day, but I would venture to guess that not
many of them got the permits to go back. As long as we kept them in the act of
1974, then government had a liability if they went back. As the Member for Cape
St. Francis alluded to, if something happened, if an accident happened, if an
injury happened or something happened to one of the buildings, then government
would be liable. We found ourselves that's not manageable this day and age.
During
the Community Relocation Policy review, the Department of Municipal Affairs
identified that risk. We want to remove it on a go-forward basis. Government no
longer requires now people to get permits for those 279 communities listed in
the act of 1974. We're going to repeal that act, as I said, and bring in a new
act respecting the relocation of certain communities. The latest five
communities that were relocated would be the communities that would require a
permit from government. So I guess that's about all I need to say on that at
this point. When we get to the Committee section and there are questions, I am
prepared to answer them and will do the best that I can. If I don't have the
answer, I certainly can get that for them.
It's
pretty straightforward, as I stated. It's the five communities and the Minister
of Municipal Affairs has the authority to issue permits for anybody to go back
and to occupy a piece of land or a building on those particular communities.
So with
that, Mr. Speaker, I'll take my seat. Like I said, if there are any issues out
there that any Members of the Opposition would have, I am prepared to take the
questions at that time.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
The hon. the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I am
pleased to stand and speak tonight to Bill 47. I doubt that there's anybody in
this Chamber tonight who doesn't know somebody who came from one of the
communities that over the years were vacated. People who went through the
relocation in the '60s and '70s and beyond are everywhere in the province. I
have a couple of very, very good friends who came from Placentia Bay and still
go back and still remember well the day that they moved and still talk about it.
Tonight
we're dealing with, though, the properties of the five communities that were
vacated after the year 2000. I think all of us can understand how hard it is for
people who had to leave their homes. The Member for Cape St. Francis mentioned
small communities or rural communities, but even those of us who were born and
raised in a city can understand, I think, what it is to be attached to the home
that you were raised in.
I was
personally raised in two homes in St. John's one house until I was nine, and
then we moved in the same part of the city. I still see those two houses I
still remember living in the two of them. One of the things that is very
sentimental for me is that the lone house left on Harvey Road after the fires is
the house that I spent the first nine years of my life in. I can still look at
that house and remember living in that house.
So
that's just a small example of what it must mean for those who had to get in
boats and leave their homes. I can well understand the desire of people to go
back and to build. When they were moved, if they were assisted by government and
in these communities they were assisted by government, then they relinquish the
ownership of the land as well. I just can't imagine what that ripped out of them
when that happened.
The
desire to go back and reclaim not for ownership but at least reclaim a piece of
land and be able to build on it so they can go back in the summers and visit, I
can fully understand. It's something that's deep in our spirits and deep in our
psyche.
The
interesting thing is and I understand why, this act which is dealing with
permits to allow people to go back to the five communities that are listed in
the act: Great Harbour Deep, Big Brook, Petites, Grand Bruit and Round Harbour.
That the people who will be looking for permits to go there and build may not
necessarily be people who lived there originally. There's nothing in the act
saying that, so these permits are not just for people who originally lived on
those islands. It's going to be interesting to see what may happen around that.
You
could have planting family members who maybe didn't know about this and didn't
get to apply for a permit ahead of people who were strangers to the isolated
community, in the community that they came from. I know that in the briefing our
research person asked about this and the officials said these are issues that
would probably be resolved by the minister.
I'll be
interested in hearing from the minister or the parliamentary secretary what
thought is being put into this because I think that you can get people who might
have expectations and even think of the place in the community where they want
to build because it was belonging to them before they moved, yet they won't have
the right to say that. So it could be a bit problematic. I know it's based in
sentiment and sentimentality but sentiments and sentimentality are an essential
part of who we are as people.
I will
be interested in Committee for us to get some more information on the
practicalities of how this is going to be worked out with regard to will there
be any preference given to people whose families lived in these communities.
Will there be any priorities set up, or will it just be first-come, first serve?
I'd be interesting in hearing about that.
The
other thing is that I understand is the permits are only for five years. That's
not in the act but that is what I understand; the permits will be for five
years. So you have a technical question here: What happens if, after five years,
government has actually found a use for the property? What happens then if
somebody has actually either refurbished a home or built a new structure with a
permit, and after five years or even after 10 years because they got a second
permit, they find out that government wants that land again? They will have put
resources into this, so I'm really questioning that limit on the permit. I can
see renewing the permit, but having no absolute assurance that they're going to
have a renewal, how is government going to deal with that? Has the minister
thought about that?
The
permit holders are going to be making an investment in putting up a new
structure or refurbishing a structure. Are they going to be told by government
that if government wants to reclaim that land, will government be ready to
compensate them for the money they put into the new structure that they've put
up? These are some of the practical questions that I have based on this.
I think
it is a good idea to be doing this. I'm sure some of the people might think,
well, nobody from the other 279 communities has had to do this. They've been
going back and forth, some of them for 30 years to those communities. Some of
them have built again and some have refurbished, and they've done it without
permits.
So
there's going to be, I would think, some sense of people feeling betrayed by
this and I'm sure government will do a good explanation to deal with that. But
based on just those two practical questions, I would like to hear how the
minister is dealing with the potential for these to become issues. I'm not
saying that they would be, but I think the potential is there. So I'll leave
those questions and we can get more detail in Committee.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 47, An Act Respecting the Relocation of
Certain Communities in the province. I'm not going to reiterate everything that
was said; although I will say two very good questions by the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi I think that's the name of the district, or Quidi
Vidi East, close enough. Two very good questions I have certainly thought
about the first one but I didn't think about the second one, so I look forward
to hearing the answers to those questions.
The only
other question I have to add to that perhaps or maybe a little better
understanding it my understanding that there was a decision made to include
the five most recent vacated communities under the legislation and to repeal the
previous legislation that contained the 1974 legislation I don't see the
number now, but anyway there was a lot of communities on the list, beyond these
five.
If the
reason why we're putting in a permitting system and so on, as I understand it
from the briefing, is to deal with liability issues whether that be
environmental liabilities, I guess if somebody were to go to one of these
vacated properties and not put in the proper sewage system, just as an example,
then there would obviously be a liability there and I think another example
that was given at the briefing was that if somebody decides to utilize one of
these properties and they're old structures and somebody walks upon the step and
the steps collapse and somebody breaks their leg, that was one of the examples
given to us, I believe, so there's a liability.
I guess
my question is around if there's a liability associated to this and in order to
rid ourselves of that liability, we're going to repeal the 1974 legislation and
that gets rid of the liability, why wouldn't we just put the other five on the
list and repeal all of it and take no liability? If government can escape
liability by simply taking communities off the list, why wouldn't you have all
communities taken off the list and then there would be no liability?
I don't
think that's how it would work. So it would seem to me if there's a liability
for these five and, hence, we're putting a permitting system in place to
mitigate against that liability, logic would tell me that there's also a
liability for all the other ones where yes, we're going to repeal the act, no,
we're not going to enforce it, no, we're not going to implement permits, but it
would seem to me that there would be a liability nonetheless because we own that
as well.
I'm not
sure how you get rid of the liability by simply repealing the act and saying
we're going to forget all these communities that existed prior to these five,
take them off the list and now all of a sudden there's no liability. If there's
a liability for these five, common sense would tell me there would be a
liability for all of them. If it's as simple as writing legislation to get rid
of the liability, then why don't we just write legislation that says we're not
responsible for any properties, whether it be the 1974, whether it be these five
or whether it be any vacated communities that happen next year, 10 years from
now, 20 years from now, we won't take liability for any of it, if it's simple?
I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't seem to add up to me somehow, so maybe some
clarification on that point.
Other
than that, the fact that we are going to require permits if somebody should
decide to go back to any of these areas, it makes sense to me that we're doing
that. I certainly support doing it for these five. I certainly support doing it
for new ones, if it should occur. If nothing else, it keeps track of who is
building cottages and cabins and so on and at least put some kind of
restrictions in place, I would assume, to mitigate against certain liabilities
and, particularly, environmental liabilities. I support it but, as it said, I'm
a little puzzled how we can just get rid of the liability for all the other
ones.
I know
it's hard to manage. There are so many of them. It hasn't been policed. We don't
know who owns cabins where. It would be a monumental task if we had to send
government staff on all these islands everywhere, trying to figure out who got
cabins, who owns them. I get that. That's why I think it's being eliminated,
taken off the list and so on I think that's the rationale really. But to say
that it eliminates a liability, I'm not sure how it does, to be honest.
Anyway,
other than that, I will be supporting the legislation, Mr. Speaker. Hopefully,
we can get some answers to that as well as the questions that the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi raised as well.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll
just take a few minutes here to speak to Bill 47, An Act Respecting the
Relocation of Certain Communities in the Province. I thought perhaps it only
fitting since I have a community my colleague for Burgeo La Poile talked
about having gone through this with some people in his district in the past and
the impacts of that. I'm living that right now.
I have
probably one of the most rural districts in the province and a couple
communities that live on an island. I may have more is the sad reality, Mr.
Speaker. We have aging demographics in the province. We have a shrinking
population, 527,000 people that are spread right across the province, lots of
rural. I might be a little bit biased, Mr. Speaker, but I think many of our
rural communities are absolutely the most beautiful parts of the province. Some
of them right in my district.
Right
now, we have the community of Williams Harbour, beautiful little island in the
middle of the ocean. People that have come from Williams Harbour have gone all
over the world and become meaningful, contributing members of society.
The
president of NunatuKavut Community Council would proudly tell you that he hails
from the little community of Williams Harbour. But the reality is right now
we've got about eight, 10 people left on that island, all senior citizens. Do
people have a right to live where they want to live, Mr. Speaker? Absolutely,
they do. But do people have the right to the same level of service? That's not
possible no matter who's in government, I would say.
We're in
the middle of helping Williams Harbour through the transition. We have a
six-page relocation policy that's in place. Relocation is still a very dirty
word for a lot of people. There's a lot of emotion that comes with that, things
happened in the past that may not have been done right. We have a policy right
now where the very first sentence says must be community-initiated and
community-driven. It's a big decision so it has to be the community's decision.
I think
it was the words of Simani in a song that said they left without leaving and
never arrived. We're coming into the Christmas season and we talk about all
roads lead home at Christmas. Well, there's a little community in my district
where the last of the people are voting right now and they may very well have
their last winter in that community. They have a cod festival there every
summer; we have a fantastic time. The population probably quadruples while we
are there celebrating that golden cod from Gilbert Bay.
The time
has come, they're older, they don't have access to medical services but what
we're talking about here in Bill 47, An Act Respecting the Relocation of Certain
Communities. The bill would repeal and replace the
Evacuated Communities Act. The bill would continue to provide a
mechanism for the minister to declare a community to be an evacuated community;
however, permits to erect or occupy a building in a vacated community would be
required in those communities listed.
Mr.
Speaker, it's so, so important that's exactly what I'm dealing with right now.
People are saying I understand, my dear, I have to go. There's nothing left and
we don't know about getting off the island and things like that, but will we be
able to come back? In my case right now, talking about Williams Harbour, this
little island on the ocean, they want to go back, Mr. Speaker, in the summer.
They want to pick their berries. They want to be able to get their fish for the
winter in that little community. So I'm really, really pleased to be able to
stand and support this bill to see that they will be able to get a building
permit and go back to the place that they have always been attached to.
All of
us here, when you say the word home it conjures up different and there are
all kinds of songs in my head. I say to my hon. colleague for Lab West I'm not
going to sing them, but I was thinking about Joe Diffie's, But more and more
I'm thinking, that the only treasures that I'll ever know are long ago and far
behind and wrapped up in my memories of home. That's what we're talking about,
Mr. Speaker, when we talk about relocated communities. It's difficult; difficult
decisions, difficult for the people.
No doubt
some of these people will go and they will never settle in that new community
where they go, but they're being compensated. I'm pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the
compensation of these people that are relocating, what they're getting right now
is much, much more generous than they got one time. And so they should. We do a
cost-benefit analysis and you can see if there's a savings to government between
you know what you're going to pay out and the service that's being provided.
These people need to go and they need to build houses and start a new life
somewhere else, so it's important that they have the support to do that.
Mr.
Speaker, so that's all I just wanted to say. I'm pleased that the process is
moving along for my constituents in Williams Harbour, some of the finest people
that you'll ever see around; home of the Russells there and the Larkhams. So
they're just kind of a little bit in limbo waiting to see if they're going to be
there another winter or if they're going to get out.
I'm
really pleased that Bill 47 will allow them to return to the home of their
childhood and where they were born and raised. A lot of people have already
gone, Mr. Speaker, because what happens when you close the school in a community
and then people have to go and put their kids in school in neighbouring towns,
but always they want to go back to that place they call home. This act would
allow them to do that, so I'm very pleased to be able to support this act.
Thank
you for the opportunity.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm glad
to rise on Bill 47, An Act Respecting the Relocation of Certain Communities in
the Province. As was stated earlier by the parliamentary secretary, it will
continue to provide the legislative authority for the minister to declare a
community vacated. It also looks at the requirements for permits for the
Minister of Municipal Affairs to build in communities which have been declared
vacant. As was mentioned earlier, it specifies five communities and speaks to
the original community relocation legislation and the communities that have been
relocated.
So the
original act, my understanding, is repealed and this would be the act going
forward. So I assume any new community relocations under the Relocation Policy
that currently exists in Municipal Affairs, the rules in this legislation would
apply on a go-forward basis.
A
vacated community defined in section 2 is a community in which the majority of
inhabitants have moved from the community with financial assistance from the
province. It deals with communities that have been declared vacated and it also
gives authority for the minister to declare a community vacated.
So we
spoke earlier about 284 vacated communities. They have been vacated and
recognized under the previous legislation, or when the legislation came into
being. I think it was 1974. I think there was a total of 279 I think it's 284
communities now. This provision makes changes for permits related to five recent
vacated communities and looks at the liability. That's reflected in the part to
this piece of legislation that's administered by the Department of Municipal
Affairs.
Right
now and I know my previous time and the previous speaker just spoke to it in
regard to going to a process of relocation for current communities under the
current Community Relocation Policy under Municipal Affairs. That threshold now
is 90 per cent. The current government had promised a review of that current
policy and legislation. I know there are a number of communities certainly
from my time as minister of Municipal Affairs that have voted, and there are
issues that are being worked through. I think the parliamentary secretary did
indicate that's a threshold they're reviewing, but he didn't indicate that was
one they recognized.
I do
note in the actual legislation 2(d) it says, 'vacated community' means a
community in which the majority of inhabitants have moved from the community
with financial assistance from the province. It will be interesting in
Committee and have the parliamentary secretary to the minister speak to it. When
they say majority, looking forward with a community that would relocate, would
that be 90 per cent or would it be another figure? What would that majority
reflect?
So it
would be interesting to hear in Committee what it would be as we move forward
and ask questions. The government has indicated there was a review that has been
done in regard to the Relocation Policy that currently exists and the majority
is referenced in the particular legislation. So we'd have to get that defined as
we move forward on what would be reflected in that.
The
current communities we're talking about, my understanding is that would be
families who have historical attachment to that property. They may wish to go
back and have a permit to restore a prior residence of the family. My question
would be: If you wanted to go back or apply to one of these communities for a
piece of property to build a seasonal residence, could you apply if you're
outside of a historic family connection to that area?
So that
means you wouldn't be applying for a particular property that had a house on it
or prior was maintained by somebody who had origin in that community. Could you
apply under Crown Lands for a piece of property within that community or region?
Much like you can now in another other part of the province. You can go and
apply for Crown land. You could lease that Crown land, if you're approved, or
under a provision that was brought in when we were in the department was that
you could actually purchase it. I think it was three-quarters of an acre and
then you get title to that property.
These
five communities we're talking about, as we move forward, if we were to relocate
other communities, does the provisions of the
Crown
Lands Act apply in these communities
in terms of Crown land and the application, or is it just these properties that
have some historic connection to people who used to live in the community? So
we'd certainly like some clarity in terms of how that works and the ability to
access and get title to property, even though you may have no historic
attachment to the community. So as we get to Committee, that's an area we'd want
to look at as well.
I know
we've also talked about permits for those in the past, those 284. They wouldn't
be required, my understanding, to have permits in the future. On a go-forward
basis, as I said, as we get to looking forward with this legislation regarding
the current Relocation Policy, how that would apply and what some of the changes
would be moving forward is something we would have to look at in Committee.
The
other question is if someone can come forward and demonstrate that under the
Crown
Lands Act there's a squatters' rights provision that went up from
'57 to '77 and after that, squatters' rights were extinguished. If someone can
go into these areas and demonstrate they had some kind of title, in a rare case
there could be a Crown grant that was rendered at some point back in history and
they could hold that and they could show a continuity of ownership of that
property. If they could demonstrate that from 1957-77 would they be entitled to
show they have ownership of that property, therefore under the
Crown
Lands Act be identified as having ownership of that property?
These
are issues that, as we move forward in Committee, we'd certainly like to have a
discussion on and get some feedback on.
The
other question is some community in the future that may be approved under the
Relocation Policy, there are probably already seasonal residences there as well.
People who have invested in those homes and they exist today. What provision is
there for them as you move forward in terms of title, or would they have to
apply just for a permit under Municipal Affairs and how that would all work?
So we
look forward to going to Committee and having some discussion and getting some
answers from the parliamentary secretary or the minister and look forward to
having that discussion.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
If the hon. the Government
House Leader speaks now, he will close the debate.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
happy to stand here and bring conclusion to the debate on this particular piece
of legislation. It's an important amendment to, basically, changing a policy
pretty significant actually, one that my department has had some involvement in
on the liability side. Having dealt with that before, seeing if there was a
transaction whereby government took over a piece of land.
I know
in fact seeing the practical application of that is where I've seen people
wanting to go back to these smaller communities, want to have come-home years
and things like that. The fact is you're on government property, therefore, if
you go back and something were to happen, basically, government assumes the
liability. So you have a situation two-fold where you have governments that are
on the hook for damages for something that happens in one of these evacuated
communities.
The
second part is that government is forced, in many cases, to say no to these
events when that's really not what anybody wants. People want to go back to
their home and go back and visit. Many places they're still going back and
they're partaking of the fishery. They are a whole number of things they're
doing.
I want
to thank my colleagues opposite for speaking to this and having their thoughts
again. We will be putting this into Committee now. I also would like to thank
and give credit to my colleague, the parliamentary secretary for Municipal
Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
He did a wonderful job of
being able to speak to this, of understanding the issue, understanding this
policy, this legislation, and being able to speak to it so eloquently in the
House. I look forward, as a Member of the Standing Orders Committee, someday to
hopefully changing it so that parliamentary secretaries can do more because the
first word says it all: parliamentary. We are here in our Parliament, they
should be able to do more and I look forward to doing that with the co-operation
of my colleagues in this House.
So thank
you again and I look forward to the Committee phase of this particular debate.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 47 be now read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act Respecting The
Relocation Of Certain Communities In The Province. (Bill 47)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, Bill 47 read a second time, referred to a Committee of the Whole
presently, by leave.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I move, seconded by the
Minister of Natural Resources, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of
the Whole to consider Bill 47.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the
Whole to consider the said bill.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Dempster):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 47, An Act Respecting The Relocation Of Certain Communities
In The Province.
A bill,
An Act Respecting The Relocation Of Certain Communities In The Province. (Bill
47)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The hon.
the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Madam
Chair.
