|
Oral
Questions
May 29, 2008
Home
| In the House | Question
Period
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, since
Tuesday, after receiving the legislation on Bill 36, we
have had a number of discussions and consultations with
the legal counsel for the Innu Nation and also with the
Metis Nation. They have indicated, Mr. Speaker, that
legislation such as that being tabled in the House of
Assembly at this time would normally contain standard
provisions and include non-derogation clauses to protect
Aboriginal rights.
I ask
the minister today why her and her government have not
provided for those standard conditions within this
legislation.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
As I stated here in the
House yesterday, the only way that Aboriginal rights can
be extinguished is through voluntary surrender or an
amendment to the Constitution of Canada.
As a matter of fact, Mr.
Speaker, the Premier spoke with Mark Nui this morning,
from the Innu Nation, offered him the legal opinion from
our Department of Justice that confirms what I have just
said, and also gave him his own personal commitment that
there would extinguishment of Aboriginal rights.
This is very satisfactory
to Mark Nui, Mr. Speaker, and we will table such a
document here in the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
My question to the
minister is: If she feels that
the legislation provides for the safeguards, why would
you not go the extra step and put the non-derogation
clause into the legislation, which is a standard across
the country?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
It is not in the bill
because it is not necessary to be in the bill. This has
been tested in the Supreme Court of Canada. There are
only two circumstances under which Aboriginal rights can
be extinguished. As I have said before, Mr. Speaker,
that is by voluntary surrender or by an amendment to the
Constitution of Canada. It is not necessary to protect
Aboriginal rights in this bill.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I would also like to ask
the minister again, in reference to Bill 36: Does
that bill increase the catchment area originally given
to the Lower Churchill Development Corporation; and, if
it does, by how much or how many square kilometres?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Mr.
Speaker, there is a real confusion with the Opposition
about what this bill is and what it does.
The only mechanism we
have to award water rights on the Lower Churchill has to
come through this Legislature. Right now, under the
Lower Churchill Development Act, the only option we have
is to award the water rights to LCDC, the Lower
Churchill Development Corporation.
We have decided that the
Energy Corp. is going to be the lead on the development
of the Lower Churchill. Therefore, we have to come back
to this House to provide for a mechanism for us to award
the water rights, and that is what this bill speaks to.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
We understand perfectly
what the purpose of the bill is, Minister.
My question is: Has
the catchment area that has been referenced in this bill
increased from the original catchment area as was
awarded to the Lower Churchill Development Corporation?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: No,
Mr. Speaker. The only thing that this bill speaks to,
instead of having the option only to award water rights
to LCDC, we are now, through this Legislature, allowing
the Cabinet to award the water rights to the Energy
Corp.
That is the only change,
Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, under the
proposed amendments in Bill 35 – I asked a couple of
questions on this yesterday and I just want to seek some
further clarification – the Energy Corporation will be
exempt from the Securities Act.
I ask the Premier: How
can that be justified, exempting the Energy Corporation
from legislation that would govern every other private
sector corporation in the Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
In our due diligence in
preparing this legislation to come before the House of
Assembly, we have looked at acts such as the Securities
Act. Mr. Speaker, it does not work for the Energy
Corporation; however, we have taken the major disclosure
tools that are in the Securities Act and included them
in the legislation for the Energy Act.
We will have an annual
consolidated report. We will have annual consolidated
financial statements. We will have an annual general
meeting for the people of the Province, the shareholder
of the Energy Corp.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
It appears that, in this
legislation, the Auditor General will definitely be
restricted. For example, in the course of an
investigation, if he finds evidence of criminal
wrongdoing that involves so-called
commercially-sensitive information, he will be forced to
report to the Cabinet; but, Mr. Speaker, the Cabinet
will act as judge and jury on these matters.
I ask the Premier today: Will
the Auditor General have the authority to report
criminal matters directly to the police upon their
discovery within the Energy Corporation or any of its
subsidiary corporations?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
If the Auditor General
finds what he believes to be wrongdoing in terms of the
executive of the Energy Corp., he will then report back
to the Cabinet, Mr. Speaker, that is right, but he will
also, in his report to the House, reference that he has
raised such an issue with the Cabinet, Mr. Speaker.
