June 4, 1998 HOUSE

OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 39

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings today, the Chair would like to take

the opportunity to welcome thirty Grade V students from W. E. Cormack Academy in

the District of St. George's - Stephenville East and Port au Port. They are

accompanied by teachers, Stephen Penney and Gary Ash.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: In the gallery today are forty Grade V students, and we

would like to welcome them as well, from the Twillingate Elementary School in

the District of Twillingate & Fogo, accompanied by teachers, Sharon Rogers and

Margie Green; parents, Vera Broderick, Valerie Hopkins, and Joe Jennings; and

bus driver, Ross Dalley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We also have forty-three Grade VII students from Catalina

Elementary, and we would like to welcome them today. They are from the Bonavista

South District, accompanied by teachers, Marvin Ryder and Theresa White, along

with bus driver, Lewis Street.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I am pleased to report to hon. members that construction of the new

Janeway Health Centre is two months ahead of schedule.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: The speed of progress on the new facility is attributed

largely to the mild winter, which has enabled the contractor to work almost

around the clock on the project.

Mr. Speaker, to date three contracts valued at approximately $22 million have

been awarded for foundation and site work, construction of the building

exterior, and the installation of elevator systems. In the next two weeks, three

additional contracts will be awarded for electrical, mechanical and fire

protection systems. Within the next month, tenders will be called for a number

of projects including work on the interior of the building, and also for

ventilation and electrical distribution systems.

Mr. Speaker, by mid-summer approximately 90-95 per cent of work anticipated

for the construction of the new Janeway will be tendered and awarded.

Today there are about fifty people employed at the construction site. By late

summer, once the remaining contracts have been awarded for mechanical and

electrical work, we anticipate several hundred people will be working on the

site.

Mr. Speaker, redevelopment of health facilities in St. John's represents a

$130 million investment in our infrastructure. Of that $130 million, between $65

million and $70 million is allocated for the construction of the new Janeway

Health Centre. We are within our original estimates and anticipate a completion

date of the new facility as projected by spring of the year 2000.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to acknowledge the efforts of both

Pyramid Construction and Olympic Construction, the primary contracts to date,

for bringing this project ahead of schedule.

In addition to work on the new Janeway, we are also overseeing a number of

redevelopment projects for other health facilities in the St. John's area.

Approximately $20 million in expansions and renovations to the Health Sciences

Centre will get under way this summer and carry over into next year. This

includes plans to expand the emergency and the ICU units. Design work is now 90

per cent complete. As well, Mr. Speaker, another $20 million is allocated for

renovations to St. Clare's Mercy Hospital, including the installation of new

mechanical and electrical systems. Work on this site should begin this fall.

Renovations in the range of $2 million for the Waterford Hospital will be

undertaken within the next two weeks.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, we are in the design stage for an expansion to the

utilities annex at Memorial University. This project, estimated at $6 million,

will include the installation of additional heating and cooling systems and

emergency power supply for the new Janeway.

At this time, I am pleased to report that we are within our schedules and

budget projections for all projects.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I say to the minister, the initial announcement said in the

fall of 1998. An announcement made last year indicated it would be ready in the

fall of 1999. Now the minister tells us we are so far ahead of

schedule it is

going to be ready in the spring of 2000. We are ahead of schedule, and it is

going to be six months later than initially planned. The math does not add up on

that one, I say to the minister, it does not add up at all. That was an official

statement released last summer. Check your records.

The $130 million you referred to, I want to say to the minister, does not

jive with what the Auditor General states. In fact, the costs are going to be

higher. You are not including the closing of the Salvation Army Grace General.

There is the Charles Janeway. The moving expenses to renovate a building, and

the cost of new equipment for the newly renovated and the new construction of

the buildings are not included in the $130 million, I might add.

I ask, why the delay? If we are moving forward, why the delay in getting

necessary renovations going at St. Clare's now as opposed... You have stated the

Grace is shutting down. Why wait two years later to get things moving, I say to

the minister?

I certainly want to compliment the construction companies, Pyramid and

Olympic, as the minister said, in moving that agenda because once the government

let the contract and it was out they have done a commendable job, I say to the

minister. In fact, I stated from day one that I support any savings in capital,

in plant facilities, that could be directed within the system. I support that to

get efficiency in the system.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Just a second to finish up?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you.

I have stated that I support any monies we can take out of those capital

costs and direct them into a more efficient operation to save the dollars in

health care to add on services that we are going to need in the system. I can

support that, but I cannot support a cost of funds that is going to syphon

dollars out of health care as we have done with the education system. That is

the difference.

I want to ensure, and to say to the Minister of Health and Community

Services, that dollars that are saved in this will stay in the system and be

able to be used in the system to provide services now that are very strapped for

dollars because we have not given them any money, not even up to the

inflationary cost, that is needed to keep these facilities going.

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

have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are delighted to hear that progress is being made on the construction of a

new facility for the Janeway Hospital. While the minister is talking about the

dollars being spent on the bricks and mortar and facilities, the concerns still

exist around this Province about the level of services being provided across the

board in health care, the length of waiting lists for surgery, the deterioration

of services in rural Newfoundland, and the fact that home care is totally

inadequate in this Province. These are issues that need to be addressed as well,

Mr Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the Premier.

Yesterday, the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal said in the House

that federal officials have just been in this Province to brief provincial

officials on Ottawa's proposed follow-up to the TAGS program. Clearly, as we all

know, it is one of the most significant announcements in the history, in recent

times, to the people in this Province.

We also heard yesterday that our federal Cabinet minister knew nothing about

the meeting that was about to take place.

My question for the Premier is: Does the Premier know more about what is

going on with the follow up TAGS program than our federal minister knows in

Ottawa?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we have had a committee of officials in

Newfoundland, and I believe that that committee of officials is travelling to

each of the Atlantic Provinces and to the Province of Quebec, and I would

suspect to the Province of British Columbia, to talk about support programs for

those who have been displaced from the fishery, or may be displaced from the

fishery.

There is a proposal of sorts which is being discussed with each of the

provinces. Obviously the normal confidentiality requirements restrict us in the

detail of public comment that we can make. Let me just sat that the Government

of Newfoundland and Labrador has indicated, through our officials, to the

officials committee, and indeed I have taken the trouble to indicate since

directly to appropriate representatives of the federal government, that the

program as it is currently constituted, or at least the draft that we have seen,

while it contains many of the kind of proposals that we put on the table, and

indeed an all party committee put on the table, it does not in our judgement

represent a complete response, nor one that is appropriately funded.

Mr. Speaker, that information will be taken back as part of a broader

consultation with four or five provinces and will be considered by the federal

Cabinet. I would hope that once the committee of officials complete their tour

and report back to the federal Cabinet committee making the decisions that there

will be adjustments.

The position of the Province remains that we need a licence retirement, we

need early retirement - and we have said that we will participate in funding up

to 30 per cent of that as a Province - we need labour market adjustment

programs, economic development programs and income support. I can confirm that a

significant amount of that is on the table, but not all of that is on the table.

Quite frankly, I can't get into a public dialogue on detail of something that is

now in negotiation; I wouldn't say negotiation, but a consultation between two

levels of government. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that our

position remains unchanged. We will be doing our best, and indeed I will be

doing my best, to ensure that the fishermen and plant workers of this Province

are treated properly by the federal government.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, we have adopted in this House a non-partisan

sort of approach to this issue, and I think that it is going to bode everybody

well in the process. In doing that - I mean this obviously is one of the biggest

decisions, one of the most profound decisions, that affects this Province and

many of its communities.

I would like to ask the Premier: In light of the fact that officials were

here, that we have adopted an all party approach, why then was the All Party

Committee not included in the briefing? Could the Premier explain that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

Opposition understands and he knows that I concur, that the All Party Committee

has done good work in Ottawa.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: I frankly think, Mr. Speaker, that in terms of moving the

issue from the kind of early reports that we heard about, a fund of less than

$200 million to something which is far more substantial today, is in good

part

consequence of the excellent work done by the All Party Committee, which all

parties have participated in and which was led by the Minister of Development

and Rural Renewal and by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Mr. Speaker, that being said, we are now at a stage where the Government of

Canada, on a confidential basis, through its officials' committee or group, have

given a briefing or given a briefing to a number of provinces at this stage.

Here is our early thinking, here are the program components that we are thinking

about, here is the approach we are contemplating taking and they are asking for

a response government to government.

I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that as soon as we have a formal

proposal - this is still part of the consultative process and indeed one that we

asked for - as soon as we have something substantial that we can make public,

there will be absolutely no delay in making that information public. For the

moment we have said publicly - the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal did

so yesterday - that what is before us thus far is not something that we think is

sufficient or complete and we are asking for additional consideration,

additional program criteria, Mr. Speaker, and additional funds.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, four or five weeks ago it was becoming obvious

that for those people who were dropped immediately, some 2,200 from the program,

that some form of tie-over or bridge would be put in place for those. What do we

tell those people today? We have seen evidence of it, not only publicized on

provincial airways, both tv, radio and paperwise, but every member in this House

who has constituents who have been impacted or affected by it have made calls.

So when can we hope or when can we see something tangible being offered to

that group of people that would bridge them and take the anxiety that they and

their families, and as a result their communities, are now facing?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

it very well. There are thousands of Newfoundlanders, thousands of women and

men, who had a long association in the fishery, and their families, who have

been waiting for quite a long period of time to know what the future will hold.

We have all in this House called upon the federal government to move quickly

through the decision making process. Mr. Speaker, it is one of the realities of

the federal government, given its size and given the range of issues across the

country, that it doesn't move swiftly through a decision making process. I know,

I was there, and it doesn't move fact enough in almost any circumstance, and it

is certainly not moving fast enough in this circumstance.

