November 22, 2016
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 46
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
We
welcome to the galleries today Kara Moss, her husband Jamie Moss and their
daughter Jessa. Kara was a Page here in the House of Assembly in 2005 and 2006,
and she's the daughter for the Member for Baie Verte Green Bay.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Today we have Members'
statements for the Members for the Districts of Harbour Main, Cape St. Francis,
Harbour Grace Port de Grave, Fortune Bay Cape La Hune, Conception Bay South
and Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
The hon.
the Member for the District of Harbour Main.
MS. PARSLEY:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this
hon. House to congratulate the members of the Brigus Volunteer Fire Department.
On October 22, I was pleased to join with the Town of Brigus to celebrate their
annual firemen's ball. The event was a great success, with close to 200 people
from the community and surrounding areas out to support the department.
In
addition to a wonderful meal and lively entertainment, I was honoured to present
several firefighters with the Outstanding Service Awards. Congratulations to Mr.
Fred Williams, with 20 years of service, Shears Mercer, Dave Barrett, Rodney
Mercer and Gary Spooner, each with 30 years of service and last but not least,
Byron Rodway with an amazing 35 years of service.
Mr.
Speaker, our volunteer fire departments are the backbone of our communities. It
amazes me how dedicated these volunteers are and how selfishly they give of
their time and energy to help others in crisis with no thought to their own
well-being.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in thanking the Brigus Fire
Department for their service to the Harbour Main District and congratulate each
individual on their long-service awards.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today to recognize an icon in my district, Mrs. Mary Power,
who passed away on October 28. Her family described her as a rock, a guiding
light. Her presence in the entire district will surely be missed. Whenever you
were in her company, it was a feeling of warmth and compassion.
She
showed kindness to everyone with her unwavering devotion to her faith; she
visited schools, read to children. While an elderly lady herself, she was always
reaching out to those in seniors' homes or in hospital. She would visit them,
read to them, bring communion, say a few prayers or just give an ear to their
concerns.
Her age
is a secret she takes with her. I know she's smiling just at the thought that I
mentioned that. If you asked her age, her answer was very, very fast: Age is a
number and mine is not listed. However, I'm confident she was over 90 years
old.
My
condolences to her family and friends, they will miss her dearly, but she will
remain in the hearts of those who had the pleasure of knowing her. God bless
you, my friend.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Harbour Grace Port de Grave.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today, I
recognize Mr. Agustus Menchions of Bay Roberts. Mr. Menchions celebrated his
101st birthday on September 29, surrounded by family friends. Born in 1915, he
grew up in the east end of Bay Roberts. He married Grace French of Coley's Point
and had two daughters, Olive and Jean, eight grandchildren and 10
great-grandchildren.
He
worked as a carpenter for most of his career, and was also employed by Crosbie's
Distributors in the town, but his passion building model boats. He built a
replica of the famous SS Kyle, which
is on display in a tourist chalet on the waterfront in Harbour Grace near the
actual vessel.
According to his granddaughter, Deloris, Mr. Menchions told many stories of the
early 1900s, in particular, times of war. She remembers when he spoke about the
times when the Germans were flying over Bay Roberts, residents below put
blankets up to the windows to avoid being seen in the night.
On
November 21, Mr. Menchions passed away peacefully in his sleep, and he is
remembered with love and respect. May he rest in peace.
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 rise
in this hon. House to pay tribute to John and Frances Kealey, pioneers of our
province's aquaculture industry who were awarded the NAIA Aquaculturist of the
Year at this year's banquet in September.
Since
the 1970s, John and Frances have put their business and economic development
skills and sheer determination to great use for the advancement of the
aquaculture industry and betterment of our rural communities.
Through
the years, with the Bay d'Espoir Development Association, SCB Fisheries, and
Nordic Salmon, from salmon to trout to Arctic char, the Kealeys have proven time
and time again that they know how to get the job done. They can feel very proud
that they played an instrumental role in proving that aquaculture is a viable,
profitable and community-sustaining initiative.
I highly
commend them for their pioneering fortitude that led to the confirmation that
Nauyak Arctic char is very compatible with the Bay d'Espoir marine environment.
We look forward to greater expansion of our aquaculture products and markets in
the years to come.
I ask
all Members to please join me in paying tribute to John and Frances for the
well-deserved Aquaculturist of the Year award.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On
Thursday, October 20, I had the pleasure of attending the fifth annual Bright
Business Luncheon Awards ceremony at the Manuels River Hibernia Interpretation
Centre.
The
annual event is hosted by the Town of Conception Bay South and it's a great
opportunity for local entrepreneurs to network and showcase their individual
businesses in our community. This year 54 nominations were received.
The
Bright Business Achievement Awards help recognize the contributions of local
businesses that have gone above and beyond. This year's award winners are:
Beautiful Business CBS Glass for Single Tenant and Don Hennessey Limited for
Multiple Tenant; Community Pride and Partnership Musically Inclined; Main
Street Business Improvement Association Member of the Year The Co-operators;
David Murphy Chamber Leadership Cal LeGrow insurance; Established Business of
the Year Dawe's Plumbing and Electrical; New Start Up of the Year T & T
Auto.
I would
like to extend my congratulations to the award winners, nominees and sponsors.
Conception Bay South has grown significantly and it's great to see that the
business community has also shown tremendous growth.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for
Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House to recognize what has to be one of the most patriotic
communities in our province, Lodge Bay, Labrador, population 60. More than 19
people from Lodge Bay have served or are serving our uniform services over the
years.
This
level of commitment prompted two moms, Betty and Verna Pye, both of whom had
sons deployed in Afghanistan at the time, to start a Remembrance Day event in
their community. Vera Pye, who also had a son in service, joined the team a year
later, followed by Priscella Kippenhuck whose son, Conrad, has had many
deployments since then.
Over the
past 14 years, since that first Remembrance Day ceremony in 2002, the event
continues to grow with Senior and Junior Canadian Rangers and RCMP in
attendance, as well as people from a number of surrounding communities. Each
year, there is a church service, a wreath laying, a parade, two minutes of
silence. The event concludes with refreshments at the community centre. Tanya
Russell has also stepped up to help in a key way as the event continues to grow.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in saluting the community of Lodge
Bay, a small town in Labrador with a heart as big as the land itself.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this
hon. House today to highlight the importance of breastfeeding in the early
months of life.
My past
experience as a neo-natal nurse impressed upon me the value of breastfeeding.
There are clear links to the prevention of breast and ovarian cancers in mothers
who breastfeed and in the prevention of sudden infant death syndrome, asthma,
obesity and type 2 diabetes in infants who are breastfed.
Just a
few weeks ago, I was pleased to meet with the Baby-Friendly Council of
Newfoundland and Labrador, and we discussed our government's commitment to
supporting breastfeeding and working with the council towards increased
duration.
Although
breastfeeding rates in the province continue to rise, they are still not on par
with the national average. In phase two of
The Way Forward, our government has outlined our plan to implement policies
and practices that support healthy eating and breastfeeding in municipalities.
Supporting and encouraging breastfeeding is a prime example of early
intervention for healthy living and in addressing rising rates of chronic
disease. As a government, we are working to achieve greater efficiency, enhance
services and improve outcomes to promote a health and prosperous Newfoundland
and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of her statement. The practice of breastfeeding
is extremely important for children and mothers and the health benefits are
immense.
I
recognize the minister for meeting with the Baby-Friendly Council of
Newfoundland and Labrador. This organization has a vision that our province will
be a place where women will be supported to breastfeed and the number of women
who practice breastfeeding will rise.
The
minister is correct in her statement that breastfeeding numbers have continued
to rise in this province over the last decade. The release of
A Great Start A Breastfeeding Strategic
Plan for Newfoundland and Labrador 2014-2017 put forward a strategy that
built upon the completion of the breastfeeding strategic plan from 2008 to 2011,
which saw measurable increases in breastfeeding numbers in this province.
In her
statement, the minister took time to promote her government's
The Way Forward document. She claims
government
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. PERRY:
has outlined a plan to
implement policies and practices that support healthy eating
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. PERRY:
but as is typical with this
government, the plan has no details.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the
minister for an advance copy of her statement. In Canada, 85 per cent of mothers
breastfeed their babies; in our province, only 57 per cent do the lowest in
Canada.
Phase
two of the minister's Way Forward
simply gives a vague reference to supporting breastfeeding with no specifics, no
commitment of resources. Without more public health nurses and breastfeeding
experts helping young moms to breastfeed, these are nothing but hollow words.
The minister is committing nothing. What is she going to do concretely ?
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
Niceties are not enough.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's my
pleasure to rise in this hon. House and outline our opioid action plan.
I had
the opportunity to share this plan with the Government of Canada and our
provincial and territorial colleagues at the national Opioid Conference and
Summit recently in Ottawa.
This
event provided another opportunity to hear the many different voices of those
who are close to the opioid problems across Canada.
Having
heard what other jurisdictions are doing, I am confident in the approach we are
taking to manage this situation in our province.
Mr.
Speaker, our plan will advance this fall, building on such initiatives as the
targeted take-home naloxone program, which I am pleased to say will be rolling
out in the coming days.
The
action plan has many components; a prescriber awareness module is set to begin
in January; the new regulatory standards from the Newfoundland and Labrador
Pharmacy Board will require all pharmacists to be connected to the Provincial
Pharmacy Network by January 1 coming; a Provincial Prescription Monitoring
Program is under development to build on this; and we will work to improve
access to Suboxone and other alternatives to Methadone.
Mr.
Speaker, we recognize the growing epidemic of opioid use in Canada. Through this
action plan, we are working to arm communities and health care providers in this
province with the tools and information needed to respond.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for the advance copy of his statement today. Many of these
initiatives have been ongoing and I've supported and advocated for them in the
past. The targeted take-home naloxone program is a great example and I do look
forward to its future roll out; however, I'm somewhat concerned with
government's hesitancy in moving forward quickly on the use of Suboxone.
Versus
Methadone, Suboxone has various advantages, including reduced chance of overdose
and having other side effects. It's longer lasting and it's much easier to
stabilize the dosage. That's why BC added Suboxone to its provincial formulary
and family doctors in Alberta, Ontario, Nova Scotia and PEI are allowed to
prescribe it.
I say to
the minister FTP meetings can be useful, especially if you're willing to listen
and adopt best practices from other provinces. There's an opioid epidemic in
this province and it needs our attention and best efforts today.
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, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I'm glad we have an
action plan for the growing drug problem, but the key word today is action. Of
the 20 drug-related deaths so far this year, 18 people tested positive for
opioids. This is a shocking statistic.
A
naloxone kit project cannot be stalled or slowed; lives can depend on it. I hope
when the minister says the coming days that's what he means.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, once again, we're receiving updates from news media on discussions
between the Premier and the premier of Quebec.
I ask
the Premier: When will he update the people of Newfoundland and Labrador on his
discussions?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I
was surprised yesterday actually that I did not get this question. I was more
than prepared to update people then.
Mr.
Speaker, what we've been working at for quite some time with the Atlantic
provinces is improving relationships. We've been able to do that and bring some
positive results. Yesterday morning, I had a conversation with Premier Couillard
and we've made the commitment to actually work together on initiatives that
would impact Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, initiatives that could possibly
have a positive impact on our province.
The
officials will begin discussions on things like culture, things that affect our
border issues and so on. So we look forward to working together with the
Province of Quebec, just as we are with our Atlantic colleagues in many other
provinces right now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the Premier if he will ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador's right to continue
current legal action and the commitment to transmission rights through Quebec
will remain intact and remain a paramount consideration of any discussions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We've
opened a dialogue yesterday about working together without any conditions by the
premier of Quebec, unlike conditions what I'm told that he put on the former
premier. I didn't ask him about those discussions or why it is he imposed them.
There might have been conditions that the former premier put in place, I don't
know. I'm not interested in what the former premier would have had said. What I
am very interested in is the discussion that we had yesterday and the
willingness to work together.
Mr.
Speaker, there are a lot of benefits when you work with provinces that you share
borders with, and improving relationships, like we seen with the Atlantic
provinces right now. So it's really early to tell where this discussion could
go. There's nothing concrete. There are no discussion papers, Mr. Speaker. These
are very early days and there is a desire for me with Premier Couillard to work
together on behalf of our provinces.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So he
won't make that commitment.
I ask
the Premier: Will government employees be permitted time to vote in today's
school board elections?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, there are two
questions that he asked there about making the commitment. I'm prepared to make
the best decision for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, when you start
putting conditions in place and what should occur before you even start a
discussion, what you're doing is setting yourself up for failure. This is a
reason why we haven't been able to advance this.
So to
put in pre-conditions on any discussion with a neighbouring province right now
may not be to the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. But I'll tell you
this, Mr. Speaker, before any final decision is made it will be to a benefit of
Newfoundland and Labrador, if I am Premier at the time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My
question was about school board elections.
I'll ask
the Premier once again: Will government employees be permitted time to vote in
today's school board election, will the Premier tell us?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, we're pleased
that today we're returning to a model of democratic school governance in
Newfoundland and Labrador that was basically abolished by the previous
government, eliminated
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
And we are returning to that
model. The polls are open today from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. There are no provisions
for time off work in the Elections Act
or the Schools Act or any of the other
regulations, but folks can vote up until 8 p.m.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll ask
the Premier why employees, public employees and private employees, who work long
hours, for example 12-hour shifts, are being denied an opportunity to vote in
these elections.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That's
interesting, coming from the former premier of the province. Under their
government they disallowed everyone in the province from having an opportunity
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
by effectively eliminating
the process. We're pleased today that we have reversed that direction that they
were going in, and now people will have an opportunity to vote for their own
school trustees, as opposed to having them picked for them by the previous
administration.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We do
expect a level of rhetoric from Members opposite, but it would be nice if they
answered a question from time to time.
So I'll
ask them again, we are hearing from public service employees who are concerned
over not being given their right to vote they're being denied their right to
vote today, those who work 12-hour shifts and there are thousands of them who
work in public service and many who work in private service.
So I'll
ask the Premier again: Why are you not providing an opportunity for those who
work 12-hour shifts an opportunity to vote in those elections? Your goal was to
have as many people vote as possible; you're denying many people that right.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, as I said here
on the floor of the House of Assembly yesterday, we had a thorough debate on the
budget and its implications in April, May and June of this year. There was all
sorts of opportunity to change the rules, if that's what the Member wanted to
do. These rules were in place the last time there was a school board election in
this province in 2009. That government didn't see fit to change that then.
We have
had no suggestion to date to change the rules or to allow for stipulations for
voting during working hours, as I said. The polls opened 8 this morning. They'll
be open until 8 tonight. I encourage employers to give their employees, all of
them, an opportunity to take time and go and vote.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So the
minister references a budget process. I'm not sure if he's saying it was too
expensive to do it, it was too costly. He did say he knowingly denied people
that right and that access.
The
Premier and this government has developed a pattern, Mr. Speaker, of handing out
government jobs to Liberal friends, contrary to the principle and the promise
they made during the election to take the politics out of all appointments.
I ask
the Premier: How many Liberal supporters, how many failed candidates, how many
former Liberal staffers have been hired since you took office last year?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
the IAC, the Independent Appointments Commission, is doing their job. They make
recommendations on behalf of the people of our province. They go through a very
intense scrutiny and they review the various applications.
We
encourage people in Newfoundland and Labrador and I can assure you there are
people that have been obviously taking part in committee work in associations
and agencies right now that never ever thought they would ever get the
opportunity to serve their province in such a capacity. Mr. Speaker, in the
past, we've seen the former deputy premier make, what I'm told, up to 40
appointments in a day prior to the election.
So the
IAC, the Independent Appointments Commission, by five very prestigious people in
our province right now, are making the representation to the people of this
province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind
all hon. Members that it's only the individual identified to speak that we wish
to hear from.
The hon.
the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, public service
jobs are historically and intended to be non-partisan positions. The clerk of
the Executive Council is the most senior public service job in the province, a
non-political position.
I ask
the Premier: What process did you use to select a former Liberal leadership
candidate as clerk of the Executive Council, what's supposed to be a
non-partisan position?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We
respect the work that clerks do in this province. The outgoing clerk has done a
great job. She's now doing a great job in her capacity at Newfoundland and
Labrador Housing. I'm not going to remind anyone who she would have replaced in
that capacity and how that person would have gotten there, but the former clerk
is doing a great job. She's quite at task to go to work at Newfoundland and
Labrador Housing and doing a good job.
The
current clerk has a very long career in Newfoundland and Labrador both in a
legal fashion, also about working in public service I say, Mr. Speaker. There
was no political affiliation. He's doing great job there, gaining and earning
the respect of public service and earning the respect of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians and very much in my say from my workings with him, is doing a great
job in doing so.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I think I just heard the
Premier say the clerk has had no political affiliation when he was a leadership
candidate for the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think that's
what the Premier just said, no political affiliation.
This is
the highest public service job in the province; the highest public service job
in the province. That should be non-partisan, no politics involved in any way,
and they appoint a former leadership candidate.
Premier,
why did you break your promise to take the politics out of appointments? This
was an appointment; you never took the politics out of it. Why did you break the
promise, the principle that you went to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador
with last year?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I
think the former premier is actually when he speaks about the IAC or the
Independent Appointments Commission, this is a
(Disturbance in the gallery.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Order,
please!
This
House is now in recess.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Before
we resume, I remind guests to the gallery, this is the people's House and you're
more than welcome to sit in the galleries and observe what happens on the floor
of the House, but interruptions from the gallery are not permitted.
