June 3, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 38


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

 

Statements by Ministers

 

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that government intends to introduce legislation to implement a graduated drivers licence program for novice drivers beginning January 1, 1999.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, the intent of this program is consistent with the unanimous recommendations made by the Select Committee of this House on Property and Casualty Insurance. Mr. Speaker, government recognizes the comprehensive work that has been done by the Select Committee. I want to assure committee members that this is but the first of several steps government intends to take with respect to this report. Further action will be announced during the course of our review.

Mr. Speaker, graduated licensing is a two-step, two-year process that is designed to help novice drivers acquire, on a gradual basis, the knowledge and skill needed to safely operate their passenger vehicles, light trucks or motorcycles.

This new program will give novice drivers experience under conditions that reduce the risk of collisions. The system is described as graduated because there are two licensing levels. When you have a Level I or Level II licence you must follow all of the laws of the road and the special rules for each level.

Graduated licensing applies to all novice drivers regardless of age. Inexperience, not age, places novice drivers in a higher risk for collisions. As a group, novice drivers are five times more likely to be involved in collisions. Newfoundland and Labrador statistics show that over a six year period, 16.5 per cent of all fatal collisions involved drivers with less than two years of experience. However, Mr. Speaker, this group accounts for only 5 per cent of the driving population.

To enter Level I, novice drivers - at least 16 years of age - will be required to pass a written test and a vision test. Novice motorcyclists will also have to pass a skills test.

Level I lasts for twelve months. This may be reduced to eight months if the novice driver successfully completes a recognized driver education program. After the required time is spent in Level I, a road test in traffic must be successfully completed to graduate to Level II.

Drivers must spend a minimum of twelve months at Level II, where the learning process continues but with reduced restrictions. All novice drivers must complete a minimum of twenty months training.

Mr. Speaker, for novice drivers there is zero tolerance for alcohol. If alcohol is detected, a novice-driver's licence will be cancelled.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, other restrictions deal with such areas as defined driving hours; the number of passengers allowed in or on a vehicle; the driving experience of accompanying drivers; and the highways on which novice drivers can travel.

The documents I am tabling today will provide members with complete details of our proposed graduated licensing program. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that this program will save lives and make our highways safer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, other Canadian provinces have already taken such action. Ontario and Nova Scotia introduced graduated programs in 1994. More recently, New Brunswick and Quebec have introduced programs. British Columbia has announced a program which will take effect in 1999, and Prince Edward Island has a form of licensing which incorporates many of the aspects of a graduated program.

Mr. Speaker, an interim Ontario report shows that collisions by novice drivers were down by a dramatic 31 per cent. By contrast, only a 4 per cent drop was observed in Ontario's general driving population over the same period.

From Ontario's perspective, Mr. Speaker, graduated licensing has meant 900 fewer visits to hospital emergency rooms; 2,000 fewer days in hospital for collision victims; 800 fewer ambulance calls; and 13,000 fewer hours of police time required to investigate collisions.

The Ontario government estimates that $34 million has been saved as a result of reductions in emergency room visits, hospital days, ambulance calls, police time, and property damage to motor vehicles.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from the Select Committee's report: New drivers, regardless of age, are significantly over represented in motor vehicle accidents. Teenage drivers, in particular, are involved in a disproportionately high number of crashes as compared to other age groups. Furthermore, the level of damage resulting from these accidents tends to be much more severe that the average. As well, statistics show that older drivers who are newly licensed are also in a high collision risk category. Inexperience, combined with risk-taking behaviour, contributes to high accident rates. Graduated licensing is a solution to this problem.

Mr. Speaker, there is widespread public support for a graduated licensing program - from the community at large; our police forces, our health and safety organizations, and the insurance industry. And, Mr. Speaker, I welcome representatives of these groups who are in the House with us today.

Mr. Speaker, as I stated earlier, government plans to introduce this program in January 1999. Drivers who already hold or receive a beginner's licence prior to January 1, 1999, will continue under the old system.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Finally a statement from the minister that says something, and more importantly, means something. This graduated licence system which was recommended by a select committee, of course, is welcomed by myself and other people in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. J. BYRNE: Definitely.

Mr. Speaker, the statement refers to zero tolerance for alcohol abuse or alcohol drinking; again, a positive move I agree with. The stats indicate that accidents will be down and the insurance rates could drop, these types of things.

To cut to the chase, Mr. Speaker, the most important fact of all of this is that this will go a long way to saving young lives on the highways of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We, on this side, have no problem in supporting this statement at all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a positive step which will assist in the safer use of our highways and, in fact, allow new drivers to learn, which I think a lot of people say is a common sense thing, you learn to drive after you get your licence. You learn to drive because you get more experience driving, and this is a way of allowing it to happen under control conditions. I hope the minister and the government are prepared to be flexible and improve the system if it proves not to be working in certain circumstances.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it is also time to start looking at driver training or requirements for people driving ATVs. We have thousands and thousands of them on our byroads and trails around the Province. These are dangerous vehicles without proper training and proper care. We should look at some driver training for them and some insurance in case there are accidents as well; having that as a requirement.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, as part of Environment Week, May 31 to June 6, I had the pleasure last evening of presenting the 1997/98 Newfoundland and Labrador Environmental Awards. This program is jointly sponsored between the Department of Environment and Labour and the Newfoundland and Labrador Women's Institutes and is in its ninth year.

The awards are presented in seven categories, including: Individual; Citizen's Group or Organization; Educator; Youth; School; Business; and Municipality. The awards are presented each year to individuals and groups who demonstrate outstanding commitment and dedication to the protection and conservation of the Newfoundland and Labrador environment. This year's winners include: In the Individual Category, Dr. Peter Scott; in the category of Citizen's Group or Organization: the Birch Brook Nordic Ski Club of Happy Valley - Goose Bay, with an honourable mention to the Burgeo Bears; in the Educator category: Ms Joan Vautier; in the Youth category: Sherrie Lamb; the award for top school went to Topsail Elementary School Naturalization Project with an honourable mention to Booth Memorial High School; the most environmentally friendly Business was 40 Shades Inc.; and last, but not least, the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor was presented the award in the Municipality category.

The winners of this year's environmental awards come from various parts of the Province - Labrador, The West Coast, South Coast, East Coast and Central. While geographic considerations are not a criteria for selection, I think this fact speaks well for the level of activity that is underway everywhere in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a special word of thanks to our co-sponsors, the Newfoundland and Labrador Women's Institutes. Their commitment and dedication to this initiative has made it a successful event each and every year since its inception. The Women's Institutes are also heavily involved in projects like Tidy Towns. I think this level of support for environmental initiatives puts this organization in an elite category.

Each and every year the competition for these prestigious awards becomes more and more intense. Winners are chosen from a highly competitive field. However, I want to encourage those who were nominated this year, to be nominated again next year. Although the ceremony last evening was organized to formally acknowledge the achievements of a select group of individuals, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that all members will agree the real rewards come from having done something real and good and positive, to protect and conserve the Newfoundland and Labrador environment. In this respect, when each of us takes the time to become more environmentally aware and then we demonstrate that awareness through action, then we benefit and we all are winners.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would like to commend the winners of these awards for doing something real and good and positive to protect our environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to condemn the minister for not taking a proactive approach to protecting our environment when it comes to oil-spill response; for not taking a proactive approach, Mr. Speaker, and for not even being able to put a recycling bin in our own cafeteria downstairs.

Where is the award, Mr. Speaker, for Star Lake Project, the environmental awareness out there for North West River, for Garia Bay? Where are these awards, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

 

Oral Questions

 

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Last week I asked questions of the Minister of Environment and Labour with respect to the Statutory Review Committee Report that was given to government with respect to the workers' compensation system and the workers' compensation act.

I would like to ask him today: Does he agree with the following statement on page 51 that deals with benefit levels? It says: Since the last review the WCC has been highly successful in achieving improvement in its financial position by reducing benefit levels, by strenuously pursuing the deeming process, by reducing its focus on rehabilitation, and by a $13.4 million annual levy on employers applied directly toward offsetting the unfunded liability.

Does he also agree with the following statement that came from this report, where the committee said: Therefore, the notion expressed in our hearings that ascribed blame upon injured workers for the financial plight of the Workers' Compensation Commission is unfounded and unreal?

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

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I have said in the House in previous answers to questions that have come from the Leader of the Opposition and from the hon. Member for Conception Bay South, what we have here is our balance between the financial integrity of the workers' compensation system and the flexibility that we have to give the workers an increase. That is what we have been able to do to maintain the integrity of the system, and then what flexibility we have to give to the injured workers.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister and government have done no such thing. I would like to ask him this. Does he agree with the following statement: Had it not been for the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I have to remind the hon. member that supplementaries need no preamble, and that quoting from documents, letters, and texts is not permitted according to our own Standing Orders.

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

Does he agree with the statements coming from that document which indicate that because of that focus on reducing rehabilitation, because of the annual levy, that employers' assessments have actually gone down since the last review, but by contrast injured workers' benefits have remained cut substantially, and that that sort of balance with respect to their recommendations was not there? Does the minister agree with that statement in the Statutory Review Committee's report?

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

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said to the Leader of the Opposition last week, when he asked those questions, what we have been able to do with the improvement within the compensation commission itself, we have been able to bring forward a total of $22 million of improvements to injured workers' benefits, Mr. Speaker, and as the commission itself improves financially we will continue to pass along extra benefits to the injured workers.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Independent Statutory Review Committee, set up by this government, recommended clearly, and they said that it was critical, and I quote again: It was critical for an adjustment in the benefit rates upwards for injured workers should take place at this time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it also went on to say that the outpouring of human misery that they found, and the balance that the minster says he has achieved, is not realized -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: - that the Workers' Compensation Commission actually is ahead of its own target with its unfunded liability portion.

I ask you today, Minister: Will you do the right thing? Will you do the just thing? Will you restore some dignity to the injured workers in Province and follow the recommendations from that Statutory Review Committee as they suggested to you?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I take this opportunity to welcome people to the gallery. It is always a pleasure to see them here, and members are always delighted to see visitors to the House of Assembly, but I have to remind visitors that they should not be showing approval or disapproval in any way, shape or form on the debate, the questions, or the activities that are taking part on the floor of the House. This has been a long, traditional, parliamentary principle that has been followed, and I ask the people here today who are visiting to respect that.

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition would know, and I said to him last week, that the commission is not ahead of its time in being fully funded. The number of years that it came down - from 2012, which was the original target, down to 2009 - what we have done is taken the benefits of $22 million that was able to be put back in the system; we did that so the mortgage date is pushed back to 2012. Mr. Speaker, there is no pre-funding of the commission. That is not happening.

I also want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that we began last January to improve the system for the people who were on short-term, from week number one to thirty-nine. We went from seventy-five net to 80 per cent. In this particular situation, what we have here now with the extra 5 per cent on the CPP, the long-term injured workers are getting 90 per cent of pre-injury earnings.

Now, would I like to see more? Obviously, I would like to see more. The bottom line is, I have the integrity of the commission there to protect all injured workers. As I have said, as the commission improves itself financially then I have no qualms passing on to the injured workers the benefits that would be derived from the same thing.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the minister has read the report but I certainly have and it said: It should be noted that the commission is three years ahead of its target of 2012 for being fully funded.

Now, is the minister saying that his own independent statutory review assessment of its financial - its own assessment of the financial unfunded liability of workers' compensation is wrong? Is that what the minister is saying?

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

MR LANGDON: No, Mr. Speaker, quite to the contrary. What I said to the Leader of the Opposition was, if we had maintained the status quo; if we had not gone from 75 percent to 80 per cent; if we had not increased the long-term CPP by 5 per cent; if we did not give for the spouses of the Province $12,600,000; if we did not give $5,000 to families where the worker had been killed while working, Mr. Speaker, we would have been ahead of schedule, but we are not ahead of schedule. We took these benefits to put back into the system to make sure that it was not ahead, that it has gone back to 2012.

I want to say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, it is my intention, and I am sure it is government's, as the commission improves we will continue to do more for the injured worker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister's definition of doing more really does not hold any water. The reality is - and I would like to ask the minster to either confirm or deny this - the reality is that the financial integrity of the Workers' Compensation Commission would not be jeopardized by implementing some of the recommendations with respect to benefit levels in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

What the minister has done, and all he has done, is he is trying to balance the books on the backs of injured workers in this Province, and that should not be taking place. Would he agree with that or not?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I say to the people in the gallery, the visitors today, that, as I indicated before, displays of any nature are not permitted in the galleries. I ask the people not to display placards and to take their seat in the gallery. If not, the Chair will have to ask that these people leave.

