July 25,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 34

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Barrett): Order, please!

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Premier.

Yesterday, the House began debate on Bill 19, the printing

services act, an unexpected and extremely disturbing piece of legislation that

would give the government a blank cheque to exempt Kodak Canada from the Public

Tender Act and give them publicly-funded work at the expense of other

Newfoundland businesses and jobs; and yesterday, on the same day that debate

began on this bill, only a day after the Legislature had even laid eyes on this

legislation, and with the government refusing to provide even the most basic

details about the intended implications of this measure, the government gave

notice of its intention to invoke closure to force an end to the debate on this

bill.

I ask the Premier, what is the government trying to hide?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the

Opposition knows that the government has absolutely nothing it wants to hide.

What the government has, is an opportunity to bring investment, millions of

dollars worth of investment, to bring new technology capable of competing

elsewhere in the country and to bring jobs to Newfoundland and Labrador; and I

say to the Leader of the Opposition, that is the reason why the government,

a) gave notice before the House was called back, to the Leader of the Opposition

and to the Leader of the NDP that this matter was being considered as a question

we may call during this short session; that is why we offered to both parties

even in advance of the House coming back, a briefing on the matter, which is

hardly the mark of a government trying to hide something, that we offered a

briefing to the Leader of the Opposition and a briefing to the Leader of the

NDP. That is the reason why there have been discussions with the employees,

hardly the mark of something to hide; that is why Dave Curtis of the labour

movement of NAPE has been involved in this matter and has looked at it

carefully, because there is nothing to hide; that is why the question was put

before Kodak, before Xerox, Robinson-Blackmore; we had an open proposal and

discussion with a variety of printing operators in the city before we proceeded,

because there is nothing to hide. Mr. Speaker, I assure the Leader of the

Opposition, if the outcome of these discussions do not result in jobs and

investment and new technology for Newfoundland and Labrador, we will not be

signing an agreement with anybody.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition talks

about a blank cheque. The bill says: the government wants an exemption for

thirty days to see if we can conclude within thirty days an agreement. Mr.

Speaker, that is what it says, thirty days to try to bring investment and jobs

to Newfoundland and Labrador. The Leader of the Opposition should be on his feet

applauding that initiative, not condemning it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want my briefing here in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: And the contract is in perpetuity; it can

be renewed at government's pleasure.

Will the Premier confirm that Bill 19 would give the Cabinet

the power to do what it did illegally in the case of the Trans City scandal, and

that is to award publicly-funded work without concern for the provision of the

Public Tender Act which, by the way, a P.C. government put in place to level the

playing field for businesses, to protect the provincial treasury, and to help

rid the Province of political pork-barrelling.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is a wonder that

organizations like Kodak or others do not head for the airport and fly straight

out of the Province, never to return, when they hear the kind of negative

comment from the Leader of the Opposition accusing Kodak of being some kind of

pork-barrel agency involved in political patronage. It is a wonder you do not

drive the last investment dollar out of the Province; but, fortunately, that

does not occur because Kodak does not take seriously words such as those now

being spoken by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, it is irresponsible, I say to the Leader of the

Opposition, for the Leader of the Opposition to get up and smear an

international firm that is interested in investing in Newfoundland; and I say to

the Leader of the Opposition, if he continues that kind of activity, he may

succeed in driving away the possibility of this investment in the Province. And

I tell the Leader of the Opposition, if that occurs, he will be held responsible

for destroying an opportunity to create jobs and new industry in Newfoundland

and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Premier confirm that the government has not had

formal discussions with businesses that are now receiving printing,

microfilming, or electronic imaging work from the Province, about the

implications of this legislation on their businesses? Will he, in fact, confirm

that Bill 19 puts in jeopardy any rights these companies currently have to bid

for the nearly $2 million in printing work that the Province contracts out on an

annual basis, and which helps keep these Newfoundland business companies

operating and employing Newfoundlanders?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if you did not know better

you would assume that the Leader of the Opposition was weaned on a bucket of

pickles, and that he takes one every morning before he comes into the House to

ask his questions. He sets out the worst kind of negative scenario, the worst

kind of defeatist attitude. The man literally walks around with a black cloud

tied to a string dragging along behind his back feet, Mr. Speaker. That is

absolute nonsense. The fact of the matter is there is no agreement negotiated

yet, there is no agreement signed yet, and there will not be an agreement unless

there are benefits for local printers and a continued level of operation for

local printers, and continued jobs for local printers. There will not be an

agreement unless there is new technology for Newfoundland. There will not be an

agreement unless there are new jobs for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, as to the question of whether we have discussed

this matter with other operators, the fact of the matter is, as Premier I met

with a representative of Robinson-Blackmore and Xerox Canada who themselves

wanted to discuss making a similar arrangement with the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador. The fact of the matter is we are sitting down with

the best offer that was on the table, not just with any offer that came forward;

and the Leader of the Opposition should recognize that instead of continuing to

send out these negative notions.

I believe the Leader of the Opposition has come to the

conclusion that Newfoundland's faith is summarized in a single word, failure.

Well, I tell him, get ready to live with some success because we are going to

make some happen in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier expects us to believe that he dealt seriously

with companies on that? Will the Premier confirm that he received a letter on

July 17 from the President of Robinson-Blackmore indicating the negative impacts

Bill 19 will have on their company, a company that employs 250 people in this

Province with an investment in excess of $20 million; a company, I might add,

that can supply not only printing but also high end digital imaging capability

as can five other Newfoundland firms? Will the Premier confirm that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is quite interesting that

the Leader of the Opposition makes reference to the letter in question given

that the letter in question does not communicate to the government on the basis

being raised by the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition wants

everybody to believe there is something improper, illegal, or wrong going on

with this negotiation, but the Leader of the Opposition knows full well,

notwithstanding his attempt to try and attract a headline, that what he is

saying is absolutely false. What is being said by Robinson-Blackmore is they

want an opportunity to sit down with government to review the arrangement prior

to any conclusion of the arrangement to make sure that local printers are not

negatively affected by this kind of arrangement.

Mr. Speaker, this morning the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation informed me that she has already been in touch with one of the

local printers in the City of St. John's, one who is a member of the local

association; and the minister is in the process of arranging a meeting with the

association tomorrow to assure the association, first of all, of what the

parameters are for this kind of negotiation, what the objectives are for this

kind of negotiation, and to hear comment and advice from local printers prior to

concluding any kind of arrangement. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a reasonable

request from Robinson-Blackmore, and a reasonable response is now in the process

of being given.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will release a copy of the letter I have and let people

make their own determination about what Robinson-Blackmore said in that letter,

I will say to the Premier. I will do that, I will make that letter that was sent

to me available afterwards for any of the public who want to see it.

Does the Premier realize that this bill places in jeopardy

the $100,000 to $120,000 in printing that the HUB currently receives from this

government, the loss of which, we are told, would result in a lay off of a

minimum of two disabled persons if not up to probably four people? Will he

confirm that these jobs are in jeopardy under Bill No. 19 because the Cabinet

will have complete authority and leeway to enter into agreements with Kodak

Canada to give any and all printing work exclusively to Kodak?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, no, I don't agree with the

Leader of the Opposition. What the leader of the Opposition is saying, and what

he has been saying during the last two days and the picture he has been painting

is absolutely, totally and completely false. More to the point, it is

irresponsible.

This is a province with the highest rate of borrowings in

Canada. This is a province with the highest rate of taxation in Canada.

Newfoundland and Labrador is the province with the highest rate of unemployment

in Canada. Newfoundland and Labrador is the province that needs most investment

and new jobs. It is time for us to quit this dog-in-the-manger attitude, to get

our heads out of the sand, and to go about the business with some positive

confidence that we can achieve some economic growth; and that yes, Newfoundland

and Labrador is the place where Kodak should set up. This is the place where

they should have a leading edge, a technical data-imaging facility, and that

they should be able to compete and win from Newfoundland and Labrador.

It isn't written in the script anywhere that we always have

to be losers. Mr. Speaker, we can be a winner, but we have to start with a

winning attitude, not the whining attitude of the Leader of the Opposition today

in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is rhetoric that got us into trouble, not substance, I say

to the Premier, in dealings in this Province, and part of the reason why we have

such high taxation.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation suggests

some printing work will continue to be made available to other local companies,

but what she doesn't say is that the government would have authority under this

legislation to give exclusively to Kodak any printing, microfilming or

electronic imaging work that it wanted to. Nothing in legislation would bind the

government to public tender any printing work and contracts would only be given

to other printers at Cabinet's discretion, not because of any provisions in the

Public Tender Act.

Now why is the government so eager to return to the days in

Newfoundland before the Public Tender Act when contracts were handed out as

favours to friends and supporters on the whim of the Premier and his Cabinet,

because that is precisely what this bill would create?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from

the truth. This exemption to the Public Tender Act is specific to Kodak. The

time period for the exemption is thirty days. It does not allow the Cabinet to

make any kind of arrangement with respect to any other matter, with any other

firm, friend, foe or otherwise of the government. It is specific to Kodak for

thirty days. For the Leader of the Opposition to stand up and try and pretend

that this is a blanket exemption that applies to every area of government

procurement, and could apply to any company in any line of work is absolutely,

totally false. More to the point, the Leader of the Opposition, even as he

speaks the words, knows them to be false.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with reference to the Robinson Blackmore

letter, let me read from the letter because it is far more mature in its

approach to this issue and far more honest in raising concerns and asking for

assurances than the kind of panic that is evident in the questions by the Leader

of the Opposition and the kind of deliberate attempt to try and stir fear. You

know it is very easy to stand up and shout fire in a crowded room, and that

appears to be the tactic that is now being employed by the Leader of the

Opposition.

The letter says on page 2: we have been given assurances by

representatives of government that the Kodak proposal does not envisage any

traditional offset printing competition being impacted. So for all of the

traditional offset printers, the letter from Robinson Blackmore itself says: we

understand that that is not an issue. The letter goes on to raise questions as

to whether or not high end digital imaging operations might be impacted.

Robinson Blackmore says: we would like to sit down and discuss that with you.

The letter says: we would appreciate an opportunity to review the proposed

arrangement prior to completion. We are agreeing to do that.

The letter goes on to say: we agree with government's

initiatives to privatize services which can be provided by private industry;

however, any process which potentially exposes current jobs should be avoided.