I've
paused the clock on Question Period. We'll resume there was 10 minutes used on
Question Period. There's 15 minutes remaining for the Official Opposition and
five minutes for the Third Party. The time now is 2:02 p.m. The Opposition has
until 2:17 p.m.
The hon.
the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was
asking the Premier we were talking about the appointment of a former Liberal
leadership candidate to the Clerk's office.
I ask
the Premier: Why did you break your promise to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador and make a political appointment when you promised not to do that?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have
put in place, through the Independent Appointments Commission, one of the best
processes that exist anywhere in this country. It far exceeds and replaces an
archaic political appointments system that the former administration put in
place. As I just mentioned earlier, the process that they had chosen was, in
some cases, to appoint up to 40 people, basically picking their people, who they
wanted, their friends or whoever it was and placing them politically.
The
clerk that's in place in this province right now comes from a very long,
distinguished career, representing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and he's
doing a very good job. I can assure you, he is doing the job on behalf of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and doing a very good job, bringing their
issues forward and making sure that legislation and this government functions
appropriately.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Liberals targeted removal of highly regarded officials from several non-partisan
roles in public service and replaced them with Liberal friends, which cost
taxpayers millions.
Will the
Premier table the breakdown, the full costs of terminating these employees,
including leave, severance and salary contingence?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There
have been a number of changes made in the management of Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, we have realized very early on that we
had the same number of deputy ministers if this is who the former minister is
talking about, but we had the same number of deputy ministers as the Province of
Ontario.
So, Mr.
Speaker, that was a footprint of government that was much too large for a
province the size of this. We did the same thing within our ADMs, I say;
communications, 30 per cent, a reduction.
Mr.
Speaker, these decisions have been made given the fiscal situation that we are
in as a province. We are decreasing the government footprint in our province.
We're not interested in wasting government money.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals
campaigned on taking politics out of appointments.
I ask
the Premier: What was the process to appoint a prominent Liberal as Consumer
Advocate? How any individuals were interviewed?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Well, I'm happy to address
the question. The process to putting in the appointment came through the
Independent Appointments Commission, which is a very good piece of work that
they're doing. As I mentioned earlier, it doesn't really exist anywhere in this
country. It's a very good process that's being used.
I would
however say, Mr. Speaker, when you look at the Consumer Advocate and you look as
his resume, I would say that it was a political decision that took him out of
that position some years ago.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Not a political decision to
put him back there.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
I ask the Premier again: How
many people were interviewed for that position?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
happy to stand to this as the Consumer Advocate does fall under the Department
of Justice and Public Safety. As the Premier previously noted, this was the
first time that the Consumer Advocate or any of these tier-one positions
actually went to an independent commission to make sure that we had the best
people appointed to these positions to handle the finances and the public
affairs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
In this
case, there was a very extensive process, one that was advertised. I'm not aware
of the number. I believe there were a number of individuals that applied for
this position and would have gone through the Independent Appointments
Commission process. I believe there were a number of interviews.
At the
end of it, Mr. Brown was the recommended candidate that was appointed, someone
that has previous experience with this position, has served Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians well. Given the fact that they are the advocate for the consumers
of this province, I'm very happy to have someone of that capability doing this
job to look out for the best interests of the people of this province.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
The Minister of Finance has
stated that no Liberal appointees will go into jobs that were eliminated this
fall.
I ask
the Premier: How does this account for the Minister of Education's
communications director?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, the Member is
over there talking about the Independent Appointments Commission is somehow in
relation to line departments in government. The Independent Appointments
Commission was created to fill tier-one positions and tier-two positions in
agencies, boards, commissions, statutory offices, task forces and these sorts of
things.
When it
comes to line departments in government, the policy is exactly the same as it
was when the previous administration was in power and nothing has changed.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Taking the politics out of
appointments, that's the Liberal's campaign promise. Senior employees within the
government are being shuffled like a deck of cards with all of these
appointments coming through the backdoor.
What
changes has the minister made to the HR selection process?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
certainly very happy to speak to this on behalf of the Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board. The fact is we all want the best people in position
for the people of this province. Certainly, there's been no change to the HR
process that we're aware of.
The big
change that has been made, though, is we've actually put in an Independent
Appointments Commission to ensure that we put the best people in positions here.
Unlike previous administrations who would put people in places and then take
them out and let them run election campaigns.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the Premier: Were there any other changes in ADMs, executive directors,
directors or other senior civil servants other than what you publicly released?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again,
I'm happy to stand here and speak to this. As the Premier previously noted, the
previous administration had a bloated administration, one that rivalled the size
of Ontario, which we all know certainly has a greater population. One of the
things we're trying to do to deal with the fiscal mess that has been left to us
is have a rightsized government, one that will still be responsive to the needs
of this province.
As the
Premier just said, we're not going to waste money. So we've done a number of
changes here that we think are in the best interest of the people of this
province. They've all been done through appropriate measures, certainly nothing
underhanded like the Member opposite would suggest.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, in late October
a number of assistant deputy minister positions were terminated from government.
I ask
the Premier: How many were replaced by former Liberal candidates and known
Liberal Party supporters?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again,
I'm happy to stand here and speak to this because one of the things we want to
do as a government coming in is to ensure that we provide the best governance to
the people of this province; something that we think has been lacking certainly
for a number of years.
The fact
is there have been a number of changes. One has been a reduction, I think of 20
per cent when it comes to these administrative positions. This was a previous
administration that over their time bloated the size of government to rival the
size of Ontario. We don't think it's a proper use of taxpayers' funding here. So
we think we have the best people in these positions, people that are going to
make policy decisions and legislative changes that are in the best interest of
the people of this province. Certainly, we're very happy to have everyone on our
team going forward in the same direction.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, we're not
questioning the reduction. We're asking about these political hires. The
Liberals campaigned on taking the politics out of appointments.
I ask
the Premier: What was the process to appoint a former Liberal candidate to the
role of assistant deputy minister for labour relations?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again,
I'm happy to stand here and speak to the changes that have happened in the
public service. Certainly, we know that in the previous administration a number
of executive assistants ended up in public service somehow through a process
that I'm not quite sure how it worked.
As it
relates to the ADM of labour relations, this is an individual who I believe, Mr.
Speaker, was actually hired by a PC administration and served in a similar role
to that for a number of years and strangely was removed after the change in
government in 2003. So, again, I would leave it to the other side to answer that
question.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
More broken promises, Mr.
Speaker.
I ask
the Minister of Natural Resources: Can she confirm that her newly appointed
assistant deputy minister of Royalties and Benefits was a Liberal candidate in
last year's general election?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I
am happy to stand here and speak to the changes that we're making to ensure this
government works for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. There have been a
number of changes when it comes to ADMs in this province. The biggest part being
the reduction from an extremely bloated government that previously existed, one
that would just create positions they thought were in the best interest, but all
it was, was spending money.
There
are a number of people who have been hired .I don't know if the other side is
actually questioning the resume and questioning the qualifications of these
people because if you are, we'd like to hear what your questions are on that.
These people have all been hired with immaculate resumes. They're doing work in
the best interests of the people of this province.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Not questioning
qualifications at all, Mr. Speaker.
Speaking
of resumes, let's talk about the application process. According to an ATIPP
response, this recent Liberal candidate I'm speaking of, contacted government
multiples prior to the announcement of her appointment asking for a job
description and every asked, and I quote: What am I getting myself into?
I ask
the minister: Shouldn't that discussion have already been had before she was
offered the job?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Again, Mr. Speaker, happy to
stand and speak to this. The fact is, although the Member opposite is not
questioning he is questioning the qualifications of these individuals.
Certainly, if he's not questioning the qualifications and if he does agree they
fit the bill and if they are the best individuals for the job, then I'm not sure
what the issue is.
Now, the
fact is we have a number of people who have expressed interest in working in
this administration because they like the direction that we're going in and they
like the processes that we're undertaking.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
While we're at it, one of the
things we did inherit when we came in was over 40 appointments made by the
Member opposite on his last day in government.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, the folks
opposite are noisy today. I need to remind them they campaigned on a promise of
taking the politics out of appointments and they've done the opposite.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
The Liberals campaigned on
taking the politics out of appointments.
I ask
the Premier: Was the Public Service Commission involved in the hiring of the
newly appointment communications directors in the Department of Education and in
the Department of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There's
some irony in this conversation because the Member who is asking the question,
in addition to appointing 40 people on the way out through the door, had no less
than two executive assistants at his behest. As the Member sitting next to him
had the same set up going on; whereas, Cabinet ministers in this government have
one, as has been the tradition in government.
When it
comes to line departments in government, nothing has changed when it comes to
the hiring policy. If people are hired on a temporary basis, then they get to
the end of the process, they are interviewed. That's the way that it works, but
nothing has changed here at all.
I don't
know why the Member is alleging that these people are not qualified to do the
jobs they're doing. They're very obviously qualified. So I don't know what the
problem is.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
The problem, I say to the
Education Minister, is that you promised to take the politics out of
appointments and you've done the exact opposite.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Communications positions are
non-political hires.
I ask
the Premier: Why was the Public Service Commission not used when you hired a
former Liberal staffer and close political friend of the Minister of Education
to senior communications positions in government?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, I said this
already but I'll repeat myself because maybe the Member didn't hear what I said.
The Independent Appointments Commission was created to adjudicate appointments
to some 30-odd public bodies that are tier-one agencies and a number of others,
120-odd tier-two agencies that are statutory bodies and agencies, boards,
commissions, task forces and the like.
There's
a difference between appointments and hiring to departments. He was a Cabinet
minister and he's not aware of that difference? It doesn't surprise me that we
have the mess that we have on our hands today if he can't tell the simple
difference between hiring and appointments.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North, for a very quick question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, they spent
millions of dollars sending qualified people out the door to appoint their
political friends.
Can the
Minister of Education explain why he terminated an experienced communications
director days after hiring his close political friend for the same position?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, what this
government has done is saved millions of dollars of taxpayers' money by reducing
the bloated service that this previous administration left us. There's been no
change to the Public Service Commission, but we do have an Independent
Appointments Commission to ensure that we hire the right people for tier-one and
tier-two jobs. Unlike previously where we saw many entities, such as College of
the North Atlantic, that were run by friends.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Before I
recognize the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi, I will remind all hon.
Members again the volume in the Legislature today is getting to the point that
the Speaker is unable to hear Members speak. The only person I wish to hear
speaking at any given time is the person that I recognize to speak.
The hon.
Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
A
Liberal election promise committed to improved management oversight at Nalcor. A
year after gaining power, the government's Muskrat Falls Oversight Committee has
been virtually silent, there is still an interim board at Nalcor and the EY
report is long overdue.
Given
the mounting costs and the ongoing engineering and environmental issues that
plague this project, I ask the Premier: When will he create a truly independent
oversight committee that produces regular public reports?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much for the
question.
To my
hon. colleague I will say this: we've been diligent in our efforts over the last
number of months. The first act of this government was to bring EY in to do a
cost schedule and oversight review of Nalcor. We had an interim report in April
that gave a number of very solid recommendations. We've been implementing those
recommendations.
As she
knows, we did put in an interim board in April. We followed the Independent
Appointments Commission process and we are within a very short period of time
before we have an expanded and what I would consider a very strong board at
Nalcor.
With
regard to the oversight committee, they are very active. They are reviewing.
They've been involved in, obviously, the methylmercury issue, the information
around the cost and the schedule. They're on top of this and we're very pleased
to report they are very active.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Cost oversight of an $11
billion project is crucial and long overdue.
So I ask
the Premier: Will he reverse the poor decision of the previous government and
place Nalcor under the full regulatory authority of the Public Utilities Board
which is there to protect the ratepayer and ensure reliable power generation?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much.
As my
colleague in the House would have known, the Public Utilities Board was exempt
from this process from the former administration.
We are
working along a path now to make sure that the Muskrat Falls Project is on
track, Mr. Speaker. We are working very diligently toward that, making sure that
Nalcor is engaged in keeping that and the cost and schedule is very tight as
possible. We have been and have been over the last number of years prior to
the project being sanctioned on top of this issue and we'll remain diligent,
Mr. Speaker, in bringing this project forward in the best possible way and
manner possible.
As we
know, Mr. Speaker, there have been a lot of concerns and a lot of challenges
around the Muskrat Falls Project. I can assure the people of the province, we
are working hard to get it on track.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, seniors call my
office in despair. Their rents are increasing; they can't afford to feed
themselves properly or pay their heat bills. They are desperate and humiliated.
Dave has been on Newfoundland and Labrador Housing wait list for over a year and
says he's nearly starving. He's not alone. Our seniors need help now.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the minister again: Will she create a portable rent subsidy
program for our seniors now so they can live in safety and dignity?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, the corporate
vision for the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation is for individuals
to have access to safe and secure housing. I stood in this House during the
first sitting and I said we would review rent supplements.
I'm
happy to report, Mr. Speaker, that that is well along. I met yesterday morning
and this morning with my team. I'm also happy to report, Mr. Speaker, that when
we started the review of the rent supplements, there was a realization that we
actually needed to review every single program and service at Newfoundland and
Labrador Housing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, reviewing the
subsidies doesn't put food on the table or pay the heat bills.
Mr.
Speaker, Thomas lives in a horrendous boarding house in my district; bedbugs,
holes in walls, filth and inadequate food. His rent is paid by AESL and Health
and Community Services. He is one of many vulnerable people living in these
deplorable conditions. Hard-earned taxpayers' money is going directly into the
pocket of slum landlords.
I ask
the ministers: Why are they not ensuring taxpayers get better value for their
money by making sure these boarding houses are providing proper services?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, any case which
presents a problem for the citizen, for the client, we would always encourage
this hon. Member, any Member from the House, and in particular the client, to
contact AESL, to contact Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, to reach out to the
Department of Health. There are people who can assist.
If there
are inadequate situations of housing, as described by this hon. Member, there
are solutions and there are people that can provide help in accessing those
solutions. We will endeavour to do that.
If the
hon. Member wants to provide a name after Question Period has convened, I would
be more than happy to provide some service.
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
Municipal Affairs.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, I'd like to give
notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The
Vital Statistics Act, Bill 50.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for 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
libraries are often the backbone of their communities, especially for those with
little access to government services where they offer learning opportunities and
computer access; and
WHEREAS
libraries and librarians are critical in efforts to improve the province's
literacy levels, which are among the lowest in Canada; 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.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, again, I am happy to stand here and present this library petition on
behalf of the people who've signed it. This petition here is signed by the
people from Cape St. George. Cape St. George is a small but bustling community
with impressive municipal facilities and services. The community is a bit of a
rarity in our province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
community is a bit of a rarity in our province. It is because it has both a
French and an English school. The library is housed in Our Lady of the Cape
School. It's a fully bilingual facility. It's also an important public gathering
place and a hub of community activity. This library is at the very centre of
their community.
When the
kids in Cape St. George celebrated Halloween, the library was right in the
middle of things. Before long, the Mummers will be at the library to be part of
an annual Christmas event that has become a tradition in Cape St. George. The
librarian in the community drops off books and magazines to avid readers who
happen to be shut-ins and the library hosts public forums, for instance, on
mental health issues, employment insurance, nutrition and cancer, among other
things.
So as
you can see, Mr. Speaker, this library is so vital. It's not just about books.
It's not just about putting books on shelves or magazines on shelves. This is a
vibrant library that is so crucial to the health and the well-being of this
community. It's a place where kids can go meet their friends, take part in story
time, develop an interest and a love for books. In short, the library in Cape
St. George is too important to the fabric of the community to let it die.
I am
proud to support the petition of the people of the community to keep this
facility open.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
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; and
WHEREAS
the minimum wage does not provide enough money for the necessities of life
because a person earning minimum wage working 40 hours a week will make between
$21,320 and $21,840, which is barely above the low income cut-off of $$20,065
for St. John's, and a working couple on minimum wage with two children will also
make close to low income; and
WHEREAS
in 2012 the Minimum Wage Review Committee recommended an increase in the minimum
wage in 2013 to reflect the loss of purchasing power since 2010 and an annual
adjustment beginning in 2014 to reflect the Consumer Price Index;
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.
Mr.
Speaker, the workers in this province have been signing these petitions now for
well over a year. They are people who are desperate, people who are living on
minimum wage, sometimes two and three jobs in order to make enough money for
their families. The minimum wage, basically, is a poverty wage or at the edge of
living in poverty. They are waiting for some action. They have been waiting now
for years, since 2010, since the report came out, for action from governments
who are doing nothing for them.
There is
a myth that raising the minimum wage costs jobs. What's been proven by study
after study is that in actual fact the economy is helped by the minimum wage
going up. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives studied minimum wage
increases and found that in 90 per cent of the instances there was no
statistically significant connection between the increase in the minimum wage
and labour market outcomes. Yet, those opposed to it like to say you are going
to have job loss, the economy is going to go down and, in actual fact, it's the
opposite.
In the
cases where there was a statistically significant connection between the two,
four out of seven outcomes were negative and three were actually positive.
Mr.
Speaker, I implore the minister to really take action. He keeps saying he's
going to do something. He got upset last week when we implied he is doing
nothing. So far, he is doing nothing.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
To the
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
the ground fishery has been the cornerstone of our province's culture and
economy for generations; and
WHEREAS
there is scientific and anecdotal evidence that cod stocks are increasing off
our shores; and
WHEREAS
current fishers are having trouble securing buyers for their product;
WHEREUPON the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon the House of
Assembly to urge government to take immediate action to develop markets for
groundfish within our province and with our trade partners.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I've stood up in the House of Assembly before and I've talked about the
resurgence of the cod fishery. Again, it's a part of who we are as
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We can never forget the fishery and what it's
done for generations and what it's done for Newfoundland and Labrador,
especially rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It's an important part.
