PDF Version

November 29, 2016

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 50

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

Today we

welcome to the Speaker's gallery Ms. Donna Hawco and members of her team, who

are with the group Circle of Friends and will the subject of a Member's

statement today.

We also

welcome to the Speaker's gallery Mr. Brendan Paddick, Mr. John Green and Mr.

Christopher Hickman who will be the subject of a Ministerial Statement today.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements today

we have the Members for the District of Labrador West, the District of St.

John's East Quidi Vidi, the District of Harbour Main, the District of Cape St.

Francis, the District of Harbour Grace Port de Grave, and the District of

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

The hon.

the Member for the District of Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to congratulate the Wabush Volunteer Fire Department on

another successful year.

This

past weekend, I had the pleasure of attending their 54th Annual Volunteer

Firefighter's Ball where many members were recognized for their volunteer

service to the Wabush Fire Department. Most noteworthy, Assistant Chief Leonard

Snow and Captain Kenneth Snow were both recognized for 35 years of service and

were presented with their provincial certificates. Both firefighters continue to

be valuable members and mentors for the department.

Under

the direction of Chief Todd Canning, the Wabush Fire Department consists of 20

volunteer members, three of whom are female. Training continues to be a priority

for the department and with the recent forest fires in the region, that training

has certainly been put to the test.

stated in the Firefighter's Pledge, where a firefighter promises concern,

courage, strength, wisdom, compassion and love to serve unselfishly whenever

called, the volunteer members of the Wabush Fire Department can stand very

proud.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in thanking the Wabush Fire Department and all

firefighters across Newfoundland and Labrador for the great service they provide

in keeping our communities and our people safe.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of St. John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

It isn't

unusual that we rise in this House to honour the hardworking young people who

earn Duke of Edinburgh Awards.

Today,

though, I have the pleasure of honouring not one but four Duke of Edinburgh Gold

Award winners who received their awards at the most recent ceremony. Even more

unusually, those four outstanding youth are siblings.

That's

correct, Mr. Speaker. The four children of Ron and Paula Ellsworth have now all

received their gold awards at a ceremony this July when Her Royal Highness

Princess Anne came to town.

The four

Ellsworths are Michael, who is 25 and has graduated from Memorial with a

bachelor of commerce; 24-year-old Stephanie, who is a second-year medical

student at Memorial; Maria, who is 22 and working on the last year of her

Memorial education degree; and 18-year-old Christine, who is attending

university in Nova Scotia working on an animal science degree.

Proud

father Ron is now the provincial President for the Duke of Edinburgh Awards, and

no doubt looks forward to encouraging more youth to follow his own family doing

program work that challenges them and strengthens them.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the award-winning Ellsworth

family.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Harbour Main.

MS. PARSLEY:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this

hon. House to recognize an outstanding group for the Conception Bay Centre area

whose efforts have helped raise over $180,000 for breast cancer research over 15

years.

The

Circle of Friends group, based in the Town of Avondale, has been participating

in the CIBC Run for the Cure since 2001. Under the direction of Team Captain

Donna Hawco, these outstanding family members, friends, neighbours and community

members come together each year to help raise funds to support research science

to find a cure for breast cancer.

Ms.

Hawco, who is a breast cancer survivor herself, takes on the initiative on a

volunteer basis, as do all the other members to support this worthy cause.

Although they have sadly lost some of their members to this terrible disease,

which will affect one in nine Canadians during their lifetime, they press on

through it all to support the research we all need to help end this terrible

disease, which has touched the lives of all of us in one way or another.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in congratulating and celebrating the Circle of

Friends group for the amazing work they do for this worthy cause.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to recognize the Outer Cove men's rowing crew,

championship winners at the 2016 Royal St. John's Regatta, the oldest continuing

sporting evening in North America. This team trained hard in the gym and on the

ergs; in May, they hit the pond every day, doing drills and practising in all

kinds of weather.

district had several teams competing in the Regatta with great success. The

Outer Cove crew was led by Coach Bert Hickey, Manager Mike Power and crew

members were: Brent Hickey, James and Daniel Cadigan, Mark Perry, Brent Payne,

Colin Stapleton, coxswain Mark Hayward, and spare Craig Whittle.

Also,

I'd like to acknowledge the Town of Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove for ensuring

the Outer Cove name stays in tradition with the pond. The team was sponsored by

the town, and the team took great pride in rowing under the Outer Cove name.

Their

goal was simple: Put in the hard work, bring the people to the pond and keep the

tradition of rowing and interest in the Regatta alive. Their goal is to bring

home a record as they train for the 200th anniversary in 2018.

I ask

all hon. Members to join with me in congratulating the Outer Cove men's rowing

crew and wish them the best in the future.

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.

I would

like to recognize the 19th annual Festival of Lights in the Town of Bay Roberts.

Each year, with the help of volunteers, the town holds an opening ceremony at

the Wilbur Sparkes Recreation Complex, with traditional carols and fireworks to

launch the festival.

schedule of holiday events can be found on the town's website. The community of

Port de Grave is also gearing up for the 18th annual boat lighting, which is

scheduled for December 9 at 7 p.m. at marginal wharf.

Mr. Eric

Lear was the first local fish harvester to light up his boat in 1995. In the

following years, resident Joyce Morgan, along with others, decided to make it a

group event, a tradition Port de Grave is now known for, which creates a

Christmas glow in the night sky like no other.

People

from all over come to see the dozens of decorated boats. Christmas in Port de

Grave has long been associated with this attraction, which many call the

official kickoff to the holidays in Conception Bay North.

I invite

everyone to come see the lights this Christmas, and a special thank you to

everyone who help make it brighter each year.

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 today to deliver accolades to Latonia Hartery of Bay

d'Espoir, recipient of the CBC Emerging Artist Award for 2015.

The

award-winning director, field manager, producer and writer has achieved

wonderful success with her work on CBC documentaries,

DOC ZONE and our treasured

Land and Sea . As director of two episodes, The Last Sardine Outpost and

Rum Running, viewers savoured her efforts evidenced by some of the highest

ratings in the program's history.

Latonia's credits also include three independent short films

Escape Routes , Wind Money

and Sadie , a historic thriller set in

rural Newfoundland. Sadie has

been shown in 18 festivals worldwide and was also named best Newfoundland film

at the Nickel Film Festival, 2015.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in congratulating

Latonia. We have no doubt that Bay d'Espoir's native daughter will continue to

make us all extremely proud as she showcases her directing, producing and

writing talents, whether in her own feature,

Teflon Dons or production of Wanda Nolan's

Crocuses or upcoming documentaries. Please view her remarkable work

if you have not done so already and keep your eye on this emerging artist.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. Minister of Natural Resources.

MS. COADY: Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to announce appointments to the board of directors of

Nalcor Energy based on a list of recommendations provided by the Independent

Appointments Commission.

The board's new chair is Brendan Paddick, who was born in

Grand Falls-Windsor and is a renowned CEO and corporate director. He is the

founder and former chairman and chief executive officer of Columbus

International Inc., a diversified telecommunications company which merged in

March 2015 with Cable & Wireless Communications PLC in a transaction that valued

Columbus at over $4.4 billion Canadian. In November 2015, Liberty Global PLC

announced a transaction to acquire Cable & Wireless for an enterprise value of

approximately $11.1 billion Canadian.

Mr. Paddick has accumulated many awards during his career,

including being named one of Canada's Top 40 Under 40 in 2000 and Ernst &

Young's Atlantic Canadian Business-to-Business Entrepreneur of the Year in 2011.

In addition to Mr. Paddick, I welcome the following

outstanding appointments to the board: John Green, Q.C.; Ann Marie Hann;

Christopher Hickman; Jack Hillyard; Mark MacLeod; Brian Maynard; Debbie Molloy;

David Oake; Dr. Edna Turpin; and Stan Marshall.

Collectively, these directors have a wealth of knowledge,

experience and competency in such areas as corporate governance, audit, finance,

law and business management. As a board, they will help develop

Nalcor Energy and all its lines of business in the best interest of the

province. Also, to add to the depth and breadth of the board, the Independent

Appointments Commission has been asked to bring forward additional

recommendations of persons for consideration by government who have an intimate

knowledge and understanding of Labrador issues and Indigenous people.

I would

like to thank the interim board for the work they have done over the past

several months. I would also like to thank the Independent Appointments

Commission. Together, we are ensuring Nalcor Energy has a highly qualified board

of directors to realize maximum benefit to the people of this province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just

received the statement, so I had little time to review it in the last few

minutes. We're certainly pleased to see there's a new permanent board in place

to continue the operations of the province's Crown corporation, Nalcor, and

derive the benefits from our natural resources.

On first

blush, it appears the individuals selected for the board indeed have a number of

competencies and a whole range of competencies and build a great deal of

knowledge to their positions.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, I feel it's imperative that you must have a

common goal of ensuring that our provincial investments will provide success and

benefits for years to come, as we, as the prior administration, did through our

Energy Plan that reflected all elements of our energy resources.

certainly look forward to the new board taking on this initiative and further

success for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

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 thank

the minister for the copy, although we haven't had too much time to look at it.

I'm happy to join with her in congratulating the new appointees. I'm glad we

finally have them at last, and to wish them well and thank them for taking it

on.

Muskrat

Falls is bankrupting the province. The PUB has outlined serious management

issues at Nalcor. These people have a lot of work to do and not much time to do

it in. I do wish them well in their work.

I have

to say to the minister, these are wonderful appointees, but I would have liked

to have seen better gender balance in 2016.

Thank

you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agrifoods.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I had the opportunity to present yesterday at the House of Commons

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, as part of the committee's review of

the Federal Fisheries Act .

The

federal government is reviewing amendments which were made to the act in

2012-2013 by the previous administration. This review will determine what

changes may be needed to protect fish habitat and ensure modern safeguards are

in place.

Mr.

