July 24,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 33

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Barrett): Order, please!

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health. In view of

the recent strikes of the health care workers on the Southern Shore and now

Comcare here in the City of St. John's, I would like to ask the minister: Is the

government prepared today to announce that it will increase the money it

provides for companies whose workers provide home care services to the sick, the

elderly, and the disabled in their own homes so that the companies can afford to

pay workers reasonable wages for the essential health care services that they

provide?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, I have no knowledge that government is prepared to

announce now, or at any time, anything with respect to the amount of money that

we put into those programs to fund them. It is a question that more

appropriately, of course, should be directed to the Minister of Finance or the

President of Treasury Board. In terms of the issue that caused the strike, it is

an issue between an employer and the employees, and that is how the matter is

being handled, and that is how government views it should be handled.

The issue is an employer/employee relation issue. We are not

the employer. We are the effective funding agency, there is no question about

that, but outside of that perimeter the normal process continues to work, we

think.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay

South, on a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, if the rules permitted me to I

would say that I would gladly ask the questions of the Minister of Finance, but

unfortunately, he is not here. I am not allowed to say that so I cannot say it.

Government talks much about its shifting emphasis in health

care from institutions back to the community when it comes to planning and

financing such a shift. That is where the talks end. When is this government

prepared to put its planning and its money where its mouth is by providing

adequate funding to the agencies, companies, and workers who are coping with

this shift from institution to community that is already well underway?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member is correct in confirming for us, if that was

necessary, that the direction generally in health care is to provide more funds

and mores services at the community based level and less and less at the

institutional level. We reflected that quite clearly in our Budget that was

presented in May by the Minister of Finance.

In terms of the health Budget, I should mention it to him

that last week I issued, for the benefit of everybody in the Province, a

synopsis or an analysis in a press release as to how the health Budget is being

expended this year, and he will find if he looks at that - and I am prepared to

give it to him on an individual basis - that in terms of percentage adjustments

within the health care envelope, we put more money, more extra, newer, more

additional money this year into the community-based services and into our

community health care boards than we did in any other area of the health care

budget. So he is absolutely right in saying that community emphasis is our

direction, and I am saying to him that we have confirmed that and demonstrated

amply by the way in which we have distributed the Budget this year and the

direction will continue to grow in that fashion.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay

South, on a final supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Home care workers employed by private companies funded by the

provincial government are receiving significantly less than the health care

workers employed directly by the provincial government although they perform the

same duties. Why the double standard, Mr. Minister? When will the government

increase its funding to these companies so that its workers can be afforded the

same rights and privileges as the rest of the people who perform this very

important role to the health care service in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Again, Mr. Speaker, thank you.

To the second part of the question: When will we be providing

more resources? I can't answer that. The answer to it at the moment is that I

have no knowledge of us anticipating being able to do that now or at any time in

the future. If that changes, then he will become aware of it like everybody

else.

In terms of what is being paid to the home care workers, we

acknowledge the level of pay that they are receiving; we know it is not a great

amount of money. It is, however, an amount of money that that particular segment

of employees within the workforce has been traditionally working at. That is not

to say that it is the right rate of pay, but it is the rate of pay that they

have been working for and accepting over the past number of years. In terms of

the current circumstance where there is a strike ongoing, the matter of wages is

one of many matters -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - is one of many issues which is being

dealt with in the employer/employee relationship context.

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

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

My question today if for the Minister of Development and

Rural Renewal.

Many students who are in one, two and three-year training

programs and who are being funded in part or in whole by Human Resource Canada,

have found themselves in a peculiar position right now in that, some of them who

are in a one-year program, who have two years left to go, have been told that

they are not sure if the fee-payer program will continue. They are not sure if

funding will go beyond the next year even though they negotiated a year ago with

the federal department that this would happen. Does the minister have any

explanation for this and can he provide any details to the House and to the

people affected on this matter?

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

Rural Renewal.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite has just

said it is a federal program so the explanation would have to come from the

federal government.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me inform the minister

then, that under the new EI, UI rules, under the

section that deals with my very

question, skills, loans and grants, it specifically says - and I hauled this off

the internet last night - that under that

section those skills, loans and grants

that students now enjoy will become available only with the agreement of the

Province or the territory in which you live. So the question I ask the minister

then: Are there negotiations ongoing right now with the federal department

governing this area which is clearly, according to the federal government

documents, in line with your department? Are the negotiations taking place right

now regarding this matter and can you enlighten us about those negotiations? Can

you tell the students, of which there are several hundred from the calls that

I've gotten, who are involved in programs throughout the entire Province, when

this matter will be resolved?

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

Rural Renewal.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, anything to do with skills, loans

and grants of the EI reform or the UI reform will be dealt with by the Minister

of Education; and if he wishes to put the question to the Minister of Education

feel free to do so.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: First of all let me ask the Minister of

Education: Do I need to repeat the question? Would you like me to repeat it or

would you like to stand up and enlighten us on your views on this subject?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Because the changes affected to the unemployment insurance

program and changes to the employment insurance program took place effective

July 1 of this year, there were some changes in terms of some of the program

headings and some of the qualification criteria. The Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador, because we are now into a negotiation with the federal government

about the possibility as it was offered by the federal government and the

federal minister, Mr. Young, the minister responsible for human resources

development, as to what level and extent any of the provinces would like to

assume total provincial control or some increased provincial control over these

training programs with the money continuing to come from federal sources - those

discussions were ongoing. I was contacted actually, Mr. Speaker, by Minister

Young six or seven weeks ago when we were in Ottawa actually with the Leader of

the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party on another matter with

respect to education reform. That is when they made that offer public. The

discussions are ongoing.

Because on July 1 we obviously knew that many of the

provinces, including Newfoundland and Labrador, were not going to be ready to

enter into any new arrangement, we corresponded with the Federal Government and

gave them the authority that they needed to continue expending training dollars

for those programs under the old rules and provisions until we agreed to a new

arrangement. They have a certain view as to how the skills, grants and loans

should apply. There are some areas where this Province and other provinces

agree, some areas where we disagree. The discussions are ongoing, and we hope to

be in a position to point out and to let the people of the Province know exactly

what the new arrangements will be some time later in the fall. But in the

interim the Federal Government is actually intending to continue spending from

their program funding even though the legal authority for that was to expire on

July 1; but we have given the permission from the Province to continue funding

programs on the old basis until they are ready for the new programs to be

totally implemented.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, on a

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answer by the

Minister of Education, but the fact of the matter is that what he said is

happening is not happening. Right now at the federal departments and outlets of

human resources across the Province, when it comes to skills, loans and grants

for students who are either returning to a program or just beginning a program,

there is no money available. Front-line councillors have been told that the

policy coming down emanating from the federal department - they have been told

directly to inform clients that there is no money available. Now, there are many

students - I repeat, there are many students - who are finding themselves in a

bind four weeks away from the commencement of classes. Will the minister look

into this matter immediately, and will he ensure, in view of the fact that it is

within the Province's jurisdiction, that the students who are involved in the

program, who are depending upon being funded, who have already been given the

commitment to be funded, that they are given the word from Human Resources

Canada immediately and that they can proceed with their courses beginning in the

fall? Will be make that commitment today?

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is the issue that

actually the officials in our department in the advanced education

section have

been dealing with, because we do understand that there are a number of students

who, at this point in time, are very uncertain as to whether or not there will

be seat purchases and funding made available on their behalf into the next full

regular semester which starts in September.

The group that were funded from a separate fund. I think it

was referred to as the consolidated revenue funding. There were some 130 or so

students who were funded through a special program. We are trying to make

arrangements to transfer them over to one of the ongoing funding bases in HRD,

and the discussions are continuing.

We are aware that some of the students are very concerned at

this point because they have not been able to get assurances through their local

HRD offices that their programs will be funded when they return in September. We

have been very aware of that. We are working on that issue. I cannot guarantee

that it will happen, but I can guarantee all members in the House that the

position and the representation that the Provincial Government is taking is that

these people should be funded through one of the program bases through the

remainder of the programs that they have already started and entered into.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Premier. The Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation yesterday tabled in this House Bill No. 19,

the Printing Services Act. The government is looking for authority to circumvent

the public tender act for as long as agreements are in place with Kodak Canada

Incorporated to supply printing services to the government.

Will the Premier confirm figures today in The Evening

Telegram which indicate that $1.7 million, nearly half of the money spent by

government each year in printing services, is currently awarded to private

companies, many of them operating and employing people in this Province? Will he

confirm that this bill means that some, and perhaps all of that work, would be

taken from those companies and be given to Kodak?

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

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, further details will be dealt

with when the bill is introduced for the second and third reading. However, in

response to the question that has been asked -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MS BETTNEY: In response to the question that has been

asked, the figures that were quoted in The Evening Telegram, in today's

paper, indicate that the total cost of printing services for government,

including the cost of employees' salaries and benefits, is approximately $3.6

million. Included in that is an amount of $1.7 million, which is the cost of

printing services and micrographic services that government contracts out to

other businesses, both local and to firms that are not within the Province

because the Province does not have the capacity to do all of the work which is

requested by government departments, either technically or by capacity.

So, yes, the figures that were quoted are accurate. They

reflect a volume of work which is currently being contracted out to the business

community, both locally and in other parts of the country. The actual amount

that goes to local business from government services of this $1.7 million is

approximately $800,000.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier: Why would Kodak Canada be unwilling to

compete with other companies for publicly funded work in accordance with the

provision of the Public Tender Act? Is it not the whole point of the Public

Tender Act to ensure that all companies are treated fairly and that government

gets the best possible deal for the public's money? Or is it the government's

intention to do what it cannot do under EDGE, and that is to subsidize the

company from the public treasury, and moreover, at the expense of existing

Newfoundland businesses whose jobs we already value?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy to answer

the question from the Leader of the Opposition. As I said to him when I called

him the other day to advise him of the recall of the House, and gave him, as I

said we would, on the question of education reform; I mentioned to the Leader of

the Opposition at that stage, when I called to advise him of the recall of the

House, that we were looking at a bill, as well, with respect to Kodak, I told

the Leader of the Opposition then, and I say to him now again today publicly,

that the purpose of the bill is to enable the government, to enable the Minister

of Works, Services and Transportation, to enter into negotiations, or to carry

on negotiations which are ongoing with Kodak.