We agree with that. He says: we trust the Government of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador will give this issue sufficient review and analysis to

ensure current investment and employment is not put at risk by government

support of a competing operation in an already over-burdened industry. We also

agree with that. We are prepared to sit down and talk with the industry in

Newfoundland and Labrador to make sure that their interests are protected while,

at the same time, seeking new investment, new technology and new jobs in

Newfoundland and Labrador. Surely, it is reasonable to ask the Leader of the

Opposition to allow the process to be completed, to allow an actual agreement to

be negotiated before he judges prior to that process, the value of the agreement

and, more importantly, before he begins to call into question, the reputation

and the integrity - I will put aside the government's reputation or integrity -

but the reputation and the integrity of Kodak.

How in the name of all that is decent, Mr. Speaker, are we,

as a Province going to attract international firms to this Province, ask them to

invest in this Province, when the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition uses his

protection of the House to call into question the integrity and the reputation

of those international firms. They will not want to come to Newfoundland and

Labrador, they will want to stay away, and if they do that, Newfoundland and

Labrador loses every time.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What a load of bunk! That's what I call it. You are going to

sit down with a company after you sign a contract and give an exclusive? What is

there left to discuss? I ask the Premier. Consultation before agreement, that is

what I say to the Premier and the letter says more than that, too, I say to the

Premier but I will not waste time reading it as you did. I will provide a copy.

Now surely, Kodak Canada knows the government has the power

to ram through this legislation, certainly after it saw the government ram

through second reading of this bill yesterday. Now, surely, Kodak is confident

it could work out the complete details of a possible arrangement with the

Province without first having Bill 19 passed, knowing that the government would

have the majority to reinforce this agreement later.

So, why does the government feel it is necessary to have Bill

19 passed first, in the absence of details of such an agreement? Why, I ask the

Premier, are you asking members to vote blindly, unless the details of the

agreement the government has in mind are so controversial, that Bill 19 would

never pass if it were first disclosed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the questions of the Leader

of the Opposition are now getting, frankly, so contradictory, that they are

almost not worthy of a response except that I respect the role and the position

of the Leader of the Opposition.

You now have the Leader of the Opposition arguing that we

should go out and negotiate a binding deal and then retroactively, after the

fact, sneak into Parliament, sneak into the Legislature, use our majority and

ram through an exemption to the Public Tender Act, after the fact.

The Leader of the Opposition says: The Premier knows that he

has a majority, he knows he could pass this later, negotiate first and tell us

later. The only mistake we made, apparently, as far as the Leader of the

Opposition is concerned, is that we have done this transparently, we have done

it up front, we have told him and the rest of the people in advance and he can't

stand a little fresh air in the Legislature. He should get used to it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the Premier: Is it like your deal on

the natural gas plant in Marystown back in February? Is that the type of deal

you are going to give us here?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the Premier: Would he confirm that he

was informed by Robinson-Blackmore, that on June 27, 1996 informal discussions

began to trickle back to Robinson-Blackmore that the Kodak proposal had in fact

been accepted and the process was in place to finalize a contract? Will he

inform that he was given that information by Robinson-Blackmore?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm anything the

Leader of the Opposition is saying today because nothing of what he is saying

adds up to anything other than rumour, innuendo, accusations of bad deals,

accusations of criminal activity, accusations of illegal activity, accusations

that Kodak is some kind of disreputable operation that is a political friend of

the government. I mean, the Leader of the Opposition today, really, should go

back and reread the transcript of these questions over the last two days.

If the Leader of the Opposition has some substantive reason

to say that Newfoundland and Labrador should not be engaged in a discussion that

could bring new jobs to the Province, then bring forward those objections. But

merely to be picking at threads, to be trying to find every way possible through

innuendo, through all kinds of unsubstantiated comment, to call people's

reputations into question who are here negotiating with the Province in good

faith, Mr. Speaker, that is not -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: I am sorry. The Leader of the Opposition

keeps referring to Kodak knowing they got a deal, he has made references to

pork-barrelling, made references to friends of the government. He said

yesterday, and I think I am quoting him verbatim: If this is the basis of Kodak

being here talking to government, tell Kodak to go back home. I think I am

quoting him verbatim.

Mr. Speaker, it is precisely that kind of attitude that will

injure the interest of Newfoundland and Labrador. I say to the Leader of the

Opposition, we offered to brief him on this arrangement, we offered to exchange

with him confidential commercial information. He refused it. We offered to give

it to him because we wanted him to behave responsibly, we wanted him to ask

responsible questions. We did not want to see this opportunity injured by these

kinds of questions. Obviously, our instinct was right. Regrettably, the Leader

of the Opposition's posture in refusing to ask questions on the basis of fact

was wrong.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition, he has lost the

confidence, in my mind, of the people of this Province, and he has lost the

right to be briefed on confidential information because he is reckless and

irresponsible with the kinds of accusations he is making today, and he is

putting the interest of Newfoundland second and putting his own partisan

opportunity to try to score a headline, first, obviously.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Leader

of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ask the people of the Province who has lost their confidence,

I say to the Premier. Will you answer one simple question: Why, and for what

motive, have you decided to circumvent the Public Tender Act, which is a law of

this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we have been answering the

question for days. The Minister of works, Services and Transportation has been

answering the question for the last couple of days. The fact of the matter is,

this is not a question of government making a public tender call to say: We want

to make a public tender call on all government printing services. If that is

what we were doing I would say; Absolutely, the Public Tender Act should apply

and there should be a public tender call.

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: But that is not what has happened here, I

say to the Member for Baie Verte, who recently was in touch with my office, and

the office of other ministers, asking for an EDGE designation, which we have

given to companies in Baie Verte, giving preferential treatment to create jobs

in Baie Verte. We did it with Roycefield mines. We may do it with a seal

operation as well. We had the Member for Baie Verte applauding because we were

creating jobs in his district, notwithstanding the destructive mentality of

members of his own caucus.

I say to him: This is not a call for a public tender. This is

an opportunity to sit down and to lever -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Understand this. Just clear your mind for

a moment, I say to the Leader of the Opposition. This is an opportunity to

attract millions of dollars of new investment to the Province, to attract

leading edge technology to the Province, to attract an international firm to the

Province, and to benefit the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition, in the fullness of

time, if there is an agreement, all of the details will be made available. The

Leader of the Opposition can say they are good, he can say they are bad. The

people of the Province ultimately, three or four years from now, will judge the

government on whether we have made good arrangements, bad arrangements, good

decisions or bad decisions. But, Mr. Speaker, in the meantime, the government

cannot be paralysed. We cannot be paralysed. We cannot refuse to go out and try

to create jobs. We have to get on with it and that is what we are going to do,

and we are not going to be scared away by the frightened negative mentality of

the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Tampering with the Public Tender Act -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

I have recognized the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Tampering with the Public Tender Act tends to cause serious

difficulties for governments. Of course, we have a well-known matter that all

people in this Province are familiar with where the act was not tampered with,

it was avoided, it was ignored.

My question is for the Minister of Justice and the Attorney

General of this Province. Has the minister made a recommendation to Cabinet in

response to the Newfoundland Supreme Court of Appeal decision on the Trans City

health centre contracts that the Provincial Government should not further appeal

the judgement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and

Attorney General.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, the

Court of Appeal reduced the liability of the Province in the Trans City deal.

The Trial Division ordered that we would pay the full lost profits to the health

care developers; the Court of Appeal said we would pay half. The decision we

have to make now as a government is whether or not we will ask leave to appeal

this to the Supreme Court, or we will indeed pay half. So what I have asked the

officials of my department to do is to have preliminary discussions with the

health care developers to get some feel for them as to just what kind of a

settlement we could make. We are still maintaining our right, I tell the hon.

gentleman, to appeal to the Supreme Court if we do not get a satisfactory

settlement.

The hon. member will know, if he is honest and up front, that

as a result of the Trans City deal, we saved, over the life of that agreement,

$6.8 million over the conventional route, so we do have -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DECKER: Honourable members may laugh, Mr. Speaker,

but that is the fact of the matter. Had we gone the traditional route, it would

have cost $6.8 million more. Now, we do not want to have to spend that $6.8

million, and we would not even think about spending near that amount, but if we

could reach a reasonable settlement which would be substantially less than that,

of course, then we might - we might - but we have not given up on our option to

ask leave to appeal this to the Supreme Court.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East, on

a supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have been told that the Trans City facilities are millions

more expensive than the least expensive proposal to construct these facilities.

How much will this fiasco have cost provincial taxpayers before it is all over?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the hon. member

does not know what he is talking about. Even during the court, even in the

original Trial Division, the lawyer for the plaintiff said, `We know this is a

good deal for the Province; we are concerned with process'. It is a

technicality. We are being held to ransom by a technicality. We have saved $6.8

million. We have three of the best health care centres in the Province, three of

the best health care centres in North America, at a cost which is $6.8 million

less. So the hon. member gets up with his down-in-the-mouth attitude that he has

toward everything, the same attitude which you are displaying now where we are

trying to entice an international company to come here and create some jobs.

This is a very difficult Province to govern and to create

jobs in. We have a harsh climate. Most of our population lives on an Island. It

is difficult to bring raw materials in. It is expensive to ship things out. It

is very difficult to create jobs, but we do not expect the elected

representatives of the people of this Province to come in here and try to drag

this Province down into the dirt, and try to make sure that nobody works. We do

not expect that. We expect a higher standard from the elected people in this

House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East, on

a final supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Bending the law is not a matter of detail. Bargaining in bad

faith, and contracting in bad faith, is not a matter of detail, and I would ask

the minister to read page 34 of the most recent Court of Appeal decision on that

particular point.

I have a supplementary for the hon. the Minister of Health.

At Gander, we also see how a reckless approach to capital planning can result in

gross waste of scarce health care dollars. On a related matter, has the Minister

of Health yet decided whether to complete the Gander Hospital, to spend millions

to protect it from the elements, or spend a million or so to tear it down?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health.

AN HON. MEMBER: Answer by number, one, two, or three.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East has asked a question.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I recognize the interest of the Member for Cape Freels

wanting me to answer by number because that is very simple and they understand

simple-minded issues on a very simple-minded basis, but the fact of the matter

is that, as government, we are dealing with substantive issues and we have to

deal with them on a considered basis, and on a basis that uses the maximum

intelligence that we have, and we have that ingredient on this side of the House

in considerable quantities.

In terms of the Gander project, the hon. member will know

that in the Budget that was presented this year, government put a freeze on

virtually all capital expenditures within the Province, particularly those in

the health care sector, in cases where projects were not substantially

completed. We had two projects, I believe, that were about 70 per cent or 80 per

cent completed and we moved forward with these. The Gander Hospital project is

about 20 per cent completed based on the projected cost of full completion, and

a construction freeze was put on that project, with many, many other capital

projects, for one year. We will see what happens in the future. We feel that in

the year that we have as a window of opportunity, it is appropriate to look at

our delivery of health care services by virtue of what we have, by way of

infrastructure in Central Newfoundland, and we are taking that opportunity to

review our health care services within the Central Newfoundland region.

