December 13, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 56

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

I do believe that by arrangements with the groups in the House that the

Minister of Justice and Attorney General wishes to make a statement at this

time.

The hon. the Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today with the concurrence of the Leader of the Opposition and

the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I will move, with leave in a few minutes,

that Mr. Phil Wall be appointed as the Information and Privacy Commissioner

effective on today's date.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the notice with respect to the appointment and fully concur,

glad to see the appointment made.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have been made aware of the choice of the government in this regard, and

concur in the resolution about to be made by the Minister of Justice and

Attorney General with respect to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

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

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise in my place today and not to

have to tell hon. members to stay tuned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Rather, Mr. Speaker, I am able to rise today to, as it

were, sing a different tune, a sweeter tune, a tune about this government's

theme for this session, of openness, transparency and accountability in

government.

It is for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that I am pleased to take such pleasure

today in being able to make brief remarks on the appointment of Mr. Phil Wall as

the new Information and Privacy Commissioner, and on the proclamation into force

of the new Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Mr. Speaker, Phil Wall is well known to many members of this hon. House as a

dedicated, conscientious and long-time civil servant. From the commencement of

his career in 1969 through to his retirement in 2003 he has served under many

administrations in a number of senior capacities. His expertise from an

administrative and policy perspective, as well as his experience from a

hands-on, practical, commonsense perspective, will serve the people of this

Province well as we embark on this new path, and this new era of accountability

and transparency, ushered in by this new legislation on access and privacy.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that the Office of the Information and

Privacy Commissioner will be responsible for educating the public about their

rights under this new legislation. He will provide an independent review

mechanism for the citizens of the Province, and will ensure that the legislation

is upheld across the broad spectrum of government. Remember, too, Mr. Speaker,

that over 460 public bodies will be subject to this act, including all

government departments and agencies, school boards, public, post-secondary

institutions, health boards and municipalities.

The task, Mr. Speaker, is huge, and the Office of the Commissioner, which is

totally independent of government and answerable directly to this House of

Assembly, is crucial to its success and to the openness and accountability that

are the hallmarks of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the proclamation signed by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor

this morning provides for the immediate proclamation of

section 42.1 of the act

and for the coming into force of the remainder of the act, except for

Part 4

dealing with privacy, on Monday, January 17, 2005. The intention, Mr. Speaker,

is to give the Commissioner one month to attend to the set-up of his office and

on the selection and appointment of staff prior to receipt of requests under the

legislation.

Part 4 of the act dealing with privacy will be delayed, as was originally

intended, and as has been the plan from the outset, for one year to allow all

bodies covered by the act to educate and equip themselves to adequately

implement the privacy protection provisions of the act.

Members will be pleased to know that the Access and Privacy Office within the

Department of Justice has already started this process and will continue to

develop policies, provide training and assist public bodies with respect to

privacy over the coming months. The access to information provisions, however,

will be effective commencing January, 17, 2005.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity also to thank Mr. Wayne

Mitchell, Mr. Wall's predecessor in office, for undertaking the preparatory

work to establish this new office and to provide for the transition from freedom

of information to the new ATIPPA legislation. His tenure played an important

part in helping to identify the resource base necessary to implement the Office

of the Information and Privacy Commissioner so as to ensure that the most

efficient administrative structure to give effect to this new legislation was

put in place. Mr. Wall and his staff will have a head start based upon the

preparatory work completed by Mr. Mitchell.

Mr. Speaker, I am confident that the resources committed to the Office of the

Commissioner by this House are now adequate to accomplish the legislation's

objectives. Mr. Wall will be assisted in his work by an Executive Director, an

Investigator, and an Executive Secretary-Receptionist who collectively, under

the Commissioner's leadership, will run the office on a day to day basis. This

professional staff should be adequate to respond efficiently to inquiries and

requests for information and to investigate complaints appropriately and

promptly in accordance with the provisions of the act.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the budget for the office now allows for additional

funds in the professional services account. This will provide flexibility to

hire additional staff on an as-needed basis. This will be especially

advantageous in light of the potential for any surge of activity in the first

few months of the act's operation. It is not, of course, possible to predict

with certainty the demand on the office, but this flexibility will allow the

Commissioner and the Executive Director to adjust the workload as it unfolds.

Mr. Speaker, an open and transparent government is fundamental to the

operation of democratic institutions. The Province's existing Freedom of

Information Act was adopted in 1981. It was a modern piece of legislation in its

time. Indeed, in 1981 only New Brunswick and Nova Scotia had legislated in this

area. After more than twenty years however, the time for a complete overhaul has

come. In appointing Mr. Wall today as our new Information and Privacy

Commissioner and setting a date for the coming into force of the new Access to

Information and Protection of Privacy Act we have entered a new era. Moreover,

we have demonstrated our commitment to the citizens of this Province to

openness, accountability, transparency in government.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate all the members of this hon. House for

their review of the new act and for their constructive and co-operative

participation in its proclamation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask leave at this point to move the following resolution, that

under

section 42.1 of the Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act,

Mr. Phil Wall be appointed as the Information and Privacy Commissioner effective

on today's date.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is of the understanding that leave has been

granted to introduce said resolution.

The hon. the minister has moved that under

section 42.1 of the Access to

Information and Protection of Privacy Act, Mr. Phil Wall be appointed as the

Information Privacy Commissioner effective on today's date.

All those in agreement, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, say nay'

The motion is carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: a statement by the

Member for the District of Exploits and Leader of the Opposition; a statement by

the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre; a statement by the hon. the Member

for the District of Port de Grave.

The hon. the Member for Exploits, and Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize two incredibly talented individuals from the

Exploits Valley who have recently been recognized by the Music Industry

Association of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cory Tetford and Mr. Barry Canning were both honoured with

awards at the Music Industry Association's annual award show held recently

here in St. John's.

Cory Tetford, a native of Grand Falls-Windsor, comprises one-half of the

tremendously popular band Crush. This year, Crush was the recipient of the Music

Industry Association Award for Pop/Rock Group of the Year.

Mr. Speaker, this award is a tremendous achievement for Cory, and for the

band. This year's East Coast Music Award is continued proof that Crush is

climbing in popularity and will be a continued success into the future.

Also winning at this year's ceremony was Bishop's Falls native Barry

Canning. Of the five categories that Mr. Canning was nominated in, he won three

awards, taking home the SOCAN Songwriter of the Year for his collaboration with

Great Big Sea's Alan Doyle on the song Last Man Standing ; Album of the

Year for Last Man Standing , and the award for Male Artist of the Year.

I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that Barry Canning may have spent some time

writing songs when I was supposedly teaching him physics in high school in

Bishop's Falls.

Mr. Canning hopes that his success at this year's awards ceremony will help

give him more leverage as he continues plotting his career in the industry.

I ask all hon. members, Mr. Speaker, to join me in congratulating two

outstanding talented Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to recognize the unsung angels of the Christmas

season. These angels are the people who are out in each and every community in

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, who give their time and resources to

help those who are less fortunate than themselves.

They are the people who visit the shut in and sick over the Christmas season.

They are the people who bring a hot meal or a small gift to a lonely neighbour.

They are the people who provide a food hamper to a family with no food. They are

the people who give gifts to a family who cannot provide for their own, and they

are the people who clear the snow off the walkway of their neighbours. These are

the angels of Christmas who make this time of the year a special time and a

better time for those in need.

As we reflect during the holiday season, Mr. Speaker, I ask each of us to

remember these angels and give thanks that we have such special people in all of

our communities. We should also reflect on those in need and our role as

Legislators in being able to help the needy live a safe and meaningful life with

dignity.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to honour Nellie Strowbridge, a very talented writer originally

from the District of Port de Grave, who has recently released her second book

entitled Far from Home - Dr. Grenfell's Little Orphan .

Mr. Speaker, this book is based on true events that was inspired by a young

girl named Clarissa Dicks in the time frame of the early nineteen hundreds.

Although the story begins in St. Anthony in 1924, Ms Strowbridge tackles

childhood dilemmas that are universal and timeless.

Throughout the story Nellie says she attempted to show how a child, with a

disability that sets her apart from other children, feels when penalized rather

than accommodated.

The Atlantic Publishers Association referred to Nellie as one of Newfoundland

and Labrador's most beloved and prolific writers, and I agree with them 100

per cent. She has won numerous provincial and national awards and has been

published nationally and internationally.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in extending

congratulations to Nellie Strowbridge, originally from the Town of Port de

Grave, on the release of yet another successful book.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Fabian O'Dea, former

Lieutenant-Governor for our Province, a proud Newfoundlander and Labradorian,

and a true gentleman. Mr. O'Dea passed away on Sunday at the age of

eighty-six.

Mr. Speaker, the life of Mr. O'Dea is one of remarkable accomplishment and

dedication to our Province.

Mr. O'Dea received the Rhode Scholarship for our Province in 1939. However,

he did not begin his studies until 1945, as he decided to serve his country

during the Second World War. During his time of service he became a

Lieutenant-Commander of the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Service.

After his studies and upon return to our Province in 1949, he established his

law firm, O'Dea and Greene, and quickly built a respected and successful

practice.

Mr. Speaker, 1963 was a special year for Mr. O'Dea as he was appointed both

Queen's Counsel and Lieutenant-Governor, a post he held for six years.

However, the end of his term as Lieutenant-Governor did not signal the end of

Mr. O'Dea's public service to the people of our Province. He forever

remained a pillar of the community through his involvement in many organizations

such as the Royal Newfoundland Regiment.

Mr. O'Dea was indeed a great Newfoundlander and Labradorian, and we all owe

him a debt of gratitude and appreciation, for his considerable and valued

contributions to our Province.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, I wish

to express our condolences to the family and friends of the hon. Fabian O'Dea

and I ask all members of the House to join with me in honouring his memory

today. He was truly a scholar and a gentleman.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I count it a privilege today actually to join with the Premier in paying

tribute to Mr. O'Dea. I was one of the people who was privileged enough to

have met him personally on a number of occasions and had some dealings with him.