I can
remember growing up and being involved in the fishery with my father and family.
When I went to the Southern Shore, to different parts of the Southern Shore,
there was a fish plant in Witless Bay, there was a fish plant in Bay Bulls,
there was a fish plant in Tors Cove, one in Fermeuse and further on up the shore
in Ferryland. It was the centre focus of rural Newfoundland. People were
excited, people were employed. Young people got jobs in the summertime.
We look
at our economy today and we talk about diversification. Well, we have something
right in our hands right now that can help diversify our economy and just make
our economy even more active and keep people in rural Newfoundland, keep people
in our communities.
Our cod
fishery is coming back. I've experienced it myself, Mr. Speaker. I go to the
recreational cod fishery. The last number of years in talking to fishermen, they
tell me they've never seen the like. We had four boats go out on Flatrock this
weekend fishing in the middle of November; never, ever heard of it before in my
district that you'd see fishermen on the water in the middle of November. They
came in with great catches.
Most of
them only had four or five nets in the water and came in with 14 and 15 pans of
cod. That's amazing. For this time of year it's amazing. I think our government
really has to put a focus on this. It's something they're not doing; it's
something that fishermen are asking for. They want markets. They need to
understand where they're going to sell the fish. As it increases we need to get
a place to sell our fish.
Right
now, most of the fishermen are selling their fish through fillets to people that
want to buy it like that because there are absolutely no markets available. As a
government, you should be responsible for making sure that next year it's
going to get bigger again and we need to develop markets.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
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
the education of children is one of the most important and vital investments
that can be made in the success of children; and
WHEREAS
the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador should be choosing educational
options that will provide all students of our province with a higher standard of
education and an enhanced learning experience for our youth; and
WHEREAS
the government's decision to make cuts to teachers and to our education system
will have a negative effect on the students;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to reverse the decision effective immediately.
Mr.
Speaker, it's ironic that I get up and speak to something as important as
education on a day when we're having a school board election. I say that because
I have to compliment those people who put their name forward. I've managed to
talk to nine of the candidates from different zones and had a very intense
conversation. I was very impressed with their skill set, with their
understanding of the school system, but particularly about their commitment of
reversing some of the decisions that have been made that they know and they've
identified that are detrimental to our education system and particularly to our
students.
Most are
putting their names forward because they want to right the wrongs that have been
done over the last 12 months. They want to go back and take a real look at where
our education system is and outline a proper way to invest for our young people.
They've
looked at things from what's been lost over the last 12 months. The mess we have
around overcrowded schools; the mess we have around the loss of core French;
under resourced, all-day kindergarten we put in play; overcrowded schools;
proper lunch programs not being taken into account when you have so many
volunteers who give so much of their time. All they needed was a little bit of
extra support or some dialogue to be able to prepare to make sure nobody was
left out. The busing mess that we have right now, these are all issues they put
forward.
They
talked about teachers who talk about the resources they need and the ability
with the blended classrooms, the challenges they have around that; the special
needs students. All these are important issues that have been neglected by this
administration over the last 12 months.
The
school board elections will at least bring this to the forefront and the
individuals who are running on those campaigns, they want to improve the
education system. They want to first go back and correct the wrongs and then
move our education system forward because we have great people in our education
system; great educators, great administrators, great volunteers, great support
mechanisms.
We have
the right mechanism to do it but we can't do it when we're constantly making
decisions that are detrimental to everybody who are key stakeholders here. That
goes particularly around the volunteer sectors out there. The school councils
who raise money to do special programs and services, because they realize they
have a stake in the betterment of education for the students and their children
in these respective schools, but every time they take a step forward, last year
they were putting two back because there's been no dialogue. There has been no
inclusion about what we need to do. Then you add on the sidelines, you got
things like the cutting of libraries that has a major impact.
Mr.
Speaker, while this is a monumental day here when we have our elections, I'm
looking forward to working with those zone-elected individuals to improve our
education system.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of 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 busing 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's tendering practices as it relates to the provision of school bus
services in the province; and
WHEREAS
there are many parents throughout the 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
the 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 presenting this petition again today. I've had plenty of calls and
emails and so on from individuals who have concerns about school busing in the
province. I've raised this issue on the 1.6-kilometre school busing and so on
for the last two or three years. I will continue to do so on behalf of parents
who have concerns.
I am
glad to see that there are matters which I'm hearing are going to be addressed
as it relates to inspections, which is good, but it certainly does nothing to
address the 1.6-kilometre rule, it does nothing to address the double bus runs
and all the concerns parents have around that.
I will
continue to bring this forward until we see some answers.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Orders of the Day, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Municipal Affairs for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An
Act Respecting The Relocation Of Certain Communities In The Province, Bill 47,
and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce
Bill 47 and that the said bill shall be now read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs to introduce a bill, An Act
Respecting The Relocation Of Certain Communities In The Province, carried.
(Bill 47)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Clerk.
CLERK (Ms. Barnes):
A bill, An Act Respecting
The Relocation Of Certain Communities In The Province. (Bill 47)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 47 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An
Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation Act, 2007, Bill 48, and I further move that
the said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded by
the hon. Government House Leader that he shall have leave to introduce a bill,
Bill 48, and that the said bill shall now be read a first 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.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend
The Hydro Corporation Act, 2007, carried. (Bill 48)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Hydro Corporation Act, 2007. (Bill 48)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 48 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Advanced Education, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 6, Bill 49, and I further move that
the said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded by
the hon. the Government House Leader that he shall have leave to introduce Bill
49 and that the said bill shall now be read a first 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.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a
bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2009 No. 6, carried. (Bill 49)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 6. (Bill 49)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 49 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, Order 2, third
reading of Bill 42.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Service NL, that Bill 42, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic
Act No. 3, be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 42 be now read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Highway Traffic Act No. 3. (Bill 42)
MR. SPEAKER:
Bill 42 has now been read a
third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the
Order Paper.
On
motion, a bill, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 3, read a third
time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 42)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 44.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is that the House
resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 44. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
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 44, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999.
A bill,
An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999. (Bill 44)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against oh, I'm
sorry.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I'm pretty small. It's hard
to see me, Madam Chair.
CLERK:
I can't say it's Monday.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes, in debate yesterday I
had some questions to ask. I really like this bill. I think it's a great bill,
but there are some questions that I'd like to ask.
Most
municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador deal with a lot of small communities
and in those communities you'll see a lot of members on council that are
related. One thing you always do when you become a council member is to
understand the conflict of interest and how it works within municipalities.
My
question to the minister is I know it requires two-thirds of a vote to go
through council, but is there any other mechanism where because sometimes in
small communities, you look at family members and three or four members of that
family could be on a council. So it will be a job to get the two-thirds of a
vote or whatever. Conflict of interest is usually addressed at the council level
and not the municipal level. My question is how are you going to look at this
when it comes to conflict of interest?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
Madam Chair, he may be hard
to see but it's easy to listen to him.
My good
friend and great colleague, thank you for the question. It's the same right now
in the municipalities. I'll give you a good example. It's a great question
because there are a lot of times in municipalities where you're related.
Right
now under the municipalities act, if a councillor, for example, wants to do some
work for the town or a family member for the town; they can get an exemption
from the minister. What they can do is council can explain the situation they
can't get two-thirds votes.
You
always have to remember that anytime, even with the two-thirds vote, it has to
be approved by the minister, but if there's conflict of interest which is deemed
by if there are five or six councillors and three or four says I can't, the
minister can then approve that, like he does now.
I know
the former minister had occasions where councillors wanted to get on certain
programs or certain councillors where a family member, they'd excuse themselves
and ask if they could be hired, and they're still on the council. So the
minister can give exemptions to that if written to the minister and explained to
him.
CHAIR:
All those in favour of clause
1?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 2.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 2 carry?
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Madam
Chair.
Yesterday, when I spoke in second reading, I did throw out some questions with
regard to clause 2 which deals with the local service district naming and
marking all the highways within the local service district and requiring owners
of buildings on the highways to number the buildings and also giving them the
right, actually, to charge a fee for the numbering. I threw out some questions
and the minister may have answers to them today.
I have
concerns, and concerns that have been expressed to me by people who live in
local service districts. One of the questions has to do with fairness. Is there
going to be a fee that the department comes up with to say it will be the same
fee everywhere? Will they do an analysis of what exactly would create a cost and
have that put down as or even a range of a fee, has any thought gone into
that?
I've
also had a concern expressed that the local service districts don't have the
mechanism to deal with many of them, some might, but many of them do not have
the mechanism to deal with the actual collection of fees and the administration
of fees. That's a major concern. If a local service district wanted to do it, is
the department there to give them resources to help them? Human resources or
whatever to help them do it?
Another
question that's been raised is that I had one person speak to me, for example,
who lives in a LSD where they've done the numbering. It's all been done. That
person raised the question, well, is this going to be retroactive? Are they
going to be able to say now since this legislation is in place that they can now
charge a fee for having done the work?
These
are legitimate questions that have been coming to me. I really would like to
hear a response from the minister about how he hopes this would be able to work,
and work smoothly and work for the benefit of everybody. Would the fee be the
same? For example, some of the buildings on the highways are residences and some
of the buildings are businesses, so is everybody going to be paying the same?
So there
are quite a number of questions that have come forward. I do put out that even
though the minister was hopeful that people won't mind this, I'd like to suggest
to him that some people may mind because they'll say well municipalities didn't
charge a fee. Now we know people living in municipalities pay taxes, but that
doesn't seem to matter to some people living in LSDs. They still will throw that
out.
Certainly, we know there was quite a reaction when Eastern Waste Management
wanted to collect $180 as an annual garbage collection. So are we going to have
people saying, well, I only live in that house during the summer, I only go
there a few times a year and it's not going to be a major emergency issue in my
case if I don't have a number?
We've
heard crazy things being put out there, and I think we might hear things being
put out around this one as well. So I'd just like the minister to speak to us
about, have they looked at some of these issues?
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
Madam Chair, I have to say
that I'm kind of puzzled by the questions and I'll explain to you why. LSDs
asked for this. They actually asked for this, to have this done.
If
there's anybody out there in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador anybody
in a city, town, LSD feels that this is a waste of money to have their house
numbered for safety; we have concerns about that because it hasn't been
expressed to the department. Not one person in the province that came to my
attention is concerned about this. I'm not saying they didn't come to your
office, I'm just saying they didn't come to me.
The
second thing I'll put out to you, under this act, LSDs can charge what it cost
to put the numbers in. LSDs want that. The second thing, as we speak, LSDs can
charge fees already. So being able to charge a fee, it's already within the LSD.
The
third thing, if they have problems there are two things with that. One, if
they have problems collecting a fee, it's up to the LSDs to police themselves.
If not, if there's an LSD a regional waste management authority, as an
example, the Eastern authority. They have the authority to go with communities
and collect fees if they want that done. There are many mechanisms for them to
collect the fees, but I can assure the Member I hope that answers your
question. That's the three questions that I noticed.
Saying
they might charge more than it costs, they can charge as we speak now. LSDs can
charge fees now, what they please. If people don't want to pay, they have no
mechanism. They have no property tax; they don't have water and sewer where they
can turn on and off the water. In some cases they may, but that's the authority.
I guess that's why they want to remain an LSD.
But I
can tell the hon. House, that to my personal knowledge as the minister, I
haven't received one call from any person in an LSD that this is a concern or
they may be charged too much or they're already being charged. People in the
LSDs that we spoke to want this for safety; they want this to ensure their
safety, if they have fires, if there's an emergency. So if there's anybody who
got any concerns they can contact me, but to date I haven't received one.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam
Chair, I had a question for the minister in regard to civic addressing as well.
Yesterday in debate I mentioned it in regard to the availability of some data
they could already possibly collect in regard to civic addressing and through
the waste management initiative that's been developed over the past number of
years.
Eastern
Waste Management, I know in our particular area, would have gone in and
identified various structures in regard to implementing buildings for waste
management. Some of that data in regard to civic addressing would retain with an
organization like Eastern Waste Management.
I wonder
we've got to go through this process again in regard to getting it for this
reason, and we know it's an important reason to obtain that information and why
it is. Is there any interconnection with someone like Eastern Waste Management,
where that information is already collected, and could that be accessed to
provide that information now?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Great
question; the answer is yes. We met with Eastern Waste Management. They have a
lot of that work done, as you know as a former minister. They have a lot of that
work done and a lot of civic addressing done for their own collection.
They
said they're willing to share that information. The LSDs, they know that, and
the LSDs can approach Eastern Waste Management or other waste managements in the
area. If they haven't done that, they can phone. I know when we met with the
chair of Eastern Waste Management here in St. John's they were willing to share
that information to anybody that would need it.
So it's
a great question. Yes, they do have it, and yes, they will share whatever they
got to ensure the safety of the people in the province.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Minister, I have another question, and I agree with you. We all agree that
having civic numbers is absolutely essential for emergency we all realize that
for fires, for anything, health, whatever reasons. We know that for
emergencies in particular the civic numbering is really important.
I'm not
saying this is not a good move; it needs to be done. But I'd like to know from
the minister, is there going to be a monitoring? Has he and the department
looked at even a deadline for when we would have civic numbers all over the
province?
This is
leaving it in the hands of the LSDs who they may do it so the permission is
there for them to do it. They can charge a fee. While I accept what the minister
has said that they're LSDs who've asked for it, there may also still be some who
aren't as organized as another one that may not have the ability to do it. Will
there be any monitoring of when we would have the whole province with civic
numbers?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
It is a
great question. The idea of getting civic addressing is for the Next Generation
911; that's the idea. Right now it would help in some areas. In the City of
Corner Brook, it would help the fire department. But a lot of the LSDs and where
the Next Generation is going to use GPS to get in on a house, hone in on a
house, that's when it's very important. MNL has been very supportive of this.
They've been pushing it through.
MNL has
been pushing for this for the municipalities under their umbrella. We have
contacted most LSDs; a lot of LSDs have contacted us. We will give them whatever
support we can. We will have a promotion when it gets close to the Next
Generation of who hasn't got it done. That is a great question because we can't
force anybody in LSD to do it, but we can definitely point to them and lead them
in right direction, the reason why it should be done.
So we
are willing to work with all LSDs. We will be sending out reminders when we get
closer to the Next Generation. Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador is at
every convention and pushing for it. The best we can do is educate people,
support the LSD, support the municipalities that it is a safety issue and we
will be monitoring which ones every year, or every six or seven months we're
seeing how many are done and how many are not done, so we're trying to collect
the data for that. That's going to be helping through the 911 system who is
asking us to get that.
So it is
a great question. I encourage anybody who is listening to get their civic
addressing done. And I'll just give an example; we were at a meeting last night,
myself and the minister of fisheries and agriculture, Bristol's Hope, LSD.
(Inaudible) they're just non-incorporated. They have civic addresses in every
house in Bristol's Hope. That is taking such a forward step and such forward
thinking that it's so great to hear 300 people now have civic addresses. They
did it on their own for safety reasons, for fire.
So I
encourage all LSDs, all municipalities who haven't got it done, get it done and
I'll give you a good example out in York Harbour; I'm very familiar with York
Harbour. York Harbour, they have their civic addressing. If someone puts up a
house where there is no house, it does not change. So that's the kind of stuff
we have to work on.
It's a
great question, we will be monitoring them and we will be helping out wherever
we can. We will be encouraging through a public education program to ensure that
everybody has a civic address because it is for public safety.
So thank
you for your question.
CHAIR:
All those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
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
Municipalities Act, 1999.
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 44
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 that the Committee
rise and report Bill 44.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 44.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
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 that I
report Bill 44 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 44 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:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time presently,
by leave.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call Order 3,
third reading of Bill 44.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, I'll just take a
second. I just want to thank everybody who participated in debate. Great
questions and a chance to ask people to encourage it; great questions about
municipalities and I just want to thank everybody who participated in the
debate.
This is
a bill that's going to help municipalities with a lot of paperwork and help a
lot of towns. Also, it's a safety issue. I thank all the Members in the House of
Assembly who promoted safety to all the LSDs and all the towns through this
debate. I just want to recognize that.
Again,
this is a bill for the House of Assembly. It's not a Liberal, PC, NDP or
Independent bill; this is another bill.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Are you moving and seconding
the bill?
MR. JOYCE:
This is third reading.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Against?
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Municipalities Act, 1999. (Bill 44)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the
Order Paper.
On
motion, a bill, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999, read a third
time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 44)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call Order 5,
second reading of Bill 46.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Government House Leader, that we now read Bill 46, An Act Respecting
Procurement By Public Bodies and that the bill be read the second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 46 be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, An Act Respecting Procurement By Public Bodies.
(Bill 46)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you for the opportunity to speak on this bill.
I rise
in this hon. House today to open debate on the introduction of An Act Respecting
Procurement By Public Bodies. At present, the province's legislation governing
purchases by public bodies is the Public
Tender Act.
Public
tendering governs the acquisition of goods, services, public works and leasing
of space by government-funded bodies in the province. It is an important piece
of legislation because it influences buying by all public bodies. This includes
municipalities, health boards, school boards, academic institutions, Crown
corporations and government.
The act
is decades old and has not been substantially amended since it was enacted.
Changes have been needed for some time and modernizing the procurement in our
province is a priority for our government. It was one of the platform
commitments that were included as one of the 50 initiatives in
The Way Forward vision that we
recently launched. Modernizing procurement is important because public bodies
influence a lot of economic activity in the province.