Now, there is no agreement with Kodak. There have been -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: I say to the Member for Kilbride that

sometimes listening is one of the ways one can acquire more information.

MR. E. BYRNE: I do not need any listening to you,

Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) cannot advise me; I can tell

you that right now.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, when the member is ready, I

will answer the question from his leader.

Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is: Government is

currently in negotiations with Kodak. The purpose of the negotiation is to

bring, if that is possible, and we do not want to prejudge the outcome of

negotiations; it has to be a good deal - this is the question the Leader of the

Opposition is raising - for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to bring

an international firm to the Province. As part of that process, to have an

imaging centre, which is on the cutting edge of technology, located in

Newfoundland and Labrador, and a multi-million investment in this Province, and

a facility in this Province available nowhere else in Atlantic Canada, or for

that matter nowhere else in the eastern part of this country. The purpose is to

have that imaging centre, create more jobs in the Province today in the printing

industry than currently exist, and to do so in a way that allows us to compete

for work that is being done outside the Province. For example, the Federal

Government, under the Canada communications group, is about to privatize all of

its own printing services. We need in this Province, if it is possible to reach

fair terms, a facility and a company with the capacity to compete for all of

that federal work, and to do it right here - or a good chunk of it - in

Newfoundland and Labrador, and to create jobs in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: I want to continue for members, because

they asked the question. The negotiation that we are engaged in involves the

union involved, involves each of the individual employees involved, all of whom

have been consulted and who are being talked to, involves a guarantee for all of

the jobs that are currently in place either at Kodak or within government,

involves the creation of additional jobs that currently do not exist, and has a

component with government out-sourcing its current printing services, both those

done by the printing services of government and those done for the moment at the

Department of Health, that will result in an amount of work approximate to what

is now being done continuing to be out-sourced to private printing operators in

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and no net loss of work or jobs. That

will happen in addition, we hope, to a good deal with Kodak, and new jobs in

Newfoundland and Labrador, and I hope the Leader of the Opposition will support

all of that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am about to recognize the Leader of the Opposition. If the

other members would like to ask questions, I would recognize them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier gave this House the impression that the jobs are

guaranteed. I have spoken with workers as late as this morning, I say to the

Premier, and other people, and there is no guarantee of jobs. You just said you

had no agreement. How can they give an agreement of jobs when they do not have

an agreement?

I ask the Premier: Has the government had formal discussions

about this legislation with any of the local companies doing or capable of doing

printing, microfilming, or electronic imaging work for the government regarding

the impact of such an arrangement on their businesses? If not, is the Premier

willing to halt further discussions until such discussions have been conducted?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect,

the government could do this two ways. The government could go out and enter

into a negotiation - and by the way, the only purpose, the only reason for doing

this is to try to bring investment and jobs to the Province. Now, the prospect

of doing that may upset some members of the House, but it upsets nobody on this

side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: If there is not millions of dollars of new

investment in Newfoundland and Labrador, if there is not cutting edge technology

in Newfoundland and Labrador, if there is not a capacity to compete and win

contracts outside of Newfoundland and Labrador and to service those contracts

from Newfoundland and Labrador, we will not be signing any agreement with

anybody. But we are not prepared to sit here and say our fiscal situation is

difficult, our job situation requires stimulation, and to be buried in

negativity. We are going to go out and try to create jobs and attract new

investment to Newfoundland and Labrador. The Leader of the Opposition should

support the government in that objective instead of being a nay-sayer, a critic,

and wrapping himself up in a cocoon of criticism every time he stands on his

feet in the House of Assembly!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the few months you have been Premier we have seen over

2,000 people leave this Province, and when you were a minister in the Federal

Government we saw 15,000 leave the Province in the past two years, when you were

our representative. If that is protecting jobs in this Province - now, this

government has shown a disturbing lack of respect for the Public Tender Act. As

we have seen quite clearly in documents, exceptions here monthly in this House,

not to mention the Trans City affair which has cost taxpayers over $30 million,

and the Supreme Court has confirmed that the government has erred, I have great

concerns -

AN HON. MEMBER: Question, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am getting to the question, Mr. Speaker.

I have great concerns about this latest attempt to contract out our public

tendering laws. Why would you want to circumvent the very process that levels

the playing fields for companies in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Leader of

the Opposition has understood what the basis of this discussion is, and I would

ask him to listen for a moment. If government was simply contracting out

printing services, I would agree wholeheartedly with the Leader of the

Opposition. If what we were asking is that the private sector take care of all

our printing, we should make a public tender call, get the cheapest bid, and

allow somebody to do all of our printing services, those currently done in-house

done outside by whatever firm provided the lowest bid. But that is not the

nature of this discussion. What is being discussed here is having a large

international firm come and invest millions of dollars in the Province to build

a modern state-of-the-art imaging centre which is going to be capable of

competing for work right across Canada, those jobs being done in this Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the nature of the negotiation.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition, it is not finished. I

say to him, if it is not a good deal it will not be signed. But I equally say to

the Leader of the Opposition, and I say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador, that it is not the job of government simply to

manage decline. We have to go out and promote Newfoundland and Labrador, promote

our workers, promote our opportunities, bring in new companies, bring in new

investment and move the economy forward. That is what we are going to do this

summer while you are sitting on the beach thinking of more reasons to be

negative about Newfoundland and Labrador! We think we can compete, we think we

can win, and we are going to demonstrate it over the weeks ahead!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If Kodak needs to violate the Public Tender Act and have a

monopoly on services forever and a day in this Province then they should stay

where they are, I say to the Premier, if you have to go outside that act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Now, the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation is reported to have refused to tell The Evening Telegram

what percentage of government printing would be contracted out to Kodak, how

much the government would hope to save, or why the government would want to

forego calling public tenders for such work in the future? Now, she said, and I

quote, "That is a level of detail that I just cannot get into right now because

they are still subject to negotiations."

Now, I ask the Premier: Is he willing to provide that

information to the House today, and if not, do you really expect members of this

Legislature to pass legislation in the absence of such fundamental detail, and

to give what is in effect a blank cheque to violate the Public Tender Act that

is suppose to protect the people of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador note, let the people of the Province of Canada with

the highest per capita debt, with the highest taxes in the country, with the

highest level of unemployment, let them note that the Leader of the Opposition,

without even waiting to see what the outcome of the negotiations is going to be,

has just sent a signal right across this country, a signal right across North

America, when he says to Kodak: stay where you are, we do not want you in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, it is that kind of dog-in-the-manger, negative

attitude that has kept us where we are, and it is time we changed and went on a

process of trying to attract responsible investment to Newfoundland and

Labrador. I say again to the Leader of the Opposition, we are going to say to

Kodak in a responsible way the same think we have said to Inco, that if it is a

good deal for Newfoundland and Labrador we will proceed.

That is why we said during the last election campaign there

must be a smelter, there must be a refinery or there will not be a mine. The

Leader of the Opposition said: oh, you cannot believe the Liberal government.

Well, I say to the Leader of the Opposition that we are going to start all three

at once or we will start none, and I vow here we will start all three or we will

all vacate this side of the House.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition, the same kind of

negative attitude was prevalent on the question of trans-shipment. We are going

to have a trans-shipment facility in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, some people in this Province

put their political agenda ahead of the prospect of success for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. I say to the Leader of the Opposition get ready to

live with a little success because we are going to have some in the weeks and

months ahead.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is why we have a problem in the Province today, Premier.

That is why, without public tender, $30 million of taxpayer's money was given

away on Trans City. That is why we have the problem, Premier. I am prepared to

ask my colleagues to come back and reconvene this House when you have the

agreement and we will deal with it then, but we will not give you a blank

cheque.

Now, the Premier stated here today already and I would like

for him to clarify again - my final question, Mr. Speaker: Has this government

given a guarantee to public employees who are working in the printing services

that their jobs will be secure after this transfer to Kodak Canada? Will you

give that guarantee here today, that all jobs will be secure? They have told me

differently, Mr. Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised at the

Leader of the Opposition. He normally is an individual who takes the time to do

his homework, prepares himself in advance before coming to the floor of the

House, and brings a smidgen of optimism with him on occasion; but today a great

big black cloud is chasing him around. He is shattered, he is shaken, he is

upset at the prospect that a little good news might creep in in the middle of

the good weather we are experiencing at this time of the year.

Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition had done his

homework he would know that the collective agreement ensures that all of the

workers keep their jobs, and we are going to respect the collective agreement.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: That is not what the question was, so I ask

the Premier again: Will you stand and answer yes or no? Have you guaranteed that

all these jobs will be guaranteed on the transfer to Kodak and not subject to

bumping within the public service? Will they all be guaranteed jobs? Yes or no,

I ask the Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I just said to the Leader of

the Opposition - and I know this is difficult, I know it causes him to get upset

and gets his blood pressure on the rise - I just said to the Leader of the

Opposition that we would expect that the majority, and a significant majority of

the employees -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Listen to the answer, don't get too

excited. A majority of the employees, a very significant majority, would go to

work with kodak, would be offered a job with kodak and I think a significant

majority would want a job. Those who under the collective agreement do not

exercise that option and choose instead to stay with government would have

positions within government. Is that clear enough or do we need to write a note

and send it across the isle?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question period has expired.

MR. LUSH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for

Terra Nova.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that the

rules of the House be followed and I feel it incumbent to raise this point of

order. Regardless of what one might think about the questions raised by the

Leader of the Opposition, one thing is certain that they were totally out of

order. I refer the hon. members to Beauchesne, page 121, clause 409 - which

begins on page 120 - and subsection 12, on page 121 of Beauchesne, this is

popularly referred to in parliamentary language as the anticipatory rule and it

states, "Questions should not anticipate a debate scheduled for the day, but

should be reserved for the debate." It is my understanding that this particular

question was on the Order Paper today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I find it strange, when one gets

up on a Point of Order that hon. members opposite don't like it. What? Do they

not want to know the rules of the House? It is important that we all know the

rules of the House; these rules are there for a reason, for a very important

reason. One of the reasons is to not use up the time of Question Period

unnecessarily when there is going to be a debate and the matter can be raised in

debate form.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: So, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing can be done

about it. I just thought I would do the House a favour and raise the point of

order; the questions have been asked obviously. I just want to acquaint members

with this particular rule so that we can be governed by it in the future.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: To that point of order, Speaker. I am very

much aware of that section, I say to the member. I discussed it with my Caucus

this morning. The reason I proceeded with the question today is because it is

not what we anticipated. We were informed by the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation that certain particulars in this bill could not be discussed here

in this House. In fact, my office had a call from the minister on Friday and

again on Monday from the minister's office. We wanted an opportunity to raise in

Question Period what would not be permitted to come to the floor of this House.

