Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 3 December 2014 (47th General Assembly, 3rd Session, Vol. XLVII No. 50)
2014-12-03
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
PDF Version
December 3, 2014
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVII No. 50
The
House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Verge):
Order, please!
Admit strangers.
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Today we have members'
statements from the Member for the District of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune;
the Member for the District of St. Barbe; the Member for the District of
Kilbride; the Member for the District of Carbonear Harbour Grace; the
Member for the District of Humber Valley; and the Member for the District of
Virginia Waters.
The
hon. the Member for the District of St. Barbe.
MR. J. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, I rise
in this hon. House today to congratulate Vallance (Val) Cull and Northern
Boat Repair Limited of Port Saunders on being inducted into the Atlantic
Canada Marine Industries Hall of Fame.
This prestigious distinction was awarded on November 28 at the 2014
North Atlantic Fish & Workboat Show in St. John's.
This
award pays tribute to those who have made a valuable contribution to any
sector of the marine industry.
Recipients are recognized in three categories.
They are Mariner, which recognizes individuals who work on the water;
Processor, which recognizes individuals involved in the processing sector;
and Builder, which recognizes those making a valuable contribution without
having directly participated.
Northern Boat Repair Limited was recognized in the Builder category.
Serving local, national and international customers Northern Boat
Repair Limited was established in 2003 by Mr. Cull and his family.
Depending on the availability of work, the business currently employs
between twenty and fifty people, making it the largest private sector
employer in the region.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating
Val Cull and Northern Boat Repair Limited on being inducted into the
Atlantic Canada Marine Industries Hall of Fame.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
the District of Kilbride.
MR. DINN:
Mr. Speaker, through the
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador awards 201 scholarships each year to high school
students in Newfoundland and Labrador.
The scholarships range in value from $1,000 to $2,500 and are based
on the Department of Education's scholarship score derived from the result
of public exams.
The
categories of scholarships are: the Junior Jubilee Scholarship of $2,500;
the Constable W.C. Moss Scholarship of $1,000; the Electoral District
Scholarship of $1,000, each awarded to three high school students in each
district; the Centenary of Responsible Government Scholarship of $1,000 each
fifty-five of these scholarships are awarded each year.
the District of Kilbride, the three electoral scholarship winners were: Jane
Qi of Bishops College High in St. John's; Cristian Lacey of St. Bonaventure
College in St. John's; and Courtney Harnum of O'Donel High School in Mount
Pearl. Two students, Meagan
Casey and Sydney Manuel, both of O'Donel High School, were recipients of
$1,000 Centenary of Responsible Government Scholarships.
ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating these scholarship winners
from the District of Kilbride.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
the District of Carbonear Harbour Grace.
MR. SLADE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize a long-time resident
of Carbonear who passed away on October 22, 2014 at the age of ninety-two.
George Earle has a litany of community service to the Town of
Carbonear. He was first elected
to council on November 17, 1965 as a councillor.
On November 27, 1969, he was elected as mayor, a position he held
until November of 1973.
George also served as a firefighter, joining the Carbonear Fire Department
in 1966, where he served for ten years.
Since that time and until his death last month, he has remained an
honorary member of the fire department.
recognition of a lifetime of community service to the Town of Carbonear,
Earle's Promenade was officially dedicated on October 30, 1998 by the hon.
Art Reid, Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
This beautiful promenade is a very popular recreational facility,
enjoyed by locals and visitors alike.
Mr.
Speaker, George Earle was a prominent resident of Carbonear.
His contributions to his community will live on through his legacy.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in recognizing the contribution
of George Earle and express our sincere condolences to his family.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber Valley.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Noah Burnett of Cormack on
winning first place in the junior category at the Canadian Young Speakers
for Agriculture Competition recently held at the Royal Agriculture Winter
Fair in Toronto.
Each
year, the Royal Agriculture Winter Fair hosts the speaking event for young
people between the ages of eleven and twenty-four.
This event gives them an opportunity to express their passion for the
agricultural industry. Noah was
the only competitor from our Province to take
part in this prestigious
speaking competition.
Noah's parents, Ron and Jane, are farmers and at the age of fifteen, Noah is
very interested in continuing with the family tradition of farming.
In his speech, Noah mentioned why he has chosen to pursue a career in
the agricultural industry. When
he does become a farmer, Noah will be the eighth generation of farmers in
this family.
Mr.
Speaker, having the youth of our Province show such passion for this
industry is absolutely remarkable.
ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Noah Burnett on
his award winning speech and wish him future success with his career
aspirations.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Virginia Waters.
MS C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
rise in this hon. House today to recognize the recipients of the provincial
scholarships to recognize high school students' achievement within the
District of Virginia Waters.
More
than $200,000 in provincial scholarships have been awarded to 201 recent
high school graduates throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, and are awarded
based on public examination results and will help students pursue
post-secondary education.
extend congratulations to Holly Barrett, Cara Engelbrecht and Teba Hamodat
all 2014 graduates from Gonzaga High School recipients of Electoral District
Scholarships.
wish to further congratulate recipients of the Centenary for Responsible
Government Scholarships which include Leanne Raske, Jeremy Costello, Michael
Zurel, Sajid Khayer, Ayla Lawlor, Kurtis Thornhill and Laura McCallum, all
of Gonzaga High. Brett Vokey and
Hannah Boone, representing Holy Heart of Mary Regional High School, and
Clare Snow and Michael Barrett of St. Bonaventure's College.
Our
young people are the key to the future of our great Province, taking a
moment to celebrate their success should prove to all of us the spirit of
hope for the future.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating these
graduates, recognizing their hard work, and wishing them much success in the
pursuits for their chosen career paths.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Before I recognize the
Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune, I want to welcome to the public
gallery two people from her district.
We have Olivia Joe and Alaina Joe.
Alaina has just been selected, back in October, to be the
representative for Newfoundland as Miss Teen Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
She is here with her
mother today, and I might add that she is the first Aboriginal ever selected
to be Miss Teen Newfoundland and Labrador.
Congratulations.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Marilyn John for receiving the
Female Lifetime Achievement Award at the seventh annual Atlantic Aboriginal
Entrepreneur Awards, hosted by Ulnooweg Development Group.
We are very proud that Marilyn was recognized for her dedication,
perseverance, and love for her community and people.
Marilyn is very well known across this Island; and I can attest how
deserving she is of this highest honour given her lifetime accomplishments
in both business and community.
Marilyn once served as the Chief of Conne River and brings the same passion
she has exhibited over the years, fighting for recognition of her people, to
make her business ventures a true success.
Her dedication, persistence, and big heart are evident in everything
she does including preservation of the Mi'kmaq culture, heritage and crafts;
successful operation of Dashwood Diner and her catering business; her work
as a teacher's aide at St. Anne's School; and her numerous community
involvements.
ask all members to join me in celebrating Ms John's great achievement.
We wish her continued success as she excels in business and we
encourage her to stay motivated and to share her recipe for success simple
hard work and a great love for what you do.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education and Skills.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in
this hon. House today to talk about the success of the Labrador Aboriginal
Training Partnership. This
partnership is between the Innu Nation, the Nunatsiavut Government, the
NunatuKavut Community Council and the Nalcor Energy-Lower Churchill Project.
This
partnership was formed to ensure Aboriginal people have the education,
training and skills necessary to secure employment opportunities created
through resource development in Labrador.
Aboriginal men, women, and youth are availing of skills development
programs that focus on apprenticeship-type occupations.
Mr. Speaker, examples include those applicable to construction
trades, various camp operations and supervisory and management positions.
Our
government is committed to removing barriers to education and training,
which is integral to achieving long-term success for people throughout
Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr.
Speaker, our support for the Labrador Aboriginal Training Partnership is a
reflection of that commitment.
This
non-profit partnership began in 2009 and as of 2012 had resulted in almost
400 clients obtaining employment.
It is currently supported by over $14 million in funding from the
provincial and federal governments, Nalcor Energy, Innu Nation, Nunatsiavut
Government, and NunatuKavut Community Council.
Since March 2013, Mr. Speaker, through this partnership, ten training
programs have been offered at our Province's post-secondary institutions,
the majority of these through the College of the North Atlantic.
Over 200 Aboriginal people have obtained employment as a direct
result.
Mr.
Speaker, the continued success of the Labrador Aboriginal Training
Partnership will make Aboriginal workers essential to the many significant
projects and development underway or planned in the Labrador region, such as
the Muskrat Falls Project.
Mr.
Speaker, increasing the availability of skilled trade workers has been a top
priority for this government.
The Labrador Aboriginal Training Partnership is an example of how we can
successfully work together to help people obtain skills and the workplace
experiences needed to secure long-term, meaningful employment for the
benefit of themselves, their families, and their communities.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
MS DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
While there have been many success stories coming out of LATP, there
have also been many disappointments, especially in the early stages of
Muskrat Falls. There were many
cases where, by the time training was complete, the jobs were filled many
times, by non-Labrador residents.
The IBA clearly states the hiring protocol: Innu first, Labrador
residents second. Unfortunately,
this was not always followed and many who availed of the training are still
looking for work.
The
success of the LATP should not only have been measured in the number of
Aboriginals who were trained but, instead, how many of the trainees received
meaningful employment in their trades.
want to take this opportunity to thank Keith Jacque, Colleen Baikie, and the
other LATP employees in the Happy Valley-Goose Bay office and the outreach
offices throughout Labrador, for their hard work and dedication to all
Aboriginal groups in Labrador.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
Aboriginal communities have had to work hard, pushing, negotiating,
and insisting to have their rightful place at the table.
It is imperative that governments and its agencies acknowledge the
right of Aboriginal communities to their leadership and expertise in
identifying their blocks and barriers to education, training, and
employment.
is also imperative that provincial governments and agencies acknowledge and
respect their rightful place in their leadership in identifying solutions to
those blocks and barriers.
Aboriginal communities are the experts in this area.
It is only then can effective and meaningful progress be made.
Government and agencies must listen to Aboriginal communities
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
remind the member her time is expired.
The
hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CRUMMELL:
Mr. Speaker, I rise today
in this hon. House as the Minister Responsible for the Office of Climate
Change and Energy Efficiency to announce the launch of a new climate
information portal as part of our Community Accounts Web site.
The portal has been developed in partnership with the Department of
Finance and responds to the growing need for decision makers to have access
to climate information so they can factor climate change considerations into
their planning.
Mr.