[There was disorder in the gallery.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again I appeal to the people who are in the gallery to have some respect for the long parliamentary tradition that has been respected in this House. I ask them again to take their seats in the gallery and not to display any placards.

[There was disorder in the gallery.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

[There was disorder in the gallery.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will recess the House and we will have to resume when the disorder has been corrected in the galleries. The House is recessed.

 

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am unclear. The galleries were just cleared and I am unclear if that was the Speaker's intention, to ask every person in the gallery who was seated, listening to Question Period or here for a variety of reasons - was that the Speaker's intention, to clear the gallery?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

CLERK: Twenty minutes left.

MR. SPEAKER: Twenty minutes.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I asked the minister a question before and I will repeat it for him.

Doesn't he agree that the financial position of the Workers' Compensation Commission would not be in jeopardy if these recommendations were implemented? Would he also agree that the reason these recommendations were not implemented is because of strong representation by the Worker's Compensation Commission and employers themselves?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

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

MR LANGDON: No, Mr. Speaker, definitely not. What I have tried to do, Mr. Speaker, is to balance out, as I said, to maintain the integrity of the system and be able to improve, as the Commission itself improves, and to pass on the benefits to the injured workers.

I guess in the situation, Mr. Speaker, I could have maintained a status quo and done nothing, but I did not do that. Whatever flexibility I had to work within, I did it to make improvements to the system. As I said, as the financial position of the Commission improves I will continue to work to improve benefits to the injured workers.

Having said that, I have to maintain the integrity of the system. Therefore, that is what we have done.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, last fall in this House, when questioned about the Canada Pension offset, that minister and the Premier gave assurances that it would be taken care of.

Mr. Speaker, the recommendations that came down, that the minister implemented, did not take care of the CPP offset as recommended by the Statutory Review Committee.

Minister, were you buying time on behalf of government? And why did you not accept the recommendations with respect to the CPP offset as outlined in the Statutory Review Committee recommendations?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR LANGDON: No, Mr. Speaker, we were not buying time. I had the Commission have two external audits, to look at all the possibilities that were there. What we have been able to do, Mr. Speaker, is the maximum at this particular time, as I said, to improve the benefits, even though modest to the worker, but maintaining the integrity of the system. I know, as I said, it is a delicate balance to maintain, but that is basically what I have been trying to do, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Minister, let me say this to you: Your delicate balance of the system does not hold water.

I do not understand, in today's age, where a Statutory Review Committee - and I would like the minister to answer this question: How is it that a minister responsible for Environment and Labour, and in particular the administration and regulation of the Worker's Compensation Commission, can fly in the face of a recommendation that says that taking 100 per cent of Canada Pension disability benefits is not right, that it amounts to saying to a worker who has paid into a pension plan -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: It is a question, I say, Mr. Speaker, but I will attempt to hurry it up.

That a worker who has paid into a contributory plan, where an independent committee recommends that 50 per cent of Canada Pension be given back to workers: How is it that you, as minister, does not accept the premise and the principle upon which this recommendation was made?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I have said to the hon. the Opposition Leader right from the beginning, if we were to have implemented all of the recommendations that were suggested in the Statutory Review Committee, it would have added an extra $70 million to the unfunded liability. We would have been back to the position that we were in in 1992. Mr. Speaker, I just could not, as a minister, do that to the system.

Therefore, what we have been able to do is maintain a balance here, as I said, by improving the benefits to the injured workers and maintaining the stability of the system.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, essentially what is done is that the people's money has been stolen. This is a contributory pension plan. Essentially what the independent committee found was that it would cost an extra $1.8 million to put back the 50 per cent offset or to implement that recommendation.

Is it too much to ask, minister, is it too much to ask, $1.8 million per year out of the commission, so that people who contributed to Canada Pension Plan, to a pension plan that was supposed to be there for them, is it too much to ask that this government give them back at least their contributions?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Leader of the Opposition would know, we are halfway there, 25 per cent, and as the commission's financial stability improves then we will look at doing whatever we can for the injured workers. As I said, Mr. Speaker, and have continued to say, we have to maintain the financial integrity of the system for all injured workers and whatever we can do to improve the contribution to injured workers as the system improves, we will do just that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: What the Leader of the Opposition does know, is that we have million dollar cheques to hand out to fly-by-night companies that can survive seven months, and we cannot come with $1.8 million to pass back to workers, of their own money, Mr. Speaker. That is what I do know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: My final question. This will be the fourth or fifth time in the last four or five years that I have asked this question, and I will ask it again today: Will the minister make a commitment today that somebody from the Injured Workers' Association of Newfoundland and Labrador will find a seat on the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission Board of Directors? Will he make that commitment today, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR LANGDON: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to make that commitment today, but what I will say to the hon. member, as he would know, that at the commission you have workers' reps, you have the nurses' union represented, you have the Federation of Labour represented, they represent workers, employers' groups and you have independent people at large. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, they administer the plan over at the commission. I will take that into consideration with all the other appointments and at the end of the day it will be considered, but I am not going to make a commitment right now.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, on May 28, when he made his announcement, and in three successive Question Periods since then, the Minister of Environment and Labour has left the impression he considers this round of workers' compensation reform to be a closed book. He has seen the Statutory Review Committee's recommendations and he has made his decision. Now, that is all, it is over.

In view of the fact that injured workers themselves have expressed outrage in the past week over what the minister has failed to do, in light of the committee's recommendation, does the minister still hold the position that this is a closed book, or is he open to making significant changes this year to the Workers' Compensation Review, in response to the ground swell of opposition from the Province's injured workers?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I have said to the Member for Conception Bay South before, we are looking at the integrity of the commission and every dollar that we can give back to the injured workers and maintain the system, we will do it and we will keep monitoring it. But I cannot make a commitment today that there will be changes made within the next little while.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Statutory Review Committee was a lengthy and thorough independent review of the workers' compensation practices, especially, I say to the minister, involving deeming.

Will the minister today commit to this House to place a member of the Injured Workers' Association on the review committee that will now review the deeming policy of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission in this Province?

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

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to remind the hon. member that the committee that was set up right after Christmas to do the deeming was made up of the President of the Injured Workers' Association. I think he is President or Chair, I am not sure, but he was a part of that particular committee and obviously knows what was agreed to because the report that was given to me was unanimous.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will also ask the minister: Will he commit to the House today, to immediately invoke the recommendations of the Statutory Review Committee that were recommended in the Statutory Review Committee report that went to the minister? Will you today, sir, make a commitment to this House that those recommendations will be implemented, especially as they relate to deeming?

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

MR LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, are they concerning deeming or is it (inaudible)?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR LANGDON: I want to say to the hon. member that, as we speak, the Commission has implemented a number a things that have been done in the deeming process. I mentioned in the House one day before that the Commission could, if it so decides, call in an injured worker for one hour at a time. We have said no, four hours at a minimum of five days a week. That is twenty hours that the injured worker can come in.

We have looked at the labour market, and basically what we have done is looked at it regionally from HRD job classifications. No doubt it is going to be costing the Commission more to be able to do that, but obviously we want to make sure the injured worker is part of the deeming process. Obviously it was a commitment that we made, and I want to follow through and make sure that what we suggested, as far as the deeming goes, does become a part of it.

I want to say also, Mr. Speaker, while I am here, that I, as a minister, am not monitoring the deeming. It is being done by the Commission. It is a workers' rep, employer rep, and a rep at large. Therefore, if they want to make sure that it is done, they run the Commission, the Board of Directors. It is not me. So therefore if deeming doesn't work, don't come back at me and look at it. There is also the board and the committee that is going to run it.

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

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister today, that I think it's incumbent upon the minister - after all, he is responsible for this department - that you ensure today that these recommendations be implemented. You wouldn't leave it to the workers' compensation review committee, that you would immediately implement these recommendations today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FRENCH: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to ask the minister: Does the minister think the review committee did a poor job? Does he think that it was not honest or forthright or thorough enough? Is that why he is second-guessing their findings and recommendations, by giving deeming another year to prove itself, because he lacks the faith in the very committee his own government appointed?

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

MR LANGDON: Definitely not, Mr. Speaker. As I said, the committee that was put in place, of which the Injured Workers' Association was a part of, they set up the guidelines and now the Commission will follow them. At the end of the year they will report to me what the findings are. They monitor it day-to-day, week-to-week, as the Commission itself works.

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

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

My questions are also for the Minister of Environment and Labour. I hope he can answer these today.

Northwest River is one of the most pristine and environmentally sensitive parts of the Province, adjacent to Terra Nova National Park and the Bay du Nord Wilderness area, and has important eco-tourism and recreational value. The minister has in his possession a letter from an eminent freshwater marine biologist from Memorial University with twenty-three years of experience in this field, urging the Premier and the minister to put the breaks on the hydro development at Northwest River before irreparable damage is done. This PhD makes clear to the minister, in vivid detail, that eliminating a major part of the flow in this river will have a devastating impact on the food chain all the way up the line in this sensitive eco-system and will threaten the existence of the unique salmon population.

The Premier often talks, Mr. Speaker, of selling this Province to the world on the basis of its strengths, one of them being our rich unspoiled wilderness and abundance of fish and marine life.

I ask the minister: Is the minister now prepared to step back from the brink and put the brakes on the Northwest River hydro development, as this eminent scientist is urging?

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

MR LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, as we speak, the particular project is going to an environmental system. There has been no report given to me, and so therefore, as we speak, it is still in progress. We have to carry out the full environmental study.

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

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

The minister talks of giving the environmental assessment process a chance to do its work, and that we should put our trust in this process which will ensure that everything is okay. The evidence elsewhere tells us that this process is often flawed, factors are missed, the assessors make mistakes, and proper environmental follow-up is ignored and irreparable damage is done.

Will the Minister confirm that the Star Lake project, a project assessed and approved by this very system, has not received the environmental follow-up that is expected and required, and the impacts of the development have already done severe damage to rare strains of fish.

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

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have monitored Star Lake very strenuous over the last number of months, and we believe we have the safeguards in place to maintain the integrity of the system.

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

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

The hydro development on North West River is bad news, Minister. If it were more visible, such as the Rennies River or the Waterford River, you would have to hang your head in shame over the proposal to dam it.

Will you acknowledge that the small amount of power that you claim we need to get at the expense of decimating the North West River could, in fact, be derived entirely from developments that hydro itself have proposed at Granite Canal in Holyrood, and from the identification of energy efficiencies? In other words, will you admit that the North West River private hydro development is not needed and is not good for the environment?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is to the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal.

Minister, I understand there was a meeting here in St. John's on Monday past between the federal and provincial officials to discuss the contents of a post-TAGS program. Obviously such an important meeting that would affect the future of thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians would be attended by a committee of Cabinet. I ask the minister: Which Cabinet members attended that meeting? Did you, Minister, take part in that particular meeting?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman that there was a meeting in St. John's this week, which was requested by the federal government (inaudible) officials. They came down and met with the officials. It was not a ministers' meeting, it was not a political meeting, it was not at the political level, and there were not any Cabinet ministers in attendance.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would have thought that a committee that was travelling to this Province and about to make such an important decision to affect the lives of in excess of 20,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that we would have made sure we would have had somebody from Cabinet, from that side of the House, to make sure we get our full and fair share.

Mr. Speaker, the provincial Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is reported in today's Evening Telegram as saying that it is possible there has been some delay in a post-TAGS response. He went on to say: This is because Ottawa must deal with the troubled salmon fishery on the West Coast of Canada -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

I ask the minister if he accepts this uncaring approach, since I certainly do not. I say to the minister, let us deal with the major problems right here in this Province, and let us let the West Coast of this country look after their own affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, I have never seen a more hostile mood among frustrated Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, especially fishermen and fish plant workers, as I am seeing and hearing out there today, Mr. Speaker. The federal government controls the ability of many of our communities and many of our residents to survive.

Minister, I ask when you and your government will start speaking out and asking Ottawa to end this procrastination? I ask you also, Mr. Minister, when you will insist that the people in the front rows of your government be involved in the decision-making process that affects so many people's lives in this Province today?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman that the truth of the matter is - he knows this - we have carried on this process very well. All of the people in this Legislature have been involved in telling the federal government what we want to see in a program. We have told them, for example, that we do want to see licence retirement; we do want to see early retirement; we need to see income support; we need to see an economic development fund in this program, and there has been representation made.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to him that even though there were no Cabinet ministers present at that meeting - and there was no reason why they should be because it was an officials' meeting; it was not a political level meeting - let me assure him that we conveyed, as soon as that proposal was put in front of us... It was not, in my opinion, a consultation. It was the federal government coming here and saying: Here is what we intend to do.