Speaker, any changes will need to ensure there is a full understanding of

potential impacts to our provincial aquaculture industry. I was pleased to

outline the important of aquaculture to our province and the need to ensure

there is a collaborative approach with the federal government as we grow our

aquaculture industry.

The Way Forward , our vision is to

double our salmon aquaculture production and we must work collaboratively with

our federal partners to ensure we achieve this goal by monitoring and evaluating

aquaculture sites throughout the province.

Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased that I was given the opportunity to provide the House of

Commons Standing Committee with Newfoundland and Labrador's thoughts on how the

federal government should move forward with changes to the

Fisheries Act .

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I want to thank the minister

for the advance copy of his statement. We agree with the importance of

protecting habitat and ensuring appropriate safeguards are in place.

As the

minister pointed out, the aquaculture industry plays a significant role in this

province's economy and working with our federal counterparts will certainly help

ensure the future growth and success.

The only

thing I want to add is to encourage my colleague to raise the issue of joint

fisheries management at any chance he gets to the federal minister and

representatives of DFO. I'm looking forward to continued success in this

industry.

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. It is interesting to

hear the minister speak about his concerns on how federal regulations regarding

fish habitat may impact the aquaculture industry. I note he has not been as

concerned about aquaculture's impact on our fish habitat. We know his government

did not do a proper environmental impact statement on the proposed Grieg

aquaculture project in Placentia Bay. I urge the minister to monitor closely the

impact of this project on the bay's already strained ecosystem.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this

hon. House today to commend WorkplaceNL on its recent announcement of changes

that show the strength of our workplace health, safety and compensation system.

Mr.

Speaker, the rate of workplace injuries is at an all-time low in our province.

The number of new reported lost-time injuries over the past year was 1.5 per 100

workers.

When

WorkplaceNL receives fewer claims from injured workers the result is typically

lower costs for employers, and more people going home safely at the end of their

work day.

As well,

it pleases me to report that WorkplaceNL's Injury Fund is fully funded, and we

will strive to ensure that remains so for years to come.

Mr.

Speaker, these lower injury rates and the fully funded position have enabled

WorkplaceNL to reduce the average assessment rate for employers by 14 cents, or

6 per cent, to $2.06 per $100 of assessable pay. As well, the maximum

compensable and assessable earnings for injured workers will increase to

$63,420, remaining the highest in Atlantic Canada. Both of these changes are

effective January 1, 2017.

Education has been a key component in reducing workplace injuries, Mr. Speaker,

and we will continue to support safety training and other education initiatives.

I would

like to commend the collaborative efforts of workers, employers, employer

groups, labour groups, safety associations, WorkplaceNL and government which

combine to make workplaces in our province safer for everyone.

Working

together, we are reducing costs to the employer-funded workers' compensation

system, while ensuring injured workers continue to receive benefits to which

they are entitled.

As a

result, Mr. Speaker, we are helping more Newfoundlanders and Labradorians live

safe and have healthy lives.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I want

to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. It's always good to

hear that WorkplaceNL is receiving fewer claims, the workplace injuries are

being reduced, and they are at an all-time low. It's also good to hear that

there will be a reduction to the employers of this province as a result of fewer

injuries. It's an important time for employers in this province because of the

difficult times that they find.

Our

government was focused on education and awareness, and we need to continue this

to reduce injuries in the future. And good work by the WorkplaceNL.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. This report is all

well and good, but my constituency office continues to be inundated with calls

from frustrated injured workers needing help trying to navigate and negotiate

their claims through the WorkplaceNL system. We have also received reports from

WorkplaceNL employees regarding the stress and toxicity that exists inside

WorkplaceNL. They are frustrated in their attempts to help claimants.

So this

begs to question, Mr. Speaker: If money is being saved for employers, who is

paying for those savings?

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

During

the Estimates meetings the Minister of Natural Resources unequivocally committed

to not cut core funding to youth organizations. Now we find out that youth

organizations have had their annual core funding slashed by 50 per cent or more.

I ask

the minister: Why did you give false assurances to these vital, important

community organizations?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the

Minister Responsible for the Office of Public Engagement it was the grants to

youth organizations that are dealt with. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to

clarify that the core funding for groups and associations in our province, that

was not part of the grants to youth organizations, and I think the Member

opposite would know that.

Based on

where we are this year, there were $1.5 million worth of applications that came

in from 66 applicants within the province this year very similar to where we

were last year, except that the number was much higher.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm happy to say that this year we were able to fund new organizations

like the YMCA, like the Kids Help Phone, like the Association for New Canadians.

So with 66 applications, $1.5 million in requests, we were able to satisfy a

number of the concerns on what was an open call for applications this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

I should note to the Premier,

as he knows my background, I'm very aware of exactly the difference between core

funding and project funding. And a Boys and Girls Club getting funding for the

last 35 years is considered core funding, and so are many other organizations

here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

I ask the Premier: Do you

have any idea what the impact to these organizations will be? How many children

and youth will be negatively impacted?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

these were project-based applications that would come in, as it was mentioned

earlier. As a matter of fact, last year we announced the core funding for groups

around our province over $70 million that was announced in advance, so we

could actually let organizations prepare for where they would be in the future.

One of

the things that we've often talked about and will do as part of

The Way Forward vision is to make sure

we put in multi-year funding core funding for those associations. We recognize

that there has been a lot of time that's been wasted by executive directors and

staff at those organizations who would do a great job on behalf of this

province, but what they want to be able to do is spend their time doing the work

in their communities. That is the reason why we announced the core funding

earlier last year, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Multi-year funding is not new for youth organizations; it's been going on for

years and years in the past.

Have all

youth organizations been advised about their funding cuts?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, the

letters have gone out to the successful applicants, and those that have not been

successful. These have been done. As I said this year, there have been 36 of 66

applicants that have been successful. Very similar to where we were last year:

69 applicants last year; 36 of those were successful. So there were quite a few

unsuccessful applicants this year.

But

we're very pleased this year to be able to support the Association for New

Canadians, as I mentioned earlier, Kids Help Phone, which we were not supported

last year by the previous administration.

So, Mr.

Speaker, with the $1.5 million worth of requests, of course you would know that

the funding levels would necessarily be changed. This is providing a valuable

contribution for project-specific. Mr. Speaker, it really speaks to the point

where, as a government, we were headed in the direction of having a single point

of entry for applications for funding applications within the province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

So there were announcements

in the budget back in April that there was funding for youth organizations.

Seven months later, you start notifying some organizations that have had it for

salaries, have had it for specialized programs and services, who have had it to

investments in their communities now you're asking those same organizations

that you've got to take a 55 or 60 per cent cut.

Can you

tell me, Premier, when did these letters go out? Because I've been notified

today that some organizations don't know, I had to tell them what their cuts

were as of today.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Those

letters went out some time ago. I'm curious to know that if the minister you

must have been aware that was happening because you must have received a letter

from somebody.

Mr.

Speaker, these are project based, so these are specific from the Office of

Public Engagement. These applications are specific to various groups. As an

example, the Boys and Girls Clubs across Newfoundland and Labrador received over

20 per cent of the allocation of funding this year, the YMCA as an example, as I

just mentioned the kids' helpline.

Mr.

Speaker, there are over 30 different groups across this province right now that

have received funding that we would encourage skills, knowledge and professional

development within our communities, within our province. They are doing great

jobs. Those organizations are doing great jobs, but they are project-based

funding, not core funding.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

The Premier may be right,

that Boys and Girls Clubs did receive 20 per cent of the core funding but if you

look at their budget lines, they also took a 50 per cent cut in the funding they

were reliant on as their core funding for, in some instances, the last 35 years.

The

impact on the community's children, youth and families will be significant.

Groups such as Scouts, Guides, Big Brothers Big Sisters, Boys and Girls Clubs

who deliver invaluable service and programs to youth will be devastated.

How can

this minister and her government commit to funding one day, then six months

later axe the funding?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What was

committed to early last year was core funding. This is project-based funding I

say again, Mr. Speaker. We've already said that as part of going forward,

The Way Forward document that

we put out.

What is important is basically to redirect through a single

point of entry so people and organizations around our province it will be more

efficient, Mr. Speaker. It will be able to make decisions on a timelier basis.

So a single point of entry for applicants to access funding initiatives that we

will put in the budget 2017-2018. We will do it early.

The previous minister might have suggested that they did it

over multi year, but that's not what organizations were telling us. They were

telling us they were spending a large amount of their time going out seeking

financial resources from other sources because they asked for and wanted

multi-year funding.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL: I

must clarify for the Premier, I was never

minister. What I was, was a senior bureaucrat who was responsible for the

program. So I'm very aware of exactly what our programs and services were and

how we moved them forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

What I will ask, too: What

are your organizations telling you now that you've cut? What have you heard back

from the organizations? There can't be anybody here now telling you that they're

happy with the cuts that they've been taking.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

receive lots of positive mentions about the work that has been done by this

department. I would just remind the former minister and a former bureaucrat,

that they also cut many. As a matter of fact, over 33 organizations were cut

last year under their administration. So he's using his memory to be very

selective I say, Mr. Speaker. This is not core funding; this is grants to youth

organizations. They do great work in our province, Mr. Speaker, working with our

youth.

Mr.

Speaker, this is very similar; the organizations that have been supported this

year are very similar to what has been supported last year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

I ask the Premier to check

his math because I have the numbers there. Some organizations are cut by 60 per

cent of their core funding.

These

organizations encourage opportunities around training, mentorship and

professional development from promoting youth leadership to helping at-risk

youth and low-income families.

Now that

you have slashed these organizations, where will these children, youth and

families turn for these vital, important services?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I

mentioned earlier, these were specific project funding, Mr. Speaker. There's

still support for core funding in other initiatives for those organizations that

qualify for that.