Speaker, the Community Accounts Web site was launched in 2002 to ensure the
people of our Province can make evidence-based decisions using high-quality
community and regional information.
Community Accounts is an innovative, web-based tool that provides users with
reliable sources of data. Users
can find important information about health, income, education, literacy and
labour markets in the Province, as well as key demographic information.
Mr.
Speaker, through the launch of the new climate information portal on this
Web site, residents of Newfoundland and Labrador now have access to
historical weather data at a community and regional level for the very first
time. This data, which includes
temperature, precipitation and wind data, is collected from over seventy
Environment Canada weather stations throughout the Province and is
invaluable when governments, businesses and organizations make decisions
concerning land use planning, municipal zoning, disaster mitigation
planning, and infrastructure design.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. CRUMMELL:
This information will
allow students to better understand how climate change is affecting them and
their communities.
Mr.
Speaker, our government recognizes rising global temperatures are causing
climates throughout the world to change, and this is having a significant
impact on businesses, communities, and governments at every level.
ensuring community leaders, engineers, emergency planning agencies,
governments and other stakeholders have access to up-to-date, high-quality
data we are helping ensure the decisions made today incorporate the best
possible information about how our climate is changing.
our 2011 Climate Change Action Plan, Mr. Speaker, we committed to improving
Newfoundland and Labrador's resilience to climate change.
As weather patterns are changing, new risks and opportunities are
emerging that can affect every economic sector and community in our
Province. Our government remains
committed to ensuring our Province is equipped with the information and
tools needed to minimize these risks and maximizes these opportunities.
To explore the new climate information portal of Community Accounts,
I encourage members to visit
www.nl.communityaccounts.ca/climate .
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Minister of Environment and Conservation is delivering his statement.
I would ask all members for their co-operation, please.
The
minister, to continue.
MR. CRUMMELL:
I have finished, Mr.
Speaker, thank you.
Even
though you may not have heard it, Mr. Speaker, I did finish.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you, Minister.
The
hon. the Member for St. George's Stephenville East.
MR. REID:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
The Community Accounts site was launched under a Liberal government
and provides a wealth of data on a range of subjects.
It is said that we love to talk about the weather in Newfoundland and
Labrador, so providing data on seventy weather stations throughout the
Province should enrich this discussion.
On a
serious note, climate change is the challenge of our times.
Government committed to creating a culture of conservation in their
Energy Plan, but we have seen very little on that front.
Government should view climate change as an opportunity to diversify
our economy while protecting our environment.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement here today.
Congratulations on this new and, I think, very important initiative
that is brought forth in the Province.
The Community Accounts are an excellent resource, and this new portal
will be a useful tool.
remind government that a lot of the decision makers who will factor climate
change into their considerations will be municipal leaders, and that is a
very important note. Whenever
using this portal, of course, and adjusting for climate change, we know they
are going to need more funding so that they can, for example, replace
culverts, do wharves, that sort of thing, and make repairs to roads and
roadside construction. They are
going to need more money.
The
question is to government: Is government going to be ready to meet the
financial challenge of climate change?
Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY:
Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to congratulate the winners of the Daphne Taylor Milk Quality Award of
Excellence. The award was
created in 1997 to recognize excellence in the production of quality milk.
The
award commemorates Daphne Taylor, a farmer who made very significant
contributions to the dairy sector and was committed to food safety.
Unfortunately, Ms Taylor passed away prematurely from cancer.
We are proud to remember her through this award.
These awards were presented at the Dairy Farmers of Newfoundland and
Labrador's annual general meeting held recently in Corner Brook.
For thirty-two years, this organization has been helping dairy
farmers grow their businesses.
Mr.
Speaker, the dairy sector is one of Newfoundland and Labrador's most
important agricultural industries and it accounts for about $47 million
annually. The provincial
government recognizes the opportunities and challenges facing this sector,
and we are committed to its long-term success.
Our
government continues to provide support through a grain research program
that is evaluating various varieties of spring and winter grains to reduce
feed costs for farmers. We also
continue to support the Land Development Program which is helping dairy
farmers meet land requirements for the dairy sector.
The
provincial government, milk producers, and processors recognize the
importance of producing high-quality milk.
The Daphne Taylor Milk Quality Award of Excellence is competitive.
Only the top three farms, unless there is a tie, are recognized for
their product.
This
year's first place winner is Sunrise Dairy, owned by Jeff Greening and
located in Musgravetown. For
second place there was a tie between N & N Farms Ltd., owned by Lee Noel in
Cormack, and Glenview Farm of Kilbride, which is operated by the Walsh
brothers.
Rounding out the winners were River Bend Dairy, operated by Jeff Peddle of
Lethbridge, and Connors Dairy Farm of Torbay, in third place.
Mr.
Speaker, we also have the Daphne Taylor Award of Merit which is a
non-competitive award presented to those producers who supply milk to a
recognized level of merit. The
recipients of this year's award of merit were Beauty View Farms owned by
Mary White in Port Blandford, Triple G Farms owned by Frazer Greening of
Musgravetown, and Rideout's Dairy Farm owned by Melvin Rideout in Cormack.
Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate the winners of this award and I commend our farmers
and producers for the work they are doing.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
want to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement today.
On this side of the House we share in recognizing the proud winners
of the Daphne Taylor Milk Quality Award of Excellence and the Award of
Merit.
is kind of with mixed emotions that I stand here today, knowing Daphne
Taylor for many years, as she was someone who lived in my district.
We all remember, or I remember certainly, her unfortunate passing
back in 1996.
I am
sure the dairy farmers today are clearly honoured by following in her
footsteps the great job that she did.
She is known to be a very passionate farmer, a very hard-working
woman, and made tremendous advancements for the dairy industry not only in
her own community of Cormack but, by this recognition, throughout the
Province.
think the award winners can be proud today that they follow in Daphne's
legacy. We are all proud of the
hard work the dairy industry is doing and the contribution both to our
economy and the healthy living lifestyle that it creates for many people
around the Province.
Today I commend the winners. I
would say I am very proud today since two of the six that are mentioned in
this statement are from my own District of Humber Valley, two from Cormack.
It is a very vibrant industry in my district.
I am very proud of the great work they do.
think I would be remiss if I sat down today without recognizing the Member
for Exploits, who spent many years selling this product on the road in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.
I also congratulate all those who took
part in these awards.
The dairy industry is an important provincial industry, not only as
an employer but also in supporting the good health of the people of the
Province.
remind the minister that we are still waiting for a food security plan from
this government. At this time of
year, with a big focus on food banks helping the needy, it is important we
work towards ensuring there is a plan in place so that Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians have access to adequate, healthy, and affordable food all the
time, not just during the holiday season.
The dairy industry must be a key part of this plan.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works on a point of order.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday in the House I was asked would I table the statutory declaration
from Humber Valley Paving related to Project 1-12.
I am happy to table this to the House today, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
There is no point of order.
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
thank the minister for actually tabling that document today.
Mr.
Speaker, the Auditor General said he was not able to satisfy himself why two
ministers, within thirty minutes, independently contacted the deputy
minister to inquire about the status of the Humber Valley Paving contract on
the day before the PC leadership deadline.
The Premier has said that he is satisfied.
So, obviously, if he is satisfied and the AG is not, he must have
those answers.
ask the Premier: Can you tell us why, on the morning of March 13, just
before a Cabinet meeting, two ministers made inquiries into the status of
the Humber Valley Paving contract within thirty minutes of each other?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
discussed in this House, the Auditor General has completed a comprehensive
review and investigation of the matters involving Humber Valley Paving.
He did so at the request of this government.
He has carried out a very extensive review, has had unobstructed
access to government officials, to documentation that is in the possession
of government, as well, has had the opportunity to interview under oath,
examine and cross examine under oath, any witnesses or officials that he
felt necessary to interview.
has done that, Mr. Speaker. He
has completed a report, and he has carried out and provided that report to
us with five recommendations.
The member opposite is referring to a couple of members and discussions they
had. I think the Auditor General
has articulated in the report the explanations provided for those phone
calls.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Certainly from that
answer, I say, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the public of Newfoundland and
Labrador are any further advanced in answering that question for sure.
One of the ministers who is named in the Auditor General's report is
still in Cabinet.
ask the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills: Since the Auditor General
was not able to determine why you called the deputy minister of another
department on March 13 on this issue, will you now stand and tell the people
of the Province why you were involved?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
just want to reiterate to Members of the House of Assembly and also the
members of the general public, the question that is being asked by the
member opposite was asked of the minister.
He has provided an explanation.
He did that under oath through an oral interview and examination by
the Auditor General; and, not only the Auditor General, Mr. Speaker, but
also by legal counsel that was retained by the Auditor General who was also
participating in these examinations of witnesses, as I understand.
Mr.
Speaker, the response given by the member has been articulated in the report
of the Auditor General. Mr.
Speaker, we accept the report of the Auditor General.
We have committed to implement the recommendations of the Auditor
General, and we will carry out that, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, if the Premier accepts the report on page 53 of that report,
contrary to what the Premier just said, the AG said this is a conclusion
that, We have not been able to satisfy ourselves why two Ministers, within
hour, independently contacted the Deputy Minister
Since the Premier could not answer that question, I ask the Minister of
Advanced Education and Skills: Since the Premier will not answer, will you
tell the people of the Province why that call was made?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education and Skills.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN:
Mr. Speaker, I do not
mind getting up in this House and reiterating in regard to that call I gave
to the Auditor General under oath, along with a lawyer present.
As a matter of fact, I will answer it exactly the way I answered the
Auditor General.
is not uncommon for me to call deputy ministers in regard to issues.
I made a number of calls to Terry Paddon when he was Deputy Minister
of Finance. I had two issues
with my district that I wanted to discuss.
One was the Trans-Canada Highway east of Gander.
The other was some flooding in regard to a constituent of mine in the
Gander Bay area at Magee intersection.
well, I had a curiosity question, being the past Minister of Fire and
Emergency Services at the time and on the ground in regard to that fire.
I had not heard at that particular time, other than by rumour, that
there were issues in regard to the paving contracts in Labrador.
That was the thirty-second conversation with the deputy minister.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
appreciate the minister's answer.
It is obviously quite different from what the Premier said.