A recent Atlantic Provinces Economic Council study noted
Provincial Government procurement and capital spending totalled $4 billion
combined in 2014. This speaks to the magnitude of purchasing by public bodies in
our province and the need to have legislation in place that focuses on best
practices and achieves best value for dollars spent.
Mr. Speaker, the key benefits of this bill include:
promoting enhanced oversight and transparency; providing greater flexibility to
help public bodies purchase what they need; increased consistency in procurement
practices used by public bodies across the province; limiting exemptions for
Nalcor and the Research Development Corporation; and, creating the opportunity
to update the thresholds governing buying activity. I want to take this
opportunity to talk about each one of these in a little greater detail.
With respect to promoting enhanced oversight and
transparency, under the new act the Government Purchasing Agency will become the
public procurement agency.
This change is meant to increase focus on the agency's strengthened role in
providing oversight over procurement by all bodies. As part of this, the chief
procurement officer's role and the procurement advisory council will be
established to oversee the public procurement activities across the province.
Madam
Speaker, the chief procurement officer will be selected through the Independent
Appointments Commission process. The advisory council will be comprised of
officials from provincial public bodies. In addition, professional services that
were previously not included in the Public
Tender Act will now be subject to greater oversight than ever before.
I'm also
pleased to note that this new act will allow us to put new regulations and
policies in place in the coming months. These regulations and policies will make
the procurement process more transparent for vendors and allow public bodies
more opportunity to hold suppliers accountable for their performance.
Madam
Speaker, this act also provides greater flexibility in the way public bodies
purchase what they need. The previous approach encouraged tenders over requests
for proposals or RFPs. The new act will make it easier to use additional
approaches such as RFPs and calls for expressions of interest.
This new
act will allow increased consistency in procurement practices, specifically in
terms of the timelines used for procurement process, the sharing of information
between buyers and suppliers, and the application of procurement policies. This
new act will promote greater consistency in the approach used by all public
bodies.
This new
act would also limit exemptions for Nalcor and the Research & Development
Corporation. Procurement activities by those entities such as buying office
space, supplies and furnishings were not within the scope of the legislation
before but are now included. Nalcor's exemptions are now limited to the
following situations: procurement involving energy and energy products;
strategic partnership, joint ventures or equity investments with other public
bodies or private sector entities; or to meet the requirement of a benefits
agreement.
The
Research & Development Corporation's exemption is limited to procurement for
research and development purposes unrelated to the daily operations of these
corporations. These exemptions are necessary and responsive to the nature of the
work carried out by their entities. I want to note, that public reporting will
be required on any remaining exempted activities.
Finally,
Madam Speaker, this act includes the benefits creating the opportunity to update
the thresholds governing buying activity. As Minister of Municipal Affairs, I'm
very aware that this has been a concern for many communities in our province.
Many representatives from public bodies stated in consultations that the current
thresholds for requiring open calls for bids are too low. This increases the red
tape involved in small scale procurement and prevents public bodies from being
able to buy locally. The new act creates opporinity to respond to these issues
through regulatory changes and will allow government to increase thresholds and
address these problems.
Madam
Speaker, I am proud to be introducing this bill so early in our government's
mandate. Establishing this act is a vital first step in a process of modernizing
public procurement in Newfoundland and Labrador. Our government is delivering
this act within six months from the launch of
The Way Forward vision just as we promised. Next steps will include
selecting a chief procurement officer, finalizing regulations and policies and
training buyers and vendors which is very important. We anticipate this work
will take place over the course of 2017.
I will
conclude my comments now by noting The Way
Forward: A Vision for Sustainability and Growth in Newfoundland and Labrador
was recently launched by our government to identify ways to make improvements in
our province without driving costs. Our vision focuses in four areas: one,
achieving a more efficient public sector; two, building a stronger economic
foundation; three, providing better service; four, supporting better outcomes.
Madam
Speaker, by modernizing the procurement to achieve these best values for the
dollars, I am pleased to say our government is delivering on each of those
areas.
Madam
Speaker, I'm just going to take a minute on the other side, just speaking for
myself when I was in Opposition and dealing with municipalities. MNL has
supported this wholeheartedly. Just to give an example and I know the Member
for Cape St. Francis is well aware of this also. When you're on council and you,
for example, had a waterline break, if it was over $20,000 you had to go to
tender. By the time you went to tender and moved up the tender process, it's a
month or two months down the road.
Now
we're going to increase it up to $50,000. That does two things. This is just for
municipalities. There are a lot more great examples. For example, that allows
that if there's a problem with municipalities, you go out and get three quotes
instead of going through the tendering process. The three quotes then, you can
have it locally, instead of and this is a big thing, municipalities get a lot
of local suppliers then that can't partake, and this is just one example. When
the work is done up to $50,000, I just want the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador to know that that three quotes and how it was awarded by council has to
be sent in and put on the website for the public procurement officer.
So you
just can't have three quotes in a town and say, okay, we got it done. It has to
be sent in. They will be monitoring it in the public procurement office. This is
a great move for municipalities. This is just one.
Buying
supplies if it's over $10,000 then you have to go out and do the public
tender. Just imagine the work itself for supplies that every time you had to put
it to public tender. This here reduces the red tape, and I know the previous
government has been trying to reduce red tape in the Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador for years. This is a prime example of how we're going to reduce red
tape for municipalities, for vendors in this province, for businesses. It's a
great opportunity for a friendly business atmosphere, Madam Speaker, in the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I know
we're going to get into debate much later. I know there are going to be some
questions asked about it. But I can say, Madam Speaker and I'm sure the
Opposition, the Third Party and the Independent are going to support this. I'll
tell you why we're going to have unanimous support again in the House of
Assembly. This is what municipalities, this is what the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador wanted, this is what the business community wanted. We delivered
what they wanted.
I'm
confident again that if there's some way we can strengthen this legislation, I'm
open for it. But I feel very confident with the public consultations that we
had, the best opportunity we have now to increase business for rural
Newfoundland and Labrador, to have more transparency and bring more under the
umbrella of what can and will not be under the
Public Procurement Act, will be in this bill.
I'm very
confident once again because we're all working together in this House of
Assembly for the good of Newfoundland and Labrador that we will have unanimous
consent on this I'm sure there's going to be questions, which there should be.
But I'm very confident that once again we're going to show the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador that this Legislature is working together for the
betterment of people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and this bill will pass with
unanimous consent in the House of Assembly.
I know
my friend, the Member for Cape St. Francis, who was a municipal leader in his
past, will stand and support this, because he knows how good this is. I know his
councils are saying we need this, we got to have this done; and I look across at
the former minister, the Member for Ferryland, he mentioned to me many times
that yes, there's a lot of great information in this and we need it done. So I
feel very confident that the Members opposite are going to support this because
it's great for Newfoundland and Labrador.
I look
forward to their support. Madam Speaker, when the support is done, I will stand
up like I always do and thank the Members opposite for their support because
it's great for Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):
The Speaker
recognizes the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker.
I want
to thank the staff over to Municipal Affairs for the great briefing they gave us
yesterday. And I want to ensure the minister that we are good friends, but I can
assure the minister also that we will have lots of questions and there are lots
of questions on this bill. And I hope that he will listen to some of the stuff
that we have to offer to make this and we really want to make sure that this
bill is done proper. There will be questions and probably some amendments that
will come forward.
Madam
Speaker, it was the PC government who were working on this for years and had a
great deal of the ground work done. The first reading of
Public Procurement Act was given in 2012, but the legislation did
not advance at the time. The Liberals are pushing the legislation to be done, no
doubt. Although they will boast today they're moving ahead where others didn't,
the fact is that we are pushing many of these details of legislation into
regulations to be dealt with later. That means that Cabinet will have to deal
with many of these details later. There are 20 categories of regulations
described in section 28 and 29 of the bill. There is a broad exemption in
section 7. The bill leaves many unknowns.
Under
section 36, we don't even know when Cabinet will proclaim the bill. The
regulations have to be written yet, the act has to be proclaimed, so nothing is
going to change until all of this comes into place with regulations and
(inaudible).
In
principle, public procurement reform is something we all want to support. It was
the PC government that brought this forward in the first public procurement
reform in the Public Tender Act in
1984 and it has been updated from time to time, including in 2009. The
legislation brought integrity, fairness, good value, transparency and
accountability to public procurement. The legislation is surely needed and it
was the PC Party that took the lead after more than three decades of people
ignoring it.
But, as
in any legislation, it needs improvement. The trade, business, and procurement
environment has changed significantly since then, and it's continuing to change,
particularly when it comes to the trade environment. Procurement and trade are
issues that are always in flux.
CETA is
just happening; an agreement with intergovernmental trade is being negotiated
and includes procurement. Who can guess what will come with our new president of
the United States. What will happen with respect to NAFTA or trade agreements in
Asia and the Pacific? What will that lead to? Trade issues also end up before
tribunals in court. They, too, can change and the rules can change according to
the environment. In fact, part of this legislation anticipates challenges in
these areas.
The
constant flux is a reason why our administration did not get this legislation
done. Although the current government would claim they're acting where others
didn't, they have made some part of this bill so vague and open ended that
people can only guess where it will lead.
So in
the final words of procurement: Decisive legislation that the Liberals promised?
No, but it's a great framework. Some specifics to the legislation; in some
cases, it's just a change of new names to old names. Instead of the
Public Tender Act, the Government
Purchasing Agency and Intergovernmental
Joint Purchasing Act, it will now be called the
Public Procurement Act. Instead of the Government Purchasing Agency,
we will have the public procurement agency. Instead of the GPA chief operating
officer, we will have the chief procurement officer.
There
are many things that are new in this act also. That flows from the
recommendations from the Reid & Associates report that we commissioned in 2008
broadening the coverage of procurement legislation focusing on results and roles
and being accountable, adapting a new flexible policy, increasing
standardization, implementing a new accountability framework and mandating an
independent system for recourse.
The
purpose of the legislation; well, the principle or the purpose of the
legislation is outlined in section 3. These are statements that we all can agree
on: The purpose of the Act is to establish a statutory framework which, through
its operation, enables public bodies to achieve best value, transparency and
accountability in procurement.
(2) For
the purpose of the efficient, effective and ethical procurement required by
public bodies to carry out their mandates, public bodies shall (a) promote the
integrity and fairness of, and public confidence in, procurement; (b) foster and
encourage participation in procurement by suppliers; (c) promote competition
among suppliers in procurement; (d) provide for the fair and equitable treatment
of all suppliers and contractors; (e) promote making information on procurement
publicly available; and (f) value diversity in procurement.
What
we're really trying to do here with this bill in particular, we want to get the
best value for the people's money and that's what this bill is all about. We
want to ensure that local business have a fair chance to compete for government
business. Under trade agreements, we also want to ensure that local companies
compete for business in other jurisdictions. Of course, that means we have to
open our doors wider to competition here. It means we also have to nurture an
environment in which local companies can be competitive.
One way
to make our local companies really competitive is our tax rates. When we have
companies in Newfoundland and Labrador competing all over Atlantic Canada and
all over Canada, we have to make sure that our tax rates are competitive so our
companies are competitive with these companies.
We have
to minimize red tape, and the minister mentioned that also. That, too, has a
cost of operating with government and doing business here. We have to ensure
that the process is transparent and accountability, with the checks and balance
to correct any flaws. We have to protect ourselves from challenges. Will the
legislation accomplish all these things and when? While it is well intended, a
lot of the whats are still in the details, still to be worked out. There is no
indication of when.
Some
things we should be aware of and there are some things that we really have to
be aware of when we deal especially with trade. The province has certain
obligations under various trade agreements, including the Atlantic Procurement
Agreement and the Agreement on Internal Trade. We have to take into account
those obligations. The Government Purchasing Agency is continued as a new public
procurement agency.
Now,
there are a couple of different changes. There will be a procurement advisory
council under section 25. These are government employees who will have no
stipend. The benefit, it will bring together officials who will provide advice
and make recommendations to the minister exactly what will be defined in the
regulations.
The bill
introduced a concept of best value. Best value includes the best balance of
cost, quality, performance and support, as achieved through transparent,
effective and competitive procurement process using a clear and fair evaluation.
That's important too. A lot of times when you look at some bids that go out
there and sometimes it's the lowest bid that always gets it. But best value
sometimes doesn't necessarily mean that it's the lowest bid, so that is a good
part of the legislation.
The
chief procurement officer shall develop general policies respecting procurement
of commodities applied to those that are social, economic, environmental
priorities. That, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may direct.
The
scope has expanded to include lease space. The scope also includes more
services. Under it, it includes engineering, architectural, accounting, land
surveying, banking or insurance services, voice telephone services or other
services that require the giving of an opinion, creativity, the preparation of
design and technical expertise.
Professional services are defined in section 2, which includes: legal services
and financial services relating to the provision of credit and instruments of
monetary policy.
Although
Nalcor and RDC are included in the act, they have certain exemptions. Under
section 30
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind
Members to keep their conversations down or take them outside the Chamber.
Thank
you.
The hon.
Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker.
Although
Nalcor and RDC are included in the act, they have certain exemptions. Under
section 30, Nalcor will be exempted for procurement in (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
..
Under
section 33, RDC have exemptions that are related to the daily operation of RDC
or subsidiaries. Thresholds, this is important; the minister spoke about that a
few minutes ago. Monetary thresholds will likely increase but these will be
defined under regulation 28, so it will be up to Cabinet to decide whether, when
and how much they increase.
Those
who gave us the briefing suggested that the thresholds may be raised by Cabinet
under regulations and bring them in line with the Atlantic Procurement Agreement
levels. That would mean that for services it will move from $10,000, it could
move to $50,000; the public works could go from $20,000 to $100,000; and for
lease space, from $10,000 on an annual rental value to $100,000 on a contract
value. Goods and service more than likely will remain the same.
There
are several measures for transparency in this bill. Under paragraph 3, many of
the information will be available to the public. Section 12 provides
unsuccessful bidders to be debriefed; suppliers can also file a complaint under
section 12. Suppliers' performance governance is under section 13.
Electronic notification system is defined by paragraph 2, under section 16 and
22. Also, there's a clause in section 26 that protects officials from being sued
when they act in good faith. There is also a reporting mechanism for exemptions
for Nalcor and RDC under sections 30 and 33.
Mr.
Speaker, regulations defined in the bill are significant. There are 17
paragraphs defining where Cabinet can regulate and three defining where the
minister can regulate. They include: defining procurement thresholds, defining
exemptions where open calls for bids is not required, defining change orders or
extensions, defining groups of purchasing, defining the delegation of authority,
defining what happens in the absence of bids, defining the requirements for
tabling and reporting, defining procedures for a limited time for a call of
bids. This is just a short list and goes on.
Mr.
Speaker, it's not that I'm against the bill or anything at all. I think it's a
great piece of legislation that we need to do here in the House of Assembly, but
there are a lot of questions to be asked. In Commencement, defined in section
36, the act has to be proclaimed or part of the act has to be proclaimed on a
day or days that the Cabinet determines. So there's no way of knowing when this
bill will be determined or will come forward.
It's a
very important bill. I apologize; I said it was Municipal Affairs but, in actual
fact, it's Service NL. The minister mentioned about $4 billion. That's a lot of
money. There are a lot of businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador, a lot of
municipalities, a lot of health care, people who deal with our health care and
people who deal with municipalities that this can affect. So it's important that
we get it right.
There
are a lot of details that we need to work out in this bill. I'm hoping to hear
more answers from the minister when he gets up to speak.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
The Speaker recognizes
the hon. the Member for Labrador West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure for me today to rise in this hon. House to speak on Bill 46. I've just
listened to the Member opposite talking about why they couldn't bring it in and
all this good stuff. Well, I remind the Member opposite that it was that
administration that brought in Bill 1, which was supposed to be their signature
bill at the time, which was to bring in a new procurement act. That was in 2012.
Here we are today in 2016 bringing in this bill so we can have a better
procurement system in this province.
It died
on their Order Paper. That's why it didn't get brought in. They can make up all
the excuses they want for not bringing it in. The fact of the matter is when
this government came into power and this minister came in, it was in his mandate
letter to get this done. We saw the need and this minister took it upon himself
with his department officials, we had many officials in the department to work
on this, we're bringing it to the House today as a new procurement act that will
work better for the people of this province and the municipalities, the
government and all agencies that are involved in this procurement act. So, no,
excuses don't count. We're here today to do what's right, and do what's been
asked by the people of this province to be done for many years.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, this act influences a lot of economic development in the province. As
the minister alluded to, a recent Atlantic Provinces Economic Council study
cited 2014 data to show that this provincial government engages in approximately
$3.19 billion in procurement activity and approximately $963 million in capital
spending. That's over $4 billion annually.
So it's
no wonder we saw the need to improve what was happening within the province.
Because the act that's there is decades old and has not been substantially
amended since enacted. Changes have been needed for some time, as outlined in a
2008 report by Reid and Associates and we know who was in power in that
particular year.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Who's the minister?
MR. LETTO:
Well, I can tell you who the
minister was when Bill 1 was introduced in 2012. He's now sitting as the Leader
of the Opposition. So they can talk about all they want, but we're doing what's
right here today.
Some of
the benefits of this act, it moves the focus, Mr. Speaker, from getting the best
price to getting the best value.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible) and he ran for
five years?
MR. LETTO:
Five years.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. LETTO:
The focus of this legislation
and our overall approach is to ensure public bodies achieve best value,
transparency and accountability from procurement, not just the best price with
little regard for the other factors. And more services are included in this act
than ever before. Engineering services, architectural services, accounting, land
surveying, voice telephone services, banking services, insurance services and
other services that were previously not included. This enhanced oversight will
help ensure best value from money spent on these services in the future.