We will

be putting in place multi-year funding I say, Mr. Speaker. The former minister

seems to forget that last year they cut around 33 organizations to zero last

year. So this is not an area that many organizations have not had to deal with

in their past. I agree, Mr. Speaker, these youth organizations do a great job in

our communities.

Mr.

Speaker, what we're seeing right now, even though it is a different funding

level, we're seeing many community organizations and people like the kid's

helpline, which they did not support last year, is receiving support from this

administration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Mr. Speaker, we know that 30

per cent of the budget that was allocated from the previous administration to

this administration has been cut. We know there's less money for vital youth

organizations here. The Premier can spin it whatever way he wants. The former

minister or the present minister who talked about it in Estimates about core

funding, they were obviously playing on words about what was core funding.

The

questions asked on this side in Estimates were about: Will youth organizations

be cut? Unequivocally, it was said, no, it would not be cut as part of the

process.

Core

funding, explain which organizations. We know CYNs are core funding and the

lunch program. What about the other 100 youth organizations that have been

getting core funding to sustain their operations, to start up their operations,

to then leverage other dollars to ensure programs and services are offered?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think

the meeting that the former minister is talking about was May 10, 2016, when the

former deputy premier had asked a question to the minister who was responsible

for the Office of Public Engagement at that time. She was very clear in saying

the grants she was being questioned about from the former deputy premier were

not core funding. It was the Minister of Finance that was responsible for that.

Hansard

clearly says what happened on that day. It was May 10, 2016, to clarify; the

former person responsible for this department made it very clear that this was

not core funding. These were project related.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

I can recall the minister

saying youth organizations would not be cut.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

Can the minister confirm that

the funding for the only youth organization on Bell Island, the Boys and Girls

Club, has taken a 60 per cent cut to core funding?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I

will just read to clarify what is there. The former minister can play on words

all he wants. She went on to say, I have assured the Member opposite we will do our best to make sure

that funding will be carried on

Mr.

Speaker, $1.5 million worth of funding applications came in. Core funding went

through the Department of Finance. Over $70 million went into core funding for

many great organizations, doing great work for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

across our province.

believe in those organizations as well, but the Member opposite, I will say, is

really playing on words right now. They themselves did not fund many, many

organizations last year, and he knows that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I remind all hon. Members

that the only person I wish to hear from is the person that I've identified to

have the floor.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I might

note to the Premier too that we funded many more youth organizations in the days

when we were in administration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

That's documented; $1.5

million, to me, is not a big investment in the young people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, Mr. Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

Economists have always agreed

that youth organizations alone provide services and also leverage an average of

$4 for every dollar invested. So you're not saving money. You're actually losing

money in our economy.

I ask

the Premier: How do these cuts serve the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

last year it wasn't $1.5 million in applications to the prior administration,

but there were 69 and 36 were approved, Mr. Speaker. So for him to simply say

they helped more is simply not true.

I like

his take, though and I have to go here for a few minutes on what were the

economic benefits and how you plan for the future, in particular for our youth.

That Member sat at a Cabinet table, when he really wasn't too concerned about

the future of this province or the future of our youth because what he wanted to

do was smother them in debt. That's what he wanted to do, Mr. Speaker. He

thought the future of our province was best left with our youth taking on extra

debt for the services that we provide today.

So, Mr.

Speaker, when this minister talks about the future and the economy of our

province, we are not going to base our decisions how you did at your Cabinet

table. Clearly, we know where that got us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Again, I

remind all hon. Members that it is important the Speaker hear all dialogue. I

ask that only the Member identified to speak be vocal in this Chamber.

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, the Premier will

continue to say it is project based, it is project based, it is project based.

We know that is simply factually incorrect.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

In Estimates on April 19, and

in Question Period on May 10, as the Premier points out, we were assured by the

minister formally responsible for the Office of Public Engagement that core

funding would remain, plain and simple. And, as we suspected, that was false.

Minister, either you were unaware of your former department's intentions, or

even worse, you were disingenuous. Which is it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, in

response to the question I have it right here the minister who was

responsible at the time, she said this very clearly that there is project

funding under some of the aspects of OPE, which is the funding that we are

talking about today, the grants to youth organizations.

So if

anyone is disingenuous in this House today, it is the Member who was responsible

for this department. He knows quite clearly he knows the difference here. He

knows that this is project funding that we are talking about, Mr. Speaker. Core

funding comes out of the Department of Finance.

Now,

that's a department that he has not been in yet, from I gather, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe in the future he will be, but the minister who was responsible for this,

he knows very well that this is project related, and he also knows very well

that there were about 33 organizations that he did not fund himself last year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

The Premier is correct that

we couldn't fund every single request that we received, but we did not cut core

funding to youth organizations in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

So just because these groups

fill out a form annually doesn't mean that they don't rely on this funding each

and every year to sustain their programs.

I ask

the Premier: If an organization depends on the same amount of money each and

every year in order to continue its operations, how can you call that anything

other than core funding?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I

said, the applicants, when they made out their applications, when they filed

their applications, it was for project-related funding, Mr. Speaker. We have

core funding that comes from various departments. The Minister of Finance

announced that early last year so we would actually provide the certainty that

was required.

Mr.

Speaker, the processes that were determined to actually fund organizations last

year, under the former minister, were quite different I would say. It's worth, I

think, many people looking at this and how some of those organizations they

decided to fund.

Mr.

Speaker, given where we were with $1.5 million in requests, we were able to fund

quite a number of youth organizations who do great work in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, we've heard from

many organizations. We've heard from one in particular that had their annual

core funding cut in half.

Can the

Premier confirm that all annual funding to youth organizations was cut by a

similar amount? Or, as it sounds, did this government shamefully cherry-pick

winners and losers when slashing funding six months into the fiscal year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

when you look at cherry-picking, Mr. Speaker, history tells a wonderful story.

I'm pleased today to be able to stand here and I'm not so sure of the

mechanism, as I just alluded to a few minutes ago, or the processes of the

former minister who was responsible for this. From what I gather, looking at the

process that he had used, there were certainly some very political decisions

that were used, Mr. Speaker.

I would

ask the former minister when he stands up on his next question, if he will

explain why decisions that he made that we could have even had certain

applicants that might have even received a little extra money than their

application actually asked for. Would he like to explain that before he asks his

next question?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

It's a clever technique, Mr.

Speaker. I'd be happy to answer the Premier's questions, but in Question Period

we'll ask the questions and hopefully, eventually, he's going to answer

(inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

Can the Premier, who's now

responsible for what's left of the Office of Public Engagement, confirm that

funding to the Boys and Girls Club in St. John's has been cut by over 50 per

cent, from $72,000 annually to $34,000 this year?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We went

through the applications. There was a process that was determined and we

reviewed the applications. As I said, Mr. Speaker, some 66 applications; not

every single organization could receive the full funding $1.5 million in

applications, as I said. So there was, no doubt, organizations from a

project-funding mechanism, some of those were cut. No organization received 100

per cent of their request.

Mr.

Speaker, we tried to do the best job that we could, supporting youth in our

province, given the applications and the volume of applications that had come

in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

I thank the Premier for

confirming that in fact everybody, all youth organizations under this program

were cut this year to some extent.

Can the

Premier confirm that funding to the Pool's Cove community youth centre,

basically the only youth program in the community, has been eliminated?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

the former minister would know that under his own program last year a number of

organizations did not get any money either, Mr. Speaker. So these are decisions

that you have to make. We find a balance in where we are in trying to satisfy as

many youth organizations based on the project that they were requesting funding

for.

There

was $1.5 million and 66 applications. Nearly 33 applications for the prior

administration, they were denied last year too, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, I have no

problem taking responsibility for any decisions I've been involved in in the

past, but I hope at some point this Premier will start taking responsibility for

the decisions he's making and the ones he's made over the past year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

Those cuts in Pool's Cove

mean there will be very limited or perhaps no programming for youth and even

some seniors programming this winter.

Mr.

Speaker, can the Premier confirm that funding to the Boys and Girls Club in

Norris Arm has been cut by 55 per cent, from $15,500 to only $7,500?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

we've already said there are a number of different organizations that did not

receive full funding. As a matter of fact, no organization received full

funding. I think the last time I saw that was a decision that was made by the

former minister where he actually increased the funding of certain organizations

even above and beyond where the application would have been, Mr. Speaker.

I have

no problem at all taking responsibility for the actions that we make and the

decisions that we make; but, Mr. Speaker, what is very clear is the former

administration will not take any responsibility of why we are in this situation

that we're into.

Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to hear the former deputy premier at some point get up and

explain to people why they decided deliberately not to let people know the

financial situation of this province, why it is they continued to hide it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, I'd refer the

Premier to Budget 2015 .

I ask

the Premier if you can't listen, you can't lead; I think someone once said

that why did you not consult with these youth organizations prior to making

these drastic cuts?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

I'm glad to talk about Budget 2015 ,

Mr. Speaker, as the former minister just asked me to. That was the budget I

believe that they had predicted to be $1.1 billion; that was

Budget 2015 . Since he brought it up and he now wants to take

responsibility for it by the way, that budget in 2015 wasn't $1.1 billion; it

was actually $2.2 billion.

Then

he's questioning today about the youth of our province, yet he's willing to pass

that debt on to grandchildren, to his own children, Mr. Speaker, and he wants to

talk about Budget 2015 . Well, I would

encourage him to take responsibility for that finally once and for all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Let me provide some recent

history for the Premier. In March, the Finance Minister promised no cuts to core

funding for non-profits. In April and May, the Natural Resources Minister who

was then responsible for the Office of Public Engagement gave assurance to youth

organizations that their core funding was safe.

Six

months pass, without a sound, and now these organizations find out that they

were lied to by government. How can the Liberal government possibly justify

their decisions to cut funding?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

that is very strong language from a former deputy premier. When you're talking

about that kind of language and you realize that they deliberately held back

information about the financial situation of this province, deliberately held it

back, when they had the information well in advance, had information about the

financial affairs of this province, had information about where Muskrat Falls

was.