In mentioning of the AG's report, the minister also said that he had
heard colleagues who were talking about issues around HVP, Humber Valley
Paving. There were also a number
of matters on his mind, as the minister just said, but really what happened
is the conversation ended once the discussion went to Humber Valley Paving.
ask the minister: What was the reason for calling the deputy minister on
that morning?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education and Skills.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN:
I will repeat again, Mr.
Speaker.
had two important issues that I wanted to discuss with the Department of
Transportation, either the deputy minister or the ADM responsible for roads,
and that was two issues. One was
the contract in regard to the Trans-Canada Highway East of Gander.
That was supposed to be paved the year previous, but had not due to
the occupational health and safety issues that we encountered that year, and
I wanted to see when that paving would start because it was an important
thing for my district.
well, an important issue for a constituent of mine was the issue in regard
to flooding on the corner of Magee and Gander Bay Road.
A curiosity question, being the past Minister of Fire and Emergency
Services, I asked the question: Was there any truth?
I was told that there were issues with the paving contract, the
department was working on it, and that was the end of the conversation, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, according to the deputy minister, what happened was that once the
conversation ended with Humber Valley Paving, there was nothing else
discussed. That is the
conclusion in the AG's report.
The Auditor General said he was not able to satisfy himself why the contract
had to be concluded the day before the close of the PC leadership.
So I
ask the Premier: Since the AG was not able to find out, can you tell us why
this contract had to be concluded on that day one day before the close of
the PC nomination?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the Premier of the day, Premier Marshall, when he learned of these
circumstances, reviewed the circumstances.
He considered the facts that had occurred.
He considered the inquires and concerns, as being expressed even
today by members opposite.
The
Premier of the day had options available to him.
He could leave it as status quo take no action.
He could contact the police and ask them to do an investigation.
He could call in the Auditor General and ask the Auditor General to
an investigation. He could have
also, if he wished, called for a public inquiry.
chose to call in the Auditor General.
The Auditor General is a competent person, has a competent office,
Mr. Speaker. He has carried out
his work, I believe, diligently and competently as a professional.
He has relied on the advice of others and legal advice.
He has finalized his study of the factors, he has submitted a report
for public consumption, and we accept his recommendations.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, the Premier knows that those recommendations that were made in the
AG's report are extremely vague when you see considerations, adequate
documentation these are pretty much what you would expect from this.
What I am not hearing is why this contract had to be concluded on the
day before the PC leadership. If
Premier Marshall was here today, I believe he would take this to the logical
next step, which is a public inquiry.
Why
was this contract terminated on the day before the PC leadership?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the Premier had options available to him.
Members opposite agreed with the position taken by the Premier.
Members opposite made comments that as long as it is done where
evidence and information is taken under oath.
That was done.
The
Auditor General has broad powers, Mr. Speaker.
In comparison, he has done a good job of looking at all of the facts.
He has done a thorough investigation and a thorough review of the
facts which resulted in five recommendations.
Mr.
Speaker, we take the recommendations seriously.
I am not sure about the tone of the comment made by the member
opposite when he references the recommendations by the Auditor General, but
I can tell you us on this side of the House, we accept those recommendations
and we are committed to implementing all of those recommendations.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
AG went on to say in many places in this report that he was not satisfied.
Ironically, the Premier seems to be satisfied.
When
we supported the AG going in, it was a step one.
Now that the AG is not satisfied, I say to the Premier the Auditor
General's report confirms there are still many unanswered questions.
We know the AG had no authority to compel Humber Valley Paving or
anyone associated with the company to answer the inquiries; therefore, we
only have one side of the story, the Premier's side of the story.
ask the Premier: Why are you denying the people of the Province the full
story by refusing to call a public inquiry?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
The
Auditor General had access to, I think, 185 officials and former officials
in various government departments.
I think there are fourteen different government departments, Mr.
Speaker. He came in and had
unobstructed access to any records and any individuals that he so chose.
interviewed, under oath, sixteen individuals, some of those government and
some of those outside of government.
His report even references Humber Valley Paving, as talked about by
the member opposite. He was
satisfied with the representation that was recommended by Humber Valley
Paving. It is reflected in his
report.
Mr.
Speaker, the Auditor General has done the job he has been asked to do.
He has done that. He has
done the work competently. He
has done it completely. He has
made the recommendations, Mr. Speaker.
We accept the recommendations.
We respect the work that has been done by the Auditor General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
AG, in the various places in his report, goes on to say that the minister
instructed his department not to prepare a briefing note; the Premier was
not told, did not find out until five weeks later; no documentation prepared
to support the March 13 decision; no operational value, no operational
reason to cancel this contract.
you do not need a public inquiry, will you please stand and answer the
question: What happened on that day to cancel that contract?
Why was it so important?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
is important to understand the responsibilities, the roles, and the
legislation around the Auditor General.
The Auditor General has very broad recommendations.
The
member opposite continues to in a certain way, it seems to me try to
paint a picture that the Auditor General has not carried out his duties.
He had full right and access to compel the attendance of persons,
under the act, to come forward, to provide evidence, and to be interviewed.
He references in his report he was satisfied with responses from
certain people that he had contacted.
Mr.
Speaker, we are not questioning the work and the decisions made by the
Auditor General. We appreciate
the work that is done by the Auditor General.
Members opposite also were in favour of the Auditor General, I would
submit, until they did not get the answers they had hoped to get.
Now they are changing their tune and they want to take a different
process.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There seems to be some confusion on the work of the AG here because the AG,
to our knowledge, has no authority to compel Humber Valley Paving or anyone
associated with the company to answer these inquiries.
the AG cannot do it I say to the Premier: If you really want to get those
questions answered, will you call for the public inquiry?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
The
Auditor General has vast powers; there is no doubt about that.
Under examination and subpoena,
section 18 of the Auditor General
Act, it allows him the opportunity to examine a person on oath or
affirmation regarding a matter pertinent to an account submitted to the
Auditor General for audit and the oath.
It goes on to say in order to compel the attendance of person under
subsection (1), he may do certain things, Mr. Speaker.
So, it is outlined in the legislation.
The
report by the Auditor General indicates that, with regard to Humber Valley
Paving, there was a recommendation in discussion with Humber Valley Paving
about representation for Humber Valley Paving.
He indicates in his report he was quite satisfied with the suggested
recommendation and followed that, and conducted interviews with at least two
individuals who were formerly involved with Humber Valley Paving.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
know he is not satisfied. Of
course, in order for the AG to do that, it would require an extra step: make
application to a judge.
Mr.
Speaker, on another note, the Premier is now claiming that government
communications should be more secret.
He wants to block more communications from the Premier's Office, as
if Bill 29 really did not go far enough.
ask the Premier: Why do you want to keep more information secret from the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Let
me be clear on this. We have a
committee doing work on the review of our Access to Information and
Protection of Privacy legislation.
They are, I believe, a stellar group of very qualified individuals
who are carrying out that work.
Mr. Speaker, I will be very clear that I have full intentions to accept all
recommendations from that committee's work.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, the Premier wants to be very clear about openness and transparency to
the people of the Province, and the Premier says that he is concerned about
the privacy of constituents, that right to folks in this Assembly, the MHAs.
ask the Premier: If you are so concerned about constituency privacy, why do
you still require MHAs to send constituent requests through a minister's
appointed political staff?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, I am not
certain I understand exactly what the member opposite is trying to suggest,
but I want to be clear about the Access to Information and Protection of
Privacy because it is a very important matter.
We,
as a government, have called in an expert panel to review our Access to
Information and Protection of Privacy legislation.
We have clearly stated, as I have done here today, that we are fully
going to accept the recommendations from that panel.
We look forward to receiving a report, and we look forward to
bringing legislation to the House of Assembly at our first opportunity after
receiving that report.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What
I was getting at is right now as MHAs, at least MHAs on this side of the
House, if we need to address and speak to someone in a department, what we
must do is go through the EAs or the political staff of a minister.
ask the Premier: Will you now lift that so the constituents that we speak
with and work with on behalf of the constituents in our districts will you
now lift that and let us go directly and speak directly to the staff
involved?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I am
not aware of any such policy in government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Just hold on.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER DAVIS:
I am not aware of any
such policy, set policy in government.
I know it has been a practice as a co-ordinated effort on the flow of
information, but I am quite willing to have a look at it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's South.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, the
shipyards that have submitted proposals to build our new ferries base their
offers on approved drawings. The
offers were approved by international classification societies such as the
American bureau of shipbuilding, meaning that they met very stringent
standards.
ask the minister: What justification do you have for saying that the
accepted proposal, which is tens of millions of dollars more expensive, is
worth the money?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
want to clear up for the House that we had a very comprehensive process in
evaluating this contract, Mr. Speaker.
We had an RFP. We put it
out to the market. A number of
proponents came back and bid on this contract, Mr. Speaker.
Some were non-compliant.
They did not make the cut, because this was about ensuring we had the best
shipyard to build the piece of equipment that we wanted.
That was the whole process that we used.
is about the technical abilities.
It is about the quality of the product.
Pricing is a part of it, but it is not the only part of it.
As the member brought up yesterday about BC Ferries and their pricing
arrangements, BC Ferries did not select the lowest price or the highest.
It is the same thing we did here.
Damen were in the middle, not the highest, not the lowest.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's South.
MR. OSBORNE:
BC Ferries, Mr. Speaker,
is getting a vessel that can take 600 passengers versus our 200 passengers
for almost the same price. Other
proposals came from world-renowned shipbuilders, some of the best
shipbuilders in the world, I say.
Some of these yards have built vessels from Maersk that are
registered right here in our Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. OSBORNE:
Some of the yards are
currently building ferries for other provinces.
Some of them are currently building cruise ships.
ask the minister: Is he saying that these other shipbuilders are not capable
of providing quality vessels to this Province at the same time saving tens
of millions of dollars for the taxpayers of this Province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
need to clarify something also.
BC Ferries are building three vessels for $253 million.
We are getting two vessels for $100 million, Mr. Speaker.
I wanted to clarify that.
my hon. colleague here did say, there is a big difference.
I do not know if the member has been in Fogo in March when there is
three feet of rafted ice there or eighty-five kilometres of wind.
I do not know if he has been in the tickle going to Bell Island when
there is 110 kilometres of wind.
It is a total different set up here.
Ice
capacity, ice class, the engines, the thrusters have to be at a certain
level. Damen Shipyards are one
of the best in the world. We did
a full assessment. We got the
best quality, the best return on our investment.