As soon as that proposal was put in front of the officials, they immediately conveyed government's feelings that this did not meet adequately the needs of people who have been affected by this program, by the downturn in the fishing industry, by the collapse of the groundfish industry, and that indeed it did not show that the federal government was acting in a responsible manner.

Mr. Speaker, we have conveyed that feeling on a political level to the federal government, and we will continue to carry on the fight that we have been carrying on since last November on behalf of the people of this Province.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will direct my question to the Minister of Health and Community Services.

She said in this House on Monday that there is a committee or a group of expert physicians and other clinical pharmacologists who are working on her behalf in the Atlantic region in recommending drugs for MS.

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

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

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

They are comprised of representatives from the four Atlantic Provinces. We have representatives from this Province in addition to our own officials in the department. We also are working very closely with the Progressive Conservative government in Prince Edward Island, with the Liberal governments in Nova Scotia as well as in New Brunswick, so we are working as a group of people, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by
Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to statutory requirements, I am pleased to table in the House the report of the Public Tender Act exemptions for the month of April, 1998.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to table the audited financial statements for the pooled pension fund for the year ended December 31, 1997. The pension fund grew by 12.2 per cent last year and had investments with a market value totalling $1,449,900,000 at the end of the year. Mr. Speaker, that is the long and short of it really. There were 13,138 pensions on payroll, at a total cost of (inaudible) annually.

Thank you.

 

Petitions

 

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

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

I rise again today to present a petition on behalf of some parents who live in St. Anthony and Griquet and various communities, who live in communities where their children attend St. Anthony Elementary School.

Mr. Speaker, the petition is similar to one that we had presented previously, but they are arriving on a daily basis so I want to present them as they arrive.

Mr. Speaker, the petition is again drawing to the attention of the hon. House the fact that there is a proposed teaching allocation reduction at St. Anthony Elementary School for next year of 2.64 teaching units, and that the parents feel this teaching reduction is going to have a serious, negative impact on the quality of programs that their children will have available to them.

Mr. Speaker, the parents are concerned that the government is not hearing the concerns of School District #2. Although the Minister of Education in the House a couple of weeks ago said that he was giving some consideration to the effectiveness of the teacher allocation formulas as they apply to rural Newfoundland, in particular to School District #2, we have not had any indication to the school board trustees or to the parent councils in that district as to what he means by `willing to review', or willing to take that district and make it kind of a test case or to give further consideration to more teachers being allocated to that school district.

Mr. Speaker, the parents are concerned that these changes to teacher allocation will have a negative impact on the quality of programs as offered in French, art, physical education, music and the learning resource programs.

Mr. Speaker, there are over 4,000 students in School District #2. Under the provincial allocation for guidance counsellors, they get four guidance counsellors; four guidance counsellors who have to serve children who are in schools that stretch from River of Ponds in the southern part of that district right north to Norman's Bay. We know, given the geography of that district, that four guidance counsellors cannot do an adequate job.

The parents who are signing this petition are saying they want a better deal out of school reform. These parents are saying they voted for and eagerly participated in the referendums in 1995 and 1997. They are saying they voted for a better system. They didn't vote for further cutbacks. They didn't say they were giving the government permission to balance the provincial Budget on the backs of schoolchildren.

They did vote for reinvestment in education. That is why that board is prepared to ask the parents if they would agree to close schools. Last year eight schools in that district closed their doors. This year three more schools are preparing to close their doors, and there are consultations ongoing at the moment with the parents in various communities to that effect.

The parents say they have done what they feel was best for their children; however, now they are saying to the government: We want the government to do what is best for the children as well. That does not mean that you are going to take music, art, physical education and learning resource personnel out of the school system. We know that twenty of the thirty-four schools in that district are designated as small necessarily existing schools.

We know that perhaps in no other school district is the impact of small communities and the rural nature so great as it is in School District #2. Therefore these parents are arguing for special consideration. They are saying if that means scrap the current allocation formulas, then so be it. If that means we have to do that in order to have a good, effective school program, then that is what should be done.

We cannot stand and say we are so proud of educational reform if it is not going to have some meaning at the classroom level. That is why the parents in School District #2, particularly the parents who signed the petition in St. Anthony, Griquet and St. Lunaire, are saying that school reform doesn't mean what it was intended to mean for their children. They are saying to this Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: - and to the Minister of Education, please do what is right for the children of their district, and in particular, St. Anthony Elementary School.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to rise today and support the petition that has been presented by the Member for Waterford Valley on behalf of the parents and the students in the St. Anthony region.

I think it is quite obvious - it has been obvious in this House, it has been obvious in the media, it has been obvious around the Province - the great distress and pressure that parents within District #2 are being placed under, the uncertainty that is entailed within that district in terms of schools, courses, curriculum, and what the future plan for education is going to be for a lot of these people.

I think the department definitely has to go back, reassess, and start working with the schools individually to try and tackle some of the issues that are being brought forward. The people in the St. Anthony area and in that region have certainly been treated unjustly. A year ago the people of St. Lunaire, Griquet, Goose Cove and other communities agreed to have their children bused to a larger school, agreed to allow their children access to more programming, a more enhanced curriculum, more teachers, a broader variety of education and so on. Now, one year later, those same children are still on the bus but they are not receiving the service.

This is very unfair. When we looked at education reform we did so, and people gave us the support to go out and make the changes and to make adjustments that would benefit them. I think at the initial stages of negotiations for those schools a year ago a lot of them were doing this in good faith, not expecting that today teachers would be taken out of the classrooms and not more teachers put in. I do not think they were expecting that some of the curriculum and some of the courses that were provided in the school, and what caused them to opt to send their children there, would be taken away. I think that has come very unexpectedly to them.

The people in District 2, Mr. Speaker, and a lot of them within my district, are certainly going to feel the impact of the cuts and what is happening with education, particularly related to their schools. You look at the parents in Red Bay and what they are being faced with, some major changes within their schools, some very viable courses that will not be offered come next year. The students in that school, especially in the high school program, are going to be at a severe disadvantage in comparison to a lot of places in the Province.

When you look at the parents and the teachers and the children in the community of L'Anse au Clair, Mr. Speaker, they do not know if their school will be open in September or if it will be closed. They do not know what the future is for them, whether they will be putting their five-year-olds on a bus this year and sending them to a school a couple of communities away, or whether the neighbourhood school will remain open.

Like the parents on the Northern Peninsula, Mr. Speaker, Hawkes Bay, Plum Point, all the communities, have expressed concern and uncertainty because the teaching staff in their schools has been affected, because they are going to lose programs and co-ordinators. Then we look to the Coast of Labrador, also within that district, to communities like Normans Bay and Williams Harbour which will have one teacher in a classroom, almost one teacher in a school for multi-grades, and the fact that there is one counsellor to provide services to all of these schools and the travel that is required by that.

I think the parents in this district are doing the right thing, Mr. Speaker. They are standing up for the future education of their children, and we all know in this House how important education is, the importance that we place on it with our young people, in equipping them for the future and allowing them to have all the advantages of children all across this country, Mr. Speaker. We do not want to see them neglected, we want to see whatever can be available to them made available to them.

I want to urge the department, Mr. Speaker, to look at these schools, to talk to these parents, to deal with this board. This board has done a remarkable job in trying to bring some order and some prospect to education within that district, but they need assistance too, Mr. Speaker. They need to be given some guidance, some leeway, some flexibility. They need to be given the tools to do it with, as I said yesterday, and the tool in this case is the teacher, the teacher who is going to be in that classroom, the teacher who has the qualifications, the skills to be able to deliver a quality program to these children. That is what we are lacking right now, Mr. Speaker.

A lot of people can look at these schools and see that the cuts of one-third or 25 per cent or half a unit and so on is insignificant and is very little, but it is a lot when you talk about small schools and it makes a tremendous amount of difference.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time up.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

Orders of the Day

 

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 18, Bill No. 24, "An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act". I know the minister is ready and waiting.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act', (Bill No. 24).

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to take a couple of minutes, by way of introduction of this bill, to make a few comments, to address some of the issues that have, frankly, been raised already, to a large extent, by the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis in some of the previous Question Periods, and allude to some of the other issues that arise as a result of this bill.

I want to say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that there are two or three main reasons why we move to propose some amendments at this time to the Public Tender Act.

First of all, of course, the Act has not been substantially reviewed in a great many years, the last change to it having happened in 1994. We felt it was appropriate, as government, to review an Act that is really an evolving piece of legislation because of the type of business that we conduct under the Act. Of course, in terms of the business environment, both within government and within the private industry out there, it changes from time to time.

Secondly, over the last number of years we have entered into, as a province, various trade agreements with other provinces, particularly the AIT, the Agreement on Internal Trade, and the APA, the Atlantic Procurement Accord. We wanted, of necessity, to bring our legislation, in terms of the Public Tender Act, in line with and to be consistent with what is happening in other jurisdictions.

Thirdly, of course, Mr. Speaker, there is a fair amount of attention being paid to the whole issue of giving fair and equitable access, I would say, to the local business community, particularly the small manufacturing sector, for opportunities to bid on goods and services we acquire, as government, from time to time. That is basically the third reason why we moved to do the review that we have done, and the consultation we undertook.

I want to thank, at the outset, Mr. Speaker, those who participated in the consultation process and who added value to this exercise by virtue of their participation. We had 120-odd people show up, I believe, at various public forums that we held, we had forty-two written presentations, and in addition to that I think we had eight separate groups come in to make representation to us.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to also acknowledge the efforts and the contribution that has been made by the hon. the Member for St. John's South. He, as a member of the Opposition, performing his appropriate role on that side of the House, took keen interest in the whole issue of providing equitable opportunity for local business manufacturers, and I acknowledge that contribution, and I thank him for the contribution. He has been following this thing along, and I have to say, quite honestly, he has been helpful. He hasn't been obstructionist, he hasn't been out there saying things that were, in a sense, grandstanding. He has been out there trying to make, I believe, an honest and a valuable contribution, and I want to acknowledge the role he has played.

I want also to say that the hon. member himself put forward some suggestions, and I believe that as he looks at the bill he will see we have reflected to some extent some of the representation he has made on this issue. It is only fair that we acknowledge that and say that it is a part of the process that we went through. It gave him the opportunity, and he on his own took the opportunity, to help us out in this regard.

The amendments we have proposed, Mr. Speaker, to this Public Tender Act, as a result of the consultations we have undertaken, are really a reflection of the information and the representation we received through the process. We heard, as we went around the Province, from municipalities, health boards, other government funded bodies, chambers of commerce, the provincial Chamber of Commerce on behalf of their network of organizations, the St. John's Board of Trade, the Newfoundland and Labrador Construction Association and the Newfoundland and Labrador Road Builders Association. Broadly put, the high level of representation we received and the in-depth level of work that they put into their presentations are really reflected in the four or five significant amendments that we are now making to the Public Tender Act.

A couple of these amendments are rather in terms of the process we are going through here, housekeeping in nature, but there are three or four areas which I think I should make mention of.

In terms of increasing the thresholds from $7,500 to $10,000, and $20,000 in terms of construction, we are really only making incremental increases to reflect the additional value of those types of contracts. Simply put, 1994 dollars at $7,500 are about 1998 dollars at about $10,000. These types of threshold changes, Mr. Speaker, I think we would all acknowledge are normal and appropriate, and we should continue to do that as we move forward in time.

One of the other recommendations we are reflecting in the amendments we have brought forward in this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to open up the method of tendering in terms of how we advertize our tenders as government. At the moment the act says we have to be confined to a newspaper circulation that is generally available everywhere in the Province. The fact of the matter is that we are now in the age of the Internet, we are in the age of the Website, and it is only appropriate that we open up our tendering process to reflect and to make available to ourselves and to other government funded bodies the ability to advertise in alternate means, other than newspapers that are of general circulation in the Province.

