June 3, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 38

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and

Lands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that government intends to

introduce legislation to implement a graduated drivers licence program for novice drivers

beginning January 1, 1999.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, the intent of this program is consistent

with the unanimous recommendations made by the Select Committee of this House on Property

and Casualty Insurance. Mr. Speaker, government recognizes the comprehensive work that has

been done by the Select Committee. I want to assure committee members that this is but the

first of several steps government intends to take with respect to this report. Further

action will be announced during the course of our review.

Mr. Speaker, graduated licensing is a two-step, two-year process that

is designed to help novice drivers acquire, on a gradual basis, the knowledge and skill

needed to safely operate their passenger vehicles, light trucks or motorcycles.

This new program will give novice drivers experience under conditions

that reduce the risk of collisions. The system is described as graduated because there are

two licensing levels. When you have a Level I or Level II licence you must follow all of

the laws of the road and the special rules for each level.

Graduated licensing applies to all novice drivers regardless of age.

Inexperience, not age, places novice drivers in a higher risk for collisions. As a group,

novice drivers are five times more likely to be involved in collisions. Newfoundland and

Labrador statistics show that over a six year period, 16.5 per cent of all fatal

collisions involved drivers with less than two years of experience. However, Mr. Speaker,

this group accounts for only 5 per cent of the driving population.

To enter Level I, novice drivers - at least 16 years of age - will be

required to pass a written test and a vision test. Novice motorcyclists will also have to

pass a skills test.

Level I lasts for twelve months. This may be reduced to eight months if

the novice driver successfully completes a recognized driver education program. After the

required time is spent in Level I, a road test in traffic must be successfully completed

to graduate to Level II.

Drivers must spend a minimum of twelve months at Level II, where the

learning process continues but with reduced restrictions. All novice drivers must complete

a minimum of twenty months training.

Mr. Speaker, for novice drivers there is zero tolerance for alcohol. If

alcohol is detected, a novice-driver's licence will be cancelled.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Cancellation will result in a restart of the current

level.

Mr. Speaker, other restrictions deal with such areas as defined driving

hours; the number of passengers allowed in or on a vehicle; the driving experience of

accompanying drivers; and the highways on which novice drivers can travel.

The documents I am tabling today will provide members with complete

details of our proposed graduated licensing program. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that

this program will save lives and make our highways safer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, other Canadian provinces have already

taken such action. Ontario and Nova Scotia introduced graduated programs in 1994. More

recently, New Brunswick and Quebec have introduced programs. British Columbia has

announced a program which will take effect in 1999, and Prince Edward Island has a form of

licensing which incorporates many of the aspects of a graduated program.

Mr. Speaker, an interim Ontario report shows that collisions by novice

drivers were down by a dramatic 31 per cent. By contrast, only a 4 per cent drop was

observed in Ontario's general driving population over the same period.

From Ontario's perspective, Mr. Speaker, graduated licensing has meant

900 fewer visits to hospital emergency rooms; 2,000 fewer days in hospital for collision

victims; 800 fewer ambulance calls; and 13,000 fewer hours of police time required to

investigate collisions.

The Ontario government estimates that $34 million has been saved as a

result of reductions in emergency room visits, hospital days, ambulance calls, police

time, and property damage to motor vehicles.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from the Select Committee's report:

New drivers, regardless of age, are significantly over represented in motor vehicle

accidents. Teenage drivers, in particular, are involved in a disproportionately high

number of crashes as compared to other age groups. Furthermore, the level of damage

resulting from these accidents tends to be much more severe that the average. As well,

statistics show that older drivers who are newly licensed are also in a high collision

risk category. Inexperience, combined with risk-taking behaviour, contributes to high

accident rates. Graduated licensing is a solution to this problem.

Mr. Speaker, there is widespread public support for a graduated

licensing program - from the community at large; our police forces, our health and safety

organizations, and the insurance industry. And, Mr. Speaker, I welcome representatives of

these groups who are in the House with us today.

Mr. Speaker, as I stated earlier, government plans to introduce this

program in January 1999. Drivers who already hold or receive a beginner's licence prior to

January 1, 1999, will continue under the old system.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Finally a statement from the minister that says something, and more

importantly, means something. This graduated licence system which was recommended by a

select committee, of course, is welcomed by myself and other people in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. J. BYRNE: Definitely.

Mr. Speaker, the statement refers to zero tolerance for alcohol abuse

or alcohol drinking; again, a positive move I agree with. The stats indicate that

accidents will be down and the insurance rates could drop, these types of things.

To cut to the chase, Mr. Speaker, the most important fact of all of

this is that this will go a long way to saving young lives on the highways of the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador. We, on this side, have no problem in supporting this

statement at all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quid Vidi, does

he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a positive step which will assist in the safer use of our

highways and, in fact, allow new drivers to learn, which I think a lot of people say is a

common sense thing, you learn to drive after you get your licence. You learn to drive

because you get more experience driving, and this is a way of allowing it to happen under

control conditions. I hope the minister and the government are prepared to be flexible and

improve the system if it proves not to be working in certain circumstances.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it is also time to start looking at driver

training or requirements for people driving ATVs. We have thousands and thousands of them

on our byroads and trails around the Province. These are dangerous vehicles without proper

training and proper care. We should look at some driver training for them and some

insurance in case there are accidents as well; having that as a requirement.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, as part of Environment Week, May 31 to

June 6, I had the pleasure last evening of presenting the 1997/98 Newfoundland and

Labrador Environmental Awards. This program is jointly sponsored between the Department of

Environment and Labour and the Newfoundland and Labrador Women's Institutes and is in its

ninth year.

The awards are presented in seven categories, including: Individual;

Citizen's Group or Organization; Educator; Youth; School; Business; and Municipality. The

awards are presented each year to individuals and groups who demonstrate outstanding

commitment and dedication to the protection and conservation of the Newfoundland and

Labrador environment. This year's winners include: In the Individual Category, Dr. Peter

Scott; in the category of Citizen's Group or Organization: the Birch Brook Nordic Ski Club

of Happy Valley - Goose Bay, with an honourable mention to the Burgeo Bears; in the

Educator category: Ms Joan Vautier; in the Youth category: Sherrie Lamb; the award for top

school went to Topsail Elementary School Naturalization Project with an honourable mention

to Booth Memorial High School; the most environmentally friendly Business was 40 Shades

Inc.; and last, but not least, the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor was presented the award in

the Municipality category.

The winners of this year's environmental awards come from various parts

of the Province - Labrador, The West Coast, South Coast, East Coast and Central. While

geographic considerations are not a criteria for selection, I think this fact speaks well

for the level of activity that is underway everywhere in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a special word of thanks to our co-sponsors,

the Newfoundland and Labrador Women's Institutes. Their commitment and dedication to this

initiative has made it a successful event each and every year since its inception. The

Women's Institutes are also heavily involved in projects like Tidy Towns. I think this

level of support for environmental initiatives puts this organization in an elite

category.

Each and every year the competition for these prestigious awards

becomes more and more intense. Winners are chosen from a highly competitive field.

However, I want to encourage those who were nominated this year, to be nominated again

next year. Although the ceremony last evening was organized to formally acknowledge the

achievements of a select group of individuals, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that all members

will agree the real rewards come from having done something real and good and positive, to

protect and conserve the Newfoundland and Labrador environment. In this respect, when each

of us takes the time to become more environmentally aware and then we demonstrate that

awareness through action, then we benefit and we all are winners.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would like to commend the winners of these awards for doing something

real and good and positive to protect our environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to

condemn the minister for not taking a proactive approach to protecting our environment

when it comes to oil-spill response; for not taking a proactive approach, Mr. Speaker, and

for not even being able to put a recycling bin in our own cafeteria downstairs.

Where is the award, Mr. Speaker, for Star Lake Project, the

environmental awareness out there for North West River, for Garia Bay? Where are these

awards, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you.

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

he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Last week I asked questions of the Minister of Environment and Labour

with respect to the Statutory Review Committee Report that was given to government with

respect to the workers' compensation system and the workers' compensation act.

I would like to ask him today: Does he agree with the following

statement on page 51 that deals with benefit levels? It says: Since the last review the

WCC has been highly successful in achieving improvement in its financial position by

reducing benefit levels, by strenuously pursuing the deeming process, by reducing its

focus on rehabilitation, and by a $13.4 million annual levy on employers applied directly

toward offsetting the unfunded liability.

Does he also agree with the following statement that came from this

report, where the committee said: Therefore, the notion expressed in our hearings that

ascribed blame upon injured workers for the financial plight of the Workers' Compensation

Commission is unfounded and unreal?

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

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I have said in the House in previous answers to questions that have

come from the Leader of the Opposition and from the hon. Member for Conception Bay South,

what we have here is our balance between the financial integrity of the workers'

compensation system and the flexibility that we have to give the workers an increase. That

is what we have been able to do to maintain the integrity of the system, and then what

flexibility we have to give to the injured workers.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister and government have done no

such thing. I would like to ask him this. Does he agree with the following statement: Had

it not been for the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I have to remind the hon. member that supplementaries need no

preamble, and that quoting from documents, letters, and texts is not permitted according

to our own Standing Orders.

MR. E. BYRNE: Not a problem, Mr. Speaker. I can paraphrase.

Does he agree with the statements coming from that document which

indicate that because of that focus on reducing rehabilitation, because of the annual

levy, that employers' assessments have actually gone down since the last review, but by

contrast injured workers' benefits have remained cut substantially, and that that sort of

balance with respect to their recommendations was not there? Does the minister agree with

that statement in the Statutory Review Committee's report?

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

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said to the Leader of the Opposition last week, when he asked

those questions, what we have been able to do with the improvement within the compensation

commission itself, we have been able to bring forward a total of $22 million of

improvements to injured workers' benefits, Mr. Speaker, and as the commission itself

improves financially we will continue to pass along extra benefits to the injured workers.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Independent Statutory Review

Committee, set up by this government, recommended clearly, and they said that it was

critical, and I quote again: It was critical for an adjustment in the benefit rates

upwards for injured workers should take place at this time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it also went on to say that the

outpouring of human misery that they found, and the balance that the minster says he has

achieved, is not realized -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to his

question.

MR. E. BYRNE: - that the Workers' Compensation Commission actually

is ahead of its own target with its unfunded liability portion.