Therefore, this House will know and the public will
know.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: The
minister knows that several months could pass from the
time that an incident is reported to the Cabinet to a
report being tabled in the House of Assembly that would
only make mere mention of the fact.
I ask the minister: Why
would you not allow for the provisions within the act
for the Auditor General to report directly to the
police, as well as to the Cabinet, any wrongdoing or any
criminal activity that might be found?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Mr.
Speaker, the only concern that Cabinet would have with
regard to reporting what might be felt to be illegal
behaviour or wrongdoing is the protection of
commercially-sensitive information. This Cabinet is
here, and any Cabinet is here, to protect the best
interests of the people of the Province, and they will
act accordingly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Government has also
stated that subsidiaries of the Energy Corporation will
act as non-Crown agencies. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I
think, in essence, it will not be controlled by
government and it will not place liabilities on the
people of the Province.
There is still some
uncertainty as to whether this can work. The only
existing example, when I had the briefing with the
minister’s officials - that they could provide to me -
was that it had been done with the boxing commission of
the Province; and, from what I understand, there has
been no case within the boxing commission that has ever
been tested in the court system.
I ask the Premier: How
can you be certain that the courts would uphold this
legislation and agree that these subsidiaries are
non-Crown agents in the case of some major liability
issues that would occur within that particular project?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
In establishing this
setup of the Energy Corporation, there has been
extensive consultation and review of corporate
structures in other countries throughout the world, and
also in relation to Quebec.
What we are trying to do
here is establish it like a private company, try to set
it up so that the Energy Corporation would then oversee,
as outlined in the energy plan, but that the subsidiary
companies can be set up in a way that allows them to
operate without exposing government to liability. For
example, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will still
operate the way it does.
The subsidiaries are set
up in a way, Mr. Speaker, that has been suggested, based
on what we consider to be good, sound, legal advice and
we are going to follow that advice.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, the government stated yesterday in questioning
that the board of directors for these subsidiaries would
be appointed in consultation with the CEO, the Energy
Corporation and also by the Provincial Cabinet.
I ask the minister: How
can they be viewed independently by the court? I guess
my question is: What guarantees do you have that these
subsidiary companies will indeed be independent in the
eyes of the court system?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Mr.
Speaker, we have had some very bright lawyers look at
this, and we have also sought opinions in relation to
the best practices that can be utilized in setting up
this corporate structure.
With all due respect to
the Leader of the Opposition, her legal opinions, or the
legal opinions of the Opposition really do not mean a
whole lot to us. What we are trying to do here is what
is best for the people of this Province and the Energy
Corporation. The set up of the Energy Corporation is one
that we are confident in and one that will meet the
tests that are outlined in the various case laws. In
that respect, Mr. Speaker, again, we have acted on legal
advice that has been given to us. We have looked through
this legislation, and we are satisfied that this company
will be ran as it should be, or the set up will be like
a private corporation or like the companies, I think, in
Denmark and other companies throughout the world.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I do not think there is any need for the minister to be
insulting. These are very straightforward, detailed
questions that the public deserves to have answers to.
Mr. Speaker, I would just
like to ask the minister: Has
he cases that he can site for us in which there is a
board of directors appointed by government, but yet they
are supposed to be seen as non-Crown agents in which
there will be no liabilities held for the people of the
Province? Is there any cases?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
We will endeavour to
satisfy the Leader of the Opposition’s curiosity with
regard to this matter. We have looked at state-owned
corporations around the world. In fact, 80 per cent of
natural resource development that takes place in the
world takes place by state-owned companies. We
particularly looked at Norway, Denmark, and the
Netherlands. We have looked at CHHC and what goes on
there. We have looked at Hydro Quebec and we have looked
at British Columbia Energy. We have done our homework on
this bill, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, if the subsidiary companies are government run,
who will the independent subsidiaries report to and what
reporting mechanisms will be in place and, I guess, how
will that information be reported, would be the
question?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Mr.