It gives the municipalities, as I said before, in areas like Happy Valley - Goose Bay, the opportunity to use their local newspaper. It also gives government the opportunity to move to one of the three or four electronic systems that are now out there, and that would cost government nothing to access. It would be, in effect, a user pay system for those who want to pull down tendered documents off the Internet. So, I think that type of amendment is also quite timely and appropriate in the circumstance.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, we have entered into a number of trade agreements across the country. One of these trade agreements, an internal trade agreement, is an agreement that provides for every other jurisdiction in the country, for every other province in the country, the ability to exempt under the Public Tender Act, on a one time basis, to commence with certain acquisitions of goods or services where it is deemed by those other provinces to be in greater economic interest to the province to exempt them for a specific reason. So, that is a change that the member has been asking me some questions about, as I said, in Question Period.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that no other jurisdiction, no other Province, including the federal government, has a Public Tender Act. We cannot allow ourselves, Mr. Speaker, to be disadvantaged as a result of anything that we might have in terms of our legislation.

So simply put, we are making this change to recognize that there are, or at least there may be in the future, as there probably have been in the past, specific identifiable areas where it would have significant over-riding economic benefit to the Province to be able to exempt a certain procurement or activity from The Public Tender Act for a specific purpose and in a pacific time frame.

While we do not see great usage of this, frankly, Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to put ourselves in the circumstance to be disadvantaged by other Provinces. I can only think of one other circumstance or one other instance at the moment where it has been used in Atlantic Canada. Just to point out how serious some of the other Provinces take it, let me say that in Atlantic Canada, in New Brunswick, on one occasion they invoked this particular ability within their procurement practises to exempt the purchase of paint for painting lines on highways. They deemed that in their Province the manufacturer of paint was of such significance to them, that they exempted it under this type of an exemption. Mr. Speaker, that is just, by way of example, one of the things or one of the applications or type of applications that this could have.

In all of these processes, Mr. Speaker, including this one, of course Cabinet has the final say. Government at the end of the day has to be answerable for its actions and there has to be total and complete transparency.

The other thing I would say, Mr. Speaker, is that notwithstanding this, the fact of the matter is that the exemption for economic development purposes, or the ability of government to use RFPs in certain other circumstances, is still subject to The Public Tender Act. Simply put, Mr. Speaker, all of the changes that we have made today, we have made to The Public Tender Act, and all of the things and all of the activities that happen in terms of procurement in the future, whether being tendered directly, whether it is calling of prices for products, getting three prices for products, whether it is under $10,000, whether it is a RFP process or whether it is an exemption for economic development purposes, they are all activities that are still subject to a Public Tender Act. We are not removing them, taking them out from the ambit of a Public Tender Act. Everything is still going to be within The Public Tender Act scope. There will be a complete transparency, there will be complete openness and there will be a process of reporting that is represented by Cabinet affirmation and by reporting to the House of Assembly, as I did, Mr. Speaker, just a few minutes ago with respect to tendering exemptions.

The fact of the matter is this - at least, this is the view of government and it has been certainly affirmed by the business community out there - the current Public Tender Act says this: In 100 per cent of all of our acquisitions, in 100 per cent of all of the things that we want to acquire by way of goods and services, we have to prescribe a solution and then go to tender and subject it to that subjective type of process.

Everybody has told us, the Boards of Trade, construction associations, and all in-between, that in some circumstances government would be better served if there was a process where, in unique situations, they could use an RFP so that we could get the best value for money spent. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, the best price does not in 100 per cent of the circumstances translate into best value. In 99.9 per cent of the situations, the fact of the matter is that tendering, as we traditionally do it, is the way to go and is the way we will continue to go. I would say, in 99.9 per cent of everything we do, the Public Tender Act will have the trigger point of the lowest price being the way in which we do business. There are exceptional circumstances. Because of new and evolving innovations out there, that we would like to know something about, that we do not know about, we need more open and transparent processes that we can engage in.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that all of these amendments today are amendments that are appropriate. They are amendments that have been widely endorsed by all of the stakeholders. They are amendments that are being asked for and being looked forward to by the business community out there, as well as the whole range of government-funded bodies that are subjected to the Public Tender Act.

In all of this, Mr. Speaker, the underlying principle, that government wants to ensure remains and has evolved in all of this, is the principle that this will continue to be an Act that is highly respected, notwithstanding the fact that we are the only ones in the country with it. We believe there is a lot of virtue in having a Public Tender Act. We have no intention of weakening it, we have no intention of degrading it, we have no intention of taking away from our public tendering and purchasing processes the transparency that currently exist, we have no intention of taking away fairness and balance from those who want to acquire goods and services, and we have no intention of doing anything that is not reasonable, respectable, honourable, transparent and that will give, at the end of the day, the taxpayers of this Province the best possible value for the dollars that we spend on their behalf.

After all, Mr. Speaker, in all of the dollars we spend, whether it is procurement dollars, whether it is programming dollars or whatever types of money we spend as government, we are actually only trustees of the people's money, the taxpayers' largesse towards us, that we collect on their behalf and we spend for their benefit. We have an incumbent responsibility, as government, to ensure that we spend those tax dollars in the wisest, most prudent, most honourable, and most transparent way. The amendments that we brought forward today will certainly do that.

There is just one other area where we are bringing forward amendments, and that is to the great benefit of the local manufacturing community. The hon. member from St. John's South, as I say, took a direct interest in this. Let me say this: The amendments that we are putting forward today will, for the first time ever, cause to be the first point of reference for goods and services that are specified in a tendering process of whatever fashion, it will cause to be the first reference point the Registry of Newfoundland Manufactured Products as maintained by the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology. There is currently a Registry of Local Manufacturers in existence.

We are putting in legislation, a requirement that this Registry will be formulated to identify, in generic fashion, all of the locally manufactured products in this country. From here on in, when a specifier, architect, engineer, or a procurement agency on behalf of government wants to make a procurement, the reference point in terms of specification will be to a Newfoundland manufactured product as opposed to a product that is manufactured somewhere else, in some other part of the world.

No more will there be out there, Mr. Speaker, the ability of an architect to say: I want to specify bricks that are made in Nova Scotia. No more will there be the ability to say: I want to specify windows that are made in Ontario. The first requirement will be to the registry and the registry will be in generic form, a description of those types of products manufactured in Newfoundland, and that will be the reference point in the first instance for specifying products. This has been loudly and roundly received as a very positive and as a very forward looking initiative on behalf of government by the Newfoundland and Labrador Manufacturers Association.

We have gone one step further than that, Mr. Speaker. We have said that in cases where subcontractors are bidding on government work and where there is no requirement to respect our Public Tender Act, we are saying that in the case where these subcontractors have to or want to acquire products that are made in Newfoundland that they must make available also to the Newfoundland business community, the local manufacturers, et cetera, first opportunity or equitable opportunity to be able to bid on their products.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, particularly in the catering sector, the people who now do the catering services for the Health Sciences and for the health care boards, will be required to ensure that local manufacturers get a shot at doing business with them by virtue of the tenders that they have won, the awards they have won with us.

Mr. Speaker, this also is a very forward looking and a very accommodating action for government to take on their behalf. It does not guarantee anybody anything and they have never asked for guarantees. It simply says, Mr. Speaker, that they will have equitable access to being able to bid on those products and that is all they have ever asked for. They will then compete, of course, with all of the other people out there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I read a little more than congratulatory connotations into that demonstration. I read into that, Mr. Speaker, that there may be a sense that I should draw my comments to a close.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding their great desire to get out of the House, or their great desire to see this bill passed, I believe it is of sufficient importance to have an appropriate explanation of what we are doing here.

I think, Mr. Speaker, these comments cover the four or five significant amendments that are in this act. I would be interested in hearing the comments of the members on the other side and I would be happy to answer any questions in closing debate.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation should do us all a favour now and tear this up and flick it out. I saw the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation get on his feet and try to explain and give reasons why he is making some major changes to the Public Tender Act. All I heard from him was rationalization, not an explanation but rationalization, a big difference.

Now, Mr. Speaker, earlier today we saw the minister present in this House a list of exemptions from the Public Tender Act. What you will see, if these amendments go through this House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, is no more lists like that come into this House of Assembly. We will see no more lists like that, where the minister will have to report and other ministers of the Crown will have to report to this House of Assembly, because it will be a free-for-all.

Mr. Speaker, the Public Tender Act was first implemented to give a level playing field to people, businesses and industries in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what it was brought in for in the first place, Mr. Speaker. With the amendments that are being proposed here today - the major amendments, by the way, that the minister neglected to speak about. I don't know if it was deliberate or not but he did not have much to say about the major amendments that are being proposed.

Now, with respect to the development, I suppose, of the Registry of Manufacturers and Producers, Mr. Speaker, that is a positive step. That is where this all started from. The Member for St. John's South saw some injustices being done in the Province and spoke up and made a case of it. What we saw happen was, we saw the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation and this Administration take advantage of that and they saw the door open. We have an opportunity here now to make some changes to the Public Tender Act that the people do not want. The minister talked about having consultations. I made a few notes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: What is your problem?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I will get to the facts. A little bit of good news, I will say, for the beginning. That is the attitude they have, this group here, good news all the time. There is very little good news in this, I will tell you that, other than what I just mentioned, the registry. I said this government saw an opportunity to make major changes to the Public Tender Act, and that is what they took advantage of.

They talked about having consultations across the Province. One hundred and twenty people, they said, forty-two written presentations, and eight groups. At the same time we had presentations across this Province, we had meetings, and we had people address our meetings, with the Member for St. John's South.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Opposition party had it, I would say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, just like you. You take credit for what you do over there; I will take credit for what is necessary on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker. You can wind me up; I am going to be going for awhile, I can guarantee you that. I thought I would need notes to speak on this, but when the minister got up all I had to do was write down a few things here. Look, three pages on what he said, and he didn't even address the major amendments that are coming in this piece of legislation. He just skimmed over them, scaled around them, which I will address in due course.

I said maybe two months ago that when the minister announced there would be changes coming to the Public Tender Act, the concerns on this side of the House were that he would weaken the Public Tender Act. He has gone beyond weakening it; he is completely repealing it. It is almost to the point where he won't even have a Public Tender Act. The minister stood in his place here today and said: Everything is going to be done; we will still have a Public Tender Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: Be honest, now.

MR. J. BYRNE: I will be honest. Just listen here now to some of the - and this is what you didn't address. It says here, the new paragraph 3(2)(i) means the government will not have to invite public tenders "where, in the opinion of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, and subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council," - Cabinet, and what is Cabinet made up of, Mr. Speaker? - "the work or acquisition is for an economic development purpose..."

That gives the government, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, some pretty wide latitude, let me tell you that: "in the opinion" of one individual. That is the problem I have.

For economic development - if we have someone building a house, it is economic development. That is pretty lax. It gives a lot of leeway for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. In fact, what will happen is you will see other government departments putting stuff through the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology to get around, to circumvent, what he calls what is left of the Public Tender Act. It is weakening the Public Tender Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture says it is 27 Celsius outdoors, and so be it. We are here in this House of Assembly to represent the people of the Province. If the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture does not want to be in the House of Assembly to represent the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the people in his district, then he should resign. There is no one forcing him to stay here. If he wants to be out in the sun when we have business to attend to in the House of Assembly, so be it, let him go. There is no one who has him tied on here.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) listening to you.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, he says there is no one keyed in listening to me. If I can recall, when he was on this side of the House he was a person who was on his feet pretty often mouthing off. The difference between him and me is that I have something to say. He had nothing to say at the time, and usually he has nothing to say when he gets to his feet.

I will continue on. I have an hour to speak, I think, to address this, and I will certainly use up my time and address the concerns. I am going to be on record in this House of Assembly. Even though they have the majority over there and they will eventually push this bill through the House of Assembly - I do not know what time, today, tomorrow, the next day, I do not know when, but they have the majority and they will do it - I will be on record, when we have another Trans City come through this House of Assembly, as having said: This is what is going to happen. And it will happen, Mr. Speaker, you can mark that down.

As I said, the registry of manufacturers is a positive step; there is no doubt about that. It will give people in the Province, manufacturers, accessibility and opportunity to have government contracts, and rightly so. That is where it all started, as I said earlier, so I will compliment the minister on that and say `yes', but he should not take the opportunity to basically try and bring in changes to the Public Tender Act to completely repeal it, Mr. Speaker.

When the minister was up, when he was concluding his remarks, he said that the government and this act now, with the changes made, will actually allow government to spend their dollars more wisely and in a more prudent way. Mr. Speaker, this government has a poor history of spending the dollars in a very prudent and wise way. I can guarantee you this, Mr. Speaker, when these changes come through, it will be less wise and less prudent. That is what is going to happen in this Province when this Administration has access to complete control and no responsibility to the House, or reporting to the House basically. He can get up and say it, but in due course we will see what will happen with respect to the Public Tender Act.