In fact, if it had to be ruled out of order I had another prepared set of

questions. I say to the member, I am very much aware of this, as we all are. It

is completely in order, I say to the Speaker, it is completely in order here

because anticipated discussion on this was not going to occur by virtue of what

the minister had informed us.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The

point of order that the member raised, a most experienced member in this Chamber

has raised, is absolutely correct; but the reality is, Mr. Speaker, so that the

public record is clear and in your ruling on this, your own assessment is

complete, the notice of this bill was given originally by me directly to the

Leader of the Opposition in a courtesy phone call. Secondly, the minister in

question had offered to brief the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues or

his assigned critic. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing secretive about this. We gave

advance notice; I personally gave it. The minister gave it because we wanted to

have the opportunity to negotiate a good arrangement for the Province. That has

been known from day one. We are quite willing to discuss it in the House,

outside the House, to brief the Leader of the Opposition because we want him to

share in the prospect of a little good news for a change. It looks like he needs

a bit of joy in his life these days.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Now

that the Premier has made reference to it, I will state I received a call from

the Premier on Thursday with the possibility, he indicated to me and asked me in

confidence. I did not even discuss with my colleagues the possibility of this

bill coming. I did not know until the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation called my office on Friday to inform me the bill was forthcoming.

That is what happened, I say to the Premier. I didn't even inform my colleagues

because you asked me in confidence on Thursday morning. We didn't know; it was a

possibility it may come, you told me, and you said it may not, but in case it

does. The next I knew, I was out of the office and a call came for the minister.

Now, those are the facts of the case here. We have every right - the minister

indicated to my House Leader, who can speak for himself, that certain

particulars of this case could not be discussed - and we have every right as the

Opposition in this Province to bring the facts on the floor of the House of

Assembly. The House Leader can speak for himself on this matter. I ask the

minister too, to stand in her place and speak on this particular matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier, the last submission.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, with leave to respond to this

point. The fact of the matter is we are in the middle of a commercial

negotiation. If the Leader of the Opposition is saying that every aspect of a

negotiation with a private company, every single detail has to be put on the

table, that we should negotiate this publicly and in the media with Kodak, the

Leader of the Opposition knows that that is not a responsible position for us to

take.

The principle of what we are trying to do, the intent of what

we are trying to achieve, all of that can be fully discussed in this place or in

public, Mr. Speaker, but confidential commercial information cannot be

discussed. The Leader of the Opposition knows that, and one day, Mr. Speaker,

whenever that might be, if he ever has the opportunity to sit on this side of

the House, he will be constrained by the same commercial considerations and I

think he knows that.

MR. SPEAKER: I will permit one more submission and that's

it.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

The difficulty that we have with this particular procedure is

not that we were offered a briefing by the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation but the conditions which were placed on that particular briefing;

and the briefing was offered with certain conditions attached; namely, that

certain comments had to be kept in private.

Mr. Speaker, when we are sitting here in this House, we

cannot agree as an Opposition that we will go to private meetings and then we

will not be able to share that information with our colleagues or indeed in a

public forum. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this House is to get information out

and we decided as a caucus today that this was an opportunity for the Premier to

answer those questions. The Premier knows he does not always stay after Question

Period and we thought today, the head of this government should be held

accountable for the intent that this government has; therefore Question Period

is designed with that in mind.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I think we have exhausted this submission. We are getting now

to a debate about conversations and private conversations and what happened in

private conversations. My experience in the House is that, there have been cases

when we have had major legislation before this House and there have been

questions in Question Period on that legislation. Our rules say that we have to

look at the precedents of our House and then we would go to others.

The Chair would like to research this further before we rule

on it so that we can have a ruling for future considerations. I can't recall,

since I have been here, that there has been a ruling on this particular section,

and I would like to research it further and do a ruling so that we will have

something to guide us in future years.

The hon. Premier I think has leave to revert to Statements by

Ministers?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in my place on

behalf of - I know I will be joined by other members - but on behalf of all

members of the Legislature and indeed on behalf of the people of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, to express heartfelt condolences to the Member for

Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, Yvonne Jones and to her husband Jim. An infant

girl, Liza, was born yesterday to Yvonne and Jim and died shortly, Mr. Speaker,

after birth.

I know that all members and indeed the people of the Province

want to express our very heartfelt condolences to both Yvonne and Jim and to

wish them both well in this time of their grieving, and to say to Yvonne that we

look forward to her return to the House of Assembly at an appropriate moment.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I too join with the Premier in offering our condolences to Ms

Jones, the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, on this unfortunate affair.

I guess a very joyful moment initially, and then a moment where her infant child

has passed away in a premature case, I understand, of birth in this instance. It

is very unfortunate, and our condolences certainly from our caucus go out to Ms

Jones in this regard.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to join with the Premier and the Leader of the

Opposition in offering to the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair and her

husband our greatest sympathy. I know most members of the House are parents and

all of us, I know, can empathize with the personal anguish and sorrow that she

must now feel along with her family. We all grieve along with her and her

husband Jim in their loss. I would ask that the Speaker, on behalf of all hon.

members of the House, convey to her and her family our sincerest condolences.

Petitions

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to

present another petition on the food fishery. I feel I would be remiss if I

didn't offer one during these couple of days that the House is open this summer,

where I presented so many during the other session.

As a matter of fact, as I spent some time in my district over

the last few weeks people continued to say that as the summer went on they feel

more strongly than ever as they see indications all over the Province that we

should indeed be allowed to have a food fishery, where people can go out and jig

ten or twelve fish, or whatever the case might be, for food, and to enjoy that

right that they have enjoyed for so many years.

As a matter of fact, just today I received a lengthy letter

from the community of Lewisporte that apparently was copied to the minister - I

don't know if he received the letter yet - talking about remarks that the

minister made in the House with regard to a commercial food fishery and a food

fishery. They told me to remind the minister we aren't talking about a

commercial fishery where you open up the fishery to all these boats and all the

commercial activity that would go with that. We are talking about a simple food

fishery.

They said to me, Mr. Speaker, in the letter to try to get

that through to the minister, that there is a major difference between a food

fishery where you go out and jig a fish to eat and enjoy it, and to let

everybody go out with their big boats and long-liners and nets and so on and get

fish. It is a simple thing and we shouldn't be making a mountain out of a

molehill when we talk about opening the food fishery for a couple of weeks where

all these people come back to visit in Newfoundland. During the caplin fishery

there were fish on the beaches. I understand there was a picture in The

Evening Telegram a little while ago of a big fish that was caught somewhere.

Every community I go to, thirty-three rural communities in my

district, every single one I went into talked about how many fish were in the

harbour, how many fish were there. They had friends home who wanted to go down

and jig a fish. The bay was full of them, they could have rowed out in a dory,

as a matter of fact they could have caught them right off their wharf with a

casting rod, and still this minister, every time he talks about the food fishery

talks about the commercial fishery and how we are going to ruin the stocks if we

let somebody go out and jig ten fish. A load of malarkey, Mr. Speaker, is what

it is.

It all started with the Premier when he was former Minister

of Fisheries and Oceans in Ottawa, when he was going to take on the Spanish he

decided he was going to cut the food fishery for Newfoundland too. It was all a

show is what it was. The simple truth is that while Nova Scotia, New Brunswick,

Prince Edward Island, Quebec - to add insult to injury, this year people on the

Burin Peninsula, I have gotten calls from there also, would sit on the shores

while people from St. Pierre - Miquelon, a foreign country, would smile at the

Newfoundlanders sitting on shore and jig fish because they were in St. Pierre -

Miquelon waters.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you tell me how that makes sense, where a

Minister of Fisheries can stand in his place and say: It is alright for them to

jig a fish but Newfoundlanders are different. There is a boundary in those

waters and they are different fish. It is foolishness, is what it is. I tell the

minister, stop making a mountain out of a molehill, open up a food fishery for a

couple of weeks, let people go out and enjoy a tradition they have enjoyed for

years, and not discriminate from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I. and so on.

Last year when I went to Prince Edward Island, a

Newfoundlander on a holiday for a week, I could go out and jig a fish, but I

couldn't come back to Newfoundland to jig a fish; because apparently, from what

the minister was saying, there are boundaries in the waters. The Newfoundland

fish swim up so far and see the boundaries and swim back. What a load of

foolishness.

Another piece of information that DFO just gave me is that

there was a fish off the South Coast of Newfoundland found in the Bering Strait.

He must have gone astray, I say to the minister. The truth is that there is

enough fish for a food fishery. Stop making such a big deal of it. Deal with the

issue of a commercial fishery on a different basis, and let people have the

dignity, if their bay is full of fish, to row out, or stand on the wharf, and

jig a fish to eat. By the way, besides that point, there are a lot of people in

this Province who could use a meal of fish for their families with such times in

this Province. A small food fishery, if you just sit back and stop the

foolishness that we started with this, making a mountain out of a mole hill, let

them jig a measly fish, and let them be happy as Newfoundlanders with the last

thing they can do in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a few

quick comments.

Yesterday we had an announcement, or a couple of days ago we

the TAGS program was about to run out, that the program may be cut short by one

year. If all of that comes to reality we will have something like 25,000 or

30,000 people unemployed in this Province. We already have thousands of people

unemployed.

The obligation, on behalf of all members in this House of

Assembly, would be to conserve what fish we have until we are satisfied that a

commercial fishery can be reopened to get people back to work. Once the

commercial fishery is open and people are back to work, then we can look at what

other things we can put in place.

When I hear the hon. member there talking about fish rolling

on the beaches, fish jumping on top of the wharves, and everywhere you go there

are codfish, codfish, codfish, it really excites me. Because if that is

happening then we know that all of the people who are now coming off TAGS will

be back fishing, and all the fish plants that we now have closed will be

processing fish, then we can all sit down and be happy, and all of us will get a

fish to eat.