He is a Newfoundlander and Labradorian of the type of stature that should be

recognized by a statement from the Premier on behalf of the government and all

of us in this Legislature. I fully concur, Mr. Speaker, and I want to ask you,

on behalf of all members in the Legislature, to send our condolences along to

the family as well on the passing of a truly great Newfoundlander and

Labradorian.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is entirely appropriate the Premier made the statement today about

this distinguished Newfoundlander, Mr. Fabian O'Dea, who passed away

yesterday. He indeed made a significant contribution to the Province and was

very well-known, well respected and well liked by many. I personally knew him,

as well as the Premier. He was always a very congenial person who loved this

Province and served it well, and deserves to be recognized in this way.

I would like to join with the others, in asking that all of our condolences

be sent to the family of the late Fabian O'Dea, in honour of his memory.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my hon. colleagues and the residents of

the Province that applications are now available for the Premier's Athletic

Awards.

Mr. Speaker, this new program will build on the original concept of the

former Athletic Assistance Program but will also work to increase the profile of

the program. I am pleased to inform hon. members also that there will be an

increase of $25,000 to this program, bringing the total to $75,000.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier's Athletic Awards is designed to assist the

Province's athletes by providing financial assistance to allow them to compete

at the national and international levels. We recognize that competing at this

level is quite costly, particularly travel costs associated with participation

in various sporting events. This program will provide qualifying athletes with

additional financial assistance to help offset training costs, ensuring that

they are provided an opportunity to further develop their skills.

The Premier's Athletic Awards Program is open to all residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador who are registered with a Provincial Sport

Organization recognized by my department. Eligible athletes must compete for

Newfoundland and Labrador at the Canada Games and other national and regional

competitions. Athletes must also be attending an educational institution on a

full-time basis. Mr. Speaker, further information about the program can be

obtained through Provincial Sport Organizations or through my department's

website.

Mr. Speaker, a newly established Awards Selection Committee will review all

applications and rate their level of priority for assistance. The committee

consists of individuals with extensive knowledge of athletes in the Province.

Members include: Michelle Healey from Memorial University; Todd Martin with

Sport Newfoundland and Labrador; Karen Richard, School Sport Newfoundland and

Labrador; and Mr. Jimmy Tee with the Department of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation.

I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, that these key stakeholders in the sports

community have agreed to dedicate their time and experience to reviewing the

applications for the Premier's Athletic Awards. Recipients of the awards will

be announced in March 2005.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy.

Before I get into the merits of the program itself, I just find it a bit

ironic that this has changed to the Premier's Award. I remember a year back I

helped get some funding for the Special Olympics in Corner Brook and I was

criticized for trying to buy votes. I guess times do change. Every time I see

the amount, $25,000, it reminds me of the cost to raise the roof of the North

Shore school in the Bay of Islands that was refused by the former minister.

The program itself is a good program. It recognizes the athletes who excel in

Newfoundland and Labrador. I have known athletes who have received the funding

over the years, and I guess if we have to put the Premier's name to it to get

another $25,000 then I would say, put his name to it twice next year so we will

get more money for the athletes; because, as a former athlete, the minister

knows the commitment and the sacrifice that these athletes make to represent

Newfoundland and Labrador. This is a recognition for them, and I say

congratulations to the athletes -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. JOYCE: To the volunteers who are going to select the board, I say,

thank you for your time and energy. To all the recipients, I say, represent

Newfoundland and Labrador well, as I know you will.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement. I would like to

point out for the minister, in the last sentence, the awards will be announced

in March 2005, not 2004.

This is a good program, I say to the minister. It will assist athletes from

our Province to compete on a national level, and give them the financial means

to be able to do so, and that is a positive thing, Mr. Speaker. I would also

like to point out to the minister that there needs to be much more funding in

the area of sports in the Province. I know in Labrador, with the athletic

federation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For some of these statements, I only have time to stand up and sit down.

I would like to say that more funding is needed from the minister's

department to help the high school federation in our Province, and other sports

groups, so that they can take

part in provincial tournaments among each other as

well as national and international meets.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before we begin Oral Questions today, I am sure all members of the House

would like to welcome Mr. Scott Simms, the MP for Bonavista-Gander-Grand

Falls-Windsor, who is seated in the upper gallery. I do believe it is his first

visit to the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in their election blueprint, the current Conservative government

promised to limit political contributions by individuals, companies and unions

in any one calendar year. They also promised, Mr. Speaker, new rules would be

legislated for contributions, and spending limits for advertising and for

nominations.

Mr. Speaker, other amendments to the Elections Act have already been tabled

and are being debated in this House, but these issues which were committed to in

the Blue Book are not addressed.

I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: When does government plan to address these

other promises with respect to elections in the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question the same way I did when we were

debating the legislation several nights ago. The legislation that is currently

before the House deals with fixed terms. It deals with ensuring that

representation, if a by-election occurs, happens in a timely manner so no

constituency would go without a representative in the House. Thirdly, the

current legislation that is before the House deals with, if a Premier resigns or

retires, whomever becomes the next Premier, that person must go to the polls

within a year.

With respect to the question the Leader of the Opposition asked, I informed

the Leader of the Opposition several nights ago that, before our term is up,

those other commitments that we made in the Blue Book, along with ones that we

are moving forward with now, will be honoured and will be met. I do not think we

can be any clearer or straightforward than that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the Premier being so forthcoming in his answer, since it was his

commitment.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask this question of the Premier: Could he please

provide an update on the activities of the Electoral Boundaries Commission

which, by law, is to review the makeup of this Legislature every ten years?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Electoral Boundaries Commission was appointed late in 2003, and the

legislative provisions provide that the Commission must complete its work before

the end of the year. The Commission did not have the opportunity to complete its

work before the end of the year. The Commission is therefore functus. The

government has given consideration to the position of the Commission and the

government has decided that it will defer the matter until 2006 and have a new

Commission appointed at that time in order to carry out the functions under the

act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I am glad to have the answer from the Minister of Justice. The current

Electoral Boundaries Commission, as he pointed out, required by law, was

appointed on August 29, 2003. Their final report was due in July past, almost

six months ago, and should have been tabled in the Legislature by now.

I would ask: On what authority does the government and the Minister of

Justice take it upon itself to violate the current law and decide not to do

anything about it until some time in 2006? What authority, in law, does the

government have for that decision that the minister just put forward?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The authority is the Electoral Boundaries Act itself. The act placed a

requirement on the commission to complete its report by the end of the year in

which it was appointed. The Boundaries Commission did not do that. The

Boundaries Commission did not complete its work. There is no report; there is no

report for me to table in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would ask this question of the Premier. We have been told as our

understanding that the commission, which was appointed in August 2003, was told

to cease and desist any further activity directly from the Premier's office

and, therefore, they could not report.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Is this an attempt and was this an attempt by

the Premier himself and the government to manipulate the process to achieve some

desired outcome that they have planned for the future?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, again, I will repeat, the power of the

commission ended by the legislation. There was no directorate from the Premier's

office, there was no directorate from the Minister of Justice to the commission.

The commission's power came to an end on December 31, 2003.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A different question, Mr. Speaker, for the Premier. The Premier has said -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: It is not much point in pursuing that issue because we are

not going to get any answers, as usual.

The Premier has said that the civil service needed to the trimmed by 25 per

cent. He has also bragged about reducing the Cabinet by 25 per cent. He has also

stated publicly that the number of members in this Legislature needs to be

reduced. I ask the Premier: Has he told his Cabinet and his caucus that he plans

a 25 per cent reduction in the size of this Legislature?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Leader of the Opposition knows, we have already reduced the Cabinet

from the oversized fattened Cabinet, the Cabinet that he had while he was in

office. We have been very responsible in trying to trim our expenses, which we

have done - which was not done easy. We have very competent individuals on this

side of the House. It is not easy to reduce a Cabinet when you have the caliber

of members that we do have on our side of the House. However, it had to be done

and it had to be done for the good of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have also indicated that, where possible through attrition, we would

reduce the size of the public service because of the very serious fiscal

situation that we have inherited from hon. members opposite; particularly, the

Leader of the Opposition when he was Premier of the Province. So, with regard to

dealing with it, we are dealing with it to the best of our ability. We are

trying to clean up your mess, I keep repeating it. I feel quite proud in saying

that we are doing a very, very good job of dealing with it. It has not been

easy. We have acted very, very responsibly and we will continue to do what is in

the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the speech about a completely different and non-related topic.

Let me ask the question again. Has the Premier yet told his Cabinet and caucus

about his plans to have the Legislature reduced by 25 per cent?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, there are no plans whatsoever to reduce

the seats in this House by 25 per cent, so there is no reason why I would tell

them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has spoken publicly about having a smaller

Legislature, so maybe at some point in time, in the spirit of openness,

accountability and transparency, he might tell his own Cabinet and caucus and

then the people of the Province how big a Legislature we might have in the next

election in 2007.