He sat

at that Cabinet table when those decisions were made prior to the election last

year and he's accusing us today, Mr. Speaker; that is not accepting

responsibility. It is disingenuous I say, Mr. Speaker, and you should be ashamed

of yourself today I say to the former minister for actually even raising this

today, based on the decisions that you made for the future of our youth.

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.

We know

this government is considering public-private partnerships for hospital

construction. I ask the Premier: Is he also considering evidence from Auditors

General in five provinces about high costs and poor management of P3 highways,

hospitals and other public works?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

certainly thank the Member opposite for the question. We, as a government, are

looking at all opportunities. As we clearly stated last year, we're looking at a

value for money. We know the previous administration had a plan in place for P3s

that was not acceptable for us, as a government, because we wanted to explore

all options that are out there.

There

are different models on the continuum of P3s that we are looking at, Mr.

Speaker. What we're doing is we're looking at doing a value for money. When we

are in a position to determine the best return, that's a decision this

government will make and it will be made in the best interests of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

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.

Last

week, a P3 proponent recommended that this province partner with Infrastructure

Ontario or Partnerships BC to build P3s because they know the best approaches.

I ask

the Premier: Has he read the Auditor General of Ontario's report on

Infrastructure Ontario's poor track record of building infrastructure, which

cost taxpayers $8 billion more than if projects had been publicly financed and

managed? How about that on the backs of the people?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. HAWKINS:

Mr. Speaker, thank you and I

thank the Member for the question.

Again, I

will tell you that this side of the House is doing our due diligence. We are

going to be making decisions that are in the best interests of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

As I

mentioned, on the continuum of P3s, there are different models. The models that

are put in place, there have been issues with other P3s. There are also some

good stories from P3s. There are also P3s that are effective.

We, as a

government, are going to do our due diligence. We have engaged expertise in the

area of looking at what is going to be the best value for money for the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is based upon that, Mr. Speaker, that this

government will make a decision in the best interests of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Spending more money to pay

private enterprise is not in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

I ask

the Premier: Has he seen the BC Auditor General's report which found a serious

conflict of interest in Partnerships BC, or is he only listening to what P3

advocates say about these entities?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the Member for the question. I just wanted to make it very, very clear to this

hon. House. This government is serious about where we are. We are serious about

where we're going and what we're going to be doing, Mr. Speaker.

In the

best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, we are going to make

our decisions based on evidence. We're not going to make our decisions based on

just whatever whim is out there. We are going to be basing it on evidence, and

we have said this over and over again. Our decisions are going to be

evidence-based decisions in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. And whatever that model is going to be, Mr. Speaker, that is the model

we're going to be putting forward.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

And we

do hope they do base it on evidence, and there's lots of evidence out there that

there are huge problems with the P3 model felt all the way from BC to Nova

Scotia.

Mr.

Speaker, the government has just tabled procurement legislation in the House of

Assembly to establish a new procurement act.

Given

that we now know P3s in other jurisdictions cost taxpayers more money, I ask the

Premier: What powers will the procurement act and the

Auditor General Act have to ensure public interest is being well

served if this government decides to ignore the warnings and move ahead with

P3s?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think

if the Member opposite I'm sure she was here last night. We went through

second reading, and I think everyone agrees that we have a procurement in place.

I think they all agree with that. I think we have third reading and, obviously,

they're going to vote in favour of that as well.

Part of

the procurement act that we had is in the best interest, of course, of doing

business in this province. We have outlined and the minister has done an

excellent job in answering the questions that have been posed from the opposite

side, because we are putting ourselves in a position to make the best decisions.

Again, the procurement act is going to

enable us to do that.

So, Mr.

Speaker, all of this becomes a part of a bigger plan in which we are going to

make the right decisions for the right of the people in this province going

forward and not have to deal with some of the mistakes that we are trying to

correct.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Question Period

has expired.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I stand on

a point of order.

During

Question Period, the Opposition Deputy House Leader made comments that

government had lied in reference to statements made by the Premier. I think the

Member opposite knows that's clearly unparliamentary. I would ask that he

retract his statement and apologize.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

I withdraw the remark, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Select Committees.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Mr. Speaker, the Public

Accounts Committee of the 47th General Assembly was precluded by the

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. BRAZIL:

dissolution of the November

5, 2015, from reporting on the hearings held during the fourth session of the

last General Assembly.

behalf of the Public Accounts Committee of the 48th General Assembly, I

respectfully request the evidence adduced during the hearings conducted by the

Public Accounts Committee during the fourth session of the last General Assembly

and related material be referred to the current Committee.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further presenting reports by

standing and select committees?

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, I give notice

that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Labour

Standards Act No. 2. (Bill 53)

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant

to Standing Order 11, I give notice that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on

Monday, December 5. And further, pursuant to Standing Order 11, I give notice

that this House not adjourn at 10 p.m. on December 5, 2016.

Further,

pursuant to Standing Order 11, I give notice that this House not adjourn at 5:30

p.m. on Tuesday, December 6. And further, pursuant to Standing Order 11, I give

notice that this House not adjourn at 10 p.m. on Tuesday, December 6.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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 enforcement

protocol 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

service in the province; and

WHEREAS

there are many parents throughout our province who have raised both scheduling

policy, the courtesy seating policy, the new double bus run schedule, as well as

overcrowding on school buses;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House

of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to strike an

all-party committee on school busing to consult with stakeholders and make

recommendations to government for the improvement to the school busing system in

our province.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm pleased to stand again on this petition. This obviously is a

significant concern for families in this province who have children attending

school. As I've acknowledged in the past when I've raised this, I'm very glad to

see that apparently there will be some new legislation coming forward as it

relates to school bus inspections and enforcement. I certainly look forward to

that. I think that's definitely a step in the right direction.

When it

relates to the 1.6 kilometre rule and double busing, that still remains an issue

for families and for children. From a safety point of view, children having to

walk to school, certainly this time of the year with walking in the dark, when

the snow comes now they'll be walking in winter conditions.

A lot of

communities don't have sidewalks or proper crosswalks and so on. Even

communities that do have sidewalks and crosswalks like my community, there are

still issues in the winter when the sidewalks are not cleared and there's heavy

traffic.

continues to be an issue. I'll continue to present it on behalf of the people

who have these concerns.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

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, it's heartbreaking to stand up in this House again today and present

these petitions on the potential closure of libraries. I know that it has been

postponed at this point while there's consultation happening.

But on

the day when we hear about the cuts to many youth organizations, core funding

cuts to many youth organizations, what will happen in Pool's Cove? What will

happen in some of the other communities where not only are their libraries taken

away but funding for their young people?

Many of

their young people use these libraries. Many of the libraries are actually the

core and the heart of their community. What is this government doing? It's

absolutely tearing the heart out of communities. They're taking them apart limb

by limb.

Mr.

Speaker, this particular group of signed petitions I have are a little bit

different. They're from Eastport, but these are people from all over the

province, all over the country who went to Eastport for the writers' festival.

They were all incredibly surprised, those who came from outside of our province,

incredibly surprised that in this day and age government would close libraries,

particularly when our literacy rates are the lowest in the country.

People

were shocked to hear of the planned closure of 54 rural libraries. They regard a

public library as a cornerstone of any community and its closure as an

impoverishment of the people who live there. This is what we're hearing about

here today, Mr. Speaker, with the cutting of youth organizations and the

potential closure of libraries, they're impoverishing the very communities on

which the economy of this province was built, on the backs of the people in

these rural communities.

Mr.

Speaker, why doesn't the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development

agree with the patrons of these literary festivals and tell the public we're

sorry, we messed up

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. ROGERS:

we've heard the public

response, loud and clear, and that they will reinstate the funding? It's the

right thing to do. It's the morally right thing to do and the economic thing to

do.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

Budget 2016 dramatically cut home care

hours to many of the province's most vulnerable people;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House

of Assembly to urge government to immediately reinstate much-needed supports to

those who need it and develop a plan to further address the growing needs of

people requiring home care support.

Mr.

Speaker, as is often talked about in this hon. House, there's a real crisis, I

would say, in health care when it comes to seniors in Newfoundland and Labrador

today and certainly a significant shortage of beds available for them in

long-term care.

One of

the solutions to addressing that issue is providing supports for them to be able

to live in their homes that they've lived in all their lives, close to their

family and friends, in the last years of their lives which are supposed to be

the golden years. Certainly there's nothing more important, especially to

seniors, than having their loved ones who are near and dear to them close at

hand.

To see

the measures enacted in Budget 2016

and the detrimental effect they are having on seniors is absolutely

devastating. I have to say, I have been in politics now for nine years and this

summer marked the highest incidents of calls I have received from people in

tears because of the measures imposed by Members opposite in

Budget 2016 that are devastating

seniors, youth, persons with disabilities, all across Newfoundland and Labrador.

Some

people are being told, well, as the result of reassessment, now you're losing an

hour. The budget clearly states that each and every single person who is

receiving home care,

whereas before they could get up to three hours for

personal care and cleaning, now they can only get two. The cap is at two. So

across the board, everybody has lost an hour.

addition to that, the amount they have to contribute towards their home care has

increased from 15 per cent to 18 per cent. At the same time, they've added a

bureaucratic position at a cost of about half a million dollars a year, at

least, pension benefits and everything else that comes with it. They're taking

out of the pockets of our seniors who have grown this province the very core

services that they need to enjoy a decent quality of life. It's absolutely

shameful, Mr. Speaker.

certainly hope the government revisits their decisions and comes to the

conclusion that $500,000 would be much more wisely spent by helping keep our

seniors in their homes with their loved ones.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

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 of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

provincial wait-lists for long-term care continue to grow; and

WHEREAS

the hospital beds are increasingly being occupied by individuals who are in need

of long-term care; and

WHEREAS

this government cancelled the previous administration's plan to increase

capacity by 360 beds province-wide;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House

of Assembly to urge government to immediately develop a plan to address the

shortage of long-term care beds in order to ensure people receive appropriate

care and are treated with dignity.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, this is an issue that has been talked about a lot. It's not a new issue

to this House and to the public. The previous administration had made a

commitment to start construction of 360 long-term care beds because as every

person who is anyway familiar with this topic, we're in dire need of more

long-term care beds.