I ask you today, Minister: Will you do the right thing? Will you do the

just thing? Will you restore some dignity to the injured workers in Province and follow

the recommendations from that Statutory Review Committee as they suggested to you?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I take this opportunity to welcome people to the

gallery. It is always a pleasure to see them here, and members are always delighted to see

visitors to the House of Assembly, but I have to remind visitors that they should not be

showing approval or disapproval in any way, shape or form on the debate, the questions, or

the activities that are taking part on the floor of the House. This has been a long,

traditional, parliamentary principle that has been followed, and I ask the people here

today who are visiting to respect that.

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition would know, and I said to him last

week, that the commission is not ahead of its time in being fully funded. The number of

years that it came down - from 2012, which was the original target, down to 2009 - what we

have done is taken the benefits of $22 million that was able to be put back in the system;

we did that so the mortgage date is pushed back to 2012. Mr. Speaker, there is no

pre-funding of the commission. That is not happening.

I also want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that we began last

January to improve the system for the people who were on short-term, from week number one

to thirty-nine. We went from seventy-five net to 80 per cent. In this particular

situation, what we have here now with the extra 5 per cent on the CPP, the long-term

injured workers are getting 90 per cent of pre-injury earnings.

Now, would I like to see more? Obviously, I would like to see more. The

bottom line is, I have the integrity of the commission there to protect all injured

workers. As I have said, as the commission improves itself financially then I have no

qualms passing on to the injured workers the benefits that would be derived from the same

thing.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the minister has read

the report but I certainly have and it said: It should be noted that the commission is

three years ahead of its target of 2012 for being fully funded.

Now, is the minister saying that his own independent statutory review

assessment of its financial - its own assessment of the financial unfunded liability of

workers' compensation is wrong? Is that what the minister is saying?

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

MR LANGDON: No, Mr. Speaker, quite to the contrary. What I said to

the Leader of the Opposition was, if we had maintained the status quo; if we had not gone

from 75 percent to 80 per cent; if we had not increased the long-term CPP by 5 per cent;

if we did not give for the spouses of the Province $12,600,000; if we did not give $5,000

to families where the worker had been killed while working, Mr. Speaker, we would have

been ahead of schedule, but we are not ahead of schedule. We took these benefits to put

back into the system to make sure that it was not ahead, that it has gone back to 2012.

I want to say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, it is my intention,

and I am sure it is government's, as the commission improves we will continue to do more

for the injured worker.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister's definition of doing more

really does not hold any water. The reality is - and I would like to ask the minster to

either confirm or deny this - the reality is that the financial integrity of the Workers'

Compensation Commission would not be jeopardized by implementing some of the

recommendations with respect to benefit levels in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

What the minister has done, and all he has done, is he is trying to

balance the books on the backs of injured workers in this Province, and that should not be

taking place. Would he agree with that or not?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I say to the people in the gallery, the visitors today, that, as I

indicated before, displays of any nature are not permitted in the galleries. I ask the

people not to display placards and to take their seat in the gallery. If not, the Chair

will have to ask that these people leave.

[There was disorder in the gallery.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again I appeal to the people who are in the gallery to have some

respect for the long parliamentary tradition that has been respected in this House. I ask

them again to take their seats in the gallery and not to display any placards.

[There was disorder in the gallery.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will have no choice but to ask the people to leave. I ask the

individuals to leave, please.

[There was disorder in the gallery.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will recess the House and we will have to resume when the

disorder has been corrected in the galleries. The House is recessed.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am unclear. The galleries were just

cleared and I am unclear if that was the Speaker's intention, to ask every person in the

gallery who was seated, listening to Question Period or here for a variety of reasons -

was that the Speaker's intention, to clear the gallery?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Will he open the doors to let people back in.

MR. SPEAKER: The doors are open and people can return to the

gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The doors are open. If people want to return they can.

We will resume Question Period. I would ask the Table to indicate the

time left for Question Period.

CLERK: Twenty minutes left.

MR. SPEAKER: Twenty minutes.

I believe the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was on a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: I asked the minister a question before and I will

repeat it for him.

Doesn't he agree that the financial position of the Workers'

Compensation Commission would not be in jeopardy if these recommendations were

implemented? Would he also agree that the reason these recommendations were not

implemented is because of strong representation by the Worker's Compensation Commission

and employers themselves?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

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

MR LANGDON: No, Mr. Speaker, definitely not. What I have tried to

do, Mr. Speaker, is to balance out, as I said, to maintain the integrity of the system and

be able to improve, as the Commission itself improves, and to pass on the benefits to the

injured workers.

I guess in the situation, Mr. Speaker, I could have maintained a status

quo and done nothing, but I did not do that. Whatever flexibility I had to work within, I

did it to make improvements to the system. As I said, as the financial position of the

Commission improves I will continue to work to improve benefits to the injured workers.

Having said that, I have to maintain the integrity of the system.

Therefore, that is what we have done.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, last fall in this House, when questioned

about the Canada Pension offset, that minister and the Premier gave assurances that it

would be taken care of.

Mr. Speaker, the recommendations that came down, that the minister

implemented, did not take care of the CPP offset as recommended by the Statutory Review

Committee.

Minister, were you buying time on behalf of government? And why did you

not accept the recommendations with respect to the CPP offset as outlined in the Statutory

Review Committee recommendations?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR LANGDON: No, Mr. Speaker, we were not buying time. I had the

Commission have two external audits, to look at all the possibilities that were there.

What we have been able to do, Mr. Speaker, is the maximum at this particular time, as I

said, to improve the benefits, even though modest to the worker, but maintaining the

integrity of the system. I know, as I said, it is a delicate balance to maintain, but that

is basically what I have been trying to do, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Minister, let me say this to you: Your delicate

balance of the system does not hold water.

I do not understand, in today's age, where a Statutory Review Committee

- and I would like the minister to answer this question: How is it that a minister

responsible for Environment and Labour, and in particular the administration and

regulation of the Worker's Compensation Commission, can fly in the face of a

recommendation that says that taking 100 per cent of Canada Pension disability benefits is

not right, that it amounts to saying to a worker who has paid into a pension plan -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Member to get to his question.

MR. E. BYRNE: It is a question, I say, Mr. Speaker, but I will

attempt to hurry it up.

That a worker who has paid into a contributory plan, where an

independent committee recommends that 50 per cent of Canada Pension be given back to

workers: How is it that you, as minister, does not accept the premise and the principle

upon which this recommendation was made?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I have said to the hon. the Opposition Leader right from the

beginning, if we were to have implemented all of the recommendations that were suggested

in the Statutory Review Committee, it would have added an extra $70 million to the

unfunded liability. We would have been back to the position that we were in in 1992. Mr.

Speaker, I just could not, as a minister, do that to the system.

Therefore, what we have been able to do is maintain a balance here, as

I said, by improving the benefits to the injured workers and maintaining the stability of

the system.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member of the Opposition, a

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, essentially what is done is that the

people's money has been stolen. This is a contributory pension plan. Essentially what the

independent committee found was that it would cost an extra $1.8 million to put back the

50 per cent offset or to implement that recommendation.

Is it too much to ask, minister, is it too much to ask, $1.8 million

per year out of the commission, so that people who contributed to Canada Pension Plan, to

a pension plan that was supposed to be there for them, is it too much to ask that this

government give them back at least their contributions?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Leader of the Opposition would know, we are halfway there, 25

per cent, and as the commission's financial stability improves then we will look at doing

whatever we can for the injured workers. As I said, Mr. Speaker, and have continued to

say, we have to maintain the financial integrity of the system for all injured workers and

whatever we can do to improve the contribution to injured workers as the system improves,

we will do just that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a final supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: What the Leader of the Opposition does know, is that

we have million dollar cheques to hand out to fly-by-night companies that can survive

seven months, and we cannot come with $1.8 million to pass back to workers, of their own

money, Mr. Speaker. That is what I do know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to his

question.

MR. E. BYRNE: My final question. This will be the fourth or fifth

time in the last four or five years that I have asked this question, and I will ask it

again today: Will the minister make a commitment today that somebody from the Injured

Workers' Association of Newfoundland and Labrador will find a seat on the Workplace

Health, Safety and Compensation Commission Board of Directors? Will he make that

commitment today, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR LANGDON: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to make that

commitment today, but what I will say to the hon. member, as he would know, that at the

commission you have workers' reps, you have the nurses' union represented, you have the

Federation of Labour represented, they represent workers, employers' groups and you have

independent people at large. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, they administer the plan over at the

commission. I will take that into consideration with all the other appointments and at the

end of the day it will be considered, but I am not going to make a commitment right now.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Environment and Labour.

Mr. Speaker, on May 28, when he made his announcement, and in three

successive Question Periods since then, the Minister of Environment and Labour has left

the impression he considers this round of workers' compensation reform to be a closed

book. He has seen the Statutory Review Committee's recommendations and he has made his

decision. Now, that is all, it is over.

In view of the fact that injured workers themselves have expressed

outrage in the past week over what the minister has failed to do, in light of the

committee's recommendation, does the minister still hold the position that this is a

closed book, or is he open to making significant changes this year to the Workers'

Compensation Review, in response to the ground swell of opposition from the Province's

injured workers?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I have said to the Member for Conception Bay South before, we are

looking at the integrity of the commission and every dollar that we can give back to the

injured workers and maintain the system, we will do it and we will keep monitoring it. But

I cannot make a commitment today that there will be changes made within the next little

while.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South, a

supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Statutory Review Committee was a lengthy and thorough independent

review of the workers' compensation practices, especially, I say to the minister,

involving deeming.

Will the minister today commit to this House to place a member of the

Injured Workers' Association on the review committee that will now review the deeming

policy of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission in this Province?

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

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to remind the hon. member that the committee that was set

up right after Christmas to do the deeming was made up of the President of the Injured

Workers' Association. I think he is President or Chair, I am not sure, but he was a part

of that particular committee and obviously knows what was agreed to because the report

that was given to me was unanimous.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South, a

supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will also ask the minister: Will he commit to the House today, to

immediately invoke the recommendations of the Statutory Review Committee that were

recommended in the Statutory Review Committee report that went to the minister? Will you

today, sir, make a commitment to this House that those recommendations will be

implemented, especially as they relate to deeming?