We are very proud of having a contract with Damen to replace the
vessels that are needed here to make sure the people of Fogo Island, Change
Islands, and Bell Island are provided with
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's North.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, this
government's decade of inaction on child care has put Newfoundland and
Labrador last in the country in access to child care spaces.
All of the Atlantic Provinces, except us, have established
demonstration sites for integrated models of child care delivery in schools.
ask the minister: Why has this government dragged its feet on integrated
child care delivery in schools instead of keeping up?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS SULLIVAN:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, according to those reports we have made the most significant
progress in the country in terms of moving forward and providing child care
spaces, and in providing integrated demonstration sites.
That is an area where we have committed to taking a look, Mr.
Speaker, but what we have learned from those two reports is that
Newfoundland and Labrador clearly is on the right path.
We moved from a 1.5 to a six.
Mr. Speaker, six out of fifteen is not exactly where we want to be,
but it is certainly a whole lot better.
Mr.
Speaker, the top mark received was a ten out of fifteen.
So I do not want people in the Province to think that we are really
all that much far behind.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's North.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, we were last in the last report, so we had nowhere to go but
up.
Integrated child care delivery is a smarter way to use education dollars and
find local solutions to child care shortages in our rural communities.
Both the McCain Foundation and the Jimmy Pratt Foundation have even
offered their own funding to government to pay for integrated child care
pilot projects in schools.
ask the minister: Why have you ignored the advice of those foundations and
turned down that offer for funding to provide pilot projects for integrated
child care delivery in schools?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS SULLIVAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, as I said, we have made the most significant progress from 2011 to
2014, and we shall continue on in that manner.
Actually, if he had read what the Pratt Foundation had said, the
Pratt Foundation is very supportive of what we have done, in fact commended
Newfoundland and Labrador for the progress made.
We will continue to work with the Pratt Foundation, with the McCain
Foundation, and any others, Mr. Speaker, as we continue to ensure child care
in Newfoundland and Labrador becomes the best in the country.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
MS DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, we get calls
from constituents with a variety of disabilities who cannot find work for
lack of employment programs tailored to their needs.
While we have a supported employee program for persons with IQs under
seventy, this is a fraction of the disability community.
There are tremendous gaps in employment services.
ask the minister: What concrete initiatives will you implement to support
the employment of persons with disabilities who exceed the IQ cut-off?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education and Skills.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN:
Mr. Speaker, this is a
really important issue to me as a minister, and this Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador. As a
matter of fact, when I was responsible for the Division of Persons with
Disabilities, I instituted an advisory board to advise me on such things as
just what the hon. member mentioned.
It is really, really important that we support these
people. We have supported them
in various programs across all government departments, and continue to do
so, Mr. Speaker. The minister
responsible now for persons with disabilities is currently not in the House;
but, in the meantime, I will consult with him in regard to the question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, for a quick question.
MS DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, it has been two-and-a-half years since government launched its
inclusion strategy for persons with disabilities.
So I ask the minister: How do you justify waiting three
years to commit to identifying what your strategy will actually do for
persons with disabilities?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, for a quick reply.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN:
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would actually engage with that community,
she will find that the disability community is quite pleased with the
progress we have made in regard to the advisory board to the minister
responsible, the programs that we have within the Department of Advanced
Education and Skills supporting as a matter of fact, I made the statement
at one of the events that I was at.
This is not about inclusion; this is about equality and this is about
freedom.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier said yesterday that he is prepared to
govern by making difficult decisions.
The last time this government imposed fiscal restraint, it cut
services that people needed, like the funding for the Vera Perlin Society
and the Coalition of Persons with Disabilities.
I ask the Premier: Will his difficult decisions include
further cuts to essential programs for people with disabilities in this
Province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, people of a variety of walks of life are very important to us
as a government, especially those who live with challenges on a day-to-day
basis in this Province. We have
worked very hard to provide benefits and opportunities to those people.
Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves, as a Province and as a
government, in a very challenging time.
We know that with the oil prices where they are today it is providing
us with challenges that were unforeseen by anyone in the world.
We are willing and we are committed to make the decisions that we
have to make as a government in order to deal with the circumstances that we
face today.
We know there are challenging times, we have
challenging times ahead and we have some very difficult decisions to make,
but we are quite willing to make those decisions, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
So now I am asking the Premier once again, because of
what he just said: These hard times and difficult decisions, will they
include ignoring the need for improved services for persons with
disabilities, such as children with autism?
They have challenges too, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have continued to make significant investments for
families, such as families with children who have autism.
We have done that, Mr. Speaker.
We have made significant investments in a variety of areas for people
who have asked for those services, need those services, and rely on the
support of government. We have
made significant investments.
We have said time and time again that we know there are
people who would like to see us do more in a variety of areas, and would
like to see us make further investments in a variety of areas.
We have to make those decisions within the fiscal capacity that we
have as a government.
We know that the future for us as a government is going
to be challenging when it comes to our fiscal capacity.
We are willing to govern.
We are committed to govern. We
are going to continue to work together.
The Finance Minister is engaging with stakeholders and
myself on a regular basis. We
will continue to do our work, Mr. Speaker, as a government.
We will accept our responsibilities and we will make the best
decisions we can for the people of the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Mr. Speaker, employment of people with disabilities in Newfoundland and
Labrador is low by Canadian standards.
Government's Opening Doors Program has a long wait-list because
departments simply are not using it.
Last year in Estimates, the Minister of Finance said that he was not
satisfied with this and that the program would be reviewed.
Mr. Speaker, I ask: When is government going to fix the
Opening Doors Program as it promised in 2013?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN:
There are so many ministers over here who are so anxious to jump in and
provide adequate answers to the members of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker.
The Opening Doors Program is a real good example of the
kind of investment that this government has made in advancing opportunities
for people who have tremendous talent and tremendous ability, but sometimes
have some challenges in finding employment.
Mr. Speaker, this is, as I said, an example of what we have done as
we build on some things that we have established in the office of persons
with disabilities as an example.
This is an area where as an employer, government as an
employer not a public policy maker but government as an employer creates
employment opportunities for persons with disabilities.
We are very proud of the investments we have made in this program.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's East, time for a quick question.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have heard from the disabled community that the
Opening Doors Program simply is not working.
What is government going to do about it?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN:
As always, Mr. Speaker, we look forward to having input from any interested
group or individuals who have knowledge of, or an opportunity to have
knowledge of, and have something to contribute to a debate and a discussion
that helps us improve the services we provide to people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
I look forward to and welcome anyone who wants to visit
with me and have the kind of discussion share with me their thoughts on
how we may improve this service and this program.
We are always welcoming those kinds of inputs from any interested
people, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The time for Question Period has expired.
The hon. the Member for St. John's South, on a point of
order.
MR. OSBORNE:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, during Question Period, the Minister of Transportation
indicated that the British Columbia ferry group were paying $210 million for
three ferries. That number is
not accurate, Mr. Speaker; it is $165 million.
If you include the tariff, it is accurate; but, for some reason, he
does not believe we need to pay the tariff here.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
There is no point of order.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill
entitled,
An Act To Amend The Provincial Offences Act, Bill 35.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board.
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill
entitled,
An Act To Revise And Consolidate The Law Respecting The Control Of
Liquor In The Province, Bill 34.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Carbonear Harbour Grace.
MR. SLADE:
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 humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS a non-consumption advisory was issued for
number three well (drinking water) in the Town of Freshwater on June 20,
2006 due to exceeded levels of arsenic; and
WHEREAS this well services forty-four residents in the
Town of Freshwater and remains their only source of drinking water; and
WHEREAS any consumption of water from the well will pose a significant
health hazard to the consumer;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to provide the necessary resources to the Town of
Freshwater in order to provide clean and safe drinking water to residents
affected by well number three.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I am just going to give you some facts on
this. To date, in Newfoundland
and Labrador, there are 150 towns and communities on boil orders, also a
number of these are on a do-not-consume order.
This is the case, Mr. Speaker, in Freshwater.
Arsenic levels in this well are four times the allowable Canadian
limit.
Mr. Speaker, we discovered
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Orders of the Day
Private Members'
Day
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
remind the member, normally you get three minutes for a petition, but this
being Wednesday, Private Members' Day, and in accordance with our Standing
Orders, we now go to the Member for St. John's South to begin the petition.
The
hon. the Member for St. John's South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, we brought in a private member's resolution today calling on
government to call an inquiry into the Humber Valley Paving situation.
Looking at the Auditor General's report, I just wanted to point out
some of the reasons why we believe an inquiry is important.
The Auditor General did get some of the information but he was not
able to get all of the information, and there were a number of cases in the
Auditor General's report where he simply was not satisfied with the level of
information he has received.
inquiry, Mr. Speaker, would provide greater information, a greater level of
information. People could be
subpoenaed from outside of government.
The Auditor General is tied to only being able to call and demand
that government officials and government members and government agencies
come to the table, but outside individuals, private companies, private
individuals, cannot be subpoenaed by the Auditor General.
You
look at some of the facts, Mr. Speaker.
Progress payments paid on a bi-weekly basis were not in accordance
with the terms of the contract, and the Auditor General points out that
could have created an unfair advantage to Humber Valley Paving.
That is just one of the instances we are talking about here.
you look at the evaluation of the decision to mutually agree to cancel the
contract that Humber Valley Paving had on March 13, 2014, that was not
appropriately documented, Mr. Speaker.
There was no documentation.
The urgency to conclude that agreement resulted in an evaluation
that, with the benefit of more time, would have given an opportunity to more
fully consider all options available to the department.
That
was not made available to the department, and as a result, Mr. Speaker we
are responsible to the people of the Province and the taxpayers of the
Province, and without the ability to do that, and without all of the
answers, the people of the Province do not have the ability or the benefit
of being able to make a full and fair evaluation or decision on what has
happened here.
look at the fact that there was no documentary evidence.
There are many instances where the Auditor General says there was no
documentary evidence here, which is why an inquiry with the ability to
subpoena people and have members of the public give evidence under oath, Mr.
Speaker, you would get more answers.
The
Auditor General said they have not been able to satisfy themselves about the
fact that two ministers, within a half an hour of each other, independently
contacted the Deputy Minister of Transportation to inquire about Humber
Valley Paving. On that same day,
the minister made a decision to terminate the contract, a decision that was
made literally between 8:45 in the morning and 11:30 in the morning, so in
less than half a day.