Just a
couple of questions that I've got to ask to the parliamentary secretary about
this bill. When we were over in the briefing they said there will be permit
issued. Is that on a first-come, first- serve basis? The reason why I'm asking
is because some of these homes are owned by families and sometimes, like I said,
when I got up and originally talked on this, what will happen is the ownership
of the property usually they try to keep it within families, but someone can
just come in from outside, not even a family member, and put a permit in. What
criteria will be put in place to ensure that families do maintain their homes in
places like this?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Well,
once you evacuate a community, the land title then returns to the Crown. So no
matter who you are, once you want to go back to the community, you had to apply
to the minister for a permit and the minister will certainly take all the
conditions around the permit into consideration when issuing that. I would think
that if a family member wanted a piece of property that would certainly be given
full consideration.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
So something similar to
squatters' rights, what were given before is that what you're saying?
This is
important. Like I said, most of these homes if you look in Placentia Bay right
now, you'll see a lot of people going back to where their roots are. It's
important to people that they be able to because if it's first-come,
first-serve basis or anything at all like that then the person can just come and
take a property that was someone's home. We're putting the permits there for $5
or $10 or whatever they are, very minimum, so the liability is not there, but
it's important that we ensure the families that they can go back to the
residence that belonged to their homes.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As you
see in the bill, and like we were discussing in the procurement act, this is the
act, the regulations will follow. As stated in the act under section 5, The
minister may make regulations (a) prescribing the form of a permit; (b)
prescribing the purposes for which a permit may be issued; (c) prescribing the
terms and conditions of the permits; and (d) generally, to give effect to the
purpose of this Act.
I would
anticipate the questions you're asking and the concerns that you have would be
addressed in the regulations.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The
parliamentary secretary just commented on that this is on a go-forward basis,
obviously, the original legislation was repealed. So this would apply to any
future relocation under the current Relocation Policy in Municipal Affairs?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Yes,
that is the way it would work, but there would have to be an amendment then to
the act to allow that community, whatever it may be, whether it's one that's
under consideration now, they would have to be added to the Schedule, as the
five that are in the act right now.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you.
Just in
regard to that, I know you made a commitment to review the current Community
Relocation Policy. Could you just give an update where that is in regard to this
amendment here today?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Actually, this issue was recognized as we were doing the review of the act. It's
still not complete. The amendments to the relocation policy are still under
consideration. It hasn't been fully completed at this point. This is something
that was recognized during this review, that we have this liability on the books
of the 279 communities that are there as per the 1974 order.
So we're
acting expeditiously to relieve ourselves of that liability, but recognizing
there are five communities that were relocated in the last, whether it is 10, 20
or 15 years that people would still want to return to. We recognized this was
manageable. But to answer the Member's question in regard to the review, it is
still ongoing and there are several things in that review that are still under
consideration.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you.
I thank
the Member for his answer. As well, I mentioned in second reading, in section
2(d) 'vacated community' means a community in which the majority of inhabitants
have moved from the community with financial assistance from the province.
In
regard to defining majority, are you still applying the 90 per cent that's in
the current policy?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As you
know, under the current policy it is 90 per cent, but as I've just stated, that
policy is under review. So that number may change or it may not change. As for
the purpose of this act today, it's 90 per cent.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Madam
Chair.
I want
to come back to a point I made when I spoke in second reading and hope that the
parliamentary secretary can supply some answers because as he's pointed out,
there are going to be regulations that will have to do with the terms of the
permit.
In the
briefing, those at the briefing were told that five years is being considered as
the length of time for the permit. Can the parliamentary secretary give us some
idea of what this discussion is? Because as I pointed out, what would be the
incentive for people to put an investment into either putting up a new building
or refurbishing something that's there if in five years the permit might not be
even renewed.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I
apologize, I was into another meeting. We just got out, and I thank the Member
for Lab West, the parliamentary assistant. As you see, Members on this side,
everybody participates in this.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
When we give out permits for
five years, six years or seven years, it's a request that was given, it's the
previous but on a go-forward basis we won't be taking ownership of the
property. I think it was five in the past that we already committed that we
would give permits. We never ran into an issue or a situation yet where someone
needed an extension for a permit. They come in; they outline what their plans
are. They go in for the year, the weekend or for the summer, and we supply the
permit.
The
permits that were in the past were the permits that have been ongoing ever since
the relocation started for a number of communities. So we can give five-year
permits. It's an evaluation as the permit is applied. There's no set time of
five, six or seven years. We can evaluate each one.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
A follow-up and I know all
of it has not been put together yet, Minister. The actual permit, will the
permit be for the actual construction or refurbishing and not deal with the
ongoing living? Is that what you're saying? It will be the permit to build or to
refurbish. So once they have that permit and they use the building, the permit
is not for the use is it, it's for the actual building or refurbishing?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.
MR. JOYCE:
What happened in the past is
once relocation was finished, then the people who wanted to go back would apply
for a permit to the province because of liability issues, that we would give
them permission to go back into the area. So once a person gets the permit, they
have a permit to go back in. There wasn't a period of time they could get a
permit to go back if they wanted to do work with it. But on a go-forward basis,
we won't be taking ownership of any area that's deemed vacant and relocated.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Madam
Chair.
The
parliamentary secretary was doing a great job, by the way, answering the
questions for the minister.
I have
one question and it concerns Crown lands. I just want to know, are these permits
interactive? What's going to happen to communities like this, people want to go
back to build cabins or whatever. I know that's part of the permit. Would that
be true to a Crown lands application?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you.
The
Crown lands application is separate. The permits that were in the past are
permits for the property that you purchased the government purchased. If
someone wanted to apply for Crown land somewhere else in the area, that would be
a Crown Land issue. The permits are for the structure that was purchased by the
government for relocation purposes.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Just to clarify so I
understand what you're saying there, it's just for the structure itself. So if
that structure is on a piece of property, say, that's got five or six acres of
property with it, it will just be for the house itself and, say, half an acre or
whatever is around that house and the rest of the property can be put in for
Crown land. Is that how it works?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.
MR. JOYCE:
What it is, if the government
in the past bought a structure and the land from a person, it's government
ownership. Whatever was in the deed to that land would be the person. That's
what you get the permit for. Not just for the house, whatever the property
itself was.
CHAIR:
The hon. The Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Madam
Chair.
Minister, we sort of had a bit of this discussion before, but because of what
you've said now I'd like you to clarify. So even though the permit would be for
a defined piece of land that government claimed when people moved off, yet still
it's anybody who can go for a permit for that piece of land, not just the people
who had lived there. Correct?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.
MR. JOYCE:
That is correct. Anybody, if
there's a piece of property and it has to come to our attention but they can.
If a piece of property that was government purchased in the past and if there's
no so anybody can apply for a permit for that piece of property that was
purchased by the government for relocation.
So it's
not just the person who the property was purchased from. The permit has to come
to Municipal Affairs and it would be assessed.
CHAIR:
The hon. Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Minister, are you having discussions on the difficulties that could arise, say,
if people who had lived on that land here, that somebody has applied for a
permit and they didn't know about it. If they were to come to you and say, look,
we're also interested in it, are you going to have some kind of a mechanism for
arbitration or something like that? You could have that kind of thing arise.
CHAIR:
The hon. Minister of
Municipal Affairs.
MR. JOYCE:
That's a great question and a
great comment. I went back after it was brought up in the briefing. There was
never an occasion yet that came up where someone owned the property that someone
else applied for a permit for. So the department had no discussions on that, but
we will look for it. The first thought that we had when we first thought about
it is that if you own the property and someone else put a permit, we would
notify you and say someone is putting a permit in, are you aware of it, and just
to see their views.
It has
never happened from my questions. It hasn't happened before. Only the people
that usually apply are the people that owned the property before and it has some
kind of sentimental value to it or they want to set it up as a summer home or
something. It hasn't come up, but it is something that we have to set in place,
some kind of format if it do happen.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just
have one question. I'm just wondering is there any type of a registry or
anything where you would have a list of the properties and the cabins that exist
or would someone have to if I was interested in owning a cabin, for argument's
sake, on some island somewhere, would I have to actually go looking around
trying to see if I can find a vacant one and ask about it, or would I be able to
call the department or whatever and say can you tell me are there any vacant
properties that I could go possibly apply for? Is there a list?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.
MR. JOYCE:
There is a list of all the
evacuated communities. There is also a list of properties because it had to go
to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then when we purchase
it, it is government owned so people can get a list of what properties are in
what areas. Yes, they can.
We
haven't come to the situation, as I told the Member for Signal Hill Quidi
Vidi, whereby anybody else applied. But there is a list because we have to keep
a running list. Anybody who comes in who applies for it, we need to know that
yes, this is a property and yes, you own the property and the title to it.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just a
question for the minister in regard to a permit that was exercised to someone
that historically owned the property and was given it. Does that mean they have
title to the property or could they apply through Crown Lands to get permanent
title to it in place of that five-year permit that you would have to hold?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.
MR. JOYCE:
No, it would remain the
government's property because that's a part of it; it is the government's
property. Once people relocate and, of course, there would be no services, then
they can apply for a permit. Once you apply and allow people to start living
back on the island or moving back again or some relocation, the intent is to
keep it to government for permits only, not to start giving out Crown lands and
people start living there and moving in again. Next thing you know they will
want the services also.
From all
my discussions, there is absolutely no intent of giving out ownership to the
property that's been taking back from relocation; permits only.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I thank
the minister for his answer. So in that particular case you described there was
Crown land or property adjacent to where the permit was to, no one else could
apply for that land because again you're encouraging people to relocate to that
area.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.
MR. JOYCE:
They can apply, but they
won't get approved. What it is, is to keep the permits to ensure that people
don't start moving back again. People may apply but we have no intent of
changing the permit rule to keep it as a departmental
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. JOYCE:
No, it's not in legislation.
It is part of regulations that it is permit only. So permit only I'm assuming
once you say permit only, it means you can apply for it, you can't get
ownership. It is permit only in the regulations.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 9
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 through 9
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 through 9 carried.
CLERK:
The Schedule.
CHAIR:
Shall the Schedule carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, Schedule carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative session convened, as
follows:
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act Respecting The
Relocation Of Certain Communities In The Province.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report Bill 47
without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I move, Madam Chair, that the
Committee rise and report Bill 47.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 47.
Shall
the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
The hon. Deputy Speaker.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have asked me to
report Bill 47 carried without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed her to report Bill 47 carried without amendment?
When
shall the report be received?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the said bill be read a third time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call Order 6,
second reading of Bill 49.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
happy to stand in the House tonight and speak to
MR. A. PARSONS:
(Inaudible.)
MS. C. BENNETT:
Sorry, apologizes to the
House, Mr. Speaker. The Leader is giving me some further direction here.
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice that Bill 49, An Act To
Amend The Income Tax, 2000 No. 6, be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the Bill 49 be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 6.
(Bill 49)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I wanted
to explain the bill that we're going to be debating now for the next little
while here in the House. As Members in this House who've been here for several
sessions would know, periodically there are revisions made to the
Income Tax Act, 2000. This particular
bill that we're going to debate tonight is an implementation of various
technical amendments to the act, which really clarifies the legislative intent
or it makes the provincial legislation more consistent with the federal
legislation.
These
amendments would also reflect more clearly the practices of the Canadian Revenue
Agency, or CRA, and the administrators of the province's income tax and a
capital tax pursuant to the federal/provincial tax collection agreement.
So as, I
think, was discussed in the briefing with the Members opposite earlier, I think
last week, the amendments we're making are about things that would have been
needed to change to ensure the income tax collection process was consistent from
a technical nature. While I'm sure the Members of this House will be thrilled to
listen to the historical examples I'm going to use, I'd asked their indulgence
while I speak very briefly to the items that will be addressed as part of the
amendment that we're talking about tonight.
Some of
the things include the requirement that the adoption expenses tax credit, child
care tax credit and volunteer firefighters' tax credit be fully utilized before
determining the amount to be carried forward under those sections
include a
reference to the provincial child care tax credit in the part-time residents,
tax payable by non-residents and credits in year of bankruptcy sections of the
Act; clarify that the small business income tax rate of 4% only applies to
taxation years beginning on or after April 1, 2010 and before July 1, 2014 and
prorate the reduction in the small business corporate income tax rate for
taxation years that include July 1, 2014.
Mr.
Speaker, if I could just pause there for a moment as the Members of the House
here tonight would certainly those new Members who are sitting in the House
for the first time listening to this particular debate and for those people
listening at home, the technical amendments we're making to the act are actually
based on retroactive policies that were implemented by former governments. As
part of the process of aligning those decisions with the act, these amendments
are required to be made; hence, the dates that I just read out in that
amendment.
Continuing on with some of the explanation of the things that are seen in this
particular bill, one of the amendments would deem, for the purpose of the
foreign tax deduction, interest income received by a taxpayer from a
non-resident of Canada as income from a source in that other country. Also,
there's an amendment to reference the eligible amount rather than the amount in
the political contribution deduction section of the act.
There's
also an amendment that allow the imposition of a penalty in cases where a
person knowingly provides false statements or documents to obtain provincial
benefits he or she may not be eligible or entitled to receive. Also included is
an amendment by reference of new provisions in section 164 of the federal act
respecting refunds or instalment payments.
Mr.
Speaker, for the benefit, again, of those who are watching at home, this bill
we're speaking about tonight is of a technical nature, making amendments to the
Income Tax Act, 2000. These are
technical amendments that ensure the tax collection process that was used in the
past is aligned with the practice that was in place, but also reflected in
legislation as per agreements between the Canada Revenue Agency, as our
administrators and collectors of the provincial income tax, and the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
With
that said, Mr. Speaker, I'll sit down. This is a process that Members of this
House are certainly familiar with. I look forward to answering questions as we
work through.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
certainly pleased tonight to rise to speak to Bill 49, An Act to Amend the
Income Tax Act. As the minister has gone over and given an overview of Bill 49
and referenced, this is to amend the
Income Tax Act, 2000 to bring it in line with the federal tax act. Some of
those changes will be represented in what we're doing here tonight in regard to
the amendment.
It deals
with the administration of the provincial tax system by the Canadian Revenue
Agency, CRA. It is somewhat of a technical nature. It is addressing, as the
minister said, some of the policies that have already been identified and
retroactively is going to adjust the legislation to reflect that.
As a
result, all of the things have been identified in the bill. If you look at the
content of the bill, in the first few pages of it, it outlines what the
amendments are. There are probably seven or eight amendments and that's specific
to what the changes are. As I said, many of these have been implemented already.
All the
changes were recommended to the Department of Finance by CRA to ensure that the
practices and administration is in line with the provincial tax laws. So that's
what we're doing, we're aligning it up with the provincial tax law. It's not
going to change how taxpayers are impacted. They've already, as I said, been
implemented. The legislation is just a means here of what we're doing with this
amendment to catching up to what has already been implemented.
As we
know, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has a tax collection agreement
with the Government of Canada. Through this agreement and the amendments and the
changes that are coming, CRA collects taxes on our behalf. CRA now requires our
Legislature to introduce amendments which we see here tonight into our
provincial Legislature to bring the provincial
Income Tax Act in line with the federal act and in line with the
processes that CRA uses in regard to the actual tax collection.
This is
not something unusual. It happens from time to time in terms of aligning the
federal taxation policy to the provincial taxation policy. There are
periodically reviews done and amendments recommended that come here to the floor
of the House of Assembly reflective of a bill like this, Bill 49.
In the
briefing, it was noted by officials with the Department of Finance that every
amendment we see here in Bill 49 contained in it was recommended by CRA.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Mr. Speaker, when looking at
the bill, it was noticed that the commencement dates, as I said, have passed and
this is a catch-up piece of legislation. Most of the changes authorizing this
evening would be retroactive. As we said earlier, these decisions were made in
previous years. Some of the changes were in our administration, the previous
government, and then implemented by CRA and our tax legislation never caught up.
So that's a process we're going through now in regard to Bill 49 and the
amendments.
It often
takes a little while before CRA notifies our province of an update and what that
update is and what is required of it. Then, when they do notify the province,
certainly the amendments are packaged together in the type of bill we have here
in Bill 49, specifics in regard to what amendments and how many amendments need
to be made to the legislation.
The
Department of Finance holds the amendments usually, even until we get enough
we make those amendments, they're significant in number enough to proceed to
make these changes. As I said, it often happens periodically that we align the
provincial taxation policy with the federal taxation policy, and that's what
we're doing here now through Bill 49.
As I
said, all of these changes have been implemented and are now in working order.
CRA will continue their function, obviously, as being the tax collector for the
province. We will certainly support this bill as we move forward.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
happy to stand and speak to Bill 49 which is a housekeeping bill, federal
housekeeping bill I mean a financial housekeeping bill but a housekeeping
bill.
As both
the Minister of Finance and the Member for Ferryland have pointed out, it's
something that happens fairly regularly. Not every year, but every so often the
Canada Revenue Agency will look through the provincial taxation legislation, all
of the provinces of course, and will occasionally come up with anomalies between
the province's legislation and the federal income tax legislation.
What
this bill is about is recognizing anomalies that have been identified. I don't
need to go through them. As the minister has said, it's quite technical, but in
no way does it change what's happening for taxpayers. It's just language in
legislation basically.
But
there is one issue that I do want to speak to and raise a question with the
minister. It has to do with one of the clauses in the bill that recognizes a tax
credit for volunteer firefighters, which is great. The federal government
introduced a volunteer firefighter's tax credit and then introduced a parallel
volunteer search and rescue credit.
Unfortunately, while this anomaly has been pointed out to the province, our
province is choosing not to recognize the volunteers in search and rescue for a
tax credit. We're the only province in Canada which doesn't do this, so I'm
rather confused about why the province would not have along with the other
anomalies that were named by CRA brought this in line with the federal tax
credit.
There is
absolutely no doubt that the work done by those who volunteer in search and
rescue is an essential work in our province. How often do we hear when somebody
has gone astray, they've gotten lost out on the barrens somewhere or out on the
ice, whatever. While we have our official search and rescue, Canadian Coast
Guard, recognize that a person has been found, or not found unfortunately
sometimes, they'll always thank the volunteers who have worked.
Those
volunteers are quite organized. We don't need to name the different groups; we
know them. The work they do the search and rescue volunteers is every bit as
essential to the finding of a lost person as our Coast Guard people. It's every
bit as important as the volunteer work that's done by firefighters.
I was
very disturbed when this was brought to my attention. I just don't see how
government can make this distinction between one group of volunteers and another
group of volunteers who are involved in emergency measures really. It's very
disturbing.
There
are between 150 and 175 search and rescue incidents a year and you have quite a
large number of search and rescue volunteers involved hundreds actually, in a
year in one or more of these search and rescues. I mean, it's a terrible
situation. I'd like the minister to speak to it. I was really upset when I heard
it. I think we need to show the same deference and the same respect for the
search and rescue personnel in our province, the volunteers, as we do for the
volunteer firefighters and do what the federal government does and what every
other province is doing.
This is
my main point, Mr. Speaker. I won't go on. It's disturbing to me. I'd like to
hear what the minister has to say.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to rise once again this evening and speak to this bill, An Act to Amend
the Income Tax Act. I'm not going to drag this out very long. I think pretty
much everybody has said what needs to be said. It's very much a housekeeping
piece of legislation to bring us in line I guess there are two things.
First of
all, it's bringing us in line with the federal taxation regulations. The second
part in it is basically to take practices which already exist there are a
couple of instances here in the technical briefing of practices which already
exist that were not actually captured in the legislation. So we're basically
changing the legislation to catch up with what we're already doing in one
instance, or a couple of instances, and in many of the instances we're bringing
ourselves, provincially, in line with the federal
Income Tax Act. I support that.