I'm sure

every MHA can attest in this House that, on a district level, they're dealing

with this on a daily basis. I know I am, personally, in my district. I have a

lot of people who are trying to get into homes; beds are not available. You have

dementia patients who are in improper locations. The families are putting them

in a bed because they can't take them home, but they have no long-term care

facility for them. So they're placing them in places where it puts a lot of

stress on the families. No doubt, the residents, we are trying to find a place

to live. As we all progress, as the need comes up for our loved ones and I

suppose eventually for all of us one of these days you want to have some

dignity about you.

With the

previous administration, the plan was to have these 360 long-term care beds.

We'd be well towards, we'd be pretty close you'd be well in the process of

having those ready. Instead, the current administration decided to cancel it

because they have a better plan. We've yet to see that better plan.

Some of

the stuff you hear, I mean it's laughable. You have the Minister of

Transportation and Works getting up and talking about his asset optimization and

the best evidence-based decision making. We know I.J. Sampson was a great

example of asset optimization and evidence-based decision making. A lot more

people would have lined up to purchase it at that price, Mr. Speaker. You

cancelled it. Then they proudly said why they cancelled the P3 model because

they want to do it on evidence based.

We're

into a year and we've still seen nothing and the list continues to grow, Mr.

Speaker. The wait-lists are growing. The frustration within those families, in

most cases, is quite a sad situation.

Maybe

some of the people in making these decisions need to talk to the families and

get a first-hand account because, I'll tell you, some of the stuff is pretty

heart wrenching. When your loved one is the one that's being affected, there's

no solution being offered by this government to help these people. I think it's

time for them to give this some serious consideration.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

Orders

of the Day

MR. A. PARSONS:

(Inaudible) by all means.

MR. SPEAKER:

Yes.

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the Government House Leader as well for his co-operation as always well, most

of the time; all the time in the last 24 hours.

To the

hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

the decision of the United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Union presents

new trade opportunities; and

WHEREAS

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has a historic trade relationship with

the United Kingdom; and

WHEREAS

the two regions may mutually benefit from trade opportunities;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House

of Assembly to urge government to develop an economic strategy which capitalizes

on trade opportunities between the United Kingdom and Newfoundland and Labrador.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, we've talked a couple of times in the past. The minister and I have had

an exchange about the opportunity that Brexit presents for Newfoundland and

Labrador. The minister has acknowledged that there is ongoing work within

Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development in terms of trade relations,

but I guess what this petition is calling for is something more than that.

There's a unique opportunity that is now before us. So carrying on with existing

initiatives, programs and efforts is good stuff, but we believe that a real,

concerted effort needs to be made to build even stronger ties with the UK.

The

British people voted in a referendum on June 23 to leave the EU, and the new

prime minister has made clear that the will of the British people will be

brought into effect and that by March of 2017 the UK will formally have started

the process of leaving. So that means as the UK leaves the EU over the next few

years, powers that have been taken to Brussels will be back in the UK government

in Westminster and, most importantly, for Newfoundland and Labrador is the power

for the UK to make its own international trade deals.

So why

does all this matter? Well if you look at our historic trade relationships, the

United Kingdom is the second largest buyer of goods from Newfoundland and

Labrador on the international market. They imported $605 million of products

from our province last year. We have historic ties, we have a direct

transportation link to London and we can work with the UK to use its newly found

powers to strike a deal that delivers more trade, more jobs and more prosperity

to the people of this province.

So we

see real opportunity here. We would be happy to support government's efforts in

pursuing this because the time is now and I think it could lead to new trade

opportunities that would deliver security, stability and opportunity for people

in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

Orders

of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, I call, seconded

by the Member for Lab West, that Bill 46,

An Act Respecting Procurement By

Public Bodies now be read the third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 46 be now read a third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

MS. MICHAEL:

(Inaudible.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Oh, I'm sorry.

The hon.

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

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Bill 46,

the Act Respecting Procurement by Public Bodies, I did want to use this

opportunity to make a couple of the points that I did make throughout second

reading and during Committee. I want it very, very clear that we do want a

procurement act and we do need a procurement act, but the act that's been put

before us, this act which the government is calling a framework act, is just

that. It's a frame, not just framework and when we looked for details in some

really important areas, we could not find the details.

As the

minister kept pointing out in responses to various questions and points that

were raised he didn't use this language, but I will. What he really kept

pointing out is the devil is going to be in the details and we're not going to

see those in this House of Assembly.

Some of

the details, in my book, are not details that are put in regulations. The

details we're concerned about are details that have to do with policy. I pointed

out on a number of occasions the areas in which it was policy that was lacking

in the bill. So that we have a Treasury Board being given powers, we have the

chief procurement officer being given powers and we have the LG in Council being

given powers too, which they should have, but all in areas where policy is

involved, without any direction in the bill about what that policy should look

like.

One of

the areas, for example it's fine to say that the bill values diversity in

procurement but what does that mean? What it means is not something that comes

out in a regulation. What it means is an explanation that should be in the bill

when we're talking about reports being made by Nalcor to the government and then

on to the chief procurement officer, or reports being made by the Research and

Development Council and then on to the chief procurement officer without any

direction of what those reports should be covering.

The

whole bill is like that. We kept pointing out throughout the discussions that

there are details that are missing that are more than things that would be in

regulations. My concern is the regulations will be exactly what regulations are,

which is a sort of a how-to manual, and will not have directions with regard to

the value statements that have to be made, with regard to the policies that have

to be put in place.

So what

we're being asked to do is to vote on a bill that is fairly empty, hoping that

the regulations, into which we have no say, will take care of the concerns that

we have raised.

So the

one thing I want to put on the record is that when we vote against this bill, we

are not voting against having good procurement policy in this province. We're

voting against a bill that hasn't presented us with enough policy to vote on. So

I want that made clear, because I don't want the minister standing and saying we

voted against procurement. We are not voting against that. But this bill is far

below what we would have expected.

When we

quiz the government on the criteria for evaluation, criteria for how do you

judge whether or not there is diversity, that's not a regulation. What are the

values behind this? And all we could get is it's the best bang for our buck,

really. Get the best value for our money yes, we want the best value for our

money, but how do we get there, while also recognizing values that are really

important? How do we get there by recognizing the need for diversity?

Not just

the need for diversity, in terms of the companies themselves is the company a

company owned by Aboriginal people, or is the company owned by women? That's

only one aspect. Is this company a company that in itself values diversity that

it shows in its policies and the way it acts that it values diversity? It's much

broader than the minister seemed to understand when you talk about diversity in

procurement. You look at the companies and you evaluate where they are when it

comes to equality, where they are when it comes to diversity, where there are

when it comes to sustainable procurement practices. This is what you look at;

you look at how to evaluate the companies.

This was

one of the things that was exciting, that's it not just the lowest bidder. But

there's not enough in this to tell us how the companies are going to be

evaluated with regard to these other areas. How they're going to be evaluated to

determine that not only is it best value for our money, in terms of the quality

of the work being done, but is it best value for our money in terms of the

labour practices of the company? Is it the best value for our money in terms of

the recognition by this company of the need for diversity? Does this company

show that it understands what sustainable development is? There is nothing in

the bill around how that evaluation is going to be done. I would put out that's

more than a regulation, that is policy, and there are no directions around the

policy.

Mr.

Speaker, we were here until 1:30 this morning on this. We debated yesterday on

this as well. Nothing I'm saying is new, but I just wanted to make clear and put

it on the record when we vote against this bill today, we are not voting against

procurement. It's our statement of how disappointed we are that the government

did not go further in giving us a true Public Procurement Act which really shows what the values are, that

really shows the direction in which government wants to go, beyond just saying

we want to get the best value for our money.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for Cape St.

Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I just

want to rise and make a few comments on the bill. I also want to acknowledge my

Member for Mount Pearl North. I think he did a fantastic job going through each

section. I'll also commend the minister for giving the best answers that he

could give with the questions.

It was a

great debate here last night. I think everybody that was involved in it took a

lot out of the debate. It's the way the House of Assembly should work. I commend

the two of them actually.

I guess

I'll say exactly what the previous speaker just spoke about. It's a lot of the

unknowns that are in this bill that has us worried. I'm sure it has a lot of

people worried about what's going to come.

understand that regulations do come in afterwards and stuff like that. But when

you're talking about 20 regulations to this bill, where 17 of them are going to

be done in Cabinet and three are going to be done to the minister, it's almost

like trust me; we'll do a good job. I think the people and employers,

municipalities, everyone in the province would like to know the details.

In a lot

of cases, once something comes in as a regulation, whatever it is and I know

the minister said last night that we debate a lot of the regulations here in the

House and we'll have to ask questions, but once regulation comes in from Cabinet

or from the minister, it's a job to change them.

I know

government has the right to bring in those regulations and it's part of

Cabinet's job to do so. But with a bill like this, that we talked about in the

House and we talked about $4 billion and we talked about what effect it has on

municipalities, what effect it has on Nalcor, what effect it has on every

industry in the province really, because when you're talking $4 billion, you're

talking about investments in snow clearing, you're talking about investments in

garbage collection when it comes to municipalities. You're talking about

investments in printers and stuff like this.

We all

realize that this bill really did need to come in. We agreed. We agreed that

procurement needs to be done, but there are a lot of unknowns and there's a lot

asked to trust me. That's a problem we have. We really do have a problem with

that.