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

MR LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, are they concerning deeming or is it

(inaudible)?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR LANGDON: I want to say to the hon. member that, as we speak, the

Commission has implemented a number a things that have been done in the deeming process. I

mentioned in the House one day before that the Commission could, if it so decides, call in

an injured worker for one hour at a time. We have said no, four hours at a minimum of five

days a week. That is twenty hours that the injured worker can come in.

We have looked at the labour market, and basically what we have done is

looked at it regionally from HRD job classifications. No doubt it is going to be costing

the Commission more to be able to do that, but obviously we want to make sure the injured

worker is part of the deeming process. Obviously it was a commitment that we made, and I

want to follow through and make sure that what we suggested, as far as the deeming goes,

does become a part of it.

I want to say also, Mr. Speaker, while I am here, that I, as a

minister, am not monitoring the deeming. It is being done by the Commission. It is a

workers' rep, employer rep, and a rep at large. Therefore, if they want to make sure that

it is done, they run the Commission, the Board of Directors. It is not me. So therefore if

deeming doesn't work, don't come back at me and look at it. There is also the board and

the committee that is going to run it.

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

Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister today, that I think

it's incumbent upon the minister - after all, he is responsible for this department - that

you ensure today that these recommendations be implemented. You wouldn't leave it to the

workers' compensation review committee, that you would immediately implement these

recommendations today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question. He is on a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to ask the minister: Does the minister think the

review committee did a poor job? Does he think that it was not honest or forthright or

thorough enough? Is that why he is second-guessing their findings and recommendations, by

giving deeming another year to prove itself, because he lacks the faith in the very

committee his own government appointed?

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

MR LANGDON: Definitely not, Mr. Speaker. As I said, the committee

that was put in place, of which the Injured Workers' Association was a part of, they set

up the guidelines and now the Commission will follow them. At the end of the year they

will report to me what the findings are. They monitor it day-to-day, week-to-week, as the

Commission itself works.

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

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

My questions are also for the Minister of Environment and Labour. I

hope he can answer these today.

Northwest River is one of the most pristine and environmentally

sensitive parts of the Province, adjacent to Terra Nova National Park and the Bay du Nord

Wilderness area, and has important eco-tourism and recreational value. The minister has in

his possession a letter from an eminent freshwater marine biologist from Memorial

University with twenty-three years of experience in this field, urging the Premier and the

minister to put the breaks on the hydro development at Northwest River before irreparable

damage is done. This PhD makes clear to the minister, in vivid detail, that eliminating a

major part of the flow in this river will have a devastating impact on the food chain all

the way up the line in this sensitive eco-system and will threaten the existence of the

unique salmon population.

The Premier often talks, Mr. Speaker, of selling this Province to the

world on the basis of its strengths, one of them being our rich unspoiled wilderness and

abundance of fish and marine life.

I ask the minister: Is the minister now prepared to step back from the

brink and put the brakes on the Northwest River hydro development, as this eminent

scientist is urging?

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

MR LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, as we speak, the particular project is

going to an environmental system. There has been no report given to me, and so therefore,

as we speak, it is still in progress. We have to carry out the full environmental study.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's

South.

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

The minister talks of giving the environmental assessment process a

chance to do its work, and that we should put our trust in this process which will ensure

that everything is okay. The evidence elsewhere tells us that this process is often

flawed, factors are missed, the assessors make mistakes, and proper environmental

follow-up is ignored and irreparable damage is done.

Will the Minister confirm that the Star Lake project, a project

assessed and approved by this very system, has not received the environmental follow-up

that is expected and required, and the impacts of the development have already done severe

damage to rare strains of fish.

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

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have monitored Star Lake very strenuous over the last number of

months, and we believe we have the safeguards in place to maintain the integrity of the

system.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's

South.

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

The hydro development on North West River is bad news, Minister. If it

were more visible, such as the Rennies River or the Waterford River, you would have to

hang your head in shame over the proposal to dam it.

Will you acknowledge that the small amount of power that you claim we

need to get at the expense of decimating the North West River could, in fact, be derived

entirely from developments that hydro itself have proposed at Granite Canal in Holyrood,

and from the identification of energy efficiencies? In other words, will you admit that

the North West River private hydro development is not needed and is not good for the

environment?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is to the

Minister of Development and Rural Renewal.

Minister, I understand there was a meeting here in St. John's on Monday

past between the federal and provincial officials to discuss the contents of a post-TAGS

program. Obviously such an important meeting that would affect the future of thousands of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians would be attended by a committee of Cabinet. I ask the

minister: Which Cabinet members attended that meeting? Did you, Minister, take

part in

that particular meeting?

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

Renewal.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman that there

was a meeting in St. John's this week, which was requested by the federal government

(inaudible) officials. They came down and met with the officials. It was not a ministers'

meeting, it was not a political meeting, it was not at the political level, and there were

not any Cabinet ministers in attendance.

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

South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would have thought that a committee that was travelling to this

Province and about to make such an important decision to affect the lives of in excess of

20,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that we would have made sure we would have had

somebody from Cabinet, from that side of the House, to make sure we get our full and fair

share.

Mr. Speaker, the provincial Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is

reported in today's Evening Telegram as saying that it is possible there has been

some delay in a post-TAGS response. He went on to say: This is because Ottawa must deal

with the troubled salmon fishery on the West Coast of Canada -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his

question.

MR. FITZGERALD: - and he has no idea when a decision is about to be

made.

I ask the minister if he accepts this uncaring approach, since I

certainly do not. I say to the minister, let us deal with the major problems right here in

this Province, and let us let the West Coast of this country look after their own affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Renewal.

MR. TULK: My thoughts exactly, Mr. Speaker.

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

South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, I have never seen a more hostile mood

among frustrated Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, especially fishermen and fish plant

workers, as I am seeing and hearing out there today, Mr. Speaker. The federal government

controls the ability of many of our communities and many of our residents to survive.

Minister, I ask when you and your government will start speaking out

and asking Ottawa to end this procrastination? I ask you also, Mr. Minister, when you will

insist that the people in the front rows of your government be involved in the

decision-making process that affects so many people's lives in this Province today?

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

Renewal.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman that the

truth of the matter is - he knows this - we have carried on this process very well. All of

the people in this Legislature have been involved in telling the federal government what

we want to see in a program. We have told them, for example, that we do want to see

licence retirement; we do want to see early retirement; we need to see income support; we

need to see an economic development fund in this program, and there has been

representation made.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to him that even though there were no

Cabinet ministers present at that meeting - and there was no reason why they should be

because it was an officials' meeting; it was not a political level meeting - let me assure

him that we conveyed, as soon as that proposal was put in front of us... It was not, in my

opinion, a consultation. It was the federal government coming here and saying: Here is

what we intend to do.

As soon as that proposal was put in front of the officials, they

immediately conveyed government's feelings that this did not meet adequately the needs of

people who have been affected by this program, by the downturn in the fishing industry, by

the collapse of the groundfish industry, and that indeed it did not show that the federal

government was acting in a responsible manner.

Mr. Speaker, we have conveyed that feeling on a political level to the

federal government, and we will continue to carry on the fight that we have been carrying

on since last November on behalf of the people of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, time for one

quick question.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will direct my question to

the Minister of Health and Community Services.

She said in this House on Monday that there is a committee or a group

of expert physicians and other clinical pharmacologists who are working on her behalf in

the Atlantic region in recommending drugs for MS.

I want to ask the minister: Will she tell this House the make-up of

that committee?

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

Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They are comprised of representatives from the four Atlantic Provinces.

We have representatives from this Province in addition to our own officials in the

department. We also are working very closely with the Progressive Conservative government

in Prince Edward Island, with the Liberal governments in Nova Scotia as well as in New

Brunswick, so we are working as a group of people, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Presenting Reports

Standing and Special Committees

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to statutory requirements, I am pleased to table in the House

the report of the Public Tender Act exemptions for the month of April, 1998.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to table the audited financial statements for the pooled

pension fund for the year ended December 31, 1997. The pension fund grew by 12.2 per cent

last year and had investments with a market value totalling $1,449,900,000 at the end of

the year. Mr. Speaker, that is the long and short of it really. There were 13,138 pensions

on payroll, at a total cost of (inaudible) annually.

Thank you.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I rise again today to present a petition on behalf of some parents who

live in St. Anthony and Griquet and various communities, who live in communities where

their children attend St. Anthony Elementary School.

Mr. Speaker, the petition is similar to one that we had presented

previously, but they are arriving on a daily basis so I want to present them as they

arrive.

Mr. Speaker, the petition is again drawing to the attention of the hon.

House the fact that there is a proposed teaching allocation reduction at St. Anthony

Elementary School for next year of 2.64 teaching units, and that the parents feel this

teaching reduction is going to have a serious, negative impact on the quality of programs

that their children will have available to them.

Mr. Speaker, the parents are concerned that the government is not

hearing the concerns of School District #2. Although the Minister of Education in the

House a couple of weeks ago said that he was giving some consideration to the

effectiveness of the teacher allocation formulas as they apply to rural Newfoundland, in

particular to School District #2, we have not had any indication to the school board

trustees or to the parent councils in that district as to what he means by `willing to

review', or willing to take that district and make it kind of a test case or to give

further consideration to more teachers being allocated to that school district.

Mr. Speaker, the parents are concerned that these changes to teacher

allocation will have a negative impact on the quality of programs as offered in French,

art, physical education, music and the learning resource programs.

Mr. Speaker, there are over 4,000 students in School District #2. Under

the provincial allocation for guidance counsellors, they get four guidance counsellors;

four guidance counsellors who have to serve children who are in schools that stretch from

River of Ponds in the southern part of that district right north to Norman's Bay. We know,

given the geography of that district, that four guidance counsellors cannot do an adequate

job.

The parents who are signing this petition are saying they want a better

deal out of school reform. These parents are saying they voted for and eagerly

participated in the referendums in 1995 and 1997. They are saying they voted for a better

system. They didn't vote for further cutbacks. They didn't say they were giving the

government permission to balance the provincial Budget on the backs of schoolchildren.

They did vote for reinvestment in education. That is why that board is

prepared to ask the parents if they would agree to close schools. Last year eight schools

in that district closed their doors. This year three more schools are preparing to close

their doors, and there are consultations ongoing at the moment with the parents in various

communities to that effect.