Orders of the Day

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 4.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Facilitate The

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

The Province By Kodak Canada Incorporated". (Bill No. 19).

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

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this legislation

is to enable government to enter into an agreement which involves contracting

its printing, microfilming and electronic imaging services to Kodak Canada

Incorporated should government determine that such an agreement serves the best

interest of this Province.

The bill which is before you would exclude these services

from the provisions of the Public Tender Act for the duration of the agreement

and any subsequent renewal of the agreement. The bill applies only to this

agreement with Kodak Canada Incorporated, and only if government concludes the

agreement within the next thirty days. Should government decide not to proceed

with this agreement, then the provisions of the Public Tender Act will continue

to apply to government's printing services as it has in the past.

To explain the need for this particular legislation, it is

necessary to provide some background on government's printing services. The

printing and micrographic division commenced operations in 1954. It has provided

centralized printing and micrographic services to all departments and certain

agencies of the Provincial Government. Over the past few years, government has

concluded that printing work being done by the private sector is actually more

cost-effective than its own internal operation. With this in mind, government

decided to contract with a private company to manage the operation of this

division. It was expected that an outside management company would be able to

improve efficiencies and achieve cost reductions for government.

In June, 1995, the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation, in accordance with the Public Tender Act, issued a proposal call

requesting the services of a management company to oversee the operations of

printing services. Government received three proposals, one of which was from

Kodak Canada. Kodak subsequently approached government with an economic

development proposal which involved the complete contracting out of printing

services rather than simply facilities management. Their proposal involved a

direct saving to government on its annual printing costs, a significant capital

investment by the company, the attraction of new business to the Province, and

an increase in employment.

Government officials subsequently invited the remaining

companies which had bid on the facilities management proposal to submit new

proposals which included a similar economic development component. Given the

propitiatory nature of the matter, however, government did not issue another

formal call for proposals. The remaining two companies submitted a joint

proposal and officials of government then conducted an evaluation to determine

which provided the greater overall savings and benefits to the Province.

After careful analysis, government has determined that the

Kodak Canada Incorporated proposal offers the greatest potential benefits for

the Province and has therefore proceeded to negotiate an agreement on this

basis. The agreement with Kodak Canada Incorporated has the potential to provide

an alternative method of delivering these government services which increases

efficiency and helps develop the economy through partnerships with the private

sector. The negotiations are proceeding and should be concluded within the next

thirty days. If government is satisfied that this arrangement is good for the

Province then it wishes to have the necessary authority to conclude an agreement

in this time frame. If, however, government is unable to negotiate a

satisfactory agreement within this time frame, then it does not plan to proceed

further. In this case, my department would look for other means to improvement

efficiency in its printing services. If enacted, the printing services act will

enable government to enter into an exclusive arrangement with Kodak Canada

Incorporated for the provision of printing, microfilming and electronic imaging

services to government for a set time to be negotiated. Should government decide

not to proceed with this agreement, then this legislation loses its effect and

the normal provisions of the Public Tender Act apply to printing and

micrographic services.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request the

support of members of the House for this bill. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot really say, Mr. Speaker, whether I support the bill

or whether I do not. I don't really know what is in there. I find it very

strange that the bill is not here, the details of what is there. I guess what

the minister is doing is probably asking for a rubber stamp. That, Mr. Speaker,

I, for one, am certainly not prepared to give. The government has the right to

negotiate whatever contracts it so desires. So why can this not follow the same

procedure? Why do we again have to circumvent the Public Tender Act forever and

a day as it relates to this one particular company? I have had one phone call so

far as it relates to this particular bill, asking me exactly what is going on

and exactly what the government is trying to do here. I have to say in all

honesty, Mr. Speaker, I really could not answer because I really don't know the

answer.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Well, I am not about to take some members

words, Mr. Minister, believe me, I, for one, would like to see all of this. I

would like to know the details of this bill before I, for one, would certainly

vote to accept it. If it continues on the way that it is I certainly will not

vote to support this bill, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, I will do

everything in my power - even though we probably do not have the numbers - but

everything that I can certainly do to see that this particular bill is defeated.

I think it is wrong to come into this House and ask us to rubber stamp on this

particular issue.

We have people who work in the department in here who have

been doing printing. Some of them have been there for some twenty-odd years and

my understanding from some of these people is that they have probably been

guaranteed nothing and I mean nothing. They don't really know where they stand.

Today, and I hope it is wrong, I have been told that this whole exercise has

probably already been decided. I hope again, Mr. Speaker, that that is wrong.

The people who work in this particular division of government also have a right

to know where they are going. Their lives depend on it. Some of them have given

some 20-odd years to working for this government, so I would hope that we would

certainly have some care and some concern for these people as it relates to

their jobs. These people have families as well, whom they have to support, so I

would hope, that before any agreement is entered into, the workers of

Newfoundland and Labrador are looked after. I say this, Mr. Speaker, for lots of

reasons.

We look at the Newfoundland Dockyard here which is about to

close in another few days, putting some 500 people out of work, and the

they treat people in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I

wonder why. I really wonder why. Why are we again going to do this to our own

people? So, before I would even consider this bill, I, for one, want to make

sure that these people's rights, their benefits and everything that is in here

is covered and well looked after, Mr. Speaker, well looked after. I cannot,

again, for the life of me, understand why there is such a massive rush to get

this bill through when the government has the power and the numbers to negotiate

with Kodak or with anybody else and come to an agreement, a suitable agreement,

and then bring it before this House.

I cannot understand, Mr. Speaker, why the rush. All of a

sudden we were going to be called back to debate an Education bill and now, we

are into something else, and that bothers me, Mr. Speaker. It makes me wonder

why the rush? You know, who are we trying to satisfy here? Are we trying to

satisfy Kodak? Are we trying to satisfy the minister? Are we trying to satisfy

the House? Are we trying to satisfy the people of this Province? Who are we

really trying to satisfy? I would really like to know what is going on in the

back room, because it has to be something. There is a rush here to have this

passed. You want us in and out in two days, in and out in two days on this

particular bill, no debate, no discussion, no nothing, just bring it in, bring

it out and we are out of here in two days.

I don't care, Mr. Speaker, if I am here all summer. It

matters little to me; but, before I vote for this bill to pass in this House,

there have to be a lot of questions answered and the biggest question of all is:

Why the rush to have this bill go through within a day; why, all of a sudden do

we have to have this, bango, done, delivered? It really bothers me, Mr. Speaker,

there is a rush here, almost a hidden agenda, I guess. There is something going

on and I think we, as elected representatives of this House, have a right to

know.

So, for me, Mr. Speaker, and I will sit down on this note, I

want to know more about this bill; I want to know more about the people in this

Province, how they are going to be protected and I want to know how the rest of

the printers in this Province feel about this bill. I have had one phone call

already today and it is not even out there yet. And I am sure when it gets out

there, Mr. Speaker, I will have many, many more. So I ask the minister: why the

rush, when you do have the right to negotiate, to bring this to a suitable

conclusion? Why the rush to have it put through in two days? It amazes me.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to participate in this debate. It is second

reading on the legislation to exclude from the Public Tender Act, any agreement

or renewal of an agreement with Kodak of Canada that may be negotiated by

government within the next thirty days.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition and the

previous speaker, have referred to this legislation as a blank cheque to allow

the government to negotiate whatever agreement it wants in the next thirty days.

I don't know how anyone on this side of the House could support such a bill.

Because we have not been convinced that we should support it, other than the

hidden message which is: Trust us, we will only enter in an agreement that we

think is best for the people of this Province.

I heard the discussion a little earlier about what knowledge

the Leader of the Opposition had or did not have about the bill. I want to say

that, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I had a briefing. I do not recall

being asked to keep anything confidential. I wasn't asked, so I will tell you

everything I learned. It wasn't very much, I tell you, and I left the meeting no

more convinced than when I went to it, so you didn't miss much.

What I was told, and I will tell you, was that this deal they

are hoping to negotiate has the potential for other business outside the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. They couldn't answer a very important

question, and maybe the minister will answer it when she closes debate. They

couldn't answer a very important question which was: Why here? Why, in

Newfoundland and Labrador, of all the places in North America or the world that

Kodak could set up their first imaging centre, why are they coming here?

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't want them, do you?

MR. HARRIS: It is not a question of whether we want, it

is a question of what do they want, and what are they going to get as a

condition of their coming here.

Negotiations, of course, are a two-sided deal. You cannot

make a deal unless two people agree. Let us look at the kinds of negotiations we

have heard about so far. The employees, what are they being offered? Nobody

knows. The employees don't know. I am not sure government knows. I have not

heard any grand statements from the minister about performance contracts or

performance requirements. The Minister of Development and Rural Renewal was

speaking to the Employers Council the other day and thumping and thundering

about how the government in its dealings with the economic zone boards was going

to have performance contracts to ensure that these economic development zones

met the requirements of government in terms of its activities.

I would like to know what standards does this government have

in performance contracts for this organization? Do we have, and will we have,

guarantees of a level of investment, and for how long? Will we have guarantees

of employment for the people they are prepared to offer jobs to? So far what I

am told is that the employees have received no answers about what happens to

their pensions, what happens to the current obligations that exist for

redundancy pay. What about security of employment in this new enterprise if they

are offered a job?

It is not there - no answers; lots of questions, but no

answers for the employees now, and I would suspect that this government is not

going to insist on any answers after they make the contract. The employees will

be hived off to Kodak if they take those jobs, and good-bye job security,

good-bye any guarantee of contingent work, good-bye probably a collective

bargaining relationship. Because this government has not insisted upon

legislation, and I doubt very much will insist upon successorship of the

collective bargaining regime that is now in place for those workers who are

employed by the public service.

They have contractual rights now. They don't have to go, they

don't have to leave. They do not have to go to Kodak. And they may be able to

keep a job in the public service. But let there be no mistake, if thirty-four

employees in government printing services are no longer employed in government

printing services, they may keep a job, but I guarantee you, there are going to

be thirty-four other people who are gone out the door and gone on the street

along with the other hundreds that this government has laid off in the last

couple of years. I do not take a lot of comfort from the words of the Premier,

when he says that the majority of them, or a significant majority of them, may

be offered a job. What kind of job, what kind of security will they have, and

what kind of a future will they have?