There
will be an opportunity to update the thresholds governing buying activity. Many
public bodies, including municipalities, have said that current thresholds are
very low and force public bodies to engage in open calls for bids when the
services they needed had a small monetary value. That's been addressed in the
new act.
The new
act provides an opportunity to increase these thresholds, which in turn reduces
red tape and supports buying activity. This also provides public bodies the
ability to locally source for acquisitions below the thresholds, and the
minister alluded to that. If you have a municipality who want to buy locally to
support the people that are supporting them, this act gives them the opportunity
with oversight, I might add.
Speaking
of oversight, there will be enhanced oversight. The new act includes changing
the Government Purchasing Agency to the public procurement agency I guess that
was a little dig as well it's monitoring and compliance role regarding public
procurement, establishing a chief procurement officer and a procurement advisory
council to oversee all public procurement activities across the province.
As the
minister also alluded to, the chief procurement officer will be selected through
the Independent Appointments Commission. The advisory council will be comprised
of officials from provincial public bodies. The minister already said that.
One of
the things I think this act addresses which we're very excited about, and we
keep hearing from the Opposition parties about, more oversight is needed at
Nalcor. This act does that because the province's energy corporation, which is
Nalcor, has been exempt from the Public
Tender Act since an amendment in June 2008. Just remember that date, June
2008. Who was in power?
While
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has always been included, Nalcor and its
remaining subsidiaries have not been subject to government's procurement
legislation since June 2008. The Public
Tender Act had been recognized as a dated piece of legislation that required
updating. The former government had promised to bring forward a new procurement
framework, which they did, but this had never materialized.
Since
coming into office, our government has had the opportunity to provide input into
new procurement legislation and to ensure that the new legislation aligns with
our commitments to transparency and accountability. This legislation is a direct
example of our commitment to the transparency and accountability of Nalcor.
Nalcor
now will be subjected to the public tendering process, the same as any other
organization or Crown corporation in the province, but we recognize that Nalcor
is a little different than most other corporations. For that reason, we have
identified some exemptions that make sense. They include energy and energy
products.
We know
buying and selling of electricity and other energy products, like oil, is an
area that does not fit well within normal procurement procedures. Lots of times
that purchase, procurement or sale is done on a daily basis and it happens to
trading, for instance, for oil and electricity. We're now in an open market
process and it happens in real time and across open markets. So it's not
practical to be able to subject that type of procurement to the public
procurement act.
Also,
Nalcor buys energy. Again, they're buying that on the open market. There are
lots of incidents with this corporation. It's involved in strategic
partnerships, joint ventures, or equity investments, whether it's in the
offshore or other energy products that they're involved in.
Mr.
Speaker, we've identified that there are areas where Nalcor can be subjected to
the procurement system and there are areas where this does not make sense. I
think this act and the people who've put together this legislation have done a
great job in identifying, especially with Nalcor, what is practical and what is
not practical. I am confident they've identified the areas for both.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I will take my seat; but, before I do, I want to thank the minister,
who I know has put a lot of effort into this, getting this act together, and the
people within the department who have put a lot of time and effort into ensuring
we have a new procurement act that meets the needs of all organizations within
the province and meets the needs of our people, and the taxpayers of this
province will get the best value for their money.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is
indeed an honour to stand and speak to Bill 46, An Act Representing Procurement
by Public Bodies.
My short
period as the minister responsible back a couple of years ago, this was one of
the files that I started to really dig into because both sides of the House at
the time had seen the need. It already had been identified by the Auditor
General. It had been identified by the proponents we deal with and it had been
identified by the general public and everybody involved that we need to find a
better way of procuring the services and the products for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
While I
never got a chance to really go through it, the nine weeks went quick enough, I
managed to do a few things on some other files but this was one that was always
in the back of my mind, and obviously a lot of our minds as we started to move
it forward. That's why a lot of the legwork an enormous amount of legwork
was done. As I go through what's being presented here, I reflect back on it.
It's dιjΰ vu. It's a lot of the same discussions I had in my briefing at the
time around, particularly, what is it we're trying to achieve here.
The main
focus here is simple. It's not about the least cost. It's about the best value.
No doubt, everybody in this House, no matter if you're a minister, if you're a
backbencher, if you're in Opposition, your objective here is to get the best
return on the investment for the taxpayers, for the residents of this province.
The best way to do that is to get the best value on the purchases we make and
the services that are being provided to us by outside entities.
So the
procurement process, obviously, has been a long time in the waiting. It's been a
process that's been developing. It's no doubt, it's had enough, I think, input
from some outside entities to get to a point where now we can have open debate
again.
The key
thing here is about ensuring the procurement process does do exactly what the
philosophy and the process that's put in play will play out the way it should
be. That is we get a better value.
I go
back to some of the days in Treasury Board with the former process. We would
look at Ski-Doos or quads that were being purchased and we were getting a year
out of something that we were spending $250,000 on. The question being asked
then by all of us around was: Why is this? Is this an issue about how our use
is? Is it we're getting over billed? Is it the product itself? It was we were
going with least cost versus the best value.
If we
were getting an investment on a piece of equipment that would give us a year,
but if we paid a little bit more on one of the other procurement bidders and
could get three years out of it, the economy of scale was much in the favour of
investing the money on the three-year one. That may have been a little bit more
expensive, but in the long run we saved money. You save it, not only in your
cash flows and your equity, and the breakdown of the equipment, the safety for
the provided service or the piece of equipment you're providing, but you also
save it in the administration.
We spent
as much time debating that and then the bureaucrats having to deal with other
situations around repairs or around procurement of that same product again for
the second time. So it wasn't a good use of our money. It wasn't a good use of
the bureaucracy at the time. Obviously, changing the legislation and bringing
something forward is a good thing. I applaud the minister and the government for
doing that.
I do
have some concerns around the regulations, because at the end of the day we have
to have defined sets of regulations that set out exactly what are the parameters
and what procurement process will be engaged. That was one of the challenges I
had during my tenure there about really defining what those are and having that
set in our legislation so that the people we deal with, that the House
themselves would know, that the senior bureaucrats would know, that the
procurement agencies would know, the Auditor General would have a clear
understanding of exactly where we could go when it came to procurement contracts
and regulations.
It would
make it more equitable for the private sector when they bid on contracts such as
these, because they would know exactly where they are. They would know, in some
cases, do they spend a lot of money in doing up bids for certain things, or are
there certain things that can be done. Maybe there's a happy balance. Maybe in
certain cases there has to be an ability to govern at a certain level. As part
of transparency and openness, it's got to be that every entity that has an
ability to bid on a product or a service for the people of this province would
know exactly what the playing field is, and know where it is as part of that
process.
Does
that mean the balance of having some leeway for line departments or line
bureaucrats to be able to no doubt purchase things in an equitable fashion, in a
timely fashion that doesn't slow down what we do and the services we provide as
a body for the people of this province? No doubt. It's that happy medium, but
when the unknowns are there you're not really improving the process because the
outside entities are still going to be guessing exactly where it is they're
going and what to expect.
If they
know what the budget lines are going to be, they will pretty well know where
they lie when it comes to a bidding process. It will also open up some other
markets for people to be able to come in here and determine if indeed a certain
particular service, if it's an engineering service, if it's an architectural
service, or if it's a building service, or it provides service goods, then they
would know what dollars may be available. But if it's left to discretion or if
it's left to a follow-up time of a year or two years or three years down the
road before these regulations are defined, we're no further ahead.
That's
my concern, and that's why I'm looking forward to, as we have the dialogue, and
no doubt in Committee asking the minister some questions around how they're
going to define the regulations, what they're going to be entailing, how they're
going to be implemented, what the parameters are, how they're going to be
defined when it comes to the input from major stakeholders as part of that
process. I see a lot of things in here that are good.
I
remember getting my briefing around having advisory committees, about the line
departments working closer together around procurement, around the process of
having a properly defined concept, being able to communicate it out to the
general public, and particularly to those procurement agencies that we're going
to be doing business with, and finding the best way to promote best use of our
investments and the best value for our money.
Again,
it has to go back to looking at how we do that. The philosophical outline, the
motherhood process here is very engaging. It makes sense. It's a process that
would work. There's no doubt, bureaucrats would look at this and say, yes, this
would streamline how we do business. It would make an even flow. It would make
line departments communicate a lot better, because there are some definitions
here of what's accepted and what falls under each heading. But the confusion
will come down to at the end of the day and the real decision making is what
is it that we can procure and what costing is related to that. That still hasn't
been defined and that becomes the regulation.
So there
are some conversations that no doubt I'll have and my colleagues in our party. I
know the Third Party will probably have the same concerns. What is the process
to define that? How is it going to be defined? What parameters? Are we adding on
to what already existed and putting that as part of the legislation? Are we
having that separate? That it's left to Treasury Board or Cabinet or the
minister or particular levels of the bureaucracy to make decisions. These are
things that are going to have to be discussed as we go through the process
around the regulations itself.
As we
look at it, there's no doubt the bill needed to be updated. Going through a lot
of the regulatory processes that are outlined here and the different sections,
it does do that. It starts to clean it up. Chief procurement officer; it's a
great entity to have there. It's a senior individual who will have the expertise
to be able to oversee the whole process. We're talking $3 billion to $4 billion
in a given year in procurement contracts. Obviously, you have to have somebody
who has that ability to understand how the private sector works, but how the
public sector needs to avail of those types of services. That entails the value
for the investment, but it also entails the best use of the service that's going
to be provided.
There is
a multitude of ways that can be done. It can be done through some developed
partnerships. It can be done from direct purchasing. It can be done from lease
purchasing. There are all kinds of processes here that no doubt, this individual
will dialogue with the line departments, dialogue with the advisory committee
that the minister is going to set up. I think it's a great idea. I look forward
to seeing who in the particular industries or who from the senior bureaucracy
will be part of that. I think it's a great way to have that openness and
transparency, a great way for engagement to see that process. Again, that has to
be open and transparent and it has to obviously include the key components that
are going to benefit, particularly all the stakeholders.
The
particular stakeholders that I have the most interest in protecting are the
taxpayers here. That the best use of their money is going to be put forward and
at the end of the day the best value that we get for our investments. So if
we're doing it in an equitable way and we're doing it in an efficient way that
we save money on one side, well then there are other investments we can put into
other parts of our procurement process. That may be supplies. It may be building
new buildings. It may be in some kind of other particular service that we need.
There
may be other avenues that we look at to better provide our procurement services.
Sometimes there are procurements services that can be done in-house by enhancing
some of the staffing we have and some of the training. So that the private
sector, as part of our procurement, is part of the training component, or have a
particular specialty or an expertise in a certain area. So there's an ability
here to have, while we're at this, an open dialogue and an open concept around
making sure that the legislation that gets adopted is the legislation that is
best going to serve this House and best serve the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
I do
recall, when I was minister, the discussion around how do we get all the key
stakeholders at the table to have the proper dialogue about where we best get
the return on our value. There's a multitude of ways of doing that. We have
partnerships with, I think, 10 major organizations or associations that
represent all the key players in this province when it comes to procurement. So
we need to better engage them and get a better understanding of what they feel
is the benefit of this here.
I know
there has been some dialogue. I've had some conversations with some people that
the department and the minister's office have had dialogue with some key
players, and I applaud that. I think it's good. You can only improve on things
if you ask for people who either have a concern or have an ability to be able to
give advice that you think is going to move things forward.
No
doubt, all players here, with the economy being what it is, all players,
particularly home-grown companies, would like to have a better way that they can
get a piece of the revenues or the expenditures that we're putting out there and
still provide the service for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and still employ
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Having
that open dialogue has been a positive thing. I'm looking forward to hearing
from the minister and other Members opposite, particularly when we get into
Committee, about how that process was engaged and going back in comparison to
the former procurement bill, how the improvements have gotten to this point. I
know where we were and I know how we had gotten to those. I know 75 to 85 per
cent of this is exactly where we were.
It's
again about the regulations that I have some concerns about. There are too many
unknowns here. There are too many things that haven't been defined. When you
look at some of the key things that are going to be discussed when we get down
to the bill part of it, particularly when you talk about the Lieutenant Governor
in Council may make regulations. Fair enough, that's part of the process but may
be making regulations particularly around the procurement of commodities.
Now, we
all know what the commodities are. That's where our $3.1 billion or $3.9 billion
is going to go each year and that's around our goods, it's around our services,
it's around our public works and it's around our lease of spaces. So we need to
be able to know what the parameters around that are. The public sector needs to
know that; the taxpayers need to know that. Because we need to know if we're
going to make decisions around supporting a bill like this, whether or not that
is the best use of the investment or the best approach forward.
There
are a number of things here that I think we need to have a more open discussion
around. This is not something that you can rush forward because it's too much of
a big investment in the benefits of the people of this province and in driving
the economy.
I have
no illusion here the public sector here understands what role they need to
play in this. If there are restrictions on what they do or if it's not clear in
what they do and companies slip through the cracks because they didn't
understand that this was an open call for proposal, or there's a standing order
and how do they get on that list, so there has to be some definitions here of
exactly what that means, respecting the manner in which contracts are awarded.
These are things that can be defined.
My
argument is let's define them. I think that's easy enough to do. We've been
criticized because we didn't get to it previous times, there's no doubt I can
give you some of my advice from my short period there. I know there are other
people over here who can give you their advice of what they've done. There's no
doubt Members from the Third Party could do that and there's no doubt people
from the private sector could come in and tell you here's what they would
suggest.
The
government still has the ability, and the minister, to take all of that
information and then prepare that so here's our regulation here are the
regulations we're going to propose and this cleans up exactly what the
procurement process is about. It outlines the regulations that are part of the
act. They don't have to be a separate thing that we're going to get to next
year, or the year after, or three years down the road where all of a sudden
there's some confusion about where the private sector fits to it, to where the
private sector from the mainland to Newfoundland and Labrador feeds into it, to
what standing offers that we can do immediately.
So there
needs to be a little bit more clarification here on what we're doing. There are
too many unknowns here, when you've got 20 categories here that are not yet
defined. Respecting suppliers' performance, so what does that mean in
regulation? One of the things that we had talked about would make sense and when
I was minister of Transportation and Works it was about performance initiatives
in contracts.
A lot of
our contracts, unfortunately, go over budget, or particularly are behind
schedule and there are a number of reasons for that. So do we build in penalties
and do we build in performance incentives? What's the happy medium there? What
are the conversations? And some of the conversations I had with the different
sectors were around this could work but we'd need to know what it is. That would
have to be part of your procurement, how you're going to do that, how you're
going to be able to keep the companies accountable on performing what they've
been contracted to do, but at the same time if they can make a project work and
have it in a professional manner and it expedites a lease agreement, for
example, if we're building a building, or it finds a way for us to save money
from busing because the school now was built on time, maybe there are some
incentives there.
So there
has to be a process here that has to be discussed around how we do that, how we
engage that. And when you just say there are 20 regulations we're going to have
a discussion around down the road, here's our procurement piece of legislation
but it doesn't define exactly how we're going to do procurement. What it says
is, it outlines and no doubt the same stuff that we had outlined. The same
challenge that is being faced here, we face at the end: getting to a point of
defining exactly what those regulations were and agreeing what was equitable and
what would be a balance between those who are going to be the bidders as the
procurers and those who are going to be the people who are going to receive the
service from the procured contracts.
So that
became a bit of a challenge and, no doubt, was one of the key reasons why it was
delayed for periods of time. I applaud the fact that the minister now and the
government wants to move it forward, but it still got to be the right piece of
legislation. It still has to serve what it's set up to do, and what it's set up
to do is get best value for our investment. Not the cheapest value, the best
value.
So we
need to have a bit more of an open dialogue around that. There's no doubt there
are questions we're going to be asking here around how we get to that point. I
would think Members over there have been in the private sector, they've been
public servants, they've seen services out in their respective districts,
particularly the last year that they've been out there, about a better way we
can do business and a better way we can partner with the private sector. The
procurement process is what gives us our safeguard because it sets an even keel.
We know what we're getting when we set the process.
Right
now, there's still no knowing what we're getting because the unknowns are in the
regulation. Where are the regulations? They don't exist. Now if they do exist,
please share them with us because, you know what, they may hit exactly where we
are. It may hit exactly where the private sector is. It may hit where the
taxpayers feel is the best way to spend our money. I'm looking forward to having
that discussion with the minister and with the colleagues opposite. No doubt my
colleagues on this side, too, will have some questions those types of things.
I also
want to talk about some of the things I just want to let people know at home
that it's not as simple as saying let's bring in an act, well that cleans up
what we're doing. No doubt we're going to clean up what we're doing, but we need
to clean it up to a point where at the end of the day people can feel confident
that things are going to be done in an efficient way, they're going to be done
in a timely fashion and we're going to get the best value for that money.
We're
talking about governing forms in consent of electronic notification systems. So
what does that engage? What does that include at the end of the day? We need to
know it. If I'm to vote for something here, I need to know what that means. Is
that going to be a very expensive, encompassing process? Is it going to slow
down the distribution of information? Is it going to hinder my access to know
what contracts are out there, what company has procured it and what service
they're providing? Is it going to slow down the companies being able to bid on
processes or is it going to slow down them or make it costly because half of it
is going to be administratively oriented. We need some more definitions of what
these things mean.
Establishing monetary amounts at which an open call for bids is required. Fair
enough, I understand that. You're not going to go for every thousand-dollar bid
or even $5,000 bid or maybe even a $10,000 bid depending on what makes sense. I
mean we operate a multi-billion-dollar operation, the Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador does, so it needs freedom to do things that it's been elected to
govern to do. No problems with that. There's a trust factor there that you take
it and you run with it and you do the right things.