One final question, Mr. Speaker. It is clear that rural Newfoundland and

Labrador is reeling from the indecision, inaction and complete lack of

commitment to those parts of the Province, as we see with issues like FPI. When

the Legislature becomes smaller, as the Premier has said it surely will, than

what provisions does he plan to put in place to make sure that there is adequate

representation in this Chamber for the rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I can unequivocally guarantee the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador, the people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador that

they will be more than adequately represented in this House at all times.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: What concerns me is that the hon. member opposite, the

Leader of the Opposition, continues to fearmonger. He started off in his line of

questioning talking about a 25 per cent cut in the number of seats in this

House. Now, there is nothing further from the truth. That seems to be the tactic

of this particular gentleman and the members of the Opposition by fabricating

things that are very borderline. They create them in their own minds, they come

out and lay them out, and then they hope that the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador adopt these as being truths. The problem is that the credibility of

this person has gone down to zero, Mr. Speaker. Nobody listens to what he says

anymore and there is a good reason, because he should not be listened to anymore

because his credibility is gone.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, to come back to the commitment to the

people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Absolutely no doubt, we will

certainly not be balancing things in favour of St. John's because we have said

- and I have said it time and time again - that our focus and our interest is

beyond the overpass and that will continue to be the way we will perform.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Mr. Speaker, the federal Minister of Fisheries is currently in our Province

as we speak. I ask the minister, our minister, if he has used this opportunity

to seek a quota for the Harbour Breton plant.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and

Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did have a brief discussion with the federal Minister of Fisheries and

Oceans earlier today. Part of that discussion was around the situation on the

South Coast as it relates to our groundfish operations. We did have a very brief

discussion about quotas. I did impress upon him that I did not think it was the

time to prejudge what should happen down there. I know that he has made some

comments. I suggested to him that we should allow the process that we are

engaged in to unfold and if, at the end of the day, there was a requirement for

quotas to be associated with Harbour Breton, I hope that he would keep an open

mind, as we will, and do the right thing for the people on the South Coast.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Twillingate &

Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take it the answer is no, and you even went so far as to suggest that this

would not be the time to give a quota to Harbour Breton. I find that very, very

surprising.

Mr. Speaker, our minister has already given us his view of the need to reduce

the number of fish plants in our Province. I ask the minister: Will he now tell

us what he has recommended to the federal minister with regard to crab quotas

for the upcoming season, especially in areas 2J and 3K?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and

Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Here he goes again, fabricating statements. The bottom line - I just said

what I just said. What I said to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans today was,

before he goes ruling out options, before he goes making decisions or making

comments on what should or should not happen as it relates to quotas on the

South Coast, that he should keep his powder dry, as everybody should keep their

powder dry, and see what the process unfolds, see what comes out of the process

at the end of the day. Then, once the people have determined what the options

are and what is the best option for the people of Harbour Breton, for example, I

hope he will keep and open mind, as will we, and we will support the people in

whatever is right and proper to be done on the South Coast of the Province.

As for the question that he just asked - so that was to clarify the first

one, which he obviously did not hear. I hope he hears this one. As for the

situation with crab, my statement to the federal minister on crab has been

consistent right on through. Whatever the advice, at the end of the day,

whatever is determined to be in the best interests of the crab stocks of

Newfoundland and Labrador, that is what the minister must do. In order to ensure

that we have a crab industry in the long term, he must take the right action in

the short term.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Tory Blue Book stated, and I will read it, "A

Progressive Conservative government will carry out nation-wide public

information campaigns aimed at persuading Ottawa to take custodial management

over the Nose and the Tail of the Grand Banks...". This is another promise

that this party has broken.

I ask the minister: Does he believe that the three-person committee that

Minister Regan established this morning will do anything to stop foreign

overfishing or establish custodial management, or is this just another attempt

to silence Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on this issue?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and

Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, over the past twelve months, between myself and the Premier and

other members of government, we have made numerous, numerous, interventions at

the national level and the international level on issues relating to foreign

overfishing. I cannot count how many right now, not off the top of my head, but

there have been numerous interviews done by myself, opinion editorial pieces

that have been carried in The National Post, The Globe and Mail, Montreal's

The Gazette , et cetera, on the issue of foreign overfishing.

As for what is happening with foreign overfishing, Mr. Speaker, we have seen

some improvements in the situation outside the 200-mile limit this year, in

large part as a result of the interventions made by myself and by the Premier to

the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Prime Minister. We have

seen some stepped-up surveillance. Is it fixing the problem? No, it is not. We

are a long ways from a solution outside, but we do take some comfort in the fact

that there are increased patrols outside the 200-mile limit today and that there

is an ongoing process to try and deal with it, much more than we saw when the

former members were in government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I asked the Acting Minister of Transportation and Works, on Thursday, and he

had no idea on the issue, so I ask the minister: You, yourself, stated that

one-third of your trucks will not be using wing blades on their trucks. The

Department of Transportation and Works, due to weight constraints, does not salt

and sand our roads while using the wing blade to clear the snow back off the

highways.

There is a directive from the department not to make a second run, due to

financial restraints, to either salt and sand the roads or plow the snow with

the wing blade. Does the minister realize the potential of this Russian

roulette? Will the minister immediately order this practice to stop and make our

roads safe and free?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and

Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: What the minister realizes, Mr. Speaker, is this: that the

hon. gentleman, in his capacity as a researcher, has flunked again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: He has flunked again. He has it all wrong, Mr. Speaker. He

does not know what he is talking about. The plows on the West Coast of this

Province had the wing put back on them on Friday. He ought to know that, Mr.

Speaker. Go out and hire yourself a new research assistant.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: I say to the minister, it is time for you to take your head

out of the sand and see what is going on in Western Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: I ask the minister: If you do not believe me, call any mayor

in the Bay of Islands. Call your own staff, who were complaining last Thursday

with the snowfalls. If you want, call any school bus driver who had to drop the

kids off in snowbanks along the side the road. Do not believe me! The government

has always put budgets before service, and this is another example of putting

money before safety.

Will the minister order the roads to be properly plowed to prevent injury to

our citizens, and not wait until we have a major issue, before someone gets

injured in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and

Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member might not have his head in the

sand but he certainly has it up to his neck in a snowbank.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, there was no such directive that went

out telling people that they could not make a second pass because of fiscal

matters. As a matter of fact, we have said that we will put people on overtime

if we have to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: The hon. member's information is wrong. Rather than admit

he is wrong, Mr. Speaker, he continues to dig the hole even deeper.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that our complaints were raised and the

directive was given out Friday, because I asked the questions on Thursday, when

there was no answer, and they were not allowed to do it. I say to the minister,

you should have been here and you would have known it.

Mr. Speaker, it has always been the practice that maintenance supervisors do

an assessment of the road conditions to the determine the need for salt and snow

clearing. This year people are saying they often see the ambulances and tow

trucks before the see any snow equipment. Will the minister reintroduce the

policy of having the supervisor determine the scope of the work, not an

accountant in St. John's who is worried about dollars and cents?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and

Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I make no apologies for being absent from this

House on Thursday to go to the Aboriginal community of Conne River and announce

that we are going to begin self-government talks with the Mi'kmaq Nation of

this Province. I make no apology for that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, those management

decisions are made in the region. They are not made here in St. John's. They

can hire overtime at their discretion, when they want to.

The member does not know what he is talking about, Mr. Speaker. He is out to

lunch, as usual.

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 Minister of Environment and Conservation.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's generating

station at Holyrood is in the news, being named number five in the top ten

polluters in Canada in its release of particulate matter into the atmosphere

causing environmental and health concerns and having the most potential for

causing lung and heart disease. Also elevated asthma and rare cancer rates are

the concern of area residents who believe that Hydro's monitoring system is

insufficient, with only five stations within a few kilometres of the plant, and

that the current emissions and health risk assessment being conducted by Cantox

is inadequate.

Why will the minister not order that scrubbers be installed by Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro on all of its generating units, since he knows that will

reduce pollutants and increase air and health quality?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the member for his

question, because this is an important issue.

Mr. Speaker, with the new air pollution control regulations that I announced

in May of this year, that will reduce the amount of sulphur in the fuel that

Newfoundland Hydro burns, and, in fact, all industries throughout the Province.

It will also reduce the particulate matter coming from Holyrood. In fact, this

year, Mr. Speaker, the amount of particulate matter at Holyrood is about 30 per

cent of what it was in 2002.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, both the current member for CBS and the previous

member, the late Bob French, were very unhappy with the generating station and

the pollutants, and also the current member is unhappy with the measures being

taken by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Will the minister not order an independent air and health study that includes

the entire fallout area from the hydro station, not just the few kilometres now

being monitored? Will he ask that the study be expanded to include the whole

fallout area, and will he have it done independently either by his own

department or by someone independent of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and again I thank the member for

his question, another good question.

Mr. Speaker, as part of the air pollution control rights that were announced

in May of this year, Newfoundland Hydro in 2005 will have to provide to my

department a plan outlining how they plan to reduce sulphur, how they plan to

reduce particulate matter. As I have already mentioned, the particulate matter

at Holyrood has been reduced to 30 per cent this year from what it was in 2002.

As well, Mr. Speaker, I have consulted with the Member for Conception Bay

South about the new air pollution control rights. I am looking forward to the

plan that Newfoundland Hydro is going to submit to my department. We will very

carefully scrutinize that, Mr. Speaker, and we will ensure that they meet the

new air pollution control rights.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows that the amount of pollution varies because of the use in

different years of water-generated and hydro-generated power and what is done in

Holyrood. We are expecting another drought year this year and there is going to

be more pollution. Will the minister not have this independent monitoring study

so that we can study the effects, the health effects of what has been happening

in Holyrood for the last number of years?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. It is good to see a

member with sincere questions.

Mr. Speaker, we will certainly consider the advice of the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi, but, having said that, I will say to the member, the plan that

Newfoundland Hydro have to submit to our department will outline reductions in

sulfur and particulate matter. He is correct, 2002 was a very dry year which

caused a bump in the amount of electricity that had to be generated at

Newfoundland Hydro. It does vary from year to year. He is correct in saying

that.