It's
interesting that the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi once again has
raised an issue. I actually had here in my notes, when I went to the briefing, I
had housekeeping written down and then I had one star, one circle here, search
and rescue written because that was something that occurred with to me as well.
I'm going to agree with her on this one. If you look at the Explanatory Notes,
the second point, it says exclude search and rescue volunteer service
hours from the 200 hours of service required to be eligible to claim the
volunteer firefighters' tax credit
.
So as
has been said, basically the federal government recognizes the service of search
and rescue volunteers in the same manner in which they recognize volunteer
firefighters, if they have that 200 hours of service. I didn't realize, until
the Member just said it, that all the other provinces also recognize it,
provincially. I wasn't aware of that. I thank her for that information.
So now
it seems the federal government are recognizing search and rescue volunteers,
the provinces are recognizing search and rescue volunteers and we are the only
province, according to the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi, that is not
recognizing search and rescue volunteers.
And in
many cases the volunteer firemen and women, fire persons I guess they're called
AN HON. MEMBER:
Firefighters.
MR. LANE:
Firefighters, sorry, there
you go; that's the right term: firefighters.
In many
cases, the firefighters are performing search and rescue duties. We see that
happen all the time. Certainly when it comes to professional firefighters here
in St. John's Regional, as an example, they do the search and rescue. They do a
lot of search and rescue work or high-angle rescue and all that kind of stuff,
but in addition to that we do have people here like the Rovers Search and
Rescue.
We know
that every year, if it's not that group, there are other groups throughout the
Island that are involved in search and rescue activities. It is an emergency
service. They are saving lives in many cases and everybody has recognized it
except, apparently, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
This is
about bringing consistency. It's interesting that in all the legislation that's
here we're bringing ourselves consistent with the federal government except for
this issue where we are reaffirming the fact that we're inconsistent. Now, to be
clear, and for the record, it's not like we were covering search and rescue and
now we've decided we're not doing that. That's not what's happening. The fact is
we never were covering them and now we're going to ensure the legislation
reflects the fact that we're not covering them.
So I
don't know what that means in terms of dollars and cents because I'm sure it's
only a nominal amount in terms of the budget and so on; but if nothing else,
yes, it might mean a couple of dollars in the pockets in terms of a tax break
but more so than anything else, it's symbolic and recognizing the important work
that people in search and rescue do.
I would
like to see search and rescue covered. I'm disappointed to find out that we're
the only province that's not doing it. But, with that said, everything else
that's here is certainly housekeeping. There's nothing I would vote against.
It's not like we're removing search and rescue. They're not there now anyway, so
I wouldn't be voting against it, but it would be nice to see that included.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
If the hon. Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board speaks now, she'll close debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just
want to take a moment before I get into some comments in response to the Members
opposite to take a quick moment to thank the officials who work in the
Department of Finance, particularly in tax admin. We have some extremely
committed and diligent individuals that work in that division, as we have
throughout the entire government. Certainly for those of us that have the
pleasure of working with them, whether we are on the government side of the
House or we're in Opposition participating in briefings, I think we can all
agree as Members of this House that we certainly appreciate the time officials
put into the briefings. I would pass that on, on behalf of the Members opposite,
to the team in tax admin who provided a briefing on these amendments.
I would
also like to thank the three Members that did speak: the Member for Ferryland,
the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi, as well the Member for Mount Pearl
Southlands. As all three speakers acknowledged, this is financial housekeeping
legislation, a series of amendments. I certainly appreciated the support of both
the Member for Ferryland, as well as the Member for St. John's East Quidi
Vidi, who specifically mentioned and reminded those people who are listening at
home that the things that we're talking about tonight have no impact they're
not changes. These are things that have been going on for a number of years, and
certainly appreciate that both Members mentioned that.
As was
mentioned, these amendments are to align the policy implementation between the
federal agency, the CRA, and the provincial policies to make sure things are
aligned. As was mentioned as well, all these amendments were recommended by CRA.
I do
want to speak specifically to the item that was raised by Members opposite as
part of the discussion tonight. I would certainly want to echo Member opposite's
comments about search and rescue volunteers. Mr. Speaker, as a somebody who has
the experienced first-hand the importance of the work that search and rescue
volunteers do in my own family, we had a young member of our family actually,
ironically in the Member for Ferryland's district, who went missing many, many
years ago actually two members of our family that went missing. As a result of
the heroic efforts of the search and rescue teams, those family members of mine
were recovered, thankfully, safely.
So I can
certainly attest to the comments made by the Member opposite of the significant
contribution that search and rescue volunteers make in our province, not just
from my position as a Member of this House of Assembly, like so many other
Members in this House of Assembly, but I can certainly attest to it based on
experiences that our family went through.
With
relation to the tax credit that was referenced that has not been extended, the
federal government made those changes in their tax law in 2014. As was mentioned
I think by the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands, these amendments are
historic and the decision to include or not include the search and rescue
volunteers at the time that the federal government made their change was made in
2014.
As part
of going through this process and understanding the recommendations that CRA
made, we have identified this issue with regard to the search and rescue
volunteers as something that we intend to look at as part of the tax review, as
we've talked about in this House of Assembly. The federal government is
currently doing a review of the suite of tax credits that are available to
people throughout Canada. That tax review is expected to be concluded in the new
year in 2017 and immediately following the federal government's review, we will
be doing our review.
And it
is certainly my intention as the Minister of Finance for our province to make
sure that this particular issue when it comes to providing fairness to search
and rescue volunteers to be treated the same as volunteer firefighters, our
intention is to pursue that and we look forward to pursing those amendments as
part of that tax review.
The
piece of work that we're doing tonight, I'll just remind those people that are
watching at home, is about ratifying the recommendations of CRA on policies that
came into effect in the past. These rules, policy changes, particularly the one
on search and rescue was implemented in 2014 when the former administration
and I can't explain the reason why chose not to extend that tax credit to
search and rescue volunteers.
But I'm
certainly pleased as part of this effort to review and align the policies of the
federal agency as well as our own policies on tax admin that we've identified
this and certainly we'll take a look at it as part of the tax review that we
will be doing next year.
So, Mr.
Speaker, in conclusion, I'd certainly like to again thank the Members opposite
for their time in the briefing and for their comments tonight. I look forward to
discussions as we continue to move through these amendments.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Before I
put the question, the Chair would like to acknowledge the presence of Deputy
Mayor Ron Ellsworth in our public gallery.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 49 be now read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 6. (Bill 49)
MR. SPEAKER:
Bill 49 has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the said bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 6, read a second
time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.
(Bill 49)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the House
resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 49.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is that the House
resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 49.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Dempster):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 49, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 6.
A bill,
An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 6. (Bill 49)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Madam
Chair.
I want
to recognize what the Minister of Finance said about the tax review and the fact
that the tax credit for search and rescue volunteers is certainly going to be
considered. I would hope that means put in place. I'm really pleased about that.
I'm sure all those volunteers out there will be as well.
I'm glad
that she, too, recognized the service that they provide and the respect that
they should get from us. This is a very small way of doing that.
I'm just
wondering if the minister can give us an idea of the timeline for the tax
review. Maybe the minister did say it and I missed it, but the timeline for that
tax review.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The
federal government is currently undertaking a tax review. We anticipate that tax
review would be completed sometime in 2017. I suspect that when I have the
opportunity to attend the federal-provincial-territorial meetings for Finance
ministers later on in December, I'll have a more finite time as to when their
tax review would be completed.
Our
priority is to immediately, on the heels of the information that we have from
the federal tax review, that we implement our review so that we can make sure
that any changes we want to implement are implemented as quickly as possible.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 14 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 through 14
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 through 14 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative
Session convened, as follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 6.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report Bill 49
carried without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I move, Madam Chair, that the
Committee rise and report Bill 49.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 49.
Shall
the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
The hon. the Deputy
Speaker.
MS. DEMPSTER:
The Committee of the Whole
have considered the matters to them referred and have asked me to report Bill 49
carried without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed her to report Bill 49 carried without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the said bill be read a third time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Service NL, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of
the Whole to consider Bill 46.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is that the House
resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 46.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Dempster):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 46, An Act Respecting Procurement By Public Bodies.
A bill,
An Act Respecting Procurement By Public Bodies, (Bill 46)
CLERK:
Clause 2.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 2 carry?
The hon.
the Member for Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
When we
last left debate I think there was a discussion on section (q)(ii) with regard
to public body. It was with reference to a corporation in which not less than
90% of the issued common shares are owned by the Crown
. And the example given
was CF(L)Co.
As we
know, CF(L)Co is 65-35 in regard to shares. In the common shares the Crown
obviously would be less than 90 per cent. So when you look at an entity like
that and the amount of procurement that could occur, certainly it would be tens
of millions of dollars in maintenance and different activities that would be
ongoing with a Crown corporation of that size and scope.
So if
it's not included here under a public body, what would the oversight be or what
would the rules be for an entity like CF(L)Co in terms of procurement? Because
the amount of procurement there, as I said, tens of millions and maybe even more
at any particular time.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you for the question,
Madam Chair.
A very
important point I think the Member opposite is making. As it is a subsidiary and
under the 90 per cent, CF(L)Co has never been involved in the procurement
process. They maintain the rules that are required of them. But under this
legislation, it would remain as it has been in the past. Because the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador is in a joint venture and only own 66 per cent, it
would not be included in this legislation.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
(Inaudible) what arrangement,
or what rules or what procurement of framework would be governed by CF(L)Co?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
As
CF(L)Co is not a public body, it's not included in this as well. It would be
governed under the Corporations Act.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 2 carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, clause 2 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 3.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 3 carry?
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good
evening. I only have one comment on clause 3 and this is the purpose section. So
it's obviously important in any bill, but particularly in this one.
The
question I have for the minister relates to section 3(2)(f) which is about
value diversity in procurement. I'm hoping the minister can explain what
exactly that means because the word diversity is not defined in the act. We
were talking about definitions before the supper hour.
I want
to get some sense of how that is going to be applied in practice because it
could imply a bias of some sort. Obviously, that's not the intention, but I'd
like to understand what value diversity in procurement means.
Does
this mean spreading the work to as many companies as possible, diversifying the
procurement base? Does it mean promoting the diversification of the province's
economy or driving local industry growth? Does it mean favouring bidders who
represent under-represented minorities such as women-led companies, companies
based in Aboriginal communities, companies that hire people from minority groups
or persons with disabilities?
Because
the word diversity is not defined, it's just not clear what we're talking
about here, whether it's any or all of those things that I just mentioned. I was
just hoping the minister could offer a little bit of insight on that.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. Minister of
Municipal Affairs.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Diversity what we mean by that is uphold the value in procurement. We put it
through the Women's Policy lens; we put it through the disability lens.
So what
we're doing in diversity is when we take this bill and we put it out there for a
procurement, we put it through all the lenses possible in government to
diversify and make sure everybody for example, in Women's Policy, if they have
a concern or some way to help diversify in that way. Disability lens so
diversity means spread it around to ensure that everybody has a say. Then, we
can try to help all groups and ensure that all groups have a say in it and if
there's some minority group there also, Madam Chair.
That's
the idea of diversify. It's to ensure that it's put through a number of lenses,
which we all do on this side for all pieces of legislation that we put through.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Madam
Chair.
I'd like
to ask the minister if in fact there was a report from the Women's Policy
Office, if they did a gender lens, if there was a report and what were the
findings of that report?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for the Status of Women.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As the
Member opposite had I think she had a conversation with the deputy minister on
Friday around that question from the Women's Policy Office. In fact, there was a
gender analysis done on the procurement act.
There
was feedback provided to the department. Specifically, the language in the act
that refers to diversity was something that the department had advocated for. In
addition to that, there are a number of recommendations and considerations that
will be looked at as part of the regulations. Certainly, we'll continue to look
forward to working with the minister's department on making sure that the
regulations are reflective of the analysis that was completed.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would
like to ask the minister: What were those recommendations? How will they be
implemented? How will they be evaluated? What specifically will be done to
ensure there is not only just a gender lens, but that there will actually be
some concrete action to ensure we have more representation of women,
particularly in some of the non-traditional jobs that might be procured through
this bill. What specifically will be done to ensure that the recommendations,
whatever those recommendations might be it would be good to see that report
tabled here in this House. What were those recommendations specifically?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for the Status of Women.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Madam Chair, as part of the
procurement act, as has been referenced in this House, there's a
significant portion of government spending, almost 50 per cent of it, that's
spent procuring all kinds of different services throughout the province for
government. As part of that process it is important that the
procurement act
allow us to leverage government spending to provide opportunities not
only for Newfoundland and Labrador businesses, but more specifically for
organizations that are owned by female operators, that have significant benefit
to the female community.
As
recently as a couple of weeks ago I think Members opposite would be very
familiar NLOWE launched, as an example, a series of round-table discussions
throughout the province on how, for example in the oil and gas sector, more
procurement can be done via female-owned businesses and female-managed
businesses.
For the
Member opposite, I'm not going to prejudge the regulations. As the minister has
clearly said in this House several times, the regulations will be drafted after
the legislation is passed. My understanding is the actual implementation of the
regulations could take up to a year. Certainly, making sure that the advice from
the Women's Policy Office is reflected in the regulations and that we have a
meaningful way to ensure that women, as part of our procurement process, are
recognized, in addition to all of the other things the minister has already
spoken to, are going to be reflected in the regulations.
When the
regulations are prepared, I'm sure the Member opposite will be providing some
opinions on those. I can assure her that the officials in the Women's Policy
Office will be providing advice to the minister and his department on an ongoing
basis as they have been all year.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would
ask the minister: Will she table that report done by the Women's Policy Office
with the recommendations they've made here in the House?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Madam Chair, if the Member
opposite would like to have a meeting and discuss the recommendations, I'd be
happy to provide her that time.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Well, Madam Chair, I don't
understand why the minister wouldn't table that report, specifically, if that
report will guide the regulations. Throughout the debate on this particular
bill, the problem that we have identified again and again and again is the fact
that the regulations do not come to the House here. This bill is wide open.
I would
like to know, particularly if the minister says they value diversity in the
procurement, what exactly does that mean? We know that in private enterprise,
particularly in the oil and gas industry and larger companies, they will go to
potential bidders and ask for their equity policies to ensure they have equity
policies and that part of those equity policies will have a value in assessing
and scoring a proposal. So we don't know. Other than this vague statement of we
value diversity in procurement and wouldn't it be nice if women's businesses
might get a crack at this, that's all that we have.
So much
of what happens around the area of equality for women are based on wouldn't it
be nice and we know that doesn't work. All we have to do is look around this
House right now and see how many women are here. Wouldn't it be nice? Well it's
not nice. It sure is not nice.
I ask
again for the minister: Will she table the report and the recommendations of the
Women's Policy Office on this bill. Particularly because this bill is so
incredibly vague and it has absolutely no teeth around the issues of equality
for women and how that will be actually executed in any of the regulations
around procurement because we're certainly not going to see it in policy and in
the bill.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I don't
know which part to answer because I take exception where she said that we're not
concerned and we don't put it to Women's Policy to seek advice and counsel. I
just take exception. I don't know where you come up with that statement.
You name
one women's group that tried to meet with me in my office over anything that I'm
dealing with in Municipal Affairs through Service NL. So just don't make a vague
statement saying that over here all of a sudden we don't and just for an
example, NLOWE is coming up to meet with us Monday on this. NLOWE is coming to
meet with us Monday.
NLOWE
represents women in the province, business and entrepreneurs in this province.
They asked to come up and have a meeting. Guess what? They're meeting with us
Monday. We're having a meeting with them Monday. We reached out.
Madam
Chair, I don't mean to be kind of harsh on this, but I take exception when I
look across this room here and I see female ministers, I see female MHAs here
and give the impression that they don't stand up for women's rights on this
side.
Every
policy in this government you can laugh as much as you like. You tell NLOWE,
when they come up Monday, that their views aren't going to be respected or they
shouldn't come up because we just have vague statements.
Every
issue in this bill, every part of this bill and every regulation in this bill
will go to the Women's Policy commission. We will strive for it. We will strive
to help out minorities. We will strive to help out whenever we can. By the way,
not only women's issues, there are Aboriginal issues that we're concerned with
also. There is small and medium business that we're concerned with. That's why
we upped the ceiling so local people some are women, some are native, some are
small- and medium-sized businesses can help out.
So,
Madam Chair, we will have it in the regulations. We will consult in the
regulations. We have consulted in the bill. And if you don't feel that NLOWE is
representing women's issues concerning business, small business and everything,
you can take it up with NLOWE. But I can tell you one thing, I have confidence
in NLOWE. When they come up, they want to meet and they're after meeting with
Members of this government on many occasions. So when you say that we're not
having any consultations and we're not concerned about it, I take exception to
that.
I can
assure you women's issues and women's policies are being brought forward. It is
through the women's commissions, through NLOWE and other groups. You should ask
for a meeting with NLOWE after our meeting and see how they feel, instead of
standing up here and making accusations that none of us over here are concerned
about women's issues.
I just
want to defend my female colleagues over here because I know how much
MS. COADY:
Both are award winners from
NLOWE.
MR. JOYCE:
Did you hear that? Both are
award winners from NLOWE and all of a sudden, now they're not concerned about
women's issues concerning a bill on procurement. Somewhere along the line we
have to attack the issues. Stop plaguing the female people over here, MHAs and
ministers who you feel that aren't representing women because I can tell you,
they are.
And if I
as a minister, and I'm speaking on my behalf and I'm sure all of the other ones
here if we ever tried to take a bill and not run it through the Women's Policy
Office I can tell you, we would hear it, and we should hear it. I can guarantee
you we have orders from the Premier, anything we do is sent out to every
department, including the Women's Policy Office. That's why the lens that is put
on it, that you asked for, you asked for that lens, we committed to that lens,
we're doing that lens we're even doing it in the disability department; we
should be.
So I can
tell you when we meet with them everybody has an input into the regulations
and we will take everybody's input. I can guarantee you when the regulations are
set up, they're going to be set up for the benefit of people of Newfoundland and
Labrador. That's why we increased the ceilings so local people, including women
in business, could apply for it. That's why we did it.
So when
you take one word and say we're not looking after the issues, read the whole
bill and act. Look at the people that we consulted if you look at the people
we consulted here, I think you would retract your statements.
Thank
you, Madam Chair.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Madam
Chair.
And I'd
like to say that I do believe that the minister doth protest too much. All the
words that he has put in my mouth certainly weren't there. I never once accused
the government of not caring about women. I do believe that there are a number
of people, Members on the opposite side and on this side, that really care about
gender analysis, that really care about equity. So I do believe that the
minister in fact doth protest too much.
Now the
interesting thing is that after this he is hoping that this bill is going to
pass really soon. So then he is going to meet with NLOWE. Well, that's kind of a
bit of a backwards way to do it. I would say that consultation should happen
before a bill is even written, let alone after a bill has passed.
Madam
Chair, I do believe that the minister has it a little bit backwards. As for the
issue of people with physical disabilities and Aboriginal communities, I am
going to get
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
to that because I have
specific questions about that as well.
Again,
Madam Chair, the issue that I am raising is that I know, as a woman, that there
have been all kinds of vague promises made to women about inclusion, about pay
equity, about child care, about a number of things. Yet, we do not see them come
to fruition.