With respect to the third point that the hon. member raises,

are we going to spend millions of dollars to protect what we have there already,

the steel that is in place -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am trying to hear what the minister has to say.

MR. MATTHEWS: With respect to the construction that is

partially completed there, we have been assured, the Works, Services and

Transportation people and the engineering people tell us, that there is

absolutely zero, negative impact on that steel, leaving it as it is for one

year. We are not going to spend any money doing anything. There is no negative

impact on the construction.

As for his point as to whether or not we are going to spend

$1 million to blow it up or tear it down, we are going to do neither, Mr.

Speaker. The likelihood is that we will use what we have there for very good

purposes, for health care purposes some time in the future on some basis. That

will be determined when the study is done and when we come to a finalization of

plans that are appropriate in the context of good health care delivery in the

1990s and into the Year 2000. We are heading into the next millennium -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - and I think those on the other side

should get ready to join us when we enter the next millennium instead of wanting

to move back into the past.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have recognized the hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi - time for a

short question and a short answer.

MR. HARRIS: Most of my time, Mr. Speaker, has been taken

up by the Speaker trying to get order but my question for the Premier concerns

the large number of women who are on strike today on the Southern Shore and in

St. John's who are working in home care field, Mr. Speaker. They are being paid

less than half of what the equivalent workers in hospitals and nursing homes are

being paid. The government, particularly the Minister of Social Services, has

refused to take responsibility for the employment of these individuals.

I want to ask the Premier, is he aware of this and is he

prepared to instruct government officials to sit down at the negotiating table

and play a role in those negotiations the same as they do in the nursing home

field or is the Premier and his government prepared to tolerate the creation of

a low wage ghetto for women in this Province, despite claims by his government

on other occasions, that they believe in pay equity for women?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

To the first part of the question, it is not entirely

accurate to make a correlation between the staff that work in our hospitals and

nursing homes and the staff that work in the home care industry throughout the

Province. There may be similarities in terms of the type of work they do, to

some extent, but it is an `infactualization', I would tell the hon. member, to

say that we are dealing with the same categories of work on the same basis in

both institutions - we are not.

To the second part of his question, the people who are

working in the home care industry have been traditionally, for many years,

working in that industry on the basis of wages and working conditions that are

currently in existence.

To the third part of the question, government is prepared to

assist the employer and the employees, in terms of bringing about a resolution,

to the extent that we have a responsibility to do that, to the Department of

Environment and Labour. I understand my colleague has made offers of services of

mediation if the parties so choose to take advantage of these things. So, on all

accounts, we are doing what is reasonable, what is appropriate, and what is

proper. I would remind the gentleman again that this is an issue between

employees and an employer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: Government funds.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: Government funds - many, many agencies, and

many, many organizations within the Province, that do things on behalf of

government, but that does not mean we have to get involved in the

employer/employee relationship.

AN HON. MEMBER: Conciliation officers are involved.

MR. MATTHEWS: My hon. colleagues, if I may conclude by

sharing what he has just shared with me, there are conciliators involved at the

moment, so again the hon. member is substantially a day late and a dollar short.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

MR. H. HODDER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader on a

point of order.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

During the Question Period today the hon. the Premier made

some comments to the effect that the Leader of the Opposition makes statements

that he knows to be false. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is clearly unparliamentary.

According to Beauchesne,

Section 494, where it says, `The Acceptance of the Word

of a Member,' and it also says that there should be no imputation of intentional

falsehood permitted. Also, we have to look at

Section 481 where it says that

members are not allowed to impute motives to other hon. members.

Mr. Speaker, I put it forward as a statement for you to

consider and ask the hon. Premier if he could withdraw the language that he used

when he said that the Leader of the Opposition makes statements that he knows to

be false.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, upon reflection I think it is

quite possible that the Leader of the Opposition is not aware when he makes

statements that are false that indeed they are false. Therefore I want to say

that the Leader of the Opposition has clearly made false statements and I hope

he now realizes they are false.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, to the point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, if the Premier were to realize

what parliamentary rules are about - I am one member who has born the brunt of

some unparliamentary comments. Let me say to the Premier directly, that on Page

151 of Beauchesne it is clear. "It has been formally ruled by Speakers that

statements by Members respecting themselves and particularly within their own

knowledge must be accepted. It is not unparliamentary temperately to criticize

statements made by Members as being contrary to the facts; but no" - and I

repeat, Mr. Speaker - "no imputation of intentional falsehood is permissible."

Then on Page 141 it is clear again that it is unparliamentary

"for members to impute bad motives or motives different from those acknowledged

by a member, or to make a personal charge against a member."

It is clear, Mr. Speaker, I think, that the Premier indicated

in Question Period that the Leader of the Opposition knowingly made false

statements and he should be asked to withdraw unequivocally.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. Premier to clarify what he

said.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, like the member opposite I

have had a passing acquaintance with the rules myself in previous existence.

Before I became such a diplomat, I was at one time a member of the opposition

and I came to know the rules, although not with as much consequence as the

member opposite.

Mr. Speaker, what I have said, and what I know to be within

the rules, because I have had a passing acquaintance with them, is that what the

Leader of the Opposition said today on several occasions is false. What is

unparliamentary is to say that the Leader of the Opposition was deliberately

being false, and I have come to the conclusion, because the Leader of the

Opposition says it is so, and the House Leader says it is so, that the Leader of

the Opposition wasn't being deliberately false; he was clearly being unknowingly

false. I withdraw any accusation that he was being deliberately false, but, Mr.

Speaker, I assure you that what he said was false.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I would ask the Speaker to check the wording of Hansard to

see what the Premier actually said, but I would like to say that I never made a

statement that I know to be false. I haven't, and it is incumbent upon the

Premier, if I made a statement that he knows to be false, to indicate what was

false about the statement. I have not heard anything that the Premier has done

to refute the statement that I made.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, again for greater certainly I

take the word of the Leader of the Opposition. I am sure now he is telling the

truth, that he did not realize the false statements he was making were false,

therefore he did not make a deliberately false statement; but, Mr. Speaker, the

statement itself was as false as the day is long.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will check the transcript of Hansard and rule at a

later date.

MR. J. BYRNE: You are a little man, a tiny little man.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: It is true, you are a tiny little man.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Stevie Wonder.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of

Health, the future is so bright, according to the Premier, I had to wear the

shades.

I'm sorry that I have to tell the members on the opposite

side today that I don't have a food fishery petition and that we ran out of

them. I presented so many in the last session - I didn't realize we would be

back this summer, so I only had one left. But if I had a couple of more days I'm

sure I would have some more.

I rise today to present a petition from my district on behalf

of the community of Harbour Round on the noon hour busing. I will read the

petition and then make a few comments on it, seeing as we are into education

reform and so on.

The petition of the undersigned residents of the community of

Harbour Round:

Whereas there are very serious concerns regarding noon hour

busing, we ask that you please consider the petition as a request to reconsider

your decision on noon hour busing. Our children have already lost their school.

Next year they will be in multi-grade classrooms. Specialty areas such as music

and guidance are only on a part-time basis, and our area is an economically

deprived location.

We the people of Harbour Round are presently experiencing

financial hardship, and to send our children out to lunch will cost more money.

Your decision to cut our busing and have our children stay into lunch will once

again hurt the people who can afford it least.

Mr. Speaker, the point I would like to raise and I would like

to mention it to the Minister of Education - we are here debating education

reform and so on. This particular community sends their children from

kindergarten right up through to another school. They wouldn't mind so much if

they had to stay in the school to eat lunch but they don't have a place to sit

to eat lunch. They have to sit in their classrooms or whatever.

Another point, and I mentioned it to the Minister of Health,

this same school, La Rochelle in Brent's Cove, they can't even go to the

fountain to drink water. The water is not drinkable at the school.

Mr. Speaker, the points that these people make I think are

very sincere concerns. They are concerns of not just the community of Harbour

Round in my district, I think they are indicative of what is happening around

the Province. Yes, I agree, and we have been cooperative on education reform

since this debate started, and the minister has confirmed that from yesterday;

we have been cooperative. We have to move on with it.

I guess what the people in this community are really asking

for, I say to the minister, is that a decision on noon hour busing be put off,

at least until conditions at the school can be such that a six-year old can sit

down in a respectable clean place to eat lunch, and they can go to the fountain

afterwards and drink a bit of clean water. I don't think it is a lot to ask. I

don't think they are asking you to indefinitely cancel that decision. I think

what they are doing is trying to put forward the state in their community.

By the way - and the Premier knows this from being in his own

district - Harbour Round is one of the most economically deprived communities on

the Baie Verte Peninsula. The TAGS has not been available to a lot of people in

that community. There is a high level of unemployment in that area. To pack

lunches every day for these students, even if they could go to school to sit

down and eat it, would be a hard thing for these parents.

I think it is a very sincere request and I'm glad I could

bring forward this petition on their behalf today. I'm glad that the House was

open during the summer to be able to do this, because we are heading into the

fall now where school will start up again. At least if they had to stay in

school during the day, that they could sit at a table to eat their lunch, and

they could go to the fountain afterward and have a drink of water. I don't think

that is too much to ask, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to speak briefly in response, in a general sense, to

the concerns that have been raised in the petition by my colleague the Member

for Baie Verte.

This is a situation again, as the minister is aware, where

people throughout this Province are crying out for attention to particular

issues in education on a need by need basis. Clearly the issue of school hour

busing is somewhat of a controversial one, and there is a variety of opinion on

that particular point. However, Mr. Speaker, if it is clearly shown, as is

indicated by the parents of the community of Harbour Round in the District of

Baie Verte, that the water is not fit for human consumption, and if there is no

cafeteria or suitable eating a meeting place for these children, that noon-hour

busing is indeed an answer, or at least, an option that may be taken into

account by this government in dealing with and addressing this particular issue.

Similarly, Mr. Speaker, on the issue of busing generally, as we have seen in a

variety of petitions which have been brought forward by a number of members in

this House, parents and students and other individuals from areas throughout the

city of St. John's - for example, Shea Heights, Brophy Place, New Pennywell Road

and so on - parents from these particular areas have voiced their concerns and

have spoken loudly to the minister that there should be indeed a review of this

situation on a case-by-case basis.