I would only hope that the fact that an officials committee is now moving

across Atlantic Canada, I understand, and Quebec, this week is an indication

that a decision by the federal government is coming very soon. Mr. Speaker, let

us all remind ourselves of this. It is more important, I say to the Leader of

the Opposition, and I believe he will agree, to get the right decision, now that

we are coming down to a decision making period, than to have a decision made the

day after tomorrow or the day after that that is the wrong decision.

affected, and no province is more affected than Newfoundland and Labrador, and

consult with the union prior to coming to a final judgement. That is what they

are doing. We are responding, we hope, in a constructive way, but a clear and

firm way, and we will have to see the outcome of that representation.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: We have all heard the talk that the post-TAGS program that

is being viewed is not only for this Province, obviously: P.E.I., Quebec, Nova

Scotia, New Brunswick, and certainly as the situation exists on the Pacific

coast where the federal minister is from. I say to the Premier there is great

risk here, despite our extraordinary dependence upon the fisheries, that we, as

a province, may be - how could you categorize it? - a small fish in a big sea

when it comes to a response program. That is unless we have a strong voice on

the national scene and in Ottawa to make the case about the special

circumstances. I believe that in the federal Cabinet today that strong voice is

lacking.

Premier, will you use this opportunity - maybe you have, and if you have you

can enlighten the House and elaborate to the extent that you think you can - in

a more public way to use every avenue open to you? In view of the fact, as First

Minister of this Province, in view of the fact that we have a federal minister

who seems not to know what is happening, could you use every avenue open to you,

both nationally and in Ottawa, to ensure that not only a quick response is

forthcoming, but the correct response is forthcoming?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the non-partisan approach the

Leader of the Opposition is taking today, and I know that it would be perhaps

easy and tempting for him to take another approach. I want to acknowledge that

today.

I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition, and through him I say to the

people of this Province, that he and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador can

be assured that anybody who occupies this chair has to exercise every option

open to that individual, whoever is premier, to make representation on behalf of

those who have been affected. That is something I am in the process of doing,

and I will do to the absolute best of my ability, and I will take whatever

action, go to any location, to make the case as effectively as possible. That is

already under way.

I want to make one other comment. The Leader of the Opposition has made

comments about Newfoundland's representative in the federal Cabinet. I want to

tell him that I know, from personal experience and from many discussions, that

the representative in the federal Cabinet has been more preoccupied and more

involved with this file in the last number of months than with any other issue

before Minister Mifflin. I know that for a fact. I also know that Minister

Mifflin has carried this file within the system from the entirely inadequate

response of less than $200 million some months ago to something that is far more

tangible today. Mr. Speaker, it's very easy in times of difficulty to cast

blame. I think we should await the final result.

I would also add this: It doesn't strengthen the hand of the federal minister

at this time for his capacity and his ability and his commitment to represent

this Province to be questioned. I would only say to the Leader of the Opposition

- perhaps in a better position to make this observation - I can assure you

Minister Mifflin has been engaged in this file with all of his strength and all

of his ability.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: All I can say to the Premier is that maybe we will agree to

disagree on that subject and confine ourselves to the abilities of the members

in this House; you, me and every other member.

Speculation abounds about how big this program will be, Premier, $450

million, $700 million, $1 billion. Some of it will be for economic

diversification, part of it is hoped to be for income support, part of it is

hoped to be for licence buy-out and another part of it is hoped to be for early

retirement.

I want to say to the Premier, surely this matter today, in light of the

confusion, the misinformation that seems to be around this subject today, is a

matter that needs to be discussed at the highest levels; First Minister to Prime

Minister.

I would like to ask the Premier today: Does he have or has he received any

firm indication or commitment from the Prime Minister on this file, as he refers

to it, with respect to not only when an announcement will be made that will

alleviate much of the anxiety that exists in the Province and in many of our

communities today, but on the level and type of program that will exist, that it

meets the needs of each and every person in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the Prime Minister

about this file, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, in the past, and no

doubt I will be talking to the Prime Minister about this whole issue in the

future. I think we have to recognize that what we have this week - and I do not

think we should under-estimate its importance, nor do I think we should leap to

conclusions - is a committee of officials visiting all of the affected

Provinces. Newfoundland and Labrador is the most affected Province by far. We

have the lion's share, regrettably, of those who have been displaced from the

fishery.

Mr. Speaker, that process is under way. A report will be carried back to

federal ministers, the appropriate ministerial committee, and, at that stage, I

would hope we will get a better response or a more attractive, more acceptable

complete package, than that we have seen thus far.

I want to stress that many of the things we have been saying, many of the

components we have asked for, including some of the more important ones, are

there. Not all are there. That is our problem and, in our judgement, what is

there is not there with sufficient funding to do the job.

Mr. Speaker, we would be the first to acknowledge that there are pieces on

the package that have been laid before us that confirm, we think, that the

federal government has been listening to us. Some of the things we have been

saying are now reflected, some of the important components are there, but it is

not a complete package.

My job and the job of ministers, and I would say the job of all members of

this House, is to improve upon what has been put before us and to help produce

something which is acceptable and helpful in these very, very difficult

circumstances.

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.

Minister, last fall we asked you, as Labour Minister, about the government's

intention to address the outrageous practice of Workers Compensation of deeming.

The government, at that time, had in its hands the report of the Statutory

Review Committee which condemned deeming and told the government what to do

about it.

The minister stood in this House and stated, in no uncertain terms: The way

it is done now I consider to be unacceptable. There is no doubt in my mind and

in the mind of members opposite that deeming is a problem. For every injured

worker sitting in the gallery, it is a problem. We will deal with it; your

words.

Why has the minister failed to live up to his commitment to deal with it,

when we already know what is wrong and how to fix it? Why is the minister simply

sending the report from one committee to yet another committee, to give him yet

another report?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I must assume that the Member for Conception Bay South has not been

listening, because what I said last fall in the House was simply this: That we

would strike a committee to look at deeming. We did that. The people on it were

represented by the Chair, who was the Deputy Minister of my Department, Mr.

O'Neill. Austin Haynes, the President of the Injured Workers' Association, sat

on that, Jim Skinner, the Statutory Review person sat on it, and I think it was

a Mrs. Crosbie from the Commission who sat on that particular committee. They,

of course, came to a unanimous decision as to what should be done with deeming.

I have said in the House a number of times, that many of the things these

people advocated are already taking place at the Commission. I said: Labour

market information has been improved, part-time hours have been improved,

transferable skills have been improved, conflicting medical opinion has been

improved, involvement of family physicians has been improved, and involvement of

the last person in the process, the worker, has been improved. What I said in

the House, and I continue to say, Mr. Speaker, is this, that I gave directions

to the commission to have a committee of the commission now to monitor these

things that are already in place and to see that indeed this is being done to

help out the injured worker. Basically, what I have said is: You monitor it and

keep me informed and if at the end of the year, these things that you people

recommended, these things that you wanted, are not carried out, then let me know

so that we can do something to change it.

Well, I have every confidence, Mr. Speaker, that the Commission's Board of

Directors who represent the stakeholders, who represent workers, who represent

employers, who are members there at large, will do their job. If, for example,

Mr. Speaker, they cannot do their job, then we will find other people to put on

the commission to see that the job is done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister today: Does he remember November 24 of last year, when we

brought up the case of a man deemed ineligible for a job, a job which he was

deemed capable of doing but yet did not have the academic qualifications to get?

Does the minister remember saying on that day that deeming is a real problem? I

agree with the member, it is a real problem. People are deeming for jobs that do

not even exist. Therefore in that sense, it is a major problem. We will address

it.

Why has he decided to break the commitment he made on November 24, to address

this real problem instead of stalling for time?

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

MR LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I am telling you that the question the member

has just asked, I have answered a number of times. We have addressed the deeming

process, and I am not saying to you that it is going to be 100 per cent fully

clad. What I am saying to you is that the commission, the people who are on the

commission representing the stakeholders, will carry out the directions of the

committee that we struck, to which I made commitment and honoured, to make sure

that the deeming process works. As I said to you, if this committee that is on

the board does not make it work, then I will appoint some more people as a part

of the committee to see that it does.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I did not think the questions were that

difficulty.

I will ask the minister again: Does he remember December 16 of last year -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Does the minister remember saying on that day, I have committed to this

House, there are problems with deeming; there are no two ways about it? So I say

to the minister: If there are no two ways about it, then what is with the delay,

minister? If something is wrong and it needs to be fixed and you have been told

exactly how to fix it, what is left for you to understand?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would hope that the Member for Conception Bay South will read Hansard

tomorrow and see the answers that I gave him to the two previous questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South, a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Very good, Mr. Speaker.

I just have one more question. I would like to ask the minister today what he

would say to the lady who approached me yesterday in the lobby, whose husband

works for DFO and earned overtime pay, while there was a freeze on being paid

for overtime? They have now lifted the freeze on payment for overtime, the man

has been paid and workers' compensation have taken that money back from this

man. They have clawed that money back when in actual fact the money was earned

when the gentleman was not injured. What would you, minister, tell that lady

today?

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

MR LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, there are over 3,000 cases at the commission. I

do not know every one of them individually, but if that particular person would

come to my office, then I would arrange for a meeting with her and sit in with

the officials at the commission to see if it can be solved.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services.

There is a looming crisis concerning medical coverage provided to the six

nursing homes in St. John's, namely: Hoyles Escasoni, St. Patrick's, Glenbrook

Lodge, St. Luke's, Agnes Pratt and Masonic Park.

I want to ask the minister: Will she confirm that effective tomorrow, June 5,

the Agnes Pratt Home will be without medical services because the two doctors

there have resigned and advertising has failed to attract even one? And will she

further confirm that effective July 1, every nursing home in this city will be

without medical services for the over 1,000 residents because the twenty doctors

serving those homes have served notice of their resignation.

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

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

As the member opposite knows, the Medical Association is in negotiations

right now with the Department of Health and Community Services and Treasury

Board and the boards. There are a number of issues on the table. One of those

issues includes salary remuneration, long-term coverage care for nursing homes,

emergency room coverage.

Mr. Speaker, as we have in the past, we have been experiencing difficulty in

trying to cover our emergency room departments, and that was one of the reasons

why back in the fall we increased our emergency room coverage from $65 an hour

and $85 an hour respectively for urban and rural areas.

So, Mr. Speaker, there are issues, and I would say to the member opposite

that the long-term nursing care board which is now in operation would be

certainly dealing with the provision of physician services and would be

referring. I would suggest that he refer those situations to them and let the

negotiations carry on to meet the other requirements as outlined in collective

bargaining.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Discussions have been going on so long, they are tired of meetings. They have

frustrations. I have letters, I say to the minister, finally including a

resignation.