The parents say they have done what they feel was best for their

children; however, now they are saying to the government: We want the government to do

what is best for the children as well. That does not mean that you are going to take

music, art, physical education and learning resource personnel out of the school system.

We know that twenty of the thirty-four schools in that district are designated as small

necessarily existing schools.

We know that perhaps in no other school district is the impact of small

communities and the rural nature so great as it is in School District #2. Therefore these

parents are arguing for special consideration. They are saying if that means scrap the

current allocation formulas, then so be it. If that means we have to do that in order to

have a good, effective school program, then that is what should be done.

We cannot stand and say we are so proud of educational reform if it is

not going to have some meaning at the classroom level. That is why the parents in School

District #2, particularly the parents who signed the petition in St. Anthony, Griquet and

St. Lunaire, are saying that school reform doesn't mean what it was intended to mean for

their children. They are saying to this Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: - and to the Minister of Education, please do what

is right for the children of their district, and in particular, St. Anthony Elementary

School.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to rise today and support the petition that has been presented

by the Member for Waterford Valley on behalf of the parents and the students in the St.

Anthony region.

I think it is quite obvious - it has been obvious in this House, it has

been obvious in the media, it has been obvious around the Province - the great distress

and pressure that parents within District #2 are being placed under, the uncertainty that

is entailed within that district in terms of schools, courses, curriculum, and what the

future plan for education is going to be for a lot of these people.

I think the department definitely has to go back, reassess, and start

working with the schools individually to try and tackle some of the issues that are being

brought forward. The people in the St. Anthony area and in that region have certainly been

treated unjustly. A year ago the people of St. Lunaire, Griquet, Goose Cove and other

communities agreed to have their children bused to a larger school, agreed to allow their

children access to more programming, a more enhanced curriculum, more teachers, a broader

variety of education and so on. Now, one year later, those same children are still on the

bus but they are not receiving the service.

This is very unfair. When we looked at education reform we did so, and

people gave us the support to go out and make the changes and to make adjustments that

would benefit them. I think at the initial stages of negotiations for those schools a year

ago a lot of them were doing this in good faith, not expecting that today teachers would

be taken out of the classrooms and not more teachers put in. I do not think they were

expecting that some of the curriculum and some of the courses that were provided in the

school, and what caused them to opt to send their children there, would be taken away. I

think that has come very unexpectedly to them.

The people in District 2, Mr. Speaker, and a lot of them within my

district, are certainly going to feel the impact of the cuts and what is happening with

education, particularly related to their schools. You look at the parents in Red Bay and

what they are being faced with, some major changes within their schools, some very viable

courses that will not be offered come next year. The students in that school, especially

in the high school program, are going to be at a severe disadvantage in comparison to a

lot of places in the Province.

When you look at the parents and the teachers and the children in the

community of L'Anse au Clair, Mr. Speaker, they do not know if their school will be open

in September or if it will be closed. They do not know what the future is for them,

whether they will be putting their five-year-olds on a bus this year and sending them to a

school a couple of communities away, or whether the neighbourhood school will remain open.

Like the parents on the Northern Peninsula, Mr. Speaker, Hawkes Bay,

Plum Point, all the communities, have expressed concern and uncertainty because the

teaching staff in their schools has been affected, because they are going to lose programs

and co-ordinators. Then we look to the Coast of Labrador, also within that district, to

communities like Normans Bay and Williams Harbour which will have one teacher in a

classroom, almost one teacher in a school for multi-grades, and the fact that there is one

counsellor to provide services to all of these schools and the travel that is required by

that.

I think the parents in this district are doing the right thing, Mr.

Speaker. They are standing up for the future education of their children, and we all know

in this House how important education is, the importance that we place on it with our

young people, in equipping them for the future and allowing them to have all the

advantages of children all across this country, Mr. Speaker. We do not want to see them

neglected, we want to see whatever can be available to them made available to them.

I want to urge the department, Mr. Speaker, to look at these schools,

to talk to these parents, to deal with this board. This board has done a remarkable job in

trying to bring some order and some prospect to education within that district, but they

need assistance too, Mr. Speaker. They need to be given some guidance, some leeway, some

flexibility. They need to be given the tools to do it with, as I said yesterday, and the

tool in this case is the teacher, the teacher who is going to be in that classroom, the

teacher who has the qualifications, the skills to be able to deliver a quality program to

these children. That is what we are lacking right now, Mr. Speaker.

A lot of people can look at these schools and see that the cuts of

one-third or 25 per cent or half a unit and so on is insignificant and is very little, but

it is a lot when you talk about small schools and it makes a tremendous amount of

difference.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time up.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 18, Bill No. 24, "An Act To

Amend The Public Tender Act". I know the minister is ready and waiting.

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

Tender Act', (Bill No. 24).

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to take a couple of minutes, by way of introduction of this

bill, to make a few comments, to address some of the issues that have, frankly, been

raised already, to a large extent, by the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis in some of

the previous Question Periods, and allude to some of the other issues that arise as a

result of this bill.

I want to say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that there are two or three

main reasons why we move to propose some amendments at this time to the Public Tender Act.

First of all, of course, the Act has not been substantially reviewed in

a great many years, the last change to it having happened in 1994. We felt it was

appropriate, as government, to review

an Act that is really an evolving piece of

legislation because of the type of business that we conduct under the Act. Of course, in

terms of the business environment, both within government and within the private industry

out there, it changes from time to time.

Secondly, over the last number of years we have entered into, as a

province, various trade agreements with other provinces, particularly the AIT, the

Agreement on Internal Trade, and the APA, the Atlantic Procurement Accord. We wanted, of

necessity, to bring our legislation, in terms of the Public Tender Act, in line with and

to be consistent with what is happening in other jurisdictions.

Thirdly, of course, Mr. Speaker, there is a fair amount of attention

being paid to the whole issue of giving fair and equitable access, I would say, to the

local business community, particularly the small manufacturing sector, for opportunities

to bid on goods and services we acquire, as government, from time to time. That is

basically the third reason why we moved to do the review that we have done, and the

consultation we undertook.

I want to thank, at the outset, Mr. Speaker, those who participated in

the consultation process and who added value to this exercise by virtue of their

participation. We had 120-odd people show up, I believe, at various public forums that we

held, we had forty-two written presentations, and in addition to that I think we had eight

separate groups come in to make representation to us.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to also acknowledge the efforts and the

contribution that has been made by the hon. the Member for St. John's South. He, as a

member of the Opposition, performing his appropriate role on that side of the House, took

keen interest in the whole issue of providing equitable opportunity for local business

manufacturers, and I acknowledge that contribution, and I thank him for the contribution.

He has been following this thing along, and I have to say, quite honestly, he has been

helpful. He hasn't been obstructionist, he hasn't been out there saying things that were,

in a sense, grandstanding. He has been out there trying to make, I believe, an honest and

a valuable contribution, and I want to acknowledge the role he has played.

I want also to say that the hon. member himself put forward some

suggestions, and I believe that as he looks at the bill he will see we have reflected to

some extent some of the representation he has made on this issue. It is only fair that we

acknowledge that and say that it is a part of the process that we went through. It gave

him the opportunity, and he on his own took the opportunity, to help us out in this

regard.

The amendments we have proposed, Mr. Speaker, to this Public Tender

Act, as a result of the consultations we have undertaken, are really a reflection of the

information and the representation we received through the process. We heard, as we went

around the Province, from municipalities, health boards, other government funded bodies,

chambers of commerce, the provincial Chamber of Commerce on behalf of their network of

organizations, the St. John's Board of Trade, the Newfoundland and Labrador Construction

Association and the Newfoundland and Labrador Road Builders Association. Broadly put, the

high level of representation we received and the in-depth level of work that they put into

their presentations are really reflected in the four or five significant amendments that

we are now making to the Public Tender Act.

A couple of these amendments are rather in terms of the process we are

going through here, housekeeping in nature, but there are three or four areas which I

think I should make mention of.

In terms of increasing the thresholds from $7,500 to $10,000, and

$20,000 in terms of construction, we are really only making incremental increases to

reflect the additional value of those types of contracts. Simply put, 1994 dollars at

$7,500 are about 1998 dollars at about $10,000. These types of threshold changes, Mr.

Speaker, I think we would all acknowledge are normal and appropriate, and we should

continue to do that as we move forward in time.

One of the other recommendations we are reflecting in the amendments we

have brought forward in this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to open up the method of tendering in

terms of how we advertize our tenders as government. At the moment the act says we have to

be confined to a newspaper circulation that is generally available everywhere in the

Province. The fact of the matter is that we are now in the age of the Internet, we are in

the age of the Website, and it is only appropriate that we open up our tendering process

to reflect and to make available to ourselves and to other government funded bodies the

ability to advertise in alternate means, other than newspapers that are of general

circulation in the Province.

It gives the municipalities, as I said before, in areas like Happy

Valley - Goose Bay, the opportunity to use their local newspaper. It also gives government

the opportunity to move to one of the three or four electronic systems that are now out

there, and that would cost government nothing to access. It would be, in effect, a user

pay system for those who want to pull down tendered documents off the Internet. So, I

think that type of amendment is also quite timely and appropriate in the circumstance.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, we have entered into a number of trade

agreements across the country. One of these trade agreements, an internal trade agreement,

is an agreement that provides for every other jurisdiction in the country, for every other

province in the country, the ability to exempt under the Public Tender Act, on a one time

basis, to commence with certain acquisitions of goods or services where it is deemed by

those other provinces to be in greater economic interest to the province to exempt them

for a specific reason. So, that is a change that the member has been asking me some

questions about, as I said, in Question Period.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that no other jurisdiction, no

other Province, including the federal government, has a Public Tender Act. We cannot allow

ourselves, Mr. Speaker, to be disadvantaged as a result of anything that we might have in

terms of our legislation.

So simply put, we are making this change to recognize that there are,

or at least there may be in the future, as there probably have been in the past, specific

identifiable areas where it would have significant over-riding economic benefit to the

Province to be able to exempt a certain procurement or activity from The Public Tender Act

for a specific purpose and in a pacific time frame.

While we do not see great usage of this, frankly, Mr. Speaker, we

cannot afford to put ourselves in the circumstance to be disadvantaged by other Provinces.