The
Auditor General indicates that he has not been able to satisfy himself as to
why the process to come to an arrangement with Humber Valley Paving to
terminate the contract had to be concluded the day before nominations closed
for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to talk a little bit more about that.
It says, the evidence indicates that the Deputy Minister of
Transportation and Works raised this issue with Minister McGrath at the time
the Minister made the decision to proceed with mutual termination of the
contract with HVP.
said, We believe that the Deputy Minister was convinced, based on the
Minister's response, the appropriate people in the Premier's Office had been
made aware of what was occurring.
This view would have been reinforced by the fact that the meeting
with Minister McGrath occurred outside the Cabinet Room while a Cabinet
meeting was in progress. We feel
it would have been a reasonable assumption that the issue was discussed
inside the Cabinet Room, particularly in light of the proximity of this
decision being so close to the nomination for Leader of the Progressive
Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador the very next day.
goes on to say that information gathered during the interviews because
there was no documentation, Mr. Speaker, the information was all gathered
during interviews indicates that the issue of termination of the contract
with Humber Valley Paving was not discussed inside of the Cabinet room.
The
Auditor General goes on to say that the minister was briefed by the deputy
minister outside the Cabinet room on two occasions, Mr. Speaker, one before
the meeting started, and one during the Cabinet meeting on March 13, and
had every opportunity to raise the issue in Cabinet or with the Premier's
Office. While the Minister had
the authority to make the decision, it is difficult to understand, given the
potential political sensitivity of this issue, why he would not have
discussed this with his colleagues in Cabinet or the Premier's Office.
That
is another very important reason, Mr. Speaker.
It is an unanswered question.
The Auditor General is still not satisfied with the answers they got,
and it is another very solid reason why we need to look at an inquiry into
this situation. Mr. Speaker,
there was a lack of transparency in the communication of the decision to
terminate the contract and this had the potential to impact the ability of
subcontractors and suppliers to file a claim under the Mechanics' Lien Act.
The
Auditor General goes on to say, during 2012 payments made to Humber Valley
were on a bi-weekly basis and those payments could have provided Humber
Valley with a competitive bidding advantage.
Mr. Speaker, this whole situation there are so many unanswered
questions, there are so many issues outstanding here, and the people of the
Province deserve to know what exactly happened.
The
process to consider, evaluate, decide, draft, and execute the mutual
termination of the contract related to this project was made between 8:45 in
the morning and 11:30 that same morning.
Only seven-and-a-half hours to the time that a letter was actually
sent, e-mailed to the company to terminate that contract.
There was no documentation prepared on March 13, 2014 to support the
decision to terminate the contract.
The
Auditor General goes on to say, one of the key criteria communicated by the
minister was to ensure that the outcome was not injurious to HVP and its
employees. Yet, based on legal
advice the department was given, the legal counsel for the department, Mr.
Speaker, or the lawyer for the department had advised that once the contract
was cancelled, with that there is no further ability to call the bond for
performance or the bond for materials and supplies.
While it was important for the minister to protect Humber Valley Paving and
its employees, there was no urgency, Mr. Speaker, or no criteria
communicated to protect the subcontractors that may have been protected by a
bond.
Even though the department knew that cancelling
the contract would also cancel the bond, they went ahead with that decision.
It says that the minister indicated to his deputy
minister an urgency to deal with the project based on his stated priorities.
This would have played a critical role in the speed of the assessment
by the department and the impact of Humber Valley Paving not to return to
Labrador and would have been a major contributing factor why there was no
documentation available on March 13 for that decision.
Mr. Speaker, reality is that when this tender was
rebundled with another tender, it cost the taxpayers of this Province $1.5
million. Again in this report,
the Auditor General said they were not able to fully evaluate and
substantiate that figure, but that is the figure put forward by the
department.
Based on the department's numbers, it cost the
taxpayers of this Province $1.5 million, and that may have been avoided.
The Auditor General says that there is no clear indication of that
either, but it may have been avoided if we had been able to call the bond.
Once a decision was made to terminate the contract, the
performance and labour and material bonds would have had no effect since
they provided a guarantee against a contract which was no longer in effect.
That was the advice by the lawyer for the department that was given
to the department.
The department did not pursue the option of calling the
performance bond because they said it risked the project not being completed
in 2014. They said that would
have negatively impacted Humber Valley Paving.
They gave no thought to how it would have negatively impacted the
people those bonds would have protected, the taxpayers of this Province, and
the suppliers and subcontractors to that bond.
When all was said and done, the project still was not completed in
The Auditor General goes on to say and I will talk
about that a little bit once I get to it that if there was more time given
to looking at this and evaluating the impacts of this decision, the
department themselves perhaps would have come to the conclusion that the
project would not have been done in 2014, in any event.
The Deputy Minister of Transportation was instructed by
the minister not to prepare a briefing note for the Premier's Office or for
Cabinet Secretariat to inform them of the decision to terminate the
contract. Now, that in and of
itself is probably good enough reason to say we need an inquiry.
The people of the Province deserve to know why there was such little
documentation, such little detail, why decisions were made on the fly.
The decision by the Minister of Transportation on March
13 to agree to a mutual termination of the contract with Humber Valley
Paving was within the scope of authority of the minister, the Auditor
General determines. Again, Mr.
Speaker, should we look at whether or not that should be within the
authority of the minister?
Because we have seen here where a minister used that authority perhaps where
he should not have, that a decision was made that perhaps should not have
been made. In fact, the Premier
said it was a bad decision made on that day.
Mr. Speaker, when you look at the potential benefit the
release of the bond would have had on the guarantors that is Humber Valley
Paving, essentially, the people who the minister wanted to protect, without
regard for the subcontractors or the taxpayers of this Province.
There was not enough time to look at what benefit that would have had
on the guarantors. There was not
enough time to determine the impact it would have had on others.
The Auditor General says that there should have been an
opportunity to settle claims related to other projects two other projects
that were outstanding with Humber Valley Paving, but that opportunity was
missed because of the urgency to conclude the agreement on March 13.
So, Mr. Speaker, given more time, the department may have in fact
saved that money, where those issues are still outstanding, that money is
still outstanding with Humber Valley Paving.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is only my observation, but prior
to one of the individuals at Humber Valley Paving wanting to enter the
leadership race, the minister and the department said that the fires in
Labrador were not the fault of the department and, therefore, the department
were not liable for any compensation to that company.
Those are the two issues that are still outstanding
here that may have been settled if the department had more time to look at
that, based on terminating the contract.
All of a sudden when that individual was looking at entering the
leadership race, Mr. Speaker, there was an urgency to protect Humber Valley
Paving, the guarantors in other words, releasing the bonds.
The Auditor General in this report says that we did not
look at the effect of perhaps settling those two outstanding issues and the
money, and whether or not that would have given Humber Valley a greater
ability to go back to Labrador and finish the project.
The decision was made in haste, Mr. Speaker.
Now, those two issues are still outstanding and not settled.
The Deputy Minister of Transportation received two
phone calls within a half an hour of each other, both inquiring on the
status of Humber Valley Paving on the thirteenth the day that it was
absolutely imperative the decision be made and the contract terminated; the
day before the leadership nomination deadline, Mr. Speaker I know I only
have four or five seconds remaining therefore, this is part of the reason,
and there is much, much more information here.
We are calling for an inquiry on this issue.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind the member his time is expired.
The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LITTLEJOHN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today, what I would like to do, basically for the
people of the Province and the people watching today, is go through the
Auditor General's process in this Humber Valley Paving incident.
I want to talk a little bit about the background, some of the
objectives that were asked for, the process, and some of the conclusions the
Auditor General did make during this Humber Valley Paving investigation.
Back in early May or late April of this year, there
were public concerns raised over the termination of the contract with Humber
Valley Paving. Because of this,
Mr. Speaker, Cabinet decided, at that point, to refer this matter to the
Auditor General for his investigation.
Then Premier Tom Marshall wrote the Auditor General asking that he
examine the contract with Humber Valley Paving and its termination.
Mr. Speaker, most people in the general audience will
probably not know who the Auditor General is.
The Auditor General is an independent Officer of the House of
Assembly. Under the Auditor
General Act, he has the statutory power to conduct and complete thorough and
comprehensive investigations, when asked.
He has the power also to subpoena witnesses, which he did in this
case.
also has the power, Mr. Speaker, to seek and ask for any records from
whomever he wants relating to his investigation.
The Auditor General in this case was free to complete the
investigation in whatever manner he so chose.
The Auditor General in this case had the power to subpoena witnesses,
ask for any records and documentation.
Mr. Speaker, I thought I heard the member opposite, when he made his
opening comments he talked about the fact that the Auditor General did not
have the right to subpoena.
the Auditor General Act,
section 18.(2), it clearly states, In order to
compel the attendance of a person under subsection (1), if a person
failed to attend or did not want to attend the auditor general may apply
to a judge of the Trial Division for an order that a subpoena be issued from
the court commanding the person named in the subpoena to appear before the
auditor general. So it is
clear, Mr. Speaker, that the Auditor General, if he wished to speak to
anybody and they refused to speak to him, could have gone to the Trial
Division and asked that that person be subpoenaed and he could speak to them
in that way.
The
Auditor General in this whole process had five objectives, and I would like
to read those into the record.
The first objective was to determine whether the original tender and
contract awarded to Project 1-12 was conducted in accordance with the Public
Tender Act. The second objective
was to determine whether progress payments made in connection with the
contract of Project 1-12 were properly supported.
The
third objective was to determine whether change orders and other adjustments
to the contract for Project 1-12 were appropriately documented and
authorized. The fourth was to
determine whether the decision to mutually agree to cancel the contract
related to Project 1-12 was appropriately evaluated and authorized.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the fifth objective was to determine whether
there was evidence of undue influence in the evaluation or timing of the
decision to cancel the contract related to Project 1-12.
the Auditor General's review, it covered all aspects of the contract from
its award in March 2012 to the cancellation in March 2014.
The Auditor General at that time had the opportunity to thoroughly
review the decision-making process, both through formal interviews and by
examining large volumes of documents.
So the Auditor General at that time did have the opportunity to do
formal interviews and he did have the opportunity to see large volumes of
information.
The
Auditor General did interview sixteen people under oath.
Sixteen people were interviewed under oath by himself and legal
counsel, and they were required to sign statutory declarations.
As well, Mr. Speaker, I believe all members of the House at that time
received notification asking that they provide all information they had in
relation to this matter, in relation to Humber Valley Paving.