Mr. Speaker, we are taking a very close look at the emissions at Newfoundland

Hydro, far more so than was happening in 2002. I do appreciate the suggestion by

the member and we will take that into consideration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Thursday afternoon I was informed by Air Labrador that they will withdraw

all air services from my district, St. Anthony and Stephenville, on or before

April 13, 2005. Mr. Speaker, this has come as a blow to the people in the

communities that I represent. Air Labrador is the only carrier in the Southeast

Coast of Labrador and the only access for medical travel, freight and passengers

during the winter months. Now, after lengthy discussions with Air Labrador over

the weekend and today, it is obvious that government's intervention and

co-operation is the only answer to salvage this air service in Coastal Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transportation and Works or

Labrador Affairs, whoever prefers to answer. My question is: Was government

aware that this decision was being made and that it was coming, and will you

commit now to do whatever is necessary to maintain these essential air services

in the Coastal Labrador region?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and

Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for her question. Certainly, as the Department of

Transportation we were not given any advance notice of this decision by Air

Labrador. I cannot speak for anybody else in government but I can speak for the

Department of Transportation and Works. I saw this letter for the first time

this morning. We are now reviewing the matter with my senior officials and we

will certainly take the views of the hon. member into consideration, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, on a

supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, in all due respect to the minister, maybe I

misunderstood this but I did understand that yourself and the Premier may have

been informed that this was going to happen back about a month-and-a-half ago

through another meeting with the airline companies. I guess my question is: Will

government commit to ensure that Air Labrador services will be maintained for

the transportation of medical patients from the Southern Coast of Labrador who

have to go to hospital in St. Anthony and Goose Bay on a year-round basis?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and

Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Premier and I met with, I guess, the owner

of Air Labrador several weeks ago on a number of matters but I can assure the

House that this issue was not one of them. To the best of my recollection it was

not raised at the meeting.

In terms of medevac; I understand that the company did raise medevac with us,

as a matter of fact, in that discussion because they wanted us to look at the

model that this company is presently - or wanted government to look at the model

that the Quebec Government has in place for medevac transportation in northern

regions. We did commit to doing that, Mr. Speaker, and are in the process of so

doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: More than two years ago government commissioned a study for a

regional airport in the Coastal Labrador area. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask

when the study will be completed and is it government's intention to act

immediately to build a regional airport in this area?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and

Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am going by memory but I do believe that the consultants, EDM

Consultants Ltd out of Deer Lake are scheduled to complete their study, I

believe it is some time in January. Now, do not hold me to that firm. I would

have to check on it to be sure but I do believe, going from memory, that they

are scheduled to finish some time in January. What their report will recommend,

I do not know. I do know that they have been looking at the possibility of

extending the airport in Port Hope Simpson and having that as a regional

airport. I do know that some of the users have asked that government - I believe

the previous government - expand the terms of reference of the consultant so

that they could look at other sites. I do know that other sites have been looked

at in the Southern Labrador region. As for the report, I do believe it is

scheduled to be completed some time in early 2005.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, my questions are in relation to the contracting

out of government work to Telelink. The minister told the House last Tuesday

that this contract was from 1992. Mr. Speaker, that was incorrect. This is a new

contract entered into in November of this year.

I ask the minister: Was the union aware, when they agreed to this so-called

study or pilot project, that there was the option to renew the initial three

month contract for a period of up to two years?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Human Resources, Labour and

Employment, back in 1992, entered into a contract with Telelink to provide

after-hour services to the department. A couple of weeks ago, we decided to

enter into a contract for a three month period so we could collect and analyze

the data related to our telephone system. The union was certainly well aware

that we were entering into this contract, this agreement, and they agreed to it.

Mr. Speaker, we feel in three months we should be able to have adequate data

to analyze for our telephone service. In the meantime, if there is a need to go

over the three month service, I will need to have sufficient information to see

that contract needs to be extended, and at that time I would certainly consult

the union to see if there is any need to extend it.

Mr. Speaker, in saying that, when we are analyzing the telephone system, the

three month period that we have includes the Christmas season and now a Metrobus

strike, there may be some anomalies in that information that we need to look at.

If we are going to move ahead and make an evidence-based decision, we need to

have the proper data to make those decisions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have time for one brief question and an equally brief answer.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: I guess the minister just confirmed that this contract will

be extended - this new contract.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister - I have to ask this: If, after the three

month trial, the data shows the department does not have enough workers to deal

with the number of calls being received, will the minister commit to immediately

hiring more public sector workers to deal with the situation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we are into this contract so we can get

information on the telephone service that we offer. What I will commit to, as we

move into our new computerized pay system, we will implement a system that meets

both the needs of our workers and the clients who use that service.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

I am sorry, the Chair apologizes to the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a point of order, or maybe more correctly a point of clarification, and

this is on two issues, actually. One is the use of lecterns in the House, a

matter of decorum. I noticed that, on several occasions, the use of the lectern

has become fairly frequent; yet, it is my understanding that when there is

nothing in our Standing Orders to govern such a practice we look to the other

authorities, namely the House of Commons, and I refer Your Honour to page 99 of

Beauchesne, 332, which says that, except for the Budget minister's speech,

wherein he is expressly permitted to use a lectern, they are forbidden in the

House. I am just wondering if that rule would apply here, in the case of future

practice.

Secondly, several of the members have asked for guidance regarding the use of

electronics or communication equipment in the House. We have had several

incidents of notebooks, so-called, and journals and laptops and blackberries

being used in the House of Assembly, and, even more worrisome, cell phones while

the House is in session. I believe this was raised with Your Honour in a

particular instance here last week, so we would like some clarification, if we

could, from the Chair as to what is or is not permissible for use within the

House of Assembly.

Thank you.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to the point, to the member's first point on the use of lecterns, our

Standing Orders are absent on it, Mr. Speaker. While we look to other

jurisdictions - it may be the Parliament of Canada or even to the British

Commonwealth - the fact of the matter is that it does not preclude you, Mr.

Speaker, from making our own rules with respect to it.

Having said that, from a personal point of view, I really do not see a big

issue if a member wants to use a lectern in trying to give very concise remarks.

That would be the only unsolicited viewpoint I can offer to you, Mr. Speaker, in

that regard. I think it would be more than acceptable.

Secondly, with the issue raised by the Opposition House Leader with respect

to communication devices in the House, Mr. Speaker, it may be a timely issues

for us to address generally through the Committee of the House or through the

Internal Economy Commission, particularly as it comes to notebooks.

Ministers and all members show up in the House with their files, with their

information. We live in an information age, where technology is immediately

available to us. If we can access that through a communications device for

internal use only - and by that I mean, Mr. Speaker, a device where we can

access information but not necessarily communicate generally with the outside

world. Other jurisdictions across the country have a more relaxed view, I guess,

is the best way to put it; a more up-to-date view would be our view, I guess.

My suggestion to you, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the issue, you may want to

consider a number of - maybe, the hon. Opposition House Leader, myself and some

others who participate and sit on the Internal Economy Commission, may want to

look at this issue and to visit in terms of what would be appropriate to bring

that part of our House more up to date.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Without commenting on the specifics of the issues, these are issues that are

related to rules of the House. I am not sure the Internal Economy Commission is

the right place for that. We have had rules committees in the past that were

more expansive than that, included all parties represented in the House. If Your

Honour is to be making rulings on that, there should be some forum - not

necessarily the floor of the House - whereby all members' views can be

considered before establishing rules that could affect everybody's conduct in

the future.

MR. SPEAKER: Certainly all members of the House, or most members, are

aware that there is a tendency in all Parliaments for members to be able to

become more attuned with modern communication technology. Certainly, there have

been previous occasions when members have brought into the House - at least on

two previous occasions a laptop has been brought into the House by some hon.

members. The Speaker at that time did not rule these particular devices out of

order, on the supposition that these were devices that were used by the member

for internal use only, and were not being used for external communication.

Likewise, the issue of the notebook; several members asked me about the use

of a notebook, again for internal use only so the member is able to read files

or be able to do whatever the member wishes to do using the notebook.

On the use of the word cellphone, a cellphone is a communication device which

this House, I believe, all hon. members would say, it is totally inappropriate

for any member on the floor of the House at any time to be in communication by

use of a cellphone. Any attempt to do so would be treated with absolute

disapproval by this Speaker, because I do believe that is inappropriate for the

decorum of the House and could only lead to disorder which is, of course, a

priority for the Speaker and for all parliamentarians.

I would say to hon. members, on the use of a lectern, our House has not

established precise guidelines in the Standing Orders on this matter. However,

from time to time members, for various reasons - some because they have vision

difficulties and need to get their notes closer to their focals and other times

because if giving lengthy presentations it might be more comfortable for an hon.

member. However, there has been a general practice in the House, although not in

the Standing Orders, that the major speeches in the House - this would be true

for all sides of the House. If there is a major speech being given the Chair

would treat with, I think perhaps tendency towards approval, if a member is

giving a major speech and wishes to use the lectern. However, in the past there

has been a practice that the Budget Speech and other major addresses to the

House would see the use of the lectern but it has been very seldom that other

members have used a lectern on other occasions. Again, the Standing Orders are

silent.

I would ask hon. members to be - shall we say, give the Chair some time to

reflect because we would like to do a more detailed study. We have already had

communications with other Houses but more to the point, other Houses are more

relaxed than our House is here. So, the Chair will take the matter under

advisement and do the necessary consultations, including suggestions for

amendments to the Standing Orders.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to table today a few reports, the first: 2003-2004 Annual Report of

the Treasury Board Secretariat. I also wish to table the Annual Report of the

Atlantic Lottery Corporation. Also, the Annual Report of the Department of

Finance and also, Mr. Speaker, 2004 Annual Report Supplementary for agencies

that report to the department; Crown corporations, agencies, boards and

commissions that report to my Department of Finance.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Tabling of further reports.

The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Economic Diversification and Growth Enterprises Act requires the minister

to give notice in the House of Assembly of corporations holding EDGE status. I

hereby today table a list of companies that currently have EDGE designation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and

Labrador Affairs.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like today to table the Annual Report of the Department of Fisheries

and Aquaculture for the year 2003-2004.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of reports?