Speaker, these are complicated issues to try to address
in a one minute response. That is a significant part of
the reason why we did a technical briefing with the
Opposition and with the members of the media. This is a
corporate structure that is used by StatoilHydro, by
Hydro Quebec, by BC Energy, it is used in the private
sector. What better example that I could hold out for
you in terms of corporate structure but our own Fortis.
Mr. Speaker, the way this
is structured, these subsidiaries report to the Energy
Corp., the parent company. In terms of their activities,
the legislation protects the people of the Province from
liability.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, I guess I want to remind the minister that the
reason for all of these questions is that we do not have
$900 million in the Fortis company but we do within this
new Energy Corp. through the borrowing power of
legislation we gave them in the House of Assembly, as
well as the $300 million in the last Budget.
Mr.
Speaker, should any of these subsidiaries decide to sell
any of its assets or shares in the projects, what public
disclosure will take place under this current
legislation?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Mr.
Speaker, we welcome questions from the Opposition. My
only observation was, we gave quite an extensive
technical briefing yesterday where we could give fuller
explanations to these questions than is allowed for in a
one-minute response in Question Period. We are coming up
for a debate here later today, Mr. Speaker, and I will
be glad to engage further then. We will stay here for as
long as they want, to ensure that their questions are
answered.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister brings up
the technical briefing and I thank you, Minister, for
providing that. Obviously, we did not get all the
answers that we needed, and that is why we continue to
ask questions.
Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic
Accord and the C-NLOPB have a vigorous process in place
to ensure that tendering and local benefits are accrued
to people in the Province. Any time that an oil company
awards contracts outside of that process they have to
report it to the C-NLOPB for a review. By removing the
Energy Corporation from the Public Tender Act,
government is effectively removing this oversight, and
many local suppliers will be left out of the bidding
process.
I ask the Premier: How
can all local companies have confidence that there will
be an equal and competitive competition at winning
contracts under the new regime for awarding contracts
within the Energy Corporation?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to point out that
the Energy Corp., in terms of its oil and gas
activities, will be subject to all the rules and
regulations of the C-NLOPB. That is to start with, Mr.
Speaker. This company, as the Premier said yesterday, is
not going making widgets. We are talking about large
projects, large oil and gas, the development of the
Lower Churchill and large wind. One of the reasons that
we want to ensure that we can protect adjacency, that we
can protect local procurement, where we can ensure that
the benefits come to the people nearest to the resource,
is the reason why we are asking for removal of the
Public Tender Act in this instance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, I say to the minister that the subsidiaries
could very well be making widgets before it is all over.
We cannot project what this corporation is going to do,
but we are giving them legislation to do it before it
even starts.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker,
yesterday government stated that one of the major
reasons to exempt the Energy Corporation from the Public
Tender Act was time considerations.
I ask the minister today:
Why not consider building in
provisions in the Public Tender Act to protect against
this, and to have a mechanism by which you can report
back to the House of Assembly any exemptions that are
granted either through yourself or another ministerial
department that may govern that particular corporation?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
As I explained yesterday,
the Public Tendering Act is not a suitable vehicle for
us in terms of the kind of work that is contemplated
under the Energy Corporation. It just does not work in
that kind of a circumstance where you have very large
projects.
What we are concerned
about, when we go to develop the Lower Churchill, we
have a larger consideration than the lowest price, Mr.
Speaker, which is the main element of the Public Tender
Act; however, we are listening to what our friends
across the way are saying and we will be proposing an
amendment in Committee that says if we ever get to
making widgets the Cabinet will have the authority to
put the subsidiary under the Public Tender Act.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr.
Speaker, the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board 2007-2008
Strategic Plan outlines a commitment to a culture of
openness, but we have learned that environmental groups
and media have had difficulty obtaining information from
the directors of MMSB.
I ask the minister: Why
is the MMSB making it difficult to obtained detailed
information regarding its programs?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS JOHNSON: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I think the
member opposite is referring to some of the reports in
the media yesterday.