There were 185 individuals who were confirmed in this matter.
I believe all members of the House were asked and had to sign a
document and return it to the Auditor General's office.
I know I was.
Through this extensive exam process, Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General
determined the following: that a different decision may not have been
reached if there was more time available.
What the Auditor General said in the first piece was that even if
there was more time a different decision may not have been reached.
know the Opposition has gone on about it was done in a matter of three or
four hours. The Auditor General
clearly states that a different decision may not have been reached if it
took two weeks, a month, six months, that the decision was one that was
within the powers of the minister to make.
In other words, the minister was within his right to make the
decision he made. That there was
no documentary evidence of undue influence in the decision to terminate the
contract. In other words, there
was no influence made on to the minister, and the minister made the decision
based on the interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, he did not recommend and this is important, because he had the
power to do this as well. He did
not recommend that the matter be referred to any other authority for
investigation. Because the
Auditor General, if he thought of any wrongdoing or criminal activity, he
could have taken the time to refer this to the RNC or the RCMP, whichever
the appropriate authority could have been.
part of this process, the Auditor General had unrestricted access to all the
materials related to Humber Valley Paving and Project 1-12.
From the provincial government there were 185 individuals, and there
were the fourteen departments.
There was Executive Council, the Office of the Premier, the Office of the
Chief Information Officer, the Office of Public Engagement, the Women's
Policy Office, the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board, and GPA were also
engaged.
There were a slew of interviews, Mr. Speaker.
As I said earlier, sixteen people were interviewed.
The former minister and his executive and constituency assistants
were interviewed. The Deputy
Minister of TW was interviewed.
The ADM for Transportation was interviewed.
The department's legal counsel was interviewed.
The former Premier, his chief of staff, and the executive and
constituency assistants of the Premier were interviewed.
The Minister of Advanced Education and Skills was interviewed.
The Clerk and the Deputy Clerk of the Executive Council were
interviewed; the ADM for the courts and the legal system, and the Deputy
Minister of Justice all of these individuals were interviewed as part of
the government investigation.
Mr.
Speaker, I want it also noted that Mr. Frank Coleman and Mr. Eugene Coleman
were interviewed. They agreed to
be interviewed and were interviewed.
While Mr. Michael Coleman, Mr. Robert Coleman, and Mr. Peter Byrne
provided information, they were not interviewed, but they did provide
information as requested by the Auditor General.
is my understanding as well, the Humber Valley Paving bonding company, which
is the guaranteed company of North America, as well as the Official
Opposition and the Third Party, were also engaged and were also asked for
information. So there was an
extensive amount of information provided to the Auditor General.
Each of these individuals was requested to provide a statutory
declaration stating the provided information was inclusive and that no
information was deleted. If
there was an e-mail, a text, any type of letters written, all of that
information should have been included.
Mr.
Speaker, solicitor-client privilege is a Canadian right.
I am not a lawyer so I do not understand it totally, but
solicitor-client privilege is a Canadian right.
My understanding of reading the document is the provincial government
proactively made the decision to waive the solicitor-client privilege in
this matter.
The
Auditor General's investigation is the provincial government waived their
solicitor-client privilege in all matters related to Humber Valley Paving.
Mr. Speaker, that was not the case, as I am led to understand.
That was not the case of the company Humber Valley Paving.
They did not waive their right to solicitor-client privilege.
Mr.
Speaker, in conclusion, the Auditor General had some conclusions.
The Auditor General concluded the original tender and contract award
were certainly in accordance with the Public Tender Act.
Everything was done properly.
The contract was awarded properly in accordance with the Public
Tender Act. So, in that regard,
everything was okay.
Mr.
Speaker, as well, the progress payments that were properly supported in that
Humber Valley Paving were paid only for the work that was completed under
the contract. I know earlier
there were discussions in the House previous that Humber Valley Paving may
have got, or it was implied that they may have been paid more than what they
were entitled to, but it is clear through the Auditor General's report that
Humber Valley Paving was only paid the money that they were entitled to.
Any
change orders that occur and, Mr. Speaker, we all know that in
construction there are always change orders of some kind.
The change orders or any other adjustments that were asked for to the
contract, they were all appropriately documented and authorized.
All of that work was done and it was done appropriately.
Mr.
Speaker, the Auditor General did state as well while more time may have led
to other factors being considered, more time may not have resulted in a
different decision. Once again,
I go back to the fact that the Auditor General clearly states that, yes,
more time could have been taken, maybe more time should have been taken, but
he clearly states that the decision may not have changed.
In other words, he did not see anything wrong with the decision,
outside the fact that more time should have been taken.
Mr.
Speaker, I know the previous Minister of Transportation and Works has taken
some real heat over this, but he was within his authority to do what he did.
He was within his authority to make this decision and do it on his
own. He made the decision, and
the Auditor General says within the scope of his authority and the
decision was properly authorized.
In terms of the Minister of Transportation, he can make the decision,
he did, and it was properly authorized.
Mr.
Speaker, the Auditor General finally concludes, There is no documentary
evidence of undue influence.
In other words, the Auditor General did not find any undue influence.
The minister made the decision, but there is no evidence in the
materials and the witnesses he interviewed that there was any undue
influence in the decision to mutually terminate the contract of HVP.
Mr.
Speaker, going back, when it comes to the Humber Valley Paving inquiry, it
was found, as previously stated, that there is no added value in
co-ordinating a public inquiry.
The Auditor General has done the work; it would only be replicating the work
that has already been done. The
Auditor General has done the work, he has investigated, he had the ability
to subpoena anyone he wished, under the act, so there is no value in doing
it; it is replicating the process that has already been taken.
The
Auditor General, Mr. Speaker, is a quasi-judicial officer.
He is an independent Officer of the House of Assembly.
He has the authority to come in and do the work that we asked him to
do. He found no wrongdoing, no
undue influence. In other words,
the Auditor General is satisfied with this investigation.
had complete access to any information and individuals who he wished to
interview or any information that he wanted to have.
As I stated earlier, Mr. Speaker, that would include text, e-mail,
PIN, letters any information and all information the Auditor General
required then he had.
Mr.
Speaker, finally, the Auditor General found that there was nothing in his
investigation that would constitute a Criminal Code offense.
I think that is important.
I am sure if the Auditor General thought there was any criminal
wrongdoing in this activity, he would have asked one of our agencies, the
RNC or the RCMP, to come forward and investigate this further.
see my time is running out, Mr. Speaker.
I thank you for the opportunity that you have provided me today.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Cross):
The hon. the
Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
MS DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
happy to stand and speak to this as well.
Mr. Speaker, when we are elected to public office, I think that is a
job we have to take very, very serious.
It is one that comes with responsibility.
My colleague for Carbonear Harbour Grace often says it is the
people's House. To add to that,
it is also the people's money, so we have to be very cognizant of the
decisions we make.
What
we are talking about here today, Mr. Speaker and I know it is an old
country song where Tim McGraw says timing is everything, but we are talking
about $20 million here. We are
not talking about a small chunk of change $20 million.
From the first call that was made to the deputy minister to when the
decision was made to terminate the contract, two hours and forty-five
minutes. That is what we are
talking about with the $20 million that is here, with the bonds that were
released when, clearly, we had a contractor that defaulted on their contract
two hours and forty-five minutes.
I think we may have two pages of notes that were prepared, after the
fact; that is the paper trail.
Mr.
Speaker, I reflect back to my years in my previous life when I did contract
work for government. If a client
came in and I did an assessment on that client, I was required to complete
nine screens on a computer for a client assessment for a few minutes and
we are talking about $20 million here; two hours and forty-five minutes.
Man,
I think about the Northern Strategic Plan.
There was a comment made that he was politically motivated to do what
was right for the Labrador people.
I wrote a letter to the now Minister of Labrador some time ago I am
still waiting on a response for an update on initiatives that were
promised to be carried out in the Northern Strategic Plan, some that have
been there since 2007 seven years, very important initiatives for
Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, my colleague for St. John's South has spoken very well to some of
the technical errors and the process and the flaws.
To the people who are watching today, I want to shed a little light
into what this has done on the ground in Labrador in communities like my
district, small communities, small businesses.
I have been up several times over the last couple of weeks talking
about what these 20 per cent hydro increases are going to do to these small
businesses.
Because of what happened here, because a contractor was allowed to be
released after they defaulted on a contract, there were many businesses,
small businesses in my district left holding the bag.
Nobody was reimbursing them.
Many of them did not even know about the process of a mechanics'
lien. You live in a remote area,
you just do not know these things.
Now you have businesses, some of them, yes, that are owed $3,000 or
$4,000 which sounds small to mention, but they will not even collect
because the process of going through a court is of no benefit to them.
Mr.
Speaker, I have had calls from small businesses owed $80,000, small
businesses owed $30,000. I had
an older gentleman say to me some time ago: My dear, I do not know a lot
about this, but if we had very many contractors come into our area like
this, we would have no small businesses left.
As I
stand here today, I have small businesses in my area that have gone down and
took equipment and it is parked by their door.
They are saying: Until I get my money, the equipment is staying
there. I had small businesses
that went in on site, 10:00 at night, after dark, and started taking things
out and worked diligently through the night in dangerous situations, and
6:00 in the morning they had things out that they took, that they
confiscated, to try to make up so that they would not be out so much
financially.
There is something wrong with that, Mr. Speaker.
Why were people put in that situation?
Why? To have to go into a
site 10:00 at night and work diligently in the darkness of the night to
confiscate things because they knew they would not get their money.
sat here for the last couple of days and our leader questioned the Premier
repeatedly. Every time, the
Premier stood on his feet and talked about the Auditor General and the
mandate that he has. He was
leaving the impression that we were questioning the Auditor General in some
way. Mr. Speaker, nothing could
be further from the truth. The
whole synopsis of this is the fact that the Auditor General was not
satisfied. We talk about all the
people who were interviewed.
All
I see through this is repeatedly where the Auditor General referenced the
lack of information, the lack of documentation, and the lack of a paper
trail. Mr. Speaker, there is one
place where the Auditor General interviews three directors; Michael Coleman,
Robert Coleman, and Peter Byrne.
Did you have any contact with anyone in government?
No, no, no. Did you have
any contact with anyone in government regarding the cancellation?