I can only think of one other circumstance or one other instance at the moment where it

has been used in Atlantic Canada. Just to point out how serious some of the other

Provinces take it, let me say that in Atlantic Canada, in New Brunswick, on one occasion

they invoked this particular ability within their procurement practises to exempt the

purchase of paint for painting lines on highways. They deemed that in their Province the

manufacturer of paint was of such significance to them, that they exempted it under this

type of an exemption. Mr. Speaker, that is just, by way of example, one of the things or

one of the applications or type of applications that this could have.

In all of these processes, Mr. Speaker, including this one, of course

Cabinet has the final say. Government at the end of the day has to be answerable for its

actions and there has to be total and complete transparency.

The other thing I would say, Mr. Speaker, is that notwithstanding this,

the fact of the matter is that the exemption for economic development purposes, or the

ability of government to use RFPs in certain other circumstances, is still subject to The

Public Tender Act. Simply put, Mr. Speaker, all of the changes that we have made today, we

have made to The Public Tender Act, and all of the things and all of the activities that

happen in terms of procurement in the future, whether being tendered directly, whether it

is calling of prices for products, getting three prices for products, whether it is under

$10,000, whether it is a RFP process or whether it is an exemption for economic

development purposes, they are all activities that are still subject to a Public Tender

Act. We are not removing them, taking them out from the ambit of a Public Tender Act.

Everything is still going to be within The Public Tender Act scope. There will be a

complete transparency, there will be complete openness and there will be a process of

reporting that is represented by Cabinet affirmation and by reporting to the House of

Assembly, as I did, Mr. Speaker, just a few minutes ago with respect to tendering

exemptions.

The fact of the matter is this - at least, this is the view of

government and it has been certainly affirmed by the business community out there - the

current Public Tender Act says this: In 100 per cent of all of our acquisitions, in 100

per cent of all of the things that we want to acquire by way of goods and services, we

have to prescribe a solution and then go to tender and subject it to that subjective type

of process.

Everybody has told us, the Boards of Trade, construction associations,

and all in-between, that in some circumstances government would be better served if there

was a process where, in unique situations, they could use an RFP so that we could get the

best value for money spent. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, the best price does

not in 100 per cent of the circumstances translate into best value. In 99.9 per cent of

the situations, the fact of the matter is that tendering, as we traditionally do it, is

the way to go and is the way we will continue to go. I would say, in 99.9 per cent of

everything we do, the Public Tender Act will have the trigger point of the lowest price

being the way in which we do business. There are exceptional circumstances. Because of new

and evolving innovations out there, that we would like to know something about, that we do

not know about, we need more open and transparent processes that we can engage in.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that all of these amendments today are

amendments that are appropriate. They are amendments that have been widely endorsed by all

of the stakeholders. They are amendments that are being asked for and being looked forward

to by the business community out there, as well as the whole range of government-funded

bodies that are subjected to the Public Tender Act.

In all of this, Mr. Speaker, the underlying principle, that government

wants to ensure remains and has evolved in all of this, is the principle that this will

continue to be

an Act that is highly respected, notwithstanding the fact that we are the

only ones in the country with it. We believe there is a lot of virtue in having a Public

Tender Act. We have no intention of weakening it, we have no intention of degrading it, we

have no intention of taking away from our public tendering and purchasing processes the

transparency that currently exist, we have no intention of taking away fairness and

balance from those who want to acquire goods and services, and we have no intention of

doing anything that is not reasonable, respectable, honourable, transparent and that will

give, at the end of the day, the taxpayers of this Province the best possible value for

the dollars that we spend on their behalf.

After all, Mr. Speaker, in all of the dollars we spend, whether it is

procurement dollars, whether it is programming dollars or whatever types of money we spend

as government, we are actually only trustees of the people's money, the taxpayers'

largesse towards us, that we collect on their behalf and we spend for their benefit. We

have an incumbent responsibility, as government, to ensure that we spend those tax dollars

in the wisest, most prudent, most honourable, and most transparent way. The amendments

that we brought forward today will certainly do that.

There is just one other area where we are bringing forward amendments,

and that is to the great benefit of the local manufacturing community. The hon. member

from St. John's South, as I say, took a direct interest in this. Let me say this: The

amendments that we are putting forward today will, for the first time ever, cause to be

the first point of reference for goods and services that are specified in a tendering

process of whatever fashion, it will cause to be the first reference point the Registry of

Newfoundland Manufactured Products as maintained by the Department of Industry, Trade and

Technology. There is currently a Registry of Local Manufacturers in existence.

We are putting in legislation, a requirement that this Registry will be

formulated to identify, in generic fashion, all of the locally manufactured products in

this country. From here on in, when a specifier, architect, engineer, or a procurement

agency on behalf of government wants to make a procurement, the reference point in terms

of specification will be to a Newfoundland manufactured product as opposed to a product

that is manufactured somewhere else, in some other part of the world.

No more will there be out there, Mr. Speaker, the ability of an

architect to say: I want to specify bricks that are made in Nova Scotia. No more will

there be the ability to say: I want to specify windows that are made in Ontario. The first

requirement will be to the registry and the registry will be in generic form, a

description of those types of products manufactured in Newfoundland, and that will be the

reference point in the first instance for specifying products. This has been loudly and

roundly received as a very positive and as a very forward looking initiative on behalf of

government by the Newfoundland and Labrador Manufacturers Association.

We have gone one step further than that, Mr. Speaker. We have said that

in cases where subcontractors are bidding on government work and where there is no

requirement to respect our Public Tender Act, we are saying that in the case where these

subcontractors have to or want to acquire products that are made in Newfoundland that they

must make available also to the Newfoundland business community, the local manufacturers,

et cetera, first opportunity or equitable opportunity to be able to bid on their products.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, particularly in the catering sector, the

people who now do the catering services for the Health Sciences and for the health care

boards, will be required to ensure that local manufacturers get a shot at doing business

with them by virtue of the tenders that they have won, the awards they have won with us.

Mr. Speaker, this also is a very forward looking and a very

accommodating action for government to take on their behalf. It does not guarantee anybody

anything and they have never asked for guarantees. It simply says, Mr. Speaker, that they

will have equitable access to being able to bid on those products and that is all they

have ever asked for. They will then compete, of course, with all of the other people out

there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I read a little more than congratulatory

connotations into that demonstration. I read into that, Mr. Speaker, that there may be a

sense that I should draw my comments to a close.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding their great desire to

get out of the House, or their great desire to see this bill passed, I believe it is of

sufficient importance to have an appropriate explanation of what we are doing here.

I think, Mr. Speaker, these comments cover the four or five significant

amendments that are in this act. I would be interested in hearing the comments of the

members on the other side and I would be happy to answer any questions in closing debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

should do us all a favour now and tear this up and flick it out. I saw the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation get on his feet and try to explain and give reasons why

he is making some major changes to the Public Tender Act. All I heard from him was

rationalization, not an explanation but rationalization, a big difference.

Now, Mr. Speaker, earlier today we saw the minister present in this

House a list of exemptions from the Public Tender Act. What you will see, if these

amendments go through this House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, is no more lists like that come

into this House of Assembly. We will see no more lists like that, where the minister will

have to report and other ministers of the Crown will have to report to this House of

Assembly, because it will be a free-for-all.

Mr. Speaker, the Public Tender Act was first implemented to give a

level playing field to people, businesses and industries in the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador. That is what it was brought in for in the first place, Mr. Speaker. With the

amendments that are being proposed here today - the major amendments, by the way, that the

minister neglected to speak about. I don't know if it was deliberate or not but he did not

have much to say about the major amendments that are being proposed.

Now, with respect to the development, I suppose, of the Registry of

Manufacturers and Producers, Mr. Speaker, that is a positive step. That is where this all

started from. The Member for St. John's South saw some injustices being done in the

Province and spoke up and made a case of it. What we saw happen was, we saw the Minister

of Works, Services and Transportation and this Administration take advantage of that and

they saw the door open. We have an opportunity here now to make some changes to the Public

Tender Act that the people do not want. The minister talked about having consultations. I

made a few notes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: What is your problem?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I will get to the facts. A little bit of good news, I

will say, for the beginning. That is the attitude they have, this group here, good news

all the time. There is very little good news in this, I will tell you that, other than

what I just mentioned, the registry. I said this government saw an opportunity to make

major changes to the Public Tender Act, and that is what they took advantage of.

They talked about having consultations across the Province. One hundred

and twenty people, they said, forty-two written presentations, and eight groups. At the

same time we had presentations across this Province, we had meetings, and we had people

address our meetings, with the Member for St. John's South.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Opposition party had it, I would say to the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, just like you. You take credit for what

you do over there; I will take credit for what is necessary on this side of the House, Mr.

Speaker. You can wind me up; I am going to be going for awhile, I can guarantee you that.

I thought I would need notes to speak on this, but when the minister got up all I had to

do was write down a few things here. Look, three pages on what he said, and he didn't even

address the major amendments that are coming in this piece of legislation. He just skimmed

over them, scaled around them, which I will address in due course.

I said maybe two months ago that when the minister announced there

would be changes coming to the Public Tender Act, the concerns on this side of the House

were that he would weaken the Public Tender Act. He has gone beyond weakening it; he is

completely repealing it. It is almost to the point where he won't even have a Public

Tender Act. The minister stood in his place here today and said: Everything is going to be

done; we will still have a Public Tender Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: Be honest, now.

MR. J. BYRNE: I will be honest. Just listen here now to some of the

- and this is what you didn't address. It says here, the new paragraph 3(2)(

i) means the

government will not have to invite public tenders "where, in the opinion of the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, and subject to the approval of the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council," - Cabinet, and what is Cabinet made up of, Mr.

Speaker? - "the work or acquisition is for an economic development purpose..."

That gives the government, the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology, some pretty wide latitude, let me tell you that: "in the opinion" of

one individual. That is the problem I have.

For economic development - if we have someone building a house, it is

economic development. That is pretty lax. It gives a lot of leeway for the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology. In fact, what will happen is you will see other government

departments putting stuff through the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology to get

around, to circumvent, what he calls what is left of the Public Tender Act. It is

weakening the Public Tender Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture says it is 27 Celsius outdoors, and so be it. We are here in this House of

Assembly to represent the people of the Province. If the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture does not want to be in the House of Assembly to represent the people of the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the people in his district, then he should

resign. There is no one forcing him to stay here. If he wants to be out in the sun when we

have business to attend to in the House of Assembly, so be it, let him go. There is no one

who has him tied on here.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) listening to you.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, he says there is no one keyed in

listening to me. If I can recall, when he was on this side of the House he was a person

who was on his feet pretty often mouthing off. The difference between him and me is that I

have something to say. He had nothing to say at the time, and usually he has nothing to

say when he gets to his feet.