Some of the notes that I made when the minister was speaking - I will try to read my own writing. I do have some problems with it sometimes, like I say, especially when the minister is speaking quite quickly.

As I said, the minister said he had basically three reasons for changes to the Public Tender Act. I said earlier that there were no reasons given. It was more of a rationalization than an explanation. He said the act had not been reviewed since 1994. Since 1994 there had not been any changes, or it had not been reviewed, but why change something if it is working, I say to the minister? The response to that will be: We were told to change it. We were in consultation; there were recommendations made, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, there may have been some people recommending certain changes, but did they recommend the changes that are coming, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation? I doubt it very much because it is basically getting rid of the level playing field that is out there now, the reason this was brought in.

Now, Mr. Speaker, he talked about trade agreements and he wanted to have this Province in line with other jurisdictions. I do not know about that one. I would certainly have to question that, bringing us in line with other jurisdictions. He also said, (inaudible) for fair and equitable access for local businesses. Yes, for manufacturers and producers, as I said earlier, no doubt about that, but not for the other groups, probably engineering work, construction work, building of roads and highways, building of schools, and all this kind of stuff.

What is going to happen if we get rid of this, and it is open for opinions and what have you, there will be political interference. There will be pressure put on for certain things, and it will not be then based on the proposal or the tender that went in, the dollar value, and the past experience. It will be based on who you know; not what you know but who you know. That is what happened in the past. That is what happened back in the 1960s when there were cost-plus jobs put out all across this Province and people became millionaires on the backs of the taxpayers of this Province.

When the Public Tender Act was brought in, it was to get rid of that type of attitude. That is what is coming back with these changes, and I do not mind going on record as saying it. I do not care who hears me saying it. I am telling the facts as they are, Mr. Speaker.

He mentioned that the amendments being proposed are a reflection of municipalities, health boards, chambers of commerce, St. John's Board of Trade, and the Road Builders Association, and he talked about housekeeping. He talked about increasing the amount from $7,500 up to $10,000. Yes, there always has to be some housekeeping done in any legislation, but not to the extent that, there is more than housekeeping going on here with respect to this legislation.

He talked about advertising, changes to the advertising for the municipalities and what have you, Mr. Speaker. That is a positive step, I suppose. It could be considered to be advertised in local media only, depending on the size of the contracts and what have you, but then this is basically a snow job for the major changes that are coming in this act. That is what is going on here, Mr. Speaker, a snow job for the major changes that are coming in the act. He talked about the Internet and electronic systems, the electronic media where they could advertise; a snow job.

Then he talked about the internal trade agreement, that would exempt certain acquisition of goods, Mr. Speaker. What goods, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation? He says that if we don't make these changes the Province could be put in the position of a disadvantage by the other provinces. Rationalization again, no concrete statements, no concrete information, no details, Mr. Speaker. That is what the problem is here.

Here is the one. He says: Cabinet will have final say, and there will be transparency - a final say and transparency, Mr. Speaker. Now we have to understand, Mr. Speaker, that the Cabinet is made up of government members, of course. When the pressure is being put on to accept certain contracts, who is going to be making the decision? Cabinet.

He also made a statement about everything still being under the Public Tender Act. Well, it may be under it, Mr. Speaker, but there won't be much to control what is going to happen in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to the Public Tender Act.

Now another paragraph in the act -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am stating the facts as I see them. I am going on record, Mr. Speaker, that is what I'm doing here today. We will see, in due course, what will happen and who will be right, Mr. Speaker. That is what I am doing.

Another section in the act, Mr. Speaker, says that government will not have to invite public tenders where, in the opinion of the head of the government funded body, inviting a tender would not achieve the best value. Now, Mr. Speaker, they are going to make that determination of the best value on a project before they put anything out to tender. Now, how can they make that determination, I would like to know? What will the criteria be -

MR. CANNING: Should you have to advertise right across the Province (inaudible)?

MR. J. BYRNE: Now, did you hear what the Member for Labrador West said, Mr. Speaker? Should you have to advertise to buy a computer up in Labrador, in St. John's somewhere? These changes to the Public Tender Act are far more reaching than something as simple as that. That is an oversimplification, Mr. Speaker, that that administration does all the time, to try and rationalize what they want to do. That is the problem that I have with this. I welcome questions from the Member for Labrador West because he certainly gives me food for thought.

Anyway, it says: In the opinion of the head of the government funded body inviting a tender would not achieve the best value. The government funded body has, through the minister responsible for it - now, Mr. Speaker, we not only have the minister who can make the determination that they would circumvent the Public Tender Act but we have a department head who can make that determination to circumvent the Public Tender Act. Now, if anybody in this House of Assembly can stand and tell me that you are not weakening the Public Tender Act by doing this, Mr. Speaker, I would have a major, major problem with that. I don't know how anybody could actually stand in their place and make that statement and keep a serious face. I would not be able to, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, another major change coming to the Public Tender Act - and the minister did not address this when he was up. It says: Provision allowing government to change orders and to expand awarded contracts is loosened up. So the government would be able to give contractors extra work without tendering that work. Now, Mr. Speaker, there are situations where they can have an extension to a tender. It makes -

MR. MATTHEWS: That doesn't change.

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, it does change, I say to the Minister of Works, Services. You can have an extension now, but there are limits on it. But if you look at the legislation that is being proposed, there could be an extension, then an extension on an extension, and an extension on an extension. So in actual fact, they could go above what was -

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, that is right. Isn't it? Definitely, I would say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. The extension -

MR. CANNING: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I asked for? What province or what planet does the Member for Labrador West live on, I ask, Mr. Speaker? I haven't got a clue. He is over there making statements that I requested that. I don't know where I requested it. The questions I asked in this House of Assembly certainly didn't indicate that I would be asking that.

Also, the new clause in the exemption area of the act will give broad discretionary power to government to avoid calling for public tenders. So far, Mr. Speaker, I am only referring to a news release I put out with respect to these changes or proposed changes. I have to be -

MR. CANNING: Do you have a copy?

MR. J. BYRNE: I would say your office was the first to receive a copy, I would say to the Member for Labrador West.

Mr. Speaker, here is one of the problems here. Public procurement is an area of government activity that can be subject to enormous pressure to direct purchasing that is not in the public interest. Basically, if the changes to the Public Tender Act are brought in, Mr. Speaker, what you will see is pressure put on government by businesses. I will get political here. What you will see then is the people who are making the big contributions to the political parties - that is where this all came from in the first place - will end up with the work. That is what happened in the past, that is what history tells us, and I can tell you right here and now that I can predict the future. I don't have a crystal ball, but that is what is going to happen with these changes, Mr. Speaker, and I have major, major problems with it.

Mr. Speaker, these amendments throw wide open the opportunity to opt out of the public tendering for very vague reasons, leaving government with the opportunity to avoid public tenders. The amendment virtually repeals the entire act, and it really does. I think if anybody sat down with a fair and logical mind and looked at these changes, and looked at how vague the situations are that are being proposed here, where, "in the opinion of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology," where in the opinion of the department head, that they can make changes, circumvent the Public Tender Act, go for a request for a proposal rather than a public tender, all for economic development: "Where, in the opinion of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology," the tender or the request for a proposal, whatever it is going to be, is for economic development. Can you believe that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The changes in themselves will allow the ministers to circumvent the Public Tender Act by the legislation itself. That is the problem, I say to the Member for Labrador West.

What about accountability, Mr. Speaker, in the public procurement? There will be work put out right, left and centre that we will know nothing about. That is what I would say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be able to stand in my place and support this. When the time comes I will have to vote against this, I can tell you that right here and now. I will definitely be opposing this when the time comes, maybe next Wednesday or Thursday night, 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning. That is what I will be doing.

Mr. Speaker, what is in the bill in detail? We went through this bill in detail, and some of the things I have to bring up here now are these. The term "economic development purpose" is not defined in the act. That is what I was referring to earlier. Section 12 gives the Cabinet the power to define the term by regulations, and Cabinet can rejig the regulations whenever they want to. If they did put in a definition in the regulations of "economic development," they could change it at any time themselves without coming back to the House of Assembly. They won't have to change the legislation, just change the regulation. That is all they would have to do.

MR. McLEAN: It is more workable.

MR. J. BYRNE: More workable! I would say it is more workable. That is just the problem I have with it. It is more workable for whom, I ask the Minister of Government Services and Lands? When you want to give a contract to an individual or to a group, oh, just rejig the regulations, change the definition, and it will not have to come to the House of Assembly. That is what this is all about.

In actual fact, the Minister of Government Services and Lands is agreeing with what I am saying. So more than likely he will stand in his place and vote against this legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: If I was opposed to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: A lot of the stuff to be accomplished, that was required or asked or whatever from the groups going around, could have been done by regulation. It did not have to change the act and put in these vague descriptions and vague reasons to allow the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology to do what she wants, or what he wants when the minister is changed, I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the new 3(2)(j) would allow the head of the government-funded body to use his or her opinion to determine if inviting a tender would not achieve the best value. Now, what kind of latitude are we giving individuals here, Mr. Speaker? Too much latitude.

By the way, your tie does not match your shirt, I say to you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, just to continue, I have so much to say on this issue. This is very serious, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, very serious stuff.

Subclause 4(2) says the amendment regarding the change orders and extensions is contentious. It seeks to repeal section 5(3). It goes on to say, if a contract is under $100,000, the change cannot exceed $15,000. If the contract is between $100,000 and $500,000, the change cannot exceed the greater of $15,000 or 10 per cent. If a contract is over $500,000, the change cannot exceed the greater of $50,000 or 5 per cent, Mr. Speaker.

Those are pretty large numbers to talk about, Mr. Speaker. Just going on, it says that once that subsection is eliminated there is nothing to stop the government from approving - from approving, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation - successive change orders and extensions and treating each one separately so that each meets the criteria even though accumulatively they would exceed the limit.

That is what I was saying earlier, Mr. Speaker. That is what I was saying earlier, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Once that clause is dropped, they can give extensions to contracts; and when they do it bit by bit, the accumulative amount can exceed the amount that was there in the act. I think you had better sit back and have a look at that, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, just for your own information. Section 5(3)5(1), Mr. Minister, I say you should look at that area again.

Clause 5. The change is critical if the government goes ahead with the new exclusions in subclause 2(3) regarding the economic development and best value. Again, Mr. Speaker - and I seem to be harping on this, but - that is where the major changes are coming.

The minister stood in his place and talked about the media changes, and advertising and what have you, and the manufacturing registry and what have you, Mr. Speaker - positive stuff - but not the major changes, not the changes that are going to have the impact and the expenditures of this Administration and the various government departments. The changes I am talking about are in the opinion of the minister, in the opinion of the department head. That area there for economic development - my goodness, Mr. Speaker, if you talk about economic development in the Province, go back again to what I said earlier.

If someone is building a house, it is economic development; if someone is putting down two kilometres of pavement somewhere, it is economic development. So, in actual fact, any minister who wants to spend any amount of money can rationalize, justify, and actually be legal in what they are going to do if they want to circumvent the Public Tender Act.

That is another point, with respect to the legalities of it. As it now stands, if we do not, if the government does not, follow the Public Tender Act, there are certain repercussions to follow, and that is the legality and the legal effects it will have, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I have an hour, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, thank you, so I have thirty-three minutes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The best - now what a question. You see, that is the problem. Thank you again, I say again to the Member for Labrador West. Thank you again. He asked me what the best value means to me. That is the whole point I am making. The best value to me, the best value to the minister, the best value to another minister, can be completely different. So in actual fact it is weakening the Public Tender Act. That is my whole argument, I say to the Member for Labrador West. It is, by definition, wrong. That is where we are coming from on it.

He talks about economic development - back to my original point - and the legalities of it. For example, this Trans City, when the minister of this Administration came in and changed midstream what they ask for, the whole thing went to court and the government was found at fault. It is going to cost us million and millions of dollars. Now they are asking this House of Assembly to allow them to do that in the future, and you will not be able to take it to court because they will be within their rights to do what they want to do. That is the problem, I say to the Member for Labrador West, one of the problems with this.

Best value - here it is, Mr. Speaker. There is no requirement in the act that the minister or the head of a government body or Cabinet give any explanation of why the deemed public work or purchase be best left untendered.

Again, you would think that if you were going to have changes, there would be definitions there. According to the changes that are being proposed in this act, there is no requirement or any explanation deemed to be required from the minister to explain, why he wants to make these changes - he or she - and wants to circumvent the Public Tender Act. That is another problem we have on this side to the House, Mr. Speaker.