That's
what I'm talking about, not that there is any malice on the other side of the
House, not that there is any ignorance on the other side of the House about the
issue of women's equality; but unless we see it enshrined, unless we see it
concrete, it simply doesn't exist.
It's
like fairy tales. That's what it's like. It's just like fairy tales. We need
concrete legislation. We don't see it in this bill. Will we ever see it in this
bill? I don't know. We've asked for it. I'm very glad that the Women's Policy
Office and he said have we ever done anything that hasn't gone through the
Women's Policy Office. Well yes, they certainly did. That great big ole budget,
the 2016-17 budget, their first budget did not pass by the Women's Policy
Office. There was no gender lens applied to that budget because if there was
that budget
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MS. C. BENNETT:
That is not true.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
Well, I would be so happy
the Minister for Finance is telling me that's not true. I have asked repeatedly,
Madam Chair
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I know
it's getting late, it's 9:40 p.m. and we've all had a long day, but the Chair is
having difficulty hearing the speaker an I ask Members for their co-operation.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Madam
Chair.
I
actually did an ATIPP request about a report or anything anything any
conversation, any written email about a gender analysis applied to the budget
and there was nothing. I got a report from the ATIPP request but there was
nothing. There was no evidence that anything was done.
If I'm
wrong I would be so happy. I think the only way to prove me wrong and I would
be happy to be proven wrong because I think it's really important. I'm sure the
Minister of Finance believes it's important. I believe that a number of Members
on the other side of the House believe it's important. Where's the report? Let's
see the report. That's what I would like to do, table the report.
I ask
the Minister of Finance and the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women
again, or I ask the minister responsible for this bill: Would he table the
report provided by the Women's Policy Office to show exactly the recommendations
they made to ensure that they really do value diversity in procurement and show
how women are going to be included.
In
private industry in the larger companies, when they go out for proposals, when
they ask for proposals they ask companies they deal with to demonstrate their
policies on quality assurance guidelines. That makes sense. You want to make
sure that a company you're doing business with has quality assurance guidelines.
They ask
companies to show what their policies are on the environment. That's really
important. You want to make sure that whoever you're dealing with, whoever
you're doing business with; they have policies on the environment.
They
also ask and this is great, and it has taken women's groups and progressive
governments to work so hard to get to this point for the policies on
diversity. Those diversities might include gender, people with physical
disabilities, Aboriginal people, people who are racialized. So they will ask
specifically what those policies are with businesses that they might do business
with.
Not only
do they ask them for those policies, then what they do is they will score that
company's bid on how good their policies are.
MR. JOYCE:
A point of order.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The
Minister of Municipal Affairs.
MR. JOYCE:
Section 49 I'll just let
the minister know, when you make statements in the House you assume they're
correct when you say I should meet with NLOWE, not before, then after. Wait
until after.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
There is
no
MR. JOYCE:
On June 2, 2016, we met with
NLOWE's Paula Sheppard and Debbie Youden. At least she should check the facts.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
There is
no point of order.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Madam
Chair.
I was
only going by what the minister told me. He said he's going to meet with them
either tomorrow or next week. I'm just going by what he told me. If he has met
with them beforehand, that's great.
Again, I
would like to see what their recommendations are. I don't understand why the
Minister of Finance, who is also the Minister for the Status of Women, will not
table the report of recommendations that the Women's Policy Office has made.
Where is that report? What have been their recommendations? What I'm doing right
here is talking about and showing what other companies have done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
They're very, very concrete
steps; very concrete actions that actually result in something. It's not a fairy
tale. They actually result in something.
I ask
the minister, what specifically since there has been a gender lens applied,
since he's met with NLOWE, since he cares about gender equality, because he said
he cares about it, I believe him.
So since
he cares about it, since he has met with NLOWE, since he's got that gender lens
report from the Women's Police Office, I now ask the minister, can he please
tell me what he's going to do concretely to ensure he values diversity as it
relates to women? Minister, can you answer that question?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 3 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 4.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The
Chair didn't see anyone stand so we will move to the next clause and recognize
the next speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Hopefully, we can get things settled down a little bit. I was appreciating some
of the answers I was getting. I have a couple related to clause 4.
This
section says that the Labrador Inuit Land
Claims Agreement Act will have precedence over this act where there is a
conflict. So, presumably, that will show respect for the self-governance rights
of the Labrador Inuit, which makes sense, of course.
I would
like to begin by asking the minister: Can you tell us, on the record, why this
provision is included? Is it out to show respect for the Labrador Inuit, as I've
suggested, or is there something more to it that might be of interest to Members
in the House?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Yes,
this is in all acts as to the agreements and the treaties that take precedence
in courts. It's a courtesy and a right for the Aboriginal people, for all
treaties to take precedence over any act in the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
So it's
in all acts that these treaties do take precedence over any legislation in the
province. That's why we always put them in, because they do have rights, they do
have precedence over any agreement. It just shows respect to ensure that there's
no conflict whatsoever. This is in agreement with the Labrador Aboriginal
groups.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Will the
Nunatsiavut Government be pursuing similar procurement legislation? Is there a
belief that is in the works? I'm just curious.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.
MR. JOYCE:
I've had no discussions with
the Nunatsiavut Government on that matter. They're a government on their own;
they have the ability to make their own rules and regulations. I had no
discussions, nor should I have any intentions of having discussions with the
Nunatsiavut Government, Madam Chair, as they're self-governing. They're a
government, they can make their own rules and they're very capable of making
their own rules.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just a
couple of more follow-up questions and I appreciate the minister's answers. This
section says that the Labrador Inuit Land
Claims Agreement Act will have precedence over this act when there is a
conflict.
My next
question is: Any guesses on the types of conflict or the areas of conflict that
could arise? Have there been any actual or potential conflicts that have been
pointed out to government by your officials?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.
MR. JOYCE:
No. To my knowledge this
section is put into the legislation that's going to pertain to any of the
Aboriginal, Madam Chair, because we understand their rights, we understand the
self-governance. For my knowledge, though, any time that we I know in this
government, we have a consultation and have an open dialogue with them.
I can't
foresee any problems because we understand their rights and we understand, if
and when we're going to make a decision, that we will be in consultation with
the Nunatsiavut Government before we do that and we have those details before we
go ahead with anything that may be in a conflict.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
I appreciate that explanation
as well.
My final
question related to that: Are there any conflicts anticipated with respect to
any other Aboriginal groups in the province related to this legislation?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.
MR. JOYCE:
No. As we said, any group
with treaties and with self-government we don't anticipate any conflict
whatsoever. Once again, as I said earlier, before we put out legislation we send
it to different groups.
From my
understanding, they may come in and make a presentation on some issues with it,
but I can't foresee any problem. Before we make any regulations that may affect
them we would send it out to Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs in consultation to
ensure there is no conflict.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Madam
Chair.
I'm very
happy to see this particular clause in this bill. It is absolutely appropriate.
I ask
the minister: For other Aboriginal groups outside of the Nunatsiavut land
claims, what is he doing specifically to ensure they are included in his value
for diversity? How will he implement to ensure that they, too, have access and
benefits from this procurement bill? How will he evaluate that? How will it
affect the overall score of any proposal or bid that comes before government?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As I
said in this House on several occasions, and I'll say it again, with the
increase that we put in, a lot of local companies which would be Aboriginal,
which women will own, which will be small-based companies will have the
opportunity to bid on a lot more services and goods in the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
The
Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs in this government has been in
consultation with many Aboriginal groups with this legislation. We're open to
any discussion that they feel they'd like to see in part of the regulations. We
have met with many groups many, many groups, Madam Chair.
Can I
say today that we're going to give out a million-dollar contract so one group
can get it? Of course not, the spirit and the intent of public procurement are
out the window. But we are making it easier for smaller groups, we're making it
easier for local groups, we are making it easy for Aboriginal groups, we are
making it easier for small-business people, we're making it for anybody who owns
a business in Newfoundland and Labrador. A lot of red tape is going to be
eliminated. The ceiling goes up so people can bid more on Newfoundland and
Labrador goods and services.
We've
said it; we're going to do it for all groups, Mr. Chair. We're going to stand by
that because I can tell you the amount of people that are supporting this bill
is widespread. We heard a lot of people across the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador that, yes, this is going to be good for rural Newfoundland and
Labrador. It's going to be good for Labrador.
How can
I say that there's going to be one part of this carved out for a certain group,
another part for another group. It just can't be done. But we are making it
easier, we're making it more widespread, we're increasing the ceiling. So we
feel, and most people that I've contacted and contacted this government on it
feel confident that this bill is in the right direction for smaller groups in
rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
CHAIR (Warr):
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I'm
really happy to hear that the minister and his department have met with all
kinds of groups and that he's passed this by the Aboriginal Affairs office, the
Office of Persons with Disabilities and the office of the Status of Women. But
then he said he's also met with a number of groups and they really support this.
I'm not
quite sure what they're supporting because we can't see it. We can't really see
what specifically they're supporting because there are no teeth in this
legislation. There's nothing in this legislation that says how they are going to
score anything. Aside from the vague words of valuing diversity, there's nothing
here to show exactly how they are going to execute that. What are the specific
policies and approaches to ensure that happens?
All we
have is a great big old framework that really doesn't tell us much about that.
So if he, in fact, has done all this consultation and I have no reason to
believe he hasn't I would think that would result in something concrete to
assure different Aboriginal groups, to assure women, to assure the diverse
groups of our province, small businesses, et cetera, that this will be
favourable to them.
I don't
know what they're reacting to except the fact that there's a new procurement
bill and government is going to spend a lot of money.
Mr.
Chair, I guess it's on a wing and a prayer because if it's all regulations and
then the Minister of Finance said that we'll have some input in that the
regulations don't come before the House. So I'm not quite sure how that's going
to happen.
I'd like
to ask the minister: Exactly how will that happen? How is he going to execute
this? How is he going to make concrete his supposed philosophical values?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.
MR. JOYCE:
I'll stand here and answer
any question possible if the Member wants to stand up and make statements and
ask us. I'll just say one thing, Mr. Chair. I'm not going to stand up and the
Member go on with all these what if, what if.
I can
tell you one thing; do you know where I was in October? Three days down to
Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador sitting in on all sessions about what
we're going to bring in, how we're going to raise the ceiling of it, how we're
going to bring up stuff for small buildings, how public works is going to go
from $20,000 to $100,000, the services go from $10,000 up to $50,000.
If that
Member had to take five minutes of your time and worry about rural Newfoundland
and Labrador and stop she's over there laughing, Mr. Chair. Do you know why?
Because you wouldn't give Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador the courtesy
of showing up at the meetings, never gave it the courtesy. To stand here and say
what groups. Go out and ask municipalities in Labrador what they think of it.
Just go up.
So don't
stand there and pontificate as if none of us around here had any consultations.
I spent three full days down there, Mr. Chair, because I'm concerned about rural
Newfoundland and Labrador. I listened to them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
I can tell you I'm not
letting the Member for St. John's Centre she's over there laughing now. She's
over there laughing her head off. They have real concerns. Instead of standing
up pontificating, I went down and I spent three days with that group, Mr. Chair.
I want
to hear their concerns. Their concerns are what they passed on to us. If you're
going to dig a ditch in there instead of $10,000, spend three, four months and
get a public tender out. They wanted it up so they can go do their work, get
three quotes so the money will stay in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, get
local companies.
So if
you want to know answers, rural Newfoundland and Labrador, go down to
Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, look at the 200-and-some-odd
communities that agreed with this here. If you want to ask me, meet with any one
of those councils, they'll tell you why this is such a good bill.
Think
about rural Newfoundland and Labrador; spend a bit of time with municipalities.
Spend a bit of time in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and come back and tell me
they don't want this bill.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Shall clause 4 carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Against?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, clause 4 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 5.
CHAIR:
Clause 5.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good
evening; a couple of questions on clause 5 and I think it's actually only a
couple of questions this time. Section 5 describes how broadly the act will be
applied. There's a phrase in the first part of section 5 that I have a question
about. The phrase is,
except as provided in those Acts.
I was
wondering if the minister can tell us what does the phrase except as provided
in those Acts mean in the first part of clause 5 and would you be able to
provide a current list of those exceptions?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.
MR. JOYCE:
I just think if you go into
section 33,
the Research & Development
Council Act is repealed and the following is substituted
. When you look
at that section, research and development and Nalcor were always exempt. They
were always exempt from the act.
What we
got into now is the daily operations of things but we mentioned, today, some of
the exemptions in that act. That is the exemptions in this act. It's the stuff
that we could go out as a group and could ensure the best values for the money.
But, as we mentioned today, in that act the research and development and Nalcor,
if you go to 33, those are the exemptions.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I
appreciate the minister's explanation but the way it reads and I'm reading
section 33 of the bill, clause 33, as the minister has drawn my attention to,
but it still suggests, to me, in part one of clause 5 that basically the
exceptions that are provided right now in the
Energy Corporation Act and the
Research and Development Council Act will continue to apply because
it says the act applies to procurement by public bodies, and with respect to the
corporation established under the Energy
Corporation Act, which is Nalcor, and to the council established under the
Research and Development Council Act,
which is RDC, the act applies to that corporation and that council except as
provided in those acts.
So that
suggests to me that whatever exceptions that are currently outlined in the act
pertaining to Nalcor or the exceptions that are currently outlined in the act
pertaining to RDC would still apply.
Could
you give us some examples of what those exceptions are? Given the ministers
responsible for these two pieces of legislation would be the Minister of BTCRD
and the Minister of Natural Resources, if you could help us out, we would
certainly appreciate it.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
Thank
you for the question. As we indicated this afternoon in earlier debate around
this very issue, Nalcor, the Energy
Corporation Act does exempt sorry, Nalcor was exempted under the
Public Procurement Act. Under the
former administration, they exempted Nalcor completely.
We are
now putting Nalcor in the legislation requiring them to follow the
Public Procurement Act, except in
three specific instances that are outlined; one being the sale of energy and
energy products. That is not unusual for it to be exempted. It's when Nalcor
Energy marketing is actually selling export power, they actually would it
can't go through the Public Procurement
Act just because of the nature of the way it's done.
Secondly, we said where the corporation or a subsidiary is
acting in a strategic partnership, joint venture, or equity investment
. I'll
just give you a couple of examples, I think I pretty much used them today, but
the offshore geoscientific surveying program that we joint venture on.
I'm sure the Member opposite is familiar with the seismic
programs that we do because of the nature of the way we do them, because of the
way that they are joint ventures, but among many different partners in that
project. It's not subject to the procurement act.
The other one would be instances when we are minority
shareholders or minority involvement. I'll use today, for example, the Hebron
Project. We have a small stake in the Hebron Project; therefore, we wouldn't
require the commercial entities that are involved in the Hebron Project to
require them to adhere to the Public
Procurement Act.
Finally, I will say as well, for the purpose of meeting the
requirements of benefits arrangements. So oftentimes, in projects we would have
a separate benefits agreement to ensure that benefits are for the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador. Those would be exempt, but everything else from
Nalcor and this is new, Mr. Chair would be in the procurement act.
We're
very pleased with that. I thought it was unfortunate they were exempt in
previous times but because of the great work from my colleague, the Minister
Responsible for Municipal Affairs as well as Service NL because of the great
work under the procurement act I think there's great benefit for the province.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Under
section 5 of where we are now I have one comment to make and a question, so I'll
just go to the question first. I'm just looking under 5(2). It says: Where the
province enters into a joint purchasing agreement, the province may,
notwithstanding this Act, acquire commodities under the agreement and the
provisions of the agreement with respect to the acquisition of commodities shall
apply to the acquisition instead of the provisions of this Act. Basically what
we're saying here is that if we're doing a joint purchasing agreement, then they
don't have to follow this particular act.
So just
for clarification I think I know the answer but I just want it clarified the
joint purchasing agreement; that would be if two provinces got together and said
it would be cheaper for us to go together as two provinces. Or maybe all the
Atlantic provinces got together and said we'd get a better deal if we bought
something as Atlantic provinces as opposed to just Newfoundland and Labrador.
That's what you're referring to in that?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Chair, yes, that's
exactly it. If it's two provinces, maybe three or four, maybe the Government of
Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador, if two provinces or the Government of
Canada and Newfoundland you're correct on that. It would mean that would take
over this act and be allowed to do it with that procurement because of the
interprovincial agreements in mind.
MR. LANE:
I thank the minister for that
(inaudible).
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
I thank the minister for that
clarification. I think I'll save my commentary on 5(1) for when we get down to
the exemptions piece as opposed to talking about it now. That's fine for now.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd just
like to answer the question to the colleague opposite when he raised questions
about the Research & Development Corporation. Previously, the Research &
Development Corporation, under the previous administration, was fully exempt
from procurement whether it was pens, pencils, furnishings. Any type of daily
operations at the Research & Development Corporation under the past legislation,
which the former administration created, was fully exempt.
Now,
under this procurement act, all of the operational costs will be subject to the
procurement act. The only thing that would be exempt the limitation would be
around the research and development activities, which is quite normal because of
the proprietary nature and what will be taking place when it comes to the
Research & Development Corporation. So this broadly includes more procurement
from this entity.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In
regard to section 5(2), it references joint purchasing agreements. They'll have
their own rules once this act is in place. Are there any current joint
purchasing agreements that would have their own rules after this act is in place
in reference to section 5(2)?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
To the best of my knowledge
no. There may be some agreements in the future. There may be some
interprovincial agreements that are coming with Ottawa and the other provinces.
Right now, to my knowledge, there are none that would be exempt from this
section 5(2).
CHAIR:
Shall clause 5 carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Against?
Carried.
On
motion, clause 5 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 6.
CHAIR:
Clause 6.
Shall
clause 6 carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Opposed?
Carried.
On
motion, clause 6 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 7.
CHAIR:
Clause 7.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I've got
a few things to say about clause 7. I'll try and do it in a couple of questions.
Just some comments first and I'll get to my questions as quickly as I can.
In
section 7, the way I read it, it's the notwithstanding clause. It defines the
Cabinet's broad discretionary power to exempt procurement from the requirements
of this act where it is deemed by Cabinet to be in the best interest of the
economic development of the province.
So that
does raise some concerns. I know during the very brief period where I was the
acting minister responsible for the Government Purchasing Agency, and was
working on legislation that is very similar to what we're debating here in the
House, this was one of the areas I know I was personally struggling with.
Mr.
Chair,
in the best interest of the economic development of the province is a
sensible provision, but it's very open ended. It's certainly admirable to aspire
to protect the best interests of the people of the province. One might argue
that an open and fair procurement process is the means of doing just that. But
in the name of protecting a best interest, the Cabinet could justify excluding
any of a wide range of procurement activities and argue that it is doing so
because the Cabinet believes it's in the best interest of the province.
So I
guess one of the first questions I have and I'll ask for the minister's
comments which hopefully will help shouldn't the Cabinet have to justify each
decision to exempt procurement on that basis? Shouldn't Cabinet have to disclose
and justify I know there is a requirement to disclose exceptions. But if
Cabinet is going to make a decision to exempt procurement on the basis of
something being in the best interests of the province, it feels like there
should be fairly rapid disclosure and specific disclosure of that to avoid doing
something that's not really consistent with the spirit and intent of the act.
I have a
couple of related questions but I'll invite the minister to comment on that.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This was
very similar to what was in before where you can say it's for economic
development. It is very similar to what's in the
Public Tender Act now.
What we
have in place now is that the onus is on government to make a stronger economic
case for it. So you just can't say it's in the best interests for some reason,
you have to make a strong economic case. Once you make the strong economic case
for it and it's very obvious then that once you make the case, you're going to
have exemption, people will know what the reasons were and the strong economic
case.