Will the minister admit that restraints that are put on the St. John's

Nursing Home Board by this government have contributed to this looming crisis

they are facing today?

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

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

As the member opposite may remember, in the recent Budget we have allocated

increased money for the health care system to stabilize our boards, new money

for community health. I will say again, while he might be frustrated with the

process, there is a process in place. We have to respect the process called

negotiations. I think he is familiar with the word and he knows the process.

I think it is important to note that the boards are responsible for the

provision of services, whether it be in the emergency departments or whether it

be in long-term care facilities, whether it be cardiovascular surgery or any

other service, and that is how it works in the system.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In a letter on April 21, 1998, to the board - and this was after meetings and

discussions - physicians are more than willing to provide their time for

meetings -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member knows that quoting from letters and transcripts is not

permitted on supplementary questions.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Physicians have indicated the underlying problems here. They are asked to

work from Friday to Monday on call, without one cent of pay - time for reviews

of drugs every three months, chart reviews, consultations with people, without

any remuneration - when other nursing homes, Minister, have doctors on call

getting paid.

They are frustrated with the system. They have resigned effective when it was

given here. I ask the minister: Is it reasonable to expect these people, because

of restraints imposed on them by you and this government, to have to withdraw

their services here? Don't they deserve to be paid for those services?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the Medical Association has their own

negotiating committee, and I know they are quite capable of raising issues that

are of concern to them at the table. I will say that salary is a very large

component of what is being discussed at the table, not only salaries for

fee-for-service positions and salaried physicians but in other ranges of

services as well. Mr. Speaker, that is part of what is being negotiated at the

bargaining table.

I know the member does not appreciate the concept of negotiations and

collective bargaining, but there is a process involved and there are boards in

place to help offset the cost.

I also have to reassure the people of the Province, to avoid the fear

mongering that is certainly being imposed here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: If he is referring to the St. John's area, he is also

aware that we have a number of tertiary care centres as well as secondary

centres in the event of an emergency, in the event of services being provided,

and those facilities are here.

I will say again that the boards are in place, I have confidence in their

ability, unlike the member opposite, and I also respect the process of

negotiations, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is for the

Minister of Government Services and Lands.

Mr. Speaker, recently the Cupids Development Corporation Group Inc.

advertised in the newspapers a notice of intent to claim Crown land around the

Cupids harbour apron for the purpose of locating a sports fishing tourism

facility in the area. The development proposal is based on several premises:

first, that John Guy once lived in the area and this may draw people to the

area; and second, that the land is in fact Crown land.

Since the provincial government money and ministerial support has found its

way into the mix, and since the concept of Crown land is involved, I ask the

minister: Is he familiar with this matter? And is he aware of the contentions

that the land this group is claiming is not in fact Crown land, as they have

claimed, but in large part privately owned land?

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

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I am aware of the situation out there. I have my officials currently

working on getting the information to me on which is private land and which is

Crown land before we make any decisions. There is an advertisement out there and

we have to let the process follow through, and at that point we will register

the objections to it and we will deal with it at that particular time.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Minister, concerns have been raised by local landowners that this development

proposal has the wholehearted support of not only the development association

but also the council, the MHA, and at least one minister in the Cabinet. The

landowners therefore fear that their claim on their own land is in significant

jeopardy. Does the minister have any intention of condoning the expropriation of

private land at Cupids so it can be used for this development?

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

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is a process that is followed any time anybody applies for Crown land,

and we will let the process take its course. All objections will be registered

and we will deal with that matter when the whole process is completed.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Actually it is not proper procedure to do any, I suppose, consideration of an

expropriation for any private development, Mr. Speaker.

My final supplementary will be to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Could the minister confirm that an application has been made to establish a sea

urchin aquaculture operation in the same area in Cupids, and that his department

gave a $2,300 grant to the proponents of the sports fishing development which

would make the aquaculture operation difficult to pursue? Why are you, as

Minister, in charge of fostering an aquaculture development -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, why is the minister in charge of fostering an

aquaculture development in the Province promoting a tourism project which could

prevent the establishment of the aquaculture operation in Cupids?

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

MR. EFFORD: That is utter nonsense.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture as well, fresh

back from a great debate on television last night between the Member for Signal

Hill - Quidi Vidi and -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: - the provincial Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. I

will leave it to the public of this Province to decide the winner, I say to the

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

On a very serious question, the turbot fishery in area Ob, many fishermen in

this Province have geared up to take

part in that competitive fishery. They have

hired their crew, they have prepared their boats, they have paid for observers,

they have gone and bought their tags for the fishing nets. I ask the minister

when he expects this fishery to start so those people may get on with their way

of life?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, as early as 8:30 this morning I had spoken with

one of the officials in Ottawa. He told me at that time that he would get back

to me before the day is over. So hopefully before the day is over I will be able

to answer that question in a more positive way.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

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."

MR. SPEAKER: Order 18, the second reading of Bill No. 24. I believe the

hon. Member for Conception Bay South adjourned the debate.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to pick up where I left

off yesterday afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I guess there is an old saying, `If it is not broken why fix

it?' I would think there are parts of this act that are probably broken and need

fixing. There are certainly other parts of this act which are not broken and

certainly do not need fixing, I say to the minister.

This Province's history before the existing act and the experience, I would

say to the minister, in other jurisdictions has shown that the public purchasing

can certainly be influenced by political considerations, where the opportunities

for influence exist. The relative honesty of purchasing in recent years can be

attributed to the strength of the existing act, which is based on the principle

of public tenders with restricted exemptions.

These amendments throw wide open the opportunity to opt out of the public

tendering for vague reasons, leaving government with the opportunity to avoid

public tenders. Of course the amendments here virtually repeal this entire act.

These amendments are a further indication of this government's desire to get rid

of measures that make it awkward for the government to achieve its political

end. At the same time, they will destroy the fairness and accountability to

public procurement.

I don't know why we are out here trying to change the Public Tender Act,

change it in the ways that we wish to have it changed. This bill makes numerous

changes, some substantive, some that just clarify or are correcting words, some

of them simply changing an `and' to an `or' and so on. There is nobody who has

any real problem with any of that.

We look down to the new 3(2)(i), which would allow the Minister of Industry,

Trade and Technology to use her opinion - her opinion - to determine if work or

an acquisition is for an economic development purpose. Cabinet has the final say

in whether the exemption stands. The term `economic development purpose' is not

defined in the act, and although

section 12 gives Cabinet the power to define

terms by regulations, Cabinet can rejig these regulations without reference to

the Legislature, and can make regulatory changes retroactive to cover

themselves. I really and truly think that is wrong.

The new 3(2)(

j) would allow the head of a government funded body to use his

or her opinion to determine if a tender would not achieve the best value. The

minister responsible for that body need only to get Cabinet approval to carry

out a Request for Proposals instead of inviting a tender. This Request for

Proposals process will be defined by regulations; again, something that is at

the discretion of Cabinet, and again without reference to the Legislature.

Clause 2(4) simply raises the barrier in 3(3) from $7,500 to $10,000 under,

again, which Cabinet may use its discretion to call tenders anyway, despite

3(2)(a). Again, why?

I won't go through all of the changes that are here, but I certainly intend

to take some time to go through some of them. Clause 4(2), this amendment

regarding change orders and extensions, is contentious. It seeks to repeal

subsection 5(3) which certainly puts a limit on those changes orders on

extensions. It goes on and on and lists various amounts and what they can

exceed, what they can go up to, and so on.

The government may argue that there is a safeguard in subsection 5(1) with

the words: or the accumulative value of them. If that is the government's

position, then surely they will allow us to amend this bill to let subsection

5(3) stay as it is. If they argue that removing it makes no difference, then

they must also agree that there is no harm in letting it stay. If it does not

make a difference, why are we going to take it out? Better a redundancy than a

loophole, I say, Mr. Speaker, better a redundancy than a loophole.

Now, Mr. Speaker, clause 5. This change is critical if the government goes

ahead with the new exclusions in clause 2(3) regarding economic development and

best value. It adds these two new sections to the list of sections under which

exceptions reports must be tabled in the House of Assembly on a regular basis.

This requirement for reporting, however, does not get them off the hook. Once

the decision is made to bypass public tendering, the damage is done to the

companies excluded from bidding and to taxpayers in the final cost, if the final

cost was too high.

Reporting, Mr. Speaker, simply shows us after the fact what they did. Later,

there may have been so many examples of exceptions abuse, that these new

exceptions may in actual fact, Mr. Speaker, get lost in the crowd. There is no

requirement, Mr. Speaker, in this act that the minister or the head of a

government body or Cabinet give any explanation of why they deem public works or

a purchase be left untendered. There are no requirements, Mr. Speaker, in this

act that the minister or the head of a government body or Cabinet, give an

explanation of why they deem public work or a purchase to be left untendered. I

believe, Mr. Speaker, that that is frightening and certainly is an area that we,

as Members of this House of Assembly, should be looking at.

Clause 6: This change adds two more areas under which regulations may be

made. The new 12(

c) says: For the purpose of paragraph 3(2)(

j) which involves a

binding tender in the pursuit of the best value. Without a firm definition in

the legislation itself, the definition and the use of this clause will be left

to the discretion of Cabinet.

The new 12(

e) says: Respecting the establishment and use of a registry of

products manufactured in this Province. It might be argued, Mr. Speaker, that

the registry should be defined and its use set out directly in the legislation,

not in the less secure regulations. Again I have to ask: Why didn't we do that?

Why didn't we do that, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, there is the question of some recommendations, government

procurement and the local preference. Procurement by the provincial government

and its agencies - examples, Mr. Speaker, municipality, the university, the

schools and the hospitals - represents a significant portion of spending in the

Province each year. Local producers and manufacturers look at this spending as a

major source of the business they need to survive and grow in the small,

depressed local economy. Government procurement dollars that go to produce

outside the Province represent a drain of money from the provincial economy.

Again, Mr. Speaker, if it is possible to spend their money at home, I think we

should be spending it home.