The Chair, as Chair of the Commission of Internal Economy, would like to

table the Report of the Commission of Internal Economy for the fiscal year April

1, 2003 to March 31, 2004.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into

a Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions relating to the

granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty. (Bill 67)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

"An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999." (Bill 66)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will on tomorrow move the following private member's

resolution:

WHEREAS today seniors make up approximately 13 per cent of the Province's

population, and by 2021, Statistics Canada predicts the number of seniors to

grow more than one-quarter of the Province's population; and

WHEREAS it is necessary for government to incorporate this demographic shift

into its planning process; and

WHEREAS seniors have, and continue to make, significant contributions to

building our Province; and

WHEREAS the government is committed to the encouraging and participation of

seniors in the planning for and responding to their needs;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVE that this House of Assembly support recent government

initiatives, such the creation of the Division of Aging and Seniors, the

Provincial Advisory Council on Aging and Seniors and the Ministerial Council on

Aging and Seniors, which allow for significant participation and input from

seniors to assist government in planning for and developing policies, programs

and services that better accommodate an aging population, promote healthy aging,

and foster an environment that better understands aging.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition from residents in my district with regard

to government's decision not to clear snow from the highway between Lodge Bay

and Red Bay, Mr. Speaker.

Let me just tell you, the people in my district are more frustrated than they

ever have been in their lives with regard to transportation. The government

opposite has targeted this area when it comes to the marine services, when it

comes to not clearing snow on the roads, and, Mr. Speaker, the blow that was

delivered on Friday, that air services would be pulled out of this area, is

virtually leaving the people in coastal Southern Labrador with no access to the

outside world. That is what they have, absolutely no access; no way to get from

one part of the district to the other; no way to be able to access the kind of

medical services and other essential services that people in this Province

enjoy.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a critical issue with regard to government's

decision not to clear the snow off this road. It is more important than ever, as

we are seeing a decline in air services, as we are seeing it more and more

difficult for people in this area to be able to access outside the region. It is

more important than ever for government to step up to the plate and to take a

good, hard look at the decision that they made, and not only take a good hard

look at it, but to make a reversal of that decision and to go and clear snow in

that particular area to at least afford the residents of that region an

opportunity to be able to access the highway system and be able to move from one

area to the other using the highway connection.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister to reconsider his decision again today.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents in this

Province concerning the use of VLT video games. Mr. Speaker, they are very

concerned that we have one VLT for every 155 adults in this Province, which is

the highest ratio of any province in our country. The length of time that these

machines have been around, in fourteen years, I do not think there is anything

else in our society that people can look at and see the damage that they have

inflicted on our citizens in the short span of fourteen years.

I would just like to point out, Mr. Speaker, how prominent a place that this

holds. I have here an advertisement from the November 27 edition of The

Telegram concerning: For sale; a lounge, restaurant and club - in close

proximity to where we are located today. This club is for sale. It talks about a

few things, but get this, one of the key points for selling this club: The

operation has fifteen VLT machines, with profits from these machines being in

excess of a quarter of a million dollars annually. A quarter of a million

dollars annually profits from one, single club within a city close to St. John's.

That is ridiculous! Total, total inadequate planning of a social policy by this

government that would allow these machines to take over.

I am pleased to say that on Friday I received a letter from the Town of

Wabana. It is addressed me, and it says: The Town Council of Wabana, on Bell

Island, passed a resolution at its last regular council meeting, November 23, to

support your efforts for a complete ban on VLTs in the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador. All council members voted in favour of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I think we are going to see more communities around this

Province become involved in this. When we see advertisements such as this, where

a property is for sale, one single property, one single building, whose profits

are over a quarter of a million dollars a year from VLTs alone, I think that

speaks volumes about the magnitude of the problem that we have in this Province

with VLT machines.

Mr. Speaker, if you multiply the amount of dollars spent in these machines,

which is significant, and government revenues this year are up over and above -

about $5 million more that they were for the previous year, profits for the

government on these machines - I think the data that I have read indicates that

the majority of the money that his put into VLTs comes from people who have some

form of addiction to gambling, with the VLTs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. COLLINS: I think, Mr. Speaker, it is time that government take a hard

and fast look. I know there are a lot of dollars that come into provincial

coffers from this, but I would impress upon the government to look seriously and

see what damage these machines are doing to our society, and bite the bullet,

take appropriate action to enforce tighter regulations until the Province,

hopefully, will have a right to decide by way of referendum whether or not we

want these things in our Province at all.

I would encourage the government again to make this a referendum on the

September ballot for the municipal elections.

Thank you.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to present a petition on behalf of a gentleman from the District

of Windsor-Springdale, actually, who forwarded this to me just today. It is on

behalf of residents in Springdale, Rattling Brook, also Beachside and Triton. It

concerns the intended amendments to the motorized snow vehicles act which is

before the House.

The nature of the prayer is that this particular amendment has been brought

forward into the House without consultation, or at least without proper

consultation, on a wide public range, but that there was only consultation by

the minister with certain select groups and not with the general public through

either a House committee or through public hearings and so on. This gentleman

wanted to make it quite clear that he and the persons who signed the petition

are opposed to the amendments that are currently before the House, and he has

asked that we let that be known to government by way of having this petition

entered. Those people, of course, who signed their names to that petition, want

that to be made known.

The crux of the difficulty is not so much with the amendments, I say, but,

number one, there was no consultation before the amendments were submitted to

the House on a wide general basis; and, more importantly, the amendments do not

address the issue of traditional users. A very disgruntled gentleman - and all

of these people here, I guess - in the sense that we are changing a law that

will have a far-reaching impact upon snowmobile users in this Province.

The parts that are there are not necessarily bad for snowmobilers, or for the

snowmobile industry. In fact, they may be very good for the upkeep of the

snowmobiling infrastructure. It may be very good for tourism, and nobody is

opposed to that, but there is some serious concern in the general public

regarding the non-protection for traditional users, and that is where the beef

is here.

The concern is that, if we are going to do this, we should do it right, to

not only address the needs we need to address, such as the snowmobile

associations and the grooming of the trails and the insurance aspects, but also

to have the necessary exemptions and protections in place for the traditional

users. Let's identify who they are. Let's identify many of the other unseen

and undiscussed, at this point, concerns that have been raised regarding these

amendments.

I understand that what I have here is only a part of what was put out in the

District of Baie Verte, in the member's district, and put out in the

Springdale District on Friday afternoon, and by Saturday afternoon, apparently,

there were literally hundreds of people who had signed on. I have been asked

and, if I can, I have asked that they be brought to the House before our

anticipated close on Thursday so that we would have some idea.

I understand that the gentleman in question did, in fact, mail to the

minister, as well, a copy of the petition so the minister is informed about the

level of discontent in the public regarding this issue. On behalf of that

gentleman, I would be pleased to speak to this petition.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present this petition. The gist of the petition, I guess, is

that Port aux Basques serves as a transfer point for over 80,000 transport

trucks and commercial vehicles each year. These trucks travel now, under present

conditions, hundreds of kilometres to Pynn's Brook, Grand Falls-Windsor or

Goobies before they are ever being inspected or weighed. These weigh scales are

necessary to ensure public safety. The permanent closure and reduction of

enforcement inspections will cause an increase in the number of accidents and

deaths on our highways. Motorists should not have to worry about the safety on

provincial roads due to unsafe transport trucks and other commercial vehicles.

Mr. Speaker, the undersigned petitioners on this petition have asked me to

bring forward their concerns regarding the number of accidents that are taking

place on our highways since this has happened. I think, since September, the

number of accidents are around nineteen right now. I have not had an update, but

the last report I had there were nineteen.

Accidents are one component, Mr. Speaker, of what is happening with these

trucks not being inspected. That is just one component. The greatest example of

that, I guess - and that is why this petition was prompted to come from the West

Coast - was the fact that early in the morning one overweight tractor trailer

truck ran into another truck going along the highway. It was not in a position

to be able to stop because of the load that it was carrying.

Mr. Speaker, later in the day, when there was a school bus on the highway,

the same thing could have happened; that tractor trailer could have quite

possibly hit a school bus, endangering the lives of their children.

MR. JOYCE: Five thousand pounds overweight.

MR. SWEENEY: When you look at 5,000 pounds overweight, as my colleague

from Bay of Islands said, that is a large amount to be carrying that you should

not be carrying.

Mr. Speaker, the amount of weight that is being carried in the trucks is

evidenced only by going out on our highways, and you notice that the ruts in our

highways are getting deeper by the month. It has been said a number of times

that, yes, we may have lost the railway but the only thing that has happened is

they have taken the tracks down and put them on our Trans-Canada, on our

pavement. The ruts in the highway are now called tracks; that is what people are

saying. You get down in those things -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) happened in the last fourteen months?

MR. SWEENEY: That happened, Sir, in the past fourteen months, in

particular; because, since last year's budget, those ruts are getting deeper

and deeper because of overweight trucks that are taking place. The Member for

Kilbride says: Did it happen over the past fourteen months? It has been going on

due to a lot of things and the most part, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that now a

truck can leave St. John's - which most of our freight does go out of St. John's

here - and it can go out as far as Grand Falls before it gets a chance to be

inspected, on a night like last Thursday where we had snow, and the sign was

there; trucks do not cross the highway if the road conditions are not good.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time is expired.

MR. SWEENEY: To conclude, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Has leave been granted?

MR. E. BYRNE: Just to clue up, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A few moments to clue up.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will conclude, because I have other petitions that are coming in. There

have been a number of phone calls coming into my office on a regular basis, and

I will be presenting this case further.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am assuming we are moving to Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 9, Second Reading a bill,

An Act Respecting The Government Purchasing

Agency, Bill 41.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 41,

An Act Respecting The

Government Purchasing Agency, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Government

Purchasing Agency." (Bill 41)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise in this hon. House to

speak to Bill 41.