We have
bureaucrats who do that every day. They know what services are needed. They know
what they can do, take and run with it. They don't need to be slowed down
because it's too encompassing about what the process is. The problem here is I
don't know if they'd be in favour of this or against it because they know as
much as we do. They don't know what that would include. If you're now to procure
a particular service, if there's a leak in this building tomorrow and you have
to bring in a contractor, what does that mean? What process are we using here?
If it's less than a certain amount or if it's under an emergency call or if it's
part of a standing offer, fair enough. Those things need to be better defined
here.
We know
we have all these operating policies. I know TW has them; Service NL, Municipal
Affairs has them; Justice has them. We have operating policies within the line
of a department but now we're talking about the procurement of the services and
goods that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, through the decisions of
government, will avail of. That's fair enough. That's needed. It's well overdue.
But how do we do that?
The best
way we can do it, have all the regulations, all these things that are noted
here, the 20 things that are gone through this list here that I'll have a chance
to talk to in Committee, let's define them so everybody knows what the playing
field is. We're all in a good place. People would know exactly what's going to
be invested. They know what they have access to and they know it's a fair and
open market. And the government of the day and the taxpayers of the day will
know exactly what they're getting on their return: better value than the
cheapest service.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes the
hon. the Member for Burin Grand Bank.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. HALEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
privilege to rise and speak in support of this legislation here today one, I
would suggest, has been a long time coming.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. HALEY:
Government procurement isn't
something you see in the spotlight a whole lot, but maybe that's for the obvious
reasons. But beneath the bland exterior of the practice is one of the most
single things a government will do.
Procurement, for the purposes of this legislation, refers to how a government
spends its money when purchasing goods and services when it's paying for public
works and when it's leasing out space for the housing of government agencies,
Mr. Speaker. When you consider it from that angle, procurement reveals itself to
be of paramount importance to the smooth functioning of a government.
Just,
for example, in 2014, the government spent nearly $4 billion in procuring goods
and services and a further $963 million in capital spending, Mr. Speaker. If you
crunch the numbers on what Newfoundland and Labrador's Gross Domestic Product
was in 2014 and the $33.514 billion, then we have spent 14.5 per cent of our
total GDP. It really puts things into perspective here.
What
we're debating in this hon. House today, Mr. Speaker, is legislation that will
modernize the purchasing and procurement process. The existing
Public Tender Act has been around for
decades and it's badly in need of updating. In all of its time being on the
books, it's never been substantially amended and it's time we did something
about that here today, Mr. Speaker. That's why I'm happy to speak in support of
this legislation.
During
The Way Forward, we spoke to applying
this governing philosophy to all sectors of government, Mr. Speaker. What we
want to do is change the culture inside of government, with the end goal of
doing things better, more cost effectively and more sustainability. I believe
this piece of legislation is a clear example of how we're going to do just that.
Consider
that procurement influences every area of government services, whether it's
health care or roadwork or textbooks in our schools. It influences the real
estate we occupy, the public institutions we support and the municipal services
our communities provide all across our province, Mr. Speaker. In effect, we are
retooling the legislation and bringing a more sensible and modern approach to
the practice and it will have a positive impact in all areas of government, and
that's something I'm very happy to support, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. HALEY:
Transparency had been a
principal consideration for our government from the moment we took office and
the improvements to the procurement process will make it far more transparent.
It will make it easier for venders and buyers to get clear and usable
information about the process. It will help streamline the buying process, and
that goes right back to our commitment to make this government more efficient in
order to lay a strong economic foundation for our province.
Modernizing procurement was a key commitment of ours right when we took office.
Here we are just under one year later and we're living up to that commitment.
I'm very proud that we have been able to bring this legislation into the House
of Assembly within our first year. I think it's an outstanding improvement to
the process. It will have lasting benefit for all Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians in that we will be able to offer them a government that works more
effectively and efficiently.
One of
the best aspects of the legislation is that it directs the focus on getting the
best value instead of merely getting the best price, Mr. Speaker. There's an old
saying about buying consumer goods that you should buy nice or buy twice, and
that holds true for procurement as well, Mr. Speaker. If the lowest cost is the
primary consideration and not quality, then it can end up costing way more in
the long run. Certainly, cost is an important consideration, particularly when
you're spending taxpayers' money, but so is value.
I would
argue that value is a more important consideration because if the product you're
procuring ends up not being good quality, you're back to the drawing board
again.
Another
great thing about this legislation is that more services will be included in the
Public Tender Act than ever before,
Mr. Speaker. This is key. As a government, we contract out work to all sorts of
professional services, from engineering and accounting to advertising. Under the
old legislation, there were certain services that weren't included, like
engineering, architectural services, banking, insurances and others.
A more
transparent approach to the procurement of these services makes sense and will
help us make smarter decisions about how we procure them going forward. On the
subject of smarter decisions, this updated legislation makes common-sense
adjustments to the cost thresholds that determine whether or not a public
institution must engage in the full procurement process when acquiring goods or
services, issuing a request for proposal, soliciting bids for tender and so on,
Mr. Speaker.
Obviously, the tendering process is virtually important, but it doesn't make
sense when the cost of goods or services is marginal. In cases like that it's
actually a hindrance, Mr. Speaker. It's what you would call unnecessary red
tape. I'm happy to support making this process work much better and smarter for
the people of this province. I think it will have significant benefits for all
stakeholders, from the government bodies to the vendors and even to the
end-users.
I am
also very happy to note that the legislation establishes the office of a chief
procurement officer and a procurement advisory council that will lead the public
procurement agency, Mr. Speaker. I believe the establishment of these statutory
offices will enhance the oversight we are able to apply to the procurement
process. Of course, the chief procurement officer will be selected by the
Independent Appointments Commission so that we're able to put the right person
in the right job.
Just a
note on that, I think that the Independent Appointments Commission has done a
tremendous job so far in selecting appointees for our agencies, boards and
commissions, Mr. Speaker. It's just another example of our commitment to making
government work better, smarter and more efficiently.
This
statutory office will also give suppliers recourse to lodge a complaint and to
get additional information if they deem the process to have contained fair
issues. The end goal is to make the process work better for all parties
involved. The public procurement agency will be instrumental in accomplishing
just that, Mr. Speaker. I see this bill as the first step in the process of
modernizing government procurement.
I'm very
glad we're able to bring this in and I think it's a long, long overdue
adjustment to the way procurement has been handled in our province, Mr. Speaker.
I am strongly encouraged by how high of a priority this legislation has been for
our government. It shows we are committed to overhauling government practices
that are outdated or simply don't make sense. It shows we are committed to
laying in a smarter and better economic foundation for the future of
Newfoundland and Labrador. And more importantly, it shows we are willing to
listen to the public and to all stakeholders that this legislation will impact.
I'm very
happy to speak in favour of this legislation and I look forward to keeping close
tabs on the process as we move forward in the next steps.
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 am
glad to have the opportunity to stand and speak to Bill 46, An Act Respecting
Procurement by Public Bodies. I want to thank the minister's department for
giving a briefing to our caucus with regard to this bill, and a briefing that
was very interesting, informative, but has raised a lot of questions for me.
The
first thing I find confusing is that as the act itself says at the very end, and
as was said in the briefing, this new act incorporates existing legislation. So
the Public Tender Act, the
Government Purchasing Agency Act, the
Intergovernmental Joint Purchasing Act,
and the Public Tender Regulations.
That's in the very end of the act.
It's in
what's called section 35, The following Acts and regulations are repealed.
When I read the briefing notes I said I have to go look, and yes, in fact, it
does say that the Public Tender
Regulations, 1998, Newfoundland and Labrador Regulation is repealed with
this act being put in place.
Now, I
do know that when you go into the act you see a whole section where the
Lieutenant Governor in Council so basically the Executive Council,
Cabinet/Executive Council where in section 28 it says very, very specifically
that the The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make regulations and you have
17 regulations listed, and then in section 29, The minister may make
regulations and you have three areas for the minister so 20 areas for
regulations.
This
act, when it's put in place, is going to get rid of the regulations that are
currently on the books. The public tender regulations, they're going to be gone.
This act, when it gets put in place, is giving responsibility and power to the
Lieutenant Governor in Council and the minister to come up with 20 areas of
regulations. So my question is there's going to be a hiatus somewhere. The
minute this is proclaimed, if regulations haven't been created by the Lieutenant
Governor in Council and by the minister, if those regulations haven't been
created, there'll be no regulations in place because the act has repealed the
public tender's regulations.
We're
going to have to have an explanation of what's going to happen. It will get
passed in the House, I assume, because it's a government bill and government is
going to vote for it. When it becomes passed, how long will it be before it's
actually proclaimed? Because the minute it's proclaimed our public tender
regulations no longer exist. So there have to be regulations.
We're
going to have to get an explanation of how the government sees that happening.
Because it says very clearly, The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make
regulations and it covers everything (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;
(i) respecting supplier performance; (j)
establishing monetary amounts at which an open call for bids is required; et
cetera, et cetera.
There
are 20 areas. So it is very confusing to me how an act that in and of itself
gets rid of the public tender regulations and sets up a new way for regulations
to be made, how that's going to be operative if regulations are already not new
regulations and are not already put in place. It's something that I'm asking and
we'll be expecting when we get into Committee that we'll do more questioning
about, because it doesn't make sense to me.
Now,
having said that, I do want to speak to the overall framework because overall
there are some good things in this bill, I will not deny that. I would like to
go right to section 3 and I think it's important that we refer ourselves to
the sections and to the content because people watching us and there are
people who watch us, there are people who do follow the legislation that we
debate they don't have this in their hands. We need to also help them be
informed as they watch us so they'll know what we're talking about.
Section
3 talks about the purpose of the act. I do like section 3. The purpose of this
Act is to establish a statutory framework so this is a framework; it is not
something that is laying down law, it's a framework which, through its
operation, enables public bodies to achieve best value, transparency and
accountability in procurement.
Then it
says in subsection 3(2), For the purpose of the efficient, effective and
ethical procurement required by public bodies to carry out their mandates,
public bodies shall and then it's prescriptive. It gives some shalls to the
public body.
I do
like For the purpose of efficient, effective and ethical procurement
. That's
something that we need to be concerned about, ethical procurement in particular.
I won't go over history in this province, but we all know examples of when we
have not been that ethical when it has come to procurement. We all can think of
cases where this province hasn't got a great history. So it looks like we're
turning a corner here to actually put into an act that the purpose of the act is
for the efficient, effective and ethical procurement.
So let's
look at the ways in which it spells this out, how the public bodies will carry
out their mandates:
public bodies shall (a) promote the integrity and
fairness of, and public confidence in, procurement. So we want people to feel
they are dealing with something that is fair, that is good and that they can
trust.
Secondly, foster and encourage participation in procurement by suppliers. So
the framework should be clear so that they know what they're dealing with.
That's how you foster participation, I think.
Three,
promote competition among suppliers in procurement. Yes, nobody should take
for granted that they can get a contract. Everybody should realize there's
competition.
Four,
provide for the fair and equitable treatment of all suppliers and contractors.
They all do have to be treated fairly. Everybody has to feel they have a chance
when they are going after a contract, that they have a real chance of getting
the contract, that it is a fair process.
Promote
making information on procurement publicly available. That's absolutely
important as well. Nothing should be private.
Finally,
value diversity in procurement
and I really like that. I really like that
phrase of value diversity in procurement. Now, how all of that gets spelled out
is going to depend on the Lieutenant Governor in Council. It is going to depend
on the government. It's going to depend on Cabinet. Because how all that spells
out, it's going to be in the 20 areas of regulations, and those regulations are
going to have to spell out what that framework means, what these purposes mean.
So, for
example, value diversity in procurement, I would love to be at the table
discussing that when the time comes. Value diversity in procurement, number one,
that would obviously mean procurement being open everywhere in the province. I
think it would mean looking at our Aboriginal businesses in the province. I
think it would look at also diversity in terms of gender. You get a lot of areas
of work now where you're getting companies that are owned and run by women, for
example. How do we deal with that? How do we deal with making sure that we value
diversity in procurement? This is very serious stuff; it's really important
stuff.
So I
think we do need to talk about it here in the House of Assembly. What concerns
me is that it's going to be, when the regulations are put together, around the
Cabinet table that discussions will take place and will these discussions on the
regulations be the in-depth discussions that I want them to be. How will they
make sure that in the discussions that they are including integrity and
fairness? How will we make sure that they are including the valuing of diversity
and what that means?
How do
we promote competition that's fair and open? How do we make sure that we have a
procurement process that's efficient, effective and ethical? These are really
important questions and I really didn't hear the minister speaking to any of
this when he made his presentation. So I want to know from the government what
it is that the government values or what this means to government to have these
words here because it has to be more than words.
There
are so many things that I want to speak to, and I know that I'm going to get an
opportunity to do it in Committee when it comes to specifics, but there are some
things that may be specific, but I want to bring them up here in my general
comments. One of the things that disturbs me and I know it was spoken to by
some Members already on the government side as being positive but, for me, there
are some real questions. And that has to do with Nalcor, our energy corporation
and also our Research & Development Corporation.
There
are questions that I have around that. Yes, it's true that both of these bodies,
their daily operations will be under the act, but they also have exemptions. The
exemption, in particular, for Nalcor concerns me. I'm going to speak to that one
first. I just have to get my section here on Nalcor.
In the
section which gives an exemption to Nalcor and the minister did speak to this;
it's section 17. The corporation or a subsidiary is exempt from the Public
Procurement Act with respect to procurement in the following areas
.. The
first area was energy and energy products. I agree with the minister; that's not
problematic for me. I have to disappear for a minute because I have to get my
speaking notes the Speaker is smiling at me.
I can
see the first exemption, the energy and energy products, that it needs to be
exempted. You're talking about the purchase of energy and energy in different
forms and you're talking about related products. Very often, the prices that are
negotiated by each sale or spot market supply, et cetera, that's where the
prices come from. It's complicated, so I can really understand why energy and
energy products are exempted.
However,
when we look at the next one, that one says clearly: 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
. Now, this is
saying that Nalcor is exempted when it comes to anything they are doing which is
part of the strategic partnership, which is part of a joint venture.
I've
done some questioning about this. Based on discussions I've had, I'm questioning
it. I'm questioning it because basically what it will do is exempting Nalcor in
all the procurement work it does, every bit of it because everything they're
doing is largely in joint ventures and alliances. I understand from people in
the private industry that alliances follow a procurement policy of a lead
operator. So there's a lead operator. Then you have other subsidiary groups that
are working with that lead operator. I'm told that in the private industry it's
the lead operator's procurement policy that leads everybody else.
If we
were to follow the same model as private industry, then the owner/operator in
the case of Nalcor would actually be the government, the province, and the
policy would be the act and the regulations that go with that act. So to say
they are exempt because they're in partnership, which is what this seems to
mean, doesn't fit with the private industry.
If
government has a position on procurement and they have that position in an act
and they have it in regulations, then the government position on procurement
should be what is followed by everybody that Nalcor is working with, including
Nalcor. The model in private industry would say that, that the lead operator's
policy is what rules. So what is the reason for exempting Nalcor based on that?
It doesn't make sense.
Then you
have: for the purpose of meeting the requirements of a benefit arrangement.
Well, you know in private industry especially when you're talking about the
energy industry because this is what this is referring to they, too, have
benefits agreements. They don't get exemptions because of benefits agreements
that they're part of.
What is
it? I mean what really is Nalcor? Is it a Crown corporation or isn't it? If it's
a Crown corporation, it should be following government's rules and regulations.
If it's not a Crown corporation and it were a private company, then they would
be doing what they're doing in the private industry. So I don't understand
government's rationale with regard to this almost total exemption of Nalcor. The
areas in which it's not exempted, that's fine; the daily operations, that's
fine. But that's minor when you look at what all the procurements are that are
going to be made by Nalcor, by the subsidiaries that it's working with, by the
joint ventures, et cetera.
This is
a major problem for me. I'm sorry to see that government chose to continue this
treatment of Nalcor. I know the reports are going to be made public. Both Nalcor
and RDC are going to have to make reports for the areas in which they've done
procurement, that's been exempted, and those reports will be presented to the
minister and they will be made public. So after the fact, people will know
what's happened, but it's after the fact. And we really don't know what it is
they're following. So this is problematic, and I probably will want to come back
to that again in Committee, Mr. Speaker.
Another
issue has to deal with section 8. Again, it's part of a broad picture. I'm not
speaking to it from a Committee perspective, though I will when I get into
Committee. It's confusing for me, and we haven't really gotten real clarity on
this and I'm sure the minister will help us out when he gets to speak again.
It says
this is section 8(1), The Treasury Board may establish a policy for the
procurement of professional services by public bodies. I understand the may
language in acts. It doesn't mean that it's not a directive. I accept the may
language. They may establish a policy for the procurement of professional
services now professional services as defined by the act are legal and
financial services. So the board may establish to me, I hope that means it
will be established.
Then
subsection (2) says, 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). So here's another area where we have an act and the act, when it becomes
proclaimed, has a body in it it has an action that should be happening.
My thing
is this act can't be proclaimed until the Treasury Board establishes the policy.
Because if there's no policy there, what is it that the public body is going to
follow if a policy hasn't been written? It's the same problem that I raised when
it came to the Lieutenant Governor in Council. And it's the same thing, too,
with the chief procurement officer, because the chief procurement officer has
work that needs to be done.