What
this does, in actual fact, when you say it's in the best interests and then
follow the trade agreements of course, you're strengthening. You're very much
strengthening this act by saying the government okay, instead of saying it's
an economic development for one area, you have to come out now and show that
it's in the best interests with a very strong economic case for that exemption.
I feel
very confident and this was an issue we discussed that you have to justify
it now. Of course there are other agreements, like CETA. When CETA comes in,
there are other agreements we have to live by under CETA also. So once we have
to live by the agreements of CETA, that also puts restrictions on you also. You
know the restrictions on CETA or I can explain them, but there are restrictions
there with CETA that limits what you can do.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
I thank the minister once
again for his answer. I guess the concern for me still remains that if you have
to make that case to justify it's for the good of the province, for economic
development purposes or whatever, that discussion is only an internal one at the
Cabinet table.
So I
guess what I'm curious about is whether there should be some kind of mechanism
to ensure that it's publicly disclosed, not just to protect taxpayers but,
frankly, to protect those involved in making such a decision. So hypothetically,
a Cabinet could cite the clause to award a contract to somebody in certain
circumstances. Perhaps it could be somebody who's got some kind of relationship
with somebody who has a connection to the Cabinet.
Hypothetically, if that were to happen that would fly in the face of the purpose
and the principle of the act, so therein lies my concern around disclosure. But
I was pleased to hear the minister speak to trade agreements because I think
that is a very important point.
Does the
Cabinet have any kind of legal or professional or independent analysis to
indicate whether this clause that we're debating would withstand the challenge
under trade agreements, such as CETA and NAFTA and other agreements? Are there
clauses like this in effect in other jurisdictions that have been tested, so to
speak, and have been proven to withstand challenges?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This
clause is for broader, bigger economic development in the province. For example,
in CETA, just one example, we would have to follow all the trade agreements in
CETA, and it's consistent across Canada also. For example, we can ask for
exemptions I think 10 times a year. It has to be under a million dollars, Mr.
Chair.
I'll
just give you an example of what that would take away, Mr. Chair. I was in the
Legislature I'm not sure who else was in the Legislature. I'm not sure if the
Member for Ferryland was here. Can you remember the fibre deal that was put
across the province? That would be exempt from this now. We wouldn't be able to
just walk in and do that now because it can't show a great economic base, an
economic reason for it.
That's
the kinds of things that would eliminate. That you could walk in and because you
had a fire, let's go out with a tender. Let's get the $17 million or $71
million, I can't remember exactly, to put a fibre across. I don't know if we've
ever used it.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. JOYCE:
Pardon me? It is
underutilized, I know. That's the reason for that. Under CETA, which we have to
follow, they only make 10 exemptions a year. It has to be under a million
dollars and we have to show the economic case for any other exemptions we have.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just to
follow up with the minister on that. He mentions in regard to the economic
activity. There's a greater threshold now or a greater test and you have to
prove that test. How is that done? Who is that test made to and how is it
elevated to a higher threshold?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
What was there before was for
economic development. Now you have to prove for a stronger economic development
case. You just can't walk in and say like the fibre optics, a prime example.
You can't walk in one day and two days later have $17 million or $70 million
worth of cable put across the province because it didn't pass the test. Is it
best for economic development?
That is
the test we're putting in there now. We're actually strengthening this here now
to ensure that if we're going to make exemptions, it has to be for the best
economic development for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
It's a
stronger test. It's for the bigger projects, Mr. Chair. It is a stronger test
we're putting in place. We're actually strengthening the former
Public Tender Act procurement to
ensure the test for economic development is there.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just to
clarify, so the test will be in regulation or regulatory framework. How will it
be
MR. KENT:
Where will the test be?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Where will it be?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
It's in the act now and it
will be brought forward in the regulations also. It is there now. The idea is to
prove that.
We have
all intentions of ensuring that it's spelled out in the regulations because I
remember the fibre optic. I was sitting over there. I remember the fibre optic
deal. I walked in one day and the next day, boom. There was no evaluation, no
test done. We're taking that out. We're taking that ability for this government
to take that out. I think the people in the province will be pleased with that.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I want
to push that a bit further with the minister. This is a clear example of
something which I think should be in the act itself. Notwithstanding section
6,
the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may exempt procurement from the requirements
of this Act where it is in the best interest of the economic development of the
province.
There is
nothing to stop this bill from stating the Lieutenant Governor in Council's
decision is something they have to be accountable to the public for. So in other
words, if the Lieutenant Governor in Council exempts procurement for economic
development, they are responsible to be accountable to the province for the fact
that they made this decision.
To me,
having a requirement for public accountability for their decisions and their
actions should be part of the act. That's not a rule. That's not a regulation.
That's a policy. So that's the kind of thing that should be in here. There is
absolutely nothing in this section 7 to require a government to be accountable
to anybody for a decision they make in secret. It's at the table of Cabinet. We
can't get documents from that meeting to even show how they made their decision.
If we're really going to hold a government, any government accountable, it has
to be in the act and this is where it should be.
So I
don't understand, Minister, how you can say what you're saying I'm sorry; it
just doesn't work. That is a policy and that should be in the act.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just for
the record, on section 7 I think pretty much what I was going to say has been
said to a great degree, but I did hear the minister say to, I think, the Member
for Ferryland about how this more stringent, this test, if you will, is in the
act now. I think that's what he said. I don't want to put words in his mouth,
but I think that's what he said.
If it's
in the act now, that's the existing procurement act. My understanding here is
that we're getting rid of the existing procurement act and we're replacing it
with this act. So whatever is in the old act has nothing to do with what's in
this act unless it's written on one of these pages unless I'm missing
something here.
So I
guess then to tie into what the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi just
said, I think it's great that there's going to be a more stringent test put in
place. I think they should have to justify why you're going to exempt yourself
from the act. I know the minister said it's for big projects, and he gave an
example of one, but there's nothing here in section 7 that says big projects. It
doesn't give any dollar amount. It doesn't say this applies to projects that are
over a certain amount. It just says that it applies to basically anything in the
best interest of economic development. So that doesn't give a dollar amount or
say what type of thing it is, it just says if it's in the interest of economic
development.
If we're
going to make an exception and I agree with the fact that we're talking about
making a strong economic case, as the minister said; that's a good thing. I'm
glad about that. But in section 7 it should answer the questions as to where
will these decisions be made, by who, how will the public be made aware of those
decisions, when will the public be made aware of those decisions.
So
there's nothing there that talks about the accountability piece and the
transparency piece to the public as to being able to provide publicly within a
timely manner to say Cabinet decided to not abide by the
Public Procurement Act for this
particular project or for this particular purchase because of economic
development and this is the justification as to why. And then it goes somehow
public or it's posted on a website or something so that people know that this
exception was made, why it was made and the amounts involved and all that kind
of stuff.
In the absence of having that written here, then as other
Members have said, we're sort of just taking it for granted that's going to
happen. I don't really see where there's anything here saying that has to
happen. That's the concern I have, the same as other Members.
CHAIR: Shall
clause 7 carry?
All those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR: Opposed?
Carried.
On motion, clause 7 carried.
CLERK: Clause 8.
CHAIR: Clause 8.
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. KENT: Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
In subsection (1) of clause 8 I'm wondering why the word
may is used instead of shall. Doesn't subsection 8(2) imply that the policy
in subsection (1) shall be put in place?
How could these bodies apply a policy if it doesn't exist?
I'm wondering if, first of all, the minister could speak to that.
CHAIR: The hon.
the Minister of Service NL.
MR. JOYCE: Mr.
Chair, in section 8(1): The Treasury Board may establish a policy for the
procurement of professional services by public bodies. What we said there is
the may part is concerning the legal and the financial obligations of
financial institutions that we find ourselves in. They're already exempt. I
think the Minister of Justice stood up today and explained the legal part.
If you go to subsection (2): Where professional services
are required by a public body, the public body shall ensure that procurement is
conducted and the professional services are acquired in accordance with the
policy referred to in subsection (1). What that is, Mr. Chair, when
professional services are required, they must go back.
If you go back and read subsection (1) I don't mean to go
back with all the bill. One second now, Mr. Speaker. When you go back to
subsection (2): Where professional services are required by a public body, the
public body shall ensure that procurement is conducted and the professional
services are acquired in accordance with the policy referred to in subsection
(1). That includes the
exemptions and the ones which aren't exempt.
The
legal and financial are exempt and that is why we set it up. They can set it up.
Sometimes they may not set it up but they may set it up. But in the professional
services side where a lot are exempt, we shall set out the regulations for it.
What we're going to include now was excluded before.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
I appreciate that
explanation. Just a quick follow-up related to that. Assuming Treasury Board
therefore chooses to establish some policies to purchase these services, I'm
just wondering what such a policy could state. It's something that the act
doesn't define so Members are being asked to vote on this without really knowing
what that might entail.
I
respect that. I understand what we're talking about is giving Treasury Board the
ability to establish policies that would govern the procurement of professional
services, but it's left to the discretion of Treasury Board.
I guess
my question is for the minister: Is there a working draft or an outline of what
kind of policy Treasury Board may establish? That's really what I'm wondering.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL
MR. JOYCE:
As we said today, the two
exemptions will be legal and financial reasons with the bank. The ones that
we're taking out of the professional services would be engineers and architects.
They were the ones that were in before. We're taking them out.
The ones
that we're keeping in are the financial and legal. The minister just explained
today why it may be for a very quick reason that we may need a decision turned
around as quickly as possible. The engineering and architects were part of the
discussion and I'm sure the Members opposite are aware of that.
What
we're saying now is we're increasing the limits for the services of engineers,
but for the major project and I have a good example. A good example is Gander.
There's a $30 million project for Gander. Should myself or anybody else have the
authority to go out and say, okay, I know you, I'm going to appoint you to that?
Because
the fees for the engineers are over $100,000, what we're saying is you have to
go to an RFP for those services. We feel very confident that it will save the
province money. That's why we're excluding it.
We're
increasing the limit and the reason why we're increasing the limit, looking at
up to $100,000 and I look at some people across, even on this side, in rural
Newfoundland and smaller communities, who have an engineer like this. Because
they do help out, they run down and do things for municipalities sometimes. If
you look at the cost, 8 and 9 per cent, it would be a very substantial project
for them to be exempt beyond that.
Most
municipalities want their local engineers. So if you keep the limit only up a
certain amount they can keep them, but once you get into a project 30 or 35.
I'll use another example: if there's any major project out here, $100 million,
$50 million, if we go to RFPs for those services I feel very confident that we
would save money for the province. That's why engineering and architects are
brought back into it and the two that I mentioned earlier are exempt.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
On
section 8 I just want to say, first of all, that I'm very glad to see that we're
taking the professional services and we're separating them from the other
services I forget the definition of what the other ones are called, but anyway
the engineers, the architects, the insurance. That's a good thing, that's a
positive thing. I'm glad we're doing it.
The way
I read section 8 here, basically we're saying that because we're talking about
the professional services only. So the professional services are the legal and
I just want to make sure I'm clear on this the financial only, according to
the definition. What we're basically saying is that Treasury Board may set a
policy.
Even
though legal and financial are exempted from the policy, unlike the engineering
and architecture and all that stuff which are included now, which is good even
though they're exempted it's saying that Treasury Board may set a policy to say
even though legal and financial are exempted, we're still going to have a policy
and a guideline for departments when they're hiring legal and when they're
hiring financial. That's how I would read that.
If
Treasury Board decides to put a policy in place, then all the departments would
follow that policy or it says they are required, they shall follow the policy.
So the only thing that's up in the air, I suppose, is why it would say Treasury
Board may write a policy as opposed to why we wouldn't just say that Treasury
Board will put a policy in place that all departments would follow as opposed
to they might do it.
They
don't have to do it, they may do it. If they do it, everyone has got to follow
it. If they don't do it, well then, there is no policy. That just seems a little
bit open-ended there. I don't know why we wouldn't just say that Finance would
just put a policy in place.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 8 carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Opposed?
Carried.
On
motion, clause 8 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 9.
CHAIR:
Clause 9.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There
are two instances of the word may in section 9. Let me explain why I'm
concerned about that. One is in subsection (1) the Chief Procurement Officer may
require coordinated or joint purchasing where that would be in the best interest
of efficiency. If something is more efficient why would the Chief Procurement
Officer not be required to choose that course?
I'm just
wondering in that first instance why is this first may not a shall. I'd
appreciate if the minister could comment on that first of all.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Chair, what that is, it's
giving the Chief Procurement Officer the flexibility to go into anybody, any
group, to walk in and say okay, hold it, there are four or five of you groups
here, you guys can get together and get a better price. What it is, it's the
flexibility for the Chief Procurement Officer to go in and do it.
The
reason why this is put in and I'll just read it, The chief procurement officer
may require that public bodies coordinate the group purchasing of commodities or
jointly purchase commodities where, in the opinion of the chief procurement
officer, it is in the best interest of efficiency to do so. What we did here is
we gave the flexibility to the Chief Procurement Officer to go in, if there are
a certain number of departments that he feels or she feels that if they
coordinate the buying power, they can get a better price for government.
I
understand the difference between may and shall. What we're saying is it's
giving the flexibility to the Chief Procurement Officer to actually do that. So
he or she can go in at any time. If he feels there are efficiencies he can do,
he can go in and investigate. Once he goes in and investigates, if he feels
and he has authority to do that. So we're giving him the authority to go in and
look at the different groups that are buying or selling to ensure that he's
getting the best value for the province.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
The second instance of may
is in subsection (2) of clause 9. It says the minister may exempt a public body
from such a requirement. If the government appoints a Chief Procurement Officer
to use their expertise to require an action, why should the minister retain the
power to overrule the CPO's decision, given that this needs to be an
independent, objective, impartial office? I just worry, that sort of makes a
mockery of the entire process and the legislation and its purpose of imposing
transparency and accountability.
Why not
require the public body to appeal to the CPO directly or require the minister to
provide an account and a rationale for any such decision to overrule the Chief
Procurement Officer and provide an exemption?
Finally,
could the minister define a scenario where this discretionary power might
actually be used and warranted?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
I understand the concern, but
you need to give every public body a chance to explain. If they feel very
confident that they're put in a situation that there may be some efficiencies
that they say is not an efficiency I'll give you a good example. On the West
Coast, if the Chief Procurement Officer says okay, you should buy five vehicles.
You buy the five vehicles and you get a better deal, but one of the departments
says hold it now, here's the type of vehicles we need. It's something specific
for what they need. They can make an application to the minister and say we want
to be exempt because our needs, our specifications are different from what the
other four departments need.
That's
just a very simplistic example but that is an example that was brought to my
attention that can happen.
I just
want to make it very clear, any exemption has to be posted online. This
exemption won't be done with a stroke of the pen and it's ended. If the minister
makes an exemption or, for example, Cabinet makes a decision on economic
development, it has to be posted within 30 days.
If for
some reason someone may say we want to have an appeal with this here, if it ever
is done, and I'm not sure it will be but it's just an option, it has to be made
public on the website, the decision made and the reasoning why.
That was
something that was brought up. There should be an appeal mechanism. Will it be
used? I'm not sure but some bodies feel they should have that appeal mechanism
just in case somewhere down the line they're put in a classification that maybe
safety or life matters, they feel they should be exempt.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 9 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 9 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 10.
CHAIR:
Clause 10.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
A bit of
commentary and perhaps a couple of questions, and it relates to subsection (1)
of clause 10, (f) and (g) refer to unwritten regulations. I don't want to make a
big deal about the typical process we follow when new legislation is brought in.
The minister has quite rightly pointed out that it's common practice for
legislation to come in at some point after a bill is adopted. But in this
particular case, there are some specific, broad concerns that we have about the
bill and the answers will only lie in the regulations.
I
suspect in some cases tonight, the minister will probably be able to give us
some insight into what he expects will be contained in the regulations that
might provide us with some comfort, but let me speak specifically to clause 10.
In (f) the regulations may require that an annual procurement plan be filed.
Just to give you an example of the kinds of questions we have: Which bodies
might be required to submit such plans? Which might be exempted? What might
these plans contain? We don't know at this point because we haven't seen the
regulations.
So I'm
just wondering if the minister has draft regulations that perhaps he could
comment on. Based on the work during my brief stint in the office, I know we
were working on draft regulations. In light of this piece of legislation I don't
know where we are with that process, where government is with that process.
I'm just
curious, let's start with the annual procurement plan. What bodies might be
required to submit the plans? What might be exempted? What would we expect to
see in these annual procurement plans?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you.
I'm
sorry for coughing a bit, but I just have a bit of a sore throat there is all.
Mr.
Chair, what this gives the Chief Procurement Officer and I'm not sure it ever
happened in the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. It gives him the
authority to go in and look at departments, the body heads, look at their
procurement plan and ask what it is.
For
example if there is a body or an agency that's going to go buy 20 cars, he may
go in and say what's your plan for this year for those vehicles. So he has the
ability and he has a lot of authority here that he can go into a body or an
agency who he knows, or he can find out what their purchasing plan is for that
year and ask them to file a report to them, to him or her, about what their
purchasing plan is for the year.
So he
has that authority to ask anybody to submit a plan to him so he can review their
plan on procurement for that coming year. Once they have the purchasing for an
RFP, they have to file that with him. Then it will be put online.
In
actual fact, when you see here the annual procurement plan is filed with the
agency when required by the regulations, we're going to set up the regulations
to have the Chief Procurement Officer with the authority to ask for a
procurement plan by any agency, any department that is under his regulations. So
this is strengthening this act a lot. Instead of just each department, each
agency saying they're off on their own, this person has the authority to ask for
a procurement plan or if there's a group, he can go in, he has that authority.
So I
feel confident that this will again bring savings to the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador, because it strengthens this act again and strengthens the position
of this person who has the authority to ask bodies how they're going to spend
their money in the coming year.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
I appreciate that explanation
and, to some extent, I agree with some of the sentiments the minister has
expressed. Because we haven't seen the regulations that will apply to public
bodies for annual reporting requirements, we don't know how much or how little
they'll be required to report. For that reason, it would be helpful to see the
draft regulations and better understand what is going to be expected.
In part
two of clause 10 there's a requirement to comply with the policy put in place by
Treasury Board in section 8. But again, we haven't seen a draft of the policy,
and section 8 implies the Treasury Board may not shall establish such a
policy.
So how
could a public body be required to comply with a policy that may not exist?
That's sort of a rhetorical question, I'd say to the minister, but it
illustrates our concern with the legislation.
I know
it might be hard for the minister to follow some of my questions with the
Minister of Education jibber-jabbering over there all night, but I appreciate
the ministers' attention and respect for the process. The disrespect the
Minister of Education continues to show is something I wish
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. KENT:
more people could see, Mr.
Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Mr. Chair, just for the
record, I just want to say I do share the concerns that the Member for Mount
Pearl North just outlined, particularly the second point he raised here around
section 8 and the fact that when you go back to section 8 it says may, not
shall. So we're basically saying that they're going to have to follow a policy
established by Treasury Board and then that policy may not even exist
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. LANE:
So that is a valid point and
I just, for the record, wanted to share that concern as well.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm just
wondering in terms of section 10 that deals with the management of procurement,
section (c) talks about the appropriate action is taken where there is failure
to comply with the framework. Is that something that the Chief Procurement
Officer would provide?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Section 10(e): appropriate
action is taken where there is a failure to comply with the framework
.