Unfortunately, I understand from the minister that there will

be no decision to reverse that particular concern as raised by the parents and

students in these particular areas; however, that is indicative, I would say,

Mr. Speaker, of the callous approach which has been taken by this government in

dealing with many issues in education, in particular, busing and general school

busing in the city or, depending on the particular circumstance, school-hour

busing in certain communities; this is indicative of the approach that this

government will not take into account what are obviously serious concerns by

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians throughout. So, in that vein, I support the

petition, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask that government give some consideration

to these special circumstances.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that Orders of the Day be

now read.

On motion, that Orders of the Day be now read.

Orders of the Day

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House dissolve

itself into Committee of the Whole to consider Bill No. 19.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Mr. Penney): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Motion No. 2, Mr. Chairman.

Motion No. 2: To Move, pursuant to Standing Order 50, that

the debate of further consideration of Bill 19 entitled, "An Act To Facilitate

The Provision Of Printing, Microfilming And Electronic Imaging To The Government

Of The Province By Kodak Canada Incorporated", standing in the name of the hon.

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation shall not be further

adjourned and that further consideration of any resolution or resolutions,

clause, or clauses,

section or sections,

preamble or

preambles, title or titles,

or whatever else might be related to debate in Committee of the Whole House

respecting Bill No. 19 shall be the first business of the Committee when next

called by the House, and shall not be further postponed.

Motion, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, Order No. 4.

"An Act To Facilitate The Provision Of Printing, Microfilming

And Electronic Imaging To The Government Of The Province By Kodak Canada

Incorporated", (Bill No. 19).

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I figured if I stood up long enough I would eventually be

recognized.

AN HON. MEMBER: We can't see you, boy.

MR. FRENCH: I know, boy; if you can't see me, you should

get your glasses changed. You should go see the Minister of Health, wherever he

is.

Mr. Chairman, again I rise today to speak on this particular

bill. Again I rise today to say that I certainly do not support this particular

bill. We started out the other day by saying, `Why the rush?' and the same thing

applies again today: Why the rush? When this government has the right to go out

and negotiate a contract, why circumvent the Public Tender Act? It is a question

that we have asked, and we have been asking for two days.

We came back here to debate an Education bill. We have been

more than willing - more than willing - to let this particular bill pass so that

we could move on, and close the House, and that would be it; but this government

has seen fit to introduce another motion, another bill, out of the blue, to deal

with Kodak, and nobody on this side of the House, or I am sure on that side, has

any problem with Newfoundland certainly bringing in industry that creates more

jobs. We have absolutely no problem with that at all. The problem here that

arises is that we seem to want to do this in a great big hurry. We seem to want

to do this in a great big hurry. Again I have to wonder why we do not want to go

to public tender, why we do not want to talk to other firms in Newfoundland and

Labrador about this particular bill, and I say again: Why the rush?

I also have a copy of the letter from Robinson-Blackmore.

This one was not addressed to the Premier. This one was addressed to the Leader

of the Opposition, and it says: `In the absence of concrete information to the

contrary, we must assume an arrangement between Kodak and the Provincial

Government will impact negatively on the local print industry. This impact will

not necessarily be limited to the traditional offset printing, but will include

competition with investment made in St. John's specifically within the last two

years.'

So, here it is here; somebody is objecting. Again, I guess,

we have to wonder why. There are other parts to this letter that certainly call

into question this whole bill. For the life of me, I cannot understand; we

really seem to be in a hurry to get this through. What about the thirty-odd

people who work with printing here in Confederation Building? Are these people

looked after? I wonder, are they looked after? Our source of information says

that they are not, and that probably within the next three or four months, we

will find all of these people, or most of them, on the street, and that, of

course, is wrong.

It says here again: `Our biggest single concern is that

government employees with little practical knowledge or experience with the

printing industry will make a decision regarding the future of government

printing and, in turn, potentially the future of the printing industry in St.

John's specifically, and Newfoundland generally. The government printing,

combined with a monopoly situation for some contract period, may create a major

competitor in the local market funded by government printing, indirectly by tax

dollars, and in all likelihood, this operation will compete with local

industry.'

There seems to be here a mad rush to get this bill through.

It is rather strange that we have a company such as Robinson-Blackmore, who have

millions of dollars invested into the economy of this Province - they certainly

have concerns, Mr. Chairman. According to the letter I have - I do not know

which one the Premier has, but according to the letter I have, they certainly

have concerns about where we are and where we are going with this particular

bill.

It says here: `We trust the Government of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador will give this issue sufficient review and analysis to

ensure current investment and employment is not put at risk by the government.

Support of a competing operation in an already overburdened industry, Mr.

Chairman. So we are going to create something else. We are going to bring

somebody in here and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

As the Premier said, we have the highest unemployment rate in

Canada and any new industry we can bring into this Province, this member here

and I am sure all the members on this side of the House are fully supportive of

it. We are not supportive, Mr. Chairman, of the rush to get this bill through.

The rush to call us back for an education bill and in the middle of it, throw

this in. Just throw it in the middle and hopefully we will get it passed. We

agreed, Mr. Chairman, and we still live by that commitment by the way - we fully

support the education legislation with some very minor changes. I understand

those changes were made yesterday. If that bill were on the Order Paper by

itself, we would be out of here this afternoon. The House would be closed. We

would have been gone yesterday afternoon. But for some reason, somebody wanted

to throw this red herring in. Stick one in the middle and hopefully the

Opposition will buy it, they will not ask any questions, and here we are.

Unfortunately, I could not be here last night, Mr. Chairman,

I wish I could have been. I certainly would have spoken against this particular

bill. I think it is wrong, radically wrong. I certainly did not expect closure.

You would expect that, I suppose, if the House were in full session; then, you

might expect it. But when you are called back to do one thing and you are asked

to do something else, then there is something wrong here. This whole thing

smells to me.

AN HON. MEMBER: Stinks.

MR. FRENCH: Stinks if you want, my hon. colleague, yes,

it is not a word that I am opposed to. There is something wrong here, Mr.

Chairman. I think somebody should go back to their -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Oh there is, the Government House Leader can

be assured of that. There is something wrong here somewhere. It is called cost

plus.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Yes, get into the power and all of that, but

I don't think we are here for that. I don't think we came here for that, Mr.

Chairman, but if you would like to get into it, we can certainly do so. I am not

opposed to getting into the subject of the power that is going out of this

Province. There is not a problem with Churchill Falls for me at all. Trans City

is certainly not a problem for me either. So while the Government House Leader

is over there talking away, throws in a scattered laugh and gets up and has a

walk around the House and keeps babbling on, that's fine, Mr. Chairman, but

somewhere in the middle of this -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Well, maybe if you would be quiet I would be

able to continue and then maybe I would get through it that much faster, but

while you want to talk you keep going.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) provoke me, boy.

MR. FRENCH: Provoke you - I really don't care if I

provoke you or not. I couldn't care less about that. What I am concerned about

is the bill that he and the rest of them over there are trying to sneak through,

this particular piece of legislation. There must be a big dark secret, Mr.

Chairman. The Government House Leader is very concerned. He threw this in the

middle of everything; we should get this done, get it done, get it done. Why did

he not just come in with his education bill? Why didn't he just bring his

education bill in? He would have gotten it passed. It would have been passed and

he could have been gone last night, Mr. Chairman, but no, he didn't want to do

that. He wanted to get this one in the middle, so that we could see exactly -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: That's right, and it is in the middle; and I

tell you what, in the middle it will stay until you run us out, you can be sure

of that.

So, Mr. Speaker, there is a rush to this. We have been told

that maybe the deal is already done. When somebody mentioned the meetings with

the President of NAPE, I also had the opportunity to talk to the President of

NAPE, and I am not so such that everything that has been said in relationship to

the President of NAPE may be gospel. He might even go so far as to say that he

probably thought that maybe this was a fait accompli, that in actual fact it was

already done; and if that is the case then it is certainly morally wrong.

I go back again to the letter from Robinson-Blackmore which

was addressed to the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, they have grave

concerns about this bill. They are very concerned about the loss of government

jobs with the opportunity to do this in the Province; and as part of their

proposal - they were part of the Kojak or the Xerox proposal. It goes on here to

talk about other operators in the local market, including M5 Advertising

Limited, MRI Printing Limited, Sterling Press, and Dicks and Company who also

have high end digital imagery capability. They have the ability to do this work,

they have the ability to get this work done.

It is rather strange that we are here again today debating

this. We were here last night and we will probably be here tonight, I say to the

Government House Leader, debating this particular bill.

MR. TULK: Want to put money on it?

MR. FRENCH: Oh, yes, it is a sure bet. I say to the

Government House Leader, that's a sure bet that one could certainly win.

Again, to the minister, I think it is wrong. She should go

back and negotiate this contract. If it takes thirty days or if it takes ninety

days, what difference does it make? If it is worth doing then it is worth doing

right; so regardless of how long we take to get this ready then let us do it and

let us do it right. We do not need to circumvent the government tendering act;

we do not need to do that. We have seen enough of that in the past; Trans City

and other things. We do not need to go around the Public Tender Act.

What we should do here, Mr. Chairman, is delay this

particular piece of legislation. The government should go on its way and

negotiate its contract and hopefully bring it to a conclusion that will benefit

all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and have no impact whatsoever on the other

printing people in this Province who are capable of doing this particular type

of work. We have to be fair to the other printers in this Province, and we have

to protect the jobs which we have already created.

The HUB is certainly one good instance where they have told

us there could be a loss of jobs. So I think it is time we took the second look,

that we send this legislation back, and that the minister continue on with

negotiations. In the end, let us bring it back to the House when it is

finalized. To give us a sheet of paper to look at and say: well, here is what we

want to do, we want to go around the Public Tender Act, that is wrong; so let us

bring the legislation back here when it is concluded, I say to the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation. When the negotiations are over let us bring

it back in here, let us sit down, let us go over it clause by clause, piece by

piece, and if it is good for this Province then this side of the House here will

have no objections to supporting this bill. While it stays as it is, Mr.

Chairman, I, for one, will certainly not vote to support it. I will certainly

vote against it.

Whether I'm here tonight or tomorrow night, or the next night

after, doesn't really matter to me. If we have to sit all night that really

doesn't matter to me either. We are here to debate this particular piece of

legislation. It is dead wrong and it should be corrected.