The Government Purchasing Agency is responsible for the acquisition of goods

and services for government departments. When the Government Purchasing Agency

was established in 1975, it was an independent agency and it reported directly

to a minister. In 1983, the agency lost that independence and it then was made a

part of the Department of Public Works and Services. Purchasing went from being

the responsibility of an agency independent of a government department to an

administrative responsibility of a department.

In 2001, the Auditor General - my hon. colleague was the Auditor General at

the time - recommended that it should return back to its roots and be made an

independent agency. We announced our intentions back in February of 2004.

Government wants to ensure that the agency has the independence it needs to do

its job on behalf of the people of this Province. This means assessing bids and

recommending purchases in an accountable and transparent manner.

The Chief Operating Officer will have the authority to oversee and enforce

all tendering including the monitoring of all exemptions and any instances where

the award is not given to the lowest bidder. The ability of the Chief Operating

Officer to challenge the awarding of public works contracts should help address

the possibility of law suits relating to violation of the Public Tender Act. The

Government Purchasing Agency will be under the management and the control of the

Chief Operating Officer who will report Public Tender Act exemptions directly to

the House of Assembly. We are maintaining the protection the Chief Operating

Officer currently has in the existing legislation in that he can only be removed

from office by a vote of the House of Assembly. The Chief Operating Officer will

report to the Minister of Government Services, except where he has been given

specific authority under the act.

This new structure will help government get the best value for its dollar by

ensuring a greater degree of transparency and accountability in government

purchasing. The people of the Province expect no less in times of fiscal

restraint.

A training program will be developed to ensure greater knowledge of the

Public Tender Act and its regulations by all departments and agencies that use

the Public Tender Act.

Mr. Speaker, the Government Purchasing Agency will be responsible for the

negotiation and implementation of regional and national trade agreements. The

new agency will give the people of the Province a level of comfort that

governments purchasing and tendering decisions are done in the best interest of

the people of the Province, and not for political reasons.

Government is living up to its commitment to strengthen the Public Tender

Act. The Government Purchasing Agency's ability to monitor and challenge

government departments is greater because of the independence being given to it

in the bill.

This ability is further enhanced by the separation of the Government

Purchasing Agency and the Department of Transportation and Works. The Department

of Transportation and Works has the largest purchasing requirement for

government, and should therefore not have the responsibility for the agency that

performs those purchases.

One aspect will remain with the Department of Transportation and Works, which

is responsibility for the tendering of leasing and public works. This aspect of

tendering requires a level of engineering expertise and project direction that

resides with the Department of Transportation and Works. There is no cost

benefit to relocating the operations to the Government Purchasing Agency because

these staff also need to monitor the projects.

This responsibility will remain with the Department of Transportation and

Works, with an enhanced monitoring function by the Government Purchasing Agency

to ensure compliance. The agency will have the authority to challenge the

awarding of these contracts. This ensures a greater level of accountability.

We feel that in order for the Government Purchasing Agency to fully

accomplish its mandate it must be in a position of greater independence. This

will ensure that the public purchasing decisions are made in a way that will get

maximum benefit from the taxpayers' dollar. The agency will work with

government and industry to promote business opportunities for companies in

Newfoundland and Labrador. This will be done in co-operation with the Department

of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

The agency will work with local companies and the manufacturers association

to ensure they can take advantage of supplier opportunities. This may occur

through workshops and trade shows or whatever avenues are identified that will

promote awareness among local companies and government-funded bodies of the

opportunities that exist within the Province.

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will now be included under the Public Tender

Act, bringing it in line with other public-funded bodies. It means Hydro's

tendering and purchasing requirements will now be done in accordance with the

Public Tender Act, and any exemptions to the act will be reported by the Chief

Operating Officer directly to the House of Assembly. The Chief Operating Officer

will also work with Hydro to ensure they are aware of their responsibilities

under the legislation. This is part of government's commitment to openness and

accountability.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the bill will make the Government Purchasing

Agency independent of a government department and strengthen the Public Tender

Act. The key changes to make it more accountable and transparent are: the Chief

Operating Officer reporting directly to a minister as opposed to an assistant

deputy minister; all public Tender Act exemptions being filed with the agency,

as opposed to a minister, and a Chief Operating Officer reporting all exemptions

directly to the Speaker of the House of Assembly; the Chief Operating Officer

has the authority to challenge all public tender decisions of departments and

government-funded bodies through an enhanced monitoring and audit function; the

agency now being responsible for co-ordinating and directing joint purchasing,

as opposed to a minister; requiring all invitations to tender and acceptance of

tenders by government-funded bodies be filed with the agency within set time

frames, which was not done before; and the Government Purchasing Agency being

able to provide training and direction on the Public Tender Act.

Mr. Speaker, we are ensuring in this bill that we are getting the best value

for public money, and that all government departments and publicly-funded bodies

are accountable for the decisions that are made.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I listened to the minister present her bill, there are a few questions

that came to my mind and a few concerns that I have, which I would like to share

with this hon. House this afternoon.

The bill itself, I understand where it is coming from. It is

An Act

Respecting The Government Purchasing Agency and it is part of the government's

plan to create more openness and accountability, as we said when we started off

this session. I think transparency was another word that we used, but as I

listened to the minister give her explanation, I can think of almost every other

word other than transparent. Translucent might even been a better word.

The very fact that we have an advisory board that is appointed by the Chief

Operating Officer of the agency who, quite coincidentally, is appointed by the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council which, for all intents and purposes, we all know

what that means, and that is the Premier. So, the Chief Operating Officer of

that agency is going to be a political appointment. There is no mention there

about the Chief Operating Officer being advertised in the paper or hired from

the public. It is, indeed, a person who is appointed by the Premier. So, in

other words, a political appointment. Where is the openness and fairness and

balance and transparency that is supposed to be there as part of this House's

session? Somebody might even say that this reeks of patronage, but I do not see

the merit of making this particular person answerable to the minister. What is

the difference, I say to the minister, when under the present system the Chief

Operating Officer answers to an assistant deputy minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: Well, you have taken away another person in the bureaucracy

and you are making it more answerable to a political person. So, if you are

going to take politics out of the Government Purchasing Agency, I think that is

a regressive step. I certainly do not see where that comes in there.

As I was listening to the minister speak, it is certainly a clever way of

avoiding accountability. I can further back that up when the minister says that

the exemptions of this act will be tabled here in the House to the Speaker.

Well, I have been here in this House since 1989, and I have never heard the

Speaker questioned yet. I am sure there are people who have been around longer

than that, who can tell me if that is a part of the parliamentary process where

you can question the Speaker regarding an outside agency of this House.

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: I will say to the Minister of Transportation and Works that

he can have a moment to speak now himself without starting to razz me when I am

trying to make my points here that I want to make, I say to the minister.

MR. RIDEOUT: Tell the truth (inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: Minister, if there is anyone here stretching the truth, I

would say it is you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So where would a private member of this House get the opportunity to question

the exemptions in this House? Under a normal process, a member would be able to

come into the House and question the minister involved. In this particular

situation, we have exempted the minister from questioning, and we have gone

through to the Speaker. You certainly cannot ask the Chief Operating Officer

what the exemptions were, and were they in the best interest of the public, as

the minister said, to get the best bang for the buck, the best value for the

taxpayers' dollar.

The other thing that is troubling about this as well, there is another piece

of legislation that is coming forward some time - I am not sure if it is today

or tomorrow, but certainly some time this week, because it is part of this - it

is the Public Tender Act. When we look at these two bills together, this is

really a two-pronged approach. If a person were either bit suspicious at all, it

certainly takes away accountability from both of these acts. The first prong is

this one; the next prong is the Public Tender Act, and in a number of places in

the Public Tender Act, Request for Proposals, and the authority of who gets to

make those requests.

Those are the things that I have some concerns about. Even in this act right

here, there are many references here that say, in accordance or subject to the

Public Tender Act. In the interest of efficiency to do so, the Chief Operating

Officer so desires.

If the Chief Operating Officer is reporting directly to the minister, can the

minister direct the Chief Operating Officer to do a certain thing in the best

interest? In the interest of efficiency, the agency shall acquire by purchase or

otherwise all goods or services that are required by a government funded body or

a government funded department.

Again, up here it says in the other part, in

section 5(2) "...where the

chief operating officer is satisfied that it is in the interest of efficiency to

do so..." - "... the agency may permit the acquisition of goods and

services otherwise than through the agency, subject to the Public Tender Act ...".

Mr. Speaker, another point in this one, "The government is bound by the

actions of the agency and the chief operating officer acting within the scope of

authority conferred by this Act."

Mr. Speaker, that is somebody who was appointed by the government, appointed

by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, which is the Premier. What power does he

really have? If he circumvents or tries to enforce his act too much against the

wishes of a minister, how long is that person going to have the job? We just

lost a deputy minister a short while ago because she would not play the game. We

are dealing with a circumstance where somebody can lose their job, and it so

easily happens. We just watched it less than a month ago, and the Deputy

Minister of Health went out the door.

AN HON. MEMBER: The former Minister of Health (inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: The former Minister of Health ends up in the back benches

over one incident.

The Premier went out to a golf tournament on the West Coast and, rather than

be harassed by the Victorian Order of Nurses, he makes the deal. He comes back

in, did not tell the Minister of Health about it, and the Deputy Minister of

Health obviously could not find money in her budget, so guess what? Rather than

for her to be around and answer any questions, she is gone and the minister is

demoted. A lady who, as Auditor General, was instrumental, I say, in this stuff

coming forward - some of her recommendations. The former government brought

things to a certain point but this brings it a little bit further. In the same

process this bill goes a little bit, I would say, off the track. It goes off the

track.