What I'm
putting forward here is a chicken and an egg issue, Mr. Speaker. I'm hoping
before we get to the point of having to vote on this or, Madam Speaker, I
forgot that the body in the Chair had changed. That by the time we get to vote,
I hope we'll have greater clarity on what comes first.
MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):
Order, please!
I remind
the hon. Member her time for speaking has expired.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much.
MADAM SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes the
hon. Member for Harbour Main.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. PARSLEY:
Madam Speaker, it is an
honour to rise in this House today from the great District of Harbour Main and
to be able to speak to this Bill 46.
I would
like to thank the minister and his department for all the hard work that has
gone into this bill. That's why I'm happy to speak in support of this piece of
legislation, so we can move forward and streamline the buying process that goes
back to our community.
As a
former mayor, I'm delighted to see the new
Public Procurement Act. Anyone who has served on a council knows the
frustrations we have experienced with public tendering acts. Towns have been
waiting for this kind of change for some time. Unfortunately, this died on the
Order Paper in 2012. The former government did not bring it in for ratification.
We have brought it back and we're looking forward to using it in our
communities. The use of RFPs for things will certainly be of value to small
towns.
Expanding the thresholds to be more effective, true cost for goods and services,
spending limits that reflect those realities are long overdue. Councils have
always argued that going with the lowest price on everything is not necessarily
the best way to go. By allowing councils to look at the purchasing from a
perspective of best value for more money versus lower price will really help.
Councils
have always argued the price on everything is not certainly the best way to go.
By allowing councils to look at purchasing from a perspective of best value for
money versus lower value will help. A product that is cheap but has a lifespan
of only two years, for example, might not be the best buy, but if you can buy
something that costs more and its lifespan is over 10 years, you may save money
in the long run. Lowest price doesn't mean the best price.
A major
issue for our towns is work done properly is taking way too long to complete.
Under this new legislation, towns will be able to take action to deal with that.
They can refuse to work with a supplier or contractor who has let them down.
They have more authority to demand and expect this to be completed on time.
As an
example, coming from the Town of Harbour Main, I witnessed that over many times.
We had a contractor come in and maybe do some work for us, at the end of the day
the work wasn't what it was. It was the pits of a job, and at the end of the day
we had to put up with it. Our money was gone. So the next time around when this
job came up and the tender was put out, this would come back and we had to use
the same contractor again, knowing full well the job was going to be the same.
So this
really puts more authority into the hands of town councillors and mayors who
work so hard. As you know on the other side, being on any part of a council you
work from morning till night and it's doesn't stop then, but at least if you
know the work is going to be done well, your money is paid out and it's a good
job, you know at the end of the day you've done your job.
They can
refuse to work with a supplier or a contractor who has let them down. They have
more authority to demand and expect the work to be completed on time.
This is
a good piece of legislation. I can't stress enough how this bill will be so good
for our municipalities of Newfoundland and Labrador. For too long our
municipalities have had to sit back and sometimes had to wait for bids, months
and months caught up in the red tape and the bureaucracy. So I ask all Members
who are going to support this piece of legislation to do so.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. PARSLEY:
The Member for St. John's
East is worried about how the information regarding this bill is only words and
she's not sure how it's going to get out. Well, I can assure her when I attended
the briefing this week and some Members didn't show up, that we were there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. PARSLEY:
I can tell you right now, the
people who showed up for that briefing was fully tuned in what was going on and
everything was explained. There wasn't a page unturned or left. So by the time
this bill is passed, I can assure you that all work will be looked at and all
briefings will be done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. PARSLEY:
Because of our Minister of
Municipal Affairs and the staff over there, there will be no stone left
unturned.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. PARSLEY:
I ask all Members on both
sides of the House to look at this bill as a great thing. It's the new
beginning. We all need new beginnings, especially towns. It affects everything
in our province. If we can save a dollar, let's do it. I'm going to sit now.
Thank
you for this, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Speaker recognizes the hon. Member for Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
It's
certainly a pleasure to rise today and speak to Bill 46. I listened attentively
as the minister introduced the bill earlier today in this session and talked
about the general principles and fundamentals that they hope to pursue with Bill
46.
He
talked about some of the enhanced oversight, some of the new positions in regard
to a chief procurement officer, certainly an advisory council and look at from
the scope and breadth of professional services and how they would be intertwined
in the new act.
Spending
a number of years in government and listening to stakeholders, people in our
communities and our regions, we know full well the scope of procurement, the
tendering process, the amounts of goods and services, infrastructure that's
facilitated every other day in Newfoundland and Labrador and what it means to
people, individuals who work with companies, small business, and how it drives
economic activity, providing those supports and services in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
We're
talking about billions of dollars. I think someone mentioned earlier about $4
billion when you look at whether it's some basic service, some goods you are
supplying to a public institution, or even something like road construction. All
of those things are very significant in terms of what they play in the economy
and the role it plays. So you have to have acts, certainly pieces of legislation
that drive that activity, that provides that oversight and are able to provide a
framework in regard to how all function in the procurement and the tendering
process.
And this
act has been enforced for a while and now it's up for review and this
legislation is
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order please!
The
Speaker is having a little bit of difficulty hearing the Member for Ferryland. I
ask Members for their co-operation.
Thank
you.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Madam Speaker, for
that.
Madam
Speaker, as I said, this is broad based, it's comprehensive of what you need in
regard to procurement in order to have that framework available so people know
and it's transparent of what the rules are. And certainly you get feedback as
well in regard to if you are engaged in procurement in the province, how it's
done; and if you are successful or if you are not successful, an understanding
of why that is and what you need to do to become more competitive and innovative
in terms of it's all part of delivering service as well, an innovative approach
and changing approach of how we deliver services, which is indeed important as
well.
There
are a number of parts to the act and as we go through Committee, we'll be able
to ask direct questions in regard to that. Particular points in the legislation
one of the interesting ones we look at is section 3. Section 3 specifically
looks at and talks about the purpose. As I mentioned before, it talks about
establishing a framework with its operations and enables public bodies to
achieve best value, transparency and accountability in procurement.
So
that's all public bodies. It's clear, as I said, concise framework that they can
operate under, and that it's competitive, people understand it and they can
access it. As well, it's not only here in this jurisdiction. With many trade
agreements, there are implications as well in regard to outside procurement.
Our
business as well in this province, we want to attract and intervene and be part
of business opportunities and procurement in other jurisdictions, either
provincially or internationally, as does a fair market in regard to others
wanting to procure in this particular province.
I know
with some experience in dealing with CETA there are provisions as well in regard
to procurement coming into this province in regard to the thresholds and what
they are. I think it is over $340,000 in regard to some services, if I can
remember correctly. So that's the integration of trade and procurement with and
within and outside various jurisdictions. So that's very important as well, and
it's all related to the value and the transparency and the accountability in the
overall procurement.
As well,
section 3 talks about: For the purpose of the efficient, effective and ethical
procurement required by public bodies to carry out their mandates, public bodies
shall (a) promote the integrity and fairness of, and public confidence in,
procurement
. That's extremely important, and whoever is engaged and involved
with it needs to understand it as fair and all players in the public in general
have confidence in it. Because obviously it's the expenditure of public funds,
and that's extremely important that those partaking in the procurement and the
public in general who we're spending their money have confidence in the process.
As well,
the intent is: (b) foster and encourage participation in procurement by
suppliers
. Again, you can go from the very small business owner in a small,
rural community in Newfoundland and Labrador, or certainly a larger provincial
company or national or international company who would partake in particular
procurement that we're talking about. So it is important we have the
participation of all different suppliers. Because, as we mentioned earlier, that
brings you to the innovation, new delivery of program and services and, at the
end of the day, it's competitive and it's best value for that expenditures of
public funds.
Now that
section 3 also talks about: (c) promote competition among suppliers in
procurement; (d) provide for the fair and equitable treatment of all suppliers
and contractors
. And that's extremely important in regard to the level
playing field where the rules and access to procurement are open, everybody
understands them, and certainly there are feedback mechanisms so people can have
an understanding of what transpired, prepare bids, tenders, designs, whatever it
is that there's feedback on that so they can improve and gain greater access or
greater knowledge of the process.
As well,
(e) promote making information on procurement publicly available
. Again to
making it open and transparent so that all companies or suppliers wherever they
are can be part of the process, that needs to be available. As well, (f) value
diversity in procurement which is extremely important.
All of
that is related to the purpose and certainly what the intent of the act is. The
question becomes now in terms of implementation of that and how do you define
that and what is it going to look like. As I said when I started, this is a
framework which needs to be filled in as we move forward so people are clear and
concise of what it is it's all about.
One of
the things going through the legislation, the proposed legislation, with some of
the briefing information and the materials we've got, as you go through, I think
there are almost 21 definitions here that have to go to the Lieutenant Governor
in Council. That means that these aren't defined in this piece of legislation.
So we won't know until some point later how they will be defined, what the scope
and breadth of them will be. I guess that gets to the transparency and openness
and understanding of this particular piece of legislation.
That's
very important, and I think there will be a lot of questions on this as we go
through Committee on pointing out, especially under section 28, what these are
and what's the plan for these. As I understand it now, they're identified but
there's no regulatory framework or regulations that are available right now for
discussion.
When you
look at section 28: The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make regulations (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
. That's significant. So when open call for bids is not required,
that's something we don't know today, what that is, what it reflects. That's
significant; that goes to the issue of transparency and understanding it.
As well:
(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
. That would speak to the
process of a procurer or a supplier and what the obligations are to them in
regard to fulfilling the mandate of this piece of legislation. Yet, we don't
have that; that's not available here today. It's a title, but it's not defined
in what it's going to be. That will apparently come later in regulation.
We
continue on in section 28(e) respecting when annual procurement plans shall be
required from public bodies, and the form and content of those plans
.
Previous speakers spoke about municipalities. What's the requirement for them in
regard to those plans? We don't know because it's not part of this legislation.
It's yet to come, I assume, as part of the regulatory framework.
As I
said, as we go through Committee we'll ask more specific questions on timelines.
When is it available? What happens in the interim of those not being available
when this piece of legislation is proclaimed? What's the difference in between?
Do we use some old reference to a regulation or a framework? What's happens in
between that intervening period while we're waiting for those regulations to be
completed? Obviously, based on that, those regulations won't come back into this
House because the legislation would already have been passed. That's something
the Lieutenant Governor in Council or Cabinet would approve.
As well,
it goes on in section 28(f) and talks about, respecting the manner in which
bids are to be evaluated
. Now that's extremely important. All of it is
important but on how bids would be evaluated, because the schedule, the rating,
how all that is done is extremely important because many times in goods and
services there's often significant work, significant time and energy,
expenditures goes into something as large as designing an actual building,
supplier information. It takes a lot of time and effort to put that in. So
there's an investment by those who are applying. Again, it's very important that
that's quite clear in regard to the manner in those bids and how they are going
to be evaluated at the end of the day.
Respecting the manner in which contracts are to be awarded
. Again, evaluated
and awarded. That's why procurers and businesses would look to access what we
have in the province. I think it's over $4 billion in regard to actual public
funds that are expended on an average at a particular time. So it's extremely
important that it's open and transparent, but my understanding of this piece of
legislation is that's not included here. The actual details of it, but that will
come later. That's something we won't review here in the Legislature. Maybe
that's not accurate. As we go through Committee, the minister can certainly
speak to that.
It goes
on and talks about, in section 28(h), establishing the processes to be followed
for the submitting and treatment of supplier complaints
. Again, as you go
through the normal process with business in providing goods and services, it
could become an issue in regard to feedback, either actual service provided
doesn't match the specifications that were identified in the awarding of a
contract or work that was done maybe was not of the quality. There could be
issues in regard to monies and funds being paid for by a public body related to
goods and services.
There
are all kinds of things that could come up from time to time. We'd certainly
need a transparent, open understanding of how these conditions, when they come
up, would be resolved; even in regard to conflict resolution or things like
that. Again, my understanding is that's not included in this. This would come
later at some point and approved by Cabinet.
Section
28 continues on: (h) establishing the processes to be followed for the
submitting and treatment as I said, that one is supplier complaints; (i)
respecting supplier performance
. Again, a whole performance oversight and
understanding of work that's delivered, quality, performance. If there are
issues in regard to ineffective or inappropriate work that's done that doesn't
meet the specifications, what's the rule in regard to that procurer applying
again in the future to access public tendering? I know that's an issue.
I know
my first experience in government at times in regard to work that's done, that's
not up to a particular level, what's the action that needs to be taken and
what's the authority under the act and what can be done? But that would come, my
understanding, at another time at some regulatory framework.
Again:
(j) establishing monetary amounts at which an open call for bids is required
. That's that threshold we often talk about in regard to can you sole source
it? Oftentimes, there's a list of companies or suppliers or agents that you can
sole source particular items, or a good or service under a certain threshold.
What are those thresholds and how would they apply?
I know
in the briefing that was done, I think there was reference to increased
thresholds that were referenced. That was related to section 28(j), and the ones
we're looking at here now in subsection (j) and (k). That references directly
that the monetary thresholds will be established in regulations, maintaining
consistency with trade agreements. It could be an agreement on internal trade,
it could be on CETA, it could be on TPP, the Trans Pacific Partnership that's
not yet signed. So there are a number of areas where consideration needs to be
given here for this.
From the
goods perspective, I think it's currently at about $10,000. So that would have
to be reviewed. Service is currently at $10,000, looking at maybe going to
$50,000; public works currently at $20,000, possibly going to $100,000. Then we
look at things like lease of space, currently about $10,000 annual rental value
and considering pushing it to $100,000.
These
are important elements of section 28(j) and (k). As I said, they're mentioned
here in the legislation but there'll be no definition or defining any further
what these mean, my understanding, until regulations come forward which will be
done by the Lieutenant Governor in Council or by Cabinet.
If we
continue on in regard to section 28 and what's required, I think there are 21
items in regard to regulations that need to go through Cabinet: (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
.
All of
these are references to particular aspects of the new legislation which won't be
defined in this act any further. It won't be discussed well, I guess it can be
discussed and asked questions about; but, as I said, section 28 references the
fact that these will have to go as regulations. They'll go to Cabinet. They
won't be discussed or talked about here in this House, unless in Question
Period, and then they will be approved, I assume, by Cabinet.
As well,
(n) defining the information about procurement activities that shall be
published
. Oftentimes there are exemptions now. The minister, when he was up,
talked about some of the exemptions in regard to Nalcor and RDC and, as well, if
they're sole sourcing under some of those thresholds I've talked about now.
For
various reasons, whether it's an emergency, whether it's a sole source, that
contract could be let. Then there's a process where, in the House of Assembly,
there's a document provided which shows all of those sole source or ones that
haven't gone through the actual tendering process but are still in keeping with
the procurement act or the tendering act, oftentimes they would go to Treasury
Board.
So there
is a process. My understanding is there still would be a method for that under
this legislation when we talk about some of the exemptions, whether you're
talking about Nalcor, whether you're talking about RDC, sometimes with RDC the
interactions in regard to innovation, science and some of the aspects they're
involved with. I had an opportunity to be minister responsible for RDC. I
certainly know the great work they do. Oftentimes, in regard to science and
expertise and what they are exchanging, some of that obviously is very sensitive
and it's often sole sourced it needs to be sole sourced. So in these cases as
well when there are exemptions, there are reasons for that.
In
regard to the thresholds and if you're not at that threshold where you need to
tender, there's a means as well to identify that and it's reported back to the
House here so it's open and transparent as well.
So
cluing up section 28, that's significant and I think there'll be a lot of
discussion on that as we go through debate over the next number of days and
weeks, or whatever it takes in regard to this piece of legislation to identify
how this can be open and transparent; and not referencing these 21 items, but
how they can be defined and people can have a discussion here, what the value,
content, breadth and scope of this piece of legislation is, and what exactly it
is we will be voting on and that will give us the opportunity to do it.
I wanted
to reference section 29 as well, and that referenced the fact that the minister
may make regulations respecting the advisory council and the duties of the
advisory council, which again it would be nice to have that defined so we could
discuss it here in the Legislature.
Madam
Speaker, I thank you for your time today on Bill 46 and certainly look forward
to asking questions when we get to the Committee stage.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Speaker recognizes the hon. Member for Mount Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to stand in the House today and speak to Bill 46, An Act Respecting
Procurement by Public Bodies. Madam Speaker, I want to say, I guess from the
onset, I'm pleased to see that we are going to get a new procurement act, or
tender act, or whatever people might want to call it. Here, of course, it's
called the procurement act. I think it is a long time coming; there is no doubt
about that.
I've
stood here in this House of Assembly and questioned former ministers about the
procurement act, or tender act it was at the time, because I felt that it was
something that was long overdue. Certainly we know that it was tabled at one
point in time I think somebody said it was 2008, but I think it was later than
that that it was tabled. But it was tabled in the House at one point in time and
then it died on the Order Paper anyway.
There's
no doubt that it is a long time coming, so I'm very supportive of a new
procurement act, or tender act, or whatever because I've heard a number of
people raise questions, concerns and so on around existing legislation. And
there's no doubt that after a period of time legislation gets stale, things
change, technology changes, there's a whole bunch of things that could happen
trade agreements happen, other legislation changes, the way people do business
changes. We're into a global economy now, I'm sure that would have an impact on
the act and the regulations and so on that were established years ago and never
changed. So there's no doubt the time has come to create a new, modern
Public Tender Act, and I certainly
that concept, without a question.
The fact
that it stated here that we're going to have more oversight, we're going to have
more accountability, more transparency, there's going to be a lot more stuff
placed online for companies to see, for the public to see in terms of tenders
that were awarded and so on, I think that's a very positive step forward. I
totally acknowledge that and I agree with that.