Unless there is a level playing field allowing local companies to compete

successfully for procurement work in other provinces and countries, then we are

net losers from such arrangements. If the playing field, Mr. Speaker, is not

level, a strong case can be made for artificially re-balancing the playing field

with measures that compensate local producers for their competitive

disadvantages, but only to the extent that enables them to compete fairly for

procurement contracts, not to the extent that we artificially prop up

inefficient, poorly run or non-viable companies at the expense of the local

taxpayer. I am not suggesting that at all.

Mr. Speaker, there are actions that this government could certainly take.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I think we should maintain the local 5 per cent

preference standard for Newfoundland and Labrador that is now written into the

Atlantic Provinces Procurement Agreement, and fight to maintain this standard in

an integral trade agreement negotiated with other provinces. In other words, I

believe the 5 per cent local preference for the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador should certainly be left to stay where it is. We shouldn't take it out,

we should certainly leave it in there.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, we should certainly establish a central registry of

goods and services manufactured, produced or provided by companies in

Newfoundland and Labrador, and put the onus on the companies themselves to

ensure the registry is provided with comprehensive, updated information on all

the products. I think that central registry should be established. I think it

would be a good move on the part of government to have such a central registry.

Number three, using the registry 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 do produce, to ensure local companies have the opportunity to bid for

as much of the work as possible. Also, Mr. Speaker, ensure, within reason,

tenders are divided into portions small enough that smaller and less diversified

local producers can compete for this particular type of work.

Number four, Mr. Speaker, we should certainly ensure that tender

specifications are generic rather than brand-name specific. Wherever possible

this should certainly be done. In particular, using the registry as a guide,

ensure a tender never specifies products produced only outside this Province

when locally produced alternatives exist. This could certainly bode well for

things that are produced in this Province. I have seen over the years, in

various sporting things, that we can come out and specify a particular shirt,

Brand X, Brand B or whatever, but in actual fact we could certainly buy the same

quality that would be produced locally. We could certainly buy that in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, thereby keeping the business at home.

Number five, Mr. Speaker, we could write into the tenders and the contracts

of government suppliers that their subcontractors must be fair to local

companies in some of the same ways that the primary contractors are;

specifically require the third-party subcontract work be broken down into

manageable units that do not discriminate against local producers because of the

size of the contracts, or the specifics of a small portion of the major

subcontract; and also require that companies contracted to the government and

its agencies be required to give local companies the opportunity to bid on all

third-party subcontracts. I believe, Mr. Speaker, we still have work which is

going out of this Province to mainland companies, and I am not sure that we are

certainly getting the best bang for our dollar in this particular area.

One thing that quickly comes to mind is a contract which has been let to a

general contractor. The general contractor is in this Province, but part of a

subcontract, Mr. Speaker, from that is going to go to a company outside of our

Province, where this company will actually bring in its own equipment, and in

all probability its own workers, to do work on a project in this Province where

Newfoundland firms are certainly capable of doing this work. I believe that we

should provide, where humanly possible, every opportunity for people in our

Province to acquire work.

Number six, Mr. Speaker, ensure that all government bodies, including again,

municipalities, the University, the school boards and the hospitals, currently

covered by the Public Tender Act, are also required to abide by these

procedures. In other words, we should guarantee, we should make sure, that

places such as Memorial University and school boards are all governed by and all

have to follow the Public Tender Act in this Province. I think we should do

that.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned Trans City yesterday. Under Trans City, the

government tried to justify the hospital contract scandal by saying it was

simply moving further ahead of the Public Tender legislation than the act would

allow. They said they were well intentioned and progressive, but a little to

eager. They said that they wanted an open-ended Request for Proposals that did

not define specifically the materials to be used, and after they got the

proposals, they would chose which design offered the best value for money, not

necessarily the smallest upfront cost.

The evidence, however, Mr. Speaker, suggests that was manipulated, the

criteria, after the fact, until they received what they wanted, a prize for some

of their buddies. The court ruled consistently that the government broke its own

law by doing that. What this new legislation does is remove impediments in the

legislation that made their actions illegal, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that is

right.

Under the revised legislation, they will have the freedom, under the economic

development or the best value Request for Proposals provisions, to manipulate

the process to whatever way they want to make the specs fit the contractor they

seek to favour. While they may risk political fallout, at least they will not

have to suffer the same legal fallout that we suffered in the Trans City deal.

Mr. Speaker, what this Bill does is pave the way, in my opinion, for the

future Trans City deals by removing safeguards against what I would consider to

be corruption.

Of course, it would be interesting, though probably not advisable, to read

into the record the decision of the judges in this case, trial Judge Orsborn and

appeal Judge Cameron. The Orsborn decision is 149 pages in length, while the

Cameron decision is 68 pages long. This was an extremely embarrassing and costly

mistake for government. Many of the ministers who advised the Cabinet to do what

they did, or who sat in Cabinet when the decision was made, are still there

today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. FRENCH: Yes, I do. It should not be there.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, we all remember the Kodak bill. We were all called

back in the middle of the summer. This was such a great thing, that Kodak bill

had to go through. We had to be here. We had to be here nights, we had to be

here afternoons, we had to be here to do this Kodak bill. We had to be here to

get this done. You know, Mr. Speaker, what we lost, in my opinion, is the

opportunity for companies, and especially the local companies, to compete on a

level playing field.

Competition is not a bad thing, Mr. Speaker. If a company cannot survive

competition, then perhaps it does not deserve to survive. It is one thing to

give a company a boost or an advantage, but to give them a monopoly at the

expense of existing or potential enterprises is wrong. The last time, with this

Kodak bill or Kodak nonsense, we certainly had companies in this Province that

were capable of providing similar work, Mr. Speaker.

We have all read in the past few days the contract that Ottawa has just put

out, the Bombardier contract. Of course Ottawa bypassed the public tendering

process, Mr. Speaker, and indeed pushed the limits Request for Proposals in the

process to give the largest defence contractor in Canadian history to a company

with ties to the Prime Minister. It is the example the minister says he is

following when he seeks to bring our laws in line with those of the country as a

whole. If this is where we are trying to bring our laws in line, Mr. Speaker,

then I say we should certainly give this bill the royal order of the boot and

get rid of it. Without we are going to see some amendments to this particular

bill, Mr. Speaker, in this House - however long or whatever length of time this

takes - this member here is left with no other alternative but to vote against

this particular piece of legislation as it presently stands and is presently

being presented.

So today, tomorrow or tonight, whenever this bill comes for vote, if it is

not amended or if there are no amendments moved to this particular bill, Mr.

Speaker, I, as one member of this House, will certainly vote to have it

defeated. I don't believe that we should be doing the things in this bill which

we are doing. I don't know why we are doing it, Mr. Speaker. I don't know if it

is for political expediency, if we are favouring people in this bill or what,

but if we are then we should stop doing it. I think, Mr. Speaker, we should

certainly stop doing it in a hurry because, as I said earlier, the mess that we

were in before we had a Public Tender Act at all, regardless of what government

was in power, to me it was a disgrace and I don't believe that we should slip

back to where we were some years ago.

So if we have

an act that is not causing great problems to our Province, as I

said, Mr. Speaker, if it is not broken why fix it? There are a lot of areas, I

think, in this Public Tender Act which are not broken, and why the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation is trying to fix it is beyond me. I can only

assume, whether rightly or wrongly, that there must be some ulterior motive

somewhere down the line. If it is not broken we certainly should not be out

there trying to fix it.

Mr. Speaker, I believe I have probably used just about all of my time.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FRENCH: I thank you, Sir, for your indulgence. My time is just about

up, I say to the Government House Leader, and I am sure he does not want me up

too much longer this afternoon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: Okay.

I thank the Speaker for his indulgence this afternoon and I will concede to

my colleague.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I would like also to speak about the Act To Amend The Public Tender Act.

MR. TULK: Sheila?

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes?

MR. TULK: Sheila, I know (inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, it can affect your brain, I am telling you.

MR. TULK: Can it?

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes. I knew something happened to you, Beaton. Are you

saying these things to deflect all those interesting comments I have to say

about the Public Tender Act now?

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, this bill makes numerous changes. Some of them are

substantive, some are clarifying and correcting and some of them are

contentious.

Now sub-clause 2(1) raises the 3(2)(

a) barrier under which purchases need not

be tendered. Previously the barrier was $7,500. The change makes it $10,000 for

an acquisition and $20,000 for work.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: We are going to be here now until the June 24 weekend, the

St. John's Day weekend.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: You should see the pages and pages that I have. I am

taking my half-hour and then I am going to go on...

Anyway, leave me alone now so I can get back -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Oh, yes, alright.

The change makes it $10,000 for an acquisition and $20,000 for work. That is

not too bad, I suppose, in these days of inflation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: No, I am not. I have my own here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Unless he stole the ones I was doing the other night.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Anyway, subclause 2(3) is controversial. It adds two new

categories under which the government can avoid inviting tenders, and the new

3(2)(1) would allow the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology to use her

opinion to determine if work or an acquisition is for an economic development

purpose, and Cabinet will have the final say in whether the exemption stands.

The term `economic development purpose' is not defined in the act, and

although

section 12 gives Cabinet the power to define the terms by regulation,

Cabinet could twist this around how it wanted without reference to the

Legislature and can make regulatory changes retroactive to cover themselves.

This Mr. Speaker, could be very dangerous.

The new 3(2)(

j) would allow the head of a government funded body to use 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 process would be defined by regulation. Again, this

is something that is at the discretion of Cabinet without reference to the

Legislature and this is very contentious and could be very dangerous.

Some subclauses there are not contentious, not a problem. Subclause 4(2) -

this amendment regarding change orders and extensions is contentious. It seeks

to repeal subsection 5(3) which puts a limit on those change orders and

extensions.

Subsection 5(1) says change orders and extensions must meet specific

criteria. If a contract is under $100,000, the change cannot exceed $15,000. If

a 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.

Under the existing act, subsection 5(3) then steps in and says that

references in subsection (1) to values are to the total of values of change

orders within the requirements of a contract and extensions of the contract.

Once that subsection is eliminated there is nothing to stop the government

from approving successive change orders and extensions and treating each one

separately so that each meets the criteria in 5(1), even though cumulatively

they would exceed the limit.

The government may argue that there is still a safeguard in subsection 5(1)

with the words: or the accumulative value of them. If that is the government's

position, then surely they will allow us to amend this bill to let subsection

5(3) stay as it is. If they argue that removing it makes no difference then they

must also agree there is no harm in letting it stay. Better a redundancy than a

loophole. That is the danger here in this subclause 4(2).