Mr. Speaker, this bill almost brings it back to where it was brought to in

1983 when it was taken from being an independent agency, when the government of

the day - which was not a Liberal government, I say, Mr. Speaker - saw, in their

own wisdom, that it was time to make a change. In some cases, history will show

that it was a change that was - people made profit by some of the things that

went on through the Government Purchasing Agency. There were a number incidents

recorded in the history of this Province, in the 1980s, where things were not

what we call kosher.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I am willing to allow this to come around to

the point of the 1980s again. It took a while to get it up to where I think it

should go; but, while the minister is exempt from all of this, the Chief

Operating Officer certainly is not. It puts a Chief Operating Officer into a

very tenuous position if he or she is told that, in the best interest of

efficiency, I think you should exempt this particular transaction from being

under the Government Purchasing Agency. For the sake of efficiency, follow the

Public Tender Act and the exemptions that would come in there.

One of the big things in the Public Tender Act is, guess what? The Request

for Proposals. There you go; there is a nice little change there, Request for

Proposals.

MR. JOYCE: Ask if the Auditor General recommended that one.

MR. SWEENEY: I do not think the former Auditor General, or even the

present Auditor General, went along with that, Request for Proposals. I say to

the people of this Province, through the hon. members here in this House, that I

will probably have the opportunity to stand here and say, I told you so.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask the former Auditor General will she speak on it today

and voice her approval?

MR. SWEENEY: I suspect the former Auditor General may be speaking to Bill

41, but I do not think she will be speaking to the Public Tender Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't think so.

MR. SWEENEY: I don't think so. I am almost willing to bet on that one.

I think that would be a wise bet for me to take.

AN HON. MEMBER: She has integrity, give her that.

MR. SWEENEY: Oh, she does, she does.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things here that I find in the grey area,

the grey area of a bill that is supposed to make things open, accountable and

transparent. That is why I started off my comments by saying, somewhat

translucent, because

Section 6 (1), notwithstanding subsection (1), "Where

the chief operating officer is satisfied that it is in the interest of

efficiency..." - what is that efficiency? To have all our money gone by

March 31, have that department's funds cleared up by March 31, or is it that a

friend of a friend in government finds it more efficient that they don't have

to purchase something through this process?

Section 6 (3), "...may delegate to a person in the public service the

power to acquire goods and services on behalf of the agency in accordance with

the Public Tender Act ." Here we go with the Public Tender Act again.

What do we do? In accordance with the Public Tender Act, because it is more

efficient not to follow this process, let's go out and request a proposal, let's

request a price? I will tell you, this is making it easy, where the best bang

for the buck will not be in the best interest of the public. I can guarantee you

that.

The only part of this bill that I see here that I agree with is, sections 46

to 54 of the Works, Services and Transportation Act are repealed. I can

understand that because, in other word, the Government Purchasing Agency was

acting without the authority of this House since last year's budget, since

last November actually, when government departments were realigned. The

Government Purchasing Agency was put over into Government Services. I can see

that part, bringing it back to a department, giving it a legal boss, I would

say.

The notion, the very notion, of the Chief Operating Officer of this new open,

transparent and accountable Government Purchasing Agency answering directly to a

minister, that is where I lose my comfort level. My comfort level was much

better with that particular person being answerable to an assistant deputy

minister. At least there is a witness in the system. There is a public servant

there who is there in that department, whose life long career is there in that

department with government. That person in the system goes to executive meetings

and answers to the minister, but the minister is not directly involved with the

Chief Operating Officer, as is the case with this act.

I feel that this act is only another way of avoiding accountability. Guess

what will happen? If we never figure out the reporting systems and how to

question the Speaker with what is tabled, because you cannot ask the minister

because the CEO tables to the House, and not the minister tabling to the House.

We cannot question the Chief Operating Officer because he is not in the House -

he or she is not here. If we question the minister responsible, what is he or

she going to say? Not me, I did not table that. It was the Chief Operating

Officer. So, I want to know more about the reporting process of that.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, this act takes the minister away from being

answerable to this House, but the Chief Operating Officer is answerable to the

minister outside the House. Here in the House the Speaker gets the exemptions

tabled and we, as ordinary members, have nobody to ask. We cannot question the

minister because the minister says: I didn't table that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: Oh, okay.

I say, Mr. Speaker, this act, as good as the government tells it to be, falls

short of the true accountability and the transparency that this particular

government has blown its own horn about for the past twelve months. I am sure

some of the hon. members opposite me will get up and speak against this bill as

well because I am sure they do not want to be implicated with something that

will, in the future, bring them down in the polls and in the opinion of their

constituents. This thing here leaves us in a way that there will be more

questions than answers once this act is implemented.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak to Bill 41,

An Act Respecting the Government Purchasing

Agency. I am pleased to speak about this piece of legislation because I had been

fairly close to the Government Purchasing Agency over the years. The agency,

itself, was established in the mid-1970s, and I came to work with the provincial

government in 1979. During all of my time, during my career with the public

service, I have worked very closely with the Government Purchasing Agency.

The agency itself, Mr. Speaker, was fairly independent from the time it was

established until 1983. In 1983 the Government Purchasing Agency was brought

under the auspices of the Department of Public Works and Services and

effectively it was absorbed into the department. It lost its independence and it

reported to an assistant deputy minister in that department. That was something

that I was very concerned about at the time because there are hundreds of

millions of dollars in purchases being made by the provincial government and it

is supposed to ensure that there is compliance with the Public Tender Act. So,

when the Government Purchasing Agency lost its independence in the early 1980s

it was a great reason for concern.

I do agree with removing the Government Purchasing Agency from the Department

of Transportation and Works and putting it under the Department of Government

Services because the Department of Transportation and Works is a department

within government that does have the most purchases to which the Public Tender

Act applies.

I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, with these amendments because once these

amendments go through and the act is proclaimed, then we will have the most

stringent Public Tender Act across Canada. Our jurisdiction will have the most

stringent Public Tender Act and we will also have the most stringent

administrative structure for the Government Purchasing Agency. So, that is

something that we can be very, very proud of.

This new act is going to establish the Government Purchasing Agency as an

independent agency. I will not go through the individual clauses of the act but

there are a few issues which my hon. colleague across the floor from Carbonear,

indicated that I would like to address. The Chief Operating Officer, there was

some concern with regard to the independence of the Chief Operating Officer.

Well, within the legislation itself it says that the Chief Operating Officer

cannot be removed without a resolution of the House of Assembly. So, once the

Chief Operating Officer gets into their job and starts working, if they do run

into trouble and there is conflict between the government and the Chief

Operating Officer, that Chief Operating Officer - because they are standing up

and doing their job and effectively disagreeing with some of the things that

government is doing - that Chief Operating Officer cannot be removed without a

resolution of the House of Assembly. I think that is very important and I think

that is a very important clause within the legislation.

The other part of the legislation that I found most interesting - and I would

like, also, for my colleague from Carbonear to acknowledge - is that if the

Chief Operating Officer does start functioning and starts disagreeing with

government, can the government go in and reduce the salaries, sort of as a

leverage to get the Chief Operating Officer to do things that the government

wants him to do? I think that is a very important clause in the legislation and

I was very interested to see it there because I do not think I have ever seen it

in another piece of legislation.

I can sort of just relay a little story to the members here in the House and

to the people who are viewing the House of Assembly this afternoon. When I was

appointed as Auditor General I was not in there very long - I was only in there

a matter of months - before I was informed by government that my salary was

being reduced. So, I think that is a very important clause. I have not seen it

in any other legislation but I was very surprised to see it and I was very

pleased to see it because when my salary was reduced I did not have any

recourse, that the government could just reduce the Auditor General's salary

and that the Auditor General had no recourse. But now, enshrined in this

legislation, if a Chief Operating Officer is trying to do their job and runs

into conflict with government, the government cannot go back and reduce the

salary of the Chief Operating Officer.

Now, the Chief Operating Office does have a very important responsibility

under the Public Tender Act and under this new legislation for the Government

Purchasing Agency. The Chief Operating Officer is responsible for acquiring all

goods and services under the Public Tender Act for both departments and agencies

of the Crown. Now, the Chief Operating Officer does not have to do that all

himself or herself. They can delegate to a government department and they can

delegate to a government agency but it is the responsibility of the Chief

Operating Officer to monitor all of those purchases, to obtain the information

he or she needs, and to ensure that the Public Tender Act is being followed.

One of the things we haven't talked about is that once this legislation is

enacted, the Chief Operating Officer will have a lot more information available

to him or her to monitor compliance with the Public Tender Act and provide that

information to members of the House of Assembly. Another key feature in the

legislation is that the Government Purchasing Agency will be subject to audit by

the Auditor General, and I think that also is a very important requirement. I am

sure the Auditor General will be quick to go in and do a review of the new

Government Purchasing Agency to see how it is operating, and I am sure there

will be recommendations there for further improvements.

The last thing I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, is that this is also another

addition to our accountability agenda, and I am very pleased to see that this

legislation is going to be enacted.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just have a couple of comments here at this principle stage, or second

reading stage, on this particular Bill 41, Government Purchasing Agency. I have

no difficulty whatsoever at any time that any government wants to become more

open and more accountable to the public. I am totally supportive of it, but have

some question as to how this particular government is trying to go down that

road and where they are trying to end up at the end of the day in terms of

consistency of position.

It is one thing to say we want to be open and we want to be accountable, but

usually all of your actions, if that is you goal and that is the road that you

are setting out on, you would try to have all of the different pieces of

legislation that you are dealing with, I would think, be consistent in process

so that you do not have one that lets you do this and one that lets you do

something else, and at the end of the day you are not open and you are not

accountable simply because of your inconsistencies in how you treat different

facets of government business and different government operations. That is why I

raise the question here.

For example - and I reference this to the minister at this stage now so that

probably by the time we get to Committee stage we will have an answer - under

section 4.(1): The Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall appoint the chief

operating officer of the government purchasing agency. That is pretty clear.