I'm just
wondering is that something the Chief Procurement Officer would oversee or would
that be left to the public bodies or would there be consistent protocol to deal
with such occurrences.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
Once again, appropriate
action is taken where there is a failure to comply with the framework. That's
the duties of the Chief Procurement Officer, so he will have the authority to
ask for the reports. If he doesn't get them, he has the authority to go seek the
reports, so that would be his duties. He's getting a lot of power. He or she is
getting a lot of power to ensure that all the public bodies are conforming with
the regulations and are living up he has the authority to go in to ask for any
report that comes in or ask for any RFP that went out. So he does have that
authority, yes.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, thank you.
Just a
quick follow-up: So he has the oversight and also he'd determine the appropriate
action and what that would be.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
Yes, he does. If he can't
seek the action, he has the authority to report it then to the Lieutenant
Governor in Council.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 10 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 10 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 11.
CHAIR:
Clause 11.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Subsection (1) in clause 11 is somewhat vague. Perhaps it's very vague. It says:
A public body shall establish clearly the requirements for fulfilling the terms
of a contract
. A couple of questions related to this that I'd like to pose to
the minister. Will there be general terms established for all or most contracts,
or will they be contract-specific? So rather than give you the list of
questions, I'll start there. Will there be general terms established for all or
most contracts or will they be contract-specific?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As we
said earlier today, I said on several occasions there will be education programs
under the RFPs. Under these contracts there will be a variety of contracts,
multiple contracts for multiple agencies, multiple departments. Municipalities
also will be under this here.
It's up
to whoever is the sponsor of the contract. It could be a municipality; it could
be a department in government. It's up to them to oversee it, but the Chief
Procurement Officer when they report to the Chief Procurement Officer they
want the information and they will post it online. If they feel there's
something wrong with the tender, with the process, the awarding or the work is
not carried properly, they have the authority to go in and to seek more answers,
more clarity.
If there
is a contract given to one entity, it's up to that entity to follow through on
the contract to ensure the requirements of the contract. But the Chief
Procurement Officer has the authority to oversee or ask for a copy of it so they
can go in, or it has to be sent to them to be posted online on the awarding.
They
have the authority to ask for it. For example, they can go in and say we're
going to do 10 or 15 this year; we're going to just go in and do an evaluation
on the contract. They do have the authority, but it's the body itself that will
have the control and to ensure the monitoring and efficiency of the contract.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
That's helpful. I just have a
couple of quick follow-up points on that particular issue.
Are
there draft requirements that might be applied broadly and generally that public
bodies would use as a guideline. I'm wondering whether different public bodies
would set different requirements from one another or will government attempt to
ensure consistency?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I
said today on several occasions, the government will try to set up a template to
help all bodies who want to use the procurement act, to use the public
procurement now for tendering RFPs. They would have a template and they would
help with any municipality who needs any education. They will have education
sessions across the province, not only the people who are going to use it, but
also for the contractors, the suppliers, for anybody who will be using this act
whatsoever in Newfoundland and Labrador.
The
Member made a good point. There will be a template to follow. To the best of the
ability, they will be asked to follow that template to ensure there's
consistency. Of course, there are times when people have to ask for exemptions.
They are times when, for example, health care won't be the same as municipal
affairs, a prime example. I say to the Member, yes, there will be a template
that hopefully we can set up to help guide anybody who wants to ensure they
partake in this.
We will
try to keep it as consistent as possible. We'll set up the template. We will
have education for the users and the buyers and the sellers and for anybody else
who wants any knowledge, who may partake in this because it's going to be a big
thing when it comes to municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador. It would be
an issue for a lot of towns that would partake in this.
So there
will be consistency, to the best of our ability, and there will be a template
for RFPs in place to help.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, when you spoke in introducing, I think it was seconding reading you
spoke about the ability to monitor specifications and whether they're met and
what implications might be if the obligations of a contract weren't met. There
could be implications for that. I think that's positive.
Is this
the section that would actually deal with that?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
No, under the current
Public Tender Act it's very, very difficult. If someone is a bad
contractor, he or she is a bad contractor it's very difficult because under the
current tendering process, you have to accept the lowest bid. Under this
procedure, I'll just use a town council for example, if a town council has a
person or a company that is not following the requirements of the RFP they put
in place, if you document the information and make the case to the Chief
Procurement Officer then they can make the exemption on behalf of the town.
So you
just can't walk in and say, no, we don't want you anymore. You have to make that
case. You have to make the exemption to the Chief Procurement Officer who then
would do an investigation. They can ask for an exemption from a company to be
able to bid on a certain thing because of past practice.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I guess
along the same lines as the Member for Ferryland. I think the minister answered
the question, but I'm just going to put this out here anyway, just to make sure.
Obviously, as has been said, this is talking about performance and so on by a
contractor. Just to use an example, I think I might have used it when we were
doing second reading or whatever on the bill.
We had a
circumstance when I was on Mount Pearl City Council where we had a contractor
who was doing the paving work and the work was, we felt, substandard. We made a
complaint and there's no doubt that it was proven to be substandard and then
even though the work was substandard and we had problems with that particular
contractor on a couple of occasions, we were still forced when it came next
year to do bids, we wanted to say let's disqualify this particular contractor
because he does bad work and we're going to exempt him from bidding anymore
because he's not worth the headache, but we weren't permitted to do it. He was
still able to bid, he got the low bid and we had to take him again.
So does
that get dealt with under this piece?
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Minister of Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
It's not under this section,
but under the act there is a provision in the act that if you justify the case
to the Chief Procurement Officer, they can excuse people from putting in RFPs or
tenders. In the past, you couldn't do it. Your lowest bid, you had to accept it.
Right now, under this act if you can prove the case and this is why
documentation is very important and the education process is very important if
you can show the case where a successful bidder is not carrying out their duties
as prescribed in the tender document, you can make application to the Chief
Procurement Officer and they can give you an exemption of not including that
person.
I
understand the case that the Member is talking about because there are many
cases across the province where a lot of council's hands are tied but, in this
case, here they are not and they can get the best value and don't have to accept
the lowest price.
CHAIR (Dempster):
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
CHAIR:
There was a delay when there
was nobody on the floor and the Speaker has called it, so we're going to move to
the next and the Member will have another opportunity.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I
appreciate your co-operation. I appreciate the minister's co-operation as well.
So just
a couple of questions on this clause and then hopefully we can move on. I'm
wondering what monitor the performance of the contractor means for a public
body. Isn't that the role of the Chief Procurement Officer under subsection
16(1)(f)(i)?
I'm just
wondering will that create a duplication of work. Will the CPO have the
authority to direct the public body in terms of the scope and quality of its
monitoring activity? If the minister could comment on monitor the performance
of the contractor I would appreciate that.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.
MR. JOYCE:
I'm presuming section 11(1)?
MR. KENT:
Yes.
MR. JOYCE:
What that is and this is
what we were speaking about earlier it's the responsibility for releasing the
government funds or the tender or the RFP in process. The Chief Procurement
Officer is saying you must keep all records for example, cost that was used
if there are any issues with it, the type of work, the scope of work to ensure
the work is the standard that the RFP or the tender was put out.
The
reason why is that the Chief Procurement Officer has the ability to come back
and look at any tender, any RFP, anything to do with government funding,
government bodies. So they do have that authority. Under this act what they're
saying to the bodies here is that if you're accepting government money, you have
to keep the records properly so that we can come in and we can monitor it and
make sure that it was spent properly. One part of it is to ensure proper
bookkeeping, make sure all the regulations so they can come in. They do have the
ability to come in and audit any tender, any process they want. They do have
that ability.
The
other note that I mentioned a couple of times, Madam Chair, the other note I
made is that once a tender is awarded, it has to be sent to the Chief
Procurement Officer and it has to be put online. So that's the part, it has to
be put out and it will be put online. What the Chief Procurement Officer if
you're going to take these funds, if you're going to use these funds, you have
to ensure that you monitor the work to ensure that it's done up to the standards
and the money is spent properly and is the best value for the money.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just
want to raise a quick concern about subsection (2) of clause 11 and then that
will conclude my comments on clause 11. There's a requirement to abide by
regulations that we haven't seen. I know it's customary that regulations come
after the fact, but we think some of these issues are significant enough that we
need to raise it.
I don't
know if the minister wishes to comment. I understand if doesn't. I don't know if
the minister wishes to comment on what the regulations may say about the manner
in which complete records for all phases of the procurement process shall be
maintained. I suspect there are draft regulations but I'm just wondering if the
minister has a view on what he thinks that might look like.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
There is
a process. I can envision the process because, of course, I have seen it out my
way. I mentioned it a couple of times today, a few RPFs.
Before
you even put an RFP in you have to have the criteria that you're looking for to
ensure that you have the matrix system, to ensure that when you evaluate the
RFPs that come back in, it's consistent and there's a way that the performances
and the bids that came in are evaluated in a very fair manner. That's just the
first part.
The
second part is once it's awarded, then also you have to ensure the work is done
in the manner as prescribed. I know both have been the Minister of Municipal
Affairs. There's a prescription of how the funds have to be spent. There's a
prescription there of the time that the funds have to be spent. If there is any
change you have to write back and ask for permission if you want to relocate
some of the funds.
What
they're saying in this act is that once the bid is in, once it's evaluated and
the matrix system once it's awarded, that's the first part. The second part
then is to ensure the money is spent in the way that was prescribed in the RFP.
That's the second part. The third part, then, is once that's completed you have
to take it and supply the Chief Procurement Officer with all the information or
ensure that he can come back and do an audit at any time.
Those
are the regulations that I can envision. Those will be the regulations that I'll
be ensuring is a part of it. It's one part of the process to make sure the RFP
is sent out properly; the second part is to ensure that it's evaluated properly.
The third part is that the work gets carried out so that to anybody, it's open
and transparent to ensure we're getting the best value for the money.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just to
the minister, if I could, just in regard to post-award requirements and other
requirements on municipalities, especially smaller municipalities. I know you
talked before about education and smaller municipalities, and things they'll
have to do in terms of requirements to follow contracts.
Is there
any special attention to the Chief Procurement office to provide extra
assistance for those smaller municipalities? There are challenges in terms of
their capacity and administration?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
That is
an issue, of course, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador with the smaller
municipalities, I agree with the Member. That is why I say to the Member most
municipalities that put in for water and sewer have a consultant. Usually the
consultant will help out with the RFPs.
With the
education program that's going to be put out by the Chief Procurement Officer
and his office there will be an education program. There will be assistance
also by the Chief Procurement Officer to help.
But as I
mentioned just a few minutes ago, mostly all small towns have consultants. They
are the ones who will help out, even now, for putting in their five-year plan.
That is why we are proposing to raise the limits for the consultants, the
engineering firms, up to a level so that a lot of smaller towns won't lose their
consultants in the area. That is why we raised the limits, to ensure that
somebody can't walk in and just take right over.
We
raised the limits to ensure they can keep their local consultants with the
tenders up to we're looking at up to $100,000 for engineering services. That's
not the project, that's engineering services, which would be an $800,000 or
$900,000 project, maybe a $1 million project, it's all according.
So that
would take care of that. Just then when we had Matthew I know an engineering
firm went down in the Member's district. They stayed there for a week down in
the Bay d'Espoir area. The local consultants stayed for a week down there.
If you
don't raise the limit up, I can see that local touch leaving the area. That
would happen to a lot of smaller towns whereby they wouldn't have the ability,
but when you raise the limit to that level, that will alleviate that problem
there.
A lot of
smaller municipalities are pleased with that. That was one of the things they
wanted, to ensure that the limit is raised so they don't lose that personal
touch. A great question, but that is in the act that will be in the
regulations to ensure that's taken care of.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I was
actually going to ask that same question that was just asked. I thank the
minister for the answer.
I guess
tying in to that though and it goes back to a section we already talked about.
I know we can't really go back in time, but it is all, I suppose, related to
this and related to small towns.
I'm
assuming in the same token, we talked about an earlier section there that talked
about the fact that the procurement officer could go to different public bodies
and say you purchase things he can say you purchase things together to get a
better deal. I would assume in that same vein for small towns, even for these
issues, that he could possibly go and say, you know what, rather than everybody
having a bunch of consultants, put it all together and do all your projects
together and save money, make it more efficient and it would make the paperwork
easier. I would assume the procurement officer would be working towards
improving those things for small towns as well.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.
MR. JOYCE:
I agree that he will be
working with small towns to help with group buying if it comes to any public
funds. The idea of raising the limit for the engineering services is to ensure
the smaller towns do have that flexibility to hire sometimes, in many cases,
local companies who may be in certain parts of the province where there are not
a lot of engineering services.
That is
the idea of that, is to put it in the regulations so the small towns can have
their local engineers close by without having to worry. If every cent for
engineering has to go to RFPs, then they're not sure who they're going to get.
It may change every time they get any public funds, like any capital works it
may change. So the reason why we're going to put that regulation in is to
safeguard for a lot of smaller towns in the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador to ensure these engineers are helping out the small towns and to ensure
the small towns feel comfortable with their engineers.
Plus,
Madam Chair, when you look at the larger projects like I said earlier again,
they're over $30 million that's where you'll save the money if they go out for
an RFP on those services. The smaller one, there are always times when you have
to make a compromise. This is one compromise we will be making and the request
came from Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador. They understand that, so
we're going to follow through with that to help out and to ensure that
municipalities will be taken care of by their local consultants now.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
All those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, clause 11 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 12.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 12 carry?
The hon.
Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
This is
the debriefing and complaint clause. I think it's a concept that's progressive.
Is the intent to smooth out the ruffled feathers of failed bidders and avoid
lawsuits? I suspect it is. I wonder who in the public bodies would participate
in these meetings with failed bidders. It could be a time-consuming process.
I guess
my first question of the minister is: Does government anticipate requiring
additional personnel to handle such meetings? Did government consider having a
central body conduct these meetings to avoid a duplication of effort?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you.
The
lawsuit part never came into when we were discussing this, actually the
lawsuit wasn't the issue we had because anybody has a right to put in a lawsuit
if they feel they've been wronged.
What
this is, it is to have an open process. For example, most contractors in
Newfoundland and Labrador are going to bid on more than one contract. They are
going to bid on multiple contracts around Newfoundland and Labrador. The idea of
this part, if someone says, well, I thought I should have had a better shot.
They can go into the body and they can ask. They have to be debriefed on where
they missed out on this project. The reason why that's a good policy is they can
prepare for the next RFP they're going to have.
The
lawsuit part, I never thought about it because if someone lost it, they are not
going to be too concerned why they lost it. If they think they were wronged they
can take it to court at any time.
The idea
of this is the education process. When I mentioned earlier, Madam Chair, about
the education process is that we would go out and educate the buyers. We would
go out and educate people who are going to be using it. We'd educate all the
public on this, and educate departments also on this here.
Right
now, if you lose a tender, you lose a tender. If you looked it up and the tender
is gone, okay, you're the lowest bidder, see you later, have a nice day. But
under this here, this is part of the education process where someone can come in
and say, okay, where did I go wrong on this? Where did I fall down on this? How
is this evaluated, so they could know for the next project?
That's
the intent of this section of the act, Madam Chair. It is to give people the
opportunity to educate themselves, find out where they can improve themselves
and become better knowledgeable of the procurement act and the RFP process.
So this
is more of an educational tool. This is a way that people can come in and say,
yeah, at least we have an open bid. At least they'll know it was an open bid and
they can be debriefed by the public body itself. It's going to be in the
legislation, Madam Chair, that they can request it and they have to be debriefed
on a RFP or a tender they lost.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I
appreciate that explanation. Just a follow-up question or comment related to the
complaints process. Because the regulations aren't yet available, I'm just
wondering, in terms of the complaint process that's envisioned, are there any
best practices that government has learned from? Are there any analysis
documents that perhaps the minister could share that show how this might work to
avoid landing the government in court or before a tribunal?
I'm just
wondering; what does the government expect to happen following a complaint?
Would there be an independent investigation? Will the complaint process cover
those instances where the government has exempted procurement from the act, for
example, if that means taking away a contract from someone who has it in order
to give it to someone else.
What if
there's a complaint that the bid should have been tendered differently, split
into component parts for example. Will the complaint process cover such
scenarios? That's a lot, but I think the minister has a sense of what I'm trying
to get at. What's this process really going to look like in terms of complaints
and how do we avoid some of those pitfalls that I've mentioned?
CHAIR:
The hon. Minister of
Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Once
again, we did learn. We did go across a jurisdictional scan across Canada to
look at it. What we learned, and the information that we gathered from all
across Canada, is the more information you can put in your RFP, the better
chance you have of having a successful bid without a lawsuit at the end. That's
what we learned mainly.
What we
will do and I'll say to the Member and this is why it's going to take a while
in 2017 we're going to have the education process. We're going to have the
education process on how to administer it, what should be in the RFP, how to
evaluate it, the matrix system involved and then also the complaint system.
There's
one thing about the complaint system, anybody has the right to take it to court
later if they feel. If they come in and follow the act and if the Chief
Procurement Officer, for any reason, feels there's wrong doing, he has the
authority to step in. The Chief Procurement Officer will have the authority to
step in if he feels there is wrong doing in that. He or she will have a lot of
authority in this act.
On the
hypothetical, what if he loses a contract? I really can't stand here and say.
It's all according to what degree of the oversight or the mistake was on it,
Madam Chair. The other thing I will say is that every RFP will be put online. So
if they're put online, Madam Chair, everybody can see them. If anybody wants to
come in, they can. If someone really feels they've been wronged or they really
felt the system was stacked against them and it was not an honest mistake, that
it was malicious, they do have the right to take it to court, and the Chief
Procurement Officer does have the right to evaluate any RFP that's lodged with
him once it is done, they have to pass it on to the Chief Procurement Officer
and he has the ability to audit any RFP in the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador that's given out.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Actually, it was a reflex; I
don't have any further questions on this clause.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 12 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 13.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 13 carry?
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
(Inaudible) just working hard
to keep up with you, Madam Chair. So I appreciate the opportunity to speak to
clause 13.
A quick
comment on this one: This feels a little general and perhaps a bit vague. The
term performance will presumably be defined by public bodies under clause 11(1)
and by the CPO under clause 16(1)(f). But the point I wanted to raise with the
minister, it's important for suppliers to know how their performance will be
judged in order to ensure that it's fair.
So what
happens if they fail to perform? What happens if a supplier fails to perform?
Will they be told early enough that they can adapt, and what happens if they
believe they've been judged unfairly?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Once
again, this is part of the education process. If you look under section 17(1),
The chief procurement officer shall review the practices of public bodies for
acquiring commodities and make recommendations where the chief procurement
officer considers it appropriate.
So if he
feels that there's a supplier, he can step in to a public body and explain it to
the public body or to the supplier. And the other thing that is very important
and I know I'm repeating myself, but it's very important. There will be an
education process for the suppliers also.
If the
suppliers need to go to the Chief Procurement office to say what are my duties
and what are my responsibilities, they can go and seek advice, assistance. That
is part of the process. That's where the public awareness comes in. It's going
to be a process. Absolutely, it's going to take a while. That's why, Madam
Chair, we said this won't be complete until 2017, and that's why, because we
need the education process put in place.
If a
supplier at any time feels that he has questions, they're open to help. If a
supplier, unknowingly, don't follow the regulations, he can go in and sit down
and if it's an unwilling act and it was just an honest mistake, I'm sure that he
won't be suspended.