No, no, no. I can go
right on down through a list of those questions and every time the answer is
no. A little flip through the
report and you can see why the Auditor General would not be satisfied with
this $20 million you know.
was looking earlier, Mr. Speaker, at a press release that was put out in May
2012 by the minister at that time, the Member for Harbour Main.
In May of 2012 when he announced the phases he said, These contracts
will be completed over a two-year period, and by 2014, every kilometre of
pavement between the two most populated centres in Labrador will be widened
and covered with blacktop. That
is what the member said at that time, every kilometre will be covered in
blacktop.
Sadly, Mr. Speaker, because of fiascos like this, because of fiscal
mismanagement with the public purse, not ours, and as I stand here today, we
are coming near to the end of 2014 I think we are in December now on the
calendar no, it is not done. I
believe that there are a lot of unanswered questions here, which is why we
are asking and why our leader has been asking.
Our
leader knows that at the end of the day we are answerable to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador, the people who we represent in the House of
Assembly. That is why our leader
has been asking for a judicial inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
Back
in the press release in 2012 it talks about the commitment to ensuring
residents in Labrador are ideally positioned to take advantage of the
tremendous potential and opportunities that exist in their region.
Mr. Speaker, we are not taking advantage.
We have a long way to go when it comes to infrastructure in our
region. Then we see things
happen like this and the people who pay the price are the people of
Labrador.
deal was signed here. Something
happened very fast, seven and a half hours from start to finish.
In two hours and forty-five minutes, a monumental decision was made.
That is why we want an inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
How much was Humber Valley paid even though they did not complete all
the work? The $7.3 million, will
it cover the cost of paving the sixty kilometres, and still not done?
I want to mention when the minister at that time was on Open Line
back in May, he said I want to get this job finished, I want to get it done,
and that is why the decision was made.
The
minister also said I agree 100 per cent that those companies need to be
protected. The labour and materials bond is in place to protect small
companies, but before you can avail of the labour and materials bond, you
have to exhaust all other means.
Those are the minister's words, Mr. Speaker, not mine.
One of the major means for that is the mechanics' lien holdback.
I talked to small businesses in my district.
They did not even know what that was.
They had not dealt with it before, small businesses.
saddens me there is nobody bailing these small businesses out.
They are working eighteen hours a day for themselves so they do not
have to work eight for someone else.
That is what it comes down to, Mr. Speaker.
We have to be very cognizant that we are in responsible positions.
Whatever we do, the onus is on us to have a paper trail.
All
through this report, Mr. Speaker, people talk about how they did not know
they did not know. In the AG's
report he says: there is no documentary evidence prepared on March 13 which
is available to support the evaluation process that occurred on that date.
Mr.
Speaker, no documentary evidence prepared on March 13, at the time when a
major contract was terminated and the company was released from their bid
bonds. Subsequent to March 13,
we did have an information note that came out dated April 29.
Clearly, you know, from the time the decision was made until the next
tender went out, it shows us that there was sufficient time for people to
sit around, to look at this full picture, and to determine if the right
decision was being made.
know the member who spoke earlier said he does not know if there would have
been a different decision. We do
not know, Mr. Speaker, if there would have been a different decision.
Clearly, given when the next tender went out from when that contract
was cancelled, there was sufficient time for people to sit down and make the
decision that was right by the taxpayers of this Province, their money, and
in lieu of doing what was right for all these small businesses that were in
some way, shape, or form connected with the Humber Valley Paving contract.
Some of them may have been subs.
If those subs did not get their money from Humber Valley Paving, then
they in turn did not pay the small businesses in my area.
Mr.
Speaker, we know that all of this started initially because Humber Valley
Paving said there was a fire, and they ran into some expense and some
delays. The traffic was only
delayed for a couple of days back at that time because of the fire.
I think it was March before they actually went forward and asked to
be released from that.
Mr.
Speaker, it does not add up. It
smells of corruption. Let's call
a spade a spade. It smells of
corruption. We have an
obligation. It is okay for the
members across the way. They can
roll their eyes at this, but we have an obligation in this House.
Many
times we stand here and we discuss decisions that were made a long way back
into history, and they were not necessarily the right decisions.
While I am here, Mr. Speaker, elected to be a voice representing
Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, and I speak for Labrador and the Province as a
whole, when I see things like this I am going to take the opportunity to
stand on my feet and to say over and over in this report we do not see we
believe the deputy minister was convinced, based on the minister's response.
There is no substance here.
No substance to satisfy.
That is why the Auditor General, with a clear conscience, could not say that
he was satisfied.
The
Premier seems to have missed that.
He stood for two days, and despite being questioned over and over
again, he talked about the value of the work the Auditor General does.
There is nobody, Mr. Speaker, questioning the value of the work the
Auditor General does. When the
Auditor General interviews people and every single answer is no, no, no, and
at the end of the day he says I am not satisfied, we have no other recourse
but to call we have an obligation to call for a judicial inquiry .
Here we are up in Labrador, until we can get our proper
infrastructure and have the movement of goods and services flowing, we are
not going to be able to move ahead.
Here we are talking about a company that was released, millions of
dollars from the bid bond, and the roadwork still not done.
We do not know a full dollar figure on what this is going to cost,
Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, this fiscal mismanagement.
Mr. Speaker, we are concerned now about the price of
oil and where that is going. It
just makes us cognizant of the fact that the public purse is not a
bottomless pit. That is why
decisions that are made, decisions that involve millions of dollars, have to
be made with careful consideration and with all the facts on the table, not
our money. We have to be
responsible.
Mr. Speaker, I think the key message coming out of this
is that the AG admitted he is not satisfied with why the contract was
cancelled so quickly. In less
than a workday, a shorter time frame than a workday, seven-and-a-half hours.
The AG could only operate within the conditions set out by
government. That is all.
Clearly, for anyone who has taken the time to go through the report,
you will see that he could only operate within the
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind the member her time has expired.
MS DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
A point of order.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Health and Community Services, on a point of order.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I did not want to interrupt the member in her final
remarks. In the last couple of
minutes she referred to corruption.
She accused members on this side of the House of being involved in
something that smells of corruption.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, those remarks are
unparliamentary. I would ask the
hon. member to withdraw the remarks.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Opposition House Leader, on the point of order.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, I do not believe this is a point of order.
I do not believe the minister referred to anybody on the other side.
Obviously, the Speaker can have time to review this.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The Speaker will take this under advisement.
I will review the context of the comment that was said and bring back
a report at a later time.
Are there any further speakers?
The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is certainly a pleasure for me to rise in the House
today and speak to this very important private member's motion.
One thing I will agree with what the member opposite just said very
strongly is that the public purse is absolutely not a bottomless pit.
This review has been undertaken extensively, I would
put forward, by the Auditor General and any duplication of effort, of doing
this very same thing over again, in my mind, I would question whether or not
it would be a wise value of spending taxpayers' money over and over and over
again on the same type of thing.
That leads me into what the focus of what I am going to
talk about today is, Mr. Speaker.
One of the things I really enjoy about being a Member of the House of
Assembly and being a leader on behalf of my residents is the ability to
impart knowledge. As I learn
about legislation and how it works, I am able to pass that on to my
constituents and people I serve; and thereby, we all have a greater
understanding, we are all better educated about how things work, and at the
end of the day we will be a better Province for it all, I do believe, Mr.
Speaker.
Today I am going to talk about and elaborate for
members here and for anyone who may be watching on the comparison between a
commission of inquiry and an Auditor General special assignment.
Both a commission of inquiry, under
Part I of the Public Inquiries
Act, 2006, and the Auditor General, under
section 16 of the Auditor General
Act, have very broad statutory powers which enable them to access
information required for their investigations.
A commission of inquiry can assume a summons to compel attendance of
witnesses or to produce records.
The Auditor General can apply to court for a subpoena for the same purpose.
Both a commission of inquiry and the Auditor General can receive
testimony under oath or affirmation.
There are some differences, though, worth noting.
Where a commission of inquiry holds an oral hearing, it
must be conducted in public unless the public interest in a public hearing
is outweighed by other considerations.
A commission of inquiry can also arrange for publishing or
broadcasting of proceedings.
There is no provision that will allow the Auditor General to conduct a
review in public.
The Public Inquiries Act, 2006 expressly provides that
a commission of inquiry has the power to enter and inspect premises.
A commission of inquiry also has the power to apply to a court for a
warrant where the commission is refused or denied entry, or where the
commission has reasonable grounds to believe that entry without notice is
necessary. The Auditor General
does not have this authority in relation to private entities.
So these are some of the differences there, Mr. Speaker.
In terms of the Public Inquiries Act, 2006 and I
would also take this opportunity to inform anyone who is listening, all of
these acts are available online on the House of Assembly, Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador Web site, and anyone who is so inclined to learn
more about what some of these acts are all about is more than welcome to
Google and go online and read them at any point in time.
The Public Inquiries Act was proclaimed in December of
2006;
Part I of this act deals with what would be considered a traditional
public inquiry. Under the act,
the Lieutenant Governor in Council has the power to create a commission of
inquiry to report on a matter of public concern.
In such an inquiry, the Lieutenant Governor in Council appoints the
commission members, establishes the commission's jurisdiction by setting the
terms of reference for the inquiry, designates a minister responsible for
the inquiry, and fixes a date for the termination of the inquiry and
delivery of the commission's report.
Once the terms of reference are set, a commission has
the authority to determine who can participate in the inquiry, to establish
procedures for receiving of evidence, including whether evidence is
presented orally or in writing, and to determine the nature of the hearings
to be held.
Oral hearing, if any, are required to be conducted in
public; however, the commission has the discretion to exclude the public,
where the public interest in holding the hearing in public is outweighed by
other considerations, as I said a little while ago.
A commission has the power to arrange for the publishing or
broadcasting of proceedings, as well as to restrict public reporting.
The commission has those powers, Mr. Speaker.
With respect to evidentiary powers, a commission can
compel, by summons, the production of testimony and evidence, conduct
inspections, apply for a warrant to search and apply to the court for
direction on a question of law or jurisdiction.
A person appearing before a commission to give
testimony has the same privilege in relation to the disclosure of
information as that given to a person when appearing before a court.
For example, solicitor-client privilege would stand.
Notwithstanding this, a person cannot rely on the fact that
disclosure would be injurious to the public interest or would violate Crown
privilege to withhold records from a commission of inquiry.