Section 4.(2) says, "The chief operating officer shall hold office

during good behaviour but shall be removed from office by the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council on the passing by the House of Assembly of a

resolution requiring the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to so remove the

officer."

In my reading of things, that has the Lieutenant-Governor in Council hiring

the person, but the Lieutenant-Governor in Council does not fire the person

unless it comes back to the House of Assembly. That is the process that we have

adopted here in terms of this purchasing agency. The difficulty I have in terms

of process and consistency in this act and that method in comparison to other

pieces of legislation we have - for example, in the Citizens' Representative,

which we have done in the last while, and in the Privacy Commissioner, which we

did today, and in regard to the Child and Youth Advocate which we did a little

while ago, the process is quite clear. We want to provide the service in each of

those areas when it comes to a Privacy Commissioner, Citizens' Representative,

and Child and Youth Advocate, but in all of those cases the Lieutenant-Governor

in Council made the recommendation of who should be hired, but the actually

hiring was done in the House by resolution, as well as the firing.

That is where I have a problem again with consistency. If we are going to

have the House fire the person, and if we already have three different parts of

government - for example, the three officers who report to the Speaker, for

example, who come and be appointed by resolution - why would we not have the

same thing here?

We had a gentleman appointed today, by resolution of this House, to be the

Privacy Commissioner, upon the recommendation of the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council, the Premier and Cabinet, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition and

supported by the Leader of the NDP. Why wouldn't we, for consistency purposes,

have the same hiring and firing process for that person right here?

It is one of those areas, where you are talking about the expenditure of

government money, where people get suspicious. That is the background behind all

of this accountability stuff, and transparency stuff, that you want to avoid,

first of all, any appearance, even, that you did anything improper. You want to

know that you have a set of guidelines that everybody knows what they have to

do, and you want, at the end of the day, to have some process whereby you can

check up on the person to make them account for what they did. Those are very

laudable goals, and nobody has any problems with those, but I ask the minister -

maybe she can find an answer - Why are we treating this position, which deals

with a lot of government money, with a lot of taxpayers' money, why are we

treating this person differently than the Citizens' Representative, the

Privacy Commissioner, and the Child and Youth Advocate? We are not being

consistent in your drive and your goal for openness and accountability if you

have different processes for the hiring and firing of people.

I raised that question again today because people ask questions when they do

not get answers, or if they get answers that they cannot understand - not that

they do not want to understand, but they cannot understand because they do not

get the background and explanation with it.

I referred today, for example, we had a question here about another piece of

legislation, the Electoral Boundaries Commission. The question was asked of the

minister - and there is

an act, by the way, just so the people in TV land can

understand, there is

an act, a law, in this Province which says that at the end

of every ten years the Minister of Justice shall name a committee. He does it in

consultation. The Speaker actually announces it, there is somebody from each of

the political parties, and a retired Justice of the Supreme Court chairs that

committee. It is a process set out in the electoral boundaries committee. That

law says that had to be done no later than March 31, last year, in 2003. So,

this person who was the Minister of Justice at the time made sure that was done.

Retired Justice O'Neill of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland Appeal Division

was appointed chair, and the parties all had representation on it, and the

Speaker of the House announced it. That was announced in August of 2003.

Under that law, it says that they have to have their report done within a

year. Now, the Minister of Justice today tells me, and says in Question Period,

they could not get it done within the year so they became functus because they

could not get it done. I say that is fair ball. If the committee themselves came

back and said we cannot do the report under the Electoral Boundaries Commission

that we were instructed to do within the time frame, sorry, we cannot do it, the

question then becomes: What do you do now? We know now that we have - whether it

was the former government or a new government - we know that we have a

government now which has a problem. They have

an act that said you must do such

and such, that is not being complied with, because the government accepted that

rationale of the committee and said: Okay, you cannot get it done so you are

functus, but that does not answer the question of: How do we comply with the

Electoral Boundaries Act so that we are not in breach of the law?

I ask the minister, and the Leader of the Opposition asked the minister

today: Well, when is this going to happen? The minister says: We are going to

strike that committee now in 2006. That was his answer in Question Period today.

This is a transparent and open government that we already see in this session of

the House; their accountability and openness and transparency act is not going

to come into play itself until April of 2008.

We have now seen an explanation today with the electoral boundaries thing,

when they know they are in breach of a law - there is a law in this Province

today that was not complied with, that they are not going to get it done in a

timely fashion, which they could have done in the spring of 2004, or which they

could have done in this session of the House, or which they could do in 2005 -

and the minister says, we will look at it in 2006.

Now, that is when people start to think, and MHAs start to wonder, well, what

is going to be the rules that are in play? Because this crowd is telling us they

want to have an election the second Tuesday in October of 2007. What are the

rules that are going to be in play come October of 2007?

We talk about process again, what gives this open and accountable government

the right to say that the deadline is past, the committee is functus, in our

view, but we will look at it in 2006? Now, that leaves itself open to

manipulation. Will the government amend the Electoral Boundaries Act at any time

between now and October, 2007 so as to comply with the law? - number one. How

can this government not comply with the law and set a deadline as to when they

will comply? I submit that they have no right to do that. If they violate

an act

which they are in violation of, they must take remedial action as soon as

possible and practical. It is certainly not practical to suggest that, as the

Minister of Justice says: Oh, we will deal with that in 2006. No explanation of

how we are going to deal with it. No explanation of when we are going to deal

with it. We will deal with that in 2006. We are the government, we can break the

law. Meanwhile, here we are with this farcical, and I say farcical, explanations

to the public on all this legislation we are dealing with that we are open and

accountable. But you cannot have it both ways, I would submit. You cannot have

it both ways. Consistency is what is missing. That is why we question.

We see things here like the Government Purchasing Agency. Nobody has any

problem with being open and accountable under the Government Purchasing Agency

but you leave little openings all the time that can get people questioning your

sincerity and your integrity about wanting to do it right. We will hire them,

but if we do not like them we will come back to the House to get you all to fire

them. Well, if it is such an honourable integrity-filled position, which no

doubt we would want there and we are going to be open and accountable, why

wouldn't you give the name to everybody up-front and have the House totally

supported? I think that would stand the government in good stead, like anybody

who is in this House. I would think forty-eight members are going to be

hard-pressed to stand up in this House anytime in the future and say we made a

mistake with Phil Wall as Privacy Commissioner. I do believe we all sanctioned

that today.

We would be pretty hypocritical if we stood up here in the future and said:

No, we made a bad choice there. We shouldn't have done that. I did not agree

with that. If you did not agree with it, today was the time to speak your piece.

That is why I say about these important government officers, such as the Chief

Operating Officer, who is going to be spending millions, even billions of

dollars, and it is not right that just anybody appoint him. It should be

somebody who is held to a very high standard and somebody who is acceptable by

all political parties, and that removes any concern about manipulative behaviour

that anyone in the general public might have.

So, that is the nature of my concerns and I tried to highlight that by

showing the minister why I feel that way because it is not what we do in other

areas of hiring and firing. I am at a loss when it comes to being open and

transparent, yet I asked the Minister of Justice for explanations about the

electoral boundaries thing and all I get is: We are going to do that some time

in the future; can't tell you when we are going to do it; can't tell you

what we are going to do. Yes, we are in breach of the law. Yes, we do not have

the commission set up like we are supposed to do, but we just have not worked

our way through that one yet. When we get around to it, we will tell you.

I will submit there are forty-eight people in this House, including himself,

who have a right to know. We have a right to know if the Member for

Springdale-Windsor is going to have a district that he is going to work in next

time or not. I think he should know, the same as I should know or anyone else

here should know, as soon as possible and practical, about what the electoral

boundary set up is going to be in this Province. We come here and talk about

fixed terms, ranting and raving about having the second week in October, 2007,

as the election date. Yet, the Minister of Justice cannot even tell us where the

election is going to be. It is going to be in the Province but whether it is

going to be forty-eight or forty-two or ten, we do not know. The only thing we

have to go on is the Premier's expressed view there are going to be less. That

is all. We only know there are going to be less.

I know there is some difficulty in the sense of Labrador. If you follow the

precise rules of the Electoral Boundaries Act, as it is currently worded, it

would mean a reduction of seats in Labrador. Now, maybe that is going to change.

We do not know. If we are open and accountable, I say to the minister - getting

up here again today. I thought we were past this stay tuned thing. I thought we

got past stay tuned. I heard stay tuned on the privacy commissioner for the last

eight months, and today we got an answer. I say to the Minister of Justice, we

are back again into stay-tuned territory. We will tell you later on what we are

going to do about the election. Stay tuned! God forbid, it is only December of

2004 and we are probably going to have to stay tuned until 2006, according to

his words, before we get any indication of what the setup is going to be in the

next election.

Now, the Leader of the Opposition often raises the question here about

consistency and giving information. A part of being open and transparent is

giving people a heads up. I have asked the Minister of Justice, lots of times:

What is going on with the Electoral Boundaries Commission? We don't get an

answer until today and then we are told 2006.

The minister, I am sure, responsible for this bill, the Minister of

Government Services, certainly now gets some appreciation of why we are dubious

about your motivations. The intent of openness and accountability, I would

trust, is to avoid persons suggesting that you might be manipulative. That is

the whole purpose of this, you want to account for what you did, you want to

tell people what you did, and you want to remove any suggestion that you might

ever manipulate anything.

I would also like to ask the minister - maybe she can give me an answer to

this in Committee stage as well: How does, or does this at all, impact in any

way upon the Agreement on Internal Trade that we have in Canada and in

provinces, in particular? By doing this, are we in any way, possibly or might

be, in breach of any existing laws that we have? I don't know the answer, that

is why I ask you. Maybe the minister can explain, when she gets up, as to what

that Agreemen