There

are parts of this bill that I really do like. I really like the part with best

value, but when it comes to best value and being a municipal leader myself in

the past, this is going to be great for municipalities because you're going to

have the opportunity to say to someone who's supplying a service to your town

that your standards are not up. If you want to bid on this contract, your truck

needs to be operational. We want to make sure your truck, the equipment that you

are putting on the road is not going to breakdown and we're not going to have

problems in the middle of a snowstorm, or when it comes to garbage collection

that there's not going to be delays and garbage is not going to be left.

That's

great, municipalities really do want that. We want to understand when the

regulations come in on something like best value, how's it going to be

determined? Is there an opportunity for somebody to take advantage of a council

or of an organization that comes in and says, b'y, I offered my best value. What

are the criteria? That's what needs to be determined here in this bill.

Procurement, we agree with it. It has to be brought in, but we need to

understand what's going to happen down the road is the unknowns. What's going to

happen when Cabinet and the minister himself puts these regulations in? What

opportunities are going to be given to people to say, b'y that's not how I

thought it was going to work? Give an opportunity for us here as legislators to

give our opinions on it.

I know

it's difficult and I know it's important. It's a very important bill to the

whole province. Again, $4 billion is a lot of money, but the devil is really in

the details in this bill. While we agree with most of it, there are still so

many unknowns that people and municipalities need to know.

Again,

it comes to the point of trust. I know people trust in government and trust in

parties to do things, and then the direct opposite will happen. We've seen that

so many times. We've seen that so many times in the previous budget, promises

that were made were never, ever kept, and the same thing with this bill.

I don't

think there are many people who would disagree that this procurement shouldn't

come in, I agree, but they still want to know what the details are and what's

going to be in the legislation down the road. That's part of the problem we have

with this bill.

That's

just a few words I had to say about the bill. I don't know if anyone else is

going to get up and talk about it, but it's all about trust and it's all about a

lot of unknowns. It's about what's going to happen down the road, and I hope we

can trust government to do the right thing.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm very

happy to once again stand and speak to this bill. This is a major bill that has

major consequences. I thank the government and I thank the minister for bringing

this bill to the House. This bill provides an opportunity to really be

courageous, to really be forward thinking, to really be progressive in how we do

our procurement. It's unfortunate, in fact, Mr. Speaker, the minister and the

government haven't chosen to take full advantage of this opportunity.

We see a

framework that is somewhat vague. There are great opportunities and great

possibilities with this bill. Among them well, last night I spoke at length

about the issue of diversity and what does that mean. We have this vague

statement of the value of diversity, but there are other issues as well that

this bill could be covering.

I know a

lot will be covered in regulations, but also there needs to be more substantive

policy guidelines, really substantive policy guidelines that reflect our values

as a province. That's not just regulations. They're fundamental values that we

hold dear as the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that will guide how we go

about doing our business. Among them are the issues of diversity, but also, how

is this going to guide the whole issue of P3s?

If this

government decides to go in the direction of P3s for a number of our public

services, currently our Auditor General does not have the authority to go into

any private facility. His act does not allow him to do that. So, for instance,

if we see a private hospital

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. ROGERS:

If we see a hospital built by

a P3 model, by a private, for-profit company that also manages it, our Auditor

General does not have the right to go in there and do his work, the work that we

ask him to do on behalf of the people of the province. So we need to look at

that, how that will intercept with the procurement legislation.

Again,

it is an incredible opportunity to really embed our values, as the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, in how we will go about spending our money, how we

will go about doing our business. This is about doing our business on behalf of

the people of the province.

Another

thing that we haven't really seen is the issue of social enterprises. How will

we look at that? Will there be a different scoring mechanism, in terms of

appraising proposals, if something is a social enterprise where the values for

social enterprise are about training, making sure that the people of the

province get training, making sure that there is diversity, making sure that

there are sustainable ways of doing business.

Mr.

Speaker, in Scotland, for instance, in their procurement legislation which is

really progressive, perhaps among the most progressive in the country they

have a community benefit clause. Now we haven't seen that in our proposed

legislation, but what

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

As I was

saying, in Scotland that has very progressive procurement legislation, in their

legislation they have a clause that's called a community benefit clause.

Wouldn't it be great if we could include a community benefit clause?

This is

what the community benefit clause does. It guarantees targeted recruitment, it

guarantees training, it guarantees small businesses and local businesses and it

also guarantees social enterprise development and community engagement. That's

actually embedded. It's not a regulation; it's embedded within their

legislation. It's right in there. It's part of their values. It's part of their

values of how they do business, which again we have this incredible opportunity

in the House before us now to have a procurement act that, in fact, reflects our

values and what we want to see, and how we spend our money.

A lot of

people, for instance, won't buy the cheapest thing for their household because

they know there are other considerations. I know that's how we want to do

business here. It's not just about the cheapest. As government and as the

minister has constantly said in the debate around this issue, we are looking for

the best value for our money for our people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

That's

not very well defined in this legislation, in this bill that's before the House,

nor is it very comprehensive in looking at issues like a community benefit

clause, and that would affect how a proposal is rated, whether or not there are

community benefits that come about through this particular procurement. So how

we score our proposals that come before us should include issues like that,

should include and be embedded in our policy.

For

instance, are we going to say any business that puts forth a proposal to our

government, to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador say if we're going to

get ferries built, do we want to make sure the people who are building those

ferries, if they're in another foreign land, that they're being paid properly?

Will that be in our legislation? Will we make sure we are not involved in any

kind of exploitation of workers in any part of the world?

I see no

evidence of that in the proposed for instance, in Scotland they have a clause

in their procurement policy that the companies they do business with have a

policy where they achieve a living wage. So that's very interesting, but we

haven't seen any of that in the bill that has come before our House.

Again,

Mr. Speaker, I believe there are incredible opportunities in this bill that

government has not taken advantage of. It's a big bill that governs major

expenditures on behalf of the province. We have opportunities to embed our

values, as a province, and government has chosen not to do that. I find that

regrettable because this was a huge opportunity to do something incredibly

progressive and incredibly beneficial for the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a

pleasure to rise one last time and speak to this bill,

An Act Respecting

Procurement by Public Bodies.

I'm

going to reiterate a number of points which have been made and points which I

have made as it relates to this particular piece of legislation. Really, the

concerns have been outlined. For me, there are two major areas of concern. The

first area I have of concern relates to Nalcor. It's less of a concern and more

of a sense of a lost opportunity.

As we

know, Nalcor is now included under this new procurement act. As I have said,

that is a good thing. I support it 100 per cent. I'm very glad to see the

government doing that, but I guess where I see the lost opportunity, Mr.

Speaker, is there are so many exemptions that are there for Nalcor. Looking down

the road, and as I said last night, I look at the Muskrat Falls Project, a

project which again, I will say for the record as we all know, I voted for

in good faith. We've seen all of the overruns and all of the project delays that

have happened. We've heard many stories about how contracts perhaps were awarded

and cost plus as opposed to performance based.

We're

heard stories. We know about where a dome was half built and then torn down.

Then came into question, well you have an inexperienced company that got the bid

as opposed to an experienced company. If they had gone with the other company

maybe it wouldn't have happened, it wouldn't have cost us so much money. It goes

on and on and on.

We heard

stories about the concrete pour. There are all kinds of issues out there and

stories that have been told about concerns at the Muskrat Falls Project and how

things have played out in terms of that project, in terms of the contract awards

and so on.

So with

that in the backdrop, I think we have to learn from those things. We have to

learn from those things. Now when there's a

section here that exempts Nalcor,

when there's any kind of joint partnerships and arrangements and so on. So,

again, if we were to develop the Lower Churchill, if we were to do that at some

point in time, in partnership with Quebec, because we know there are discussions

happening with Quebec, then this would lead me to believe it could be exempt. If

we were to do a project, then we are right back in the same boat as we were on

Muskrat Falls in terms of procurement and how contracts were let and the public

not being aware and how it was done.

Yes,

there is a clause that says any contracts awarded would have to be reported to

the minister within six months and then it would be reported to the chief

procurement officer by the minister and it would be put online and so on. But

(

a) that's up to six months later; and (

b) even if it's put online, what's going

to be put online? To simply say this company was awarded a contract and here's

how much we paid them. That doesn't address were proper protocol followed. What

procurement practices were followed? How were they awarded? Who else bid? All of

those types of things. None of that's there. It's just to put on a computer

screen that a certain company got a project.

If we

were to do anything in the future, we would be no better off by the process than

we are today with Muskrat. I just flag that as a concern and perhaps a lost

opportunity.

The

biggest piece, though, that I really have concerns with and this has been

outlined a number of times by Members now, including myself, it really comes

down to

section 28 and

section 29 of the act. That's really what it comes down

to.

Section 28 talks to the regulations that Cabinet will create and

section 29

talks about the three regulations around the procurement agency that the

minister will create.

A number

of those areas are very, very critical to the act overall, to how we do things

overall, in terms of how we award contracts. How is that done? How do we deal

with suppliers and so on who are not following the contract? What are the

repercussions? What are the processes around tendering? All of the meat, if you

will, is contained within the regulations.

Every

time when a bill comes to the House, we are debating the act and we are not

debating regulations. Yes, the Cabinet does make up the regulations, but we're

talking about something which I would say, a piece of legislation first of

all, we're just not making an amendment. A lot of times bills come before the

House and there's an amendment, so we're changing one or two clauses. That could

result in an amendment of one or two clauses in the regulations, but we're

talking about actually getting rid of a procurement act and replacing it with a

brand new one.

So a

brand new act, brand new regulations that we have never seen and

an act, by the

way, that would be overseeing the expenditure of $3 billion to $4 billion with

a B annually. It's a major piece of legislation. So I have concerns about the

fact that there are a number of things here that we're really not going to be

privy to how it gets developed. There are a lot of unanswered questions.