Where a person does not attend before a commission when
summoned or refuses to take an oath of affirmation required by commission or
to produce a document, record, or to answer a question of the commission,
contravenes an order of the commission with respect to public reporting or
publishing evidence or does any other thing that would constitute contempt
of court. A commission may state
a case to court and punishment may be imposed by the court.
In addition, the act also allows government to request
something less than a full-blown inquiry.
As a result, under
Part II, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may
order an inquiry into a matter of public concern.
In contrast to
Part I though, a distinguishing feature of
Part II is
the additional power given to the Lieutenant Governor in Council to specify
the mechanisms and procedures by which the inquiry is to be conducted.
Now,
Mr. Speaker, I am going to highlight some of the more notable public
inquiries in Newfoundland and Labrador over the last twenty-five years.
These include, in 1989, the Hughes Inquiry into Mount Cashel; 1990,
the inquiry into the involvement of government with Sprung Sales Limited; in
2002, Renewing and Strengthening the Place of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Canada; in 2003 there was an inquiry, the Lamer Inquiry into the
administration of justice related to the circumstances surrounding the
wrongful conviction of three individuals; and in 2008, the Cameron Inquiry
on hormone receptor testing.
terms of cost, just to point out, for the last two in 2003, that inquiry
cost $7.6 million. The 2008
inquiry cost $5.7 million; just in terms of the types of expense the public
purse would be subject to should an inquiry be held at any point in time.
You have to be prepared to allocate sufficient resources to that, Mr.
Speaker.
Auditor General special assignments can also take place, Mr. Speaker.
The Auditor General's reporting duties under
section 16 of the
Auditor General Act provides that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may
request or the House of Assembly or the Public Accounts Committee which
hopefully I will have some time to chat about towards the end here, Mr.
Speaker. By resolution, the
Public Accounts Committee may require that the Auditor General inquire into
and report on a matter relating to financial affairs of the Province or to
public property.
Where, during the course of an audit, the Auditor General becomes aware of
an improper retention or misappropriation of public money or any other
activity that may constitute a criminal offence, the Auditor General is
required to immediately report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
The usual practice is that the Auditor General provides this
information to either the Attorney General or to the Minister of Finance and
the matter is then referred to the police for investigation.
That did not happen, Mr. Speaker, in the Humber Valley Paving matter.
Again, we can look back in time to the Green report.
At that point in time there was no official inquiry as such, but the
Green report did present some issues of concern.
They were referred to the RCMP, and everyone knows the history of
what has happened from there. I
would say, Mr. Speaker, our government has taken the strongest leadership in
the entire country in terms of ensuring that best practices are employed
within the House of Assembly. I
certainly think that is something we are very, very proud of, and we intend
to see honoured in years and decades to come.
If anything, it will grow stronger.
It will never be weakened.
The
Auditor General has a broad power to access government information and
records, especially as expressly provided by another act.
Section 17 of the Auditor General Act requires that every department
of government, every agency of the Crown, and every Crown-controlled
corporation must provide such information regarding its power, duties,
activities, organization, financial transactions, and methods of business
that the Auditor General requires.
The
Auditor General must also be given access to all books, accounts, financial
records, reports, electronic data processing records, explanations, files,
and all other papers, things, or property belonging to or in use by the
department, agency of the Crown or Crown-controlled corporation where
necessary for the performance of the Auditor General's duties.
The
Auditor General can examine a person under oath or affirmation, which was
the case in the review of Humber Valley Paving Limited, Project 1-12 PHP.
The Auditor General can apply to a judge of the Supreme Court Trial
Division for a subpoena to compel a person to appear before the Auditor
General to testify and produce documents.
That subpoena power, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely there.
May 8, 2014, the Lieutenant Governor in Council requested, under
section 16
of the Auditor General Act, that the Auditor General inquire into and report
on any and all aspects of the contract between the Department of
Transportation and Works and Humber Valley Paving related to this project.
The
Auditor General, in relation to this, requested that the Clerk of Executive
Council provide all documentation in possession of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador which related to the award, administration, and/or
cancellation of the project.
Information requests were also made of Mr. Frank Coleman, Mr. Eugene
Coleman, the President of Humber Valley Paving, the Leader of the
Opposition, the Leader of the Third Party, and the Guarantee Company of
North America.
The
Auditor General requested that replies be in the form of a statutory
declaration. He received these
statutory declarations, Mr. Speaker, and records were identified from
approximately 185 officials and former officials from all fourteen
government departments: the Executive Council, Officer of the Premier,
Office of the Chief Information Officer, Office of Public Engagement,
Women's Policy Office, Multi-Materials Stewardship Board, and the Government
Purchasing Agency.
Records were also received from Mr. Frank Coleman, Mr. Eugene Coleman, and
the Guarantee Company of North America.
Formal interviews under oath or affirmation were conducted with
sixteen individuals including government officials, a former government
official, and former officials of Humber Valley Paving with questions posed
by the Auditor General, members of his staff, and counsel retained by the
Auditor General, Mr. Speaker another independent source.
Humber Valley Paving did not respond to the Auditor General's request for
information. The Auditor General
also contacted the solicitor for Humber Valley Paving to determine the level
of contact he may have had with elected officials, Progressive Conservative
Party members, or departmental officials.
However, solicitor-client privilege was not waived in this instance,
and the Auditor General does not appear to have applied to court for
subpoenas to compel witnesses to testify or to compel the protection of the
records.
mentioned earlier, the Auditor General Act provides that the Auditor General
cannot access information that would reveal Cabinet confidences or would be
harmful to law enforcement.
There is no indication that these provisions were invoked in relation to the
Auditor General's review of the Humber Valley Paving contract.
It should be noted, however, that government did waive its
solicitor-client privilege. That
is something that cannot be done, Mr. Speaker, in a public inquiry.
summing up, and I am quickly running out of time here, Mr. Speaker, I would
like to say that having served as a member of the Public Accounts Committee
for several years, I think our Province has come a very long way.
We have gone from a time where the Public Accounts Committee would
meet once a year to today, under today's leadership it meets on a regular
basis, seven, eight times a year.
In fact, we just recently had six public hearings ourselves as a
Public Accounts Committee.
The
Public Accounts Committee works very closely, Mr. Speaker, with the Auditor
General. He is quite an
outstanding individual in my opinion.
I certainly trust his work, the quality of his work, the calibre of
his work. I fully endorse the
work he does in all regard for us as a people.
There is no one of any higher integrity than the Auditor General in
the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
for one, on a go-forward basis would like to see monies from the public
purse spent on the people themselves, be it on the roads, on the
infrastructure, on health care, on things that actually benefit the people
themselves, Mr. Speaker. I think
that is where the focus of our government is and will continue to be.
thank you for the opportunity to speak on this most important matter here
today.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
have to say, I do not take pleasure in rising to speak to this today, but we
do have an opinion on this side of the House.
We do hope the members of the House listen to what we have to say on
this particular matter.
is what it is. We sat and we
talked about it. We had a good
concerted debate around our own offices, the researchers, through the
Auditor General's report, and the only conclusion was: it is what it is
five simple words. I think that
everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador is probably going to understand what
I mean when I get to it. I also
want to talk about the simple fact, Mr. Speaker, that I do not believe the
final work is done on this yet, and I am going to come to that as well.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to remind this House that it was Lorraine Michael who first
called for the involvement of the Auditor General on this issue on May 1 of
this year. We did have previous
precedent over the calling of the Auditor General whenever something was
questionable, some move by government.
was the Liberal Administration of September 2007 that questioned the fibre
optic deal and asked for the Auditor General to step in and look at the work
of a particular contract at that particular time between the Premier.
Back then, there was an alleged connection between the Premier and a
Mr. MacDonald who owed a fibre optic company at the time, I believe.
The
Auditor General came back at that particular time and he could not find
anything wrong with it, and actually one of his findings that he came back
with was that it was a very good deal and we moved on.
Government moved on. I think
the Liberals probably parked the issue after they heard from the Auditor
General at that particular time, and the recommendations of the Auditor
General at that particular time were accepted.
we do have a past history of dealings with the Auditor General.
This, I think, is only the second time in my memory that it has ever
been done. So, Lorraine Michael,
I should say
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. MURPHY:
Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I
named the member. The Member for
Signal Hill Quidi Vidi put forward the motion of calling in the Auditor
General. The following week, in
that particular first week of May, we asked questions for several days in
this House, asking the government to also call in the Auditor General to
act, to investigate; and it was under pressure from this party when we were
asking for the call in for the Auditor General that the government relented
and the Premier of the day came into the House and broke the news that, yes,
he would be asking the Auditor General to look at the Humber Valley
situation. So that is the way
that everything transpired.
the Auditor General came in and he did his work, and he released his report
on September 29; a thorough and, we believe, a professional job that we
would have come to expect from his office.
Now we have a request out there for a public inquiry.
I do not think it is necessary.
We do not think it is necessary.
We believe it to be probably a very costly venture.
Considering the fact, too, Mr. Speaker, in saying that, we have not used all
the tools of the House of Assembly yet in doing that.
The previous member who was up and spoke before me mentioned the
Public Accounts Committee. The
Public Accounts Committee does business for this House.
It does business on behalf of the taxpayers of Newfoundland and
Labrador. It looks after the
better interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and has a duty
to the House of Assembly to come back and report to the House of Assembly in
its findings and its deliberations.
work together. We are
non-partisan pretty much when we come together and ask questions.
Sometimes we are partisan I think in our views when we are working on
the Public Accounts Committee.
It is my belief, Mr. Speaker, and it is our belief on this side of the House
that the Public Accounts Committee has a very important role to play here in
asking questions around the Humber Valley contract situation and how it was
handled and asking the Auditor General further questions about this.
have the ability in Public Accounts to ask for more witnesses to come in.
We also have time to do that, Mr. Speaker.
We can go ahead and we can invite anybody we want to question to come
and appear before Public Accounts, but it is also part of our jobs as
Members of the House of Assembly to fulfill that role.
Whether the House is in session or whether the House is not in
session, we are still asked by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to
come up with an opinion and work together as a committee and formulate our
own reasonings for taking things a step further if we find it, and that is
the key. We have not gone
through all the steps that are available to this House of Assembly in
finding out more answers around Humber Valley.
Why
would we go through the expense of a public inquiry when we have not used
all the tools that are at our disposal?
Mr. Speaker, we should have an open and transparent meeting of the
Public Accounts Committee, as I said.
It is chaired by the Liberals.
The Liberals also have another member on it besides the Chair.
They have two