I am the former mayor of a small town, and I had problems with the Public Tender Act. I did, there is no doubt there. I think the problems could have been addressed in regulations. I do not see the necessity to completely take away the validity, the value, of the Public Tender Act. It is completely watering down the Public Tender Act. It was supposed to give, as I said earlier, a level playing field. It will not happen any more. I can guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, it is not going to happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: It depends on what you are talking about, if it is better for the communities. Better for what? In what way? There are certain things, but it can be addressed. Like the Member for Labrador West said, yes, in a community in Labrador somewhere, if a company there wants to buy a computer - under $5,000, by the way, you do not have to go to the Public Tender Act. Professional services are exempt from the Public Tender Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Is idiotic parliamentary, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Confuse me? It takes more than the Member for Labrador West to confuse me, I can guarantee you. It might take ten more like him, at the same time.

What is not in the bill, and what should be? Mr. Speaker, I am going to have to skip some of the stuff here. When this all started, the Member for St. John's South, as I said earlier, had some problems with what was happening in the Province with respect to - some of the stuff we referred to was the Cabot 500 paraphernalia that went outside the Province, juice for schools and what have you, school windows, all this kind of stuff. Local manufacturers and producers did not have access to it. Again, I say, it is a positive step there. There is no doubt about that, Mr. Speaker.

In January of this year we held six public meetings across the Province and we had a lot of recommendations coming from that. I will tell you some of the recommendations that came out of those meetings that were not really addressed here in this Public Tender Act. Some were.

To maintain a 5 per cent local preference standard for Newfoundland and Labrador. Now we know, Mr. Speaker, that the government presented another bill in this House of Assembly to get rid of the local preference, 5 per cent. I would think that if we, as a Province, are going to compete interprovincially, there may be some argument made for that; so I will not get into that too much here now.

This is the recommendation that we made - the Member for St. John's South - establish a central registry of goods and services manufactured. I compliment the member on that. Done, it is going to happen, not a problem.

Then it says, using the registry's information as a guide, ensure all government procurement contracts are broken down in such a way that goods and services not produced by local companies are separated from those which local companies produce. So in actual fact they would have accessibility and opportunity to get into the markets, I suppose, or the contracts put forward by the Province.

Another one is to ensure that tender specifications are generic rather than brand-name specific. Often we will see tenders put out with the specs written for a specific product or what have you, and there are only certainly people who can tender on that. What we were asking for is that it be more generic and that it will be all-encompassing, and anybody, or any person or business in that field, will be able to apply, and not to be just too specific on it.

Also: write into the tenders and contracts of government suppliers that their sub-contractors must be fair to local companies. I think that can be forthcoming in the manufacturers' registry, so that can be addressed there. It says: Ensure all government-funded bodies, school boards and what have you, currently covered by the Public Tender Act, are also required to abide by these procedures.

Fine. If you noticed, all we talked about here, what was recommended to us in our meetings across the Province, was all geared to manufacturers, producers and what have you, having accessibility to government contracts. There was nothing on it, and we didn't hear it from these recommendations, that we should change the regulations and the Public Tender Act with respect to construction and other types of contracts for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

That is what I was saying earlier, that what is happening here is the Administration is taking advantage of a situation, that they should be more specific in changing the Public Tender Act, or including in the Public Tender Act. What they are doing, they are not only including, they are taking something out of the Public Tender Act that should not be taken out.

Just to continue on, I mentioned Trans City earlier and I have a ream of notes here on Trans City that I could refer to. I don't know if I really need to get into that. We all know what happened there. What happened, of course, was that the government went forward and made changes midstream to a tender they were supposed to call. It was awarded, and so many hospitals built. It cost the Province millions and millions of dollars. It goes to court and government loses. Now we are trying to legitimize that process. Not right, wrong, morally wrong, legally wrong. It won't be legally wrong if we change the Public Tender Act, but we on this side of the House have major, major problems with that.

Another one was the Kodak bill. Can anybody remember the Kodak bill, I wonder?

MR. SULLIVAN: I sure do. They told us we were coming in on an education act, and they brought up Kodak.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, exactly.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Sir, but it wasn't over in a flash.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Ferryland, Mr. Speaker, made a comment that the Kodak bill wasn't over in a flash. We were brought in here to talk about an education situation, and we started to discuss the Kodak bill.

The bill was to give the government leeway to enter into similar arrangements without having to come to the Legislature first. What happened? The Kodak bill fell through. I don't know if it cost us any money, but there were going to be thousands of jobs created, and it fell through again. That is what this Administration is trying to do now.

The Bombardier contract on the mainland. Government bypassed its public tendering process to give the largest defence contract in Canadian history to a company with ties to the Prime Minister. Here it is. People should listen to this, and I hope there is people outside listening, I can guarantee you that. What we are trying to change here now, to do and to legalize and make right and proper, the same thing happened to the Bombardier contract. I will say it again. Ottawa has just bypassed its public tendering process to give the largest defence contract in Canadian history to a company with ties to the Prime Minister. This is an example of what is going to happen in this Province.

I will qualify it. Any party sitting on the government side of the House, be it Liberal, Tory, NDP, Reform, what have you, is going to be subject to the same pressures.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) Public Service Commission (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: A good point. A good, good point! The Opposition Leader just said to me: What is happening here is the same thing that is happening to the Public Service Commission. What we will see, and what I have said in this House of Assembly and I have asked questions of the Minister of Finance on this - this came up in the Estimates Committee, Mr. Speaker, when I asked questions of the Minister of Finance. I said: What is going on with the Public Service Commission?

The Public Service Commission was put in place, Mr. Speaker, so it would be a body which would be a level playing field to all applicants who wanted to come into the public service. It would be on standards which would be education, qualifications, experience, all these things. Then there would be a list of the interviewees one, two and three, Mr. Speaker. The minister still had his say. There would be three recommended. He could take number three. He still had some say, Mr. Speaker.

Now, what is happening is that we see the Public Service Commission being watered down. The minister admitted to this. He admitted to it being watered down. We are seeing people hired through the departments. It is being very, very political, Mr. Speaker. We are harking back to the 1960s. We are definitely harking back to the 1960s.

Things that were put in place to protect the public, to protect the civil servants, Mr. Speaker, to protect the taxpayer, are being dissolved, wiped away. The Public Service Commission, the Public Tender Act, all being washed down the drain because of the opinions - I don't know if it is an opinion or not, Mr. Speaker, but more likely because of what the plans are for the future, I say to you, what the government and the Premier plan for the future with respect to people in the civil service.

I know there were supposed to be 2,000 or 3,000 people let go over the past few years, but I can walk through this building now - and I am only here five years - and I can see some new faces. I don't know where they are coming from, but there are lots of new faces around. I am just wondering -

MR. CANNING: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: There will be a lot more new faces on that side the next time around, I say to the Member for Labrador West. It will be us and what is with us over there, I say to you.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker,

MR. McLEAN: You don't like us hiring people?

MR. J. BYRNE: I cannot believe that that came out the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. E. BYRNE: What did he say?

MR. J. BYRNE: He said: Jack, you don't like us hiring people, do you? I want everybody in the Province to be employed, but I want it to be done in a fair fashion, I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands. I want the Public Service Commission Act to be followed, all that to be done. That is what I want.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I have said a few words on this. I do not know how long I am up. I say to the Clerk: How much time do I have left? I am making some good points here. How much? Twenty minutes? Oh my goodness!

Mr. Speaker, -

AN HON. MEMBER: Say it all again, Jack, say it all again.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I am not going to repeat myself today too much. It is hard not to repeat one's self, Mr. Speaker, when you are up here for an hour or so, but I suppose you do on occasion. In the meantime, I have a few more comments to make, Mr. Speaker.

I asked questions in this House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker. I asked the minister: Why is the government proposing to give the industry minister broad, discretionary powers to exclude from public tendering any project deemed to have an economic development purpose. The minister got up in his place, Mr. Speaker, and said what he said today. Nothing. I got to my second question, Mr. Speaker, the other day and asked the minister just how broadly will the minister be able to interpret this provision, because there will be absolutely no definition anywhere in the act to say what she can and cannot exclude from the public tendering under the provision. Mr. Speaker, no answer again. The same thing is given today.

I did not get to my third question, Mr. Speaker, which was the question that I wanted to ask, so I will ask it now. Paragraph 3.(2)(j) of the bill says the government will not have to invite public tenders where, in the opinion of the head of the government funded body, inviting a tender will not achieve the best value. It goes on, Mr. Speaker. It says: Why is the government recklessly abandoning the principle of public tendering which not only promises good value through competition but also creates a level playing field and does away with favouritism and nepotism? That is what we are going to see, favouritism and nepotism here, Mr. Speaker, people with the bucks who will put the pressure on.

People over there are shaking their heads. You are not living in the real world if you do not believe that, I say to the Member for Labrador West.

Now, Mr. Speaker, here is the last question I was going to ask. I will ask the minister and he might want to address it when he gets up. Will the minister confirm that the request for a proposal option, that government is now opening up, is precisely the route government will try to take when awarding hospital contracts to Trans City? Why is the government trying to give itself more freedom to wallow in the gutters of corruption to achieve its political ends while destroying fairness and accountability? That is what it boils down to, Mr. Speaker. That is the question. That is the one, Mr. Speaker, that is going to happen -

MR. CANNING: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That's what is going to happen, I say to the Member for Labrador West; definitely. When? When the changes come into place. I doubt if he knows what we are talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he doesn't know what your talking about.

MR. J. BYRNE: Did you read it yet, I say to the Member for Labrador West? Well I read it, I can guarantee you, and I am not going to support it. I hope no one on this side of the House is going to support it. I will be disappointed if somebody on this side - I am hoping to convince somebody on that side not to support it. It is not likely, Mr. Speaker, but sheep go with -

MR. SHELLEY: I would not doubt but you have them all changed there now.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, sheep have a tendency to follow the shepherd on that side of the House, but we may get a few, you never know. Maybe a few of them on that side of the House will not be in here for the vote. Mr. Speaker, we can defeat this because we are going back thirty years, more than thirty, maybe thirty-five years, to the early 1960s.

Mr. Speaker, if there is no Public Tender Act, there is no legal requirement to call public tenders. That is the problem. It is not illegal for government to give its contracts to whoever it wants. That is what is going to happen, Mr. Speaker. I have said it before and I will say it again. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the reason for a Public Tender Act, in the first place, is to regulate the actions of government, since history has shown that it takes a strong Public Tender Act to protect the public in good procurement. Mr. Speaker, we are weakening the Public Tender Act. Those are the words.

Anyway, I am coming to an end now, I say to the Member for Labrador West, in my comments. I am not going to go on much longer.

Mr. Speaker, before the current act, public tendering in this Province was subject to public inquiry as a result of practices that were being - here is something, Mr. Speaker, that people should listen to. Before the current act, public tendering in this Province was subject to a public inquiry as a result of the practices that were being followed at the time. In fact, some activities were illegal and one contractor was convicted and went to jail. Can anybody remember that one? I can. This inquiry was conducted by Judge Mahoney. It was from the inquiries report that the foundation of the current act was laid. This act came directly out of a court decision, why it was brought in in the first place. Now we are trying to change it back to what it was thirty-five years ago.

Mr. Speaker, it is an accepted principle that public procurement must be protected by an act of the Legislature. Anything less, including regulations, weakens accountability. All requirements must be in legislation to ensure visibility. That is the situation, Mr. Speaker. That is what I wanted to talk about in this House of Assembly today.

Also, Mr. Speaker, we have seen that the Auditor General, in recent reports, has criticized the government for its lack of an accountability system to adequately guard public expenditures. Mr. Speaker, even with the Public Tender Act that is in place today, we have the Auditor General having concerns that there is not proper accountability there; and now we are going to weaken it! I should not say, we are going to weaken it. No, Mr. Speaker. They are going to weaken it. Them, on that side of the House, are going to weaken it, not these people on this side of the House.

In concluding, Mr. Speaker -

MR. TULK: Jack, blame me if you want.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Government House Leader said, blame him. Mr. Speaker, I can't do that. How many members are on that side of the House? Thirty-six or thirty-seven? What is it? Thirty-six say, Mr. Speaker. So he is one -

AN HON. MEMBER: Too many over there.