Clause 5; this change is critical if the government goes ahead with the new

exclusions in the 2(3) regarding economic development and best value. It adds

these two new sections to the list of sections under which exemption reports

must be tabled in the House of Assembly on a regular basis. This requirement for

reporting, however, does not get them off the hook. Once the decision is made to

bypass public tendering the damage is done to the companies excluded from

bidding and to taxpayers if the final cost was too high. Reporting simply shows

us after the fact what they did. Lately there have been so many examples of

exceptions abuse that these new exceptions may just get lost in the crowd.

There is no requirement in the act that the minister or head of a government

body or Cabinet give any explanations of why they deemed public work or purchase

to be best left untendered. These critical changes regarding a Cabinet minister

being able to determine in her or his opinion if the work is for an economic

development purpose, and also the head of a government funded body, he or she

has the discretion to use his or her opinion to determine if inviting a tender

would not achieve the best value. By putting these clauses in there we are

getting into very dangerous territory.

Clause 6; this change adds two more areas under which regulations may be

made. The new 12(

c) says: "for the purpose of paragraph 3(2)(j)," which involves

avoiding tender in the pursuit of the best value. Without a firm definition in

the legislation itself, the definition and use of this clause will be at the

discretion of Cabinet. The new 12(

e) says: "respecting the establishment and use

of a registry of products manufactured in the Province..." It might be argued

that the registry should be defined and its use set out directly in the

legislation, not in less secure regulations.

In the fall sitting of the House of Assembly last year we questioned the

Premier and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation about the failure

of government's procurement policy to support local manufacturers, producers,

and other enterprises. There were examples of numerous circumstances where

contracts that could have been completed by local companies were instead given

to out-of-Province firms: subcontracts for the juice we have in our cafeteria,

school windows, Cabot 500 paraphernalia, et cetera.

When the Premier was asked what he intended to do to address the failure of

government policy, he challenged the Opposition to bring forward suggestions of

our own. I am pleased to say the Member for St. John's South took the Premier up

on his challenge and undertook to do what the provincial government should have

done a long time ago. The people were consulted, particularly local

manufacturers and producers. In January of this year there were six public

meetings held across the Province, two in St. John's, one each in Corner Brook,

Grand Falls-Windsor, Gander and Clarenville. In addition, the consultation

initiative was publicized throughout the media and actively sought input by

mail, fax, e-mail, from people throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. The

response to this was really good.

In view of the input that people gave us during this initiative, there was a

six-point recommendation identifying ways in which the government can tailor its

procurement efforts to help support local enterprises within the context of a

strengthened Public Tender Act.

Procurement by the provincial government and its agencies, for instance,

municipalities, the university, schools, hospitals, etc., represents a

significant portion of spending in the Province each year. Local producers and

manufacturers look to this spending as a major source of the business they need

to survive and grow in the small, depressed local economy. Government

procurement dollars that go to producers located outside the Province represent

a drain of money from the provincial economy.

Unless there is a level playing field allowing local companies to compete

successfully for procurement work in other provinces and countries, then we are

the net losers from any such arrangement. If the playing field is not level, a

strong case can be made for artificially re-balancing the playing field with

measures that compensate local producers for the competitive disadvantages, but

only to the extent that it enables them to compete fairly for procurement

contracts; not to the extent that we artificially prop up inefficient, poorly

run, or non-viable companies at the expense of the local taxpayer.

Now the six actions that we recommend at levelling the playing field for

local manufacturers and producers are as follows:

We must maintain the 5 per cent local preference standard for Newfoundland

and Labrador that is now written into the Atlantic Provinces Procurement

Agreement, and we must fight to maintain this standard on any internal trade

agreements negotiated with other provinces.

The second: We must establish a central registry of goods and services

manufactured, produced or provided by companies in Newfoundland and Labrador,

and put the onus on the companies themselves to ensure the registry is provided

with comprehensive, updated information on their products and on their behalf.

Using this registry's information as a guide, we must 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 do

produce, to ensure local companies have the opportunity to bid for as much of

the work as possible

We must also ensure, within reason of course, that tenders are divided into

portions small enough that smaller and less diversified local producers can

compete for this work.

We must also ensure that tender specifications are generic rather than

brand-name specific wherever possible, and in particular, using the registry as

a guide, ensure a tender never specifies products produced only outside this

Province when locally produced alternatives do exist.

We must write into the tenders and contracts of government suppliers that

their subcontracts must be fair to local companies in some of the same way the

primary contracts specifically require that third party subcontract work be

broken down into manageable units that do not discriminate against local

producers because of the size of the contracts or the specifics of small

portions of a major subcontract.

We must also require that companies contracted to government and its agencies

be required to give local companies the opportunity to bid on all third-party

subcontracts.

We must ensure all government bodies, including municipalities, the

university, school boards and hospitals, currently covered by the Public Tender

Act are also required to abide by these procedures.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk a bit about Trans City. This

government tried to justify the Trans City hospital contract scandal by saying

it was simply moving farther ahead of the public tender legislation than the act

would allow. They say they were well-intentioned and progressive but a little

too eager. They say they wanted an open-ended Request for Proposals that did not

define specifically the materials to be used. After they got the proposals they

would choose which design offered the best value for the money, not necessarily

the smallest upfront cost.

The evidence, however, suggest that they manipulated the criteria after the

fact until they got what they wanted, a prize for their Liberal friends. The

courts ruled consistently that the government crassly broke its own law by doing

this. What this new legislation does is remove the impediments in the

legislation that made their actions illegal. Under this revised legislation,

they will have the freedom, under the economic development or best value, these

clauses to which I referred earlier, that Cabinet has the discretion to

determine a contract and to manipulate the process all they want to make the

specs fit the contractor they seek to favour. While they may risk political

fallout, at least they will not suffer the same legal fallout.

What this bill does is pave the way for future Trans City deals by removing

safeguards against corruption. It would be interesting to read the record, the

decision of the judges, in this case trial Judge Orsborn and appeals Judge

Cameron. The Orsborn decision is 149 pages in length while the Cameron decision

is sixty-eight pages long. This was an extremely embarrassing and costly mistake

for the government, and many of the ministers who advised Cabinet to do what

they did, or sat in Cabinet when the decision was made, are still in Cabinet.

There are ways to advance the public tendering process to better help local

manufacturers and producers without cutting the guts out of the Public Tender

Act. Indeed, eroding the act leaves all businesses at a disadvantage because it

removes the protections designed to place them on a level playing field for good

faith competition. When politicians remove the guards against favouritism and

corruption, companies will have to turn some of their attention away from

developing the best product and start spending time and money wooing ministers

who have the discretion and the power to make decisions that favour or exclude

them.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to the Kodak bill. In the summer of

1996 the government used its majority to ram through the Kodak bill, designed to

exempt Kodak from the Public Tender Act so it would get government's

micrographic work once the service was sold to the company. The bill passed but

the sale fell through. This bill will give the government leeway to enter into

similar arrangements without having to come to the Legislature first.

The ITT Minister will probably be able to say it is in the economic

development interest of the Province to guarantee a new company certain work in

the interests of bringing that company here and keeping it alive and growing.

What we lose, however, is the opportunity for other companies, including our

existing local companies, to compete on a level playing field for that work.

Competition is not a bad thing. If a company cannot survive competition perhaps

it does not deserve to survive. It is one thing to give a company a boost or an

advantage but to give it a monopoly at the expense of existing or potential

enterprises is wrong. Companies wanting to expand into micrographics here, to

develop a foothold for national expansion, would have been prevented from

gaining the lucrative government work. Kodak could charge government whatever it

wants, even gouging taxpayers because it has a guaranteed monopoly. Is this

really economic development?

Now I would like, Mr. Speaker, to speak about the Bombardier contract. Ottawa

has just bypassed this public tendering process and indeed pushed the limits of

its single source Request for Proposals process to give the largest defense

contract in Canadian history to a company with ties to the Prime Minister. Is

this the example the minister says he is following when he seeks to bring our

laws in line with those of the country as a whole?

On June 2, the Globe and Mail , `...we see that the Bombardier deal

lands the Liberals in the hot seat': Is this the law that we are trying to

emulate? Is this where we want to find ourselves, playing favourites with

political friends and family? I rather think not, Mr. Speaker. For this reason I

will be voting against the bill.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to have a few comments to add

to the discussion that has been put forward by my colleague from St. John's

West, the Member for Cape St. Francis, the Member for Ferryland and the great

Member from Bonavista South, who I think has yet to speak on this particular

piece of legislation but who will, in the next several hours, share with the

House his comments about the good points and the bad points that are contained

in this proposed legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is fundamental in a democracy that we do have fairness, and

as Clyde Wells would say: We have to have fairness and balance. Mr. Speaker, the

Public Tender Act is designed to facilitate and to assure that fairness and

balance apply in the awarding of contracts and the spending of public money.

Mr. Speaker, while some parts of this bill are designed to streamline the

process, to make sure that all of the contractors in the Province have easy

access to the information required for them to be able to bid on government

services and contracts, in terms of the parts of the bill that might be able to

be extended beyond what is currently the norm in our democracy, that does cause

us some concern. For example, we all know from the Trans City affair that there

were things that happened that caused great concern to the public of this

Province.

Mr. Speaker, it is not that the communities that had those hospitals built

did not deserve a new hospital. That wasn't the issue. The issue was whether or

not the contracts were indeed awarded along guidelines that met the Public

Tender Act of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, there has been some comment already in the House about the Trans

City affair. We all know, from those who sat in the House at the time, that the

government went through elaborate procedures to try to justify to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador that there was nothing wrong with the way things were

conducted. We did have many days spent in this Legislature with aggressive

questions being asked by the then Leader of the Opposition, Len Simms, and by

the Member for Humber East, Lynn Verge. One was the Leader of the Opposition and

the other one was the critic for justice.