Thank you for your time, Sir.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm here today again to rise in my place and say a few words

on Bill No. 19. As I stated yesterday, I don't think we should be discussing

Bill No. 19. We were called back to discuss an education bill. That is what was

stated in June before the House closed; but again, of course, the Premier of

this Province, as the premier before him, is trying to pull a fast one and rush

this legislation through the House when he figures everybody is here and doesn't

really want to be here. Holidays are coming, people have holidays planned, bring

this in and we will rush it through; according to his plan, but that is not what

happened, Mr. Chairman. We were here till 11:30 last night discussing this bill

and we will be here, I would say, this afternoon and this evening for quite some

time also.

Mr. Chairman, this morning the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation was on the open line show trying to sell this piece of

legislation to the public. From my perspective, she made quite a few comments

that I think need to be contradicted and the actual facts told.

The minister was on this morning and she made a comment with

respect to working a deal of five years with the Kodak people. Now, Mr.

Chairman, there is no mention of five years in the contract or in the

legislation in Bill No. 19. It isn't in the legislation. Why isn't it in the

legislation? The Member for Topsail is completely confused as usual, mentioning

thirty days. Thirty days is the time frame to come to an agreement, but if you

would read the Hansard yesterday - and I will quote Hansard - what the minister

said, "The bill which is before you would exclude these services from the

provisions of the Public Tender Act for the duration of the agreement and any

subsequent renewal of the agreement."

That is in perpetuity, Mr. Chairman, for eternity. This could

be for eternity, this contract; nothing to do with five years. There is nothing

in this bill for five years. Once this deal is done - and that is one of the

reasons why they want to rush this through the House - they won't have time to

get public opinion up against it like we got public opinion up against the

Newfoundland Hydro deal. We were told, from that side of the House, Mr.

Chairman, that we were fear-mongering - and the likes of these few foolish

comments from the premier of the day, from the Government House Leader and the

various ministers. They got up and said that we were fear-mongering, and we are

doing the same thing now.

We were proven to be right. There is nothing in this bill;

one paragraph giving the government the authority to work a deal with a company.

I don't care what company it is, it is wrong. A company -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) if you want, if it is not too much

of a strain to read it.

MR. J. BYRNE: My name is not Tulk, no.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, you got that right.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is right. I can read, don't you worry

about that, I say to the Government House Leader.

Again we get back to the five year thing. The minister was on

the radio this morning - I don't know if it was (inaudible), I can't say it, but

she was not giving the facts. She was saying it was a five-year deal. If it is a

five-year deal, there is no deal worked; but she was talking about a five-year

deal.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation was talking about a five-year deal. It isn't in this bill. They

are talking about going on to renew, Mr. Chairman, the agreement, so it could be

renewed and renewed and renewed and renewed. So giving the people a false

impression that it was only five years.

Again, as I said earlier, the reason why it is being rushed

through this House is so public opinion won't be up against it. We don't know

the facts, we haven't been given the facts, and we haven't been given answers to

the questions that we have asked.

I'm going to quote again from Hansard, a comment that the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation made yesterday. I will just take

a minute to find it here now. Just listen to this comment from the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation. It is on page 1163, July 24, 1996, from

Hansard. I think we can quote from Hansard. It is supposed to be a direct

transcript of what was said in the House of Assembly. It says: In terms of the

essence of the Public Tender Act, in terms of the intent of this government to

ensure that all businesses in this Province have fair and equal access to the

business of government, the intent of the legislation is being upheld by going

through this process today.

Now, the intent of the Public Tender Act is being upheld by

putting legislation through the House that circumvents the Public Tender Act.

What a contradiction. What a contradiction in one sentence.

It was upheld when the original bid and call for the

proposals was issued, where we went back to every individual company which had

bid on the original management proposal. Now, we went back to every company -

which was three companies - and they made changes to what was asked in the

original proposal call, because they went out and asked for those people, the

two companies, to come in. So, in actual fact, a number of companies within this

Province could have bid on this work; but, no, because of the process that was

followed, again in its very nature circumventing the Public Tender Act,

companies in this Province, and companies within Canada and internationally,

were forbidden to bid on this work, or were not allowed to bid on this work.

The minister and the Premier jump to their feet and talk

about bringing work here. It looks like, from my perspective again, you are

dealing with people you want to deal with. There could be all kinds of companies

on the planet that might be interested in bidding on this work, but no, they -

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible) solution?

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Topsail wants a solution.

Follow the Public Tender Act, scrap this Bill 19, and work a deal and bring it

back to the Legislature, like what was done with NewTel. That is what should be

done, I say to the Member for Topsail, the legal beagle from Topsail. That is

what should be done. There is no big deal about that. It is very simple, very

easy to understand.

Why does the Premier and the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation again need this to be put through the House now, and have thirty

days to work a deal? Now, why is the figure thirty days? Why is it not

twenty-nine, thirty-one, forty-five, ten? Why? Because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That is it. Oh, there may be other reasons

why. Other provinces may be involved here too, I say to the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation. They are doing certain things to break the Public

Tender Act when there is absolutely no need for it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible). Other provinces would not take

it.

MR. J. BYRNE: Other provinces probably would not break

the Public Tender Act to get a deal, I would say to the Member for Topsail. No,

Sir.

Again, the question is: Why do we need this legislation? We

asked the Premier; the Leader of the Opposition asked the Premier. He asked the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and the only answers we get are

basically the Premier jumping to his feet and ranting and raving. I really,

actually thought that he was going to stand on the desk, on his head, and spit

nickels; he was looking for attention that much yesterday and again today when

questions were asked. The Premier stood on his feet and would not give any

answers, and tried in his usual fashion to throw it back on this side of the

House that we were being negative and that we were trying to stop progress,

which is ludicrous. It is foolish, it is idiotic, I day to you, Mr. Chairman,

that anybody would try to make those kinds of statements and try to deflect it

to this side of the House when the members on the government side of the House

are the ones who are doing wrong here, not the members of the Opposition.

The government expects the members of the Opposition over

here, and the member of the NDP Party, to give a rubber stamp to this

administration, and they are not going to get it from this. We saw what happened

when the Public Tender Act was broken before, when the courts decided, the two

courts - the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, the highest court in the Province,

stated that the government on that side of the House, the previous

administration - the front benches here are mostly full of the previous

administration, and are members of the Cabinet now today - when they broke the

Public Tender Act before, a couple of years ago with the Trans City scandal, it

is going to cost this Province and the taxpayers of this Province untold

millions of dollars. We really do not have a figure of that yet but it is

certainly starting to climb up there now. We know it is going to cost at least

$30 million, $40 million, maybe upwards of $50 million when it is all said and

done, when the legal fees have been paid, and the extra money that was paid out

for the highest price that came in on the three hospitals, when it could have

been gone to another bidder for much less money, I say to you, Mr. Chairman. So

the government is not going to get a rubber stamp from us and possibly do the

same thing again.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation stood in

her place yesterday and made a statement: if we can work out a better deal that

is in the best interests of the people of this Province we will sign a deal

within thirty days. Now we saw again what happened when this administration -

again, I can't say this administration, but the previous Premier and most of the

front benches worked a deal -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: - the Newfoundland Hydro deal; again, as I

said before earlier, we opposed it and the people of this Province got up

against it and it proved that we were right. The Trans City; again that is what

happens when you try to work deals behind closed doors. The taxpayer of this

Province is the one who is usually overexposed, not the government members, Mr.

Chairman, although they should have paid the price for that one.

Two or three years ago, when the government tried to

privatize NLCS Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services - and they did do

that - they brought it to the House and we were told that it would be more

efficient, that it would be more effective, there would be no job losses and

that it would save the taxpayer of this Province millions and millions of

dollars. What did we see, Mr. Chairman? We saw people let go from NLCS, we saw

that the taxpayers of this Province are now paying much more, in the millions

and millions of dollars, for the same services that have been given to the

government. Now they are being supplied to the government by the new company,

NewTel; millions and millions of dollars more for the same service that Memorial

University used to receive. Departments like Government Services and Lands and

the Department of Crown lands utilized the services of NLCS. They are now paying

millions and millions of dollars more than they were supposed to; it was

supposed to save money.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about those computers in Social

Services?

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh well, the computers, that's an issue

too. The computers were supposed to computerize - another brain wave of this

administration, Mr. Chairman, was to computerize government. Technically

speaking it should be a good move but I think it started out at $10 million and

went up to $40 million and $50 million.

When we were doing the Government Services Estimates

Committee hearings here earlier in the spring, after the Budget came down, Mr.

Chairman, I noticed that in every government department there were untold

thousands and thousands of dollars for computer services for each department. I

had to ask the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation where was it going

to end? Is there any time limit, any time frame? Is there any cap on the amount

of money that they are going to spend, I asked the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation and no answer. It could not be answered. No answers on why it

cost $50 million basically, to computerize social services, up from $10 million.

I will tell you why, because the people who were asking to be computerized did

not know what they wanted, did not know what they needed. Then they went out and

asked the company to come in and then it went from there. No proper planning

again, Mr. Chairman, that is what is going on here; and they expect this side

over here and the people of this Province to trust the government to work a good

deal and give them a blank cheque, Mr. Chairman. Not so, it is not going to

happen, not from my perspective or any stretch of the imagination.

Now again, we were called back here, Mr. Chairman, to discuss

the education reform. We were called back in mid-July to put the bill through

which was again, a situation where this administration made a complete

schemozzle of the whole education reform. They called us back to discuss

education. We had no problem with that. We were quite cooperative. We came here

and we saw problems with the education bill and the Leader of the Opposition

made an amendment, proposed an amendment and it was accepted, dealt with. Great

cooperation, Mr. Chairman, went on in this House, but when it came to this Bill

No. 19, no way were we going to let that slide, Mr. Chairman, not at all.

Then we saw last night at approximately 11:30 p.m., the

Government House Leader standing in his place and bringing in closure on this

bill. Again, a tactic that was utilized by the previous administration - he had

a great teacher - more times in one year than it had been utilized from 1949,

until that last year that we were sitting.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) try after that?

MR. J. BYRNE: Joey Smallwood, I suppose.

MR. TULK: No, no.

MR. J. BYRNE: Clyde Wells.

MR. TULK: Two, actually, one, Gerry Ottenheimer and one,

Bill Marshall.

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh yes, I would say; I would say. Well, you

had good teachers.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we are discussing Bill 19. Again, the

Premier stood in his place yesterday and he said - you have to listen to this

Premier almost as carefully as you had to listen to the previous Premier, with

respect to the words and the play on words, technicalities and semantics and the

questions asked with respect to the number of employees, security of employees,

pensions for the employees and broken contracts. After a lot of hassle from this

side of the House, the Premier stood and said: Well, I would expect the majority

of the workers to maintain their jobs either with Kodak or with the government.