I will continue on. I have an hour to speak, I think, to address this,

and I will certainly use up my time and address the concerns. I am going to be on record

in this House of Assembly. Even though they have the majority over there and they will

eventually push this bill through the House of Assembly - I do not know what time, today,

tomorrow, the next day, I do not know when, but they have the majority and they will do it

- I will be on record, when we have another Trans City come through this House of

Assembly, as having said: This is what is going to happen. And it will happen, Mr.

Speaker, you can mark that down.

As I said, the registry of manufacturers is a positive step; there is

opportunity to have government contracts, and rightly so. That is where it all started, as

I said earlier, so I will compliment the minister on that and say `yes', but he should not

take the opportunity to basically try and bring in changes to the Public Tender Act to

completely repeal it, Mr. Speaker.

When the minister was up, when he was concluding his remarks, he said

that the government and this act now, with the changes made, will actually allow

government to spend their dollars more wisely and in a more prudent way. Mr. Speaker, this

government has a poor history of spending the dollars in a very prudent and wise way. I

can guarantee you this, Mr. Speaker, when these changes come through, it will be less wise

and less prudent. That is what is going to happen in this Province when this

Administration has access to complete control and no responsibility to the House, or

reporting to the House basically. He can get up and say it, but in due course we will see

what will happen with respect to the Public Tender Act.

Some of the notes that I made when the minister was speaking - I will

try to read my own writing. I do have some problems with it sometimes, like I say,

especially when the minister is speaking quite quickly.

As I said, the minister said he had basically three reasons for changes

to the Public Tender Act. I said earlier that there were no reasons given. It was more of

a rationalization than an explanation. He said the act had not been reviewed since 1994.

Since 1994 there had not been any changes, or it had not been reviewed, but why change

something if it is working, I say to the minister? The response to that will be: We were

told to change it. We were in consultation; there were recommendations made, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, there may have been some people recommending certain changes, but

did they recommend the changes that are coming, I say to the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation? I doubt it very much because it is basically getting rid of the level

playing field that is out there now, the reason this was brought in.

Now, Mr. Speaker, he talked about trade agreements and he wanted to

have this Province in line with other jurisdictions. I do not know about that one. I would

certainly have to question that, bringing us in line with other jurisdictions. He also

said, (inaudible) for fair and equitable access for local businesses. Yes, for

manufacturers and producers, as I said earlier, no doubt about that, but not for the other

groups, probably engineering work, construction work, building of roads and highways,

building of schools, and all this kind of stuff.

What is going to happen if we get rid of this, and it is open for

opinions and what have you, there will be political interference. There will be pressure

put on for certain things, and it will not be then based on the proposal or the tender

that went in, the dollar value, and the past experience. It will be based on who you know;

not what you know but who you know. That is what happened in the past. That is what

happened back in the 1960s when there were cost-plus jobs put out all across this Province

and people became millionaires on the backs of the taxpayers of this Province.

When the Public Tender Act was brought in, it was to get rid of that

type of attitude. That is what is coming back with these changes, and I do not mind going

on record as saying it. I do not care who hears me saying it. I am telling the facts as

they are, Mr. Speaker.

He mentioned that the amendments being proposed are a reflection of

municipalities, health boards, chambers of commerce, St. John's Board of Trade, and the

Road Builders Association, and he talked about housekeeping. He talked about increasing

the amount from $7,500 up to $10,000. Yes, there always has to be some housekeeping done

in any legislation, but not to the extent that, there is more than housekeeping going on

here with respect to this legislation.

He talked about advertising, changes to the advertising for the

municipalities and what have you, Mr. Speaker. That is a positive step, I suppose. It

could be considered to be advertised in local media only, depending on the size of the

contracts and what have you, but then this is basically a snow job for the major changes

that are coming in this act. That is what is going on here, Mr. Speaker, a snow job for

the major changes that are coming in the act. He talked about the Internet and electronic

systems, the electronic media where they could advertise; a snow job.

Then he talked about the internal trade agreement, that would exempt

certain acquisition of goods, Mr. Speaker. What goods, I say to the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation? He says that if we don't make these changes the Province

could be put in the position of a disadvantage by the other provinces. Rationalization

again, no concrete statements, no concrete information, no details, Mr. Speaker. That is

what the problem is here.

Here is the one. He says: Cabinet will have final say, and there will

be transparency - a final say and transparency, Mr. Speaker. Now we have to understand,

Mr. Speaker, that the Cabinet is made up of government members, of course. When the

pressure is being put on to accept certain contracts, who is going to be making the

decision? Cabinet.

He also made a statement about everything still being under the Public

Tender Act. Well, it may be under it, Mr. Speaker, but there won't be much to control what

is going to happen in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to the Public

Tender Act.

Now another paragraph in the act -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am stating the facts as I see them. I am going on

record, Mr. Speaker, that is what I'm doing here today. We will see, in due course, what

will happen and who will be right, Mr. Speaker. That is what I am doing.

Another

section in the act, Mr. Speaker, says that government will not

have to invite public tenders where, in the opinion of the head of the government funded

body, inviting a tender would not achieve the best value. Now, Mr. Speaker, they are going

to make that determination of the best value on a project before they put anything out to

tender. Now, how can they make that determination, I would like to know? What will the

criteria be -

MR. CANNING: Should you have to advertise right across the Province

(inaudible)?

MR. J. BYRNE: Now, did you hear what the Member for Labrador West

said, Mr. Speaker? Should you have to advertise to buy a computer up in Labrador, in St.

John's somewhere? These changes to the Public Tender Act are far more reaching than

something as simple as that. That is an oversimplification, Mr. Speaker, that that

administration does all the time, to try and rationalize what they want to do. That is the

problem that I have with this. I welcome questions from the Member for Labrador West

because he certainly gives me food for thought.

Anyway, it says: In the opinion of the head of the government funded

body inviting a tender would not achieve the best value. The government funded body has,

through the minister responsible for it - now, Mr. Speaker, we not only have the minister

who can make the determination that they would circumvent the Public Tender Act but we

have a department head who can make that determination to circumvent the Public Tender

Act. Now, if anybody in this House of Assembly can stand and tell me that you are not

weakening the Public Tender Act by doing this, Mr. Speaker, I would have a major, major

problem with that. I don't know how anybody could actually stand in their place and make

that statement and keep a serious face. I would not be able to, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, another major change coming to the Public Tender Act - and

the minister did not address this when he was up. It says: Provision allowing government

to change orders and to expand awarded contracts is loosened up. So the government would

be able to give contractors extra work without tendering that work. Now, Mr. Speaker,

there are situations where they can have an extension to a tender. It makes -

MR. MATTHEWS: That doesn't change.

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, it does change, I say to the Minister of Works,

Services. You can have an extension now, but there are limits on it. But if you look at

the legislation that is being proposed, there could be an extension, then an extension on

an extension, and an extension on an extension. So in actual fact, they could go above

what was -

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, that is right. Isn't it? Definitely, I would say

to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. The extension -

MR. CANNING: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I asked for? What province or what planet does the

Member for Labrador West live on, I ask, Mr. Speaker? I haven't got a clue. He is over

there making statements that I requested that. I don't know where I requested it. The

questions I asked in this House of Assembly certainly didn't indicate that I would be

asking that.

Also, the new clause in the exemption area of the act will give broad

discretionary power to government to avoid calling for public tenders. So far, Mr.

Speaker, I am only referring to a news release I put out with respect to these changes or

proposed changes. I have to be -

MR. CANNING: Do you have a copy?

MR. J. BYRNE: I would say your office was the first to receive a

copy, I would say to the Member for Labrador West.

Mr. Speaker, here is one of the problems here. Public procurement is an

area of government activity that can be subject to enormous pressure to direct purchasing

that is not in the public interest. Basically, if the changes to the Public Tender Act are

brought in, Mr. Speaker, what you will see is pressure put on government by businesses. I

will get political here. What you will see then is the people who are making the big

contributions to the political parties - that is where this all came from in the first

place - will end up with the work. That is what happened in the past, that is what history

tells us, and I can tell you right here and now that I can predict the future. I don't

have a crystal ball, but that is what is going to happen with these changes, Mr. Speaker,

and I have major, major problems with it.

Mr. Speaker, these amendments throw wide open the opportunity to opt

out of the public tendering for very vague reasons, leaving government with the

opportunity to avoid public tenders. The amendment virtually repeals the entire act, and

it really does. I think if anybody sat down with a fair and logical mind and looked at

these changes, and looked at how vague the situations are that are being proposed here,

where, "in the opinion of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology," where

in the opinion of the department head, that they can make changes, circumvent the Public

Tender Act, go for a request for a proposal rather than a public tender, all for economic

development: "Where, in the opinion of the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology," the tender or the request for a proposal, whatever it is going to be, is

for economic development. Can you believe that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The changes in themselves will allow the ministers to

circumvent the Public Tender Act by the legislation itself. That is the problem, I say to

the Member for Labrador West.

What about accountability, Mr. Speaker, in the public procurement?

There will be work put out right, left and centre that we will know nothing about. That is

what I would say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be able to stand in my place and support

this. When the time comes I will have to vote against this, I can tell you that right here

and now. I will definitely be opposing this when the time comes, maybe next Wednesday or

Thursday night, 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning. That is what I will be doing.

Mr. Speaker, what is in the bill in detail? We went through this bill

in detail, and some of the things I have to bring up here now are these. The term

"economic development purpose" is not defined in the act. That is what I was

referring to earlier.

Section 12 gives the Cabinet the power to define the term by

regulations, and Cabinet can rejig the regulations whenever they want to. If they did put

in a definition in the regulations of "economic development," they could change

it at any time themselves without coming back to the House of Assembly. They won't have to

change the legislation, just change the regulation. That is all they would have to do.

MR. McLEAN: It is more workable.