Mr. Speaker, we wanted to point out at that time that the government had gone

a little further in their manipulation of the tendering process than the law

allowed. We know to some extent that the way in which the tendering act was

changed might be understandable. By understandable I mean might be

well-intentioned. But they were a little too eager. Many people said they called

for proposals that were open-ended. They didn't specify all the materials that

would be used in the construction phase. Then when they got their proposals in,

they then began to talk about the design, about the different materials to be

used on the sidings of those buildings. Mr. Speaker, many people felt that the

best value for the taxpayers' dollar was not achieved in the Trans City affair.

We know that it certainly wasn't the smallest upfront expenditure.

Mr. Speaker, we don't want, in this Province, to ever go back to the days of

the 1960s and 1970s, and indeed the days of the early 1980s, when the Public

Tender Act wasn't always followed as it is today. We on this side of the House,

I am sure members on that side of the House, want to make sure the public has

confidence in the way in which government spends its tax dollars. I know, from

my conversation with hon. members opposite, that they are very well-intentioned.

However, we see in this particular bill possibilities for extensions by Cabinet

ministers, for political patronage of the first order.

MR. FITZGERALD: Pork barrelling.

MR. H. HODDER: Pork barrelling, my friend for Bonavista South says. Mr.

Speaker, we have to be sure we don't permit pork barrelling, we don't permit

manipulation of contracts, we don't facilitate extending contracts for further

expenditures beyond that which were specified in the original contract. In other

words, you can't get a contract and then go extension after extension. These are

the kinds of things that cause us great concern.

Mr. Speaker, if the public of this Province are going to be well served, they

have to be assured that absolute integrity remains in the public tendering

process. That is where this side of the House has concern. It is not with

facilitating access to bidding. The more people who can have access to data, the

more people can be part of the bidding process and the more sharing of

information we can have so all people out there can have access. I think the

time has come when we have to stop going out to three preferred bidders. We have

to stop that nonsense. We have to go and say to all people that if you want to

bid on a particular piece of government work, you have access to it.

We have to stop this idea that there are two or three preferred bidders and

if you get your name on the list then you can just, shall we say, wait until

your turn comes around. That is not fair to contractors, big or small. It is

particularly not fair to the small contractors. But if the contractors of this

Province can be assured that when a contract comes up, however big or small,

that they can have access to sound data and have it quickly through a

computerization process, and have it facilitated through the Newfoundland and

Labrador Construction Association, or some other such group as that which

specializes in the sharing of information, we are all for that. We are all for

the sharing of information and doing it on a timing basis, but in the awarding

process we want to be assured that all people and contractors are treated

fairly.

Mr. Speaker, that is what makes the system function. That is what keeps it in

the process of a word that we call `integrity', and that is where all

governments should aim to be. That is why the Peckford government many years ago

introduced the Public Tender Act. Before that we did not have a Public Tender

Act in Newfoundland and Labrador. We know what happened when we did not have

one. It was not a matter of what label because there were abuses of public

tendering, I understand, in all governments.

The Public Tender Act said, when it was brought in by the Peckford

government, let us try to be fair to everybody.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is

upset because he lost the debate last night. He got really done in, and I know

why he would leave the Chamber on a sore note right now.

MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. gentleman does not want to give

misinformation to this House (inaudible). The truth of the matter is that a poll

done by CBC last night on who won that debate, it was even higher than the

Premier's popularity over his own leader, and that is fifty-six to twelve or

something. I have to tell him that it was twelve to one in favour of the

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. In other words, for every telephone call

they received about who won the debate, twelve said John Efford and one said

Jack Harris.

I know you would not want to give misinformation to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I understood it was supposed to be fifteen to one because all of the people

who work in public relations for the government were all supposed to call in and

support the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. It should have been fifteen

to one. You have to find out the three public relations people who did not call

in and support the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. The Member for Signal

Hill - Quidi Vidi does not have those parliamentary people to be able to call

in. I suppose he had to get somebody to call in to support him.

We watched the debate, and frankly I thought CBC could have done more with

their precious air time than have a debate over who is going to kill the most

seals, and how to do it, and all that kind of thing. There certainly could have

been some other way in which air time could be used. I did not think either one

of them contributed to the public information. If you were going to show that

piece of video to the international community, I would be a little afraid of

what conclusions they might draw.

Mr. Speaker, back to the Public Tender Act. The point we want to make on this

side is that we believe this act may indeed compromise the integrity that has

been built up over many years. As far as the processes of getting information

out, we agree with that. We are afraid, however, that the integrity of the

process may be compromised, and there is nothing more fundamental in our

democratic system than to make sure that the way we spend the public money is

protected.

Mr. Speaker, we know that in the Trans City affair there was all kinds of

talk about who really were the beneficiaries. If you look at the people who have

made significant contributions to the Liberal campaign in 1996, and do a little

cross-reference with those people who were involved with Trans City, you will

see that there is a very great correlation. We know that these people again say

there is nothing against it making money. The question was how much money they

made and whether or not the bidding process was carried on in a fair manner.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi yesterday in his

comments gave some great elaboration on our side of the House. We are not going

to speak at length, I don't believe, on this matter. I think we have made most

of the points we want to make. We are afraid that the public tendering proposals

will compromise the integrity of the system.

Mr. Speaker, I do believe that the Member for St. John's South, who is going

to be speaking on this matter, is arriving in the House and he has indicated

that he has some wonderful comments to make.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: The Member for St. John's South. I was informed by the

House Leader that he was going to speak but I do believe the Government House

Leader is correct, that it happened yesterday afternoon in the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I do believe the Member for Ferryland is going to be speaking in

debate at this time.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have been listening to the comments, the observations and the queries that

have been raised by the various speakers on the other side of the House. I will

just take a minute or two, in closing debate, to clarify a couple of issues.

To the issue of repealing 5(1)(g), what actually occurred there - I

researched this with my officials over the evening - was this: In 1994 the

words, `or the accumulative value of them', were not in the act. So to ensure

that the cumulative value of what could be done by extension of contract was

clear, it was put in 5(g)(1). That was to give clarity and further assurance to

the issue of not being able to accumulate because 5(g)(5), the one we are

eliminating - or 5(g)(3) - did not give that full assurance. What happened was

they did not eliminate or they did not remove 5(g)(3) from the bill as was

intended in 1994 when they put the stronger wording up in 5(1). That is the

reason that is coming out now. It does not add anything to the bill. It does not

take anything away from the bill in terms of strength or weakness -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) leave it there if it is not going to affect

anything.

MR. MATTHEWS: It was actually, Mr. Speaker, replaced by the stronger

wording in 1994. It was just an oversight, so the legislative drafters told me,

leaving it in there. That is the explanation on that.

The principle of the bill, I believe, as I outlined yesterday, the amendments

of which are contained in it, are amendments to strengthen the hand of

Newfoundland manufacturers, to put in a better level of reasonableness in terms

of thresholds. On the issue of economic development that has been talked about,

it is clearly to put our Province and the industry, the private sector, the

innovators, the developers and the entrepreneurs in our Province, in the same

circumstance as all other provinces have put their business community in terms

of the trade agreements that we have entered into.

The point that need not be lost but should be recognized in all of this is

that all of these things will happen within the ambit of the Public Tender Act.

The Public Tender Act is a document, as I said yesterday, that we respect, that

we want to preserve, that we want to have maintain the highest level of

integrity and transparency. What we are doing in those amendments is consistent

with not only the views of the people who use the act from the government side

and from the government funded body side. What we are doing with the act has the

strong endorsement of the business community, and has the strong endorsement of

many others out there, all of whom, I would point out, joined me at the press

conference when we announced this.

The only criticism we got from the business community, quite frankly, or the

significant criticism we got from the St. John's Board of Trade, was that -

AN HON. MEMBER: So you did get some.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, we did, but it was in this context. They said: We

regret that the government has not gone any further. We believe that the

government should open up themselves to a process where they should be able to

entertain unsolicited proposals.

That is the position of the business community. They wanted us to be in a

position where we could entertain almost any notion that came forward, any idea

that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Any question that came forward, or any suggestion or idea

that came forward. We said no, we didn't believe that innovation by the private

sector should be entertained on a singular basis. It shouldn't be entertained on

a basis that would give anybody a leg up or an opportunity that didn't have a

transparent process attached to it.

So, Mr. Speaker, these are the comments of clarification that I have noted.

Most of the other questions I believe I clarified, at least I attempted to

clarify, yesterday when the debate was taking place as we were going back and

forth across the House.

I believe it is also important, in concluding my remarks, to say again that

with the greatest of respect for what we are trying to do for the right reasons

for our local business community, our local manufacturers, the small

manufacturers, the people who want to get their product into government funded

bodies, we have to recognize, as they recognize, that we are a Province which

exports 95 per cent of everything we produce. We only consume less than 5 per

cent of what we manufacture and produce ourselves, and that clearly tells us, as

it tells them, that we have to be a Province that does business on the basis

that we do not negatively impact upon the business opportunities that exist

outside of our provincial borders to the benefit of the local business

community.

The people in this Province who manufacture, the people who grow things, the

people who make things that provide employment here, have to export 95-plus per

cent of all that we make. The amendments we are proposing strike a balance

between what is reasonable to do on behalf of the local business community, and

in response to the representation that we received in the consultation, and in

the context of what will give best value to the taxpayers of the Province as we

go about acquiring goods and services for purposes of providing public services

in the Province.

I move second reading of this bill, and I further move that this House do not

adjourn at 5:00 this afternoon.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act," read a second

time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No.

24.)

MR. SPEAKER (Penney) : There is also a motion before the House that the

House not adjourn at 5:00 o'clock.

All those in favour, aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Opposed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

The hon. Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Order No. 19, Bill No. 25.

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 19.

A bill, "An Act To Provide For Participation By The Province In An

Intergovernmental Joint Purchasing Agreement And To Repeal The Provincial

Preference Act". (Bill No. 25)

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, this Bill is designed to allow the Province to

participate with the other Atlantic Provinces in the Atlantic Procurement

Agreement, but it is also to enable us to participate in the larger agreement

under the MASH sector, and that is a national agreement, Mr. Speaker; the idea

being that municipalities, academic institutions, schools and hospitals - it

will make it possible for any province to compete for work in each of the

provinces provided that there is no provincial preference.