Now, two key words here: `expect' is a big word in this

situation. He expects, it is not definite, it is not something that is likely to

happen; it is something that he expects might happen; and the `majority' - if

there were 100 employees, the majority could be fifty-one, could be fifty-two,

could be ninety-nine but could be fifty-one - but he `expects' the `majority'.

In actual fact, was he expecting the majority to be fifty-one? But then again,

it could be the minority because he is only expecting the majority to be taken

care of. So that is where you have to listen very carefully to the answers that

are given by the Premier, and again, I suppose, he must have had a lot of

dealings with the previous Premier, because he certainly seems to be pulling the

same tactics.

Now, again, this side of the House - and it was thrown from

that side of the House that we were opposing progress and that we did not want

to create jobs and what have you, malarkey, foolishness, Mr. Chairman. We, on

this side of the House, certainly support privatization in situations where it

makes sense, where it is more cost effective, Mr. Chairman, but, we are not

going to support privatization of any - at least I am not going to support

privatization of any part of government that is going to circumvent the Public

Tender Act, to privatize a

section of government, to put it out in the public

domain, in private industry, when we don't know what the facts, the figures and

the details are going to be of any deal, I say to you, Mr. Chairman.

You know, it is all well and good for the Premier to stand in

his place and, as I said earlier, rant and rave and make all kinds of

accusations, but the people of this Province expect more. Three or four months

ago, during the election, the Premier of this Province went around and made a

lot of promises; he built their hopes up, with the help of the national media, I

might add, big time. The national media built him up big time, and he went

around and built up the hopes of the people of this Province. And they expect

more than for him to stand in his place and try to cast aspersions on this side

of the House, that we are opposing progress.

Mr. Chairman, that is not what the people want, the people

want action; the people want something done. They don't want to have an

administration in here that is following in the footsteps of the previous

Administration, who abused the power of the House of Assembly by bringing

closure any time they wanted. They don't want that, they want an administration

that is going to follow the rules and the procedures of the House, not to abuse

the procedures and the rules of the House Assembly, and they do not want an

administration that is going to break the Public Tender Act if and when they

want to.

Now, it is all well and good to say that this is only a

specific situation where we need to break or circumvent the Public Tender Act to

get this deal. If they are going to do it now, how do you know they are not

going to do it next week when some other company comes in and makes an offer to

- anything, to run say, Crown lands over there or to run the - aha, now, that is

something that just came to my mind. Crown lands in itself has a department over

there, it is the photo lab. The photo lab in the Department of Crown Lands is a

moneymaker for this government. People go in there, they have aerial photography

done, they have all the photographs back from the 1930s on, '30s, '40s, '50s,

'60s, '70s, they have all the mapping over there. So now, will this

section of

government go to Kodak?

Now, Mr. Chairman, is that a deal that is being worked? Is

that being privatized? Are the people at Crown Lands now, in that section, in

the photo lab and the photo library, going to be privatized? Is that something

that we don't know about? How many other departments or sections of departments

are going to be privatized? So, Mr. Chairman, the point to be made is that if

they are going to do it once they will do it again and again and again, whenever

the whim hits them. Whenever they have the brainwave, that is when they will do

it.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. J. BYRNE: Just to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is my first time rising on this Bill 19, and it is

probably a very sad day for Newfoundland if this bill gets passed.

I would like to first talk about the fact that Kodak would

have a monopoly for government business here in Newfoundland, and we have been

told in the House today, and told by members of the government, that we are

fearmongering, spreading rhetoric. This is not the case. We have correspondence

from a number of different companies here in St. John's, and I will just give

you an idea of Robinson-Blackmore. We read out the letter from Xerox last

evening. Yes, you have a copy of Xerox. You are as informed as we are, so we are

not fearmongering.

Just a couple of sentences out of the Robinson-Blackmore

letter that we received today. They say that on June 27 of 1996, informal

information began to trickle back to Robinson-Blackmore that stated that Kodak

had their proposal and it had been accepted, and the process was now being put

in place to finalize the deal. So, it is not rhetoric. We are not fearmongering.

We have some legitimate concerns. If the deal is already put in place, why are

we trying to ram this legislation through?

They go on to say that the government printing, combined with

a monopoly situation for some contract period, may create a major competitor in

the local market, funded by government printing indirectly by tax dollars. So if

we are going to create a monopoly here, and a major competitor, to companies

that have been long-standing companies in our community, companies such as

Robinson-Blackmore, companies such as M5 Advertising Limited, companies such as

MRI Printing, companies such as Sterling Press and Dicks and Company, these

companies who have invested millions of dollars into our economy and employ

thousands of people in our economy... Right now Kodak employs a grand total of

four people in Newfoundland.

AN HON. MEMBER: Only four?

MR. OSBORNE: Only four people.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is all?

MR. OSBORNE: And we are going to give them a monopoly on

government printing. I ask, are we fearmongering? I do not think so. I do not

think so.

The letter goes on to state: Any high-end digital imaging

operation will, however, compete with local business, and perhaps drive some of

these companies out of business because they are funded by taxpayers' dollars;

they have a monopoly on government printing. This is not fearmongering. These

are some real, legitimate concerns we have here.

They go on to say that Robinson-Blackmore has an investment

in Newfoundland of over $20 million. They have been a good corporate citizen to

our Province. Do we want to risk driving this company, as well as several

others, out of business because we are going to give a monopoly to Kodak?

Now, I have no problem with giving a monopoly to a company if

it is done through the process, through the public tendering process, but to

just go out and give them a monopoly because we seem to like the way they do

business, or we seem to know somebody there, or whatever the situation may be, I

do not know, but I think that this should go through the public tendering

process. That is what it is set up to do. We do not want to set a bad precedent

here, which is what is going to happen.

Robinson-Blackmore themselves employ over 250 people in

Newfoundland. We got a letter from Xerox yesterday; they employ approximately

forty people as compared to Kodak's four.

They also go on to say, in Robinson-Blackmore's letter: We

understand that off-Island business is being targeted as one of Kodak's

deliverabilities. They say that in reality, if paper has to be shipped into our

Province and ink printed onto that paper, and then shipped out again, a

definitive competitive disadvantage is taking place, therefore we fail to

understand how Kodak is going to attract a substantial portion of off-Island

business.

We are not fearmongering. These are legitimate concerns. We

have some legitimate fears here. If this were all done through the public

tendering process, we would have no problem with it. The only problem we have is

that we are passing off a business, a monopoly on government printing, to a

company, without going out and saying to our own local companies which have been

good corporate citizens within our Province, without giving them the opportunity

to bid on such a project. Kodak's money is going to go out of Newfoundland. Any

excess profits that Kodak makes are going to go out of our Province,

whereas if

we were to set it up with a locally owned and operated business, the majority of

that profit would stay here to benefit us.

That is what it is all about, keeping money here in

Newfoundland. Why are we so eager to give a monopoly to Kodak and send our money

off somewhere else? Like I said, if they were to win this process through the

public tendering process, then that is fair. I have no problem with that; but we

are setting up a monopoly with a company from the mainland that are going to

take our taxpayers' dollars and any excess profits back to the mainland, as

opposed to setting up businesses or keeping the money here in Newfoundland where

it belongs.

We have to keep the door to fair competition open, and by

going around the public tendering process, we are not, we are closing the door.

This is not fair competition - it is no competition. It is a monopoly. I want to

just go back to one other example, to Trans City, where we went around the

public tending process.

AN HON. MEMBER: We never.

MR. OSBORNE: Well, we never, but the Liberal Government

went around the public tendering process. And what happened? The government was

sued. Now, they have to pay approximately $1.3 million, I believe it is, to the

company that brought the government to court, and there is a possibility that

they are going to have to pay the same settlement to the other company that lost

out in the process, and there is a possibility of even more damages, over and

above the fact that it cost our government, our taxpayers, the people of this

Province untold dollars in legal fees to fight a wrong that this government

created.

Not only did they fight the wrong, they have been proven

wrong through the legal system, and now they want to take it higher, to another

court again, only to be proven wrong again, costing even more taxpayer's

dollars. This is crazy. It has been determined that this deal is going to cost

the people of our Province approximately $30 million in interest over the course

of the payback. Does this sound like going past or going around the public

tendering process is good news for our Province? We are not fearmongering. We

are bringing some legitimate concerns to light.

MR. WISEMAN: You are fearmongering.

MR. OSBORNE: Legitimate concerns, I say to the legal

genius from Topsail. The legal beagle. Our money should stay right here in

Newfoundland and Labrador where it belongs. That is all we are saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is it going?

MR. OSBORNE: Well, if we give a monopoly to Kodak, our

money will be going to the mainland, and like I said, if they win it through

fair competition, through the public tendering process, we have no problem with

that. We are looking to give a lifetime contract to Kodak, or should I say the

contract of a lifetime. That is probably more like it, the contract of a

lifetime.

All we have to do is look back at the mistakes that the

government of whatever day it was, be it Liberal or PC in our Province, the

mistakes that they made by going around the public tendering process, and it

will clearly state that this legislation was put in place for a reason and that

is to open the doors to fair competition, to keep everything above board, to

make it legitimate. By going around this process and making secretive deals with

some company here or there or whatever, we are closing the door to fair

competition. We are erasing any possibility of local companies here bidding and

being accepted to perform this operation.

Now, what we are doing, as a matter of fact, in an effort to

beat New Brunswick at a game that they seem to have perfected, we are willing to

give away the shop to say, `Now, we beat New Brunswick. We won the contract. We

got Kodak here.' I think it is more important to keep our money here. I think it

is more important to have fair competition, and if Sterling Press,

Robinson-Blackmore or Dicks and Company can do the work and they put in a bid

and it is acceptable and they win the contract, well, then that's great. If not,

if Kodak does, well, then that's great, too, but at least we have done it fairly

through the public tendering process. There is nothing wrong with doing it fair

and square.

If it is such a good deal that we have from Kodak, if this is

such a fantastic deal that we should sign it today, pass this legislation

through, ram it through, put a close on debate last night - in one day we opened

debate and put a close on it the same day. I mean if it is such a good deal that

we are getting from Kodak, let them win it through the public tendering process.

I am sure they will win it if it is that great a deal. We are told by the hon.

the Premier that this is a deal we cannot pass up. Then why are we so afraid to

go through the public tendering process? Why are we afraid to go through the

public tendering process if this is such a fantastic deal? I think we should

open the door to competition, explore the public tendering process and see what

other deals are out there.