Does

that mean we're not going to end up with great regulations? I don't know. I'm

not saying that. I'm sure, I am confident that the government and the minister

and so on, the Cabinet, will put in the best possible regulations. I'm sure they

will. Why wouldn't they? There's no reason for me to believe that they wouldn't.

I'm sure they would, but as someone who has to vote for something, and not

knowing that for sure, then obviously it's a concern.

Mr.

Speaker, as we said, there are many positive things in the bill. Barring the

exemption piece with Nalcor, the fact that they're being brought into the act

for normal operations is a good thing. The fact that we're going to introduce

value for money, I think one could argue is a good thing. Depending on how that

value for money is determined and that's where we get into the regulations

again, which we really don't know how that's going to be determined.

The

minister answered some questions, did a good job there answering questions and

gave us a flavour for where his head is with it. It sounded reasonable to me,

but there's nothing written here. There's nothing written here to guarantee that

or to know for sure how that is going to work.

From an

overall perspective, that concept, I believe, is a good one. Although I would

say, as was pointed out to me by a couple of people in business, they did have a

concern about even under a system where it's low bid, quite often you end up

with disputes and potential lawsuits and everything else. Now, if you're going

to throw in a whole subjective piece with all these different criteria, then

that could cause an awful lot more problems in terms of disputes over people

getting contracts and not getting contracts.

I'm not

saying it can't be done. I'm not saying that there wouldn't be an established

matrix out there that makes sense, that could be argued to be fair and legal and

so on, but it is a point nonetheless, especially when we haven't seen that

particular matrix.

The fact

that we're going to be bringing in a number of consultants that weren't covered

under the act before, like architects and engineers, now will have to go through

the procurement act, that's a positive thing. That's an excellent thing. I

support it 1,000 per cent. The fact that we're going to be putting more stuff

online for the public to see, disclosure, that's an excellent thing. I support

that as well.

So the

point is that there are an awful lot of really good things in here that I do

support and I know that the time has come, long overdue, to have a new

procurement act. Because, as we know, this has been something that's been on the

go now for what I think the minister said 2008 was the date.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Too long.

MR. LANE:

The Member says too long.

Yes, I agree.

So at

least eight years and I know it was on the Order Paper, I think, in 2012 and it

died. So the fact of the matter is that it is time for a new procurement act.

It's something that a lot of people over there, over here, I guess, at the time

have called on, or called for at some point in time and I'm glad to see that

it's happening.

I have

to say though, Mr. Speaker, that I've never been so divided, in my mind, on a

bill. This is one that I have to say I have a lot of mixed feelings about and

have been unsure right up until today, right up until just a little while ago

which way I was going to go, if I was going to vote for it or if I wasn't going

to vote for it, to be honest with you; not that it makes a difference in the

sense that it's going to pass anyway. We all know it's going to pass anyway.

Whether I support it or I don't support, I know it's going to pass anyway, but

you have to weigh out I'm trying to weigh out, I guess, the need and the

greater good of having a new procurement act, which I know we need, and weigh

that out with the flaws I see in the process and in the way the legislation is

written.

And, Mr.

Speaker, as I said, I believe there are a lot of really good positive things

here. I would have liked to have seen a lot more detail. I think there are a lot

of things that are being left to regulations. Instead of being put to

regulations, it should have been included in the bill, or at least the principle

of them.

As the

Member for St. John's Centre talked about, the values, the principles and so

that would guide the regulations. At least then we would have a guide to know

that this is how the regulations would work. It would be based on certain

principles; it would be based on certain guidelines and so on. I think a lot of

those guidelines and principles are missing from the act, and that's really, I

think, the big flaw that's there.

There

were a number of issues raised in committee and I was a little disappointed. I

would have hoped, based on some of the feedback, we would have seen a few

amendments brought forward to make some changes but unfortunately that didn't

happen, and it never tends to for some reason. I guess that's why this whole

concept of legislative committees would make this stuff so much better I think

if everyone had that. If there was some input before this ever came to the

floor, then some of these issues could have gotten ironed out. Unfortunately,

that's not the way it happened, and has never happened really. It needs to start

happening, I believe.

I would

say before I conclude, that I would certainly recommend to the government I

know in the government's five point plan during the last election they weren't

government at the time, but during the five point plan in the red book it talked

about the establishment of all-party legislative committees. That they were

going to do that. What better of an opportunity now than to form a small

committee to at least oversee the development of these regulations; just to have

some oversight and to have some input from people on both sides of the House in

the development of the regulations.

I'm not

saying they're going to sit down and write them. Obviously, there's going to be

qualified staff to write them, but to oversee them. That would be, I think, a

great show of good faith to do that and then everybody could be confident in

those regulations. I think that would be a great opportunity to do that. I would

certainly ask government to consider doing that.

conclude, Mr. Speaker, because I said I've been weighing it back and forth, and

I think at the end of the day I am going to support the bill. I'm going to

support the bill because I believe we do need a new procurement act. I do

believe it is long overdue. I do believe there are a lot of good things

contained in the bill, but in saying so, in supporting it, I do want to, as I've

just said, go on the record, as other Members have, to say I do have concerns

that too much has been left to the regulations that should be in the act itself

and I believe there is a lost opportunity as it relates to the exemptions for

Nalcor.

Again, I

would ask the government to please consider an oversight committee involving

Members from both sides of the House to be able to oversee the regulations. I

realize that's not common. That doesn't happen as a general rule every time

there's a change in regulations, but I think this is a special circumstance.

Because it's a brand new piece of legislation, it's an extensive piece of

legislation, and it has a huge impact on the province in terms of it's

overseeing the expenditure of $3 billion to $4 billion annually. It's such a

critical piece of legislation, I think to my mind it would make all the sense in

the world to have some involvement by Members from both sides of the House to

oversee those regulations, sort of as a special circumstance so that we can all

be comfortable in what's there.

In the

absence of that and government certainly has the right not to do that and to

bring in whatever regulations they see fit. If they do so, and there are things

there that I don't agree with, I'm sure other Members would say the same, then

we'll definitely be bringing it up in any way we can and lobbying for changes or

improvements if they should occur. I think a show of good faith would be to have

that oversight committee to oversee these regulations so that we know we're all

doing what's in the best interest of the people, we can all agree to it, and

then we're all much more comfortable in supporting a bill which is long overdue,

much needed, and as I said, has a lot of good, positive things in it that I

think we all support.

So with

that said, Mr. Speaker, I'll take my seat. I will be supporting this bill but,

as I said, with some hesitancy, if you will, and with throwing those cautions

out there. Because I think it's important to at least put those things on the

record. It's an important bill. I don't want to see it stopped. I want to see it

go forward, and I hope that other Members can have some involvement to some

degree in overseeing these regulations after the bill is passed.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, before the minister gets up and closes debate on this very important

bill, I wanted just to have a few words because I know the amount of work that

has gone into this by the minister and the people in the department. As several

Members have alluded to across the way, this bill has been waiting for some

time, eight, 10, 12 years, whatever it was. Here we are today on the brink of

passing this very important bill for this government and for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. What we've heard from the Third Party and from others

is what's not good about this bill, what's bad, the gaps that are in the bill,

but they failed to really show how important this bill is and the value it will

have to the province.

I'm just

going to quickly run through the benefits that we've identified from this bill.

The first one is that it moves the focus from just getting the best price to

getting the best value. I know several ministers have stood in this House,

including the Minister of Transportation and Works, the Minister of Health and

others talking about how important it is in going to the marketplace and getting

the best value for your dollar. The focus of this legislation and overall

approach is to ensure public bodies achieve best value, transparency and

accountability from procurement, not just the best price with little regard for

other factors.

The

second one is that there are more services now included in this act than ever

before. This includes engineering services; architectural services; accounting,

land surveying and voice telephone services; banking services; insurance

services, and other services that were previously not included. This enhanced

oversight will help ensure best value again from money spent on these services

in the future.

Through

this bill, we've expanded the services that will now come under the authority or

the guidance of this new Public

Procurement Act . As the minister has alluded to on several occasions, and

through consultations with many stakeholders in the province, there will be an

opportunity now to update the thresholds governing buying activity.

We know

where things have gone and public bodies require more authority, more

flexibility. Many public bodies have told us that the thresholds are very low,

and they are. They force public bodies to engage in open calls for bids when the

services they needed had a small monetary value, whether it was $20,000,

$10,000. Now they'll have more flexibility. Municipalities, for argument's sake,

with $20,000, that's going up to $50,000. So there will be more opportunity for

municipalities, then, to be more flexible, to look at local buyers, to keep the

local economy going. There's more opportunity for them.

The new

act provides an opportunity to increase those thresholds which in turn reduces

red tape and supports buying activity, as I've already said. This also provides

public bodies the ability to locally source for acquisitions. We've all heard

that many, many times over, how important it is to support the local economy.

Well, this act will give those public bodies the authority and the permission to

do that. That's a good thing.

There

will be enhanced oversight. The new act includes changing the Government

Purchasing Agency to the public procurement agency to focus on its 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, so there will be more oversight.

There will be more checks and balances. There will be authorities in place to

ensure that everything is done above board and is done in the best interests of

the public purse.

The

chief procurement officer will be selected through the Independent Appointments

Commission process. We all know that is working very well for us. We saw it

again today with the board of Nalcor, how well that's working. It's a good

thing.

The

advisory council will be comprised of officials from provincial public bodies.

They could include municipalities. They could include school boards. They could

include the health authorities. So those people will be engaged; those bodies

will be engaged in the decision process. What more can you ask for?

Ensuring

suppliers can get information about a procurement process after it is awarded,

make a complaint, when they see issues with a buying process and be held

accountable for their performance. I think the minister really did a good job

last night of explaining that and how accountable this act will be and the

agency will be when it comes to purchasing and informing unsuccessful bidders

why they were unsuccessful and how they can do better for future bids. Again,

it's a positive thing.