Mr. Speaker, to enable us to do this we have to remove the provincial

preference policy. The issue, Mr. Speaker, when we have done our consultations

with the community at large, is whether or not they will have the chance to

compete. I think, clearly, what we have done with the Public Tender Act has

enabled them to feel a level of confidence that they will indeed find themselves

in a position where they will be able to compete with a full and fair

opportunity.

With the removal of the provincial preference, what it does, in fact, is put

everyone on a level playing field. I think, if you look at the amendments that

have been made to the Public Tender Act, it does give us some leeway in terms of

economic development.

MR. J. BYRNE: Too much.

MS FOOTE: I do not think you can ever give too much, Jack, if it means

that Newfoundland companies are going to benefit from this.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: Oh, listen, I will be a player. I will not be the only player

in this, okay.

Clearly, here is an opportunity, Mr. Speaker. We have done our consultations

and what we have been told time and time again by the business communities out

there, by the Manufacturers Association, by the Board of Trade, by the

construction industry - and we have the letters from them. The consultation was

done back some time ago and we asked them all, following that consultation

process, to follow up with any concerns that they may have had.

The issue clearly was not that they wanted provincial preference. The issue

was that they wanted full and fair opportunity to compete for the work, and I

think that we have taken care of that on a number of fronts, certainly with the

Public Tender Act and revisions that have been made to that.

Mr. Speaker, this enables local companies to actually compete for work

throughout the country under the MASH sector, and certainly throughout the

Atlantic Provinces under the Atlantic Procurement Agreement. Mr. Speaker, if we

did not remove the provincial preference policy, then they would not be able to

compete. That was one of the things we had to do in order to sign on to the MASH

sector.

At the meeting that I had with all of the trade ministers from each of the

Provinces, there was an appreciation for where we have come has a Province and

also an appreciation for changes that we were going to be making to our Public

Tender Act. Those changes, now having been done, will enable those companies to

actually be in a position to compete nationally for contracts in other

Provinces.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is why we are moving, we are doing one in tandem with

the other. Clearly there is an opportunity here for our companies to compete and

I think we all agree that our companies take second place to no one. What they

do need is the opportunity to compete and I think we have shown that, with the

revisions to the Public Tender Act and now by removing the provincial preference

policy, they are on a level playing field and that is where they want to be, but

they want the full and fair opportunity, Mr. Speaker. That is what we are

attempting to do here today..

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

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

While I toured the Province, doing our public consultation, one of the

questions - the Minister stated that the manufacturers and producers wanted a

fair and level playing field, and that is correct. That was the first priority

of the manufacturers and producers in this Province. I will admit that as well.

Under the recommendations that we presented, and government accepted some of

those recommendations, Mr. Speaker, we aimed at creating a level playing field

and we aimed at having tenders broken down into workable sizes where we have

locally manufactured products on one tender and products that are not

manufactured locally on another tender so that it does not bar local

manufacturers. The ministers agreed in Question Period last week that that will

be put in place, or that was my understanding of her responses, they would try

to break down tenders.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

One of the concerns that was also raised in our consultation process across

the Province - and I know it was raised in Gander when the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation was there, because we had one of our people at that

meeting, and I know it was raised in St. John's at his meeting, as well, because

I attended that particular meeting - was the subject of the provincial

preference policy.

While manufacturers throughout the Province want a level playing field,

mainly what they mean by that is that they want to be given the opportunity to

bid on contracts, they want to be given the opportunity to bid on services

supplied to hospitals and so on. Right now, for the most part, they are barred

from that because, first of all, tenders name specific items. They call for

McCains items, they call for Highliner items and so on which bars local

manufacturers.

Secondly, a lot of the companies that supply the hospitals and so on, the

large companies, will deal with mainland suppliers because that is who they deal

with on a national basis, so they just continue to deal with those companies

here locally, and that bars our local manufacturers and producers. They want a

fair playing ground, a level playing ground, where they have equal opportunity.

By that, they mean that they want to have access to these tenders that they now

do not have access to.

One of the concerns they had, and it was a recommendation that we made

through our recommendations, is they wanted to have the provincial preference

policy safeguarded.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nice shirt, Tom.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, sir.

Under the Atlantic Procurement Policy, Newfoundland has a 5 per cent

advantage right now. Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island agreed

to that, partially because of the fact that we are more isolated and it costs

more to get items here and get them back out again. We are given a 5 per cent

advantage there. Obviously, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island

agreed to that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: Still, we were given 10 per cent, I believe, nationally,

originally. Well, it was higher than that, and it came down to 10 per cent.

Right now it is at 10 per cent. It is 10 per cent nationally and 5 per cent

through the Atlantic Provinces.

Under the ASH and MASH agreements - I think the ASH was put in place before

MASH. We are now entering into the MASH agreement. Under those, it proposes to

have no provincial preference throughout the entire country, the ten provinces

and the two territories. But my contention is, if we have agreed under the

Atlantic Procurement Policy to 5 per cent, I am wondering if government here, if

we pushed hard enough, because of our isolation, because of the fact that it is

harder to get items here, because of the fact that our manufacturers and

producers have more obstacles to overcome, if we could get some sort of, be it 3

per cent, 4 per cent or 5 per cent for this Province, the same as the Atlantic

Provinces agreed to.

I know that the manufacturers and producers, when we went across the

Province, voiced their concern to keep the provincial preference policy. One of

our recommendations was that we maintain the 5 per cent local preference

standard for Newfoundland and Labrador that is now written into the Atlantic

Provinces Procurement Agreement, and fight to maintain the standard in any

internal trade agreements negotiated with other provinces and that would include

the ASH and/or MASH agreements.

I am wondering, if we pushed hard enough, this Province, if even through ASH

or MASH we could maintain some level of provincial preference, have all avenues

been explored to maintain some level of provincial preference through these

agreements? Even outside of the MASH agreement, which includes only our medical,

health, academic institutions and so on, if for other public tenders, be they

for cities, different municipalities or be they for government for whatever, for

supplies for summer games or supplies for the Cabot celebrations or supplies for

the 1999 celebrations that are coming up and are not going to be covered under

the MASH agreement - I think the minister will agree that, you know, if we were

to purchase items for tourism purposes for the 1999 celebrations that would not

fall under the MASH agreement.

So if we are able to keep a 5 per cent provincial preference outside of the

MASH agreement, if we have no other choice but to sign on to the MASH agreement

without any provincial preference, be that as it is, but for any other public

tenders that are put out there, for tourism items or for the purchase of our

Tourism Guide that we put out on an annual basis - I believe it was missed this

year but we generally put it out on an annual basis - for any other items, for

uniforms for our security guards or whatever, are we able to keep some level of

provincial preference to protect these entities outside of the MASH agreement?

I understand that, maybe through the MASH agreement we have no other choice,

but as a Province we should look to protect our own local manufacturers and

producers. This act, I believe, will probably strip them of the local preference

rights.

I give the minister leave maybe to just respond to that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MS FOOTE: The issue of provincial preference was a valid one and

obviously every province would like to see some provincial preference. It is not

possible under the MASH sector. We went around and around the table in terms of

what each province does to try and give some protection to their own companies,

and clearly the idea here was to have a level playing field for all provinces. I

think, as I said at the outset, clearly we are doing this in tandem with the

changes to the Public Tender Act.

I recognize what you are saying in terms of trying to ensure that our local

companies do indeed have a leg up, as it were, in terms of accessing contracts

and making sure that the specifications are written in such a way, in some

cases, where certainly it does not preclude local companies from getting those

contracts. This is where the economic development component will come into play,

and I recognize what you are saying; the importance of making sure that our

companies, when you look at the distance and you look at the so-called isolation

of our Province, will be in a position to be able to seriously consider when a

contract is being awarded that economic development component.

So, I mean, it is done in New Brunswick, it is done in Nova Scotia, it is

done in other provinces. While we are removing the provincial preference by

saying the 5 per cent will be gone or the 10 per cent will be gone, clearly

there will be an opportunity for us under the Public Tender Act to, in fact,

ensure to the best of our ability that local companies, our local manufacturers,

will indeed benefit from that economic development component which is so

important to us.

We have no mechanism whereby we can continue with the provincial preference

if we sign on to the MASH sector, and I think not to sign on to the MASH sector

would be detrimental to those companies that really feel they can compete on a

national basis. If you look at M5 Advertising, for instance, M5 Advertising has

had the tourism contract for New Brunswick for the past four years. Cahill

Electric, for instance, has had electrical contracts in the other Atlantic

Provinces.

We know, and I am sure you know, that our companies can compete with the

best. Again I go back to the discussions we have had with them. That is their

main concern, that they actually have the opportunity to compete. So to maintain

the provincial preference is not possible if we want to sign on to the

agreements.

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

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

I tend to agree, under the ASH or MASH agreements that we couldn't, but my

contention is perhaps this bill goes too far. Inside those agreements is one

thing, but outside is something completely different.

Through a publication produced by the minister's own department, there are

25,000 jobs created in Ontario because of what they export to Newfoundland,

whereas there are only 4,000 jobs created in Newfoundland because of what we

export to Ontario. Clearly they would have the advantage of us removing our

provincial preference policy. There is no question about that.

I have no problem with the ASH or MASH agreements if we have to eliminate it

for those agreements. What I am asking is: Do we have to eliminate our local

preference policy? After all, these companies employ Newfoundlanders, they

generate money back into the economy, they pay taxes here, they pay payroll tax,

provincial taxes and so on. Is it right to remove the local preference policy

across the board in its entirety outside of the ASH and MASH agreements,

stripping these companies of their 5 per cent protection, when clearly Ontario

would have the advantage? Because they import far more into Newfoundland than we

export to Ontario. That is clear in the numbers that are produced by the

minister's own department.

What I am asking the minister - maybe, yes, inside of the ASH and MASH

agreements we can remove this 5 per cent protection for our local companies, but

do we have to remove it outside of these agreements?

I would give the minister leave maybe just to respond to that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the minister asking to speak by leave?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes, please.

MR. SPEAKER: Otherwise, if the minister speaks now she closes the debate.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, we are not in committee, but if the hon. gentleman

has a few questions he wants to put, there is no problem, but the truth of the

matter is that when the minister rose last, under second reading, she closed

debate before. But if there are -

MR. T. OSBORNE: No, I asked by leave, I say to the Government House

Leader.