MR. J. BYRNE: More workable! I would say it is more workable. That

is just the problem I have with it. It is more workable for whom, I ask the Minister of

Government Services and Lands? When you want to give a contract to an individual or to a

group, oh, just rejig the regulations, change the definition, and it will not have to come

to the House of Assembly. That is what this is all about.

In actual fact, the Minister of Government Services and Lands is

agreeing with what I am saying. So more than likely he will stand in his place and vote

against this legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: If I was opposed to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: A lot of the stuff to be accomplished, that was

required or asked or whatever from the groups going around, could have been done by

regulation. It did not have to change the act and put in these vague descriptions and

vague reasons to allow the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology to do what she

wants, or what he wants when the minister is changed, I say to the Minister of Government

Services and Lands.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the new 3(2)(

j) would allow the head of the

government-funded body to use his or her opinion to determine if inviting a tender would

not achieve the best value. Now, what kind of latitude are we giving individuals here, Mr.

Speaker? Too much latitude.

By the way, your tie does not match your shirt, I say to you, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, just to continue, I have so much

to say on this issue. This is very serious, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, very serious stuff.

Subclause 4(2) says the amendment regarding the change orders and

extensions is contentious. It seeks to repeal

section 5(3). It goes on to say, if a

contract is under $100,000, the change cannot exceed $15,000. If the contract is between

$100,000 and $500,000, the change cannot exceed the greater of $15,000 or 10 per cent. If

a contract is over $500,000, the change cannot exceed the greater of $50,000 or 5 per

cent, Mr. Speaker.

Those are pretty large numbers to talk about, Mr. Speaker. Just going

on, it says that once that subsection is eliminated there is nothing to stop the

government from approving - from approving, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation - successive change orders and extensions and treating each one separately

so that each meets the criteria even though accumulatively they would exceed the limit.

That is what I was saying earlier, Mr. Speaker. That is what I was

saying earlier, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Once that

clause is dropped, they can give extensions to contracts; and when they do it bit by bit,

the accumulative amount can exceed the amount that was there in the act. I think you had

better sit back and have a look at that, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, just for your own information.

Section 5(3)5(1), Mr. Minister, I say you

should look at that area again.

Clause 5. The change is critical if the government goes ahead with the

new exclusions in subclause 2(3) regarding the economic development and best value. Again,

Mr. Speaker - and I seem to be harping on this, but - that is where the major changes are

coming.

The minister stood in his place and talked about the media changes, and

advertising and what have you, and the manufacturing registry and what have you, Mr.

Speaker - positive stuff - but not the major changes, not the changes that are going to

have the impact and the expenditures of this Administration and the various government

departments. The changes I am talking about are in the opinion of the minister, in the

opinion of the department head. That area there for economic development - my goodness,

Mr. Speaker, if you talk about economic development in the Province, go back again to what

I said earlier.

If someone is building a house, it is economic development; if someone

is putting down two kilometres of pavement somewhere, it is economic development. So, in

actual fact, any minister who wants to spend any amount of money can rationalize, justify,

and actually be legal in what they are going to do if they want to circumvent the Public

Tender Act.

That is another point, with respect to the legalities of it. As it now

stands, if we do not, if the government does not, follow the Public Tender Act, there are

certain repercussions to follow, and that is the legality and the legal effects it will

have, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I have an hour, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, thank you, so I have thirty-three minutes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The best - now what a question. You see, that is the

problem. Thank you again, I say again to the Member for Labrador West. Thank you again. He

asked me what the best value means to me. That is the whole point I am making. The best

value to me, the best value to the minister, the best value to another minister, can be

completely different. So in actual fact it is weakening the Public Tender Act. That is my

whole argument, I say to the Member for Labrador West. It is, by definition, wrong. That

is where we are coming from on it.

He talks about economic development - back to my original point - and

the legalities of it. For example, this Trans City, when the minister of this

Administration came in and changed midstream what they ask for, the whole thing went to

court and the government was found at fault. It is going to cost us million and millions

of dollars. Now they are asking this House of Assembly to allow them to do that in the

future, and you will not be able to take it to court because they will be within their

rights to do what they want to do. That is the problem, I say to the Member for Labrador

West, one of the problems with this.

Best value - here it is, Mr. Speaker. There is no requirement in the

act that the minister or the head of a government body or Cabinet give any explanation of

why the deemed public work or purchase be best left untendered.

Again, you would think that if you were going to have changes, there

would be

definitions there. According to the changes that are being proposed in this act,

there is no requirement or any explanation deemed to be required from the minister to

explain, why he wants to make these changes - he or she - and wants to circumvent the

Public Tender Act. That is another problem we have on this side to the House, Mr. Speaker.

I am the former mayor of a small town, and I had problems with the

Public Tender Act. I did, there is no doubt there. I think the problems could have been

addressed in regulations. I do not see the necessity to completely take away the validity,

the value, of the Public Tender Act. It is completely watering down the Public Tender Act.

It was supposed to give, as I said earlier, a level playing field. It will not happen any

more. I can guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, it is not going to happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: It depends on what you are talking about, if it is

better for the communities. Better for what? In what way? There are certain things, but it

can be addressed. Like the Member for Labrador West said, yes, in a community in Labrador

somewhere, if a company there wants to buy a computer - under $5,000, by the way, you do

not have to go to the Public Tender Act. Professional services are exempt from the Public

Tender Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Is idiotic parliamentary, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Confuse me? It takes more than the Member for

Labrador West to confuse me, I can guarantee you. It might take ten more like him, at the

same time.

What is not in the bill, and what should be? Mr. Speaker, I am going to

have to skip some of the stuff here. When this all started, the Member for St. John's

South, as I said earlier, had some problems with what was happening in the Province with

respect to - some of the stuff we referred to was the Cabot 500 paraphernalia that went

outside the Province, juice for schools and what have you, school windows, all this kind

of stuff. Local manufacturers and producers did not have access to it. Again, I say, it is

a positive step there. There is no doubt about that, Mr. Speaker.

In January of this year we held six public meetings across the Province

and we had a lot of recommendations coming from that. I will tell you some of the

recommendations that came out of those meetings that were not really addressed here in

this Public Tender Act. Some were.

To maintain a 5 per cent local preference standard for Newfoundland and

Labrador. Now we know, Mr. Speaker, that the government presented another bill in this

House of Assembly to get rid of the local preference, 5 per cent. I would think that if

we, as a Province, are going to compete interprovincially, there may be some argument made

for that; so I will not get into that too much here now.

This is the recommendation that we made - the Member for St. John's

South - establish a central registry of goods and services manufactured. I compliment the

member on that. Done, it is going to happen, not a problem.

Then it says, using the registry's information as a guide, ensure all

government procurement contracts are broken down in such a way that goods and services not

produced by local companies are separated from those which local companies produce. So in

suppose, or the contracts put forward by the Province.

Another one is to ensure that tender specifications are generic rather

than brand-name specific. Often we will see tenders put out with the specs written for a

specific product or what have you, and there are only certainly people who can tender on

that. What we were asking for is that it be more generic and that it will be

all-encompassing, and anybody, or any person or business in that field, will be able to

apply, and not to be just too specific on it.

Also: write into the tenders and contracts of government suppliers that

their sub-contractors must be fair to local companies. I think that can be forthcoming in

the manufacturers' registry, so that can be addressed there. It says: Ensure all

government-funded bodies, school boards and what have you, currently covered by the Public

Tender Act, are also required to abide by these procedures.

Fine. If you noticed, all we talked about here, what was recommended to

us in our meetings across the Province, was all geared to manufacturers, producers and

we didn't hear it from these recommendations, that we should change the regulations and

the Public Tender Act with respect to construction and other types of contracts for the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

That is what I was saying earlier, that what is happening here is the

Administration is taking advantage of a situation, that they should be more specific in

changing the Public Tender Act, or including in the Public Tender Act. What they are

doing, they are not only including, they are taking something out of the Public Tender Act

that should not be taken out.

Just to continue on, I mentioned Trans City earlier and I have a ream

of notes here on Trans City that I could refer to. I don't know if I really need to get

into that. We all know what happened there. What happened, of course, was that the

government went forward and made changes midstream to a tender they were supposed to call.

It was awarded, and so many hospitals built. It cost the Province millions and millions of

dollars. It goes to court and government loses. Now we are trying to legitimize that

process. Not right, wrong, morally wrong, legally wrong. It won't be legally wrong if we

change the Public Tender Act, but we on this side of the House have major, major problems

with that.

Another one was the Kodak bill. Can anybody remember the Kodak bill, I

wonder?

MR. SULLIVAN: I sure do. They told us we were coming in on an

education act, and they brought up Kodak.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, exactly.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Sir, but it wasn't over in a flash.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Ferryland, Mr. Speaker, made a comment

that the Kodak bill wasn't over in a flash. We were brought in here to talk about an

education situation, and we started to discuss the Kodak bill.

The bill was to give the government leeway to enter into similar

arrangements without having to come to the Legislature first. What happened? The Kodak

bill fell through. I don't know if it cost us any money, but there were going to be

thousands of jobs created, and it fell through again. That is what this Administration is

trying to do now.

The Bombardier contract on the mainland. Government bypassed its public

tendering process to give the largest defence contract in Canadian history to a company

with ties to the Prime Minister. Here it is. People should listen to this, and I hope

there is people outside listening, I can guarantee you that. What we are trying to change

here now, to do and to legalize and make right and proper, the same thing happened to the

Bombardier contract. I will say it again. Ottawa has just bypassed its public tendering

process to give the largest defence contract in Canadian history to a company with ties to

the Prime Minister. This is an example of what is going to happen in this Province.

I will qualify it. Any party sitting on the government side of the

House, be it Liberal, Tory, NDP, Reform, what have you, is going to be subject to the same

pressures.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) Public Service Commission (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: A good point. A good, good point! The Opposition

Leader just said to me: What is happening here is the same thing that is happening to the

Public Service Commission. What we will see, and what I have said in this House of

Assembly and I have asked questions of the Minister of Finance on this - this came up in

the Estimates Committee, Mr. Speaker, when I asked questions of the Minister of Finance. I

said: What is going on with the Public Service Commission?