In Robinson-Blackmore's letter - just to go back to that for

a second - Robinson-Blackmore had put in a tender to manage the provincial

printing shop and so did Xerox, and before they knew it, Kodak was given

exclusive rights to take it over, not just manage it, to take it over. So, in an

effort to win in competition, Robinson-Blackmore and Xerox joined forces, they

got together. It says here, `Robinson-Blackmore and Xerox had individual

proposals before the government to assume management of the printing operation.

When information regarding the unsolicited bid from Kodak became known, Xerox

and Robinson-Blackmore combined forces to submit a privatization plan to the

government to operate the printing plant'- the same as what Kodak submitted to

the government, and it seems that the deal was accepted before the public ever

even knew about it, before it went to a public tendering process.

All we are asking here is that we be fair to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. We are asking to open up the public tendering process

and give everybody a fair chance. I really don't think it is a good idea to go

around the public tendering process and give a monopoly to one particular

company and avoid competition. This is setting a very, very bad precedent here,

and if we are going to start this now, what is next? What is next, another

Quebec deal on the Lower Churchill Falls, maybe, a special deal cooked up on

Voisey's Bay? What else are we going to give away? Have we not learned from our

past mistakes? All we want is that we be fair to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. Let us bring back the public tendering process and keep it in place on

the Kodak bid. That is all we ask.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again I rise to voice opposition and concern to the

legislation which is known as Bill No. 19,

An Act To Facilitate The Provision Of

Printing, Microfilming And Electronic Imaging To The Government Of The Province

By Kodak Canada Incorporated.

We have heard many arguments again now for the second day,

arguments which express concern and voice opposition to the procedure and the

process which is being used which is envisaged in this legislation. I think it

is quite clear to members opposite that the main bone of contention is clearly

the explicit reference to the exclusion of the Public Tender Act. The Public

Tender Act, as has been expressed by many of my colleagues, is sacred

legislation in this Province which guarantees a sanctity and an integrity of the

contracting process.

Above and beyond that point, and I will return to that point

in a moment, another concern which I have and I am sure is shared by my

colleagues, is the question of: Is this just the beginning? Is there more to

come? Are there other government agencies and other funded services of

government which will soon go down the same path as we find with the providing

of services in printing, microfilming and electronic imaging?

For example, how long is it, perhaps, before the Registrar of

Motor Vehicles, his office and the motor vehicle registry - like in this

particular case with printing services in this Province, how long is it before

there will be another secret deal worked out, there will be another party who

will negotiate behind closed doors, to the exclusion of public tender

legislation, to try to negotiate with government on the pretence that it is in

the best interest of the people of this Province, and in so doing, evade the

provisions of the Public Tender Act? How long is it before the motor vehicle

registry comes under the same gun?

How long is it before the Registry of Deeds, which is located

in this very building on the basement floor - how long is it before services

which are provided by the Registrar of Deeds and his staff are again privatized

to the point that there are secret negotiations, secret deals with interested

third parties, again to the exclusion of the very important legislation known as

the Public Tender Act? How long is it before that occurs?

How about the Registry of Chattel Mortgages and Conditional

Sales? Again, an important registry which of course keeps record of all chattel

mortgages and conditional sales and bills of sales when they are used as

security documentation - how long is it before this registry, too, is

negotiated, the workers' lives are put on hold, and the provisions and services

rendered by this particular registry, the terms and the services provided, are

again negotiated behind closed doors at the expense of the Public Tender Act?

It goes on and on. Because there are many other similar

services which are provided by government which, if worked at, could easily be

negotiated with private enterprise. For example, others may include the Crown

Lands office. Like the printing offices, it is a government service. Civil

servants are required to deal with affairs concerning land and properties in the

Province; to help the public in dealing with issues and questions and leases and

grants and land arrangements with respect to Crown property in the Province. I

ask the question, Mr. Chairman: How long is it before an outside, secret,

undisclosed party is asked to sit down and negotiate with government, again in

denial of the particulars of the Public Tender Act?

The photo lab with Crown lands could be done the same way.

The photo library with Crown lands, that could be done the same way; the mapping

services provided by a couple of the provincial departments, that, too, could be

negotiated secretly at the expense of public tender legislation, at the expense

of, Mr. Chairman, other interested parties, local parties, who may be very well

interested in at least having an opportunity to put their positions forward and

to attempt to negotiate in good faith with government, to provide the very

services which are required to aid the public of this Province. But no, if this

precedent-setting legislation is in fact passed and becomes law in this

Province, we will have unknown, undisclosed, hidden deals by parties who feel,

Mr. Chairman, that because they are protected in the absence of public tender

legislation, who feel that they can get away with it. Mr. Chairman, that is what

is unfair and this is only the beginning, as I said.

In six months time or in twelve months time there may very

well be a variety of agencies and services provided by government who will be

found and caught in the same type of legislation that we see here before us this

afternoon. But there is more. How about the registry, again contained within

this building, the Registry of Vital Statistics? You know, the registry which

grants birth certificates, marriage certificates and death certificates? That,

too, it would seem to me, can be easily privatized. There can be secret deals,

there can be secret discussions; there can be an attempt made very easily to

again avoid the provisions of public tender legislation.

If one even wants to go far enough, the Sheriff's Office

under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice, the Office of the Sheriff

of this Province, which deals with judgements and liens and encumbrances against

properties and assets - why not? If government can feel it can deal with

Printing Services in this manner, in this somewhat callous and unfair manner,

why not? let us extend it to other government offices; maybe there is somebody

out there who would like to negotiate with government knowing full well that

they do not have to submit a bid; knowing full well that there is no equal

playing field; knowing full well that if there are the right people, the right

contacts, that a deal can be struck; a deal, Mr. Chairman, which can last

forever! a sweetheart deal, a deal which anybody in his right mind would want to

consider and would jump at when given the opportunity, so let us do the same

with the Sheriff's Office.

It is a service provided by government to the public of this

Province. Let us sit down with individuals to the exclusion of others who, in

good faith would like to have the opportunity to do business with the

representatives of the people of this Province, namely, the government of this

Province. How about Wildlife, Mr. Chairman? The granting of licences - hunting

licences and so on? It seems to me to be a type of service which the public will

obviously rely on from time to time, and services are given by government to the

benefit of the public, and that, too. I am sure there is an agency or an

organization or group who may very well want to sit down with government

representatives in an attempt, knowing full well that there will not be

competition, that their discussions, if successful, will rule the day, and that

they, too, will not be bound by the strict provisions of public tender

legislation in the Province.

Maybe even a park permit, a provincial park permit, let us do

the same there; let us hire a company that is prepared to issue permits for

people who want to enjoy the facilities and the amenities that are offered by

provincial parks and other recreational facilities throughout the Province.

The Assessment Division of Municipal and Provincial Affairs,

why not? Why not? There is no difference in principle in terms of a service

being provided to the public by government. Let us negotiate another secret

deal. Let us avoid the strict provisions of public tender legislation when

dealing with the assessment branch of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

You see, Mr. Chairman, this is the danger. It is printing

today; what will it be tomorrow? The precedent in this legislation will have

been set, the precedent will have been determined, and all government has to do,

and, in fact, all anybody who wants to do business with government has to do, is

point to a bill known as Bill 19, "An Act To Facilitate The Provision Of

Printing, Microfilming And Electronic Imaging To The Government Of The Province

By Kodak Canada Incorporated". There it is; there is the precedent. There is the

legislation which paves the way.

Mr. Chairman, if you want to get your car registered, if you

want to register any commercial or recreational vehicle, if you want to register

your deed, or your mortgage, or a debenture, or any document relating to the

transfer of property, if you want to register a chattel mortgage or a

conditional sale document, if you need services provided by the offices of Crown

lands in the photo lab, in the photo library, if you have dealings with the

Assessment Division of Municipal and Provincial Affairs through mapping, if you

want a birth certificate, a death certificate, a marriage certificate, if you

want information provided by the Sheriff's Office in terms of what judgement may

be held against a particular company or corporate entity or individual, or what

property has a lien or incumbrance against it, if you want a hunting permit, any

type of recreational permit, a park permit, this legislation makes it very easy

to simply negotiate with government, work out a deal, do not include others, and

a tidy little arrangement is made between a successful and preferred individual

or agency or organization or company, again to the exclusion of anybody else

who, all they ask is that they have a chance to participate. That is all they

ask.

Mr. Chairman, that is why I am unable to support this

legislation. It sets a pattern which I fear. It sets a precedent which others

within this Province, and more particularly outside this Province, will jump at

in an effort to show that: Listen, this is the way business is done in this

Province. This is how you negotiate with government. We do not have to worry

anymore about competition. We do not have to worry about other, perhaps even

local Newfoundland companies, which may be interested in joining in negotiations

and discussions. The reason why is because Bill 19 has set the way.

In conclusion, I join with my colleagues in opposition to

this piece of legislation. The arguments have been well provided by the Leader

and by my colleagues. Question Period in two days has brought out the concerns

quite significantly. I feel that the Government of this Province has to rethink

its position with respect to this particular piece of legislation, and to take

into account the serious implications of the impact that this legislation may

well have when dealing with other government services, other goods and services

which are provided, other funded services.

My final point is, again, we see under

section 3, it is clear

that: `where a public work is to be executed under the direction of a government

funded body or goods or services are to be acquired by a government funded body,

the government funded body shall invite tenders' - shall; it is a must, no

discretion - `for the execution or the acquisition.'

It is a blatant disregard of legislation which was put in

place to protect the interests of ordinary business people who, in a serious

effort, want to do business with the government of the people of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this piece of

legislation at Committee stage. I want to thank the Government House Leader for

his closure motion, for encouraging all hon. members, through his closure

motion, to speak for a further twenty minutes on this issue.

Before I get into the details of my remarks, I just want to

make sure that hon. members are aware that if there had not been any

co-operation from the Opposition with respect to this piece of legislation,

there would be no possibility, none, of having this legislation passed till at

least Monday of next week. Given how the rules of the House operate, with no

closure motion at all, and with full or limited debate by all parties on this

bill, this legislation would not be able to be passed into law until next Monday

without the co-operation of members on this side of the House.

Let me explain how that works. We came back in here on

Tuesday to debate Bill No. 8, which had already been given notice of motion in

the House. We came to the House. We could have debated Bill No. 8 on Tuesday and

Wednesday, or Tuesday and Wednesday with the co-operation of this side of the

House. But in order to introduce any other new legislation the following would

have to take place. Number one, on Bill 19, there would have to be a notice of

motion given on Tuesday. Notice of motion was given. Wednesday would have come

along and that would have been Private Members' Day and we would have had a

debate on a private member's resolution. Thursday would have come along, and

there would have been first reading; Friday, second reading, and Committee

perhaps; Monday, third reading.