Mr. Speaker, I do not know a heck of a lot about Kodak

Incorporated but I have heard that it is not particularly union-friendly. I do

not know the details of that but that is what I hear, and I hear they favour

in-house company unions, so-called, as opposed to -

MR. MATTHEWS: More fearmongering.

MR. HARRIS: The Minister of Health, the fearmongerer

himself over there. He is the man who is presiding over, in his government, a

pink ghetto of workers out there working for less than the poverty level wages,

doing home care, kicking people out of institutions where they make twice as

much money, and he is talking about fearmongering.

Mr. Speaker, we have a track record here with this government

already. We already have a track record with this government of having people

who formerly worked at $7.00 an hour for Comcare, providing home care services,

and they are now paid 25 per cent less, thanks to the level of protection that

his government was prepared to give to workers employed with government funds.

Mr. Speaker, this is not fearmongering, this is reality, this is the track

record of this very government and this minister's department, and the concerns

that this minister has.

I would like the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation to tell us whether she has a different attitude than the Minister

of Health and is prepared to guarantee that in this agreement there will be the

kind of protection of employment contracts, security, seniority, and wage rates

that these employees deserve? What about successive rights, Mr. Speaker? We do

not have it in legislation from the public sector to the private sector. All

contracting out is not bad, but contracting out such as in the health care

industry which results in the exploitation of women in the health care industry,

that is wrong, that is bad, and that cannot be supported.

Mr. Speaker, the workers who are currently employed in

conducting this activity ought to have the protection of a collective bargaining

agent that they have chosen to represent them. Can the minister assure this

House that that kind of protection will be in an agreement with Kodak?

I know the government hopes they are going to enter into an

agreement that they think will be fruitful, but I do not have any insurances

today other than the bluster and the bluff of the Premier which is similar to

that conducted in the election campaign. We have not heard anything here in this

House today, or in the briefing sessions, or in any public statements, that

would give us a lot of confidence. The potential is a bit tantalizing; there are

certain ideas that may have some merit, but if the government wants this House

of Assembly, and certainly, this hon. member, to support an exception to the

Public Tender Act for an agreement we have never seen, and that we do not even

know the broad outlines of, then that is a little bit too much to ask.

Let them negotiate, let them set a deadline for negotiating,

and perhaps let the House give the bill second reading, if that is what they

want to do, and come back with an agreement for third reading

later on this summer or whenever they want to do it. Go as

far as second reading, we can do that today, we are doing it now. Go into

Committee and have a debate on the one clause of the bill and leave it on the

table. We will come back, Mr. Speaker, and see the deal, see what they have

negotiated. They will have their negotiating time frame. Kodak will be aware.

They have to make a deal within thirty days or not at all. They will have their

ability to have the time limits as a framework for negotiations, although I hate

to use that word `framework' but it will certainly be a -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: It would focus the minds of Kodak, no pun

intended, and would allow the government to do whatever hard bargaining it feels

it can do, and we will come back and look at the deal. We can all decide whether

it is something that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are prepared to

accept the Public Tender Act to allow to happen or not. We can all decide

whether it is something that is good for this Province, that it is sufficient to

do away with the Public Tender Act.

I mean, some of the information that I learned from this

Services. Right now, about $900,000-worth of government printing services

annually goes outside the Province, is done by someone outside the Province.

That is not going to change. My question to the minister is: Is that $900,000

also going to be funnelled through Kodak? Are they going to get their cut on

that? Are they going to be the broker for that outside business? Is that going

to be done in New York now instead of Montreal? Is it going to go outside the

country altogether, not just outside the Province? Is that part of the contract?

Are they getting all of the government printing services to subcontract to

whoever they wish, whatever partners their company may have in the United

States, Mexico or somewhere else? Are we going into a situation where this

multinational corporation is now going to be a broker of $3 million or so worth

of government business? Is there going to be any particular guarantees that this

business is not going to go outside, not just the Province, but outside the

country?

We are, Mr. Speaker, in an era of free trade, like it or lump

it, and mostly we have been lumping it in this country, in this Province. We

have been lumping it to the tune of lost jobs. It may be with the use of the

fibre optic cables and the high tech, high-end technology business that Kodak

would want to do in Newfoundland could be done here just as easily as it could

be in Los Angeles or Redwood Valley, California where microsoft operates or

anywhere else in the world. It may well be that that business will come here,

but it may well be, Mr. Speaker, that other businesses will just as quickly go

the other way if all of this business is turned over to Kodak.

So what are we talking about here, Mr. Speaker? Are we

talking about passing over all the business to Kodak or just that business that

Kodak itself will do or want to do or want to establish its base for? Are they

going to be taking a profit off the subcontracting of government work now that

goes out, the $1.7 million that is now subcontracted out? A figure the minister

used today in the House, $1.7 million-worth of work done outside of government

already of the approximately $3 million or $3.1 million of printing work that is

being done - currently, that is done outside of government. Why would that be

given to a company when the statement is that most of that work will still be

done outside or out-source, I think is the word the Premier used today - why

give it to them? Are they going to take a profit on that? Is that part of the

deal? Is that part of the sweetener for Kodak to give them business that is

already properly managed and properly contracted out and giving business

locally? Why is that part of the deal? I don't think that question has been

answered. In fact, there are so many unanswered questions at this stage that it

makes it almost impossible for this bill to be supported.

There is no mention, as I said earlier, of the Minister of

Labour being involved in this to ensure that proper provisions are in place to

establish the right of the employees to continue to be represented for

collective bargaining in the new enterprise. Our legislation is inadequate for

that purpose, and the only way to safeguard that is to ensure, in a contract

with a company such as Kodak, that they would recognize the bargaining agent for

these employees and carry on to negotiate a collective agreement.

I am sure the minister will say that the new company will

agree to abide by all laws in the Province with respect to labour relations.

Well, they have to do that anyway, but the problem is and the difficulty is that

in the area of contracting out, and in the area of contracts generally by

government, the provisions of the Labour Relations Act, or the Public Service

Collective Bargaining Act, or labour relations acts generally, are inadequate to

provide a mechanism to follow a contract from the public sector to the private

sector, or from one contractor to the other, in the case where there are

successive contracts one to the other, and the only way to protect those rights

is to actually negotiate them with the person you are dealing with. I do not

know, and I do not have at this point confidence that the minister has included

that in her negotiations with Kodak.

I do not want to be a complete nay-sayer, because we are all

in this Province looking for ways to build on the talents, on the knowledge, on

the skills, on the learning of our people, and in the area of information

technology we have both a high level of quality work being undertaken right now

by a number of different companies that are world leaders in the software

technology, and in some cases the hardware technology, in relation to certain

specified high technology enterprises. The expertise is here. We have seen the

development of unique expertise in the area of nautical mapping done through

digital computer-based software. We have seen the development of high tech

aviation equipment. We have seen communication systems developed in this

Province that are used internationally, and we have on the hardware side not one

but two complete, across-the-Province, fibre optic networks that can plug people

in this Province into the rest of North America through the latest technology of

information transfer.

So we do have some significant interest, involvement and

investment as a people already in the high tech field. So one might say this is

a natural, and I would like to share the optimism that is expressed by the

minister and by the Premier as to this particular enterprise, but until we see

the results of the negotiations, until we see what the government is able to

negotiate, we will be left with the promise of the Premier which becomes then a

self-fulfilling prophecy, that having committed himself as he did today, to

Voisey's Bay, mine, mill and smelter, or resign, he now has to deliver or

resign. That is what he said today. He has put his government's existence on his

ability to ensure that Inco develops a mine, a mill and a smelter.

Well, I guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, that Inco was really glad

to hear that; Inco is delighted to hear that because now they know that come

hell or high water, they can get a deal, and they can get a better deal after

today than they could have gotten yesterday because the Premier has now said

that: if I do not get the deal that I want, I will have to resign. So, Mr.

Speaker, that is the danger of passing legislation like this, because the

Premier then and the government then have to come up with some kind of a deal or

have egg on their faces, and it is far more preferable, Mr. Speaker, to have

this legislation passed even at second reading and go off, negotiate the deal

and come back to this House after the deal is negotiated, come back for third

reading, convince the people of this Province, convince the members of the House

of Assembly that it is a good deal for Newfoundland and Labrador and members on

this side of the House and the backbenchers on that side of the House will have

an opportunity to judge it on its merits.

What we are being asked to do today is, as was said earlier,

to give the government a blank cheque, to ignore the provisions of the Public

Tender Act. We know what happens, Mr. Speaker, when this government decides to

ignore the provisions of the Public Tender Act. We have a track record - we are

not fearmongering about that any more than we are fearmongering about the rights

of employees and what is going to happen to them. We are talking about the track

record of this government and the predecessor government filled by most of the

ministers who are sitting over there now.

When they choose to or have the right to, whether legal or

not, ignore the Public Tender Act, watch out, watch out, Mr. Speaker, because

there is bound to be losses to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. So if

they want to have the support of the members of this House, on behalf of their

constituents, to violate or, in this case, make an exception to the Public

Tender Act, then they should put the deal on the table of this House and let us

have a look at it up front, let us vote on it, let us determine whether it is a

good deal for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to voice my opposition to Bill 19 as presented today

and while I want to see opportunities in this Province for job creation as much

as the Premier wants to see them - I want to see as many jobs in this Province

as possible. But it is unfair and it is putting the minister in a difficult

situation, I am sure; it puts pressure on the minister to have her department

circumvent the Public Tender Act, and to give an exclusive contract that says

here in this legislation: for the provision of Printing, Microfilming and

Electronic Imaging to the Government of the Province, the Public Tender Act does

not apply to the acquisition of Printing, Microfilming and Electronic Imaging by

the government of the Province from Kodak Canada Incorporated, during the

currency of those agreements or any renewal of those agreements. I mean, renewal

of agreements can go on forever, forever, and we have seen some bad agreements

we would like to change.

To give an agreement forever, we have seen the Upper

Churchill, we would like to turn the clock back on that before 2033; we would

like to turn it back in the next less than twenty years. We are going to see

electricity for two mils instead of three.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) turn it back today.

MR. SULLIVAN: We would, and there is a way to do it, I

have instructed the Minister of Mines and Energy and this House; I have

discussed it with people in the legal profession, people in the legal community

who called me after I raised that issue, people who worked on theses and in law

school and judges. I have had calls and have been approached by people in this

category who told me that there is an avenue to get money back on the Upper

Churchill and it is called an export tax on electricity. It is in

section 92A of

the Constitution that was brought in after the water rights reversion act of

1980. It was brought in in 1982 when we repatriated our Constitution here in

Canada and there is a provision there. There are three specific sections dealing

with our chance to get it back.