MR. J. BYRNE: Too many, that's a fact. There are too many. There are about thirty too many. But, Mr. Speaker, he is one thirty-sixth of the problem if they decide to pass this. So he will have to take one thirty-sixth of the blame, I say to the Government House Leader. He will be one thirty-sixth of the blame. All members on that side of the House, except I suppose - no, they will have to take some blame too, the members who will not have the nerve to be here to vote for it. I am sure we will have a standing vote. So I imagine there will be members on that side of the House who will not have the nerve to be here to vote for this, but they will have to take the blame anyway because they should be here to vote.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I am going to conclude my comments. I wanted to be on record, to point out the faults that we see in the proposed amendments to the Legislation. I think the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has being listening here and I think he is starting to weaken, actually. He may withdraw this Legislation because I am sure we are going to spend a lot of time on this.

So, I ask the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to withdraw this Legislation and give the people of this Province some peace of mind again, in that at least there will be some safeguard there for the tax dollars to be expended, Mr. Speaker, in a proper, wise, and prudent fashion, in the words of the minister just before he concluded.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will answer the questions that I brought up here today. And I mean answer the questions, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, not rationalize, but answer the questions and give me, really, the legitimate reasons why you feel that this act needs to be changed, and the major concerns, in the opinion of the minister, in the opinion of the department head; those types of things that have to be done. There are a few others that I mentioned there, Mr. Speaker.

That is what I am going to end with, Mr. Speaker. I am sure one of my colleagues on this side of the House will get up and say a few words.

Thank you.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as the minister mentioned, I travelled the Province and had a consultation process, on behalf of the Opposition, on the changing of the Public Tender Act.

Of the proposed amendments that the minister is making, there are some of them that I agree with. In fact, some of them are the amendments that we recommended to government. Again, I commend the minister on his incorporation of those suggestions into the proposed amendments to the act. Some of them however, Mr. Speaker, raised some concern. I am going to talk a little bit about both the amendments that he suggested that I agree with, and the amendments that he suggested that I disagree with.

One of them, Mr. Speaker, is sub-clause 2(1). That raises the barrier under which purchases need not be tendered. I have not got a big problem with that. It would raise the barrier from $7,500 to $10,000, and that is not a big problem. With inflation, the

increased cost on building materials and what have you, there is no big problem there.

Sub-clause 2(3) does two very controversial things, adding two new categories under which the government can avoid inviting tenders in section 3(2).

The new section 3(2), subsection (i), would allow the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, in that minister's opinion, to determine if the work or acquisition is for an economic development purpose, and Cabinet would have the final say as to whether the exemption stands.

The term "economic development purpose" is not defined in the act by the minister. Although subsection 12 gives Cabinet the power to define the terms by regulations, Cabinet can re-jig the regulations without reference to the legislation, and can make regulatory changes retroactive to cover themselves. That raises some concerns and I hope the minister will address this specific section when he rises again to speak.

New subsection 3(2) subsection (j) would allow the head of a government funded body, in his or her opinion, to determine if inviting a tender would not achieve the best value, and the minister responsible for that body need only get Cabinet approval to carry out a request for proposals instead of inviting a tender.

The request for proposals processes will be defined by regulation. Again something that is at the discretion of Cabinet without reference to the legislation. So that raises some concerns. It does not matter what political stripe the government is, it raises concerns. There are concerns there as to what the discretion of the minister or what the discretion of Cabinet may or may not allow.

Sub-clause 2(4) would simply raise the barrier again from $7,500 to $10,000 or $20,000, and that we do not have a problem with, Mr. Speaker. Again the cost of inflation and so on, that does not raise any problem with us.

The minister talked about advertising on the Internet as opposed to advertising through a provincially distributed media, such as the telegram or what have you. While I agree with the minister in the fact that it would cut expenditures by putting it on the Internet as opposed to advertising every time there is a public tender, and while I would agree with the minister that in certain cases some municipalities may not be able to afford to widely distribute advertising and so on, Mr. Speaker, it does raise some concern.

While government, through the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology - I can see the minister making some notes here so that he can respond, and I am glad of that. While the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is going to create a registry of goods manufactured in the Province, I might suggest to the minister - and he can probably take this under advisement, review it and hopefully incorporate this into the proposed amendments to the act - that we do the same thing with companies that are interested. The onus would be upon the company to submit their e-mail address which would be put into a registry of e-mail addresses. Whenever there is a tender call it is only a matter of hitting a couple of buttons and the e-mail notice would go out to all the companies that have their e-mail in the registry of e-mails; a notice basically to advice them that there is a tender proposal being called.

They could then refer to the government's public tender announcement page and determine whether or not they are indeed interested in responding to that public tender. I wonder if that is something the minister may consider and perhaps make an amendment. Hopefully he will respond when he gets up to speak on this again.

If by doing this, Mr. Speaker, if by putting together a registry of e-mail accounts, again with the onus upon the companies, the government could perhaps advertise, by a provincially distributed newspaper or media outlet once or twice a year, the fact that this is government's e-mail address, this is government's public tender announcement page, so that the public are aware and companies throughout the Province are aware of exactly the e-mail address, an internet address of where the public announcements are going to be made for tenders. Again, if government's e-mail address was publicly advertised so that these companies and individuals who would be interested in being notified whenever a public tender was being announced, the onus would be upon these companies to submit their e-mail address to government. Government could then notify these companies every time there is a public tender announcement going out, the same as they would put it on the Internet. It is just a matter of identifying the registry and sending out one e-mail to all of the participants in that registry.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I give leave to the minister so that he can stand for a moment and -

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The issue of going to electronic tendering actually works this way: There are a number of private sector firms who do electronic tendering. There is the MERK system, the POD system, the BID system and two or three other systems out there. These are private sector systems and the concept is to make available to those entrepreneurs who are in the electronic private tendering business - they will have the tenders and they will put them on their system. Then the users, you know, the companies out there who want to bid on something will pull down from the system that they are collaborating with the tender information that they need. The way these systems work is that the private sector company which runs the electronic tendering system has customers. I think the way they generally work is that they have a customer base, and if I, company X, sign up with the bid system, then anything that comes out from government is automatically extracted and sent off to their customer, company x, when they want to big on, say, orange juice or windows or doors, or something like that.

I guess the point I am trying to make to the hon. member is that it will not necessarily be that we will be doing the tendering directly with our own Website. We may or may not do it that way. The point is that the information, the tender packages, will be made available to the private sector - the BID, the MERK, the POD - those systems that are already out there, and they interact with the general public, the business population, who want to access that information. While your suggestion would be totally appropriate if we were going to it directly, that is not necessarily how it would work.

Other governments, including the federal government, actually do that business through the private sector, who in turn interact with the business community out there. I do not know if that explains it or not. It is not necessary that we will be doing it directly.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes, that clarifies it somewhat. Still, if I wanted to send a e-mail to every member of the House, it is only a matter of sending one e-mail and asking that it be directed to all Members of the House of Assembly.

Even if we were to acquire a private company to do the public tendering announcements via the Internet for us, if this company had a registry of e-mail accounts of anybody and everybody, the onus again being upon the companies to submit their own e-mail addresses, as opposed to these companies assessing the Internet on a regular daily basis to see whether or not there was a public tender call today -

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay, so it does work in that manner right now?

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) because the act says that we have to do it in newspapers, full stop. Now we are saying we can do it in newspapers or we can do it in an electronic fashion.

If I may, Mr. Speaker, by leave.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, by leave.

MR. MATTHEWS: Another important piece in this is that in the case of a government-funded body like a municipality or a school board, or government itself, when they decide how they want to go about doing their tendering in the future, they will have to do it in a consistent manner. In other words, they will have to do it with the approval of their minister, or the minister responsible, and they just cannot change it every five minutes or every time. In other words, they just cannot say today we will advertise in the newspaper locally; tomorrow we will put it on the Internet; the next day we will put it on both.

They are going to have to do it in a consistent fashion so the business community knows how this government-funded body operates, and they will know whether they are using the Internet and/or newspapers, or whether they are just using the Internet, or whether they are just using newspapers, or whether they are putting it on radio and television, that sort of thing.

There is going to be a requirement in regulation for consistency of how a government-funded body will do their advertising in the future so they are not all over the place.

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

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

Am I to understand, then, that any company that is registered with this outlet that will be doing the public tendering will automatically be notified whenever there is a public tender?

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

Now, the other suggestion - maybe I could get the minister to respond - is that once or twice a year, Mr. Speaker, I suggested that government put through a widely distributed media their home page address and the address of the company that will be doing the public tendering. I wonder if perhaps the minister could respond to that as well?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. member waiting for a reply from the minister?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes.

I was saying that the other suggestion I made to the minister, and maybe he could respond to that, is that once or twice a year government would widely distribute, through a provincial-wide media, the home page address of this company that the public tenders would be available through, that they will be advertised on, so that the general public, anybody interested in gaining access to this, can have access to the home page address and also the e-mail address of whatever outlet will be publicising and distributing the public tender proposals.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is speaking by leave.

MR. MATTHEWS: These are detailed questions in terms of how this will operate on the ground in terms of changing tendering methods. What the amendment to the act does is give the flexibility to government, or government-funded bodies, to advertise their tenders in a way other than as is now prescribed, which is through a generally circulated newspaper like The Evening Telegram and The Western Star. What the amendment to the act does is give the government and the government-funded bodies the ability now to use newspapers in cooperation with the electronic tendering types that we talked about, or through radio, or through television, or through any of these means.

It does not necessarily mean that we are not going to continue to use newspapers where it is appropriate, or that government-funded bodies will not continue to use them, but it will give the government-funded body, the municipalities and school boards and government central agencies, as ourselves, the ability to use the Internet, and that can take the form of either going with the systems that are out there driven by the private sector - the BID, the POD, the MERK; it will give us the ability to put our own Website in place, our own page in place, and do it ourselves; it will give us the ability to go with radio or television; or it will give us the ability to do a combination of all of these in certain circumstances.

So it is not prescriptive that we have to do it in any particular way. It gives latitude to be able to do advertising in a variety of ways, recognizing the electronic age that we are in and recognizing the limited circulation that even The Evening Telegram has, say in certain parts of the Province. How it is going to work exactly on the ground is a matter of detail, I guess, is what I am saying.

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

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

I understand that, I say to the minister. I was asking if government would consider, a couple of times a year, putting together a newspaper or a provincial-wide media advertisement advising people and companies of what the home page address is where these public tender proposals will be put so they will have ready access; it will be publicly known what the address is so that anybody new to the game can, you know, have access to the home page address.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, I will take these very sincere and I think intended to be helpful comments under advisement. I might say to the hon. member that I am listening and taking some notes and my officials are also listening in today, the people who have put together the amendments. They are listening in today, as would be appropriate, to take note of these types of suggestions that are coming forward. We will certainly do what we think is right and helpful.

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

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

A couple of other concerns; one under subclause 4-2. This amendment regarding change orders and extensions is continuous. It seeks to repeal subsection 5(3) which puts a limit on those change orders and extensions under subsection 5(1), which says that change orders and extensions must meet specific criteria.

If a contract is under $100,000, the change cannot exceed $15,000. If the contract is between $100,000 and $500,000, the change cannot exceed the greater of $15,000 or 10 per cent. If the 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: references in subsection 1 to the total of values of change orders within the requirements of the contract and extensions of the contract.

Once that subsection is eliminated there is nothing to stop government from approving successive change orders and extensions and treating each one separately so that each meets the criteria in 5(1), even though put together they would exceed the limit. Government may argue, I guess, that this is still a safeguard within subsection 5(1) with the words: or the cumulative value of them.

If that is the government's position, I ask: Why would they allow us to amend this bill and let subsection 5(3) stay as it is? I don't know if the minister heard that. I am asking if subsection 5(3) could stay as it is as opposed to eliminating it. Basically there is no harm in letting that subsection stay. It may be redundant, but it is better to be redundant than to create a loophole within the act.

Clause 6, the change. It is 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 the use of this clause will be at the discretion of Cabinet. That creates some concern.

The new 12(e) says: "respecting the establishment and use of a registry of products manufactured in the Province..." Again, that is a recommendation we in the Opposition made through the public consultation meetings that we had, and I have no problem with that clause at all. As a matter of fact, I commend government for making the proposed amendments to create a registry.

There are a couple of amendments that we made, however, that government did not take. One of those I will address in another bill which is being put forward, and that is the public preference policy. I will leave that one for now and address that as that bill comes forward.

One of the recommendations we made was: Using the registry's information as a guide, ensure all government procurement contracts are broken down in such a way that goods and services not produced by local companies are separate from those which local companies do produce, to ensure that local companies have the opportunity to bid for as much of the work as possible, and also to ensure within reason that tenders are divided into portions small enough that the smaller and less diversified local producers can compete for that work.