Engaging

in training activity to ensure both buyers and venders are informed and

participating in a transparent and equal opportunity procurement environment.

You're opening the parameters; you're opening the opportunities for the

business, whether they're small businesses, large businesses or big

corporations. It doesn't matter. It provides opportunity.

There

will be greater flexibility in the way public bodies purchase what they need.

The previous approach was prescriptive and encouraged tenders over RFPs. Well,

we're going to support now and we're going to promote, as well, the RFP process.

The minister again made that quite clear last night and explained it very well.

The new

act will make it easier to use alternative approaches such as RFPs and calls for

expressions of interest. This act allows government more regulatory discretion

so that public bodies are not forced to use processes that do not maximize value

for money.

As you

can see, in every principle that's included in this act we hear from the

Opposition and from the Third Party and from the Independent Member that they're

weary of what the regulations will be. They're weary that we won't do a good job

on developing the regulations, that the regulations won't reflect the intent of

the act. Well, I can assure those Members that the regulations will reflect the

intent of the act. And there will be people put in place to develop those

regulations that understand what we're trying to do here, and what we're trying

to do for the province, for the people of this province and for our public

purse.

Some

Members keep referring to the fact that the good thing is that Nalcor now will

come under the act. Of course, that's a good thing because they have a lot of

buying power and they do a lot of purchasing, but understanding where Nalcor is

in our province, what purpose they serve and their role in the province, it's

only understandable that they would have some flexibility when it comes to the

purchasing powers, whether it's through energy or energy products, strategic

partnerships. And by the way, that's the future of this province. We have to do

what we are going to do to make this province profitable and to make this

province successful. We'll have to do it in partnerships, whether that's with

Nalcor or any other corporation, partnerships is the way of the future, and

again, to reap the requirements of the benefits agreement.

So,

Madam Speaker, I want to say that this act when we took office and I went with

the Minister of Service NL, the procurement act became a priority from day one.

We knew what we had in place wasn't working. And I can tell you that the people

within the department, and officials who were working on this, and have been

working on it for the past number of years were encouraged and relieved that we

were finally going to do something with this because the consultations have been

done for years. They've been done for years, but the previous administration

failed to take those consultations and put them into action, put them into

reality and put them into legislation, so we're doing that.

Madam

Speaker, I want to say thank you to those people and I would encourage everybody

in this House to take this procurement act as a way forward. It is a way forward

and it's something that we've put in our Way Forward vision. It is a vision. We think it's a good way

forward, it's a good act, and will meet the needs of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians and will ensure that this government, the people and the taxpayers

of this province will get the best value for their money.

Thank

you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):

The hon. the

Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you.

I'm

assuming now I'm the last speaker and I'll close it on third reading here, Madam

Speaker.

Well, it

has been a long day yesterday for all of us here and I thank everybody who spoke

on the bill and I thank everybody who had their contribution, but I want to

recognize the Member for Mount Pearl North. I know yesterday two of us stood up

five or six hours at this here and we asked a lot of questions back and forth

and got a lot of information out there and I respect that, the questions and the

way it went.

I know a

couple of other people in the House of Assembly didn't recognize it, but I want

to recognize that he recognized that the regulations do come in after the

legislation is passed. We all know that in this Legislature. We've been here

long enough.

When you

get some Members standing up and saying, well, we don't know because the

regulations are not here, knowing full well that the regulations come later,

it's very disheartening to make statements like that and say why don't we have

the regulations.

The

Member for Mount Pearl North yesterday, it was a great debate. Thank you very

much for digging down deep in a lot of the questions. We went through it in five

or six hours. And for recognizing yes, some of this is wait and see what the

regulations are and he recognized that.

Madam

Speaker, that is part of the debate here. I recognize that and I expect that,

and it was a great debate in the House of Assembly. I enjoyed it. It was long,

but it was for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I can

say that to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Member for Mount Pearl

North definitely got into the details and definitely brought out every possible

detail that he could in that huge act. I just wanted to recognize that, Madam

Speaker.

The

other thing is the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi, talking about the

devil is in the details. She's in this Legislature long enough; she knows that

regulations are brought in. There are parameters set. The Atlantic procurement

act and if you want a copy of it, I can get you a copy. A lot of the goods

and services, that's in there.

I didn't

want to do it last night because myself and the Member for Mount Pearl North

were having a very healthy educational debate on it and you hear statements from

the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi and the Member for Mount Pearl

Southlands talking about how Cabinet sets the regulations in

section 8. But

somewhere they had to read the bill itself. What's being regulated in

section 8

by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, what's being

regulated, are the two exemptions. The two exemptions are legal and financial.

That's what they're saying, is that they want to regulate it. That's the

two they can regulate.

If you look at

section 8, it says right here in the

bill and giving the impression the Treasury Board will regulate. Obviously,

it's an information session. If you go look at

section 8, it says there what

they can regulate. If I had a copy I would read it. It's says very openly in

section 8, I'll read it: The Treasury Board may establish a policy for the procurement of

professional services by public bodies.

The two

professional services that are excluded are what are in the bill. It's legal and

financial. So by giving the impression that Treasury Board could set the

regulations for this whole act is not true. It's not true. That's the impression

that was given last night.

MR. LANE:

(Inaudible.)

MR. JOYCE:

Okay, the Member for Mount

Pearl Southlands said he didn't do it, but I know the Member for St. John's

East Quidi Vidi stood up last night and if that's incorrect, I apologize. I

withdraw that. But I know the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi stood up

last night because I sat down and made a note of it.

Section 8, all they give is what's already exempt. I

can hand you over a copy, marked up, if you want to see it. It highlights

thank you, I didn't know if you needed it or not.

Madam Speaker, the regulations we all know and the

Member for Mount Pearl North, he was deputy premier of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, a very high position; he understands the regulations.

I understand regulations are brought in later. We all know that. So for certain

Members standing up in this hon. House and saying that we can't do it because of

regulations, knowing full well, we gave parameters.

Just think about it, this Read report, 2008, eight

years ago it was handed to government. It is over eight years now because it was

handed in the summer. Over eight years, this report was handed in here. Now

we're bringing this bill in it was Bill 1 in 2012 when the Leader of the

Opposition was the minister at the time to bring it in, we bring in this bill,

we have extensive and I mean extensive consultations, broad-based support, yet

we see the leader of the Third Party up again saying no, we can't support it.

I'm not sure what the Official Opposition is going to

do. I know the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands said we have to wait and see

what the details are, but he will support it. That's everybody's right in this

House to see who's going to support it and not support it ,

and I feel confident they will. I feel very confident they will because I tell

you why. Even the details that they know will come in later, with the

regulations, they know this is the best value for people in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

I'm

confident in that. Can you pick out holes and say you should have done this, you

should have done that? Maybe, but every time you bring something forward,

everybody has a different opinion. If some of the regulations and I would just

want to let general public know this. If there are regulations in this bill that

we bring in, the regulations that we bring in, they will always have an

opportunity in this Legislature to ask questions why we did it. They will always

have that opportunity.

So the

regulations aren't carved in stone. That's why they're regulations; they're

flexible. So if somebody in the Opposition, the Third Party or the Independent

asks us questions and says, well, why did you put that regulation in there, how

can we change it you think it's better this way. That's why it's regulations,

you can change regulations, but you put it in with the best consultation that we

had.

I know,

again, the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi got on last night about

women's policy, women's lens and about NLOWE. NLOWE was already a part of this

discussion. We're meeting them again Monday. Staff is meeting them again Monday.

They were already consulted. Every piece of this bill was put through the

Women's Policy Office, went through the disability lens here in the government,

Madam Speaker.

So we

did do our due diligence. We definitely did our due diligence on this. This is

the kind of thing that we as a government pride ourselves on. The Member is

saying, well, what can you do concrete. Well, what we did concrete are a number

of things. We increased the threshold. We ensured that now a lot of goods and

services can be done right in the communities, because the threshold has gone up

and local people can partake into it.

I have

to say that since we and I was in the Legislature in 2012 when that was

introduced; I was here. I have asked questions on it, when are you going to

bring it in, when, we're waiting for it, the province is waiting for it. I'm

willing to bet that the Members of the Opposition feel that yes, it should have

been brought in. The reasons why it wasn't brought in, that's something I'm not

privy to. But I feel confident to have it on the Order Paper in 2012, they feel

that this procurement was a great move to improve the

Public Tender Act and I just want to thank the government here, all

the Members on this side who when I took it over as part of Service NL and I

said we have to get procurement done, I know all the Members on this side and

all the people who were involved were very supportive and wanted it done and

supported me along the way to get it done. I just want to recognize the amount

of people that helped me along the way, the department, MHAs here also who went

out and sought different views from different groups and organizations.

Madam

Speaker, as we said right from day one, this is best value for your money. The

best value doesn't always mean that you take the lowest price. This is the

evaluation that we did; it is on a matrix system. When you hear some people

speaking, it's almost like this hasn't been done before anywhere in the world.

RFPs are done on a regular basis. Right now anywhere in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, there's an RFP that has to come to Cabinet for

approval. It has to come to Cabinet because we haven't given the authority to

use the RFPs.

As I

mentioned, the Town of CBS, they went out and they are using RFPs with the

capital works and what they have already. They're using an RFP already. They

came down the other night and they passed a motion in council. It might have

been last Thursday night that they posted a motion or Wednesday night, they

passed a motion in council to use RFPs.

So MNL,

who represents everybody in this room every Member in this House of Assembly

has membership, their town council has membership in MNL. MNL wanted this. MNL

is looking forward to this. MNL, as I said before, when I met with MNL, when I

had discussions down at the convention, they were anticipating this and wanted

this here.

So for

anybody to stand in this hon. House and make statements like we're just ramming

this through and people don't know what's in it, it's stretching it. It's

stretch