So it would have been next Monday when this legislation would

have been passed, unless the members on this side of the House co-operated. They

did. Members on this side of the House agreed, number one, to waive the

requirement of a debate or a delay for first reading and to allow first reading

on the same day as notice was given. Members also agreed to waive the

requirement of Wednesday being a Private Members' Day and yet here we are on

Thursday, closure having been introduced after only one day of debate on the

bill, not even one day.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: There was other legislation debated

yesterday, wasn't there? I am sure there was. Not even a full day.

So from the cooperation that was offered initially we are now

at the point where the government is forcing the bill through when a sensible

alternative has been proposed. Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, I offered a sensible

alternative. I suggested to members opposite that what we should do is give this

legislation second reading and close the House. Deal with Bill No. 8 - which is

what we are here for in the first place - deal with Bill No. 8 while we are

here, that's what we are here for, make sure that the school system in the fall

is going to be operating under the new school boards and under the new regime,

post-reform. Not only that, by approval in principle - having been passed in the

House of Assembly which probably would have passed yesterday and we would not

even be here today - the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation and the

Premier could go off and talk to Kodak and say: we have thirty days to do a deal

here. The House has approved, in principle, the waving of the Public Tender Act

and we will go back to the House with a deal only if we think it is good enough

for the House to pass it. We will bring it back and show it to the House of

Assembly, show it to the elected representatives of the people and say: here is

the deal that we got from Kodak. This is the deal on which we wish to wave and

set aside the provisions of the Public Tender Act because we think it is so good

that all members of the House of Assembly will easily recognize that there is

nobody else who is going to provide the same deal.

Now, Mr. Chairman, that is what was offered yesterday as a

sensible alternative to having the government being given a blank cheque to go

and negotiate whatever it sees fit with Kodak, with the waiver of the Public

Tender Act already held in their hands. I don't think it is appropriate, Mr.

Chairman, for government to be given that kind of authority. The Public Tender

Act was brought in; it took a long time getting the Public Tender Act in this

Province. The first Liberal Government after Confederation did not really seem

to be interested in public tendering. They did not seem to be interested in that

at all. I have to give credit to the Tories. It was the Tories who brought in

the Public Tender Act. The former, former, former Member for St. John's East,

the hon. Bill Marshall, brought in the Public Tender Act.

Under the Public Tender Act, the principles of which are

twofold - number one it is designed to try and avoid favouritism so that

everybody would have a fair crack at government business. That is one purpose of

public tendering, to avoid patronage, to avoid corruption, to avoid a government

in power favouring its friends, rewarding its friends and punishing it's

enemies. That is one reason but there is a second and equally important reason

for a public tendering process to be put into effect, and that is to assure that

the public interest is served when any services or products are being purchased

by government, that the people, the taxpayers, obtain the lowest possible price

in the competitive market. Those are the two purposes of the Public Tender Act

and if we are going to set those aside, there has to be good reason to do it.

Now, there is another issue here that has not received all

the attention, although the Member for St. John's East just highlighted one of

the issues here, and that is the whole issue of privatization. I have to say

that I was surprised to hear some of the comments by the Member for St. John's

East, and I agree with all of them; but I am pleased to hear that the

Conservative Party is full square against privatization and all the government

services that were itemized, that this government has put on the list for

privatization. They were, and they did a good job last year along with the New

Democrats, along with the people of this Province in fighting against the

privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro; a very good job. A lot of the

reasons that were stated were very supportable, that privatization of government

services results in a loss of control over the proper the expenditure of public

dollars, in this case, money for Printing Services.

After Kodak gets its hands on the business, will they then

become the broker for $3.6 million worth of business? Will they then be in a

position which the government is not, will they be in a position of rewarding

their friends and punishing their enemies because they have $3.6 million worth

of business in their back pocket, and they don't have to abide by any Public

Tender Act when they are passing out business? Well, they have -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Member for Topsail now, just listen to

this, listen to this now. I say to the Member for Topsail, if I said to him:

Now, Mr. Member for Topsail, here is $3.6 million worth of business. Now you

can't do it all because you don't have the capacity, you don't have the ability,

you don't have the equipment, you don't have the capital or you don't have the

interest and you have $3.6 million worth of business to be done each and every

year for five years; you are not going to do it all. Who are you going to give

the business to, your friends or your enemies? Who are you going to give the

business to, your friends or your enemies; and I am saying to you that you are

not constrained by any Public Tender Act, you are not constrained, except by

some business principles, you are not constrained by a Public Tender Act to

ensure that you give it to certain people within the Province. You are not

constrained by that. You may have business partners in other provinces or other

countries which you feel you ought to give the business to. You may have

competitors, major competitors, operating in the local market, maybe Xerox or

somebody, and you would rather not have your competitors get too much of this

business. What we are giving up here, Mr. Chairman, is some sort of governmental

control over what happens to this business.

We are also taking thirty-four government workers and saying

without any answers being given to the employees to the questions that they

asked as to what happens to their pension, what happens to severance pay, what

happens to redundancy, what happens to their collective agreement, what happens

to job security? So, either go with them for an uncertain future or bump

somebody else out of a job and put them on the street in the public service.

Those are the choices that are being given to the employees.

So we have those things going on, and the only salvation, or

the only way in which the public interest can be protected, is whatever is going

to be contained in this contract that no one has seen and no one will see before

government wants to pass this legislation giving them the right to ignore the

Public Tender Act and to ignore the principles contained in the Public Tender

Act to sign whatever deal they want.

As I said before, this agreement, or this potential

agreement, has some possibilities; and, I must say, they are intriguing

possibilities. I have had some discussions not only with one or two members

opposite but with members of the public, people who are knowledgeable in this

field, and they also see that there are some possibilities with a deal of this

nature; but there would have to be some pre-conditions that I would have to be

assured of before I could say: Yes, this is a deal that I can support. This is a

deal that is more important than the long-term job security of twenty-five or

thirty people and, in fact, may give them possibilities for longer and more

security than they have right now. I would have to know that, and I would have

to know what the level of commitment there was from Kodak in terms of capital

investment, in terms of what kind of plans they would have for opening up

similar facilities in other parts of Canada, on the Eastern Seaboard of the

United States; I would have to know that. I would have to be assured that we

were not going to be setting up some computer node, or whatever it is called,

where all you are doing is setting up a piece of machinery that takes electronic

information off the Internet style communication links through equipment here in

St. John's and sends it off somewhere else.

Someone earlier mentioned: what is the cost-effectiveness of

bringing paper here and printing it, and shipping it back again? They might get

some work here, but we all know the Toronto Globe and Mail is printed in

five different places in Canada. It is the same paper. It all comes out over the

telephone lines and is printed in Halifax and in Toronto and in Vancouver and in

Winnipeg, I think, four or five different places, because it is cheaper to do

that than to ship the newsprint after being printed in one central location. So

if we are talking about printing business, it is all very well to say you have

the powerhouse of your data centre here in St. John's, but if you are using the

fibre optic network to obtain information and to reorganize it and regurgitate

it, then surely you can have it printed in New York or in Los Angeles or in

Mexico, or wherever you can find the cheapest place to have it printed, through

the same international network, through the same type of technology that allows

you to bring the information here, allows you to send it somewhere else to a

printing operation.

We would have to know not only that it was going to be

profitable for Kodak to do business here, and maybe what they will do is some

organization which will allow them to describe their profits as being in

Newfoundland and Labrador so they can avoid the payment of taxes, because no

doubt they will have tax-free status as well. I would expect that in addition to

a $3.6 million a year contract they will be given tax-free status. They won't

pay any income tax, they won't pay any sales tax, they won't pay any land tax,

they will be given tax-free status.

AN HON. MEMBER: EDGE status.

MR. HARRIS: They will be given an extra EDGE, EDGE

squared.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I dare say. The minister is shaking her head.

Is the minister saying they won't be given EDGE status?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I imagine they will be given EDGE status,

EDGE squared probably.

We would like to see exactly what performance guarantees the

government thinks are required, performance guarantees in terms of what efforts

they will make not just to bring business to themselves but to bring jobs to the

Province. We haven't heard any projections. There was some suggestion that there

might be more jobs through Kodak than there are now, than the thirty-four jobs

that are now there, but we haven't gotten any idea of what the potential is or

how many jobs they may be talking about, or what the quality of those jobs are.

I hope the minister can enlighten us on some of these points,

because right now we are left to speculate about what exactly is motivating

Kodak to have access to this work, and whether those motivations can also be

harnessed and directed towards meeting some of the needs that we have in this

Province for developing our own industrial potential and our own hi-tech

potential, which is very real.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I move that this House do not

adjourn at the appointed time, whether that time is deemed by Mr. Chairman to be

4:30 p.m. or 5:00 p.m.

CHAIR: It has been moved and seconded that this House do

not adjourn at the appointed time.

All in favour of the motion, "Aye". All those against the

motion, "Nay". Motion carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise to say a few words on Bill No. 19, I suppose the

closure bill as we probably now know it, with the events that happened here last

night and I guess happening here today.

I haven't been around this House for very long. I've been

here for three short years, but I've seen some legislation -

MR. WISEMAN: Too long.

MR. FITZGERALD: Three short years, I say to the Member

for Topsail. I've seen a fair amount of legislation introduced here, a fair

amount of good legislation, Mr. Chairman, and some bad, but it was always

introduced by ministers who believed in what they were doing. It was always

introduced, I believe, by ministers who believed that what they were doing was

right for their department, was right for the Province.

It appears that this piece of legislation, when it was

brought about by the minister - I doubt if the minister had any knowledge of the

legislation when she introduced it. I doubt if she had any knowledge of it

whatsoever.

AN HON. MEMBER: She read a prepared statement.

MR. FITZGERALD: In fact, she read a prepared statement.

The first time I've ever seen a minister get up in this House, introduce a piece

of legislation, and have to read a prepared statement. First time I've seen it.

I don't know about other members here, Mr. Chairman. Every other piece of

legislation that has been introduced in this House since I've been here has been

by members who have been well versed, believed in what they were doing; their

legislation. It was their belief that it was good, not only for their district

or for their people, but for the whole Province.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, I

believe, was handed a piece of legislation which said this falls under the

Department of Works, Services and Transportation, you are the minister, here is

what you read, now go and introduce it. I do not believe that she believes in

this piece of legislation any more than the people over here. I can understand

her taking the approach she did because she is the minister. She is part of

government, she is part of Cabinet, Cabinet solidarity and everything else, but

I can assure you that it was not her piece of legislatio