I have
to say, you just can't walk in because under the act, you have to have
documentation that this person had bad products, this person gave bad service
and this person has to be documented. They just can't walk in a say, I don't
like your supplies. So it has to be documented. Then it has to be brought to the
Chief Procurement Officer, his office or her office, to say this person and
here's the reason why. It has to be the documentation.
If it's
caught early enough I'm very, very sure, just human nature, would want to lend
out any information or any education to help because most suppliers in
Newfoundland and Labrador, I find that I've been dealing with over my number of
years in government, want to ensure what their rights are so when they make a
bid, when they come in and they want to supply a service, they know what the
rules and regulations are. I'm pretty confident they'll be sitting in on a lot
of these sessions to ensure what rights and regulations they would have to
follow also.
I said
earlier, Madam Chair, the education process for suppliers are going to be very
intense also. It's going to be public so anybody who feels they'll be doing any
work with government will avail of this.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just
noticed something here now that I hadn't noticed originally, but under section
13 we're talking about supplier performance. I know we technically can't go back
but if we were to go back to 12, it would say supplier debriefing and complaints
and all that stuff, but it saying supplier. That's the point I want to make.
If you
go to the definitions in the bill, the definition of supplier, 'supplier'
means an individual, partnership, corporation, joint venture or other form of
business organization engaged in the lawful supply of commodities. That's a
supplier.
Prior to that, we talked about we talked about services:
services' means (i) all services incidental to the supply of goods including
the provision of transportation of all kinds, (ii) printing and reproduction
services, (iii) accounting, land surveying and voice telephone services, (iv)
engineering services, (v) architectural services, (vi) banking services not
captured by subparagraph (p)(ii), (vii) insurance services
.
So I'm assuming, Minister, maybe it was an oversight, maybe
not, but when we're taking
about supplier performance and supplier complaints and all that, I'm guessing
that intent is that it is supplier and service provider complaints and supplier
and service provider performance. But it doesn't say it; it just says supplier
and you're leaving out the service providers. Even though that might be the
intent, I think that might be an oversight, perhaps.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
A
supplier could be a supplier of goods or services. A supplier in the definition
is a supplier in good or services. You may be a supplier in some goods that you
may sell, or you may be a supplier in some services that you're providing. In
both cases, a supplier must live up to their obligations and also if a supplier
in any one of those incidents feel like they've been wronged, they have a right
to make a complaint to the Chief Procurement Officer and then that would be
looked into.
The
supplier is goods or services that are being provided.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Madam Chair, I thank the
minister for that but again just to go to the definition, the definition doesn't
say that. Supplier, in the definitions in this act, is talking about the
provider of commodities, and services are separate. So to make it accurate,
either the definition should be changed for supplier to say that supplier means
commodities or provision of services in the definition. Or if you're not going
to change the definition, then in those sections, you should say supplier and
service provider.
I know
that's the intent that the minister is saying and I'm sure that is the intent
and I agree, but that's not the way it is written in the legislation.
Again
for the record, I want to point out that the legislation is not reflecting that
the way it's written.
CHAIR:
All those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 13 carried.
CHAIR:
Now we're moving on to Part
II of the act and I'm going to call 14 to 21 inclusive, but you'll be able to
ask your questions on anything from 14 to 21 inclusive.
CLERK:
Clauses 14 to 21 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 14 to 21
inclusive carry?
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'll do
them in order and I don't have questions on all of them, but I do have questions
on most of them.
Clause
14, this is the Government Purchasing Agency transforming into the new
procurement body. I guess I'm wondering what changes are anticipated to the
Government Purchasing Agency.
From my
own recollection, having worked with the agency for two or three months, I
suspect there will be some impact because the act will change how procurement is
done in government.
How will
employees be impacted? The minister has commented tonight on the need for
managing change and educating in 2017, but in terms of the employees
specifically, what will the impact be? Have they been engaged in preparing for
the change? Are people being trained for new duties or do we envision new
personnel coming in? Will the government maximize continuity and minimize
disruption for as seamless a transition as possible. Also, I'm just wondering
how quickly that transition could occur in 2017.
Yeah,
that's really the extent of it. My concern is for the employees that are going
to be impacted and what the plan will be to manage that in 2017.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Madam Chair, once
again.
As you
know, now it's under the government procurement officer and the government
procurement agency. There will be changes, absolutely. I envision more staff in
the office when you look at the duties that are going to be put in place, when
you look at the oversight that's going to be put in place.
As you
know, we're in constant contact with the people in the office now who helped out
a lot with this. We envision that there will be more staff because it is a big
process. We're looking in the long run that this will be a savings to the
government and savings to municipalities.
Can I
say how many more it's going to be? We're going to leave that up to the Chief
Procurement Officer and the staff that he would need. We have some idea but I
envision there will be more people in that agency. I think there are about three
or four now. They're doing tremendous work. I can envision having more, like you
say, for the education to evaluate RFPs, for assistance. I can see more staff
there.
I can't
put a number on it, but I can assure you there will be an increase in staff
because there will be an increase in responsibility, increase in duties. There
will be much more assistance to all the public bodies and all the town councils
and agencies that would use this.
I look
forward to it. I know the staff over there are very excited. I know the staff
have been working very diligently to get this through. I feel confident they're
going to do a great job. I can see an increase in staff in the office itself.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I take
some comfort in the minister's comments. There have been people at the
Government Purchasing Agency that have been working on this for years. They
appreciate, more than most, how complicated this is, how procurement practices
are evolving and why it's taken us so long to get to this point. So I appreciate
his acknowledgement of the effort of the staff. I want to join him in
acknowledging the staff of the Government Purchasing Agency who have contributed
to this effort for the last number of years.
I won't
say too much about 15. It relates to the Independent Appointments Commission and
how the Chief Procurement Officer will be selected. It will go through that IAC
process that we talked about earlier today, a list will be generated and then
Cabinet will make a decision. Members in this House know my views on that
process so I won't prolong debate by commenting further on that at this point in
time.
I will
go to clause 16. Under (1)(c) and (h) the Chief Procurement Officer will develop
policies and procedures. The same comment I've been making throughout the
debate, we don't really know what that will look like so if the minister can
shed any light, great. If he can't at this point, I respect that as well.
More
specifically, under (2) of clause 16 it reads: The chief procurement officer
shall, in the development of the general policies respecting the procurement of
commodities, apply those social, economic and environmental priorities that the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council may direct.
So,
again, the Cabinet may develop priorities that may be social, economic and
environmental in scope. That's very open ended so I don't know if that's much
different than what we talked about earlier with similar language in another
clause. I'm just curious about what it might mean. Cabinet will have the
authority to create built-in biases that will determine how best value is
judged. I don't mean bias in a really negative sense, it's just that there will
be subjective decisions made on how best value will be judged and these could
change at Cabinet's discretion.
Will the
public and bidders know fully and clearly what Cabinet's direction is when it
comes to these priorities? How quickly could they change? Could they change
mid-process or after the fact? So we are concerned about Cabinet's discretion
here. Will bidders feel they're playing on a level playing field with consistent
rules? So that's some commentary.
I have a
question that's similar to one I asked earlier around trade agreements. Is there
any analysis to indicate whether this provision we're talking about here could
withstand a challenge under trade agreements and in the courts? Any chance that
the minister could tell us more about those priorities that are referenced in
this section? Should Cabinet be obligated to define any priorities or changes in
priorities publicly and thoroughly so that all bidders know the lay of the land
before they spend money on their bids?
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As we
stated here earlier and we will state again, government will follow all trade
agreements. That was a bit of a discussion earlier about the lenses that this
act is going to be put through. As we said earlier, it is going to be put
through the Women's Policy and it is going to be put through disability. It's
going to be put through all different lenses to help out the people in
Newfoundland and Labrador in all walks of life.
When you
hear the social, economic and environmental priorities that the Lieutenant
Governor in Council may direct, we're directing all to be put through every lens
in the department in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is a
primary example of what we're going to be and we already directed all the
agencies that any bill that comes through, any act comes through, any
regulations we're going to set up has to go through all those lenses, Madam
Chair.
Just on
another note when you mentioned section 6, that is why we have a Chief
Procurement Officer set up as we said earlier, he is going to set up the
general policies. This is part of the education process that when he sets it up,
he'll establish them and then the education process will go out.
All the
existing agreements that we had, we will live by them. We will work within the
existing agreements. Most of the exemptions that I mentioned here today that we
are looking at raising are all within the Atlantic Procurement Agreement. We
looked across Atlantic Canada and we looked at the ceilings and we followed
most. We are looking at all the provinces and we also looked mainly at Atlantic
Canada for some of the ceilings that they have put in place.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you.
I
appreciate the minister's comments. The House will be pleased to know that I
don't have anything to say about clause 17, and I only have a quick comment on
clause 18. I just want to reiterate our concern around the may versus shall
in terms of the Treasury Board setting policies. We question why that's may.
But the minister did address that to some extent earlier, so I don't really want
to pursue that point any further at this point.
I'll
move to clause 19. Should the Chief Procurement Officer's reports to the
minister be published virtually immediately as a matter of course and I
recognize that immediately is probably not the right choice of words because it
will take a reasonable amount of time for that to get uploaded and posted online
or whatever the case may be. But I guess the point is, shouldn't those reports
to the minister be published really quickly and shouldn't they be public
documents?
Would
they be accessible under ATIPP? If so, shouldn't there be a requirement in this
act for proactive disclosure of those reports? If the Chief Procurement Officer
finds an issue that ought to be brought to the minister's attention, shouldn't
it also be brought to the public's attention?
Why not
add a requirement that all such reports should be published virtually
immediately, like within a short time frame? But proactive disclosure of these
reports at the very least, it seems like it would make sense given the
significance. I'm sure that's been considered and I'd welcome the minister's
thoughts on that.
CHAIR:
The Minister of Municipal
Affairs.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
They
will be published online as soon as possible. That is the commitment we made.
Here's
the other thing, Madam Chair, that has been brought up here today, we're going
to set up a database for any business in Newfoundland and Labrador who wants to
look at what's available in Newfoundland and Labrador to bid on. We're going to
have one central database so they can come instead of waiting to look in the
newspaper to see what public tendering is out.
We're
setting up a system where we're going to put all potential RFPs for tenders
online so any company in Newfoundland and Labrador can come in and look and see
what's available, to ensure that everybody in the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador who wants to look and see what's available can be available so they
can bid. Not if you have to look at your newspaper I remember years ago we
used to look in the newspaper to see what tenders are coming up. Now, our
process, that's one part of it that's not available now that we're going to set
up. This is a part of this.
The
other thing is that all tenders that were awarded will be put online as quick as
possible. We're working with OCIO now, Madam Chair, and we're working with the
Privacy Commissioner. That's another one we were working with, the Privacy
Commissioner, to ensure that what we're allowed to put online we will put online
as quick as possible.
But the
big part and I've had all the businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador and have
it in Hansard is that we will be
setting up a system whereby they come in here. We're pro-business. We want
people to have every person in Newfoundland and Labrador the opportunity to
see what's available, that they can bid on anywhere in Newfoundland and Labrador
so no one can say I never saw that or I wasn't sure about that. We're going to
make it user-friendly for the businesses of Newfoundland and Labrador.
In
actual fact, when I met with some of the businesses they were very pleased with
that. They were very pleased that every contractor in Newfoundland and Labrador
can go and punch in one little thing, they can be on it and they can look at
everything that's being offered. That's going to increase competitiveness. It's
going to download and hopefully save the province money because everybody in the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador will have the same opportunity.
So to
end your answer very, very quickly; yes, it will be put online as soon as
possible. That will be in the regulations. That will be part of the process we
set up.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
On to
clause 20; in a similar fashion, I'd say to the minister, should there be an
immediate public disclosure of the decisions that are made under section 20? The
exceptions we're talking about here would be made in the interest of efficiency.
So shouldn't there be an obligation for public bodies to minimize the number of
instances where compliance with the purposes of the act is inefficient?
Could a
public body drag its heels in an attempt to trigger an exemption on the basis of
efficiency? Shouldn't a public body be held to account publicly if its own
inefficiency has created the need for an exception? If the minister has any
thoughts on that, I'd certainly welcome them.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Services Municipal Affairs.
MR. JOYCE:
I know it's late.
CHAIR:
Sorry, Minister, it's getting
late.
MR. JOYCE:
I know it's late, but there
are only a few of us young ones who can keep going.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
Myself and the Member for
Mount Pearl North are the only two ones here.
What it
does here is give flexibility to the Chief Procurement Officer if some emergency
arises. That's no different now with the exemption in the
Public Tender Act if there is an
emergency. It gives a bit of flexibility.
But
there's one thing happening now and it happened here before I say to the Member.
Every time the Legislature is open we get a list drop down as the exemptions.
What's going to happen now is these exemptions are going to be posted online as
soon as possible.
So we
won't be waiting for the House of Assembly to open. The people in the House of
Assembly will get these here and any exemptions will be put online. Then, as
soon as possible, as soon as the exemptions are done, I think within 30 days,
they will be put online. So they are going to be put online.
The
reason for the exemption and what exemption was given will be posted online for
everybody in Newfoundland. Because we know, we get them here in the House when
the House of Assembly is open. If the House of Assembly is not open, we have to
wait until the House opens. Under our regulations that we're going to put in,
they will be posted online as soon as possible, after the exemption, the reason
why and who got the exemption.
CHAIR:
The hon. Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The
30-day time frame, I think, is a reasonable goal. Some could argue it could be
14 days, but I think it's important to acknowledge that 30 days is far better
than quarterly. It's three times better, I think.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Is it? Is that good math?
Okay, thanks, because it's 11:36 p.m. I barely know where I am let alone whether
the math is accurate at this point. I'll give Ross a call when we get out of
here.
AN HON. MEMBER:
He's probably up watching
anyway.
MR. KENT:
He probably is up watching,
yes. So if you are Ross: Hello. It would be interesting to know if anybody is
actually watching.
A quick
comment on section 21 I know we're doing clauses 14 to 21, Madam Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. KENT:
This will be my last question
related to that group of clauses. Minister, I'm going to ask you about
subsections (1) and (4). Under subsection (1) does the minister know of anybody
that this section might be applied to? Under subsection (4) shouldn't this
information be disclosed fairly quickly to the public?
Subsection (1): Does the minister know of anybody that this section might be
applied to? Under subsection (4): We feel this information should be disclosed
relatively quickly, if not immediately. I'm just curious if the minister wishes
to comment on either of those items.
Thanks.
CHAIR:
The Minister of Municipal
Affairs.
MR. JOYCE:
I can tell you one thing: I'm
not saying good night to Ross Wiseman. You can be rest assured of that.
Once
again:
is satisfied that it is in the interest of efficiency to do so, the
agency shall acquire, by purchase or otherwise, all commodities that are
required by a public body that is not a department of the government and to
which public body the Lieutenant-Governor in Council directs that this section
shall apply. We put that in there just in case there is some emergency that
arises or something pops up within it.
It
wasn't put in for any specific reason that this would happen or I have any
knowledge that it would happen, just let the minister know. Then, this is the
other thing: when there's an exemption made, they have it done within 30 days.
It may be done sooner but within 30 days.
CHAIR:
All those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, clause 21 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 22 through 29
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 22 to 29
inclusive carry?
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The
first one I have is section 27, just a question. It says: The minister may set
fees and establish forms for the purpose and administration of this Act and the
regulations. I was going to say I'm wondering if the minister could tell me
what the fees are for. Maybe when he gets an opportunity he can explain section
27 and exactly what those fees are for because it doesn't specify here.
The
other sections are 28 and 29. These are really two big sections that I have an
awful lot of concern about and I think most Members would have concern about.
I'm not going to get into any big, long debate on it. We can see they're listed
here from section 28, (a) to (q), and that covers off the Lieutenant Governor in
Council. Basically, that means the Cabinet.
It's
saying basically that the Cabinet may make regulations and then it lists
regulations from (a) to (q). All of these regulations that are listed here are
really the heart and soul of what this legislation is all about. The problem we
have and the problem I have is that you are being asked to vote in favour of a
piece of legislation when so many sections and critical elements to the
legislation are all going to be contained in the regulations.
Therefore there are all kinds of things now, regulations that are going to be
made that are going to cover things such as I'm not going to read them all but
it talks about supplier performance, it talks about the manner in which bids are
to be evaluated. So, again, I think the minister has indicated that it's going
to be some kind of a point system. Now I'm not sure exactly how that point
system is going to work. Will the price be a big portion of it? What portion of
it would be related to price? Is there anything in that section that talk about
local suppliers?
There
are a lot of companies, I would suggest, that would think that, as opposed to
just low bid when we talk about best value, there should be some consideration
for local suppliers. We know when we talk best value, which we've talked about
in general terms, if a local company receives the work, yes, they maybe a little
bit more expensive, but in terms of the overall value, you're employing
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
So
you're creating jobs. You're putting that money back into the economy through
taxes and so on. The more people that are working and paying taxes, then more
businesses open and more people go to work and so on. There's obviously a value
when Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and Newfoundland and Labrador companies
receive the work as opposed to Mainland outfits where basically all the money is
going out of the province. We're not getting any benefit, or we're getting
limited benefit, from those contracts than we would if it was done locally.
Certainly, over the years I've talked to a number of even my days on council
local companies who felt there should be something in the regulations, if you
will, or in the act that would give some sort of advantage to a local company as
opposed to and we all know there would have to be limitations because if not,
if we said it was just local got it every time, then they could bid double the
price of everybody else and say, well, you have to give it to me. That's not a
good value either, but maybe some sort of a variance to say if a local company
is within 10 per cent of the out-of-province bids, well then the local company
should have some preference to get to work or to sell the products and so on.
That's something that, when we talk about the manner in which this is done under
the regulations, it doesn't give any details as to what that matrix might look
like.
So,
again, not to belabour the point, we've talked about it before, section 28 gives
the Cabinet the total discretion to put in all of these regulations which are
going to cover a lot of the important parts of the legislation.
Section
29 speaks to the actual Procurement Advisory Council, their terms of reference,
the composition and the duties of the Procurement Advisory Council. That's left
up to the minister in the regulations to determine what that is.
I don't
understand, to some degree, in the act itself it outlines all the duties,
responsibilities and stuff for the Chief Procurement Officer, but when it comes
to the actual committee it says it will be under the regulations. So I don't
know why one would be under the act and the other would be under the
regulations. You'd think they would both be under the act. I can't understand
why that would be.
Obviously, without belabouring the point, these are the concerns that I have
under 28 and 29, the fact that there are so many unanswered questions and really
we're being asked to vote on something that is left wide open.
For the
record, I understand that anytime we vote for a bill in the House, we're not
voting on the regulations. I know we're not voting on the regulations. That's
common practice. We know that. I acknowledge that. I'm not saying that all the
regulations should be here. I guess the concern I have is there are things that
are being left to the regulations that could be, and should be, included in the
act.
If a
number of these things that are in these regulations are put into the act and we
have the main points and the most important points, the salient points in the
act, then we could vote for it and say okay, well, we understand there are going
to be some fine details to be worked out in the regulations. We're okay with
that, but that's not the case. Everything is left to the regulations and we
don't know, in a sense, what we're voting for.
That's
the concern I have with 28 and 29.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you.
Some of
the concerns the Member has expressed around clauses 28 and 29 I would share, so
I'll try not to repeat them.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. KENT:
This microphone is live and
it can hear you.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
It's efficiency.
MR. KENT:
A quick comment on 22, I
don't have a question. The information there is going to be defined in
regulations. We have some concerns because we ought to be told what information
will be disclosed.