I directed questions about a week ago to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology regarding this issue and the minister assured me this would be done. However, it would be nice to see it incorporated into the legislation as part of the bill, as opposed to just taking government's word. Government may change. Whether it be that stripe or this stripe, it would be nice to have that actually in the legislation.

Also, to ensure tender specifications are generic rather than brand-name specific. In particular, using the registry as a guide to ensure that a tender never specifies products that are produced only outside this Province when locally produced alternatives exist.

One of the recommendations as well that we made that wasn't incorporated into the bill was that we write into tenders and contracts of government suppliers that their sub-contractors must be fair to local companies in the same way that the primary contracts are. In other words, if we are going to put a tender out to supply the goods for any particular hospital - we will say the Health Sciences Centre, for example - if we put a tender out to supply all food products for that hospital, and one company bids on that, and then that company has the choice of where they take a tender, or where they go to get their materials, they don't even have to put it up for public tender.

What we have recommended is that these institutions, when a tender is called for the Grace Hospital, for example - and hopefully the minister can respond to this as well - when a tender is called, for example, for the Grace Hospital or for the Health Sciences Complex, or what have you, that when a large company - and generally it is a mainland firm that bid on and receive the tender for the large supply of all food products for one of these institutions. When these companies put in their tender proposal and receive the awarded tender for the supply of all goods to the Health Sciences Complex, for example, we are asking that it be put into legislation that they would have to abide by the Public Tender Act the same as government would. As opposed to this company now getting the contract to use public money, taxpayers' money, to supply all food products to the Health Sciences Complex, and this company then uses mainland suppliers as opposed to putting it up for public tender, we are asking that these companies, such as Major Foods or Beaver or what have you, that they would also have to abide by the Public Tender Act. Whenever possible, when they are going out and looking for juices or going out and looking for meat products or going out and looking for dairy products, that they would have to put that up for public tender so that Newfoundland companies, Newfoundland suppliers, and in particular Newfoundland manufacturers, have first option at gaining access to the supply of these products into these institutions.

I wonder if the minister could respond to that, by leave?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I have taken notes of a couple of things that the hon. member is raising, and if it is his intention to allow me to close debate on it today, I will address all of these things. Otherwise, I can get up in between each (inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes, just by leave for now.

MR. MATTHEWS: Alright.

On that particular issue, we looked long and hard at the implications of bringing subcontractors under the Public Tender Act. At the end of the day it was determined that it was not a practical thing to do, for a whole variety of reasons as put forward by a whole bunch of stakeholders out there. Because it would not only have implications for catering businesses, it would have implications for the construction industry and it would have implications literally for everybody. There was no requirement to do it as far as the general consensus of stakeholders was concerned.

So what we decided we would do is put in legislation the requirement for the government funded bodies to do certain things and put in regulation a requirement for subcontractors to do certain things. The hammer, if you like, or the enforcement mechanism that we have also announced that we will put in place is a series of compliance audit requirements and audit processes that these subcontractors will have to report how they have handled going about procurement of products under subcontract.

So in actual fact, there will be a legislative requirement by regulation to give equitable opportunity to those local manufacturers. The local manufacturers have never said we want exclusivity because, of course, they want to be able to do business everywhere else in the country where they have an opportunity. They don't want to have an advantage in Newfoundland that would be to their disadvantage everywhere else that they want to do business.

So there will be a requirement on the subcontractors and it will be a regulatory statement.

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

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

Just for clarification purposes, I ask the minister: Is what he is saying basically that when we put a tender out, for example, for one of our health institutions, that it will be written into specific tenders? Because I agree there are logistical and technical nightmares asking for all tenders to have subcontractors abide by the Public Tender Act. Is it possible that certain tenders, such as for our health care institutions and for our educational institutions, such as Memorial University - when these large mainland catering companies come in and bid on these, is it possible then that we could ask, within certain contracts, that the subcontractors have to abide by the Public Tender Act, not all of them but certain contracts such as our institutions?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, it is almost impossible to start carving out certain areas where particular interests may be highlighted. I know the hon. member is referring to local manufacturers, like getting orange juice and bottled water into hospitals and schools and that sort of thing.

The fact of the matter is, that we had to do it in such a way that would not give them an unfair advantage over any other competition locally, while at the same time preserving for them equal opportunity outside the Province. What we have put forward here, as I recall from my memory, pretty closely mirrors what the hon. member himself I think put forward as a result of his own consultations. When we had this long discussion with the manufacturing sector, they concluded that this was an appropriate level of direction to give to government funded bodies, and subcontractors to those bodies. The way to do it, as we were proposing, was by regulation acceptable to them, and I think they indicated that when we introduced those amendments.

I think we have done the best we can without starting to carve up and carve out particular industries for the sake of identifying them and giving them an advantage that you couldn't give generally in an atmosphere of open and fair competition throughout the country.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes, I say to the minister, I admit that there are, like I say, logistical nightmares trying to enforce it on a broad basis. What I am aiming at, I guess, and in the benefit of local manufacturers, producers, and suppliers, is trying to eliminate the unfairness of some of these large mainland catering companies, or any large mainland company that comes in and wins a government contract, and then excludes local suppliers, local manufacturers, by dealing specifically with mainland firms, especially when it comes to taxpayers' money buying these products.

It is almost a slap in the face to Newfoundlanders when these products are indeed manufactured right here locally, and these local manufacturers are not even given the opportunity to bid.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I ask if I could just have leave.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: About five minutes is all I will need.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

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

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

I guess basically what I'm asking is if there is some direction maybe that we can take to ensure that local manufacturers -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: I'm hoping that the minister can hear this to take some notes. What I'm asking for is if there is some ability that government would have to eliminate -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I can't hear myself.

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

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

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

What I am asking is if there is some way, some direction government can take, when awarding these contracts that eliminates these subcontractors from discriminating against our local manufacturers and producers. Because right now, I'm sure the minister will agree, some of these sub-contractors, especially the large mainland firms, discriminate terribly against our local manufacturers. It puts our local manufacturers at a terrible disadvantage when they are not even given the opportunity to bid on products that are supplied in our own institutions and so on.

Is there some direction maybe government can take to eliminate that discrepancy, that discrimination against our local manufacturers? Maybe government and Opposition together can work on this, maybe get a little bit creative and find some way of eliminating what is there right now. Because what is happening right now is that local manufacturers, in a lot of cases, are being barred from even being allowed to submit a tender on the supply of products.

I will ask the minister, maybe if he can make note of that, and when he closes debate if he can respond to that. I am sure there has to be some way we can allow our local manufacturers to at least have access to tenders at our institutions, when public money is paying for items that are manufactured right here in this Province, when public money is paying to have these items supplied to our hospitals, schools, nursing homes and so on.

The other thing is - and we have seen it just recently. Just last week, there was a tender closed at the University calling for the supply of university security uniforms. They asked for a large number of items and they ask that all of these items by supplied by one supplier. Now, I can understand if they are asking for shirts and pants by one supplier so that they can have colour matches, or if they are asking for hats and shirts or something like that. But when they are asking for belts, boots, shirts, gloves, hats, badges, raincoats and whatever else, and they are asking for all of these items to be supplied by the one supplier, when we have a glove manufacturer in this Province who was barred from even submitting a tender on that because he does not manufacturer boots, gloves, hats and shirts, and we have a jacket manufacturer who does not manufacture belts and boots, and we have a boot manufacturer who does not manufacture hats, shirts and pants, it makes it awkward for these companies. It almost bars these companies because they are unable to supply every item on the tender.

I will give government leave - I am asking if government can incorporate into this legislation provisions that, wherever possible, these tenders be broken down into workable sizes, keeping in mind, using the registry of manufactured products here, keeping in mind what products are manufactured. Instead of barring the boot manufacturer from bidding because he cannot produce hats, and instead of barring the jacket manufacturer because he cannot produce belts, if we can break it down to the point that our local manufacturers will be able to submit tenders.

I know one of my other colleagues wants to speak, but I will give the minister leave just to respond to that aspect.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In closing debate on this -

MR. T. OSBORNE: No, no. Just by leave, Mr. Speaker. One of my colleagues wants to speak after this.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

My understanding is that the hon. member gave leave for the hon. minister to respond to a question, but if the hon. minister -

MR. MATTHEWS: What I understood was that I gave the hon. member leave so that he could conclude, and then I rose in my place to answer the questions. But if they have another speaker, that is fine.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There are other members, I believe, who wanted to speak on this debate.

MR. MATTHEWS: I will address all of these things when I close debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There are other members who want to speak in this debate.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take some time this afternoon to certainly speak against this particular bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: This particular bill, I guess, to me brings back memories of Trans City, memories of the Kodak bill. Of course, over the last few days we have certainly followed what is going on in Ottawa as it relates to the contracts that are being let by the federal government.

I am afraid here, Mr. Speaker, that this particular bill certainly leaves room for an awful lot of patronage and favouritism and the entrenchment of ministerial discretionary powers; and I believe, Mr. Speaker, that is wrong and that it is time that we kind of got away from that.

We have a bill today which may need in some areas a little bit of touching up to make sure we hang on to such things as our local preference and so on, to help out our own local manufacturers, but I think when we are going all out to give the minister the power to do some of the things that this particular bill asks us to do, I believe that it is wrong.

As I go through this over the next little while, I will point out some incidents where I think the bill is wrong and so on. Certainly there are places within the bill where, you know, we are correcting a word - an `and' or an `or' - or whatever, and nobody has any difficulty with those particular things, but when we bring in a bill like in 3(2)(1), it means the government will not have to invite public tenders where, in the opinion of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, and subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council of course, which means the Cabinet, the acquisition is for an economic development purpose. Why would we not want to call a public tender? I just cannot understand why we would want to do that.

A new paragraph, 3(2)(j), means the government will not have to invite public tenders where, in the opinion of the head of a government-funded body, inviting a tender would not achieve the best value, and the government-funded body has, through the ministers responsible for it, obtained the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council - again, Cabinet - to carry out a request for proposals, as prescribed by the regulations, instead of a tender call.

Why not a tender call? Why do we wish to change this particular piece of legislation?

With the repeal of section of 5(3), the provisions allowing government to make change orders and extensions to expand and award contracts is loosened up so that the government will be able to give contractors extra work without tendering. Why in the name of goodness do we want to do that? Why would we want to do that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Yes, Sir. By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister is speaking by leave in response to a question by the member?

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the elimination of 5(3) is only a housekeeping item, because it is superfluous to everything that goes before it. It changes absolutely nothing. I thought I would clarify it now because the hon. Member for St. John's South raised it. Section 5(3) has no affect with respect to the previous things that are under section 5 in the Public Tender Act. It changes nothing. Nothing will change as a result of 5(3).

Section 5(3) was deemed by the lawyers, if you like, to be superfluous. It meant nothing, it added nothing only confusion, and it takes away nothing from 5(1) down to 5(3), takes nothing away at all. There will be no change in terms of what government can or cannot do in the accumulative affect of extending contracts. That was the issue you raised.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Can I, just by leave, (inaudible)?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's South, does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Just for a second. I understand what the minister is saying, but isn't it better that we have an overlap than to create a loophole here? If it is not going to make any difference to leave it there and it is not going to make any difference to take it out, why not leave it there to add the extra little bit of protection and keep ourselves from creating a loophole? Because that is what we would be doing if we took it out.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Simply, Mr. Speaker, because it adds nothing. It doesn't give any extra latitude. It is simply housekeeping. I will double-check with the solicitors, and I can tell you that if there is any intent or if there is any possibility that this would take away from anything that is above, in Section 5, I will look at it again; but I can assure you, that is not the intent and it is not the effect. It is more important than what the intent was; it is what the effect will be. And the effect will be, as I am told, it will change absolutely nothing in terms of what that section says. There is no intent to do any changing in that regard. Your point is more than well taken.

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

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I have quite a bit more that I would like to say on this bill. It is pretty close to 5:00 p.m. so I will adjourn debate until tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before we adjourn the House, just to inform the House and members in the Opposition, tomorrow we will come back on this bill, the Public Tender Act. If we should finish that tomorrow then we will do the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Yes, if we should. We will finish the Local Preference Act, Bill No. 25. Then we will move on to do Bill No. 30, The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, and just go down through the order of business.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adjourn until tomorrow at 2:00 p.m.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 2:00 p.m.