I asked them if they would refer it to the lawyers in the

Department of Justice or to the Supreme Court for a ruling on our right and they

have not done that, on

section 92A. I gave background information, I gave a

Supreme Court review article. I gave background information to the minister. I

did a release with background briefings to the media with all the particulars

pertaining to it and the grounds on which we can do that, and they have not

acted. Eight hundred million dollars, $900 million, going to Quebec when we get

$9 million and $10 million a year. It is an unacceptable procedure, it is a poor

agreement.

We have an avenue to do it. The avenue became clear when

Saskatchewan lost its Supreme Court case in 1970. Then, under repatriating the

Constitution, they gave powers to the provinces under the right to be able to

tax the export of their resources, provided -

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you believe what you are saying?

MR. SULLIVAN: I certainly do, and I can quote the

sections and give you specifics, I say to the minister.

- provided such export tax is not discriminatory among other

provinces in Canada. It must be a non-discriminatory tax, which means we cannot

charge Quebec more than we can charge Saskatchewan if we sold them power, too.

That export tax must be the same.

When you look at the legal agreement the minister talked

about that day, and this is very fundamental here to deals, when you look at

that particular - the minister failed to look at that. I mean, it is an export

tax.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your advisors must be -

MR. SULLIVAN: It has nothing to do - no.

AN HON. MEMBER: You would need to be smarter than the

Supreme Court of Canada (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No. I say to the minister, that is the

problem, the minister doesn't understand. The Supreme Court decision came down

in 1984 or 1985, if the minister would listen. The decision was based on a water

rights reversion act that was never fully proclaimed, for starters. All parts of

it were not proclaimed. There was no reference in the judgement to the 92A of

the Constitution because it was enacted after that legislation, after that

challenge went to the courts. It was never a part of the decision in that, I say

to the minister.

Numerous people in the legal profession have contacted me -

judge, lawyers and other people - when they heard that. One person indicated to

me - and I spoke to a person from another province: I worked on my thesis, I did

special work in that area, I am very interested in that. It is an issue they

believe strongly in. All I am asking the government to do is refer it to their

legal department, get a decision, or for a reference to the Supreme Court to

find out if we have that right. The minister pleaded ignorance to it on two

different occasions that I asked this question in the House. That is an

important fundamental give-away of $800 million.

What would we do in this Province with $200 million of that a

year? When we have just seen a reduction by the Federal Government in the social

safety net in this country where from $427 million last year, this year's Budget

is only going to give us $340 million under the Canada Health and Social

Transfer. It is going down to $230 million in the next three to four years time.

It is going to be $230 million, where they are going to set a level there at

which it won't go below that. That is what is being said now. Two hundred

million dollars to get back in taxation to be able to provide services in this

Province? It is essential, it is an opportunity. It could be more depending on

what tax is used.

In fact, there is one

section - the most limited aspect of

section 92A, I tell the minister, the worst scenario if we got the most adverse

rulings on each thing there, the worst situation we could do is have to tax our

own electricity, which is only one-third of the total production in the

Province. We export twice what we use here. Then we could deliver that back in

other avenues by breaks in other programs to our people. That is an avenue that

is available, I say to the minister, that is a deal that we have a chance to

write and the government ignores it.

Now, we have an opportunity here. We have just seen in this

Province under Trans City when we took a higher bidder - we didn't take the

lowest bidder, we didn't take the preferred bidder, we took a higher bidder. The

highest court in this Province, the Supreme Court of Appeal, ruled that we

violated the Public Tender Act. What it is costing this Province in long-term

financing, the minister is interested, is an extra $30 million from awarding it

to a preferred bidder, and more if you award it to a lower bidder. Not only

that, in addition, the original agreement before government changed it in the

back rooms: We will get all these three facilities for $1 under that lease-back.

Now, we have to pay a fair market value that will be in the millions, maybe.

(Inaudible) cost $24 million, something, or brick buildings and so on,

depreciation is at a lower rate. They are going to have a higher value. It is

costing us more millions of dollars.

And they are asking us to trust this government to go out and

give a contract for eternity to a company to provide service in this Province?

They must think we are crazy, I say to the minister. They must think we are

crazy to do that.

I must complement the minister, she is very straightforward

and she has been very truthful, I might add, very truthful on this issue and

very up front. I appreciate the opportunity for a briefing but I do not want to

deal with anything, to be honest with you - the Premier raised it today, I did

not. I would not have raised the conversation with him, I would not have raised

it with anybody, but the Premier opened `a box' on it today and said he called

me and said that legislation would be forthcoming, and that is not factual. I

stated here earlier today, he said there was a possibility and he would like me

to keep it in confidence, but since he mentioned it I will elaborate on it.

I did not tell anyone. I kept it in confidence. I did not

discuss it with my colleagues until the minister called on Friday. I was out in

a different part of the Province and I got my office to call back, then there

were some mistruths, they weren't accurate - you can call them what you like;

there are other unparliamentary names you could call them, but I would not do

that. I would not intentionally say anything unparliamentary, I say to the

minister. There are things I would like to say to the minister but I will not.

When we are back here tomorrow, I may get an opportunity, but overall, it is not

the appropriate way to go.

I am sure the minister must feel uncomfortable with violating

the Public Tender Act as opposed to a level playing field. The minister said

today there is about $800,000 out of that amount of money that is open on the

market here. We are depriving companies out around this Province, or in Canada,

wherever, from bidding on printing and on microfilm, whatever it might be, to be

able to provide at maybe a more cost-efficient price. It is not a matter of

whether you privatize the printing process or whether you do not. The minister

said it can be done more efficiently by contracting out, but that is not the

point here, and if it is, what (inaudible) afraid to hide from other people? If

we can contract it out more cheaply, then open it up to everybody. Let everybody

bid on it and get a cheaper price. Is that not what we should do? If you were in

business, would you not like to get bids?

The point about this bid is that it was not open for

proposals. They were unsolicited proposals. There was not a call for proposals

on this particular scheme. When they called about managing the printing services

- and the minister said in her statement today there were some companies that

expressed an interest; and it is only those companies then that were discussed

by government to deal with this particular situation. That is wrong.

I would like to see Kodak in the Province here providing

jobs, and I would like to see whoever else bid. I think the Premier mentioned

another company today. He made reference to another company outside the House

that was involved in this discussion, but whoever the companies are, is not the

relevant thing to me. The relevant thing is that there is a level playing field

for companies doing business in this Province, and you should not do through the

back door what you cannot do through the front door. If you cannot qualify under

EDGE legislation, or any other company who wants to deal in this Province, if

they cannot go out in the marketplace they should not do it by allowing them to

break the laws of this Province that we are asked to come in here and make and

protect.

That is wrong, and it is costing us dollars, in this

Province, valuable dollars, I might add, that could be used in construction,

which is almost dried up, $6 million this year. The minister, I am sure, would

like to have $56 million to be able to do the roads. The roads in this Province

are in a terrible state, and we have siphoned out valuable dollars by waste and

poor government decisions that are frustrating our abilities to be able to

provide those services.

Anybody who has the gumption to stand up and vote against

this bill, I compliment them, because it is a bill that is going to give a carte

blanche agreement with one company that can renew the contract forever. You

would not do that in private business so why would you want to do it with public

money? I am not going to accept anybody up front on an agreement that I do not

see - because I have a responsibility as Leader of the Opposition, and our

caucus has a responsibility to want to see the facts of this before I make a

decision.

I have been out in the business community for twenty years

and I have dealt with contracts, some large and some small. I know how it

operates, and this is not fair game, I say to the minister. It is not fair game

for businesses here in this Province. And in the short while they were aware it

was coming out, just since yesterday, there have been some calls to our office.

A colleague made reference that he received a call today. And to run it through

this Legislature, we are not going to expedite the matter. In fact, we will do

all we can to delay the matter, to have it deferred. We will come back and deal

with it when we see the agreement and then put it through.

It is fundamentally wrong, it is improper. The same company,

by the way - I read an

article back in January: Kodak selling copying division,

poor earnings; stiff competition cited - in the Wall Street Journal back

in January, the same company. They are getting into court photography and other

areas. They are trying to get rid of it. There are comments here that it is not

profitable; they want to get out of this.

They are up, too, knocking on the door of Premier Savage in

Nova Scotia, they are knocking on the door of Frank McKenna, the same particular

company, trying to get a better deal. That is what they are doing, and that is

factual. That is what they are doing, and I am sure the minister is aware of

that, and trying to rush it. I want to get a good deal for this Province. I want

to see jobs, but not at the expense of the long-term interest, and costing us

more money in the long term, and that is important.

After the House today I am sure - we are dealing with second

reading today, or whatever; I am sure the bill is not going to be dealt with

today, it is only second reading - I am sure it will give you an opportunity to

revisit that and discuss it with your colleagues in Cabinet, what the

implications are on this and find out - if you were over here on this side of

the House, would you consider that an appropriate action for this government? I

am quite sure you would not. If you were the Mayor of Mount Pearl, would you do

it? Or any particular town in this Province, or in private business? You would

be crazy to do it.

I do not support it. It was not an open bid, it was not an

open process even. Even if it had merit, it was not an open process that allowed

other companies to partake in this process. This was a closed shop. They were

unsolicited bids. There were not proposals called out in the public for this at

all, to look at the services.

If you want to get government operating efficiently, deal

within the printing divisions. Do not sell out other potential job

opportunities. The Premier would not even confirm today - he stated today in the

House that the jobs are going to be guaranteed, if you go back and read Hansard.

Then I came back a little later and asked: `Will he give that assurance?' He

said the majority of jobs are going to be transferred to Kodak.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) significant.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, no, he said `majority' first. Then he

said `a significant majority'.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) we expect.

MR. SULLIVAN: We expect. Now, the Premier will not give

it because there is no agreement. They have no severance package, they have no

pension benefits, they have no guarantees. Some do not have other transferrable

skills because their skills are confined to a specific job, and why should it?