I spoke to MMSB this
morning. I understand MMSB has offered a full briefing
on the issues and the facts around the Waste Management
Strategy and the trust fund to CBC, and certainly that
offer is wide open.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr.
Speaker, the MMSB has collected 1.5 million tires since
2002 and has yet to execute a plan for their actual
recycling. Through that collection, they charge a $3
levy on every average sized tire purchased in the
Province.
Mr. Speaker, given the
absence of a tire recycling program, I ask the minister:
Where is the MMSB stockpiling
the money collected from those tires?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS JOHNSON: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the issue of
tires is not an issue just for us here in Newfoundland
and Labrador; this is an issue for all of North America.
We are trying to deal with the tire situation.
The MMSB has worked very
diligently, and the member opposite would know exactly
how difficult it is to come up with a solution because
they did provide some solutions in the past that
certainly did not work, and we had an environmental mess
to clean up ourselves because of the program that they
put in place when they were there.
We are diligently working
with this. We are engaged with an organization, and we
do hope to make an announcement in the very near future;
but, Mr. Speaker, it is very important that, when we do
this, we do have a proposal that is sustainable for the
future so that future governments will not have to deal
with the mess that we had to deal with when we came in.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr.
Speaker, with all due respect, I say to the minister,
she has had five years in her Cabinet now looking at the
same mess that they are referring to, that they
inherited.
Mr. Speaker, surplus
revenues from the collection of levies on the sale of
recycled products are funnelled into the waste reduction
fund currently in the order of $11.6 million.
I ask the minister: Why
is there $11 million sitting in a bank account when we
have problems with recycling programs, such as for
tires, e-waste and paper?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS JOHNSON: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
As the hon. member would
know, we announced the Waste Management Strategy in May
2007 and at that time the hon. Minister of Municipal
Affairs announced $200 million, Mr. Speaker, for the
Waste Management Strategy.
Having said that, in the
interim, if there were organizations or municipalities
that wanted to implement programs sooner than those
implementation dates then we are very supportive as a
government to provide funding. That funding would come
from the trust fund that the member is referring to, and
there are so many other programs, great work that we are
doing in terms of household hazardous waste, backyard
composting, advertising, public information, our Let’s
Get to Half campaign, supporting the fifteen management
authorities, and so on and so on, and I can give you
some more information (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the
Premier, as a result of an answer that was given by the
Minister of Natural Resources earlier in Question Period
today.
The minister referenced a
phone conversation that took place between the Premier
and Mark Nui, the President of the Innu Nation, this
morning. In the interest, probably, because this is
going to be a matter of intense debate, I would think,
for the next while in this House, I
am wondering if there is anything the Premier can share
with us, as a result of that conversation, that might
enlighten and add to the level of knowledge we have,
before we go forward in that debate?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Sure,
Mr. Speaker, I would only be too delighted.
We had a Cabinet meeting
this morning. We decided at Cabinet that it would be
appropriate if I gave President Nui a call, just to give
the Innu people a reassurance that there is nothing
underhanded, through the back door, being done here, or
that there is anything they should be concerned about.
We had a very good
discussion along the lines of what the minister has
already answered with respect to the inability to
extinguish Aboriginal rights. It can only be done
through an amendment to the Constitution, or if those
rights are actually surrendered. As the hon. gentleman
opposite knows, through the Sparrow decision, the
Supreme Court of Canada, those rights have been very,
very firmly and clearly established.
During the course of that
conversation, I assured Mark Nui that he would have a
letter from me forthwith, which I am not certain was to
be countersigned by the Attorney General, whether that
was actually done or not. I know, I signed off on the
letter, it is gone. Whether it was countersigned or not,
that letter has actually been completed, and if it is
not going to be countersigned then it will have gone
under my signature to President Nui as recently as half
an hour ago.
He has a letter from me -
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
I ask the hon. the
Premier to conclude his answer.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
He has a letter from me
and he seems to be quite comfortable with the answers
that he received this morning; absolutely.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: The
reason for our asking, Mr. Speaker, is because we had
correspondence from legal counsel for the Innu yesterday
saying that they wanted an amendment put forward under
the Act so that the protections would be built in.