On
clause 23, I'd ask the minister: What current agreements and what pending
agreements might this apply to? I was wondering if he could describe any impacts
in terms of this bill. If there is any government analysis that's been done on
this part, any examples, ways this clause or provision could be used as it
relates to the Intergovernmental Affairs
Act, I'd be interested. So, again, what current agreements and what pending
agreements might this apply to in relation to the
Intergovernmental Affairs Act?
CHAIR:
The Minister of Municipal
Affairs.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you.
The
Intergovernmental Affairs Act is with
other entities and bodies in other provinces, so the minister may enter into
agreements respecting procurement of commodities. As we said earlier, this would
include the other provinces that may partake in it. That was asked earlier.
These are just some agreements that may be in place or we may put in place.
CHAIR (Warr):
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Clause
24; this section says the government is bound, but the scope of authority of the
Public Procurement Agency and the Chief Procurement Officer is somewhat limited
in places and it may be limited further by regulations. Cabinet does have broad
discretionary powers that the Chief Procurement Officer can't overrule. If you
look at sections 7, 9 or 16 in particular in Clause 24, that issue becomes
apparent. I guess this section makes it appear that government is more tightly
bound than it actually is.
That's
really all I have to say on that. I'll comment on clause 25 as well. The
minister will appoint the members of the PAC other than the Chief Procurement
Officer which Cabinet may appoint. So we have some concern about the objectivity
and the independence of that group. Ideally, that council would be a council of
independent people with proven expertise. Perhaps it could even have
representatives of certain independent bodies and professional associations,
business and trade groups for instance.
Under
subsection (4) in clause 25, most things about the Procurement Advisory Council
will be defined by regulations again. For that reason, we raise those issues. I
don't have a particular question but I did want to make those observations.
Clause
26; it's not uncommon to have a no-liability clause, but what if one of these
individuals behaves unethically while claiming to be acting in good faith. There
is a reference to a duty imposed by regulations that we've not seen in draft
form. That's my comment on the no-liability clause. I don't know if that's
something the minister wishes to speak to.
In
clause 27 we have a reference to things not yet seen; fees, forms, regulations.
I think the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands addressed that in his remarks so
I won't belabour that point.
Before I
go on to 28 and 29, if there's anything the minister wishes to respond to in
what I've said, I'm happy to allow him. I'll take my seat and allow the minister
to comment.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
I'll just speak on clause 26.
It says: An action does not lie against the minister, the chief procurement
officer, the agency, an employee of the agency, a public body, an employee of a
public body or other person acting in good faith in the execution of a duty
imposed or a decision made under the authority of this Act or the regulations.
What
that's saying is that this is protection. You cannot be sued if you're acting in
good faith. This is part of the protection that if you're acting in good faith,
you're not liable for it. But if there's malice there, of course you know you
can be sued.
This is
protection for anybody who acts in good faith and things down the road,
someone comes back and says you didn't carry out your duties. But if it was
shown that they did it in good faith and everything was followed by the
regulations, then it's protection for everybody in the agency with this.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just for
clarity, before I wrap up in this part of the act that we're debating, we're
currently debating clauses 22 to 29. Is that correct?
CHAIR:
Yes it is.
MR. KENT:
Yes. Thank you.
I'll
speak to 28 and 29 again, not at length because my former colleague, now I
don't really know how to describe the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands; your
former colleague, my former colleague, everybody's colleague.
MS. MICHAEL:
Not ours yet.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. KENT:
The House Leader for the New
Democratic Party says not yet her colleague, so you never know what
MS. MICHAEL:
Might as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. KENT:
I have to honestly say, Mr.
Chair, I don't usually find the Member and I say this with the utmost respect
for St. John's East Quidi Vidi funny, but tonight she's been somewhat funny.
MS. MICHAEL:
You don't know her.
MR. KENT:
Oh, I do. Let's move on,
we're getting way too friendly now.
Sections
28 and 29; the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands did a good job of outlining
some of the concerns. I'm going to voice mine again. Then I don't have any
further questions on clauses 28 or 29.
The
issue is that these are parts of the law that are not yet defined. We feel that
we're giving Cabinet a blank cheque to define these at their discretion and
Cabinet has the ability to change them at will. I'm going to read them right
now. They're exceptionally broad so that's a concern.
This is
probably the biggest source of disagreement because, overall, I believe this is
good legislation. I do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
I've said that. I've said
that in second reading and I'll say it again tonight on record in this House. I
believe there are lots of things about this legislation that are good, but the
bulk of our concern lies right here in section 28 and 29.
The
regulations that Cabinet may make include: (a) respecting the manner in which
public bodies procure commodities; (b) respecting when an open call for bids is
not required respecting the procurement of commodities; (c) respecting
alternative procurement approaches for the procurement of commodities; (d)
respecting the manner in which public bodies shall maintain records respecting
procurement of commodities; (e) respecting when annual procurement plans shall
be required from public bodies, and the form and content of those plans; (f)
respecting the manner in which bids are to be evaluated; (g) respecting the
manner in which contracts are to be awarded; (h) establishing the processes to
be followed for the submitting and treatment of supplier complaints; (i)
respecting supplier performance; (j) establishing monetary amounts at which an
open call for bids is required; (k) establishing monetary amounts below which
there is no requirement to issue an open call for bids; (l) governing the form
and content of the electronic notification system; (m) defining the scope,
content and limits of policies respecting the procurement of commodities that
may be established by the chief procurement officer; (n) defining the
information about procurement activities that shall be published; (o)
establishing time periods for the required publication of information; (p)
defining a word or phrase not defined in this Act; and (q) generally, to give
effect to this Act.
Then,
regulations by the minister so not Cabinet, but regulations that the minister
himself or herself can make: (a) the terms of reference for the Procurement
Advisory Council; (b) the composition of the Procurement Advisory Council; and
(c) the duties of the Procurement Advisory Council. Therein lies our concern.
I
acknowledge that for some of these issues the minister's answers during debate
have been helpful and they've shed a little more light on where government
intends to go with this. Even in the initial briefing and also in the news
conference, some of these issues were touched on in the presentation as well.
Our
concern really lies in the fact that there's still a lot left to be defined in
regulations. That may be a point that we just respectfully agree to disagree on.
I understand the process, I respect the process, but that really is our
fundamental well, probably our most significant concern with the legislation.
So I'd say to the minister I appreciate all his answers this evening so far. I
don't have a lot of questions left and I don't know if he wishes to respond to
anything I've just said, but I just want to be on record once again as outlining
why we do have some concern.
For
clauses 22 to 29 I'll leave it there, Mr. Chair.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
I'll only be brief. I
understand, and as we all know, that when the legislation is brought in the
regulations do follow. I understand the Member saying that there's a lot of
authority in the hands of the minister, the Lieutenant Governor in Council, for
this. I understand that.
But I
also have to make it quite clear: We're bringing this bill in for the best value
for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We were asked to bring this in I
can list off the people we met with who asked us to bring this bill in. I
understand a bit of skepticism about the regulations, but in our discussions we
gave parameters of what we were bringing into the bill.
Mr.
Chair, we're very confident that when we bring in the regulations, which will be
public, which will be made known to everybody, we feel very confident that
people will embrace this bill. And I thank the Member for asking so many
questions tonight, and I thank everybody who participated in the debate tonight
and for the last couple of days thank you because it's very valuable. I hope
that the Member can look back next year when we're here all these regulations
can be debated in the House of Assembly or questions asked once they're put in
place.
So it's
not that you can say we're going to put regulations in and never going to hear
from them again. I'm hoping and I feel very confident that when we as a
government bring in these regulations and pass this act and get this up and
running, as we've been asked to by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador,
that the Member can come back and say yes, most of these regulations we agree
with, and yes, they're there for the betterment.
Because
I can assure you one thing, Mr. Chair, everything that we do with the
regulations will be in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador to take out the old Public Tender
Act and bring in this, which we'll get the best value and there's a lot of
benefit in there for a lot of people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we're
just glad we can bring it in.
I thank
you for the questions. I thank you for the debate. This is the way democracy
should work and have a debate.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Clauses 22 to 29 inclusive.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 22 through 29 carried.
CLERK:
Part IV, clauses 30 to 36
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Part IV, clauses 30 to 36
inclusive.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I just
have one question. It relates to two sections though, section 30 and section 33.
In section 30, which talks about the
Energy Corporation Act and talks about the
Public Procurement Act and the
corporation being exempt, what my question is about for the minister is about
the report. In number 30, the corporation or a subsidiary, when they act under
the exemption, are responsible for sending a report and the copy of the report
which is to the Chief Procurement Officer appointed under the
Public Procurement Act who shall post
a copy of it on the electronic notification system.
Section
33 refers to the report which deals with the
Research and Development Council Act.
We know that the Research and Development Council will also be exempted from the
Public Procurement Act under certain
circumstances which he has spoken to already. The Research and Development
Council will also have to send in a report to the Chief Procurement Officer and
that too will be posted.
The
problem I have that I'd like the minister to speak to is the fact there is no
direction about what the report should contain. Again, I don't think that's a
regulatory thing. I think that's something that should be in the act. What are
the expectations of those reports? What is the information that should be in the
report?
Either
one of those bodies could say we had so many projects that we did seek through
RFPs for, maybe not in a public way, and we talked to three different companies
and we hired one. Well, that report wouldn't give them very much detail.
So it
bothers me that you have this open-ended thing, this open-ended clause in both
cases saying that the minister responsible receives the report and sends it on;
yet no details, no guidelines whatsoever, what should be in those reports.
I'd like
to know: Does the minister have an expectation that's not written in the
legislation? I don't see it as being something that would be a regulation; maybe
he sees it that way. But to me, it's another place which is a glaring example of
where there needs to be more detail.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
Member for Mount Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr.
Chair, this is probably going to be my last time speaking to this now in
Committee and I just want to reiterate some points I made earlier in second
reading.
Section
30 says: Section 17.1 of the Energy
Corporation Act is repealed and the following substituted
of course,
the Energy Corporation Act refers to
Nalcor. Section 17(1) says: The corporation or a subsidiary is exempt from the
Public Procurement Act with respect to
the procurement in the following areas: (a) energy and energy products; (b)
where the corporation or a subsidiary is acting in a strategic partnership,
joint venture, or equity investment with other public bodies or private sector
entities; or (c) for the purpose of meeting the requirements of a benefit
arrangement.
Again,
Mr. Chair, the concern I have with this is the number of exemptions that we have
here. Now, there's no doubt and again I'm going to say it for the record
because I want to make sure that I'm quite crystal clear when I say this;
including Nalcor under the procurement act is a good thing. I support it. I'm
glad it's being done; I support it 100 per cent.
I'm also
glad to hear the Minister of Natural Resources, earlier today, when she said
that Newfoundland Hydro is already covered and it won't be just the office
supplies and stuff like that but if they're going to do some kind of retrofit in
Holyrood, or substation or any of that kind of stuff, any work and all that
stuff, that is going to be done through the procurement act. If that's the case,
good; I'm glad to hear it, support it, good job. I have no issue there.
The only
issue I'm going to raise is the fact that we all know that we have an ongoing
issue at Muskrat Falls. And I'm going to be the first one before anyone else
says over there yes, I voted for Muskrat Falls. Never denied it, not once did
I deny that I did because I did. I did so in good faith based on the information
that I was provided with at the time. Now, were there people who said there
would be overruns? Sure there were, but at the end of the day, I don't know if
anyone expected the number of overruns and contract delays and everything that
happened.
Now,
some people will say I told you so. Maybe so, I didn't see it and it certainly
wasn't what I was told. There's no doubt that we've seen numerous delays and
cost overruns at the Muskrat Falls Project. We hear from people who talk about
the fact that things weren't awarded properly. There were cost-plus contracts as
opposed to performance-based contracts on issues like the pouring of the cement.
We know
we had a doom that was half built and then they tore it down again. There was a
question as to the company that got it, really was that the best value? We
should have went with the other company that had experience and all those
things.
All of
those issues and concerns in theory would have and could have and should be
addressed under procurement legislation to hopefully stop that type of thing. If
we had it in place, maybe, I don't know, I can't say but maybe some of these
things wouldn't have happened.
We need
to learn from what's happened. That's why I have the concern, when we look at
all the exemptions and I did ask the question earlier. I know the minister
said he wasn't going to answer hypothetical. That's fair enough, but I do throw
it out there that based on the way this is written and so on, if we were to, at
some point in the future, decide we were going to develop the Lower Churchill,
the real Lower Churchill, the name escapes me now for a second. What's that one
called?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Gull Island.
MR. LANE:
Gull Island, the big one. If
we were to decide that was going to be developed and we did enter into,
hypothetically, a partnership with Quebec or whatever, then the way I read this
is that project, for example, would be exempted from the
Public Procurement Act.
Now, I
could be wrong but that's how I read it. It would be exempted and therefore we
could potentially be in the exact same situation in the future as we are with
this project today in terms of not having to follow a
Public Procurement Act. Not knowing what contracts are being
awarded. How they're being awarded. If they're being done best value like we're
asking for under this legislation and so on. I see, potentially, a lost
opportunity here. With all of these exemptions, I see a potential lost
opportunity to do it right in the future. That's my concern about this
particular section and about these particular exemptions.
Now,
does it say yes, it does. It does say that if they make these exemptions they
do have to report to the minister within six months of contracts that were
awarded and the minister then reports that to the Chief Procurement Officer who
will post it online or whatever he'll do. He'll make it public or she'll make it
public.
But what
is being made public? That's the question. What is being made public? Is it
simply going to be a list saying this company was awarded this contract six
months ago and here's the cost. It didn't address any of the details as to why
that was awarded or why someone else wasn't awarded or what process was followed
or was there any process followed. Did it go out for bids or did they just
simply award it to whoever they wanted to award it to? There's nothing written
in this legislation that says all it says is that they have to put it out
there that this company was awarded the contract. There's nothing in here that
says there has to be any further details other than that.
I think
that's what the Member for Quidi Vidi was saying, something similar to that
anyway, similar type of concerns. So those are the concerns I have about that.
With
that said, I'm pretty much finished now speaking in Committee, to the Committee
of the Whole, to this bill. I will say that from an overall perspective, as the
Member for Mount Pearl North said, I think its good legislation. From an overall
perspective I think its good legislation. The spirit of what's here I think is
good. I really think that there's an attempt to move this forward, something
that is long needed, should have been done long ago, and I support that concept.
I will
say that I continue to have the concerns I just raised about this section and
certainly 28 and 29. So when it comes to third reading and the final vote, I'm
going to be honest, I'm still torn. I'm not sure if I'm going to support it or
I'm not because I want to support it. I honestly really want to support this
legislation but I still have those concerns. I'm not sure how you weigh that out
when there's a lot of things that you'd be voting for that you really don't have
all the details on.
With
that said, I'll take my seat.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like
to respond to the question posed by the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi
about the Research and Development Council
Act, section 33.
This act
is operationalized by RDC, the Research & Development Corporation. It basically
takes aspects of research and development from pre-commercial to commercial
space. So the nature of the work for items there are some items that will be
proprietary or commercial, but previously in the procurement act, RDC was wholly
exempt. So pens, pencils, staplers, furnishings, anything they would purchase
for their day-to-day operations, now all of those purchases, computer, all of
those types of things, will be included in the act.
When you
talk about the reporting mechanism that's here to make sure there is proactive
and public disclosure, this is a good process. It's about accountability,
transparency and that these mechanisms will be reported. The same would go as
well for section 30 when it comes to the reporting mechanism. This is about good
public governance and proactive disclosure.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm
almost done. I don't have many questions left.
MR. BROWNE:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
I'm glad the Member for
Placentia West Bellevue is excited by that. Most days he has a spirited hear,
hear at some point. I appreciate that. It's music to our ears.
On
section 30, I think we've covered that previously early in the debate, so I
won't repeat that. Section 31 we still have concerns as they relate to the
process for the Independent Appointments Commission. Section 33 we've addressed
earlier tonight in terms of the exceptions for the Research and Development
Council.
I'm
going to jump to the final clause, clause 36, just related to proclamation. It
will be at the discretion of Cabinet. The minister has said quite clearly that
the act will be implemented in 2017. So I guess I have just two final questions,
hopefully, for the minister.
One, I
was wondering if you could comment on how things are going in terms of
developing the regulations? Are they in fact drafted at this point? From my
recollection of the work we were doing in the Government Purchasing Agency last
year, there was a lot of work done. So my suspicion is that the regulations are
near done. I was just wondering if the minister could comment on that.
Just
while we're actually in debate in the House I'd like him to just comment on his
intention for proclamation of the act. I know that's a Cabinet decision but I
sense from the minister's comments that it's government's intention to see this
act fully proclaimed at some point in 2017. I'd appreciate the minister's
comments on that. I'll let him respond to that, first of all, and then I'll clue
up.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank
you for the questions.
All the
regulations aren't developed yet. What we have are parameters that we're setting
up of where we'd like to go. We gave a lot of indications to the ceilings of
what we're going to do with services, with goods. We already explained about the
Atlantic procurement act. We already explained about CETA. We have a parameter
of where we'd like to go but the regulations aren't set yet.
As for
the proclamation and this is very important; I know the Member for Signal Hill
Quidi Vidi mentioned the other day what's going to fill in for this act. I was
going to bring it up the other day but I was just going to wait. What's going to
happen is the act that's currently in place will stay there until this is
proclaimed. The act that's there now is going to stay, just because this gets
passed now and the other is not (inaudible) until it's proclaimed.
The
other thing for the Member for Mount Pearl North, our intent is to develop the
regulations to have the education of the process in place for suppliers and
bidders, to have a template done up. Then, we're looking at proclaiming the act.
My
intent is to have it done in 2017. I said that earlier, I'll still stick to
that. But I will make a commitment, Mr. Chair. I will make a commitment that if,
for some reason, it can't be done I'll say to the Member for Mount Pearl
North, if for some reason it can't be done, I'll walk in my place here and
explain why it can't be done.
My
intention right now, and the government's intention, is to have this done by
2017, but there's a lot of work to it. By the time you get the Chief Procurement
Officer in place, by the time you set up the template, by the time you have the
education process for suppliers and buyers, by the time you get OCIO to get the
system up and running online for anybody who wants to go online, for the
suppliers to see what's available and also to put the winning bids online so
there's going to be a lot of work to do it.
My
intent is to bring it in, in 2017. If not, I'll make a commitment and come back
and I'll stand personally and explain why it's not done. But that's the intent
with the co-operation of everybody.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just in
closing, I want to thank the minister for answering all of my questions
throughout this debate. This is an important piece of legislation. I believe it
will be good for government and good for the province. Based on the answers I've
received, while I have some concerns and they're on record I do intend to
vote for the legislation and I'm glad that procurement reform is moving forward.
I wish
government well with implementation, and I appreciate the minister answering my
questions during Committee.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Seeing no further speakers,
shall the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
On
motion, clauses 30 through 36 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative
Session convened, as follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act Respecting Procurement By Public Bodies.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill
without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I move, Mr. Chair, that the
Committee rise and report Bill 46.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 46.
Shall
the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
The hon. the Deputy Chair of Committees.
MR. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report Bill 46 carried without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed him to report Bill 46 carried without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the said bill be read a third time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I call from
the Order Paper I'm just kidding.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Member for Fogo Island Cape Freels, that the House do now adjourn.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is that the House
do now adjourn.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
This
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30 in the afternoon.
On
motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.