Even from the job security point of view, it is only one of the many particular

issues at stake here. The main thing is the principle of public tendering, the

principle of making contracts available to businesses in this Province on an

open basis and in a non-discriminatory fashion. It is dictatorial to do

otherwise.

Monopolies are not proper unless they are regulated and come

under scrutiny like under the Public Utilities Board and Hydro, probably one of

the few companies or agencies of government that I would be opposed to

privatizing. There are lots of other (inaudible) on their merit. Privatizing

could be great. I am a believer in private enterprise, but I am a believer in

privatizing aspects on their merit of that specific process. If it is

inefficient, if inefficiencies cannot be corrected and delivered as cheaply as

in a private enterprise, there is merit - it cannot be done. If not, if it can

be done at less cost to the taxpayers - our job, overall, is not to create jobs

in the Province; it is not to create jobs.

MR. TULK: What?

MR. SULLIVAN: We would love to do it. We would love to be

able to do it. With the dollars we have, our job is to use the taxpayers' money

most efficiently to deliver the service that we need here in the Province. That

is the role of government.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I say to the minister, that is the

role of government. We would love to create jobs.

MR. TULK: Can you repeat that again?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, read it in Hansard tomorrow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister may have a listening problem.

MR. TULK: I just cannot believe what I heard him say.

MR. SULLIVAN: If you cannot, read it.

MR. TULK: What?

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister may have a hearing problem.

MR. TULK: I do not.

MR. SULLIVAN: If you have a reading problem, I will tell

you tomorrow, I say to the minister.

MR. TULK: I just cannot believe what I just heard you

say.

MR. EFFORD: It is unbelievable.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, sure, definitely, that is right.

AN HON. MEMBER: Premier Wells said (inaudible) that here

over and over again.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture

gets in the Premier's chair now and wants to act like the Premier. That is what

he does. Go back in your seat and the Premier will tell the minister when he is

allowed to stand up, I say to the minister. The Premier will let him know when

he is allowed to stand up, and we have seen examples of that.

Now, I do not want to get diverted by the diversionary

tactics of the minister, because we have something here very, very, fundamental

to our system.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, minister, it is not the sole role of

government to create jobs is it? It is not the role of government to create

jobs. How's that? It is the role of government to entice and enhance the

business climate in the Province so jobs can be created. I said in the context -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh yes, I said it is not the role of the

government to create jobs. We will use the resources that we have here in the

Province, and I will repeat it again, we should use the dollars we have to

ensure that services are delivered in the most efficient manner in the Province.

I said that is one of the roles of government and you can read it again. The

minister can read it over and over and it should be on tape, go back and read

it. It should be on tape there. I am sure the minister can listen again to the

tape and we will give him a copy.

Now, why would you want, I ask the minister, to give a

company an upper hand or an advantage over other companies that want to do

business here in the Province? Why would you do that with one exclusive company

when you did not allow other companies to submit bids? I ask the minister: Have

you discussed the implications of this on other companies doing business in the

Province? Has there been consultation with other companies doing business in the

Province, whatever the companies are? There are lots of printing companies. I

know one of the major ones out there -

AN HON. MEMBER: The minister called public proposals.

What are you -

MR. SULLIVAN: No, she did not. Ask the minister. I have

the minister's statement here. Here is what the minister entered in the House

today.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister thinks he is still the Works,

Services and Transportation minister, he still thinks he is but the minister who

is now the official Minister of Works, Services and Transportation - not the

minister who wants to be - stated here today that there were no public proposals

and it is in this print that the minister read today.

AN HON. MEMBER: There was none?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, there was none. What happened was they

wanted to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You can check with the minister. No, here

is what happened, I say to the minister -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, not at all. I will quote the minister:

`Over the past few years government has concluded that printing work being done

by the private sector is more cost-effective than its own internal operation.' I

will go on and indicate, `with this in mind, they decided to contract with a

private company to manage the operations of the division. It was expected that

an outside management company would be able to improve efficiencies and achieve

cost reductions for government.' It went on to say, `In June 1995, in accordance

with the Public Tender Act, issued a proposal call requesting the services of a

management company to oversee the operations of printing services.' Then it went

on: `Government received three proposals, one from Kodak Canada, and Kodak

subsequently approached government with an economic development proposal which

involved the complete contracting out of printing services rather than

facilities management.' That is the difference. Then -

MR. EFFORD: And then?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I am getting to it. Their proposal

involved a direct savings to government on its annual printing costs and so on.

Then they went on to say, government officials subsequently invited the

remaining companies out of these three - out of these three companies selected

the remaining three which had bid on the facility management proposal to include

a similar plan. They did not invite anybody else other than someone who was

going to run the management, nobody else out in the public. Some people might

want to buy it but they might not want to manage it. They might want to do the

service. That is not open public proposal. If that is what you call it, I think

AN HON. MEMBER: No wonder you got in trouble with Trans

City.

MR. SULLIVAN: No wonder we had problems. If that is the

mentality we are using here in this House to determine proposals, we need to get

a definition to redefine what a proposal is. And I say to the minister, here is

the next sentence, `Given the propriety nature of the matter, however,

government did not issue another formal call for proposals.' That is what is

stated here. I asked the minister, is this factual what is here, and she

indicated that it is. And they went to proceed (inaudible).

Now, how many people would want to sign an agreement, give

approval in the House, without seeing what they are signing?

MR. TULK: We are not.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, you are. Our Legislature is, you are

not, the Premier is not, the minister is not, but, this Legislature should not

give approval to circumvent the Public Tender Act to reach an agreement when we

have not seen it.

MR. TULK: You have a chance to go back to (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) rush to do something (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The only rush you have created here is a

rush for people out of this Province since you have been here. That is the rush

that we have seen. In the last two years we have seen 17,000 people scramble out

of this Province when in 1989 you were elected on a promise to create jobs and

bring home every mother's son. Well, there are not too many mothers' sons left

in this Province now they are all heading West, I say to the member. The only

mother's son who came back is the one who is supposed to be there now where the

minister is, he is the only one we have seen come back. That is who we have seen

come back, and at the current rate of mismanagement of our finances we are going

to see more mothers' sons wanting to get out of this Province because we are

going to further encumber and affect people's future to be able to survive here

in our Province, and it is those types of deals -

The deal on the Upper Churchill, the Trans City deal and

other deals, or whatever the deal is, it doesn't make any difference who made

them or what have you, bad deals are bad deals, and why should we enter into

something blindly contrary to the Public Tender Act of our Province? You should

have known the difference, the Supreme Court told you, the Supreme Court of

Appeals told you that already.

And now they are debating - next week they are supposed to

let us know if they are going to try it in the Supreme Court of Canada at other

millions of dollars cost to the taxpayers. Do they ever know when to quit? Now,

can't you admit you are wrong and save us money? Would you fight the case if it

were your own personal money, on all these cases and millions of dollars in the

courts? No. Because it is taxpayers' money and people don't care.

Sometimes, a fundamental business decision, when you know you

can't win, you cut your losses. It is a fundamental business decision; you cut

your losses and get out, you don't stay in, and that is a fundamental mistake

many governments make. All governments, PC governments, Liberal governments,

they do not have the guts to admit: We made a mistake; and they fail to cut

their losses, because it is not their own money they are dealing with. And I can

tell you, not too many people in business who are spending their own money will

start pouring in more money when they know the end of the road is close and near

and is in sight; they will not do it, but you will do it with taxpayers' money.

We are not going to be a party -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

MR. EFFORD: Are you speaking from experience?

MR. SULLIVAN: Me?

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I never lost money in business.

MR. EFFORD: I never lost money either.

MR. SULLIVAN: No.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I am speaking from experience.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Maybe I had the foresight to know if a

situation arose that - to divert and shift, it is called proper business

planning, that is what it is called, proper business planning. I haven't seen

any of that planning done by government here in the long term, and that is the

sad part about it.

MR. EFFORD: You wouldn't recognize it if you did see it.

MR. SULLIVAN: Maybe I wouldn't but I have survived so far

and I can tell you -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is right.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I will tell you how. And I would put

anything on the line, on the record, on anything, I can tell the minister: I

have nothing I am ashamed of or have a problem with; I feel on any particular

thing I have acted in proper faith, and the minister is trying to make various

little implications in things that are untrue. It is completely untrue and I

would stand on the record at any time I say to the minister and if he wants to

debate it any time, I am only too willing to do it.

Now, we are back to an issue here where, the former minister

should know what violating the Public Tender Act does to you. We are still

waiting on the Minister of Justice to hear on that one, we are still waiting to

hear what is going to happen there, and it has cost us a lot of dollars. It cost

us tens of millions of dollars, money that this Province could use; $6 million

for Transportation this year for roads in the Province, when we are used to

seeing $30 million, $40 million and $50 million, except for the Roads for Rail

Agreement of over $800 million, the roads in our Province would be in hard

shape.

MR. TULK: We would have (inaudible) anyway.

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure, if it were there or not. We would be

in hard shape without it.

MR. TULK: It was there anyway, before the agreement for

Roads for Rail was signed. Where were you?

MR. SULLIVAN: What was there?

MR. TULK: The Roads for Rail Agreement that was signed.

It was only just (inaudible) we get our money (inaudible) getting for twenty

years.

MR. SULLIVAN: There was a lump sum. We would be getting

some. We would be getting roads on an ongoing basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: Your government sold out the rail (inaudible)!

MR. SULLIVAN: So do you want it back?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) for them.

MR. SULLIVAN: Do you want it back?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: If you want to get into petty politics, so

MR. TULK: Oh, it is petty politics now? We can talk about

Trans City though, and it is not petty politics!

MR. SULLIVAN: No, the Supreme Court has ruled it is not

petty politics. The Supreme Court has ruled - the highest court in this

Province.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) crook.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) too.

MR. SULLIVAN: No. The highest court in this Province, the

Supreme Court of Appeal, has ruled that a government of which you were a part, a

member, violated the Public Tender Act. The Supreme Court ruled it, and the

Supreme Court of Appeal. Eight hundred million dollars on roads in this Province

- we would like to have $1 billion. I said that, thank God, we have that

$50-some million a year to spend on federal roads in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, maybe I would have held fast for $1.5

billion instead of $800 million. Maybe it would have been more. But I can tell

you - I cannot speak for a party that I wasn't a part of before 1992. I will

only speak since 1992, I say to the minister. That is something about our party.