I think
it's a good idea that we're going to have a chief procurement officer and we're
also going to have a what are they called? The name eludes me now; I did have
it written down. But anyway, there's going to be a committee, I guess
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Advisory council.
MR. LANE:
Pardon?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Advisory council.
MR. LANE:
An advisory council? Okay,
thank you, to the Member for Ferryland.
The fact
that we're going to have an advisory council which will be made up of as I
understand it, there will be individuals appointed from the various government
departments who are experts in the field of procurement, if you will, and who do
the tendering work. They're going to be appointed to this advisory council, and
of course there'll be a new chief procurement officer who will head that up and
will oversee tendering practices for the government, for government boards and
agencies and government departments, and that they will oversee the legislation
and they will oversee how the tendering is being administered.
I guess
they will be monitoring it. They will be recommending changes. I'm assuming they
would look at thinks like training and stuff like that to ensure that everybody
is trained and educated in how the tender act and regulations are supposed to
work. I'm assuming if things are not going the way they should be, that this
body would oversee making corrections in practices that are not being properly
adhered to and so on. So I think that's a good idea to have that and I support
that.
I also
support the concept of best value versus simply the low bid. That's something
that I've heard from a number of people about in the past. Obviously, price is
important because the taxpayers have to pay for it. Whether it's a service,
whether it's a product or so on, the public do have to pay for it. So, of
course, price is going to be important.
However,
I think there's more to the value than simply just the price. We also have to
look at the reliability, you have to look at the maintenance agreements and so
on, who can provide the best maintenance and servicing. If there's something
that it might be cheaper but if you have to wait three weeks to get the parts
flown in as opposed to you can get the parts and repair it in a day versus three
weeks, that has to be factored into it.
The
whole concept of best value for money as opposed to just simply a price, I think
that's a concept that we should be adopting and it makes a whole lot of sense to
me in the long run. So I certainly agree with that as well.
I guess
the issue I have, and other Members have here on this side of the House, is the
unknowns. That's really the issue, the unknowns. There are an awful lot of
unknowns contained in this piece of legislation. Unknowns in the sense that
everything is getting not everything, but an awful lot of things. I think
there is a list of 20 items, if you will. Those items under section 28, there
are 17, I believe somebody said; and under section 29, there are three others.
There are 17 items here listed from (a) to (q) where Cabinet will develop
regulations around these 17 items.
Of
course, that's not just 17 items; one item could contain a number of regulations
associated to each of those items. There could be 200 regulations or 300, I
don't know. There could be an awful lot of them that would have to be developed
as it relates to the act. The problem is that we don't know what any of those
are. We don't know what any of those are, so it's almost a leap of faith, so to
speak. It is kind of a pass this now and trust us to bring in the best
regulations that we can.
The
reality of it is that I mean, I don't think there's anybody on either side of
the House that would want to bring in bad regulations. I don't think so. I'm
sure there's not. We all want to get the best regulations. But the reality of it
is that what's being asked of Members certainly on this side of the House
well, actually I'd say Members on both sides of the House. Because if you don't
have any regulations at all, if you don't have them and we don't have them I
don't even think they're developed, is my understanding. So you're asking the
entire House of Assembly, even on your own side of the House, to basically take
that leap of faith and say, yes, we know, we're confident that the best
regulations are going to be put in place and we're willing to support that. But
we don't know what they'll be or when they'll be enacted.
That's
the concern that everybody would have and, I would suggest, should have because
you're voting for something that you don't really know the details of what
exactly it is that you're voting for. That, in itself, really is the overall
concern I think that everybody has.
One
issue that comes to mind, to me, is being able to hold contractors or service
providers accountable, as an example. Now, there is a section here I'm not
sure what number it is now (i) supplier performance. So it says the minister,
basically or not the minister, sorry, the Cabinet will establish regulations
that will deal with supplier performance.
So I can
look back at an example or under the current regulations, from my municipal
days, where we had a contractor that was paving some roads in Mount Pearl. The
work was, I'm going to say, shoddy at best. We were totally dissatisfied with
the work that was done; residents were dissatisfied with the work that was done.
It was a large tender, a lot of money.
Now, at
the end of the day, there was a dispute mechanism and there's no doubt that
exists today. But the dispute mechanism that existed was not I would suggest
the dispute mechanism was far from ideal and we settled begrudgingly with the
contractor at the time. We felt, as a council at the time, that we should be
able to say that if we had and not based on one job, but if we had a number of
jobs or over a couple of years where a particular contractor low bid and they
were awarded that work and the workmanship was very poor and we ended up in
these dispute resolutions, at some point in time we felt, as a city at the time,
we should be able to say this contractor is disqualified from bidding on any
more work in the City of Mount Pearl. Because you've bid on work now two or
three times, every time your work was substandard, we ended up having to go the
dispute mechanism route, potential legal route, and all this kind of stuff, to
try to deal with work that was not done up to standard, but now next year you
can bid again and if you low bid, we're forced to accept your bid again.
So
that's one example whereby I would suggest that there should be an improved
dispute mechanism and possibly contractor disqualification. Now, maybe when the
regulation contemplated under 28(i) gets developed, maybe that will deal with
it, or maybe it'll just leave the status quo, which is, a lot of people say,
inadequate. Maybe it will disqualify; maybe it'll be somewhere in between. I
don't know. But that's the issue: I don't know. Nobody knows until it happens.
There
are a number of areas here and I'm not going to read down through them all,
because I think the Member for Ferryland actually went through them all one at a
time, or he went through most of them anyway. So I'm not going to repeat
everything he said, but the bottom line is that there are 17 areas where if we
vote and approve this legislation as is, then at some point in time the Cabinet
can develop regulations we don't know when that will be, and we don't know
what those regulations will say, and they'll just put them in place, whether
they're good, they're bad, they're not again, I'm not suggesting they would
put in bad regulations, certainly not knowingly, but there would be no
opportunity for anybody on this side of the House, at least, or for their own
colleagues, for that matter, to really scrutinize those regulations to know that
they're the best possible regulations and that they work for the people. So that
is a concern.
Now,
there's also a section here which I view as another positive section because
there is a lot of positive stuff in this, absolutely to deal with Nalcor and I
think that is definitely needed. If we look at all of the issues that have
occurred at Nalcor, and issues with contracts, overruns, all this kind of stuff,
and things that were awarded at cost-plus as opposed to performance-based and
all those things I've gotten an awful lot of calls on that and I'm sure
everyone has. There have been concerns raised and so on around those things. So
if we can put in this legislation and it's going to apply to Nalcor and it's
going to help deal with those types of issues and prevent potential overruns
there is always going to be some overruns; we understand that. But put in
tighter measures to help prevent those things and ensure that contracts are
awarded properly, all this kind of stuff, there are no conflicts of interest and
all this kind of stuff, then that's a positive thing.
The only
problem is, as was pointed out by the Member for I'm going to call it Signal
Hill Quidi Vidi; that's not really the new name
MS. ROGERS:
St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MR. LANE:
St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
Thank you, to the Member for St. John's Centre.
So as
she pointed out, the issue we have is that what I just described about Nalcor
and what we'd like to see in place, I'm not so sure that this legislation will
do that. There's no doubt that this legislation will deal with issues like if
Nalcor is buying their office supplies, their posted notes and all this kind of
stuff, there's no doubt that all those normal office expenditures now will fall
under the Public Tender Act, as it
should, and that's a positive thing.
But it
calls into question the exemptions that are there and maybe these exemptions
that are here won't exempt Nalcor from things like awarding contracts on
projects like Muskrat or any other projects that should happen. Maybe they
won't; I'm not sure. But there's an awful lot of grey area there. There's an
awful lot of concern that would be there that perhaps they're going to be exempt
from pretty much anything that has to do with anything beyond purchasing office
supplies and maybe a few trucks or equipment for themselves. But when it comes
to projects and a lot of the projects they are doing are with other companies
and partners and all those things, there's a lot of concern, I think, raised by
the Member or questions to be answered, for sure, in Committee. Will this
legislation apply to Nalcor in the way that people would want it to apply to
Nalcor, other than just simple office supplies and day-to-day operations?
I hope
it does. And maybe when we get to Committee, we'll get that answer yes, it does.
And if it does, perfect; everyone will be on board. I'm sure they will. But
that's a question that, at this point, hasn't been answered.
I think
it's also good if we can ensure, where possible and again, I'm not sure if I
really see it here in this. I guess this is going to be a regulation issue as
well as best we can, try to ensure that local companies are given a better
opportunity to bid on stuff and get contracts. I think the minister did raise
the issue of some caps being raised for municipalities as an example, which
would give more opportunity, and that's a good thing. If that could be done
that's a good thing, I would certainly agree with that.
Another
thing that would need to happen, I think, is the way in which tenders are put
out. I'm assuming this will be handled under the regulations. One example that
was given at the briefing actually, which kind of made sense, is that if you
have a local company, for example, and they produce mattresses; let's say they
manufacture mattresses but they don't manufacture bedframes. So if we needed
mattresses in a hospital or at the penitentiary or whatever, as opposed to
putting out a tender for the mattresses and bedframes that they could not even
bid on or be qualified for, that we try to put measures in place where we can to
say we're going to separate that tender and go with just mattresses so that at
least our local companies can bid on the mattresses and they wouldn't be
eliminated from the bigger picture.
So I
guess it comes down to bundling and how things are bundled and so on and when
we're doing it, we just need to be mindful of local suppliers and local
businesses to give them a fair opportunity to get some of the work. Because we
have to remember when a local company gets the work, then that money, by and
large, is staying here in Newfoundland and Labrador and in our economy. When we
open everything up and we make things too big and we bundle too much, all of a
sudden it's the big guys from the Mainland who are bidding on everything,
they're winning everything. And guess what? All that money: poof, gone. Gone to
Ontario, gone to Quebec, gone to the US, wherever it's gone and that's money
taken out of our economy that could be in the province benefitting our economy.
There
are so many things we could talk about here, but I certainly look forward, when
we get in Committee, to talking some more about it.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to get up and speak on this piece of legislation, as has been said my
colleagues this afternoon. It's a very important piece of legislation. It's one
that a lot of people have been asking for. The previous administration had done
a lot of work on this particular issue. It never got to be brought in, but there
are various reasons for that. There was work that people weren't comfortable
with proceeding at that given time, but there was a lot of work done in place
and everyone will acknowledge on this side that it needed to be done. The
current government a lot of the homework was done so that made their job a lot
of easier, to do whatever was needed to bring this to the House.
Mr.
Speaker, in talking about this legislation, section 28, there are a lot of these
regulations that Cabinet will be deciding upon. That, I guess, shows some
caution to the wind of the powers of Cabinet.
When you
look at government purchasing, as we all know the Public Tender Act has always been a document or a law of the land to
protect, to make sure things were done in a very fair manner, across the board
for businesses and government when you're spending public money. But when you
bunch in a lot of regulations into a certain section that Cabinet has the
discretion to make the regulations around those, whether it be thresholds or
certain purchases, it does raise concerns amongst us on this side in that these
regulations may be fine, they may all be perfect, everyone may support them
wholeheartedly; but when you don't know where to fit certain regulations, or you
don't know how to arrive upon a decision and you throw it all into this section
28 and leave Cabinet to decide it at a later date, I guess you question, is it
complete.
I know
Members opposite will say, yes, it's a great piece of legislation. We're not
saying it's not a great piece of legislation, but we're going to ask a lot of
questions. Various aspects of this piece of legislation, whether you've got
concerns or not, we'll find out when it comes time for second reading and when
we get to Committee and we ask questions. But when you lump a lot of things in,
as we see down in section 28, it does draw a lot of pause in thought, whatever.
That's
another part of the clause: Departments shall promote transparency. Openness and
transparency should be something that's front and centre in a piece of
legislation of this nature. You are dealing with public money; you are dealing
with the businesses. As we all know and said earlier, $4 billion worth of
purchases in government government are a big customer to a lot of corporations
throughout the city and even outside the province. That is a lot of money to
spend; it's on par with most any large corporation. Having a strong piece of
legislation, procurement, especially when you're spending public money, is very,
very important.
So
leaving a lot of this stuff to the discretion of Cabinet it does draw a lot of
concern. When you look at thresholds and open calls, wouldn't you be better off
having something in place? Again, you go in the room; to me, that draws concerns
that I think there should be clearer you can do some tinkering. I guess
Cabinet got some authority to do it on certain issues. But when Cabinet are
going to devise a lot of regulations to deal with a lot of issues and, at the
end of the day, they could have the authority to pass up on whatever legislation
and make a decision using one of the out-clauses in the legislation, that's an
issue of concern.
Through
our debate, and when we get to the Committee stage, like I say, the minister
will no doubt answer a lot of our questions. Whether our concerns are founded or
unfounded, well, the minister can help us through that process, but those
questions will come.
Mr.
Speaker, this bill, as I said, is going to replace the current
Government Purchasing Agency Act, the
Intergovernmental Joint Purchasing Act
and the Public Tender Act, along with
some public tendering regulations. It's also going to make some updates to
various other pieces of legislation related to procurement.
The name
of the bill, as the minister responsible has said, is to help modernize the
procurement process. The process which this bill outlines is based upon the Reid
& Associates report, along with public consultations. Now this was the basis of
the former administration's work that was done on this. It was based on the Reid
report, and a lot of things that was in our draft document is in this one but
there are some changes of course. Like I said, we will get to discuss those.
There
are good things as well, Mr. Speaker, like the best value aspect. Government
sometimes will always go with the lowest bidder. The lowest bidder is not always
the best bid, as we know. Penny-wise and pound foolish, because you're buying
something that is the cheapest but you'll only get your 12 months, you pay
extra. It's like when you live at home, your best bang for the buck sometimes,
cheaper is not always better.
So
clauses like that, especially with government and the amount of purchasing they
do, especially with equipment; you look at printing and services, you look at
computers, you name it. That's a good change. That's something that I think we
all can support.
Like I
said, while we all agree procurement needs to be reformed in this province,
we're concerned about the lack of detail in the bill. The framework presented in
this bill leaves many holes to be filled. The bill indicates that these holes
will be filled through regulations, but these regulations are not yet available,
Mr. Speaker. As I stated, they'll be decided by Cabinet at a later date. So we
don't know when they will be available, maybe sometime in 2017.
The
regulations are going to cover such items as when an open call is not required;
how records are kept; how bids are evaluated; establishing when and how a call
is to be conducted; establishing what information will be made public and when.
They're all listed in sections 28 and 29, as I stated, where legislation gives
the ability the regulations will be made.
These
items will not be contained in the legislation and not debated in the House of
Assembly, and will only be made public after decisions have been made and the
regulations are determined to cover a great deal of procurement activities.
That's the crux of what I've been saying here, what I was alluding back to in
most of my commentary, Mr. Speaker. It's not going to come to the House of
Assembly to be debated as we do with a lot of legislation and important aspects
like this.
This is
a very important piece of legislation. Every Member in this House and a lot of
the general public, because this has been something that's been in the public
domain too, government has been called upon for a long time to come up with
this. We want to make sure, and it's incumbent upon all of us in this House to
make sure, it is a strong piece of legislation. This process, hopefully, through
everyone getting up and speaking and exposing any concerns, it will make it a
stronger piece of legislation.
That is
one concern. Why not come to the House of Assembly with those regulations as
well instead of being determined at a later date which is a date that we don't
even know when it's going to be.
One such
regulatory power will surround when an open call is required. Depending on what
Cabinet decides, this could have a great impact on the consequences. This is a
decision which should be debated here in the House and not at the Cabinet table.
We cannot truly determine the effectiveness of this bill without knowing what
details the regulations will be. We cannot determine how transparent this
process will be without seeing the regulations. The whole impact of this bill
rests on what's contained in the regulations.
The
theme of my commentary on this is the fact that the regulations are being
decided by Cabinet. It raises a lot of concerns for me and I'm sure to anyone
who dug into this and read it. Cabinet has a very important responsibility, Mr.
Speaker. We all know that. That's the way our democracy is set up.
In
issues like this, there is a lot at stake in a piece of legislation like this.
There's a lot of interest in this from the business community, from the general
public, from people in government. So giving Cabinet all of that power causes me
concern and I'm sure it causes many others concern.
One of
the benefits of the new procurement framework is that all public bodies will be
using a consistent approach. Health boards, municipalities, government
commissions and others will be using the same process to purchase supplies and
items. This is going to help industry. There are good aspects of this. This will
help bidders to write better bid documents. It will help the industry to take
feedback from corporations in future bids.
Mr.
Speaker, section 7 of this legislation, it says, 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.
That's a
very broad statement, and I read that several times. Basically, Cabinet has the
authority to ignore their own legislation. In a nutshell, when you read that,
it's a pretty broad statement. Like I said, I had to read it a couple of times
myself. So this is quite a bit of discretionary power for Cabinet. The power can
be defended if it allows the province to protect local interests, but will this
be a clause which stands a challenge before the trade tribunal, for example?
Time is
winding down today, Mr. Speaker. I'd just like to point out one thing before my
time is wrapping up for today. A chief procurement officer will be appointed for
six years by Cabinet and can be reappointed multiple times. So will this go
through the IAC? Is this a Public Service Commission no, it's going to be
appointed by Cabinet. I know you want to pick the right person for the job, but
why not open that process up to the best possible candidate out there to do such
an important job on such an important issue we're dealing with.
Mr.
Speaker, given the hour of the day, I move to adjourn debate, seconded by my
colleague from Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
There's a motion and seconded to adjourn debate.
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Tomorrow being Private Members' Day, this House stands
adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until
tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2 p.m.