The Public Service Commission was put in place, Mr. Speaker, so it

would be a body which would be a level playing field to all applicants who wanted to come

into the public service. It would be on standards which would be education,

qualifications, experience, all these things. Then there would be a list of the

interviewees one, two and three, Mr. Speaker. The minister still had his say. There would

be three recommended. He could take number three. He still had some say, Mr. Speaker.

Now, what is happening is that we see the Public Service Commission

being watered down. The minister admitted to this. He admitted to it being watered down.

We are seeing people hired through the departments. It is being very, very political, Mr.

Speaker. We are harking back to the 1960s. We are definitely harking back to the 1960s.

Things that were put in place to protect the public, to protect the

civil servants, Mr. Speaker, to protect the taxpayer, are being dissolved, wiped away. The

Public Service Commission, the Public Tender Act, all being washed down the drain because

of the opinions - I don't know if it is an opinion or not, Mr. Speaker, but more likely

because of what the plans are for the future, I say to you, what the government and the

Premier plan for the future with respect to people in the civil service.

I know there were supposed to be 2,000 or 3,000 people let go over the

past few years, but I can walk through this building now - and I am only here five years -

and I can see some new faces. I don't know where they are coming from, but there are lots

of new faces around. I am just wondering -

MR. CANNING: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: There will be a lot more new faces on that side the

next time around, I say to the Member for Labrador West. It will be us and what is with us

over there, I say to you.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker,

MR. McLEAN: You don't like us hiring people?

MR. J. BYRNE: I cannot believe that that came out the Minister of

Government Services and Lands.

MR. E. BYRNE: What did he say?

MR. J. BYRNE: He said: Jack, you don't like us hiring people, do

you? I want everybody in the Province to be employed, but I want it to be done in a fair

fashion, I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands. I want the Public Service

Commission Act to be followed, all that to be done. That is what I want.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I have said a few words on this. I do not know how

long I am up. I say to the Clerk: How much time do I have left? I am making some good

points here. How much? Twenty minutes? Oh my goodness!

Mr. Speaker, -

AN HON. MEMBER: Say it all again, Jack, say it all again.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I am not going to repeat myself today too much.

It is hard not to repeat one's self, Mr. Speaker, when you are up here for an hour or so,

but I suppose you do on occasion. In the meantime, I have a few more comments to make, Mr.

Speaker.

I asked questions in this House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker. I asked the

minister: Why is the government proposing to give the industry minister broad,

discretionary powers to exclude from public tendering any project deemed to have an

economic development purpose. The minister got up in his place, Mr. Speaker, and said what

he said today. Nothing. I got to my second question, Mr. Speaker, the other day and asked

the minister just how broadly will the minister be able to interpret this provision,

because there will be absolutely no definition anywhere in the act to say what she can and

cannot exclude from the public tendering under the provision. Mr. Speaker, no answer

again. The same thing is given today.

I did not get to my third question, Mr. Speaker, which was the question

that I wanted to ask, so I will ask it now. Paragraph 3.(2)(

j) of the bill says the

government will not have to invite public tenders where, in the opinion of the head of the

government funded body, inviting a tender will not achieve the best value. It goes on, Mr.

Speaker. It says: Why is the government recklessly abandoning the principle of public

tendering which not only promises good value through competition but also creates a level

playing field and does away with favouritism and nepotism? That is what we are going to

see, favouritism and nepotism here, Mr. Speaker, people with the bucks who will put the

pressure on.

People over there are shaking their heads. You are not living in the

real world if you do not believe that, I say to the Member for Labrador West.

Now, Mr. Speaker, here is the last question I was going to ask. I will

ask the minister and he might want to address it when he gets up. Will the minister

confirm that the request for a proposal option, that government is now opening up, is

precisely the route government will try to take when awarding hospital contracts to Trans

City? Why is the government trying to give itself more freedom to wallow in the gutters of

corruption to achieve its political ends while destroying fairness and accountability?

That is what it boils down to, Mr. Speaker. That is the question. That is the one, Mr.

Speaker, that is going to happen -

MR. CANNING: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That's what is going to happen, I say to the Member

for Labrador West; definitely. When? When the changes come into place. I doubt if he knows

what we are talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he doesn't know what your talking about.

MR. J. BYRNE: Did you read it yet, I say to the Member for Labrador

West? Well I read it, I can guarantee you, and I am not going to support it. I hope no one

on this side of the House is going to support it. I will be disappointed if somebody on

this side - I am hoping to convince somebody on that side not to support it. It is not

likely, Mr. Speaker, but sheep go with -

MR. SHELLEY: I would not doubt but you have them all changed there

now.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, sheep have a tendency to follow the

shepherd on that side of the House, but we may get a few, you never know. Maybe a few of

them on that side of the House will not be in here for the vote. Mr. Speaker, we can

defeat this because we are going back thirty years, more than thirty, maybe thirty-five

years, to the early 1960s.

Mr. Speaker, if there is no Public Tender Act, there is no legal

requirement to call public tenders. That is the problem. It is not illegal for government

to give its contracts to whoever it wants. That is what is going to happen, Mr. Speaker. I

have said it before and I will say it again. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the reason for a Public

Tender Act, in the first place, is to regulate the actions of government, since history

has shown that it takes a strong Public Tender Act to protect the public in good

procurement. Mr. Speaker, we are weakening the Public Tender Act. Those are the words.

Anyway, I am coming to an end now, I say to the Member for Labrador

West, in my comments. I am not going to go on much longer.

Mr. Speaker, before the current act, public tendering in this Province

was subject to public inquiry as a result of practices that were being - here is

something, Mr. Speaker, that people should listen to. Before the current act, public

tendering in this Province was subject to a public inquiry as a result of the practices

that were being followed at the time. In fact, some activities were illegal and one

contractor was convicted and went to jail. Can anybody remember that one? I can. This

inquiry was conducted by Judge Mahoney. It was from the inquiries report that the

foundation of the current act was laid. This act came directly out of a court decision,

why it was brought in in the first place. Now we are trying to change it back to what it

was thirty-five years ago.

Mr. Speaker, it is an accepted principle that public procurement must

be protected by

an act of the Legislature. Anything less, including regulations, weakens

accountability. All requirements must be in legislation to ensure visibility. That is the

situation, Mr. Speaker. That is what I wanted to talk about in this House of Assembly

today.

Also, Mr. Speaker, we have seen that the Auditor General, in recent

reports, has criticized the government for its lack of an accountability system to

adequately guard public expenditures. Mr. Speaker, even with the Public Tender Act that is

in place today, we have the Auditor General having concerns that there is not proper

accountability there; and now we are going to weaken it! I should not say, we are going to

weaken it. No, Mr. Speaker. They are going to weaken it. Them, on that side of the House,

are going to weaken it, not these people on this side of the House.

In concluding, Mr. Speaker -

MR. TULK: Jack, blame me if you want.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Government House Leader said, blame him. Mr.

Speaker, I can't do that. How many members are on that side of the House? Thirty-six or

thirty-seven? What is it? Thirty-six say, Mr. Speaker. So he is one -

AN HON. MEMBER: Too many over there.

MR. J. BYRNE: Too many, that's a fact. There are too many. There

are about thirty too many. But, Mr. Speaker, he is one thirty-sixth of the problem if they

decide to pass this. So he will have to take one thirty-sixth of the blame, I say to the

Government House Leader. He will be one thirty-sixth of the blame. All members on that

side of the House, except I suppose - no, they will have to take some blame too, the

members who will not have the nerve to be here to vote for it. I am sure we will have a

standing vote. So I imagine there will be members on that side of the House who will not

have the nerve to be here to vote for this, but they will have to take the blame anyway

because they should be here to vote.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I am going to conclude my comments. I wanted to be

on record, to point out the faults that we see in the proposed amendments to the

Legislation. I think the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has being

listening here and I think he is starting to weaken, actually. He may withdraw this

Legislation because I am sure we are going to spend a lot of time on this.

So, I ask the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to

withdraw this Legislation and give the people of this Province some peace of mind again,

in that at least there will be some safeguard there for the tax dollars to be expended,

Mr. Speaker, in a proper, wise, and prudent fashion, in the words of the minister just

before he concluded.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will answer the questions that I brought up

here today. And I mean answer the questions, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, not rationalize, but answer the questions and give me, really, the

legitimate reasons why you feel that this act needs to be changed, and the major concerns,

in the opinion of the minister, in the opinion of the department head; those types of

things that have to be done. There are a few others that I mentioned there, Mr. Speaker.

That is what I am going to end with, Mr. Speaker. I am sure one of my

colleagues on this side of the House will get up and say a few words.

Thank you.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as the minister mentioned, I travelled the Province and

had a consultation process, on behalf of the Opposition, on the changing of the Public

Tender Act.

Of the proposed amendments that the minister is making, there are some

of them that I agree with. In fact, some of them are the amendments that we recommended to

government. Again, I commend the minister on his incorporation of those suggestions into

the proposed amendments to the act. Some of them however, Mr. Speaker, raised some

concern. I am going to talk a little bit about both the amendments that he suggested that

I agree with, and the amendments that he suggested that I disagree with.

One of them, Mr. Speaker, is sub-clause 2(1). That raises the barrier

under which purchases need not be tendered. I have not got a big problem with that. It

would raise the barrier from $7,500 to $10,000, and that is not a big problem. With

inflation, the

increased cost on building materials and what have you, there is no big

problem there.

Sub-clause 2(3) does two very controversial things, adding two new

categories under which the government can avoid inviting tenders in

section 3(2).

The new

section 3(2), subsection (i), would allow the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology, in that minister's opinion, to determine if the work or

acquisition is for an economic development purpose, and Cabinet would have the final say

as to whether the exemption stands.

The term "economic development purpose" is not defined in the

act by the minister. Although subsection 12 gives Cabinet the power to define the terms by

regulations, Cabinet can re-jig the regulations without reference to the legislation, and

can make regulatory changes retroactive to cover themselves. That raises some concerns and

I hope the minister will address this specific

section when he rises again to speak.

New subsection 3(2) subsection (

j) would allow the head of a government

funded body, in his or her opinion, to determine if inviting a tender would not achieve

the best value, and the minister responsible for that body need only get Cabinet approval

to carry out a request for proposals instead of inviting a tender.

The request for proposals processes will be defined by regulation.

Again something that is at the discretion of Cabinet without reference to the legislation.

So that raises some concerns. It does not matter what p