None of us were here before 1992! We are all new, I say to the minister.

MR. TULK: Oh yes, you are lily-white!

MR. SULLIVAN: No, we are new.

MR. TULK: You are lily-white. Did you support the PC

Party before you got elected?

MR. SULLIVAN: Did I? That is my right.

MR. TULK: Admit it, boy.

MR. SULLIVAN: Support the Party. All of us are new to the

House of Assembly. I will stand on my record, not the record of somebody before

me. The members here will stand on their record. That is what we should do. Are

you going to stand on the record -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) government (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I do not hold you personally responsible

because of Upper Churchill. But I hold people responsible - I will hold you

responsible today -

MR. TULK: Do you hold the Premier responsible for Trans

City?

MR. SULLIVAN: I hold a good part of -

MR. TULK: Do you hold this minister responsible for Trans

City?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, but several members of your Cabinet

are, the same Cabinet. I hold you responsible for being a part of Cabinet that

is pushing and spending millions of dollars of public money, I say to you. And

if this legislation goes through and it is a bad deal, I will hold you

responsible as a member of that Cabinet. That is why it is all the more

important to look carefully at legislation here in this Province, and what is

happening here, I say to the minister.

It is improper for any government of the day to circumvent

the Public Tender Act. You are giving an exception to an exclusive monopoly, a

contract forever.

MR. TULK: We brought it to this House.

MR. SULLIVAN: You have not brought it to this House. You

have not brought the details to this House. You haven't done it. You want thirty

days to go out and negotiate a deal and then sign a deal. I might support this

if I knew the particulars.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) anyway.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader

will have an opportunity to stand and speak his piece on this bill. He has lots

of opportunity, instead of having to shout - the person who should be setting

the standards of decorum in this House, the Government House Leader, and one who

fails to do that. That is who should be doing it. He is lowering the level of

decorum in this House, and he is continuing to do it.

MR. TULK: I will follow your example in Question Period

today.

MR. SULLIVAN: I consider it very much in order. When I

was informed that we weren't able to discuss certain things, I consider it my

right to get these out here in the public forum. That is right. That is the

right of an Opposition. We are not going to be scared of doing something that we

believe is right. I don't care what the consequences are. We are going to

support what we think is right.

We were going to call this House back and deal with education

reform. We have not seen it yet. We saw it yesterday and I tell the Government

House Leader right now -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I tell the Government House Leader right

now if he wants education reform, we can adjourn this debate, we can move to

education reform and get it out of the way before 5:00 this evening. That is

what we will do, and we will give you leave for third reading, which you don't

need.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: We will do education reform today, I tell

the minister, if you want education reform. We did not negotiate on a bill, not

on a bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ten o'clock tonight.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, we will go until 10:00 p.m. We will go

until 2:00 tomorrow morning and you will see. We will go until 2:00 a.m. but we

did not tell you we are going to give you this bill, because I tell the

Government House Leader right now, you are not going to get this bill today. You

are not going to get it today and that's a fact because I don't believe in it.

If I could stop it tomorrow and the next day, I would. There will not be leave

dealing with third reading on this bill today because it is wrong, it is

improper and we are not going to do it. If you want education legislation you

call it, get it dealt with it, and we will support it and move it expeditiously.

That is what I tell the minister now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I will not. I am entitled to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member does not have leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: No leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will not abuse the time, Mr. Speaker. I

will conclude in a minute, Mr. Speaker, with thanks to the government side for

allowing it.

On a very serious note, Mr. Speaker, I disagree with this

legislation, because it is wrong. It is wrong to circumvent and to give

exceptions to a Public Tender Act, not only that would tie a contract in for a

year or two, five or ten, but forever, for the continuation of that contract. We

have seen in the House instances - I know we did a deal with NLCS, we will call

it, when it went to NewTel information solutions -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am allowed now, but I am not going to

abuse time. I will wrap up in a minute.

We have seen a deal and I would like to see the results of

that. I am certainly not going to give approval to do what we are asked to do

here. I will agree to come back to reconvene the House within thirty days. If an

agreement is struck within thirty days, I will agree to come back to this House,

wherever I am, and deal with it when we see the particulars, and reconvene then.

We were asked to reconvene this House to deal with education legislation. It has

not even been called by the Government House Leader today as a piece of

legislation. Today, I said -

MR. TULK: You know exactly what is going to happen

(inaudible). You were informed yesterday and the House was informed, so don't

(inaudible) on that.

MR. SULLIVAN: I said to the minister, it has not been

called today. It is the prerogative, it is the right and responsibility of the

Government House Leader to call legislation. I said the Government House Leader

did not call the education legislation today. I am hoping it will be called, I

say to the Government House Leader but it is not at the expense - we are not

dispensing with a particular bill that we are fundamentally opposed to. If the

minister wants his education legislation I will sit down and adjourn this - the

Speaker is not even listening to you, I say to the Government House Leader. He

does not want to even listen to you.

MR. TULK: On a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. TULK: If the hon. gentleman wants to stand over there

and debate this bill as long as he wants, then that is his privilege but I have

to clearly state to him that his House Leader and I, as happens in this House,

agreed to close this House yesterday at 5:00 p.m. They knew all three pieces of

legislation were coming. It was announced yesterday evening in this House that

we would do second reading, the order of business today. I have changed nothing.

I have changed nothing since I started to talk to the Opposition House Leader,

and they know that, and for him to stand up and try to say something else is out

of the question. Let me also tell him that he is right, it is the government's

business when we call business in this House. I told the House Leader this

morning that we would do second reading of this bill, second reading of the

Public Accountancy bill and then we would go to Committee. They know that is the

story, no more and no less.

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

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

The Government House Leader indicates a certain order of

business and that is correct that he did indicate we would be calling Bill 19

and then Bill 20. We did agree today, this Opposition agreed not to have Private

Members' Day so that we would be able to facilitate a discussion on the

education legislation before this House. The people on this side of the House

did not agree to forego Private Members' Day in order that we could discuss the

Kodak legislation.

It is the Government House Leader's job to call the order of

business. Today, we are prepared on this side to deal with all pieces of

legislation, the Education bill, the Public Accountancy bill, to deal with

Committee on those bills, to deal with second reading of this bill, to let this

House go beyond 5:00 p.m., but I can tell the Government House Leader today that

we will not permit third reading of this particular bill today. We agreed to

forego Private Member's Day, and the government said it becomes a government

business day. They can call the legislation in any order that they wish.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows that he

was given a copy of the Education bill, he was given a copy of the bill put

forward by the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, he was offered

briefings on this, and he also knows that there was a gentleman's agreement that

this House would close yesterday evening at 5:00 p.m. instead of sitting at

night, and that we would try to clue up business today at 10:00 p.m., and that

it would be done. The hon. gentleman knows that.

MR. H. HODDER: That we would try.

MR. TULK: The hon. gentleman knows that; we had an

agreement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order, but rather engaging in

negotiations between the two House leaders, and a difference of opinion.

The Leader of the Opposition, I said that your time was up,

but you have an hour in this debate.

Thank you.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will not take much more time, Mr.

Speaker.

I want to indicate, and let the Government House Leader know,

in all fairness - it is 4:07 p.m. - that we have never indicated - we have

discussed it, and are very much aware of it - that there was no leave of Private

Member's Day today to talk about a Kodak bill here, that we had not seen and do

not agree with, circumventing a Public Tender Act in this Province. The House

Leader agreed, and we discussed that we would forego it to deal with education,

to expedite the matters, to assist in that education matter.

MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, on a

point of order.

MR. TULK: That is incorrect. That is not a correct

statement. His House Leader did agree to forego Private Member's Day to discuss

government business. There were no set parameters around it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

I remind hon. members that we are debating second reading of

a bill, the principle of the bill, and I would ask hon. members to get back to

debating the bill rather than debating what kinds of agreements had been made

between the two Government House Leaders.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In conclusion, I am opposed to giving carte blanche, a blank

cheque, to any company in this Province outside the confines of the Public

Tender Act, at the expense of other business in this Province, and striking a

deal and signing it outside this Legislature, and trying to give advance

approval. I have great, great difficulty with that process. It is going to cause

tremendous problems for us, and I want to see it. I am prepared, and our caucus

is prepared, to come back in this House and deal with it when we see that, at

any time to expedite the government's agenda to deal with this company so we can

have this company do business in this Province, if that agreement is good. That

is not an unfair statement at all, but we are not going to do it, and whatever

avenue the government wishes to move on other legislation on the Order Paper

today, it is their prerogative. We will co-operate with the other two pieces of

legislation to the ultimate, I say to the Government House Leader - we will

co-operate to the ultimate - but we will not do it on this piece of legislation,

and that is final.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House do not

adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

Motion carried.

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

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

I rise just to make a few points on Bill 19, and to try to

stick to the issue that is in the script here.

Let me say for the record that there is nobody in this House,

I do not think, against the creation of jobs for people in this Province, and to

suggest otherwise, or for any member of this House to suggest otherwise, is

simply a red herring that has been thrown out for some debate, that really

doesn't make any sense or is not to the point at all.

Let me say also for the record that as a member I'm not

against the privatization of certain government services. Where they make sense,

where they can create efficiencies, a word the minister has used, and where we

can better expend public dollars and get a better bang for our dollar, I support

that. Where such privatization initiatives, Mr. Speaker, ensure that the

protection of the public servant is there under existing agreements and

contracts, and we don't fly in the face of negotiated contracts, then I support

that.

Two years ago in this House the government of the day

introduced a piece of legislation that specifically dealt with the privatization

of Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services, because government felt that the

usefulness of Computer Services at the time had outlived its purpose for

government. Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services was a creation and a

corporation of government that was meant to induce and provide, through a

corporation, computer skills to enhance the computer knowledge and technical

base and the technical knowledge of all of us, particularly in the private

sector, and more particularly to government. In the early 1970s that was a

useful corporation.

Two years ago government came before this House and presented

a bill before all members to privatize Computer Services. Now what was different

about that piece of legislation than what we see here is that government clearly

outlined what it expected. It clearly outlined the deal between Newfoundland and

Labrador Computer Services to the parent company Newtel which would buy it, it

outlined the arrangement, and it outlined the cost of what government was going

to get. We debated all the facts right here in this House, as we should have,

and as is the right of all members in the House, not just government, b