I am
just wondering if we can have a copy of that letter.
That might save a lot of trouble in terms of debate and
amendments and so on.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr.
Speaker, we would be only too delighted to provide a
copy of that letter.
I want to assure all
members of the Opposition that this is a collaborative
process, that we see real value in debate here. I am not
just saying this for political purposes, I really mean
it. If hon. members opposite have constructive
amendments that can strengthen this legislation with a
view to making it even better, providing, of course, it
meets the objectives of the minister and her department,
we would be only too delighted to see them. Obviously,
that goes for all members.
We look forward to a good
debate. I hope it is not a political debate, because it
certainly shouldn’t be. Well, if I speak there is
going to be a little politics go into it. Having said
all that, I found in the past when we were in Opposition
that I think it can strengthen legislation, so we
certainly welcome any amendments and we are certainly
prepared to entertain, obviously, any amendments that
come forward.
The letter will be
provided and if there is any feedback or anything that
comes from the Innu Nation we will certainly keep you
informed.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the
Minister of Government Services.
Yesterday, the Minister
of Natural Resources said, in response to a question
about placing adjacency in local benefit clauses in the
Public Tender Act, that the Minister of Government
Services is conducting a review of the Act.
I am wondering, Mr.
Speaker, if the minister could give us details today
about what this review will entail.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Government Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. O'BRIEN: Mr.
Speaker, government is always evaluating their
processes, especially in regard to purchases and
procurements. When I was assigned the Department of
Government Services I initiated an RFP in regard to
hiring a consultant to review our procurement practices
and also to review the Public Tender Act, with a view to
enhancing it if we possibly can, or if it is fine well
then that is fine, as it is today. In the meantime, if
it does need enhancements, or any of our procurement
policies need enhancements, then we are open for that
particular piece.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The last time there was a
full review of the Public Tender Act was, I think, ten
years ago in 1998, and at that time there was broad
consultation with public and private interests.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the
minister whether or not this time in the review, that
you have hired a consultant for, there will be a public
consultation that will be part of the review and what it
will consist of?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Government Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. O'BRIEN: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly, as shown in
the past, this government is always open to public
consultation and input from the public. As we go through
this process, if public consultation is required, I am
certainly open to it as a minister. We have an open door
policy in the department and in this government in
regards to that input. So, we will research that, too,
as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister, I take it
then there is not a plan in place yet and you are still
at a planning phase, is that what is happening?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Government Services, responsible
for the Government Purchasing Agency.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. O'BRIEN: Yes,
Mr. Speaker, as we go through the proper process, in
regards to the report itself, the report is not
available at this particular time, so we have to wait
for that report to come forward first and then we will
formulate a plan. We have to look at the recommendations
that would fall out of that report, evaluate it, and
then we will see. If it is needed, well then - the
consultant may very well come back and say, no, there is
no problem with your procurement process or your Public
Tender Act. In that case, no consultation is needed, but
if there is consultation needed, I will certainly
entertain it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Mr.
Speaker, Nova Scotia plans to introduce a sustainable
government procurement policy by 2009. A government
working group will hold public consultations this summer
to get input on what this policy could include.
Is the minister open to a
review of the Public Tender Act, including consultation
with environmental industries and groups with a goal of
introducing a green, sustainable procurement policy?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Government Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. O'BRIEN: Again,
Mr. Speaker, we have to evaluate the report itself and
look at the recommendations that were made by the
particular consultant and then we will move forward on
that, but we are always open to other jurisdictions in
regards to what they are doing. We are always evaluating
across Canada. We do not want to reinvent the wheel if
we do not have to reinvent the wheel, and certainly, we
will look at other jurisdictions and make a decision
accordingly on that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
It is still not clear to
me if this consultant actually held consultations, and
if the consultant did, how broad were those
consultations?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Government Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. O'BRIEN: Mr.
Speaker, that was not a part of the RFP in regards to
that piece of work that was required by the department
for the consultant to do. It was a review of our
procurement process, also a review of the Public Tender
Act. So, consultations would not be a part of that
process. |