MR. TULK: Anyway, go on, let's get it done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

At this particular stage, if the minister speaks she closes the debate,

unless she is speaking by leave.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I am willing to give her leave if she is willing to

answer by leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

by the Chair.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Again, I have to express my concern for the local

manufacturers and producers here. I have no problem within the ASH and MASH

agreements if we have to remove the 5 per cent protection, if that is the only

way we can sign on to those agreements. Even still, that gives further benefit

to other provinces than it gives to us. I mean, that is quite clear.

I see the minister shaking her head no, but in information produced by the

minister's own department, again, there are 25,000 jobs created in Ontario

because of what they export into Newfoundland. There are only 4,000 jobs created

in Newfoundland because of what we export to Ontario, and that happens all the

way across the board. It is quite clear, it is evident, that other provinces

would have the advantage by us removing our local preference policy.

Again, I cannot stress enough that if these companies are employing people

here - they are generating money back into our economy, they are paying taxes,

payroll tax, business taxes and so on in this Province - then we can justify the

5 per cent because obviously it is a give and take with these companies that are

putting back into our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot express enough my concern in going across this Province

and having the consultation meetings. We passed out questionnaires, and one of

the questions we asked on the questionnaire - very unbiased - was: Do you agree

or disagree with the local preference policy? In 99 per cent of the cases they

agreed with it. We asked: Would you agree with eliminating this if we were to

enter into an interprovincial agreement across the entire country? Do you feel

that this would level the playing field? Most of the cases said no, they did not

want to eliminate our local preference policy.

Even with the ASH and MASH agreements, I have some concerns because it would

clearly give advantage to Ontario as opposed to giving it to Newfoundland; but

if the minister feels, and if industry feels, that through these agreements we

would have an advantage by eliminating it, then I would have to agree. But to

eliminate it across the board, to eliminate the 5 per cent local preference

policy across the board, in its entirety, I would disagree with. And if that be

the case I would have to seriously consider on which way I would vote on this,

even though there may be advantages through ASH and MASH.

With that, I would ask my colleagues if they have any questions or concerns

on this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the minister speaks now she will close the

debate.

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate from where the hon. member is coming.

I can only say to him that in addition to the work that he did, of course, we

did our homework as well in talking to the various industry associations.

Certainly the Newfoundland Ocean Industries Association, the Food Processors

Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Consulting Engineers of

Newfoundland and Labrador, the St. John's Board of Trade, the AMEN, the Alliance

of Manufacturers and Exporters of Newfoundland, gave their support for the

elimination -

MR. T. OSBORNE: Manufacturers and exporters were the only people I spoke

with who want to eliminate it; everybody else wants to keep it.

MS FOOTE: Well, they are telling you one thing and telling us another

because we do have written -

MR. T. OSBORNE: (Inaudible) Gander and St. John's. I had people

(inaudible).

MS FOOTE: All I can tell you is the homework that we did, the

consultation that we did, and what we came up with. Again, I go back to saying

that we are doing this in tandem with the changes to the Public Tender Act. I

appreciate what you are saying in terms of the other areas outside of the MASH

and the ASH sector. Clearly, this is where we would see the Public Tender Act

coming into play in terms of that opportunity for the Minister of Industry,

Trade and Technology and Cabinet to in fact have a say in looking at various

contracts from an economic development perspective.

I appreciate where you are coming from, and inasmuch as I can give you any

kind of assurance at all that what we are doing here we are doing in tandem with

the revisions to the Public Tender Act to ensure, inasmuch as it is possible,

that local companies will have a benefit. That benefit would come from the

economic development component because anything that is going to be seen to be

more economical for local companies, and therefore for the Province in terms of

employees, in terms of exporting our products, then I think clearly that is

where the Public Tender Act will come in.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Provide For Participation By The Province In An

Intergovernmental Joint Purchasing Agreement And To Repeal The Provincial

Preference Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the

Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 25)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 20, Bill No. 30, "An Act To Amend The

Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act".

I believe the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is going to introduce it

on behalf of the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 20, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry

Collective Bargaining Act". (Bill No. 30)

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: I can assure you, it was not Jack.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The call back on Here & Now

tonight will prove it, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Environment and

Labour, it gives me great pleasure - it really does - to introduce this bill,

"An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act".

This bill, as a result of what has taken place over the last four or five

years in the fishing industry, and in particular in 1997 when we almost lost the

total crab fishery, we, as a government, saw it necessary to work with the

industry, work with the union, to make some changes to the present collective

bargaining act which had worked well for a number of years. Over the last four

to five years, certainly, there was a major problem in arriving at a price. We

saw it necessary - the industry as a whole, with government, working together to

make some changes.

Last year we put together a task force to look at ways of improving the

fishing collective bargaining act. I think they did a masterful job over the

years. There were representatives from FANL, representatives from FFAW, and

three - the assistant deputy minister from labour, and David Vardy and David

Jones from the Department of Justice. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that they did

a job that has certainly solved the problems that we experienced in four of the

last five years in arriving at a negotiated price satisfactory to both entities,

the harvesters and the industry.

As a result of their work over the winter months, today we have prices

arrived at in the crab fishery, in the shrimp fishery, in the cod fishery, in

the lump fishery; and as we are talking here today, for the first time I know of

in the history of the fishery, they are now arriving at a price for the caplin

fishery because -

MR. TULK: Through the same process?

MR. EFFORD: Through the same process. Because every other year the caplin

traps, the purse seines, would be on the boat, people would be ready to go

fishing, and still there would be no price settled. The five prices that have

been settled this year have been settled prior to the opening of the fishery, or

before the people were ready to go fishing, which is a tremendous success given

the fact that last year in August month the Premier of the Province and I, as

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, had to be involved with the industry as a

whole and with the FFAW to try to ensure we would not lose the total year

fishery. It came pretty close, Mr. Speaker.

One of the other problems with a late fishery start, you do not get a good

quality product; because 98 million pounds of crab being harvested in such a

short time, and during the time in which it was harvested, caused some problems

last year. You cannot go out there and bring in that amount of crab at the rapid

pace it was coming in and put up a quality product, particularly in July and

August when the temperatures do not allow a good control of holding crab in the

holes of the boats or in the trucks transporting them back and forth across the

Province to whatever plant they take it for processing.

Mr. Speaker, we have now, I think, with this two-year pilot project, come to

a resolve where I think the fishing industry in the future is going to serve

well the industry as a whole, that they can derive the maximum benefits of a

fair and equitable way of arriving at a price, and it is a simple process. They

start the negotiating team. They have a facilitator who is fully aware of the

market conditions, of the marketplace, who helps the process go along. Before

the process starts, we appoint - I should not say we - they appoint an

arbitrator. That arbitrator is there at the beginning of the negotiations. He or

she would be informed on a regular basis exactly what negotiations have taken

place, what each side is talking about, the price. He or she would know about

the market price, the market conditions. The facilitator would ensure that, and

the facilitator would keep both parties together.

If at the end of the day, at the end of the negotiating time - the time that

is set for the negotiating period - a price is not arrived at, the fishery would

not be delayed because it then goes through the arbitrator. The arbitrator knows

full-well all the discussions that have taken place, and then that person would

set the price. That means there would be no delay in the opening of the fishery,

and for a period of time if an arbitrator sets a price he or she will watch the

market conditions. Over another period of time, if it is necessary to make any

changes, the arbitrator would have the authority to either increase or decrease

the price according to what the market price is returning.

Mr. Speaker, without going on and going through the whole act, because it has

been proven (inaudible) over the last number of weeks -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: The prices of five different species have been arrived at and

the fisheries are taking place. We have a shrimp fishery that is happening now.

We have a lump fishery that is ongoing. We have a crab fishery that is probably

about 40 per cent harvested today. The price is negotiated on cod. The 3Ps

management plan is down. The only thing now holding up the start of the fishery

is that we want to make sure the 3Ps cod fishery is displayed in an orderly

fashion this year. We will again make sure that the way the fish is harvested

will be in an orderly fashion. We will allow the landing schedules and the

harvesting of the different sectors to be in a manner in which we, as an

industry as a whole, collectively together, can bring in a top quality product.

Because, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to stay in the marketplace, if we are

going to be competitive, and if we are going to earn a living from the fishing

industry, we have to be aware of all of the people and all of the things in the

marketplace. We have to be able to compete on a regular basis. This process is a

two-year pilot project. I know from day to day there will be concerns expressed

by one side or the other, but it is a process that has worked well to date.

After the two-year pilot project I can see -

AN HON. MEMBER: It will be evaluated then?

MR. EFFORD: It will be evaluated, I have no doubt in my mind.

The other part of the changes to the collective bargaining system, we are

going to have a pilot project on the auction system. I believe there is a place

in the Province, in the industry, where the auction system can work. It will not

be able to be used probably through the whole fishing industry but certainly a

part of the fishing industry, depending on the areas into which it can be

piloted, I think the auction system can work well. It is working well in

Iceland. It is sort of a free-market system where an individual can, through an

electronic system - with the technology that is around today it is very easy to

do - from the day-to-day harvesting of the particular species, communicate back

and forth to buyers in the Province and arrive at a price suitable to their

harvest on a day-to-day basis.

Mr. Speaker, this is a major change for the better for the fishing industry

as a whole, which is certainly improving in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. In 1997 we had a $575 million export value, 21,000 people employed. In

1998 we are expecting that to go over $600 million export value with probably

23,000 or 24,000 people employed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand to say a few words on Bill 30, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry

Collective Bargaining Act."

When I received this piece of legislation, when it was passed out, I say to

the minister, I was a little bit surprised to see the legislation brought

forward now because I was under the impression that this agreement was a

two-year pilot project, put in place for two years. I thought I might see this

piece of legislation come forward in two years' time, after we had shown that it

would work and we got the bugs out of it. Being a pilot project, Mr. Speaker, I

thought it would be a situation where this legislation would be delayed until

the pilot project was over and we got the bugs out of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, okay.

That kind of surprised me and caught me unaware. I also took the legislation

and faxed it down to the people involved and asked them for their suggestions or

concerns. I didn't get a call, I say to the minister. Nobody called, so I would

suspect that it is a good piece of legislation. When you put it forward to the

FFAW and you put it forward to FANL, and if those people directly involved with

the industry and dealing wi